Was it Barak-style one-upsmanship? Or, was this a leak coordinated with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu?

Here is an extended excerpt of the published Q+A:

Q: Ehud Barak, is there any chance that you and Benjamin Netanyahu will succeed in reaching peace with the Palestinians now, the same peace which you did not succeed in achieving in 2000 and Ehud Olmert did not succeed in achieving in 2008?

A: “In the current reality that is encircling us, there are remarkable changes underway. Thirty years ago, the Arabs competed amongst the Israelis in spouting rejectionist slogans that were reminiscent of [the three "nos" at] Khartoum. Today the Arab states are competing amongst themselves in arguing over which peace initiative will be adopted by the international community. The same situation is taking place with us. When I returned from Camp David a decade ago, the most vocal critics of my “irresponsible” concessions were Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. Take a look at where they are today. It doesn’t mean that the task is a simple one. The gaps are wide and they are of a fundamental nature. But I believe that there is a real chance today. If Netanyahu leads a process, a significant number of rightist ministers will stand with him. So what is needed is courage to make historic, painful decisions. I’m not saying that there is a certainty for success, but there is a chance. This chance must be exploited to the fullest”.

Q: What are the principles of a peace deal that you believe can be agreed upon by the conclusion of the talks?

A: “Two states for two nations; an end to the conflict and the end of all future demands; the demarcation of a border that will run inside the Land of Israel, and within that border will lie a solid Jewish majority for generations and on the other side will be a demilitarized Palestinian state but one that will be viable politically, economically, and territorially; keeping the settlement blocs in our hands; retrieving and relocating the isolated settlements into the settlement blocs or within Israel; a solution to the refugee problem [whereby refugees return to] the Palestinian state or are rehabilitated by international aid; comprehensive security arrangements and a solution to the Jerusalem problem”…

[Asked to describe a possible Jerusalem solution, Barak mentions that 200,000 Israelis now live in 12 "Jewish neighborhoods" in East Jerusalem that will become "ours" [i.e., Israel's]; while 250,000 Palestinians in “Arab neighborhoods” will be “theirs” [i.e., be handed over to the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority, whether or not they like it]. And, Barak went on, there should be a “special regime” [UN terminology from early UNGA resolutions] for the East Jerusalem areas of the Old City, the Mount of Olives, and the “City of David” – i.e., Silwan, an East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood south and east of the Old City walls.

In other words, what’s “ours” is “ours”, and part of what’s “theirs” will also be “ours”.

If this succeeds, it will be the first time ever that the Quartet (including the U.S. but also the European Union, Russia and the UN), as well as Jordan and Egypt would swallow Israeli claims in East Jerusalem without protest…

Barak’s remarks are published in Haaretz here.

Our fuller analysis of Barak’s remarks concerning East Jerusalem is posted here.

That move overrides any objections voiced by Palestinian “factions” — meaning mostly the small-constituency further-”left” groups, which are also mainly based in Ramallah.

The current PLO Executive Committee was formed after a rare Fatah General Conference held in Bethlehem in early August 2009, which confirmed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as the leader of the largest Palestinian movement (giving him the reins of leadership of two of the three institutions of Palestinian legitimacy).

Abbas then oversaw a PLO “National Conference” (the PNC) that met in the Muqata’a, the Palestinian presidential headquarters and stronghold in Ramallah, in late August 2009.

Though the PNC should normally now have between 500 and 600 members, a quorum was “seen” when something like 200 PNC members arrived in the Muqata’a for that session a year ago. During the session, Abbas was confirmed as the head of the PLO (formally handing him the reins of the third source of Palestinian political power and legitimacy — so now Abbas is in total control of all leadership positions, as the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat used to be…)

That PNC meeting authorized the composition of a new PLO Executive Committee, with most of the members based in Ramallah — they can now be convened on short notice, without the inconvenience of having to wait for any Palestinian leaders who might have difficulties or delays in travelling from abroad.

(Therefore, it is referred to it, in the headline of this post, as the “rump version” of the PLO Executive Committee.)

The PLO Executive Committee position said its decision to authorize engagement in the new direct talks was based on the statement of the Quartet (composed of the U.S., Europe, Russia, and the United Nations), issued in support of the U.S. invitation issued from Washington on Friday, which said (among other things) that “The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year, and the implementation of an agreement”.

