IMRA Weekly Commentary..
06 December '13..
Archive Date: 8 August 2013 - distributed on 6 December 2013 a second time after US plan presented
There is a very good possibility that US Gen. John Allen, working together with top Israeli security people, will succeed in preparing a security plan, vetted by the Israeli security technicians, that can seriously undermine Israel’s negotiating position.
A reminder: Back in 2000 Israel's Senior Negotiator With Syria, Major General (Res.) Uri Saguy , who had served in the past as head of Military Intelligence, took the position that “peace will not eliminate the strategic threats to Israel, but will prevent their materialization”. Saguy believed that since Assad’s goal was to recover the Golan that once he had that Syria would not attack Israel. That belief served as the basis for his support for grossly unworkable security arrangements in the North as part of a plan to leave the Golan.
Saguy is in very good company. Most of the top people in Israel’s various security and defense systems share a similar ideologically driven optimism regarding the efficacy of “land for piece of paper”.
Time and again over the last two decades the embarrassingly naïve analysis of Israel’s security people led them to advocate reckless plans and arrangements – with many of those actually implemented literally blowing up in our faces.
Back to the present.
The key condition that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has set for the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state is that there are viable and effective security arrangements on the ground that do not rely on a third party.
Mr. Netanyahu’s condition might be termed an “if pigs can fly” requirement, given the fundamental inescapable fact that once a sovereign independent Palestinian is established that it retains that status even if it utterly and completely ignores – or even openly violates – the terms of the peace agreement that served as the platform for the creation of that sovereign independent state.
But while the above may very well be the driving perspective of Prime Minister Netanyahu, this most certainly is not the outlook of the people meeting with Gen. John Allen.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has his lawyer in the negotiating room to keep an eye on Minister Livni. It would appear that there is no comparable mechanism in place to supervise Israel’s participation in the preparation of General Allen’s security plan.
Mr. Netanyahu could easily find Israel painted into a corner by a mountain of working papers essentially vetted by Israel’s security experts.
And to make matters worse, a dispute with PM Netanyahu over General Allen’s security plan could serve as the ideal opportunity for Livni to break ranks with the idea of catapulting herself from heading the dead-end single digit Kadima party to the leadership of the entire “center left” that she is convinced is destined to carry her to the Prime Minister’s office.
To be clear: General Allen’s security plan can be profoundly important even if the talks fail to conclude with a final agreement – or even some kind of interim agreement.
There is no telling what attempts will be made by the international community in general and the United States in particular to impose arrangements on the ground should the talks fail. General Allen’s security plan could very well serve as a critical reference for these arrangements.
It isn’t going to be easy. It’s a very delicate matter as it involves interaction between American and Israeli security people. But in the absence of effective guidance, supervision and oversight, the outcome of General Allen’s project could very well be dangerously damaging to Israel’s interest and needs.
See also: Weekly Commentary: Caveat Emptor: policy recommendations of Israeli security officials
Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=62526
Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.
.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment