The New Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks Framework

It's no news to anyone in the know that the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are intractable only insofar as the parties involved want them to be. That's why the proposed framework in the works for them is such a sharp, double-edged sword.  Here are four of the most salient features of the peace talks' framework, some of which the North American mass media news has touted, others of which you probably haven't heard.

First and foremost is the proposition, being pushed for by Arab supporters of the Palestinians, that a strict time limit be imposed on the talks before they start. The four-month time limit set is dangerously arbitrary, with the ultimatum that the UN Security Council will be the next step if the situation isn't resolved. Hmmm … over fifty years of conflicts in four months, sounds like a winner … If nothing more than a time limit is prompting resolution, is any peace deal reached likely to last?

Secondly, the talks must take place indirectly according to all sides, that is in any way except directly between the Israelis and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (also known as "proximity talks"). The last round of ongoing talks broke down after Israeli incursions into Palestinian territories late in 2008, to the world's diplomatic community's dismay. These wounds are still too fresh to touch, and so indirect or proximity talks can only remain a prelude to others, preferably direct. In the meantime, ministers from surrounding states and abroad will act as go-betweens. Don't say broken telephone.

Thirdly, in news that appeared only in France's Le Monde, Israel has authorized UN head Ban Ki-moon and chief foreign affairs minister of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, to inspect the Gaza strip. Even U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has condemned Israel's continuing settlement building, which has taken place in contravention of existing agreements, and perhaps the Palestinians' single most prominent sticking point. It is unlikely that Ban Ki-moon and Catherine Ashton can do much about them, but bringing them in does add the semblance of renewed global concern. That's done a lot in the past. The U.S.'s Mideast Envoy, George Mitchell, has been deftly executing what is called "shuttle diplomacy" between parties and continents for months.

Perhaps the most surprising feature of the new framework is the US' starting position on the two-state solution, one Isreali, the other Palestinian. "The time is right for peace based on two states - an Israeli state living in peace and security alongside a Palestinian state," Biden said after re-condemning the new building project on the second day of his Mideast trip. He also noted that the negotiations and its outcomes must take the relationships with neighboring states like Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. 

Biden's present trip to the region is turning out to be a roller coaster for the framework of the peace talks. He began the day by affirming the Obama administration's “absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security.” But after a new settlement announcement, he ended the day by saying it “runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel.” Yet going forward with the peace talks based on the framework of the three preceding features is imperative, if only because no better ones are in sight.

Hopefully, being cautiously optimistic as the talks move forward won't breach the border with being unrealistic.

Photo credit: eddiedangerous (Banksy painting on building in the West Bank)