Dennis Ross, who had taken part in Israel-Palestine negotiations in the Clinton administration, appeared on C-Span this morning to discuss the upcoming Annapolis conference.
The first caller who addressed Ross asserted that "Palestinians had no right to any land" in the region, "did not belong there and should be driven out;" were never held accountable for their actions but were "infantilized" by Israel and the international community.
In 2004, in a statement to a Congressional committee upon his return from a visit to the West Bank, John Brady Kiesling said: "Moral infantilization has reached the point where ordinary Israelis do not see any connection between Palestinian violence and Israeli actions."
This diary contrasts two press events where two different groups, advancing two different narratives, presented their hopes and expectations of the Annapolis Conference. The two events took place on Nov. 20, 2007, the morning that the State Department announced the date and cast for the Annapolis Conference game.
(Kiesling's entire statement is quoted, below.
http://wrmea.com/...
Remarks by John Brady Kiesling, Former U.S. Diplomat
Our July 16-23, 2004 tour of Ramallah and the Occupied Territories confirmed what should have been clear since September 11, 2001. Vital U.S. interests are threatened by Israeli policies.
Israel has a right to defend its pre-1967 territory from terrorist attacks, but the International Court of Justice is correct that Prime Minister Sharon's "security fence" was not designed to fulfill this purpose. There is not enough usable land and water to sustain both Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. The permanent 20-foot concrete wall that closely surrounds the areas of densest Palestinian habitation formalizes a theft of land, water, and hope for the future. Since 2000 the Palestinian population has been gradually strangled into submission by military and economic pressure, each terrorist attack the excuse for new Israeli encroachments. An impoverished population lives in enclaves cut off by Israeli tanks. The Wall reduces the security costs to Israel of a policy of expanding the network of settlements.
PM Sharon will not trade land for peace or implement Israel's commitments under the Quartet Roadmap. Sharon offered withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza as the price for President's Bush's endorsement of annexation of the West Bank. Recent events suggest that Sharon is not politically strong enough to make good on even this cynical transaction. The Gaza settlements will remain, and with them Israel's total control of Gaza's land, air and sea borders.
"Anti-Semitism" is the Israeli government's domestic explanation for all international criticism. Internally, Sharon has exploited Hamas suicide bombings to dehumanize Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, for most Israelis. Moral infantilization has reached the point where ordinary Israelis do not see any connection between Palestinian violence and Israeli actions. Israeli courts do little to mitigate violations of human rights by nationalist/religious extremists. With the pro-peace forces in Israel in disarray, history suggests that only timely international pressure can prevent a shift to overt ethnic cleansing once some new crisis permits it.
Systematic repression has worked. The intifada is essentially dead, with Palestinians at a loss regarding next steps. Arafat has been weakened to the point where, absent massive external assistance, he cannot control intra-Palestinian violence or legitimize another leader who could speak for the Palestinians in a peace deal. U.S. policy of setting unrealistic security benchmarks as the precondition for assisting the Palestinian Authority plays into Sharon's hands and widens the U.S. policy split with the European Union.
We felt perfectly secure as Americans walking unescorted in the West Bank. Palestinians, far from dehumanized by their sufferings, see Americans as their only hope for pressuring Israel to a peace deal that permits their own survival. The death of the peace process combined with completion of Israel's security wall would leave one option—the export of their resistance abroad. A Middle East policy that balances support for Israel with America's commitment to justice, democracy, and human rights would prevent such a catastrophic turn of events.
These were the two press events:
The Israel Project, a group formed by Jennifer Laslo Mizrahi to purvey information about Israel to the press, convened at the National Press Club. Speakers were David Wurmser, former adviser to VP Dick Cheney; Tamara Wittes, of the Saban think tank within Brookings Institute, and Shmuel Rosner, Washington, DC- based journalist for Haaretz.
Video HERE: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/...
At the New America Foundation, Steven Clemons moderated a panel including Ghaith al-Omari, a policy advisor to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas; Robert Malley, formerlly an advisor to Pres. Bill Clinton; and Daniel Levy, an advisor and peace negotiator to Israel.
Video HERE: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/...
In Clemons' opening remarks, he introduced a letter that New America Foundation, the International Crisis Group, and other, had prepared as a suggestion to the administration how to revitalize the peace process. The most significant element of that document is its signatories, from Zbigniew Brzezinski to Lee Hamilton to Christi Todd Whitman and Steven Solarz.
'Failure Risks Devastating Consequences'
By Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee Hamilton, Carla Hills, Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, Thomas R. Pickering, Brent Scowcroft et al.
http://www.newamerica.net/...
The following letter on the Middle East peace conference scheduled for Annapolis, Maryland, in late November, was sent by its signers on October 10 to President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The statement is a joint initiative of the US/Middle East Project, Inc. (General Brent Scowcroft, chairman, International Board, and Henry Siegman, president), the International Crisis Group (Gareth Evans, president), and the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program (Steven Clemons, director).
The Israeli-Palestinian peace conference announced by President Bush and scheduled for November presents a genuine opportunity for progress toward a two-state solution. The Middle East remains mired in its worst crisis in years, and a positive outcome of the conference could play a critical role in stemming the rising tide of instability and violence. Because failure risks devastating consequences in the region and beyond, it is critically important that the conference succeed.
