Israel-Palestine Opinion: Hamas, Northern Ireland, and US Diplomacy (Abunimah)

Abu Abunimah writes in The New York Times:

George J. Mitchell, the United States Middle East envoy, tried to counter low expectations for renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations by harking back to his experience as a mediator in Northern Ireland.

At an Aug. 20 news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, announcing the talks that will begin this week, Mr. Mitchell reminded journalists that during difficult negotiations in Northern Ireland, “We had about 700 days of failure and one day of success” — the day in 1998 that the Belfast Agreement instituting power-sharing between pro-British unionists and Irish nationalists was signed.

Israel-Palestine: The Hamas Factor (Yenidunya)

Mr. Mitchell’s comparison is misleading at best. Success in the Irish talks was the result not just of determination and time, but also a very different United States approach to diplomacy.

The conflict in Northern Ireland had been intractable for decades. Unionists backed by the British government saw any political compromise with Irish nationalists as a danger, one that would lead to a united Ireland in which a Catholic majority would dominate minority Protestant unionists. The British government also refused to deal with the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein, despite its significant electoral mandate, because of its close ties to the Irish Republican Army, which had carried out violent acts in the United Kingdom.

A parallel can be seen with the American refusal to speak to the Palestinian party Hamas, which decisively won elections in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006. Asked what role Hamas would have in the renewed talks, Mr. Mitchell answered with one word: “None.” No serious analyst believes that peace can be made between Palestinians and Israelis without Hamas on board, any more than could have been the case in Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein and the I.R.A.

The United States insists that Hamas meet strict preconditions before it can take part in negotiations: recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by agreements previously signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, of which Hamas is not a member. These demands are unworkable. Why should Hamas or any Palestinian accept Israel’s political demands, like recognition, when Israel refuses to recognize basic Palestinian demands like the right of return for refugees?...

Read full article....

Israel-Palestine Analysis: What is Washington's Strategy on Settlements and Talks?

On Monday, reminded about the statement by Palestinian representatives that they would walk away if the settlement freeze was not extended in the West Bank, U.S. State Department Spokesman P. J. Crowley said:

Well, first of all, we look forward to the first meeting next week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Abbas, and Secretary Clinton here on September 2^nd as well as the individual meetings and dinner that President Obama will host at the White House on September 1^st. We look forward to getting into the direct negotiation and then we believe that once that negotiation starts, it’ll be incumbent upon both the Israelis and Palestinians to avoid steps that can complicate that negotiation.

Middle East Inside Line: Hezbollah’s “Evidence” on Hariri Assassination; A Nuclear Reactor in Lebanon?
Palestine-Israel Analysis: Ramallah’s “One Month Trial” and Netanyahu’s “Security Card”

Then, asked whether Washington was worried that the Israelis had not committed to extend that moratorium, Crowley implicitly revealed the Obama Administration's expectations:

No. As we’ve been saying throughout this process, our focus has been to get the parties into direct negotiations and once in the direct negotiations, then these very issues will be tabled and resolved.

On Tuesday, Crowley was asked whether the US had reached an understanding with Israelis that there would be no announcement that the settlement freeze would continue but some construction, possibly in large settlement blocks, would continue. Crowley did not deny but reiterated Washington's classic statement: "Well, we look forward to the meetings next week."

In contrast, a senior administration official briefing reporters in Jerusalem said that the US position had not changed,and that Washington “doesn’t accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”. The official also said there were no “clandestine” understandings with either side.

On Wednesday, two US officials --- Daniel Shapiro, a top National Security Council staffer handling Israel and neighbouring countries, and David Hale, deputy to special Mideast envoy George Mitchell --- are going to the region to talk separatelywith Palestinians and Israelis.

Washington's message is clear to both sides: No provocative actions until 2 September and the start of the directly. The second strategy is to urge the Israeli government for a partial, if not a full, settlement freeze in the West Bank. Still, the question remains: beyond the refugee and status of East Jerusalem issues, how is the US going to persuade Ramallah to accept a peace plan likely to be linked to Israel's "sensitive" security concerns, even if it is based on 1967-War borders(even not mentioning the refugee and the status of East Jerusalem problems)?

UPDATED Israel-Palestine: US Invites Both Sides to Direct Talks on 2 September

UPDATE 1600 GMT: Sherine Tadros of Al Jazeera English reports that the Palestinian Authority has accepted the invitation.

After 24 hours priming the press, the Obama Administration --- through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell --- has formally invited the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to Washington on 2 September on direct talks.

Clinton, addressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, stated, "There have been difficulties in the past, there will be difficulties ahead....I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even through difficult times and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region."

