BICOM

On Monday 2 July, BICOM Senior Visiting Fellow Brig. Gen. (ret.) Michael Herzog gave a telephone briefing to journalists on the resumption of talks in Washington between Israel and the Palestinians. Below is a written summary of the briefing.

How did we get to this stage and what are the prospects for upcoming peace talks?

The recent announcement about the impending resumption of talks was made after months of preparatory talks led by Secretary John Kerry and my understanding is that the first meeting is slated to take place Monday night at Kerry’s home and continue on Tuesday. Assuming the parties agree on the details, a formal announcement of the resumption of peace talks will be announced tomorrow.

The first thing Kerry did was get the parties to agree to a set of measures to set the stage for negotiations. In this context Israel agreed to significantly limit settlement construction, including in Jerusalem, in recent months without taking any formal decision or making an announcement. Palestinians promised to freeze their intention to go to UN and international bodies and promote statehood for themselves following the UN General Assembly resolution last year. In recent months the talks between the parties focused on the necessary conditions for starting negotiations, because the Palestinians put forward a set of preconditions to begin talks. They demanded as agreed upon terms of reference that the territorial baseline will be the 1967 lines with agreed land swaps. The second condition was the settlement freeze; the third was the release of pre-Oslo prisoners.  Let me address what was agreed with each one.

The 1967 lines

1967 lines as a baseline has long been the Palestinian demand, saying that when you enter negotiations you have to know in advance the framework of these negotiations. The Israeli position long held that there should not such a precondition because this predetermines the outcome of talks which have not yet happened and that if you establish a baseline it should not be limited only to territory. The US stated that using 1967 lines as a basis is its own position, in a way sufficient to satisfy the Palestinians but also enable the Israeli government to say it did not subscribe to these terms of reference but will enter negotiations anyway.. Reports that the US may have provided or is about to provide a side letter to the Palestinians stating that this is the US position, and that talks will be held based on this principle, were not hitherto verified in Israel. The Israeli side has not seen a letter, but it’s clear that this is the US position, as it was in Obama’s May 2011 speech.

Freezing of settlement construction

Originally Netanyahu was willing for the duration of negotiations to stop all construction beyond the main blocs which will likely be part of Israel in any final agreement. For reasons I will outline later, the Prime Minister actually undertook quietly to limit construction throughout the West Bank without distinguishing between blocs, but did not commit to a freeze.

Prisoner release

The emphasis has shifted to the third condition of a prisoner release. This has been seen as something to boost Abbas domestically and help garner support for him to enter peace talks. Palestinians demanded the release of all prisoners arrested by Israel before the 1993 Oslo process was launched. Originally they had a list of 129 prisoners, which went down to 104 because it turned out some of them had already been released and rearrested for charges unrelated to the Oslo period.

The Israeli Prime Minister was originally willing to release 40-60 based on opinions he got from the Israeli security services but ultimately agreed to 104. He rejected the Palestinian demand to release the prisoners before negotiations begin on the grounds that he does not want to pay for getting the Palestinians to sit at the table. He is willing to release them in four batches following the resumption of negotiations and the exact names will be determined by ministerial committee.

The big issue for the Israeli public is whether names will include Arab citizens of Israel (there are fourteen of them). Israel has always rejected releasing Israeli-Arabs as part of a deal because they are Israeli citizens and the PLO does not represent them. It is not clear whether the list will include them as well.

What has been decided?

It should be noted that there is a trade-off between these three elements. Ultimately Israel opted to pay a higher price in terms of prisoner releases, although it is highly controversial in Israel domestically, and pay less in terms of settlement construction despite limitations, and agreeing to the territorial baseline of pre-1967 lines. For their part, the Palestinians committed to not advancing their bid for statehood in the international arena for the duration of the negotiations. The US will also lead an ambitious programme to enhance the Palestinian economy and infrastructure, to be facilitated by Israel.

I expect an announcement tomorrow by Kerry of a resumption of talks with an aim of achieving an agreement on core issues in nine months and commitments by parties not to leave the table for nine months.

We should focus less on the preparatory stage and focus more on what happens when the parties do begin to talk to each other about the core issues. This is the fourth time we are trying to solve the conflict in this way. First there was the Camp David process in 2000, then Annapolis with Prime Minister Olmert and Abbas in 2008, then Netanyahu and Abu Mazen in 2010. If we fail for the fourth time, many people will conclude we cannot achieve a two-state solution and this may bring some very grave consequences, so I think all efforts should be focused on how to enhance chances of success.

The parties should, and there is a likelihood they will, focus first  on seemingly technical issues of modalities before entering substantive negotiations. For example, how exactly do we conduct talks? Do we do it through a backchannel or big working groups in the public eye? I personally believe in a backchannel, away from the public eye, where parties can quietly discuss sensitive issues. Do we aim first for a framework on the core issues or try to reach a detailed agreement to solve all the issues? My personal idea is to go for a framework first. Do we put everything on the table at once or abide by principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed? What do we do about Gaza which is controlled by Hamas? How do we socialise our publics to peace-making and weaken potential spoilers? There are many questions that have to be discussed ahead of substantive negotiations and I believe the parties will start talking about them today or tomorrow. There should be serious preparations and first phase of talking about the talks themselves to enhance the chances that the talks will be successful.

I will conclude by saying that this is going to be an uphill struggle, because there are significant gaps between the parties on the core issues which are not easy to bridge. There is no faith between the parties, no agreed terms of reference and it is not going to be easy. However, this is an important initiative that should be supported.