Fascinating but lopsided

Few think tanks can assemble the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and a Prime Minister (via video link) for a serious discussion of issues like the Iranian nuclear program, the Israel/Palestine peace process and the war in Syria.  That’s what Brookings’ Saban Forum did this weekend.  Even more impressive is that they said interesting things.  As the Israeli daily Haaretz noted:

…if you piece together the details and principles that were set forth matter-of-factly by Obama and much more forcefully by Kerry, and if you mix in a bit of reading between the lines, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Israel and the Palestinians are engaged in negotiating a “framework agreement” that will include elements of a final status agreement but will be carried out in stages.

And that there will be an interim period in which Israel maintains security control of some of the West Bank. And that the United States will play a major role in providing security along the border with Jordan. And that there will be a declaration of principles that will be based on various peace formulas discussed in the recent past, from the Clinton Parameters of 2000 and onwards.

And, most significantly, that Israel is well aware that the reference points for such a declaration will include the 1967 borders, a Palestinian presence in Jerusalem and a mutual recognition of each other’s “homeland.”

This is pretty hefty stuff.  You wouldn’t want to try to cash the check written on this account yet, but you would be wise to hold on to it.

Interesting also, but in a different way, was Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address.  He was anxious to patch up his frayed relations with President Obama and Secretary Kerry, acknowledging their contributions to Israeli security and agreement on blocking Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  He tried to shift the discourse with the Palestinians from issues of territory and settlements to acceptance of the Jewish state, something which many Palestinians will tell you the Palestine Liberation Organization has already done.  But Netanyahu does not mean verbal acceptance or formal diplomatic recognition.   He wants an end to all Palestinian claims against Israel and acceptance of it as a specifically Jewish homeland, based on a 4000-year-old history.

This is a bit like American Indian claims to the current territory of the United States:  true in some broad historical sense, but mostly irrelevant to the current situation, which is defined mainly by power relationships since 1945.  It is ironic that the flag Netanyahu used as a backdrop displays the Magen David, whose use to represent Jews dates back at most hundreds of years, not thousands.  Israel is a homeland for Jews, but its population includes about 20% Arabs.  A democratic state formed with the consent of its citizens has to be a non-ethnic, non-religious one, more like Italy’s than Iran’s.  I hope Netanyahu is not imagining, as some represented in his government certainly do, that the creation of the Palestinian state will rid Israel of its Arab citizens.  Some may choose Palestinian citizenship, but Israel will have to accept their right to remain Israelis.

On Iran, Netanyahu was likewise as concerned with the question of recognition as he was with its nuclear technology.  He wants Iranian acceptance of the state of Israel and an end to Iranian subversion through Hamas and Hizbollah.  This latter point makes him sound remarkably like the Gulf Arabs, who are concerned that the United States will ignore Iran’s support for terrorism and rebellion in order to obtain a nuclear agreement.  Netanyahu argued that Iran getting a nuclear weapon would strengthen extremist resistance to Israel and wreck the prospects for an agreement with the Palestinians.  That may be true, but it is also true that the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon is creating an important area of common interest between Sunni Arab states, especially in the Gulf, and Israel.  Whether this will persist if a permanent nuclear deal is reached, and whether it will contribute to an Israel/Palestine peace agreement, will be interesting issues to watch.

Netanyahu’s insistence on sanctions and a credible military threat as necessary to obtaining a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear issue sounded remarkably like the President and Secretary of State he has been so anxious in the past to complain about.  Where Netanyahu differs from them is on whether additional sanctions right now would enable a better agreement.  Obama and Kerry know what Netanyahu does not:  how hard it is to get and enforce sanctions.  Trying to do that while the Iranians seem ready and willing to deal would split the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, who are the protagonists of the P5+1 talks with Iran, and end any prospects for a deal.

All this is so interesting it seems almost carping to complain that it is so blatantly lop-sided. Where were the Arab voices?  Palestinians?  Gulf states?  Egypt and Jordan, who have peace treaties with Israel?  Where was the Iranian voice?   Is it wise for a think tank whose former vice president is now the chief US negotiator with the Palestinians and Israelis to put on a show focused solely on US/Israel relations and so heavily weighted against the people we need to reach agreements with?