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.]

Booom: U.S. Agrees to Israeli strike on Iran in return for a Palestinian state?

On Thursday, The Times reported that Western and Israeli diplomats are in talks concerning international support for an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran, in return for concessions on a two-state solution.

The passage of two Sa'ar 5-class Israeli missile-class Navy ships through the Suez Canal on Tuesday was offered as the proof of seriousness of the Israeli position. The deployment of these two warships in the Red Sea followed the passage of a Dolphin-class submarine capable of launching a nuclear missile strike through the international waterway.

“This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran. These manoeuvres are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats” an Israeli defense official said.



Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, said that his government explicitly allowed passage of Israeli vessels, and an Israeli admiral said that the drills were “run regularly with the full co-operation of the Egyptians.” This, alongside the claim that Saudi Arabia would allow Israeli jets to use its air space in any strike against Iran, could be seen as another indication of the high possibility of an Israeli raid- one which would have the backing of pro-Israeli Arab states who oppose a nuclear-armed Iran.

A British diplomat has said that, if agreed, an Israeli strike would be possible “within a year.”

Tel Aviv may be using the “existential threat” of Tehran in order to gain extra time which could bring onboard more conciliatory Palestinian leaders, pushed by the Obama administration. Or it may be seriously focusing on a pre-emptive strike which could, again, give it extra time in the peace process, even if a war between Israel and Iran would cause turmoil in the entire region. However, in the second case, Israel would be losing 'the other', which would shatter geo-political, geo-cultural and geo-economical institutions and could cause an identity crisis.

For me, a Washington-led Western camp would go no further than imposing tougher sanctions against Tehran. As I mentioned above, the war would not be limited to two states and would change the dynamics of the entire region. Therefore, the first scenario sounds more logical: an Israeli bluff calling for the acceptance of Israeli demands from the Palestinian Authority. The Obama administration cannot leave Israel on its own. Pushing Palestinians toward the negotiating table along with extra tangible efforts to bring other Arab states, especially Syria, into a wider negotiation platform seems more logical.

On the other hand, news from the other side of the story comes in, and Hamas completes the last piece of the puzzle. Hamas is enjoying the new conjuncture being shaped by the State of Israel. The first Qassam rocket since June 13th was fired into the western Negev Thursday evening by militants in the Gaza Strip. Hamas wants to show that it should not be overlooked in the negotiation process.

Syria's Assad: Halt Israeli Settlements in the West Bank

On Tuesday, Syrian President Bashar Assad hosted German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Damascus. After the meeting, Assad put another condition on peace negotiations with Israel: halting activity in the West Bank settlements.

Calling for an halt to settlement activity before peace negotiations is not as big an obstacle for a regional settlement as it might seem. This move has two dimensions. First, Syria wants to link its security with the perception of concern for the Palestinians. This would not only increase its influence in the region but also move closer to Barack Obama’s rhetoric on Israel. Second, this is not just pressure upon Tel Aviv but also upon Washington. Syria wants to see tangible steps from the Obama Administration on both the Palestinian and Syrian fronts.

This two-way message is being laid out to maintain a balance between Iran and the US. Meanwhile, the chief target of the Syrian manoeuvre is clear: Assad said that there was no real partner in Israel to make peace.