Monday
Jul192010
Israel-Palestine Analysis: What is the Obama Administration Seeking?
Monday, July 19, 2010 at 11:23
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyCt4dQRvtA[/youtube]
Time is passing and the hopes of millions, encouraged by the November 2008 US elections, are melting away in the Middle East. The "extending a hand to unclenched fists" in President Obama's Inaugural speech, the declarations on democracy, freedom, humanity, and religion in the Cairo speech of June 2009, and dozens of proclamations on "Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security" have started to lose their aura.
Before the last meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority put another condition for the final status of a future Palestinian state: the deployment of international forces in the Palestinian territories as part of peace deal. However, instead of bringing pressure from the Obama Administration upon Israel --- for example, an extension of the settlement freeze in the West Bank if not necessarily a freeze on construction in East Jerusalem and lifting of the siege on Gaza, Washington merely polished up the grail of "Israel's security".
Having extended a carrot-filled unclenched fist to Netanyahu, President Obama had to put pressure on Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas to start direct talks as soon as possible. Of course, he knew that Palestinians would resist this since Israel had not responded to their requirements: the status of final borders, based on 1967, with agreed land swaps and the continuation of negotiations from December 2008. So, Obama allegedly promised Abbas that he would put his own map --- making concessions in favour of Palestinians, with East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state --- if Israel fails to bring its own proposals by next winter.
Meanwhile, the next target, both for Netanyahu and Obama's envoy George Mitchell, was Egypt. Both hope that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, with links across the Arab world, can put pressure on Ramallah. However, Cairo does not seem to want that leading role since there is nothing to offer.
After this weekend's Netanyahu-Mubarak meeting, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said more work needs to be done to bridge the gap between Israel and the Palestinians before they can move to direct peace talks. Moreover, officials in Egypt were concerned over Israel's position towards Hamas in Gaza.
The mediator role (or "central mediator" as Netanyahu frames it) is quite attractive for Egypt but only as long as Israel does not pass responsibility for control of Gaza to Cairo, as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman offered last week, and as long as Israel does not wage a war against Hamas. Cairo's own priority is gaining credibility through a reconciliation agreement --- either negotiated or imposed --- between Fatah and Hamas.
This weekend's moves also failed for Mitchell. On Saturday, he met with Abbas and he got nothing. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat avoided comment on the meeting but Abbas’ Fatah Central Committee member and strongman Mohammad Dahlan said that Fatah has rejected a call by Mitchell to start direct negotiations. “Going to direct negotiations requires that there should be progress and clear Israeli answers to the borders and security issues,” Dahlan said. “In light of the absences of Israeli responses to these two issues, Fatah has not changed its position regarding refusing to go to direct negotiations.”
So, what is left for the Obama Administration? At the meeting on Saturday, Mitchell said his mediation aims at realizing “the vision that President Obama had set for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, which must begin with an agreement between Israel and Palestine that will provide for two states living side by side in peace and security and hopefully prosperity.” A day before, he was in Damascus and said: "If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace."
"Comprehensive peace"? Really? Does the Obama Administration still envisage resolution of the Israeli-Palestian conflict as an opening to further advances from Syria to Lebanon to Gaza? Or is it just offering the appearance of doing something --- anything --- until the end of US elections in November?
Time is passing and the hopes of millions, encouraged by the November 2008 US elections, are melting away in the Middle East. The "extending a hand to unclenched fists" in President Obama's Inaugural speech, the declarations on democracy, freedom, humanity, and religion in the Cairo speech of June 2009, and dozens of proclamations on "Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security" have started to lose their aura.
Before the last meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority put another condition for the final status of a future Palestinian state: the deployment of international forces in the Palestinian territories as part of peace deal. However, instead of bringing pressure from the Obama Administration upon Israel --- for example, an extension of the settlement freeze in the West Bank if not necessarily a freeze on construction in East Jerusalem and lifting of the siege on Gaza, Washington merely polished up the grail of "Israel's security".
Having extended a carrot-filled unclenched fist to Netanyahu, President Obama had to put pressure on Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas to start direct talks as soon as possible. Of course, he knew that Palestinians would resist this since Israel had not responded to their requirements: the status of final borders, based on 1967, with agreed land swaps and the continuation of negotiations from December 2008. So, Obama allegedly promised Abbas that he would put his own map --- making concessions in favour of Palestinians, with East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state --- if Israel fails to bring its own proposals by next winter.
Meanwhile, the next target, both for Netanyahu and Obama's envoy George Mitchell, was Egypt. Both hope that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, with links across the Arab world, can put pressure on Ramallah. However, Cairo does not seem to want that leading role since there is nothing to offer.
After this weekend's Netanyahu-Mubarak meeting, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said more work needs to be done to bridge the gap between Israel and the Palestinians before they can move to direct peace talks. Moreover, officials in Egypt were concerned over Israel's position towards Hamas in Gaza.
The mediator role (or "central mediator" as Netanyahu frames it) is quite attractive for Egypt but only as long as Israel does not pass responsibility for control of Gaza to Cairo, as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman offered last week, and as long as Israel does not wage a war against Hamas. Cairo's own priority is gaining credibility through a reconciliation agreement --- either negotiated or imposed --- between Fatah and Hamas.
This weekend's moves also failed for Mitchell. On Saturday, he met with Abbas and he got nothing. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat avoided comment on the meeting but Abbas’ Fatah Central Committee member and strongman Mohammad Dahlan said that Fatah has rejected a call by Mitchell to start direct negotiations. “Going to direct negotiations requires that there should be progress and clear Israeli answers to the borders and security issues,” Dahlan said. “In light of the absences of Israeli responses to these two issues, Fatah has not changed its position regarding refusing to go to direct negotiations.”
So, what is left for the Obama Administration? At the meeting on Saturday, Mitchell said his mediation aims at realizing “the vision that President Obama had set for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, which must begin with an agreement between Israel and Palestine that will provide for two states living side by side in peace and security and hopefully prosperity.” A day before, he was in Damascus and said: "If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace."
"Comprehensive peace"? Really? Does the Obama Administration still envisage resolution of the Israeli-Palestian conflict as an opening to further advances from Syria to Lebanon to Gaza? Or is it just offering the appearance of doing something --- anything --- until the end of US elections in November?
Reader Comments (3)
I recommend you read the Netaniyahu speech at Bar-Ilan university
http://www.haaretz.com/news/full-text-of-netanyahu-s-foreign-policy-speech-at-bar-ilan-1.277922" rel="nofollow">http://www.haaretz.com/news/full-text-of-netany...
(pay closer attention to the paragraphs from: "I now am asking that when we speak of the huge challenge of peace..." )
As long as the Arabs don't recognize the rights of Jews in the HolyLand, it is really premature to talk about the details of a "peace agreement".
Bibi's demands are so simple, yet so much difficult for the Arabs to swallow. Ask yourselves why.
“Comprehensive peace”? Really? Does the Obama Administration still envisage resolution of the Israeli-Palestian conflict as an opening to further advances from Syria to Lebanon to Gaza? Or is it just offering the appearance of doing something — anything — until the end of US elections in November?
********
Well, one of the key objectives behind the US pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is to de-radicalise the region as whole, if you will. All US administrations have seen this conflict the source of the anger, anti-semitism, and anti-Western sentiment in the region
[...] Israel-Palestine Analysis: What is the Obama Administration Seeking? (enduringamerica.com) [...]