You may view the 5 minute update this week via audio:
In this week’s 5 minute update, we focused on:
1) The current efforts by the US and the international community to support efforts to keep alive a two-state solution as part of the Israel / Palestinian peace process
US President Barack Obama, resigned to his failure to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians during the last 7 years of his presidency, is considering a plan that would preserve at least the principle of a two-state solution for an eventual permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement by a future US administration.
The Obama administration is debating whether Obama should define the outlines for an eventual agreement from a presidential speech or perhaps through a United Nations Security Council agreement. A UN Security Council Resolution would be brought to a vote before the end of U.S. President Barack Obama’s term in office in January, 2017. The objective of such a strategy would not be to revive direct peace negotiations between the two sides — which almost nobody believes is likely now — but to enshrine the proposals made by US Secretary of State John Kerry for an eventual peace agreement during his last failed effort at peacemaking in 2014.
In 2014, when U.S.-led negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians broke down, the US State Department drafted a speech for Kerry to deliver that would have laid out the parameters that the two sides needed to agree upon: border issues, security, the status of Jerusalem, treatment of Palestinian refugees and the mutual recognition of two states for two peoples — meaning recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and not simply recognition of its right to exist. However, US President Barack Obama rejected the idea and the speech was never delivered according to people familiar with the debate at that time.
A UN Security Council resolution, US officials said, would give enduring legitimacy to the compromises that Mr. Kerry hammered out in private between the two sides, and build broad international support for a series of proposed solutions that could provide the framework for a future Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
A senior U.S. administration official said that a final decision on the matter hasn’t yet been reached and that Obama is examining a number of different options. He said that the timing for a move has not yet been determined either adding that Obama wants to put the Israeli-Palestinian issue on a more promising track before his successor takes office in January.
“Obama and Kerry are looking at the very real likelihood that the two-state solution could die on their watch,” said Martin S. Indyk, who served as the special envoy for Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations under Mr. Kerry in 2013 and 2014. “Having tried everything else, I think they feel a responsibility, above all to Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, to preserve the principles of a two-state solution.”
“There will be a great temptation to do something in the final year,” said Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Miller wrote an article for Foreign Policy magazine called “The Last Temptation of Barack Obama and John Kerry” predicted that “despite all sense and reason, the president and his secretary of State will have one more go at Middle East peace.” Miller added: “For a president who came out faster and more aggressively on the Middle East than any of his predecessors, there is a growing sense of incompleteness and perhaps even failure” in the efforts that Obama has made over the years to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Among the questions the Obama administration is considering is how long to wait to make their move. Deferring action until after the November election would ease the political pressure on the eventual Democratic nominee. But it would shorten the time to build international support for a UN Security Council Resolution before Obama leaves office in January.
Making such a move, especially to reset the terms of U.N. Resolution 242 passed after the Six-Day War in 1967, would become a political hot potato for Democrats in a US election year and few observers expect the administration to do anything before the US elections in November. To take an initiative sooner “puts you on a collision course with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu in your final year of office and would cause difficulties for the eventual Democratic nominee,” Miller said. “It will feed the Republican grist mills and every attack ad will say, ‘See what they’ve done? First Iran and now they abandon Israel.’”
However, adding to the urgency of the debate, officials said, is a mounting American concern that a continued expansion of Jewish settlements in the area of the West Bank known as Area C which is currently under Israeli control will soon make a geographically and politically viable Palestinian state impossible.
A report in The Wall Street Journal suggested that US President Barack Obama is reconsidering a plan first presented several years ago by US Secretary of State Kerry that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 borders with agreed land swaps in order to establish a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. If the Palestinians are agreeable, the plan says that a deal could be worked out for land swaps that would leave the large Jewish settlement blocs in Israeli hands in exchange for Arab population centers within Israel proper. The fate of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall would be subject to negotiations.
According to the plan, Israel would stop building Jewish homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In exchange, the Palestinians would recognize Israel’s right to exist – something that has not yet taken place – and rescind all claims to land within Israel proper. The report says that Obama is likely to back up his peace proposal with a communications campaign to justify that this is the right thing to do. The Wall Street Journal also said: “The strongest thing on the list of options under consideration would be for U.S. support of a UN Security Council Resolution calling on both sides to compromise on key issues in the conflict where in the past both sides have disagreed.
