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.

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

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

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 (28 July, 0800 GMT): Well, it looks like the Obama Administration is more than serious about getting Syria to the negotiating table. Hours after we posted Josh Landis' caution that Damascus resented continued US sanctions, a White House spokesman said, " "Mitchell explained to President Assad that the U.S. would process all eligible applications for export licenses to Syria as quickly as possible", especially "those requests to export products related to information technology and telecommunication equipment and parts and components related to the safety of civil aviation."

However, there still remains a very big obstacle to resolution of the economic issues. The spokesman added that "there has been no change" to the general sanctions legislation against Syria, imposed in 2003: "Changes to U.S. sanctions would require close coordination and consultation with Congress."
---
The BBC breathlessly proclaimed this morning that, with President Obama's envoy George Mitchell visiting Syria, Egypt, and Israel and with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Tel Aviv today, this was the Obama Administration's "big push" for a Middle Eastern settlement. A moment's reflection before such a dramatic statement might have been in order: Mitchell's two previous tours of the region have been "big pushes", there was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "big push" in the spring, and of course there was the high-profile Obama speech in Cairo. All those big pushes have brought little movement so far.

Josh Landis, evaluating the first leg of Mitchell's tour in Damascus yesterday, gives further food for thought:

First analysis of the Mitchell Meeting

George Mitchell did not say what the United States expected from Syria, especially on Hamas, as he left his meeting with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. Mitchell said, after the meeting, that restarting talks between Syria and Israel was a “near-term goal” for Washington. “If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace. We will welcome the full cooperation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in this historic endeavor,” he said to reporters. “I told President Assad that President Obama is determined to facilitate a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace."

Mitchell’s brief is Israeli-Arab peace. The main sticking point in US-Syrian relations at this time,however, is the Iraq intelligence-sharing deal, the details of which seem to be concluded, but which Syria is not implementing. Some analysts suggest that Damascus is dragging its feet out of fear of al-Qaida, which might launch a terror campaign against Syria. I find this argument dubious. Damascus insists on US compliance on concerns it has been raising with Washington for some time. I do not know exactly what these concerns are other than having an ambassador appointed, ending the era of public demonization of Syria, and normalizing relations.

Speaking of normalizing relations, the Airbus export license on which Syria had hung it hopes of reviving Syria Air and launching Pearl Airlines was rejected last month. Because the US refuses to sell new Boeing planes to Syria and has put every impediment in the way of Syria purchasing spare parts to repair its aging fleet, Syria Air is all but grounded. To remedy this embarrassing situation, President Assad has sought to buy European planes, but it turns out that over 10% of these planes are manufactured in the US, permitting the US Treasury Department to refuse permission to the Europeans to sell them to Syria. This means that Obama can effectively close down the Syrian air industry, which he is doing. The embargo on planes and aviation parts is just one aspect of the US-imposed economic sanctions Syria believes Obama should end.

The US clearly has a pack of economic, military, and political cards to play. If, for example, the US demands Syria satisfy US concerns on an entire portfolio, such as intelligence sharing and Iraq, in exchange for normalizing one element of economic relations, such as aviation, Syria will have to hand over much of its foreign policy bag of tricks simply to purchase normal relations with the West. This is undoubtedly not an exchange rate Damascus likes.

Western diplomats are not sympathetic to Syrian complaints that they are being treated unfairly. “Syrians think they are the center of the World,” one non-American Western diplomat complained to me in June. I replied that most Syrian officials I know become indignant when Westerners reminded them that they are bit players on the world stage. They insist that they have “nafis tawiil,” or long breath, meaning that they will refuse deals on terms they consider humiliating or bad even if refusal costs them a heavy price.

To predict how negotiations may turn out is pointless. It is too early to say. We don’t know what sort of deal is shaping up in Damascus or where the stickiest points are. Syrian officials explain that US-Syrian relations have been dormant for eight years and suggest that it is quite natural that only a few months of dialogue cannot break down the great distrust and misunderstanding built up by the Bush years.

Transcripts: Money to Palestine, Economic Pressure on Israel?

On Friday, the U.S. State Department stated that $200 million, as part of a $900 million pledge from March, was on the way to the Palestinian Authority. On the same day, Deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood said, "It's premature to talk about imposing economic sanctions on Israel."

So could this really be a new American economic approach to carrots-and-sticks on Israel and Palestine? There is no problem with the $900 million pledge to Palestine but there may be a problem on the 2007 Memorandum on Understanding calling for $30 billion. over 10 years, to Israel?

The Statement on Direct Budget Assistance to the Palestinian Authority:

The United States is the leading provider of bilateral economic and development aid to the Palestinians, providing an estimated $2.5 billion through USAID since 1993. The $200 million in direct budget assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) that the Secretary announced July 24 represents the single largest transfer of budget support to the PA from any country since its inception. It is a part of the $900 million pledge for 2009 that the Secretary announced at the March 2 donors’ conference in Sharm al-Sheikh to address the immediate needs of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and support our longer-term approach of fostering the conditions in which a Palestinian state can be realized.

The United States is committed to improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In 2009, the United States has provided more than $72 million to date in humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza through the United Nations Consolidated Appeal (CAP) and other partner organizations.

In 2008, the U.S. was the single largest national donor to the Palestinian Authority. The U.S. exceeded its Paris Donors’ Conference pledge of $555 million (December 2007), committing more than $600 million in assistance to the PA in calendar year 2008, including:

· $239 million for activities in economic growth, democracy and governance, food assistance, education, health, and water supply to the PA.

· An additional $300 million in direct budget support to the PA for debt owed to commercial vendors and financial institutions.

· $75 million for security sector reform.

In addition, in fiscal year 2008 the U.S. provided $184.7 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) funds to United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for assistance to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

Robert Wood's statement:

QUESTION: Would U.S. be ready to exert some financial pressures on Israel to convince the government to stop settlements?

MR. WOOD: Well, Sylvie, it’s premature to talk about that. What we’re trying to do, as I said, right now is to create an environment which makes it conducive for talks to go forward. And as I said, Senator Mitchell is working very hard on this. And what we all need to do in the international community is support this effort, and that means Americans, that means Arabs and Israelis, to do what they can to kind of foster a climate in which the two sides can come together and negotiate their differences peacefully so that we can get to that two-state solution.

QUESTION: But Robert --

MR. WOOD: Yes.

QUESTION: Dan Meridor has said – that the agreement we had with the Americans is binding on us and them. And he added that they should keep to the agreement. He’s calling the U.S. to keep to the agreement.

MR. WOOD: I think we’ve been very clear with regard to settlements. They need to stop, and that includes natural growth. I don’t have anything more to add to that. The Israelis are well aware of our position. And we’ll obviously continue to have talks with the Israelis on this subject and other issues, but our policy remains the same.

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?