Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (left) and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu | Photo credit: Moshe Milner, GPO

When Environmental Protection Minister Amir Peretz (Hatnuah) was a child, his mother, Rahma, would often head to the open-air market in Gaza to do some shopping. One summer day, instead of coming back home with a basket of groceries, Rahma returned to her house in Sderot with a truck full of painted floor tiles. Within a week, the entire house had been retiled. A few years later, after his mother had passed away, Peretz made a trip to his native Morocco, the country from which he made aliya when he was five years old. Upon arriving at his parents’ old home, he rang the doorbell and walked inside. To his amazement, he discovered that the tiling in the house was the exact same design as the samples that his mother brought home from Gaza.

Will we ever go back to the open-air markets of Gaza? Or will that experience remain solely in the memory banks of the older generations? Peretz asked those questions this week, smiling whimsically at the thought. Yet although he is the most dovish member of the government, his eyes give him away as a man who has resigned himself to the fact that peace will not break out here. The most that can be hoped for is “an honorable divorce,” as Finance Minister Yair Lapid put it.

Peretz wonders whether a Palestinian state that arises will encompass just Judea and Samaria. Or will it also include Hamastan in the Gaza Strip? Does the Israeli government have a view on this issue? This difficult question, which is obviously one of many that will be tackled during the discussions in Washington between Israel and the Palestinians, will have to be addressed by the leaders. Then it will be presented to the respective peoples in a referendum that would take place at the end of the process.

Peretz believes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “evolved from a stage where he was interested in managing the conflict to one where he is interested in solving it.” A number of other senior ministers share this assessment, chief among them Science and Technology Minister Yaakov Peri of Yesh Atid.

For his part, Netanyahu used the occasion of a special cabinet meeting at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center to persuade the public of the sincerity of his intentions. At the session, which marked the centennial anniversary of the birth of the legendary Likud leader and late prime minister, Netanyahu said that the challenge that motivated him was two-fold. First, he wanted to prevent the reality of a binational state from taking hold between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Secondly, he wanted to prevent the establishment of an Iranian-backed terrorist state on that same swath of land. He spoke of the concessions that the Palestinians needed to make, while reminding everyone that to this day the party that has consistently refused peace has been the Palestinians.

A Final Status Deal, Not an Interim Deal

The central issue in these negotiations is the border. It is the issue which will serve as a litmus test indicating the readiness of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to make concessions. Israel’s position is clear: there will be no return to the ’67 lines; the settlement blocs will remain in Israeli hands, as will Jerusalem, along with demilitarized areas that are needed to ensure security.

In previous negotiations with the Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, Abbas already pocketed all of the territories along the 1967 lines, with territorial swaps equaling approximately two percent. Netanyahu’s starting point will be entirely different, hence there is an expectation that Abbas will compromise.

It is clear to everyone that any agreement will entail the evacuation of settlements. The word pair “painful decisions” was employed this past week by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the premier himself, and some of his ministers. The key question will be how many tens of thousands of residents will need to be evicted? And when will the evacuation take place?

The negotiations are expected to begin this week in Washington. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and the prime minister’s personal envoy, Yitzhak Molcho, will sit down with Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. Each side will present its demands. Then the Americans will have to figure out how to address these demands so as to enable the negotiations to continue. Ultimately, when the gaps are made apparent, proposals will be made for compromises. One essential question where disagreement is inevitable and where neither side is willing to compromise is the future status of Jerusalem.

When Abbas met with Kerry in Ramallah, a large picture of Al-Aqsa mosque hung against the wall behind them. Netanyahu is the one who coined the term “the rock of our existence” when discussing the Temple Mount. What happens when agreement can’t be reached on the issue of Jerusalem? Some assessments predict that both sides will opt for an interim agreement.

If there is agreement on the borders, security arrangements, economic issues, movement of Palestinians, and other issues, but there is no agreement regarding Jerusalem or the refugees, then it will be possible to reach a partial deal.

“Actually, it won’t,” says a source close to the prime minister. Netanyahu has repeated his stance that his goal is to seal a final status agreement, a position that was endorsed by Kerry. Netanyahu knows that there is a steep price to pay for such an agreement, but it would be unfair if it weren’t for a final status arrangement that would stipulate “an end to the conflict and an end to all claims.”

It makes little sense to focus solely on the Israeli side. Much will depend on the mediating abilities of the Americans. Can Kerry create the sense among all parties that they received more than what they could get? Could he have them believe that they won?

