Israel & the US: Who is Offering Concessions at Home and Abroad? (Yenidunya)

The war continues between the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

After Ministry of Industry Benjamin Ben Eliezer's secret talks in Zurich with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Lieberman --- not informed of the mission --- forced Netanyahu step back and apologize.

Petraeus Plays Politics: The General’s E-Mail Scheming on Israel (Mondoweiss)
Israel-Turkey Analysis: Netanyahu Saves Face with Foreign Minister by Snubbing Ankara and Washington (Yenidunya)

On Sunday, there was another move to curb the Premier's power. The Ministerial Committee on Legislation considered a proposal giving the Knesset the power to veto an extension of a government-imposed freeze on the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party ordered its members to vote for the measure whereas Netanyahu phoned cabinet ministers from his Likud party in the hope of persuading them to oppose the transfer of authority.

On his eve of his meeting with President Obama in Washington, Netanyahu overcame another domestic challenge, as the Committee voted down the proposal. For now, there is no barrier to lawmakers continuing the "temporary and one-time freeze" in the West Bank.

Netanyahu has other "concessions" in his pocket before going to Washington. The Israeli Government voted on Sunday to expand the authority of the Turkel Commission investigating Israel's raid of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla. According to a statement released by the Prime Minister's Office, new powers will allow the commission to subpoena witnesses and receive sworn testimony. However, the government added, "The decision excludes Israel Defense Force soldiers,"  a move designed to maintain the independence of a separate military investigation already in progress.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak will meet Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on Monday, the first encounter between the two politicians since February and asign of progress in indirect US-mediated talks. And  the Foreign Ministry will publish on Monday its official "blacklist" of goods that will not be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip. The list  will mainly consist of weapons and "problematic dual use" material that could be used to create them. Any items not listed will be permitted to enter Gaza.

Before November’s midterm election, President Obama also wants to show progress to boost his credibility in handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, this time, instead of continuing the friction with the incoming Israeli delegation, Obama will  probably employ a very different approach.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Obama will accept Netanyahu's suggestion of  ultimate Israeli control over the major settlement blocs and an extension of the freeze in all areas outside these blocs in the West Bank. The newspaper portrays this as the acceptance of President George W. Bush’s 2004 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Petraeus Plays Politics: The General's E-Mail Scheming on Israel (Mondoweiss)

Sunday's media headlines are dominated by the soundbite of General David Petraeus, the new US commander in Afghanistan, on the conflict --- "We in it to win it" --- backed up by glowing references for his record, notably the supposed success of the "surge" under his supervision in Iraq in 2007/8.

Regular readers will know that I am a sceptic of Petraeus' well-crafted military reputation but am a great admirer of his political skills. So, amidst the weekend's cheerleading, I have noted an illuminating story from Mondoweiss.

In March EA noted an apparently dramatic stance by Petraeus warning that the US had to confront the Israel-Palestine issue, if necessary talking tough to West Jerusalem, if its broader policy from the Middle East to Central Asia was to be successful. Little did we know that, behind the scenes, Petraeus was putting out the message that he did not hold the views --- including the need for pressure on Israel --- set out in his written testimony to Congress:

Israel & the US: Who is Offering Concessions at Home and Abroad? (Yenidunya)
Israel-Turkey Analysis: Netanyahu Saves Face with Foreign Minister by Snubbing Ankara and Washington (Yenidunya)

Last March General David Petraeus, then head of Central Command, sought to undercut his own testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that was critical of Israel by intriguing with a right-wing writer to put out a different story, in emails obtained by Mondoweiss.

The emails show Petraeus encouraging Max Boot of Commentary to write a story-- and offering the neoconservative writer choice details about his views on the Holocaust:

Does it help if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at our quarters last Sun night?! And that I will be the speaker at the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps in mid-Apr at the Capitol Dome...

Petraeus passed the emails along himself through carelessness last March. He pasted a Boot column from Commentary's blog into in an "FYI" email he sent to an activist who is highly critical of the U.S.'s special relationship with Israel. Some of the general's emails to Boot were attached to the bottom of the story. The activist, James Morris, shared the emails with me.

The tale:

Back on March 13, Mark Perry broke the explosive story that Gen. David Petraeus was echoing Joe Biden's view that the special relationship with Israel is endangering Americans. Perry said that Petraeus had sent aides to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the White House to tell him that the U.S.'s inability to stand up to Israel was hurting Americans across the Middle East. Perry reported that Petraeus was asking that Israel and Palestine be included under his Central Command (rather than under Europe, as they are now).

On March 16, neocon Max Boot, who is on the Council of Foreign Relations and holds militarist pro-Israel views (he's an American Jew born in Russia), sought to refute Perry's post at the Commentary blog:

I asked a military officer who is familiar with the briefing in question and with Petraeus’s thinking on the issue to clarify matters. He told me that Perry’s item was "incorrect".

Boot quoted the unnamed officer at some length apologizing for Israel:

He did not suggest that Petraeus was mainly blaming Israel and its settlements for the lack of progress. They are, he said, “one of many issues, among which also is the unwillingness to recognize Israel and the unwillingness to confront the extremists who threaten Israelis.” That’s about what I expected: Petraeus holds a much more realistic and nuanced view than the one attributed to him by terrorist groupie Mark Perry.

I suspect this unnamed officer was Petraeus himself-- based on the emails. But we'll get to them in a minute.

Read rest of story...

Israel-Turkey Analysis: Netanyahu Saves Face with Foreign Minister by Snubbing Ankara and Washington (Yenidunya)

The most prominent fallout over the clandestine talks between Israeli Minister of Industry Benjamin Ben-Eliezer and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in Switzerland? It was probably between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman.

