David M. Weinberg, Director of Public Affairs for the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, has published an extraordinarily perceptive analysis of the current “peace process” — BESA Perspective Paper No. 40, “Shelve the Shelf Agreement.” Here is the Executive Summary:
The newfangled "shelf agreement" concept which now serves as the basis for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is unworkable. The concept has no foundation in negotiation theory, especially in the history of Arab-Israeli negotiations.
It incautiously assumes best case scenarios regarding the Palestinians which have no basis in reality; when in fact a durable "final status" agreement must anticipate all worst case scenarios. Furthermore, the historical record shows that even if Israel and the PA were to agree on a grand "endgame agreement," the Palestinians would proceed to bargain with Israel for additional concessions as the price of implementation.
Moreover, Israel inevitably would be forced to forgive the Palestinians on the needed governmental and security reforms even as the PA unilaterally proclaims statehood. Finally, the two-state paradigm on which the "shelf agreement" concept rests seems an anachronism in the wake of the Islamic takeover of Gaza.
Thus, shelf agreement theory is strategically illogical and tactically ill-considered. A performance-based peace process remains the only sustainable model towards a durable final settlement.
Here is just one example of Weinberg’s analysis:
[H]ow can Israel, for example, sign a sustainable endgame shelf agreement with workable border crossing arrangements if it does not know the character or capabilities of the future Palestinian entity – and all it can do is assume the "nice" qualities of such?
The type of Israel army-police presence needed at the border checkpoints depends on the reliability and capabilities of the Palestinian partner. Since the shelf agreement approach throws the requirement for Palestinian reform and performance into the amorphous future, Israel has no way of professionally knowing now how to calibrate its minimum security needs on the borders.
To simply assume – as the current negotiations do – that the planned Palestinian state will have outstanding, professional, loyal and determined anti-terror fighting convictions, is to flirt with folly.
This is just one example. There are hundreds of similar matters that currently cannot be assessed, because Israel is negotiating against itself in a vacuum with a phantom Palestinian partner. Israel is seeking to will into existence a "moderate, stable, capable and democratic" Palestinian government – that does not yet have a foothold even in the in West Bank, not to mention Gaza.
Weinberg’s paper conclusively demonstrates that the Rice/Livni “peace process” is a substantive and procedural disaster — even if (perhaps especially if) it “succeeds.”
Tomorrow Rice travels to Israel for her 14th trip since October 2006 to push Israel into a final status agreement with an entity unable to fulfill even the agreements it has already made.
(Hat tip: Richard Baehr).
