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.

Hamas Watch: Rockets, Gaza's Power Plant Closed, and A Secret Meeting with Israel?

Rockets and Hamas: On Saturday, London based Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported Hamas official Khaled Mashaal to the Jordanian government, saying that Hamas had nothing to do with rockets fired from Egypt's Sinai Peninsula into Eilat in Israel and Aqaba in Israel on Monday.

Mashaal accused Israel and Egypt of jointly exploiting the rocket attacks to justify a future military operation in the Gaza Strip.

On Thursday, the head of Israel's security agency Shin Bet, Yuval Diskin, was in Cairo for a further exchange of information on the rockets, according to a report by London-based Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat. Egyptian officials told Diskin that the rockets did not originate from their country and assured him that investigations were continuing to find the rocket-launching trucks.

Hamas vs Fatah on Energy: Gaza's only power plant was reportedly closed because of a fuel shortage. 

The plant provides Gaza City and its surroundings with 6 to 10 hours of electricity a day. The rest of the densely-populated territory receives its electricity from Egypt and Israel.

Normally, Hamas collects the bills and officials from the rival party Fatah in Ramallah buy the fuel. Palestinian Authority spokesman Ghassan Khatib says Hamas is not sending enough money, an allegation denied by the Gazan leadership.

Israeli and Hamas Officials Met Secretly?: On Friday, the Israel Defense Forces West Bank division commander, Brig. Gen. Nitzan Alon, warned Israeli settlers to be on alert for possible abduction attempts across the territory, following interrogations of Palestinians arrested on suspicion of involvement in kidnappings.

The IDF said intelligence has shown Hamas leaders in Damascus are pressuring  followers in the West Bank to abduct Israeli settlers and citizens.

Meanwhile, Asharq Al-Awsat quotes Palestinian sources that the former Treasury Minister in Hamas' Gaza administration, Omar Abed al-Razak was taken from Nablus in the West Bank to the Israeli city of Netanya on Tuesday.

In a secret meeting, Israeli officials allegedly warned Hamas against kidnapping settlers in the West Bank. Both sides discussed the recent rocket attacks and the situation of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, detained by Hamas.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: Who Wants A One-State Solution?

Let's ask a very basic question: What is the most likely alternative to the two-state solution? For the Israeli right and the majority of Palestinians settled in the West Bank (according to a poll by the Palestinian Ma'an News Agency), it is a one-state agreement. Based on this data, we can read political motivations behind these preferences.

In an article published in Haaretz, former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens argued that Israel had to break its taboos by granting Israeli citizenships to Palestinians. He said:

We are already a binational state and also a multicultural and multi-sector state. The minorities [meaning Arabs] here make up 20 percent of the population --- that's a fact and you can't argue with facts.

Israel-Palestine: A Secret Deal to Start Direct Talks?
Middle East Inside Line: Rockets Hit Eilat, Iran Responds to “US War Plan”, US $ for Israel Missile Defence

So Palestinians would be granted equal rights, such as the right to vote for a new Knesset. The second generation of Palestinian granted equal rights, if not the first generation, would be enjoy their lives in Jerusalem's telecommunication sectors, on Tel Aviv's beaches (world's 9th best) and in Israel's Hebrew University (which is in the top 100 universities in the world).

Critics from the Israeli "left" contend, however, that while this proposal provides the Palestinians full personal rights, it also envisages a country whose symbols and spirit will remain Jewish: what is sought by the right-wing is a "democratic Jewish Israel". The Palestinian problem would become a domestic issue. Instead of dealing with the Obama Administration, Ramallah's foot-dragging strategies, United Nations' telling offs and "provocative" flotillas, problems related with Palestinians granted Israeli citizenships would turn to their loyalty to the Jewish character of the state or their relatively high birthrate.

On the Palestinian front, those who argue for a one-state alternative and political "vision" assume that Palestinians would overtake the rule of the state through the state's democratic channels. However, the Palestinian question would face new and more complex problems and the nationalist movement could lose its support from the emerging Palestinian elite.

Beyond these political calculations, if the Ma'an poll reflects the general public opinion of Palestinians, questions emerge. Is this a "hopeless" reaction to the division of Palestine and a historical memory of defeat? Is it a surrender to the "enemy"? Or is it weariness of harsh living conditions imposed by politics and the futile hope of the better life lived by their Jewish neighbours?

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?