Israel to Obama's Envoy: So Long (and Take Your Plan with You)

Today's statement by President Obama's envoy George Mitchell, after his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, followed the script of general optimism and no specifics. He and Netanyahu had made "good progress" in nearly three hours: "We look forward to continuing our discussions to reach a point that we can all move forward to reach a comprehensive peace."

The Israeli leader returned the vague statement of advance, "[We worked] toward achieving the understanding that will enable us to continue and complete the peace process established between us and Palestinian neighbours and the countries in the entire region." However, this was a banquet of platitudes, as Mitchell's statement amply illustrated, "President Obama's vision is of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East which includes peace between Israel and the Palestinians, between Syria and Israel, and between Israel and Lebanon....a full normalisation of relations between Israel and all its neighbours in the region."

On their own, the statements are anodyne but not necessarily troubling. This is the normal course of diplomacy, offering mantras but little of substance until a deal is in sight. However, these statements were on their own: before Mitchell stepped into the meeting, the Israelis were defining his outcome.

The revelations came in an article this morning by Herb Keinon in The Jerusalem Post, a reliable outlet for Israeli spin:

Recent talks with US envoy George Mitchell have left Israeli officials with the impression that --- contrary to expectations in some circles --- President Barack Obama is not going to unfurl his own regional peace plan. Rather, according to these officials, the administration is aiming to create a positive dynamic that will lead to the relaunching of a Palestinian-Israeli diplomatic process, but this time with more regional players on board.

The article continues, at great length, to pour cold water on any notion of a US-led initiative: "The sense in Jerusalem now is that Washington realizes that it is not constructive to just place a plan on the table, without putting all the different pieces together to enable it to be accepted." And it puts a priority on the steps that have to be taken by Arab actors: "The Palestinians had to improve their security forces, stop incitement and 'refrain from any words or deeds that may make it more difficult to move quickly toward successful negotiations.... The Arab states had to take 'meaningful' steps toward normalizing ties with Israel."

And what must Israel do? There is a reference to Tel Aviv's tackling of "difficult issues like settlements and outposts", but the article points to a compromise: "The understandings will revolve around an Israeli agreement not to start any new construction in the settlements for a set period of time, in return for being allowed to finish the some 2,500 units currently under construction." Put bluntly, "Israeli sources said that in recent weeks there has been a sense that the US has toned down its pressure on Israel, as it came to the conclusion that the Arab world - or at least Saudi Arabia - was not going to make the types of gestures that Obama had hoped to see."

Welcome to the Netanyahu strategy: an article can talk about general discussions on "normalising" and regional actors. Indeed, it needs to do so: this takes attention away from the substantive bilateral talks with Palestine and with Syria that are the touchstones of any Middle Eastern plan. The Israeli Prime Minister doesn't want them.

And as long as this line --- "Washington, you don't have a plan" --- is held, even in a week when the US appears to have made progress with Damascus, he doesn't have to have them.

Non-Story of the Day: Israel, Iran, and "All Options on the Table"

Mitchell in Syria: Obama’s Big Push in the Middle East?

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 1630 GMT: More ritual statements after the meeting between Secretary of Defense Gates and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "A large part of the discussion was devoted to Iran, with Gates saying that the US and Israel saw eye-to-eye on the Iranian nuclear threat, and reiterating that US engagement with Teheran would not be open-ended, said the Prime Minister's Office."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZprJ1YDufEM[/youtube]

Unsurprisingly the media are all a-flutter today over Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's statement, after his meeting with US counterpart Robert Gates, over an Israeli response to an Iranian nuclear programme: "We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table. This is our policy; we mean it."

It's an entirely predictable statement, bringing an entirely predictable reaction. An insignificant statement --- despite the media's excitement --- on the military front. A more significant statement --- despite the media's inattention --- on the diplomatic front.

Let's translate:

BARAK: "This is our policy; we mean it." [I know, Mr Gates, that you and your Administration will not support an Israeli military attack on Iran. But my Government isn't planning on moving anywhere on talks to the Palestinians, and we're not that certain about discussions with Syria. And we definitely don't want the word "settlements" coming up in this conversation.