Lieberman was furious not only that he had not been informed of the mission but that Netanyahu would even consider sending a senior cabinet minister to hold covert talks with Turks. His argument was that if Israel agreed to compensate the families of those killed in the Israel Navy's raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla, the country would suffer a serious blow to its standing in the region.

Turkey-Israel Mystery: A Secret Meeting with Ankara (Followed by an Israeli Apology?)

Lieberman's problem not only Israel's "national interests". Pressure has been increasing day-by-day on his shoulders since the majority of the international community, including Washington, is unhappy with the Foreign Minister's position.

And it is not external powers who are displeased. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak see their supposed colleague as a hindrance to manoeuvres with Palestinians and confrontation of the Hamas issue, adding to Israel's isolation from the international community.

Of course, Lieberman knows what is on Netanyahu's mind. "The foreign minister takes a very serious view of the fact that this occurred without informing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs," Lieberman's office said in a statement immediately following the revelation of the Ben Eliezer-Davutoglu talks. "This is an insult to the norms of accepted behavior and a heavy blow to the confidence between the foreign minister and the prime minister."

Haaretz reports, from a source close to Lieberman who has spoken with him in recent days, that the Foreign Minister has been disturbed by Netanyahu's behavior for quite some time. According to the source, Lieberman is angry over what he sees as the Premier's legitimization of the global boycott. Indeed, in an interview with Israel Radio on Thursday morning, Lieberman criticized the premier for coordinating the Turkish-Israeli meeting with both Defense Minister Barak and the White House.

When the meeting came to light, Netanyahu had to step back. He apologised to Lieberman, and they met on Friday. Offices of the two men said that they had agreed to work with complete coordination in the future.

Yet this supposed reconcilation still sat alongside the report from Turkish media that Ben-Eliezer had indicated to Davutoglu that Israel was rethinking its refusal to compensate and apologize to the families of those killed in the 31 May 31 on the Freedom Flotilla.

That report had to be pulled back. Ben-Eliezer's bureau said, "We have no plans to do that, and the minister did not promise anything to that regard during his meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister two days ago." Netanyahu spoke even more sharply, telling Israeli television that the covert meeting was a Turkish "provocation" and insisting that there would be no apology or compensation for the Flotilla confrontation.

But if Netanyahu had repaired relations with Lieberman, he may have done so at the cost of his relations with the US. Haaretz reports, from Israeli sources, that Washington was the organizer. The US had already warned both allies not to compete in the region and sent the signal that former Congressman Robert Wexler, one of the founders of the Turkish-American Friendship Group in the Congress, could be the new ambassador to Israel.

After the Ben-Eliezer meeting with Davutoglu, Washington emphasised the necessity of discussion between its two allies. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said:

We certainly support this kind of dialogue that hopefully can help repair the fractures that have existed in recent weeks and months between the two countries.

We have had conversations with both countries individually. In those conversations, we have reinforced that a relationship between Turkey and Israel is not only in the best interest of the region, it is in the interest of -- and supports our interests in the region as well.

So, having effectively withdrawn his secret initative, having snubbed Turkey and possibly the US to save face with Lieberman, what next for Netanyahu?

Turkey-Israel Mystery: A Secret Meeting with Ankara (Followed by an Israeli Apology?)

The story started to emerge on Wednesday afternoon. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly "trying to quietly mend fences with Turkey", had sent Minister of Industry Benjamin Ben-Eliezer on a secret trip (initally said to be in Ankara, then Zurich, and then confirmed as Brussels) to meet Turkish Foreign Ahmet Davutoglu.

The office of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was horrified:

Turkey Video Special: Prime Minister Erdogan’s 50 Minutes on US Television (29 June)

The foreign minister did not know about the meeting. He considers it a serious matter that the meeting took place without the Foreign Ministry being informed. It is a violation of all normal procedures. It undermines the trust between the foreign minister and the prime minister. The foreign minister intends to clarify the incident.

Reports soon emerged that it was Lieberman who leaked the news of the Ben-Eliezer mission to journalists. Netanyahu's office issued a statement confirming the meeting, without naming the Turkish participant, and explaining that it was initiated by the Turks and was "unofficial".  (Lieberman had not been informed beforehand because of a "technical reason".) Turkish officials insisted that the "request came from the Israeli side".

By Thursday, The Jerusalem Post was headlining, "Turkey: Secret Meeting Unsuccessful". The Turks had supposedly asked for an apology for the 31 May raid on the Freedom Flotilla, a UN inquiry into the incident, payment of compensation, and an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The Post may have written too soon, however. Turkish media are now claiming:

Davutoglu threatened that Israel-Turkey relations may worsen, with Turkey closing its airspace to commerical flights, as well as military ones, should Israel fail to apologize. Ben-Eliezer reportedly answered that Israel is ready to apologize, and even pay the families of those inured in the IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara.

A "Turkish diplomatic source" said, "There will be a second meeting if the Israeli side takes a step toward [meeting] our demands.”

Middle East Special: US to Engage with Hamas and Hezbollah? (Perry)

Mark Perry writes for Foreign Policy:

While it is anathema to broach the subject of engaging militant groups like Hizballah and Hamas in official Washington circles (to say nothing of Israel), that is exactly what a team of senior intelligence officers at U.S. Central Command --- CENTCOM --- has been doing.

In a "Red Team" report issued on May 7 and entitled "Managing Hizballah and Hamas," senior CENTCOM intelligence officers question the current U.S. policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements. Instead, the Red Team recommends a mix of strategies that would integrate the two organizations into their respective political mainstreams. While a Red Team exercise is deliberately designed to provide senior commanders with briefings and assumptions that challenge accepted strategies, the report is at once provocative, controversial -- and at odds with current U.S. policy.

Read rest of article....