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.

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.

Palestine: Was There a Plot to Kill Yassir Arafat?

Last week, Farouk al-Kaddoumi (pictured), a senior Palestine Liberation Organization leader, told al-Jazeera that Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas played a role in Yassir Arafat’s death in 2004. He said that he had protocols from a 2004 meeting between Israeli, American and PA representatives that clearly indicated a plan to poison Arafat. He added that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Mohammed Dahlan, the former Palestinian security chief in Gaza, were involved in the plot.

The first reaction to the story came last Wednesday. Mahmoud Abbas suspended the operations of al-Jazeera in the West Bank. The Information Ministry stated that the station’s operations were halted until a court ruled on the case. Walid Al Omary, Al-Jazeera’s bureau chief in Jerusalem, said: “We are sorry about this decision, which we consider a violation of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in this country.”

On Thursday, Abbas rejected the accusations and said that "Kaddoumi claims to be in possession of five-year-old documents that prove (his allegations), so why did he not reveal them immediately?" Abbas added that the "lie" was aimed at torpedoing the sixth Fatah Party General Congress, scheduled to convene August 4. He continued, "He (Kaddoumi) knows full well that this information is false; he has released it to undermine the convention, but we are continuing with the preparations."

While the Palestinian Authority was having problems with the Qatar-based station, the political risks of Abbas's decision increased with the entry of Hamas into the discussion. Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, accused the West Bank government of trying to silence the media and “cover up what is going on in the West Bank". Thus, the Arafat conspiracy theory was converted into a current political manoeuvre: Hamas is the "democratic" party seeking truth while its rival engages in "tyranny".