Olmert's Gambit

I received the following from the Israeli Consulate in New York. I'm on their mailing list, and today's email contained the following from Haaretz:

Olmert's new offer to Abbas: Agreement of Principles toward Palestinian state Haaretz reported that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is offering to hold negotiations toward an "Agreement of Principles" for the establishment of a Palestinian state on most of the territory of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Olmert's proposal to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is based on his view that it is important to first discuss issues that are relatively easy for the two sides to agree upon. No less important is Olmert's assessment that such an accord will enjoy the overwhelming support of the Israeli public and the Knesset.

If Olmert's proposal is accepted by the Palestinians, the two sides will begin negotiations on the characteristics of the Palestinian state, its official institutions, its economy, and the customs arrangement it will have with Israel.

After an "Agreement of Principles," the two sides will tackle the more sensitive diplomatic issues, like final borders and the transit arrangements.

Such agreement is believed to offer both Abbas and Olmert domestic political gains, and the Palestinian leader will be able to use it as part of his reelection campaign.

According to surveys, Olmert knows that the Israeli public is overwhelmingly supportive of a two-state solution, and that the current balance of power in the Knesset will allow him to rally a firm majority of 82 MKs behind such an agreement.

In the prime minister's view, this is not the time to deal with the minute details of the agreement, because it will be very difficult to reach agreement on final status issues, such as borders, Jerusalem and the refugees. These, Olmert proposes, should be left to the end of the negotiations.

Olmert would like to reach an agreement on principles, and then proceed to more difficult issues. This way, the prime minister claims, it will be possible to restart the peace process, in spite the weakness of the Palestinian Authority, and the skepticism regarding its ability to keep its part of the agreement and guarantee security.

The likely principles that Olmert will offer as part of the the agreement will be as follows:

*The establishment of a Palestinian state comprising about 90 percent of the territory of the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip.

Even prior to the 2006 elections, Olmert suggested that Israel unilaterally evacuate from such territory in the West Bank, and withdraw to the separation fence, for the primary purpose of retaining a Jewish majority in its territory, behind a defensible border.

Palestinian support for such agreement will contribute to Israeli public and political support for the deal.

*Exchange of territory to compensate for the large settlement blocs that will remain under Israeli control in the West Bank.

*Connecting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through a tunnel in order to offer the Palestinians territorial contiguity, prevent friction between Israelis and Palestinians, and preserve security.

Israel will request territorial compensation for the digging of a tunnel in its sovereign territory. From Israel's point of view, a tunnel connecting the West Bank and the Strip is the best option to link the two, and is better than the elevated or sunken highway proposals.

*The Palestinians will be able to declare Jerusalem their capital. In the past Olmert has hinted that he would be willing to withdraw from the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem "on the edge," which have never been considered part of the historical city. The Old City, its environs and the Mount of Olives would remain in Israel's control.

The prime minister initiated discussions on the political vision during his recent meetings with Abbas. The goals and the framework of the negotiations was also discussed during the routine meetings between Olmert's senior aides, Yoram Turbowicz and Shalom Turjeman and their Palestinian counterparts, Rafik Huseini and Saeb Erekat.

Olmert turned down the proposal of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a "shelf agreement," which would be a complete final status agreement, negotiated by the U.S., whose implementation would be postponed. The prime minister explained that he is concerned that the PA will be unable to implement the agreement.

Olmert is also worried that such a plan would be used as the starting points for further negotiations, as happened to the proposals of Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000, and the Clinton Plan, that are now seen by the international community as the basis to any future agreement.

Where does one begin with this? Well, let's start with the things that Israel and Palestinians agree on. Palestinians want territory, and it appears that Israel is more than willing to give territory up. The only question is how much. I doubt Israel would ever accept the Palestinians final demands - to cease existing, so we're left with something along the lines of the 2000 Camp David maps.

As for connecting Gaza with the West Bank with a tunnel, I think that would be a problem since it would be easy for Palestinian terrorists to use the underground passage to start tunneling into Israel and launching terrorist attacks that way. If you were talking about an aboveground viaduct, Israeli forces could keep an eye on who and what was passing through - including disrupting terrorists attempting attacks and infiltration into Israel proper.

Finally, the idea that Israel would withdraw from a portion of Jerusalem and not cede the Temple Mount to the Palestinians would not pass muster with the Palestinians. Israelis might be willing to give up the Arab areas of Jerusalem, but none would give up the Temple Mount, the holiest spot on the planet for Jews.

It's interesting what what remains unmentioned in this - right of return. That's as it should be. There should be no right of return to Israel proper.

So, what does this get Olmert? Time.

He gets more time. It doesn't give Israel security, since Fatah is just as committed to Israel's destruction as Hamas - they just are willing to appear reasonable and have no problem destroying Israel through thousands of paper cuts. Also, the failure to adhere to earlier agreements should give Israel caution.

Abbas says that he could reach an agreement with Israel in less than a year. That's funny. You had seven years since Camp David in 2000 to provide a counter offer and yet you never did. There's a reason for that - because the US and or Israel would provide one for you. There's no incentive for Abbas to negotiate. If he waits long enough, Israel will provide concessions and Abbas can hold out for more.

Concessions also give Palestinians the opportunities to demand more without having to give up anything themselves. Note that Abbas is demanding more prisoners to be released.

You want progress, you must break that cycle. Make Abbas and the Palestinians hold to a position and negotiate in good faith. However, as I've noted before, when Palestinians continue to seek all of Israel as a Palestinian state, there is no common ground on which to build. Hamas is even more extreme in its view - it wants Israel destroyed sooner rather than later.

US Secretary of State Rice is deluded if she thinks that the future of the state of Israel is building up the Negev. Israel should not be forced to make concessions when Palestinians have yet to live up to their obligations under existing agreements.

And don't bother bringing up the fact that the Negev and areas surrounding Gaza have been under rocket and mortar fire nearly constantly for months by the Palestinian terrorists of Hamas, PIJ, and their branch outfits.

President Bush calls on Hamas to recognize Israel, but that's like talking to a wall, although if Hamas does manage to do so, one has to be extremely caution that they're simply engaging in deception to gain time and space to build up their weapons and terror forces for an attack on Israel.