“Obviously Netanyahu has the desire to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” a Likud minister said this week. “Netanyahu has reached the conclusion that he wants to leave behind a historic decision, one that will change the reality on the ground, and not one that will just improve the status quo, like the building of the fence along the Egyptian border. Any reasonable agreement that Netanyahu brings will not be rejected by the government, the Knesset, or the public. The only question is how steep a price Netanyahu is willing to pay for an agreement. The Palestinians want 100 percent, while Netanyahu is willing to pay just 60 percent of what they’re asking.”

Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the 1993 Oslo Accords, also agrees with this thinking. Beilin recently joined a number of leading left-wing figures in the auditorium of the Tel Aviv Museum to celebrate the release of Ron Pundak’s new book, “Secret Channel: Oslo.”

“Netanyahu really does want peace, but he’s not willing to pay the price for peace,” Beilin said.

On the other hand, there are those who argue that with Iran intensifying its involvement in Syria and Lebanon, this is not the time to create yet another unstable country in the region. Energy and Water Resources Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beytenu) is convinced that any agreement should be years down the line. Landau’s boss, Yisrael Beytenu Chairman MK Avigdor Lieberman, as chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, has met with his counterpart in the European parliament, Elmar Brok. After Lieberman noted that Brok “is one of the good guys,” namely a friend of Israel, he felt free to unleash his thoughts.

“The conduct of you, the Europeans, stems from a basic lack of understanding, perhaps even an anti-Israel obsession,” the former foreign minister said.

“The European Union is applying massive pressure on Israel while ignoring the fact that during the rule of more ‘dovish’ governments that were willing to make far-reaching steps toward peace, the Palestinians refused,” Lieberman said. “If I were the foreign minister, I would order my diplomats to cease all discussions with the EU as they relate to the negotiations.”

“To think that it is possible to reach a permanent status agreement in light of everything that is happening in the region is akin to thinking that one could lay the foundations of a new building during an earthquake,” he said.

It’s important to listen to what Lieberman is saying, because it is Lieberman who determines which way his ministers will vote.

The Prisoner Question

On Sunday, the government is expected to give its approval for the start of negotiations. It will also resolve that any diplomatic agreement is to be brought before a referendum. The government will also approve the formation of a special ministerial committee to rubber stamp the release of 85 terrorists who were jailed prior to the Oslo Accords. The release will take place after the UN General Assembly this coming September, and only after it becomes clear that Abbas will not seek recognition of a Palestinian state there.

Netanyahu can satisfactorily boast to his ministers of a number of achievements attained in agreeing to return to negotiations. These are achievements that can be personally attributed to the premier in his dealings with the Americans, the Europeans, and the Quartet. Netanyahu is to be credited for standing firm and holding back the diplomatic onslaught that followed in the wake of the negotiations held by Olmert.

Both sides have agreed that the negotiations would be lengthy. This way, Abbas will not be tempted to run away in the middle whilst pointing the finger at Israel. The Palestinians will not appeal to the UN nor will they take unilateral steps. In addition, there is no freeze on construction. What is also significant is that the Arab League has agreed to support the renewal of talks. All of this, however, comes with a price – the release of terrorist murderers.

Government ministers argue that the release does not impact Israel from a strategic or a defense standpoint. The terrorists who will be released were serving sentences of life imprisonment for murder. The number of prisoners set to be freed stands at 85. This is a painful topic, but officials in the Prime Minister’s Office believe that public opinion can be assuaged through statistics. According to their figures, Israel has freed 6,912 terrorists between 1993 and 1999. It freed thousands more between 2003 and 2008 as part of various “gestures.”

Almagor, an advocacy group for bereaved families, arranged a phone campaign by the relatives of terrorism victims to government ministers. They requested that the ministers meet with them to allow them to try to persuade them, with their own personal stories, to vote against the prisoners’ release. The bereaved families are taking their cue from Gilad Schalit’s parents and the manner in which they enlisted public opinion in their favor.

None of the ministers thought it right to meet them. Just two of the ministers, Uzi Landau and Meir Cohen (Yesh Atid), encouraged them by vowing to vote nay. The other ministers said they “are familiar with the topic.” In conversations with ministers, all of them emphasize the fact that there is no strategic problem in releasing terrorists, but they would rather ignore any questions regarding the moral implications of their release.

Another question that is keeping the ministers awake at night is whether the released terrorists will be banished to the Gaza Strip or permitted back to their homes in Judea and Samaria. Will the images of murderous terrorists whose release will be celebrated in the town squares of Ramallah with Abbas’ participation help or hurt the negotiations? In years past, when Abbas took part in such celebrations while praising murderers as freedom fighters, Netanyahu looked upon this as an attempt to derail talks. This time, will it just be a fit of turbulence?