On Sunday, January 2, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
offered to have continuous one-on-one talks with Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas on the “core” issues, including the status
of Jerusalem and final borders, until they are all resolved.
You may recall that the two parties met in September for
three weeks but the talks ended when Mr. Netanyahu refused to
extend the 10-month moratorium on construction in the West Bank
because he could not do so without the support of his Cabinet. If
he had extended the moratorium, his government would have collapsed
and the talks would have ended anyway.
For three weeks in November and December, the Obama
Administration
failed to cajole Mr. Netanyahu, particularly his Cabinet, to
recommence the construction moratorium for a 90-day period with
offers that included fighter jets. In Mr. Netanyahu’s announcement
yesterday, he did not offer to meet Mr. Abbas’ insistence that
Israel recommence the moratorium, but stated his belief that the
parties would know very quickly if they could reach final agreement
on the “core” issues.
Let me suggest the following. Israel should recommence the
moratorium, thereby meeting Mr. Abbas’ condition for commencing
talks. As he did in September, Mr. Abbas would insist that the
moratorium be maintained as a condition for continuing talks. Here
is the new tack by Israel: Israel should declare that it will
maintain the moratorium only for as long as talks continue. The
Palestinians see the moratorium as a condition for talking, while
the Israelis must insist that the talking is a condition for the
moratorium. If the talks stop, the moratorium ceases.
Obviously, the talks may be suspended while the parties
confer internally, or externally with other countries. And the
talks may need to be suspended for reasons of illness, death in the
family, political crises, natural disasters, etc. To accommodate
this need, I would propose that either side could suspend the
face-to-face talks for up to 30 days. Mr. Abbas’ failure to appear
by the 30th day would end the talks and end the construction
moratorium.
To continue the moratorium, Israel would not insist on the
subjective criterion that the talks “show progress.” Meeting
face-to-face would be sufficient and objective. Sure, Mr. Abbas (or
Mr. Netanyahu) could game this situation by meeting face-to-face
but not making progress and not reaching agreement. The burden of
continuing the moratorium, however, would be on Mr. Abbas. He would
have to show up at least once every 30 days.
Mr. Thunder was a member of a small team that
successfully negotiated the 1987 amendments to the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978 between the United States and
Canada.