Bearing in mind the lessons of the last attempt at Camp David seven years ago at dealing with the fundamental political issues that divide the two sides, we believe that in order to be successful, the outcome of the conference must be substantive, inclusive, and relevant to the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians.
The international conference should deal with the substance of a permanent peace: Because a comprehensive peace accord is unattainable by November, the conference should focus on the endgame and endorse the contours of a permanent peace, which in turn should be enshrined in a Security Council resolution. Israeli and Palestinian leaders should strive to reach such an agreement. If they cannot, the Quartet (US, EU, Russia, and UN Secretary General)—under whose aegis the conference ought to be held— should put forward its own outline, based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Clinton parameters of 2000, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, and the 2003 Road Map. It should reflect the following:
• Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap;
• Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty;
• Special arrangements for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them;
• A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees' deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance;
• Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.
The conference should not be a one-time affair. It should set in motion credible and sustained permanent status negotiations under international supervision and with a timetable for their completion, so that both a two-state solution and the Arab Peace Initiative's full potential (normal, peaceful relations between Israel and all Arab states) can be realized.
The international conference should be inclusive:
• In order to enhance Israel's confidence in the process, Arab states that currently do not enjoy diplomatic relations with Israel should attend the conference.
• We commend the administration for its decision to invite Syria to the conference; it should be followed by genuine engagement. A breakthrough on this track could profoundly alter the regional landscape. At a minimum, the conference should launch Israeli-Syrian talks under international auspices.
• As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys. Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point.
The international conference should produce results relevant to the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians: Too often in the past, progress has been stymied by the gap between lofty political statements and dire realities on the ground. The conference therefore should also result in agreement on concrete steps to improve living conditions and security, including a mutual and comprehensive cease-fire in the West Bank and Gaza, an exchange of prisoners, prevention of weapons smuggling, cracking down on militias, greater Palestinian freedom of movement, the removal of unjustified checkpoints, dismantling of Israeli outposts, and other tangible measures to accelerate the process of ending the occupation.
It is of utmost importance, if the conference is to have any credibility, that it coincide with a freeze in Israeli settlement expansion. It is impossible to conduct a serious discussion on ending the occupation while settlement expansion proceeds apace. Efforts also should focus on alleviating the situation in Gaza and allowing the resumption of its economic life.
These three elements are closely interconnected; one cannot occur in the ab sence of the others. Unless the conference yields substantive results on permanent status, neither side will have the motivation or public support to take difficult steps on the ground. If Syria or Hamas is ostracized, prospects that they will play a spoiler role increase dramatically. This could take the shape of escalating violence from the West Bank or from Gaza, either of which would overwhelm any political achievement, increase the political cost of compromises for both sides, and negate Israel's willingness or capacity to relax security restrictions. By the same token, a comprehensive cease-fire or prisoner exchange is not possible without Hamas's cooperation. And unless both sides see concrete improvements in their lives, political agreements are likely to be dismissed as mere rhetoric, further undercutting support for a two-state solution.
The fact that the parties and the international community appear—after a long, costly seven-year hiatus—to be thinking of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is welcome news. Because the stakes are so important, it is crucial to get it right. That means having the ambition as well as the courage to chart new ground and take bold steps.
Zbigniew Brzezinski,
former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter
Lee H. Hamilton,
former Congressman and Co-chair of the Iraq Study Group
Carla Hills,
former US Trade Representative under President George H.W. Bush
Nancy Kassebaum-Baker,
former Senator
Thomas R. Pickering,
former Under-Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton
Brent Scowcroft,
former National Security Adviser to President Gerald Ford and President George H.W. Bush
Theodore C. Sorensen,
former Special Counsel and Adviser to President John F. Kennedy
Paul Volcker,
former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the US Federal Reserve System
When my kids were little, we made marks on the wall on their birthdays to show their growth from infantilism to "all grown up" status to -- well, you don't exactly stand an 18-year old against the dining room wall and make a pencil mark; other benchmarks replaced that nostalgic mark on the wall.
Below are some of the themes --benchmarks of narrative maturity-- that both The Israel Project and New American Foundation discussed. Since the epithet "infantilism" was hurled at each of the sides in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict, which of the two groups whose events projected outcomes for the Annapolis conference, presented plans that are more likely to reach "all grown up" status in Israel-Palestine?
~ Is peace between Israel-Palestine a priority?
~ Should the Arabs be involved?
~ Should Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts be respected?
~ Should engaging Syria be part of the strategy for peace?
~ Should strategy toward peace be more punitive or more rewards?
~ What should be the posture of the conferees toward Iran?
~ Should Hamas be engaged? Talked to?
~ Should the entire process be aborted due to the fragile state of the Israeli people?
~ What is of paramount concern to the Israeli people?
~ Should Israel conduct further military actions in Gaza to undermine Hamas?
~ Should the people of Gaza continue to be deprived of living necessities?
~ Should roadmap preconditions be met before a Palestinian state can begin to be formed?
~ Should settlements be dismantled? When? Should more settlements be established?