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.

Exclusive: A Turkish "Vacation", a US Envoy, and an Israel-Syria Settlement

What could Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's vacation and the Obama strategy on the Middle East have in common?

Quite a lot.

Erdogan, after an intense workload from a showdown with Israel to success in Turkish elections, has decided that a three-day holiday in Hataywith his family is what the doctor has ordered.

That is, if Erdogan's doctor had a second degree in Politics. The two cities where the Prime Minister is relaxing, Antalya and Balikesir, were lost to opposition parties, as was Hatay, the only city with a coast on the Mediterranean.

And maybe that doctor's third degree is in Middle Eastern Politics. Hatay isn't exactly the top choice for a VIP holiday; instead, Erdogan may have noticed that the city is on the Syrian border.

However, where Hatay has been the site of Turkish-Syrian disputes in the past, today it may be the pretext for Erdogan to meet new friends in Damascus. For months up to December 2008, the Turkish Prime Minister was working with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to arrange direct Israel-Syria talks. And, while the Gaza War was a pretty serious inconvenience to those plans, Assad's recent meeting with US envoys and signals from Damascus indicate that Syria is ready to enter negotiations with Tel Aviv.

Which is where the US, or to be precise, Obama envoy George Mitchell enters the picture. Mitchell is not one to take holidays, but it just so happens he will be arriving in the Middle East on Monday. His first stop? A visit with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Mitchell faces a tough task getting Netanyahu to agree, at least in the short-term, to talks on a two-state solution with Palestine. Pushing the Israeli Prime Minister towards discussions with the existing state of Syria would be a most welcome alternative.

A five-star vacation? Not exactly. Five-star diplomacy? Definitely.

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.

Petraeus v. Obama (Part 158): Israel and Iran

There was a bit of a media rumble this week over an interview that the new Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, gave Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. Netanyahu made it quite clear that he held open the option of an airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilties.

This is not dramatic news. Tel Aviv has been shaking an aerial fist at Tehran for years, but a unilateral Israeli operation, even if technically possible, risks an Iranian political and military response --- and reaction from other countries and groups --- throughout and beyond the Middle East.

So, at the least, Israel needs the US to cover its back. And the Bush Administration, despite all its pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian sympathies, refused such support in summer 2008.

This is where America's other President, General David Petraeus, enters the scene. Even as the Obama Administration has been pursuing engagement with Iran, Petraeus --- both directly and through acolytes --- has been loudly talking about Iranian support for insurgent operations against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Wednesday, the General went a step further. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “The Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it.”

This may not be an outright endorsement of a Tel Aviv strike, but it is comfortably close to acceptance of an operation. Petraeus didn't risk the usual (unsupported) pretext that Iran is close to a Bomb; instead, he stretched justification to “Iranian officials have consistently failed to provide the assurances and transparency necessary for international acceptance and verification”.

You could try out the explanation that the Obama Administration is playing "good cop, bad cop" with Tehran; on Tuesday, envoy Richard Holbrooke signals co-operation at The Hague conference on Afghanistan, 24 hours later Petraeus warns of consequences if Iran doesn't accept the extended hand.

That, however, is a fool's approach. The most casual observer could tell you that Iran does not react kindly to blatant pressure. And the consequences of Tehran walking away from talks in the face of Petraeus' threats, given the American position in Afghanistan, are far greater than they were in 2003 when the Bush Administration pulled a similar stunt.

No, the latest Petraeus intervention is as much a response to his President as it is to Tehran.

The General has a previous record on this issue. In 2007, he was serving under the then head of Central Command, William Fallon. The two men didn't see eye-to-eye: a year later, Fallon was gone with Petraeus on his way to succeeding him.

The standard narrative, for those who noted the battle, was that Petraeus had to get his Iraq "surge" past a resistant Fallon. That is certainly true, but more broadly, to deal with regional issues, Fallon advocated a strategy of engaging Iran rather than isolating it. That was also opposed by Petraeus.

Move forward two years. After the muddle in US policy, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clumsily trying to press Iran via the spectre of conflict with Arab states, Washington settles on the possibilities of a step-by-step engagement.

Who doesn't like that?

Israel. And President Obama's most prominent military commander.