That is an explicit commitment to continue funding upon which the Palestinian Authority is nearly totally dependent, from now though the conclusion and implementation of a hypothetical, but hoped-for, Israeli-Palestinian agreement. The payment of September salaries for Palestinian Authority employees (ministerial officials and security forces included) was recently put into question, with a reported $300 million-dollar budgetary shortfall, and the payment of anything beyond September is completely up in the air — until donor funding fills up the current financial hole.

According to a report published by the privately-owned and donor-funded Bethlehem-based Ma’an News Agency, the PLO Executive Committee specified that it had given its approval “to resume negotiations aimed at solving all final status solutions” within a one-year time-frame.

The Quartet statement [see our earlier post, here] called for a negotiated settlement that “ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state”.

Ma’an also reported that the PLO Executive Committee also saw support, in the Quartet statement for “calling both sides to abide by international law and in particular, stick to the Road Map, calling on Israel to stop all settlement activity”, and that “the PLO statement also cited ‘the Quartet’s confirmation that international community will not recognize Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem’, when it accepted the US invitation”. This Ma’an report is posted here.

The Palestinian President Abbas said in a interview recently published in the Arabic-language media that he had been put under “inhuman pressure” to move to direct talks.

“The representatives of the Quartet reaffirm their strong support for direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve all final status issues. The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements, including in Trieste on 26 June 2009, in New York on 24 September 2009, and its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010 which provides that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should ‘lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors’. The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year, and the implementation of an agreement”…

The statement continues: “The Quartet again calls on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric. Welcoming the result of the Arab Peace Initiative Committee in Cairo on July 29, the Quartet notes that success will require sustained regional and international support for the negotiations and the parallel process of Palestinian state-building and the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace as envisaged in the Madrid terms of reference, Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative. The Quartet Principals intend to meet with their colleagues from the Arab League in September in New York to review the situation. Accordingly, the Quartet calls on the Israelis and the Palestinians to join in launching direct negotiations on September 2 in Washington, D.C. to resolve all final status issues and fulfill the aspirations of both parties”.

An announcement was made at the U.S. State Department in Washington by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton:
“Since the beginning of this Administration, we have worked with the Israelis and Palestinians and our international partners to advance the cause of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution which ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians. The President and I are encouraged by the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas and fully share their commitment to the goal of two states – Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. After proximity talks and consultations with both sides, on behalf of the United States Government, I’ve invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on September 2nd in Washington, D.C. to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year. President Obama has invited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort. Their continued leadership and commitment to peace will be essential to our success. The President will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders followed by a dinner with them on September 1st. The Quartet Representative Tony Blair has also been invited to the dinner in view of his important work to help Palestinians build the institutions of their future state, an effort which must continue during the negotiations. I’ve invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to join me here at the State Department on the following day for a trilateral meeting to re-launch direct negotiations. As we move forward, it is important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it. There have been difficulties in the past; there will be difficulties ahead. Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles. The enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail these talks. But I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even through difficult times, and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region. As we have said before, these negotiations should take place without preconditions and be characterized by good faith and a commitment to their success, which will bring a better future to all of the people of the region”.

The invitation was immediately snapped up by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, but Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ response was still forthcoming on Friday night.

Indirect talks were supposed to have started in March, but actually began only in May; some 6 or 7 rounds were held in the region.

The Annapolis process of direct negotiations that began under former U.S. President George W. Bush in November 2007, with the aim of creation of a Palestinian state within one year, came to a screeching halt at the end of December 2008, when Israel launched a massive three-week military assault against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was said to have offered terms of a deal in September 2008, and Palestinian President Abbas had also outlined some part of a position, but no agreement was reached. The Palestinian leadership wants any new talks to begin where they left off in late 2008.

***********************

With Hillary Clinton standing at his side, the U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East Peace Process, George Mitchell, fielded journalists’ questions on Friday afternoon on Washington. Here are some excerpts from the exchange:

“QUESTION: Can you tell us what was the turning point here? What was it that got the – that overcame the final snags to get them to come back to direct talks?