Gaza Latest (20 August): Aid Ship Mariam to Sail on Sunday?, UN Report on Gaza Restrictions, & Hamas v. Fatah
Gaza: UN Releases Report on War “No Judgement”
Turkey’s Israel “Problem”: Analysing the Supposed Threat from Washington (Yenidunya)

Netanyahu has already welcomed the invitation.

Clinton said Obama will have bilateral meetings with Netanyahu, Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and Jordan's King Abdullah on 1 September 1 before a dinner with all  of them. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the representative of the Middle East Quartet (US, UN, European Union, Russia), will also be present at the launch.

The US Government has not mentioned any preconditions on the talks, such as a continued moratorium on expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and a halt to construction in East Jerusalem. Hamas and the political leadership in Gaza have not been invited to the discussions.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: Washington's New Push for an Agreement

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has said that he is ready for direct negotiations with Israel if specific conditions --- a total halt to settlement building in the West Bank and an acceptance of an independent Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders --- are met. As a sign of "cooperation", his political advisor Nimar Hamad stated that the PA is not opposed to the deployment of a NATO force, including Israeli soldiers, along the borders of a Palestinian state under a peace agreement.

Meanwhile, Washington has sent special envoy George Mitchell back to the region. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Mitchell had separate talks with Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mitchell brought a proposal based on a March statement of the Quartet (US, Britain, United Nations, Russia) and a “defined timeline” and agenda for talks.

The Quartet statement asserted that negotiations should lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties within 24 months, ending the occupation that began in 1967 and resulting in an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours. The Quartet urged Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, and to dismantle West Bank outposts erected since March 2001, and it underlined that the international community does not recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.

In his meeting with Israel's Netanyahu, Mitchell said that Abbas was ready to enter direct talks immediately if Israel accepted this offer. (Haaretz reports that Washington had rejected two earlier proposals put forth by Abbas.)

Netanyahu's answer? A firm "No". An anonymous Israeli official said:

The Palestinians have been raising different preconditions. As time goes on they have talked about a settlement freeze, then about Jerusalem as a precondition, about continuing where [former prime minister Ehud] Olmert left off, about accepting the ‘67 borders and now they are talking about the Quartet statement. If they want to look for excuses, they can find them. Let us move to direct talks.

On Friday, Netanyahu's office also released a statement denying a report from London-based newspaper Al-Hayat, that said that Israel would evacuate 90% of the territory and 50,000 settlers in the West Bank. The Prime Minister's officials said the claim is a lie.

After Mitchell's failure, Washington increased its pressure. US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said on Wednesday that the Quartet was likely to issue a statement of support for the talks in the coming day.

Israel-Palestine: A Secret Deal to Start Direct Talks?

On Friday, talking to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked for an extension of the settlement freeze and its application in east Jerusalem. Barak responded with a statement that went far beyond the request:

We are hoping to to start direct negotiations with the Palestinians soon, in order to move forward with an agreement which will be based on two nations for two peoples. The negotiations will not be simple, and courageous decisions will be required on our part and the Palestinians. I hope everyone understands that both sides will need to make difficult decisions to establish historic peace in the region. We will need the help of the UN to go forward with the negotiations.

Middle East Inside Line: Rockets Hit Eilat, Iran Responds to “US War Plan”, US $ for Israel Missile Defence

On Saturday, Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat denied reports in the Arab media  that the Obama aministration had threatened sanctions against the PA --- perhaps even the severing of ties --- if PA leader Mahmoud Abbas did not agree to enter direct talks with Israel. Then he talked about a peace proposal, even "more generous" than the one offered to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Erekat said:

I presented Senator George Mitchell with a series of official document. We gave him maps and papers that clearly state our positions on all the final-status issues: borders, Jerusalem, refugees, water and security. Thus far we have not received any answer from the Israeli side.

(Note: Erekat has stated that the PA offered Olmert a swap that would let Israel annex 1.9% of the West Bank in exchange for return to Palestine of Israeli settlements covering 1% of the territory.)

On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had not received any Palestinian peace programme but he announced that direct negotiations with the Palestinians will begin by the middle of August.

What does all this mean? How can the Israeli Prime Minister be so confident to announce the advent of direct talks while rejecting any proposal from the Palestinians? Has Netanyahu made a concession both on the status of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, in response to a Palestinian concession on the percentage of West Bank land to be swapped?

Indeed, has Netanyahu given consent to gestures such as the transfer of some towns to the West Bank, transfer of some areas to the PA authority, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the extension of the settlement freeze in the West Bank along with a freeze in East Jerusalem?