Commentators on Israel Army Radio interpreted the The Wall Street Journal report as meaning that the U.S. would fail to veto resolutions in the UN Security Council against Israel which the administration has done until now. “Now that Obama is leaving office he doesn’t have to curry favor with Jewish voters since he really isn’t such an enthusiastic supporter of Senator Hilliary Clinton,” who would likely bear the brunt of anger among Jewish voters if the U.S. lets the Security Council condemn Israel, said one analyst. “This is his chance to do what he has always wanted to do – some would say to solidify his legacy, while others would say to get back at Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu for him being uncooperative with Obama over the years.”
A NY Times Editorial said: “There are several options [to the current stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians regarding a two-state solution to the conflict] but the best may be a resolution that puts the United Nations Security Council on record supporting the basic principles of a peace deal covering borders, the future of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, security, and land swaps but not imposing anything on the two parties.”
The editorial condemned what it claimed were Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lackluster efforts in the peace process, saying that the Israeli prime minister has “never shown a serious willingness” to progress toward a peace deal, “as is made clear by his expansion of Israeli settlements which reduces the land available for a Palestinian state.” The article also criticized Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas for being “a weak and aging leader who has given up on peace.”
However, US Vice President, Joe Biden, recently made a proposal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of an Israeli settlement freeze and US recognition of East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the Palestinians giving up their right of return to live in Israel. However, Abbas rejected the US proposal.
In response, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Foreign Ministry outlined a few scenarios regarding possible moves that Obama may take during his last year in office on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In the first scenario, Obama would do nothing on the issue before the end of his term, except for steps to prevent any deterioration in ties between the conflicting sides. The assessment was that the likelihood of this scenario happening is not high.
The second possibility is that Obama will give a speech in which he presents the U.S. vision for a solution to the core issues of the conflict: borders, security, the return of refugees and the division of Jerusalem. Obama’s speech would be based on the draft framework agreement that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry almost succeeded in formulating during peace negotiations in early 2014. Israel believes that there is a higher probability of this scenario happening.
A third possibility, which was described as being a certain possibility also is American support for a UN Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Some of Obama’s advisers, as well as senior officials at the US State Department believe that the American president’s legacy on the Israeli-Palestinian issue should be a UN Security Council resolution that would outline the principles for the end of the conflict.
Such a resolution would replace the Security Council’s Resolution 242 from 1967 and Resolution 338 from 1973. It would serve as a new source of authority for the peace process, secure and preserve the two-state solution, and make it clear to the Israelis and Palestinians what concessions they would have to make if they one day decide to renew the peace process.
Meanwhile, Army Radio reported that Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is worried that the Obama administration will use its final weeks in office to back UN Security Council decisions and other measures detrimental to Israel. As a result, Netanyahu has been trying to persuade his ministerial colleagues to approve a series of measures to boost the West Bank economy and show Israel’s commitment to improving Palestinians’ lives in the West Bank.
Netanyahu’s primary concern about Obama supporting a UN Security Council Resolution regarding the Israel / Palestinian conflict is focused on the period between November 2016, when a new US president is elected and January 2017 when that new president takes office. Given the history of difficult relations between the two countries’ leaderships, this period would constitute a brief window when the Obama administration could advance its agenda without domestic repercussions, the report said.
Meanwhile, France said that it will recognize a Palestinian state if its imminent efforts to end the deadlock in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians end without success. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: “France will engage in the coming weeks in the preparation of an international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners, American, European, Arab, notably to preserve and make happen the solution of two states.” France, Fabius said, has a responsibility as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to sustain efforts to reach a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
If the French effort to organize an international conference to resolve the Israel / Palestinian conflict fails, Fabius said that France would move to unilaterally recognize Palestine as a state. Fabius said “And what will happen if this last-ditch attempt at reaching a negotiated solution hits a stumbling block? In that case, we will have to live up to our responsibilities and recognize a Palestinian state.”
In response, a senior Israeli official said that French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius’ threat to recognize a Palestinian state should an international peace conference fail to resolve the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians regarding the peace process gives the Palestinians incentive to not negotiate with Israel and want to see the talks end in a deadlock saying, “Negotiations cannot be held nor peace be achieved in this manner.”
Israeli Foreign Ministry Director General Dore Gold had talked with the France government about the issue and expressed skepticism about the French initiative. Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said, “The Israeli side emphasized the importance of direct, bilateral negotiations with no prior conditions between the parties” in the only way to bring about a negotiated peace between the parties.
Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog stated that he had talks with US Secretary of State, John Kerry, about the French idea of an international peace conference. As a result of these talks with Kerry, Herzog said that if Netanyahu does not respond positively to the idea that “Israel have a solution to the conflict imposed upon us by the international community.”