MR. MITCHELL: “We believe it’s the recognition by the parties themselves, by their leaders – Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas – that the best outcome is an agreement which results in two states living side by side in peace and security, and that the only way that can be achieved is through direct negotiations between the parties in which the United States will be an active and sustained participant, and with the full support of our many friends and allies around the world, including, of course, specifically, the Quartet … I think it’s the cumulative result of the efforts made over that time and the recognition by the parties that this is the right time. We will be active participants and there is broad support, as you know, by members of the Quartet and others around the world. But in the end, these decisions will be made by the parties themselves … All permanent status issues will be on the table. It will be for the parties themselves to decide the manner by which they should be addressed … We are all well aware that there remains mistrust between the parties, a residue of hostility developed over many decades of conflict, many previous efforts that have been made to resolve the conflict that had not succeeded, all of which takes a very heavy toll on both societies and their leaders. In addition, we all know that, as with all societies, there are differences of opinion on both sides on how best to proceed, and as a result, this conflict has remained unresolved over many decades and through many efforts. We don’t expect all of those differences to disappear when talks begin. Indeed, we expect that they will be presented, debated, discussed, and that differences are not going to be resolved immediately. But we do believe that peace in the Middle East, comprehensive peace, including, but not limited to, an end to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, is very much in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, of all people in the region; it’s in the national security interests of the United States, and therefore, we are going to continue to pursue that objective with patience, perseverance, and determination. We know that will be difficult. We know, as the Secretary said, there will be obstacles. But we’re going to proceed, as I said, with patience, perseverance, and determination … I will say that I believe that it is very much in the interest of people in both societies that there be an end to this conflict enabling both to live in peace and security. And I believe that their leaders believe and understand that, and therefore, notwithstanding the many difficulties that they face – and we recognize those difficulties – this is the best course for them … And we approach this task with the same determination to succeed notwithstanding the difficulties and notwithstanding the inability to get a final result so far, including past efforts. But past efforts at peace that did not succeed cannot deter us from trying again, because the cause is noble and just and right for all concerned … the cause is so important, so right, so just, that our continued effort is the right thing to do, and we are going to pursue it with determination. I believe that the two leaders themselves, President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, are sincere and serious and believe that it can be done, and we will do everything humanly possible to help them see that it is done … We have been in consultation with both. We expect to hear from them shortly, but it will be their decisions on whether to accept”.
…

QUESTION: Yeah. Do both parties have to ask for the U.S. to step in with its bridging proposals, or is it enough for one party to ask for that bridging proposal?

MR. MITCHELL: We’re getting a little bit ahead of the game now to be speculating on what may or may not occur well into the process. As I stated earlier, this is a direct bilateral negotiation with the active and sustained support of the United States. And we will make bridging proposals at such time as we deem necessary and appropriate. But I don’t want anyone to have the impression that we are somehow going to supplant or displace the roles of the parties themselves, nor do we have any view other than that this must, in the end, be an agreement by the parties themselves.

…

QUESTION: … One technical question and then a real question. On September the 2nd – is that – are they actually – are you actually launching direct talks on September the 2nd, or are the leaders getting together with the Secretary to discuss the re-launching of direct talks? And the other thing: What role, if any, does Hamas have in this process?

MR. MITCHELL: The first question is yes, we are launching direct negotiations beginning on September 2nd. And the second question is:  None.

QUESTION: Senator, is re-launching the direct negotiations without preconditions means that we are re-launching the direct negotiations without terms and references?

MR. MITCHELL: Only the parties can determine terms of reference and basis for negotiations, and they will do so when they meet and discuss these matters. As you know, both we and the Quartet have previously said that the negotiations should be without preconditions.

QUESTION: … Can you tell us whether they’re going to start from scratch, or will they build on what talks that – during the Olmert period? And the second question is whether Israel is expected to continue the freeze. Do you think that they’ll continue the freeze? Do you think the Palestinians will continue their boycott of settler goods?

MR. MITCHELL: The parties themselves will determine the basis on which they will proceed in the discussions, in response to your first question. In response to the second, our position on settlements is well-known and remains unchanged. We’ve always made clear that the parties should promote an environment that is conducive to negotiations. And as the Secretary said in her statement a few moments ago, it’s important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it.

QUESTION: Senator, just to follow up on that and a previous question, your position is well-known on settlements, but the Israelis, when they’ve chosen to, have ignored it and gone ahead with settlement construction as they’ve seen fit to do. Do you have any understanding from them that they will not do that this time? And referring to the earlier question on Hamas and your quick answer that they will have no role, how do you get around the fact, even in the best of all circumstances that you negotiate an agreement, how do you get around the fact that Hamas is playing a huge role in Gaza?

