Israel and Mitchell-Netanyahu: No Agreement Yet "Good"

Israel-Palestine: After Mitchell Meeting, Netanyahu Presses His Advantage
Israel-Palestine: Fayyad Puts Invitation to Israel within a “Palestinian State”

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

The four-hour meeting between President Obama's envoy George Mitchell and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ended. Predictably, there has been no agreement on the settlement issue. However, the joint statement put out by both sides characterized the meeting as “good” and added: “Both sides [Israelis and Palestinians] need to take practical steps towards furthering the peace."

After Monday’s meeting between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Netanyahu, in which the latter said the settlement issue could be resolved through negotiations but the Palestinian refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state is a major obstacle, today’s “good” meeting is a more hopeful sign. It was agreed that representatives from Netanyahu’s office will go to the U.S. for further discussions with Mitchell’s staff.

The Cable blog adds:

Several Washington Middle East hands believe the parties are close to an agreement on resuming Middle East peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel and Syria, and on resuming normal relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors in the fall. The Obama administration is expected to announce its peace plan parameters and a rough timeline for proceeding around the time of the United Nations General Assembly opening session in New York later next month.

Netanyahu is now on his way to Germany, with the situation of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, held in Gaza, and the Iranian issue likely to be high on the agenda of talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Israel-Palestine: Fayyad Puts Invitation to Israel within a "Palestinian State"

Israel and Mitchell-Netanyahu: No Agreement Yet "Good"

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

After Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that there would be no Palestinian state in the next 16 years, Palestinian (West Bank) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad talked to the Times on Tuesday and declared that the Palestinian Authority intends to establish a de-facto state within two years:

We have decided to be proactive, to expedite the end of the occupation by working very hard to build positive facts on the ground, consistent with having our state emerge as a fact that cannot be ignored. This is our agenda, and we want to pursue it doggedly.

Fayyad added that if a functioning de facto state existed — with or without Israeli co-operation — including competent security forces, functioning public services and a thriving economy, it would force Israel to put its cards on the table as to whether it was serious about ending the 42-year occupation of the West Bank.

Yet this is far from a declaration of resistance to the current Israeli line. Fayyad's reference to "security forces" indicates he is ready for a de-militarized West Bank, and “a thriving economy” implies a blank cheque for Israeli investment and a welcome for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s economic improvement plan.

Fayyad also said that the days of mutual recriminations were over and that both sides must commit to the 2003 “road map” whereby Israel would implement a comprehensive settlement freeze and the Palestinians would curb the activities of militant groups. In effect, this was a guarantee that there will be no terrorist action by Fatah.

The touchstone issue of division is Israel's continuing construction of 2,500 housing units in the West Bank, which Fayyad said it was vital to stop. Given the Palestinian Prime Minister's willingness to give ground in other areas, will Tel Aviv finally give a concession on settlements so talks can resume?

When Democracies Fight: Israel and Sweden, Round 2

Israel and Sweden: When Democracies Fight

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Last weekend, we wrote about an article in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet by Donald Bostrom, calling for an investigation into numerous claims in the 1990s that Israeli soldiers stole the organs of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and the furious response from Israeli diplomatic circles. Although the Swedish Embassy in Israel distanced itself from the report, the Swedish government. Stockholm refused to condemn the article, saying briefly that Sweden has a “free press".

Israel has maintained its criticism. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz claimed:

This is an anti-Semitic blood libel against the Jewish people and the Jewish state. The Swedish government cannot remain apathetic… We know the origins of these claims. In medieval times, there were claims that the Jews use the blood of Christians to bake their Matzas for Passover. The modern version now is that the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers use organs of Palestinian to take money.

Then, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman compared today’s Sweden with the country of the 1940s, telling Sweden’s ambassador on Thursday evening:

It's a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry fails to intervene in a case of blood libels against Jews… This is reminiscent of Sweden's stand during World War II, when [it] had failed to intervene as well.

Predictably, politics is now on the streets, with thousands of Israelis signing an online petition to boycott the Swedish furniture retailer IKEA.

What should not be forgotten, as we noted in the earlier article, is that this dispute overlays diplomatic frictions over Israel's policy toward Palestine and possible political advantage in displacing that issue. So expect the rhetorical battle between neo-Holocaust scenarios, in which the Israeli military is victimised,  and the claims of freedom of the press to continue for some time.

Netanyahu in London: Will Israel Make Any Move on Settlements and Jerusalem?