France presented Israel with a plan for an international peace summit to be held in Paris this summer in order to restart negotiations with the Palestinians. The international conference is tentatively scheduled to take place in June or July despite Israeli reservations about it. The French proposal is composed of three stages. First, consultations with Israel, the Palestinians and international partners on the notion of a summit in February or March. Second, a meeting in Paris of the international support group for the negotiations in March or April, without the Israelis or Palestinians present. Lastly, the convening of an international peace summit in Paris in June or July when negotiations will restart. France has tasked diplomat Pierre Vimont as the special envoy for the peace proposal.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, called a French proposal to hold an international peace conference “timely” and “realistic.” He said that the Palestinians welcome the French call “for serious international involvement towards ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.” Erekat added: “The French ideas are timely, the French ideas are realistic and the French ideas are the only thing in town, and those who care about peace between Palestinians and Israelis must fully support the French ideas. We will be maintaining our contact with France, as well as other international partners, to advance in that direction (of an international conference). We have been calling upon the international community to have an international conference for Palestine based on international law and UN resolutions.”
On the other hand, Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, said that the Palestinians are waging a new campaign at the United Nations to revive the two-state solution with the possible starting point being a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. He said: “We will not accept that the year 2016 is a year when we cannot do anything. We have to open some doors to keep the hope alive and keep the two-state solution alive.”
The Palestinian ambassador recently met with the envoys from the permanent Security Council members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — to discuss the way forward. The Palestinian envoy suggested that a resolution condemning Israel’s expansion of Israeli settlements could be a first step but he stressed that there should be a broader plan. This could include the creation of an international support group, the deployment of observers to trouble spots or the convening of an international peace conference. “The signal has to come from the Security Council,” he said.
These current efforts by France is a continuation of their efforts in the past. In December 2014, France tried to push for a UN Security Council resolution to lay down a framework for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, these efforts failed due to opposition from Israel and the U.S. on one hand, and an unwillingness of the Palestinians on the other to compromise on the exact wording of the decision in order to win final approval from the Obama administration.
In the summer of 2015, France raised the possibility of creating an international support group for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. This group met on the sidelines of the UN last September. The meeting was attended by the foreign ministers of Quartet-member nations (U.S., Russia, the EU and the UN) together with another 30 Western and Arab countries – but without Israel or the Palestinians
Since that meeting, Fabius tried to push for a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, but this effort also failed to gain traction. In the last few weeks, Fabius and other French officials held talks with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and other PA officials. The Palestinians expressed support for the creation of an international peace committee to be based on the 2002 Arab peace initiative. The current idea is for France to host an international peace conference this summer in either June or July.
If these efforts fail, the United States seems willing to consider a UN Security Council Resolution to outline the parameters of an eventual peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians which recognizes a Palestinian state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. The US would most likely be willing to consider such a UN Security Council Resolution this fall and no later than January, 2017.
An agreement to divide Jerusalem and establish a PLO state is a tribulation event.
The link to these articles are as follows:
1) White House Working on Renewed Mideast Peace Push
2) Report: Obama Ready to Use Security Council Veto to Promote New Peace Plan
3) NY Times: UN Security Council Resolution Is The Best Way To Resolve Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
4) Report: Netanyahu Fears ‘Lame Duck’ Obama May Try to Impose Two-State Solution
5) Netanyahu said worried Obama may go against Israel as term expires
6) France: We will recognize Palestinian state if talks deadlock persists
7) Palestinians mull new bid for UN resolution on settlements
8) Abbas reportedly turns down visiting Biden’s peace plan
9) Israel Rejects French Peace Bid Saying Threat of Recognition Incentivizes Palestinians Not to Negotiate
10) Obama May Back UN Resolution on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
11) Obama Seeks to Pave Way to Mideast Deal After He Leaves Office
12) Some observers predict Obama will make an 11th-hour push for Mideast peace
13) The Last Temptation of Barack Obama and John Kerry
14) PA’s chief negotiator upbeat on French proposal for peace confab
15) France Presents Israel With Plan To Host International Peace Summit With Palestinians
From a Biblical prophetic perspective, the reason why the God of Israel would allow these events to happen is because it will result in the end of the exile of the house of Jacob and the reunification of the 12 tribes of Israel (Ephraim and Judah).
We will to be “watchmen on the walls of Jerusalem” and we will not rest until the God of Israel makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth (Isaiah 62).
Shalom in Yeshua the Messiah,
Eddie Chumney
Hebraic Heritage Ministries Int’l