MR. MITCHELL: With respect to the first question, let’s be clear that the declaration of the moratorium itself last November was a significant action, which has had a significant effect on new housing construction starts in the West Bank. And as I said, our position on settlements is well-known, remains unchanged, and we expect both parties to promote an environment conducive to negotiations. With respect to Hamas, let’s be clear. Hamas won a legislative election. They acknowledge the continued executive authority of President Abbas and his team, and it is entirely appropriate that we negotiate with the executive head of that government. When Democrats regained control of the Congress in 2006, that didn’t end President Bush’s tenure as president, and others who wanted to negotiate with the United States negotiated with the legally elected and then-chief of our executive branch of government. And that is the situation here.
…
QUESTION: Senator Mitchell, is it your understanding that this would be a shelf agreement, something to take effect at a later date when political conditions in the Palestinian territories allow, or is it your understanding that this is something that would take effect in a very short period after it was agreed?

MR. MITCHELL: That’s obviously subject to the results of the negotiations. We are not creating limitations or restraints upon what the parties may agree to. Our hope is that there will be an agreement that will end the conflict for all time and will result in the establishment of a viable, democratic, and independent state of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel.
…

QUESTION: Hi, thanks for taking our questions. The Palestinian press has reported that the U.S. put the harshest pressure to date on the Palestinians to get them into the talks. What I want to know is why did the U.S. feel that this was the time, in the Palestinians’ view, to bully the Palestinians into talking, considering the politics of the Israeli administration right now?

MR. MITCHELL: The United States position has been well-known from the time that this administration entered office. We have and we do favor direct negotiation between the parties to resolve the conflict and to produce an agreement that results in two states living side by side in peace and security. We have encouraged the two parties to enter into such negotiations and they have now agreed. And we are – we believe it’s the right thing to do, we think that both of the leaders believe it’s the right thing to do, and we believe it’s in the best interests of the people they represent.
…
QUESTION: Senator, do you understand that – you expect Abbas to accept entering these talks without preconditions?

MR. MITCHELL: Both the United States and the Quartet have said that we believe there should be direct talks without preconditions. And we also have said many times that we think that these talks should be conducted in a positive atmosphere in which the parties refrain from taking any steps that are not conducive to making progress in the discussions, that negotiate seriously and in good faith. And in all of these respects, we think that there is a basis for making progress.

QUESTION: So the talks won’t be based on the Quartet statement of March 19?

MR. MITCHELL: The parties are the only ones who can determine what the basis of their discussions are, and that is the case.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Senator, so many Palestinians, as you know, and Arabs believe peace with the actual Israeli Government is practically impossible because of its nature, past statement regarding refugees, Jerusalem, et cetera. Aren’t you concerned that by setting this one-year deadline, you’ll probably be raising expectations just like a la Camp David and all what happened after that?

MR. MITCHELL: The reality is, of course, that there are some in both societies who do not believe that the other side is serious, who do not trust the other side, who do not wish to proceed with the other side. And if we accept the premise that because some in one or both societies hold these views that we cannot proceed, then of course, what we are doing is consigning all of those people to never-ending conflict, never-ending difficulties. We simply don’t believe that’s a proper basis for any country, and certainly not ours, the United States, on which to base its policy. We believe that the best course of action is the direct negotiations that result in a peace agreement ending this conflict and resulting in two states living side by side in peace and security. We believe the only way to achieve that is through direct negotiations. We believe that if those negotiations are conducted seriously and in good faith, they can produce such an agreement within 12 months. And that is our objective. We acknowledge, we recognize, as you have just stated, that there are many who don’t believe that, many who don’t want that, many who will act to prevent that. But their lack of belief, their contrary views, their contrary actions cannot serve to prevent us from trying to deal with this conflict, nor can it prevent the leaders of those countries who both recognize that the interests of their people, the future of their societies rests upon resolving this conflict and achieving the kind of peace and stability and security from which they will all benefit.

