Israel's Emerging Statesmen: Avigdor Lieberman and Natan Sharansky

As Enduring America tries to read the foreign policy of the Netanyahu Government in Israel (see Ali Yenidunya's post on the "economic track" of the new Prime Minister), Matt Benyon Rees of Global Post offers profiles of two key figures, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Natan Sharansky, the head of the Jewish Agency for Israel:

Two Israeli politicians to keep an eye on

JERUSALEM — So, there are two eastern European guys, one from Ukraine and the other from Moldova.

One of them is on the short side and is a chess whiz who suffered through a Siberian labor camp for his uncompromising belief in democracy and freedom. Meet Natan Sharansky, who was picked this weekend by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to lead the Jewish Agency for Israel.

The other is a beefy former nightclub bouncer who says nasty things about Arabs and is generally seen as just plain uncompromising. Meet Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who, it’s fair to say, is feared and loathed as a hardliner.

The two men couldn't carry themselves more differently and you don't have to be a longtime observer of Israel to know which one fits in better with the western diplomatic community and is most favored by America.


Trouble is they’re essentially the same guy.

Read rest of article...

Israel-Palestine: Obama Invites Netanyahu, Abbas, Mubarak to US

After yesterday's announcement that President Obama is inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas (pictured) to Washington in May, we now know the US plan for Israel and Palestine in full.

Let's Talk. If Only for the Sake of Talking.

The visit of the Middle East trio to the White House follows last week's set-up discussions by US envoy George Mitchell in the region. After the talks, Obama will probably announce that he will go to Israel and the West Bank in June (a plan we recently revealed on Enduring America).

It is hard to see, however, what the US is achieving so far other than going through the motions. Even before getting to the detail of an Israel-Palestinian settlement, there are two not-so-small obstacles.

The first is the position of the Israeli Government. While Netanyahu went through the diplomatic motions in talking to Mitchell last week, in contrast to the hard-line image of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, he pointedly did not accept the "two-state" formula pushed by the US. The Israeli position --- discussions should be on areas such as economic development and "security" rather than any notion of Palestinian independence --- is still being held.

US officials put out signals that Mitchell pressed Netanyahu to show some flexiblity, and no doubt those signals --- if only for public display --- will be repeated before the May talks. Even so, there  is the second obstacle: the uninvited but very visible presence of Hamas.

Of course, Obama could not countenance a White House welcome for Hamas leaders such as Khaled Meshaal or Gazan Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. What is more important is that there are still no indications of a discreet Washington contact, direct or through third parties, with the organisation. Instead, the US can probably hold to its own line that, as long as the Cairo talks fail to produce "Palestinian unity", the issue of Hamas at the table does not arise.

That means, however, that these are not talks on Israel and Palestine but, at most, on Israel and the West Bank. And it also means that the impression, if not the actual US policy, will be of a political strategy with Israel and Egypt to prop up Abbas --- whose term as President of the West Bank expired on 9 January --- as a "leader" even without significant movement towards a Palestinian state.

Israel-Palestine: What Has Happened to George Mitchell's Talks?

Funny thing about US envoy George Mitchell's latest visit to the Middle East: most of the US and British press didn't take much notice.

Mitchell was in talks yesterday with Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and opposition leader Tzipi Livni. The New York Times decided this was worth one paragraph with the lead sentence:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday skirted calls by George J. Mitchell, President Obama’s envoy to the Middle East, for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demanding prior Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state instead.

The Washington Post relied on an Associated Press summary, "Stark differences between U.S. and Israeli policy toward peace talks with the Palestinians emerged clearly Thursday."

Even those brief mentions, however, raise the question: has Netanyahu effectively blocked Washington's pursuit of substantial Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper, offers a possible answer:

The Obama administration is preparing a Middle East peace process that will include simultaneous bilateral talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and Syria. The plan is based on the Arab peace initiative that offers establishing normal relations between Israel and Arab League states in exchange for withdrawing from the occupied territories and establishing a Palestinian state.