I've got a domestic audience watching this press conference, and there's nothing of substance I can give them. So I'm going to say, IRAN...IRAN...IRAN.]

GATES: "[Engagement is] not an open-ended offer....[We are aware Iran may try to] run out the clock....The timetable the president laid out still seems to be viable and does not significantly raise the risks to anybody." [No, you're not going to attack Iran, so let's deal with the diplomatic process.

My President is committed to an attempt to resolve the issues with Iran through discussion. At the same time, we need to keep you on-side, so you don't do anything crazy. And we don't want you using the Iran excuse to delay moves on other Middle Eastern issues. Last but not least, I've got an American public opinion --- as well as some people within my own Government --- who think there can never be an agreement with Tehran.

So you can get a vague statement that talks are not open-ended. The press can speculate on a deadline: End of September? December? But it's only July, and everything is up in the air given the internal situation in Iran, so no need to face the put-up-or-shut-up music yet.]

GATES: "We will continue to ensure that Israel has the most advanced weapons for its national defense." [Here's your symbolic and very real pay-off for not pushing us on this.]

BARAK: "Israel remains in its basic position that no options should be removed from the table, even though priority at this stage should be given to diplomacy." [That's cool. Thanks for the weapons. And, remember, shhh.... on the settlements.]

US to Israel: No Bargain on Jerusalem

J

The pressure on Israel has gradually increased since the advent of the Obama Administration. Now the position of Washington on the matter of Jerusalem is clear and precise: there will be no bargaining over the future status of the city.

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that "Jerusalem would never be divided" in May and that "Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem was not up for debate,” Israel's definitive statement came in Sunday's cabinet meeting. Netanyahu said: "United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Our sovereignty in it is not subject to appeal, and among other things, this means that Jerusalem residents can buy apartments anywhere in the city. We cannot accept the idea that Jews should not have the right to live and buy anywhere in Jerusalem."

Yesterday, a response came from Washington as Tel Aviv prepared for the E1 Project, the construction of 3,500 housing units in an areabetween Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim. The US administration stated that any change in the status quo in E1 would be "extremely damaging", even "corrosive."

The Obama Administration is rightly worried that such a construction would divide the West Bank into two parts and would strengthen Israel's hegemony in East Jerusalem. This would mean more than damage to US credibility in the region: it could render the two-state solution impossible, even with Washington's dedicated efforts as a broker.

Israel-Palestine: A US-Israeli Deal on the Settlements?

Haaretz states, via the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv, that US officials are allowing the Israeli Government to continue construction of 2,500 housing units in the West Bank

Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev would not confirm speculations but said that the US and Israel have been trying to find a common ground on the sensitive settlement issue. Washington has been silent, but "Western officials" stated that, having made some concessions, Israel could at least finish off some existing projects which are close to completion or bound to private contracts that cannot be broken.

Following Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s meetings in Washington and with US envoy George Mitchell in London, this speculation raises the question: Is the US acceptance of the 2500 units due to the specifics of private contracts and Israeli law on settlements, or have the two sides found common ground where both sides meet with some concessions?

In Case You Missed It: Saudi Permission for Israel Attack on Iran?

LATEST Iran: Joe Biden’s “Green Light” and an Israeli Airstrike

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Editor's Note: In my focus on US Vice President Joe Biden's statements on Sunday about Israeli sovereignty and possible attack against Iran, I set aside the other big signal, which came out of Israel's favourite British PR firm, The Sunday Times of London. Thanks to Ali Yenidunya for reviing this.

Although Israel and Saudi Arabia have no formal relationships, theSunday Times reported that Saudi officials tacitly confirmed the use of its airspace in case of a possible Israeli air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. It is claimed that the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, held secret talks with Saudis earlier this year. According to a diplomatic source quoted by the British newspaper, "The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia."

Publicly, the story was denied both by the Netanyahu Government and by Saudi officials. The Israeli Prime Minister’s office issued a statement on Sunday: “The Sunday Times report is fundamentally false and completely baseless."

Meanwhile, John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, stated that Israel's use of Saudi airspace was “entirely logical”. He added: “None of them [several Arab leaders he talked to during his recent visit to the Persian Gulf] would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn’t trumpet it as a big success.”