Author: Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

In a similar fashion to skilled negotiators, the list of demands that Mahmoud Abbas submitted as preconditions to renew the peace process with Israel presents a combination of reasonable requests and requests that Israel cannot agree on.

The demand to upgrade the Palestinian cellphone system seems reasonable, but it too has a security consequence to the work of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency).

When the entirety of the demands is observed, it presents a picture of the days before the terror campaign that broke in September 2000, as if two decades have not passed since.

According to the document’s premise, Mahmoud Abbas presumes that the generous offer of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, which he rejected, can be resurrected even though a decade has passed since then.

Throughout all those years major changes have taken place in the Middle East.

In the last decade, with the civil war raging in Syria and Iran’s increased intervention, the plan of Qasem Soleimani to enclose Israel in a ring of fire activated and backed by Iran has come into fruition.

In the developing circumstances, Israel’s need to maintain its sovereignty over the Jordan Valley has become more vital and tangible many times over since Camp David’s negotiating days, in which former Prime Minister Ehud Barak was willing to forego the Jordan Valley and agree to the Clinton outline of Jerusalem’s division.

While in the business world no one would accept a situation in which terms of business deals do not change down the years, Mahoums Abbas’s list of demands displays an understanding that when it comes to negotiating with Israel, the passing years should have no effect.

When considering all the trends that developed in the State of Israel and in the region, the question in regards to Israel’s adherence to the principles displayed by former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in his last Knesset speech on October 5, 1995, becomes clearer.

Rabin put forward 4 principles in his speech:

1. Transferring most Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria over to the rule of the Palestinian Authority, which indeed was executed in the Gaza Strip in May-June 1994 and in Judea and Samaria in January 1996.

2. Unified Jerusalem as Israel capital, in full Israeli sovereignty, including Ma’ale Adumim and Giv’at Ze’ev.

3. The Jordan Valley in its broad definition would be under Israel’s rule.

4. The Palestinian Authority will be an entity that is defined as less than a state.

The trends that took place in half a jubilee since Rabin’s speech clarify the logic to the Israeli demand as Area C, which was marked in critical points personally by Rabin, express the national interests of Israelis in the region. All Israeli settlements are situated in Area C and hold onto territory essential to the State of Israel’s security and its Jewish identity. Mahmoud Abbas’s list of demands aims precisely against this view, which is in fact the view of the Israeli consensus.

Yitzhak Rabin would have in all likelihood dismissed the demand to halt construction in Jerusalem and in the settlements and would have assuredly rejected delivering the Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea to the Palestinian Authority.

Similarly, demands for formal Palestinian presence in East Jerusalem via the Orient House and as well the requested change of Israel’s rule over the Temple Mount would have been rejected.

Israel’s security establishment knows how to explain why it cannot give up operational continuity of IDF forces in the Palestinian cities, required operations in preventing terrorism and even preserving the stability of Mahmoud Abbas’s rule.

In a no less principled manner, it would be proper for the Israeli government to dismiss the request to transfer additional Area C territories to the Palestinian Authority, which are assets that the State of Israel holds in face of future negotiations. It is proper to save them as a bargaining chip in an adequate exchange of value.

Only at this point, the basic disagreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority exists between the State of Israel led by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and the U.S. administration, over the question of whether the State of Israel even has a right to territorial demands in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

The State of Israel, which is becoming denser on the shores of the Mediterranean, needs the open space of the Jordan Valley. This is a basic need for infrastructure, housing and transportation arteries. The State of Israel that would agree to a schematic division of the area into two states based on the 67’ lines would find it difficult to defend itself and to exist from an ecological and infrastructural perspective. In 2050, more than 25 million Israelis and Palestinians are expected to populate the area between the sea and the Jordan River, which will require a joint infrastructural array. This makes the two-state solution dogma an unrealizable ideal.

In this aspect, Mahmoud Abbas’s demands are anchored in the logic of the previous century as if time stood still. Even if parts of the demands can be met, in general, they represent a paradigm from the preceding century. Those who are familiar with the current trends know how much that paradigm is disconnected from reality’s circumstances.

Published originally by broadcaster Channel 12

Photo: Walla! News