RUTHFULLY YOURS

Secretary of State John Kerry and his on-the-scene negotiator, Martin Indyk, are inching toward revealing the details of their proposed framework agreement for further talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, already leaked through pretty much every media organ sympathetic to the administration’s initiatives — whether foreign or domestic. The leaks suggest there are no surprises in the framework agreement, since the peace camp from which both Kerry and Indyk hail claim to have known for a long time the compromises that were supposedly necessary from each side to reach an agreement. It is, of course, remarkable that if the details of such an agreement were so readily apparent and sensible (and presumably fair to both sides), that an agreement had not already been reached, despite all the peace processing that has taken place since the Oslo process began more than 20 years ago.

Of course, the peace processors have their dirty secret, which they let out from time to time. The reason, wink, wink, why there has been no deal so far is because Israel has not had the courage to face down its settler population in the West Bank and make the territorial concessions needed to bring peace. Presumably, any and all of Israel’s other concerns will be addressed, so it must be the settlement enterprise that is blocking an agreement.

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, who has been attacking settlements and Israeli “intransigence” since time immemorial, occasionally feels the need to reassure Israelis that their concerns about security have been noted by higher authorities and wise men such as himself, and that solutions exist. Reasonable columnists can always figure out what is needed to make peace. After a sit-down with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last week, Friedman offered a new trial balloon, presumably first tossed up by Abbas. Israel no longer needs its own soldiers in the Jordan Valley. NATO troops can do the job. In fact, the NATO forces can have jackets designed with the words “Shoot Me” in Arabic on the back to facilitate terrorist activity by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaida or other radical groups now nesting in the territories, and anxious to drive out any “replacement occupiers.” Much like the Saudi peace plan of a decade earlier, which Friedman uncovered just as he was going to reveal to his Saudi luncheon partner a near identical approach, one wonders whether this new plan originated with Abbas, or Friedman, in his preferred role as great thinker and statesman.

The “deal” that will set each side free, if they only have the courage to face down their naysayers, will do the following:

1. Split Jerusalem, creating a Palestinian capital in the city, which of course would be the first one that member nations of the U.N. would recognize as a capital within the city’s borders.

2. Create land swaps based on the number of square miles held by Israel, Jordan and Egypt as a result of the 1949 armistice lines. Israel would be allowed to incorporate into Israel the land for certain settlements containing a majority of “settlers” living beyond the Green Line, by agreeing to give up an equal amount of land to the new Palestinian state in other parts of Israel. No Israeli Arabs living in the parts of Israel to be traded, who would soon be citizens of a new country without any of the protections of a free society that come with living in Israel, have so far been heard from or seen jumping with joy about such a shift. Similarly, no Israelis living in the settlements to be abandoned (probably over a 100,000 people, more than 10 times the number expelled from the Gaza Strip as a result of that unilateral withdrawal) have been consulted on the process of having to leave their homes. Presumably, it will be OK for a Palestinian state to be free of any Jewish people after the land swaps, but Israel will still contain a substantial Arab minority — about 20 percent or more. Palestinians will be asked to concede that Israel is the “Jewish state,” something of course they have never agreed to, and will never agree to, as they point to the 20% Arab population as evidence that Israel is not just a Jewish state. But removing all the Jewish settlements from the West Bank that will not be made part of Israel, as was done in Gaza, will enable the new state of Palestine to be an Arab state and only an Arab state.

3. Refugees, or those called refugees (a group almost entirely made up of second-, third- and fourth-generation descendants of refugees, or others who have no refugee linkage at all but signed up anyway with the U.N. Relief and Works Agency), but who are really not refugees by any definition of the word as applied to any population in the world other than Palestinians, will be entitled to relocate to the new Palestinian state. If all the several million people classified as refugees and now living outside Gaza or the West Bank chose to move to the new state, then a state which cannot survive now except off of international welfare payments will need a lot more of that to support a population maybe double the size in all of its 2,000 square miles of territory. Of course, this population will be so happy to return to places they have not been asking to return to (the preferred “refugee” destination is Israel), that they will happily dispose of all their grievances and begin to live peacefully with their neighbors, maybe in a new Benelux-like confederation designed by Shimon Peres. Palestinians will agree to this arrangement, presumably, because they have been so willing over the last 65 years to give up the right of return to Israel in order to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve better lives for themselves and their families. Palestinians will also be asked to agree that once a final agreement between the two sides is reached, to end all their claims against Israel. They will not agree to this, since they will argue that the Palestinian diaspora cannot be controlled by Abbas or his surrogates, and these people still have grievances — including those “refugees” who do not choose to relocate to Gaza or the West Bank.

Let us assume the talks break down. Assume the PA decides not to agree to the compromises they are asked to make — ending the demand for a right of return of refugees to Israel, giving up any future claims against Israel, acknowledging Israel as the Jewish state, and accepting any of the modest security arrangements Kerry offers up in the near term that are crucial to Israel. Then one of three things will happen: Kerry will announce that the negotiations have broken down, and say the parties are too far apart to bridge the gap that now exists. Or the secretary will signal his frustration that Palestinians have been unable to make the called-for compromises the Americans have proposed (the ones that everyone knows are needed to make a deal). Or the secretary will announce that negotiations have broken down and signal his frustration that Israel could not have been more forthcoming about settlements and willing to go halfway to ease Palestinian concerns.

Which do you think it will be?

Here are the hints: Kerry has warned Israel of a new intifada if the talks collapse. (Is this another way of saying, “Bring it on”?) Kerry has warned of new momentum for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, especially in Europe, if talks break down (sort of like telling Israel you brought this on yourself, see if I care). Kerry and other State Department and administration officials have complained that Israelis are influencing members of Congress and American Jews on both the peace talks and the Iran sanctions legislation. Imagine that. And maybe think about the dual loyalty issue that President Barack Obama and his people are spreading.

Obama, Kerry, and pressure/blame-Israel writers like Friedman (who has argued that Jews have bought and paid for Congress) may or may not be realistic enough to understand the slim chances of success for their peace initiative (the last chance, presumably, till the window of opportunity closes before it reopens again for more peace processing). If they understand the long odds, one would hope they would also understand which party has little interest in resolving the conflict with the so-called two-state solution. In any case, if and when the talks collapse, a narrative is ready on why the peace process broke down. And only one side will be blamed.