Promoting a Kurtzer Peace

In a "TAKING NOTE" column from March 7, What an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Framework Might Look Like, Carol Giacomo (who seems to specialize in Middle East matters, a former diplomatic correspondent for Reuters, she's now also Ferris professor of journalism at Princeton University - which means she teaches one of their seminars in journalism on editorials: how they are conceived and constructed and how they aim to shape national debate on important issues, and whose official title is "foreign affairs and defense policy editor"),

promotes Daniel Kurtzer's "6-page model framework" for peace (no, not these six points).  Kurzter, to point out a possible conflict of interest, is Lecturer and S. Daniel Abraham Professor in Middle Eastern Policy Studies Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at ... Princeton.

Kurtzer, we should recall, was angry about "a very bad idea" that "the United States [was] poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior" back in 2010, a "deal [that] will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership".  that was the construction moratorium. Truly an objective commentator on the issue.

She really appreciates his "way to settle [sic] the dispute over Mr. Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel not just as a state but as a Jewish state" with this formula:

“Israel will recognize Palestine as the home of the Palestinian people and all its citizens and Palestine will recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people and all its citizens.”

More, 

Palestinian refugees should have the right of return to the state of Palestine while Israel should “offer a program of family reunification, including citizenship, for a limited number of refugees.” 

and, as for the issue of the city of Jerusalem, 

Kurtzer proposes that it become “the capital of the two states...undivided...”...[and] envisions an international administrator appointed by the two parties.

Giacomo finishes up writing

Israeli and Palestinian leaders have usually not encouraged an open dialogue on the specifics. Rather, they have spent their time talking to their own communities, reinforcing maximalist demands and the perfidies of the other, not advocating areas of compromise.

I left this comment (with additions):

"Maximalist demands"? First of all, permitting an unchecked 'return' of refugees into Judea & Samaria will only exacerbate the security danger facing Israel if the retention of the hills of that region is not a part of a peace arrangement.   Second, any so-called internationalization of Jerusalem ("a special regime to administer the Old City under an international administrator appointed by them"), even if limited to the "holy sites" will not procure for Jews adequate freedom of religion (despite his belief that "The parties will agree to act in accordance with the dignity and sanctity of the city.") because the rocks will come down on worshippers at the Western Wall if Israeli police are not stationed on the Temple Mount, not to mention the demand that Jews be allowed to respect in a spiritual fashion the Temple Mount.

Those are actually "minimal" requirements. But Kurtzer's suggestion - and he is a former ambassador in Israel and should know better - that the Pals. must refrain from threats is laughable given the conflict's history. If, until now, they cannot even recognize Jewish national ethos, can we trust any such pledge?

I wonder if Ms. Giacomo would permit an opposing view to grace the Opinion pages of her newspaper?

Or would she provide a curt negative?

----------------

UPDATE

My comment is up.

^

The Return of the Kurtzer Curse

Daniel Kurtzer, the bad boy, returns to curse.

In the NYTimes, he provides are twisted explanation, mendacious and lacking in the whole picture for the apparent failure of the latest Obama effort to move peace negotiations along.

As reported:

In the short run, analysts said the failure raised questions about Mr. Netanyahu’s capacity to negotiate a final deal.

“It revealed a degree of weakness in his coalition,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel. “This was such an attractive deal for him, but he still couldn’t get his cabinet to buy into it without attaching conditions to it that were unacceptable to Washington.”

Well, (a) there is the possibility that Netanyahu was exhibiting strength and protercting Israel from an American administration whose policies are inimical, in the long run, for Israel; (b) in Israel, coalitions are the democratic process that provides a sort of 'Congressional review' that is lacking in the powers of the Knesset; (c) it was Washingtion, or, to be specific, Obama, that backtracked and first left Hillary Clinton hanging out to dry to rescinding any authorization for the offer she made Bibi and then refused later on to commit itself to the offer - besides the worthlessness of the offer; and (d) Israel, in accepting the offer, would have become but a banana republic and that's not good to anyone, Israelis or Americans.

But what of the Pals.? Are they a part of this? demanding the moratorium include Jerusalem?

It was the reporter, though, Mark Landler, that provided balance:

But the Palestinians also shifted their position, insisting that a settlement freeze must include East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank. Israel’s initial 10-month moratorium included only the West Bank. The United States never asked Mr. Netanyahu to expand it to Jerusalem, and analysts said Mr. Netanyahu would never have been able to persuade his right-wing cabinet to go along with it.

There were also deeply divergent views about what the two sides would discuss during the 90 days, officials said. The Palestinians wanted the talks to focus tightly on the borders of a future Palestinian state. Mr. Netanyahu resisted that, saying the two sides must discuss the full gamut of issues rather than just borders.

Of course, being a biased and unblanced newspaper on issues related to Israel, the two other 'analysts' include a J Streeter:

“If it encourages that more comprehensive review, then it’s not a bad thing,” said Daniel Levy, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation.

David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said, “It’s the end of a phase for the administration: ‘We’re not focusing on the appetizers anymore; we’re focusing on the main course.’ ”

^

Kurtzer Cuts Loose, Too Loose

In this campaign, what also came out rather dramatically was the degree to which he was trying to appeal to what can only be called racist tendencies on the part of some part of the electorate. What he talked about with respect to even Arab-Israeli citizens, this was not just an anti-Palestinian crusade on his part but very strong language and activities on the part of him and his party to separate the Israeli-Arab citizenry from the rest of the Israeli polity.

That misleading bit of information was provided to the readers of the New York Times by Daniel C. Kurtzer, S. Daniel Abraham Visiting Professor in Middle Eastern Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. And former US Ambassador to Israel, by the way.

Let's look at his main accusation more closely as I have done previously at this blog.

to separate the Israeli-Arab citizenry from the rest of the Israeli polity

First all, judge for yourselves. Read this document (I and this news report), among many similar.

It is the radicalization of the Arab population which is now demanding themselves a form of separation, call it administrative autonomy or ethnic-community entity, that is causing a negative reaction by Israel's population, a reaction that benefited Lieberman's election campaign.

And acting to the negative benefit of the Arab's future in Israel.