The United States will put together a "security package," including demilitarization of the territories from which Israel will withdraw and the option of stationing a multinational force in them for years.

Frustratingly, Ha'aretz gives no clue to its source, so it is unclear if the information has been leaked by Washington. Even more curiously, the spin on the plan is that "the Obama administration believes that a breakthrough in the peace process between Israel and the Arab states would restrain Tehran's influence and contribute to the diplomatic effort to block Iran's nuclearization". This could be an attempt by an Israeli official to sell the US approach to a domestic audience, or it could be an American attempt to overcome Tel Aviv's opposition by setting out the "Iran-first" framework.

All this speculation and spin, however, may be no more than academic, given the current Israeli position. Palestinian Authority leaders, meeting Mitchell in the West Bank today, made clear, "The U.S. must hold Israel to previous peace commitments and pressure it to accept the principle of Palestinian statehood."

Israel-Palestine: The Dance Resumes as Abbas Calls Netanyahu

So the Palestinian Authority leader and former President of the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas, has called the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu for a "friendly and warm" conversation. According to the Abbas and Netanyahu offices, the Israeli Prime Minister "intends to resume talks and co-operation to promote peace".

All very polite and very insubstantial, even on a slow news day, except for the timing. Tomorrow US envoy George Mitchell sets off for the Middle East, with Israel his first stop. And, as Enduring America noted earlier this week, there will be other discussions in the region such as a move toward Israel-Syria talks.

For all this to look good in public, and thus offer any private hope of advance, Netanyahu has to offer a welcome. He does not have to commit to a "two-state solution", but he does have to distance himself from outspoken Avigdor Lieberman, who has tried to pour cold water on the idea of any negotiations.

So this was a PR phone call, with follow-up press releases. That doesn't mean it is void of significance: those who are sceptical of Abbas, especially after his possible complicity in Israel's Gaza War, will accuse him of fitting in Netanyahu's pocket. Others in the Palestinian Authority, notably Saeb Erekat, will press the demand for recognition of two states.

Take your seats, folks. The dancing and diplomatic juggling --- I won't say "three-ring circus" --- is about to begin.

Obama to Visit Israel, West Bank in June; Showdown with Netanyahu?

Now that President Obama has completed his walk across Europe and Turkey, with a quick stay in Iraq, where does he go next?

Israel and the West Bank.

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports, based on "an announcement circulated among American diplomatic representations in the region", that Obama will visit the area in June, meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, after he sees President Nicolas Sarkozy in France.

Before the President's trip, US envoy George Mitchell --- who has been in the shadows as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her high-profile intervention last month --- will resurface to visit the Middle East from 13 April. Netanyahu will then come to Washington in May.

Interpretation? The Obama Administration is trying to restart discussions based, first and foremost, on the acknowledgement of a two-state Israel-Palestine solution. The signals were there in Obama's speech in Ankara, as he pointed to Turkey as an influence for Israeli discussions with its neighbours, and even in his Town Hall meeting with Turkish students on Monday evening.

The immediate obstacle is the Israeli Cabinet. Netanyahu has resisted talks based on an assumption of a Palestinian state, and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was trying this week to put away the possibility of discussions. Israel is also insisting that the US get very, very tough with Iran before any significant move is made on Palestine.

Indeed, the initial skirmishes in an Obama-Netanyahu battle may have begun. Ha'aretz reports this morning:

In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration is readying for a possible confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by briefing Democratic congressmen on the peace process and the positions of the new government in Israel regarding a two-state solution. The Obama administration is expecting a clash with Netanyahu over his refusal to support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Meanwhile, Israel and Netanyahu's close friend within the George W. Bush Administration, Elliott Abrams, writing in The Washington Post, tries to draw a line in the sand. No concessions, not even a pause in the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank:

Settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity. In fact, the emphasis on a "settlement freeze" draws attention from the progress that's needed to lay the foundation for full Palestinian self-rule -- building a thriving economy, fighting terrorism through reliable security forces and establishing the rule of law.