Israel and Lebanon: Tensions at Boiling Point?
Saturday Debate: Prosperity or Invasion in the West Bank?
Boiling Point for US-Israeli Relations: The Warning to Israel from Within

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



UPDATE 1730 GMT: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has said today that Israel and the United States are nearing a compromise that would allow for the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians and as well as "normal life" for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

However, Netanyahu held firm on his stance that Israel will not limit Jewish construction in East Jerusalem. "The settlers need kindergartens and homes for their families," adding that this does not mean that this would necessitate expropriating more land in the West Bank.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in London, scheduled to meet his British counterpart Gordon Brown on Tuesday and President Obama's envoy George Mitchell on Wednesday before seeing German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday.

In Netanyahu’s meetings with Brown and Merkel, the top issue is expected to be Tel Aviv’s demands on the European Union to strengthen sanctions against Tehran. On Sunday, before Netanyahu left Israel, he phoned French President Nicholas Sarkozy with that message.

Undoubtedly, Netanyahu’s most challenging discussion will be held with Mitchell, notably on the current situation with regards to the settlement freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Netanyahu Government has accepted a maximum six-month freeze in the West Bank, but the Obama Administration is insisting on a freeze for a year both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Jerusalem Post reports that a senior Israeli official said, before Netanyahu’s flight to London, that Israel would not accept any limitations on its sovereignty in “the capital". Netanyahu would insist on “the continuation of normal life in the settlements”, which has already replaced the rhetoric of “the natural growth in the settlements” used by Israeli officials.

It is still a mystery whether Tel Aviv will be willing to give more concessions on the timetable but, even if it does, Netanyahu has already established the ground of resistance in case of a demand to divide Jerusalem into two section as a precondition for a two-state solution. Netanyahu told his Cabinet on Sunday that "the discussions with Mitchell were just the beginning of a series of talks and exchanges that had been going on intensively recently, and in good spirits". He continued: “There is a wish to hold direct talks between us and the Palestinians, even though this depends on the understandings with the Americans and the Palestinians."

The US State Department said on Monday that Mitchell was getting closer to winning agreement from the Israelis and Palestinians to resume peace talks, but Ha'aretz reports, from a political source in Jerusalem, that a compromise of 9-12 months on construction in the West Bank would not include East Jerusalem or most of the 2,500 housing units whose construction had already commenced. On Sunday, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told reporters:

In the 16 years since the Oslo Accords, we haven't managed to bring peace to the region, and I'm willing to bet that there won't be peace in another 16 years, either. Certainly not on the basis of the two-state solution… The establishment of a Palestinian state within two years is an unrealistic goal… There are some who believe this is possible, and I do not want to interfere. I am ready to grant time so that there will be another effort to reach a Palestinian state, but I will not take on tasks that I do not believe in.

So, as Netanyahu prepares for his meeting tomorrow with Mitchell, there is the immediate question of whether Israel will offer a settlement freeze in the West Bank for 12 months to avoid the same demand on construction in East Jerusalem. But that in turn opens up the bigger question: is there any Israeli intent to pursue a resolution of Jerusalem's status as part of a two-state solution?

Israel and Lebanon: The Boiling Point

Netanyahu in London: Will Israel Make Any Move on Settlements and Jerusalem?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Relations between Tel Aviv and Beirut are reaching a boiling point. After weeks in a battle of words, Israeli President Shimon Peres claimed to Kuwaiti al-Rai that Hezbollah had stockpiled 80,000 weapons, three times more than its munitions before the Second Lebanon War of 2006. He continued:

Hizbullah is working for its own interests and will always find a pretext to continue its policy against Israel, even if the IDF withdraws from Sheba Farms and the Lebanese Ghajar village.

Peres said Lebanon had "become the Iran of the region" rather than the "Switzerland of the Orient."

On Sunday, Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh told The Daily Star that Beirut would never negotiate with Israel over the return of captured land and that Lebanon would be the last Arab state to sign a peace treaty concerning Jerusalem. He said:

There will be neither direct nor indirect negotiations with Israel. Israel  should have withdrawn [from captured territory] from the first minute of Resolution 1701….They should implement all UN resolutions.

On the specific allegation, Salloukh said, “I don't know how he counted these rockets. Let them [Israel] give us a list showing who the source is and how they identify these rockets. [Peres] imagines too much.”

Although Salloukh is not speaking on behalf of Hezbollah, his words reflect a coalition position which includes the group. Indeed, the Lebanese Government may be mirroring the Israeli tactic to “create a situation on the ground that will render such a solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible while paying lip-service to the two-state solution.” Despite the tension, it is not only Tel Aviv that might prefer this to a settlement.