Israel: A Rabbi's War on Palestinians (Yenidunya)

Last week, the leader of Israel's Shas ultra-orthodox religious party reiterated his position that there should be no extension of moratorium on settlement construction when it ends on 26 September.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's provocative words fell like a bombshell on Sunday. Army Radio reported that Yosef calling for Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas to "perish from this world". Yosef said Palestinians were "evil, bitter enemies of Israel":

Gaza Latest: Cairo Intercepts Missiles, Mossad’s Flotilla Testimony, and Hamas on Direct Talks

God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians. It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat denounced Yosef's remarks and claimed these statements advocated genocide of Palestinians. Erekat criticised West Jerusalem's silence:

Is this how the Israeli government prepares its public for a peace agreement? It is an insult to all our efforts to advance the negotiations process.

On the same day, U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley commented:

We regret and condemn the inflammatory statements by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. These remarks are not only deeply offensive, but incitement such as this hurts the cause of peace.

As we move forward to relaunch peace negotiations, it is important that actions by people on all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it.

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)?

US-Israel-Palestine Analysis: Arabs Talk Nuclear-Free Region, but Israel Returns US "Quartet Card"

Arabs' 'Nuclear-Free Region' Insistence: Only three months ago, a nuclear-free Middle East was a stated aim of the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference. It was backed by the US Government. Then President Obama made it clear that his Administration would not question Israel's nuclear programme when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was hosted in the White House.

However, it seems that the Arab nations have not given up chasing Israel's nuclear arsenal. A letter of 8 August, signed by Arab League chief Amr Moussa, asks for support of a resolution that Arab nations will submit to the September assembly of the International Atomic Energy Agency:

Singling out a state assumes that there are a number of states in the same position and only one state was singled out. The fact is that all the states in the region have acceded to the NPT except Israel.

Given the Arab League's "yellow light" for direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis, one wonders if some Arab nations are trying to boost credibility in the region with a sign of pressure on the US and Europe.

Meanwhile, Washington has little interests in talking nukes in West Jerusalem. Having failed to mediate direct talks, let alone a resolution, of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it now appears --- with the political pressure of November's mid-term elections already being felt --- that it may put the Quartet (United States, Russia, European Union, and United Nations) up front until the end of the year.

State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said last Wednesday that the Quartet was likely to issue a statement of support for the talks in the coming day. Then the Quartet was expected to make an announcement regarding the resumption of direct talks on Monday, with US sources saying that the Quartet would call for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders.

This may be a different version of the March statement of the Quartet, in which it was asserted that talks 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.

A  senior American official put on some pressure over the weekend by stating that the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas will announce the start of direct peace negotiations with Israel in only "a matter of days".

However, the dilemma remains that calls for a future Palestinian state based on pre-1967 War do not necessarily touch Israel's expansion of settlements both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And West Jerusalem is not blind to the disticntion: in the latest Cabinet meeting, all ministers except Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor rejected continuing the freeze in the West Bank. It was reported on Sunday that Netanyahu approved construction of 23 new classrooms in various West Bank settlements.

So another US card --- look to the Quartet, at least until mid-November --- played, another card apparently set aside, if not trumped, by Israel.

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.

Lebanon-Israel Update: UN Support for West Jerusalem; Washington's Dilemma over Beirut

On Wednesday, a Lebanese source told the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar that the Lebanese Army was first to open fire in Tuesday's clash with Israel Defense Forces. However, the source also stated that it was their right "to defend Lebanon's sovereignty", implying that Israeli soldiers were on the Lebanese side of the borderline.

Israel, in an official letter of complaint to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, asserted that IDF soldiers did not cross the border. An official with the United Nations peacekeeping force, UNIFIL, later said that the Israeli units were in their territory, and Milos Strugar, UNIFIL's senior political advisor, added that UN deals "with complaints on provocations of Lebanese soldiers against IDF units on a daily basis".

Meanwhile, the US Government finds itself caught between its ally Israel and the need to bolster Saad Hariri's "moderate" government and a Lebanese army which is to be distinguished from Hezbollah militants.

Middle East Inside Line: Israel’s Lebanon Message, Hezbollah’s Response, Livni Challenges Netanyahu

On Tuesday,Washinigton's "we don't want to see this happen again" response was criticised by West Jerusalem as "neutral". The next day, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that the firing by Lebanese armed forces on Israeli troops was "totally unjustified and unwarranted" while calling on both sides to show restraint and urging the United Nations to oversee a calming of the crisis:

We appreciate the work of the United Nations both in the meeting today and creating the cease-fire yesterday. We're going to be working intensively to see that tensions along this border are eased.

However, the Obama Administration might have some friction from Congress over military aid to Lebanon. For 2010, the US approved $100 million in assistance to the Lebanese military, as well as $109 million in economic aid and $20 million in anti-narcotics funds. The amount of aid for 2011 is approximately the same.

Talking to The Jerusalem Post, Florida Representative Ron Klei said "the continued support of the Lebanese Army" will "come up in conversations in the Congress". Klei added:

If in fact it’s factually shown that this was a Lebanese government authorized action, I think a lot of members would be very concerned about continuing to provide military support to Lebanon. I certainly would be.

However, even Klei admitted that hostility to Lebanon might be overtaken by the need to maintain a pro-American government in Beirut: 

It doesn’t mean there’s going to be a certain reduction, because unfortunately for that region it’s the lesser of two evils. We’d much rather work with the army than Hezbollah.