A couple of interesting stories out on [Jerusalem](http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=252070&R=R1) [Post](http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=252085&R=R1) and [Think Progress](http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/01/03/397066/israeli-palestinian-talks-no-breakthroughs-pledge-to-continue/) about today's Israel-Palestine meetings in Jordan, mediated by King Abdullah and the International Quartet (but also including an hour and a half of direct, unmediated talks, something that hasn't occurred for over a year).  [Washington Post had some details](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-leader-warns-of-new-measures-against-israel-if-peace-meeting-in-jordan-fails/2012/01/03/gIQAfda2XP_story.html): > Tuesday’s meeting was held under the auspices of the “Quartet” of Mideast mediators. The Quartet, consisting of the U.S., European Union, Russia and the United Nations, hopes to broker a final peace agreement by the end of 2012. Judeh said the international community remained committed to that timeline. > During Tuesday’s meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s envoy, Yitzhak Molcho, held several sessions with his Palestinian counterpart, Saeb Erekat. The pair met with the international diplomats and held a separate working meeting of their own. Erekat is the infamous Chief PLO negotiator known most recently for the writings that came out in his name under the auspices of the "[Palestine Papers](http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/doc-search-en?keys=Erekat&field_project_nid=5296&field_documenttype_value_many_to_one=All&field_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Byear%5D=1999&field_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bmonth%5D=1&field_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bday%5D=1&field_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Byear%5D=2014&field_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bmonth%5D=1&field_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bday%5D=31)". I don't know much about [Molcho](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Molcho), other than a [minor role in the Egyptian-Israel prisoner swap](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/10/25/Prisoner-exchange-finalized/UPI-40341319544885/) late 2011. Via The Jerusalem Post, the PLO [gave Israel their positions on borders & security](http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=252070): > A meeting between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators in Jordan ended Tuesday night after the two sides had not met face-to-face for over a year, in which the Palestinians reportedly passed their positions on borders and security to Israel. This is something they presented in accordance with the International Quartet plan to revive the peace process. Israel is also expected to present their proposal on borders & security [as early as next week](http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=252085&R=R1): > Israel and Palestinian negotiators meeting in Amman on Tuesday for the first direct talks in 16 months agreed to continue talking, with another round scheduled in Jordan **next week**, The Jerusalem Post has learned. > Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, who hosted the talks, said at a press conference after the meeting that the Palestinian delegation submitted proposals on border and security issues to Israel, and that the **Israeli team took the proposals and said it would respond and present its ideas in a future meeting**. I already see a problem, however: > One principle that Israel is expected to put forward is the **need for an Israeli security presence along the Jordan River in any agreement**. This is overriding the prior (but failed) agreement between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, [which agreed to an International-US led NATO presence on the Jordanian border](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?pagewanted=all), something that would give Palestinians dignity and sovereignty, but also wouldn't be a pushover by the UN Peacekeepers (NATO forces would have a mandate to actually _do something_). Avishai explains for the New York Times: > Olmert’s security principles were the following: **Palestine would have a strong police force,** “everything needed for law enforcement.” It **would have no army or air force**. The Palestinian border with Jordan, through which missiles and heavy armaments might be smuggled, **would be patrolled by international forces, probably from NATO**. There would be a procedural guarantee that **no foreign army would be able to enter Palestine, and its government would not be permitted to enter into any military agreement with a country that does not recognize Israel**. > **Israel, for its part, would have the right to defend itself beyond the borders of a Palestinian state** — say, against land forces massing on the eastern side of the Jordan River. Israel expected to reserve the right to pursue terrorists across the new borders. **Israel would be allowed access to airspace over Palestine**, and the Israel Defense Forces would have rights to disproportionate use of telecommunications spectrum (though commercial rights would be equalized under international law). > When I spoke with Abbas in Amman, I did not have to refresh his memory about these overarching principles. “**We don’t need a Palestinian army**,” he said emphatically. “**We don’t want an air force or tanks or rockets.**” He insisted that the whole matter had been worked out with Gen. James Jones, who eventually became Obama’s national security adviser. Abbas confirmed that Israel could indeed negotiate special permits regarding Palestinian airspace. > [](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?pagewanted=all) **This will be a show-stopper** if Netanyahu refuses to remove Israeli troops from the Jordanian border in any peace deal. It's a non-negotiable point for Mahmoud Abbas, and I can say with certainty no Palestinian leader, moderate or dove, even like [Sari Nussiebeh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sari_Nusseibeh), would accept an Israeli presence on the border. For Abbas' part, he seems extremely skeptical of the entire process, though supportive: > Speaking to reporters in Ramallah, Abbas said the peace process would not be revived **unless Israel agreed to freeze settlement construction and accepted the pre-1967 lines as the basis for a two-state solution**. > “If Israel does not accept the Palestinian demands, we will take other measures which we cannot detail. These measures could be hard,” he said. > Abbas said that the PA leadership would have to study various options when and if efforts to resume the peace negotiations fail. He pointed out that the Quartet had given Israelis and Palestinians three months to work toward reviving the stalled peace process. **The deadline expires January 26**. > Abbas said the results of Tuesday’s meeting in Amman would appear within a day or two. **He expressed hope that the Jordanians would succeed in achieving a resumption of the direct peace negotiations between the PA and Israel**. > “If the Israelis comply with our demands, we will be prepared to return to the negotiations,” the PA president said. He said that **the PA did not rule out the possibility of land swaps with Israel as part of a two-state solution**. Marwan Barghouti, Fatah strongman in jail indefinitely for his role in the second-Intifada, responded that the whole process is a sham and should be abandoned (similar statements were taken by Hamas' political bureau). Hamas itself is actually split, with the political bureau led by Khaled Meshaal accepting negotiations, but Ismael Haniyeh, the "Prime Minister" of Gaza rejecting them: > [](https://twitter.com/#!/ibishblog/status/153951969487241216) [Hillary Clinton](http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/01/179816.htm) applauded these movements, as did UN Secretary General [Ban Ki-Moon](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-01/04/c_122529517.htm). However, President Shimon Peres (Israel) said the [International process is "doomed"](http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151361#.TwOLPSPLy-d), but expressed optimism that direct talks will resume: > “I believe in direct negotiations. **The International Quartet is not an alternative to that**. Every party in the International Quartet has its own interests and causes. Take Russia, for example…it is standing with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who is slaughtering his own people, although the situation in Syria is a source of concern for both Jordan and Lebanon. President al-Assad, who began his political life as an eye-doctor, is now demonstrating that he is a butcher, whilst our Lebanese ‘friend’ Hassan Nasrallah is serving Iran’s interests.” > On other issues, he predicted, "The Muslim Brotherhood’s attempts to hijack the revolution will not succeed” because Egyptians realize that “switching MPs” will not solve Egypt’s problems. > President Peres also revealed that former Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat once explained that **he broke promises to Israel in order to prevent a civil war among Arabs**. > “He would go back on things we had agreed on,” said the President. “He believed in the use of violence to exert pressure. He would make promises and then go back on his word. When I asked him about this, he answered that he did not want to cause a Palestinian civil war.”