***********************

Laura Rozen wrote on Politico.com that “Even staunch administration supporters were struck that Clinton’s Friday announcement was noticeably short on details concerning how the talks would proceed. Several suggested the actual format for the talks and the core issues to be discussed do not appear to have yet been worked out or agreed to by the parties. But some who watch the process closely saw reason for hope that the renewed American involvement and the new deadline would bring, if not resolution, real progress. ‘The hope of a comprehensive deal within a year is a bit overly ambitious, but I think there’s a chance with security and borders’, said David Makovsky, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ‘Jerusalem and refugees are harder’, he said, because they are so central to the identities of the two sides. ‘Neither leader has conditioned the societal landscape to be conducive to breakthrough’, he said. And other Washington Middle East hands said the accomplishment of getting the parties into direct negotiations shouldn’t be diminished and noted that the process itself could improve the dynamic, including by locking the parties into longer-term talks in which they might be able to narrow the gaps on contentious core issues such as refugees and Jerusalem. ‘I think they [the Obama administration] have been focusing … on actually getting the parties to the negotiations and hoping that once they are in negotiations, the dynamics will change’, the American Task Force for Palestine’s Ghaith al-Omari told POLITICO. ‘Both of them [the Israelis and Palestinians] will be locked into the process; both will have to be more responsive; the administration will have more leverage’ in the process”… This analysis is posted here.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his people appear to have done little to discourage denunciation of the talks. The jailed Fatah personality Marwan Barghouthi, serving five consecutive life sentences in an Israeli prison for his role in the second Palestinian intifada, issued a statement last week through a lawyer saying that the talks were against the Palestinian national interest. Marwan Barghouthi was elected to the powerful Fatah Central Committee at a rare General Conference closely choreographed by Abbas supporters that met for ten days in Bethlehem last August.

During Mitchell’s previous visit, for the sixth round of “proximity” talks, a Palestinian representative of a group putting up posters around the West Bank advocating a one-state (rather than the two-state) solution was invited to make a presentation during the Abbas-Mitchell meeting.

Abbas gave a private briefing to Palestinian journalists in Ramallah on Monday evening.

State spokesperson Crowley continued: “George has returned. He had a wide range of discussions not just with the Israelis and Palestinians, as he always does, but with others in the region whose support is critical to moving the parties forward into direct negotiations. Those meetings included the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt. We will continue our discussions with these key players and see if we can find the way to move them forward.

QUESTION: P.J., recently the – in fact, a couple days ago, the Israel press reviewed that Israel has what they call a secret plan to absolve itself of any responsibility for Gaza, and basically they want to call – they are discussing this with the European – six European ministers. And what they want is an international force to come and control the borders. And it’s (inaudible), interpreted as basically saddling Egypt with Gaza and (inaudible) any possibility for a viable state. Any comments on this topic? Any information on that and so on? It is a plan that is being –

MR. CROWLEY replied: We don’t normally comment on secret plans from the party”.

In the briefing, Crowley was also asked about remarks made by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a recent interview:

QUESTION: Palestinian President Abbas … seems to be saying that he would like the United States to specify what the boundaries of a Palestinian state would look like before he enters into direct talks. Are you aware of that? Is that something the United States would be prepared to do?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we’ve had discussions in the recent days with the Palestinian authorities, including President Abbas. I’m not going to reveal the specifics of those conversations. Our message to both parties is let’s get to direct negotiations as quickly as possible, where, in fact, we can address the fundamental issues and the process, including borders. These are issues that we think can only be resolved within the context of direct negotiations. Now, there certainly is the opportunity in the proximity talks that we’re having and other contacts that we have to clarify and identify the foundation upon which the direct negotiations could pursue. So, is the opportunity to have dialogue on these issues leading up to direct negotiations, of course. But ultimately, in order to address the concerns that we know that both parties have – refugees, security, Jerusalem, borders – those are going to be resolved in the direct negotiations themselves.

QUESTION: Does the United States have a map per se that it is ready – that it might be ready to put forward?

MR. CROWLEY: We will play a constructive role, but ultimately this is something that the parties themselves have to resolve”.

The full transcript of their remarks is posted here.

According to Haaretz, Erekat also said in the interview that: “Our position is that the key to direct negotiations is in the hand of Mr. Netanyahu … The minute he stops settlement activities including natural growth in Jerusalem, the minute he agrees to go to permanent status talks, where we left them in December 2008, we’ll have direct talks … The Israelis have a choice, settlements or peace. They can’t have both”. These remarks are reported here.

The last time we heard about an Obama call to Abu Mazen was on the day after Obama’s inauguration — and his call to Abu Mazen then was his first to a foreign leader after taking office.

Apparently, U.S. Special Middle East envoy will be back in the region soon [either for a sixth round of indirect or "proximity" talks that started in May, or perhaps to transition into the direct mode which is, and always was, inevitable].

How do we know about this? Haaretz wrote that “Abbas’ spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh told the Palestinian news agency WAFA following the phone conversation that Abbas expressed his commitment to a serious peace process that would ‘end the occupation’ and result in an independent Palestinian state”. This report can be read in full ,strong>here].

This is posted here.