Israel-Palestine: Have New Settlements Threatened "Proximity Talks"?

Another develepment on the Israel-Palestine "proximity talks" (see related analysis by Sharmine Narwani). On Tuesday, the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee approved a new plan to build 1,600 more housing units in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem.

White House's spokesman Robert Gibbs, condemned Jerusalem's announcement from the White House. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said:

I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units. The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.

The European Union's foreign-policy director, Catherine Ashton, said on Wednesday, "May I join Vice-President Biden in condemning the decision to build 1,600 new houses."

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also condemned Israel's plan. Then, according to the Ma'an news agency, the Palestinian Authority's leader Mahmoud Abbas warned that the move would derail negotiations before they had even begun and said:

It is apparent that the Israeli government does not want negotiations, nor does it want peace. The American administration must respond to this provocation with effective measures.

Israel's Interior Minister Eli Yishai apologized on Wednesday for causing domestic and international distress and stated that he was uninformed of the district committee's plan, because the matter was simply a routine, technical authorization. Yishai added:

If I'd have known, I would have postponed the authorization by a week or two since we had no intention of provoking anyone. It is definitely unpleasant that this happened during Biden's visit. If the committee members would have known that the approval would have escalated to such a situation, they would have informed me.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assured his guest Biden that the programme, which had been drafted three years ago and only received initial authorization that day, could take several months to be granted final approval.

Israel-Palestine Proximity Talks: "Theatre of the Absurd"

Sharmine Narwani writes for The Huffington Post:

After a year of grandiose declarations on Mideast peace prospects and a gazillion trips to the region by US envoy George Mitchell, the Obama administration has come up with this?

"Proximity Talks." Look it up in the Dictionary of Realpolitik and you will find the following: "Negotiations going nowhere fast. Wear seatbelts lest the speed of self-destruction spins you off the earth's axis."

Israel-Palestine-Hamas Mystery: Questions & A Response
Israel-Palestine: “Proximity Talks” and US Vice President Biden

Palestinians and Israelis are not even going to be at the table together. Mitchell could not even make that happen. This isn't phase one of a longstanding conflict. These are adversaries who have sat across many tables and struck many agreements over the past 19 years.



And so this is where we are in the gruelingly endless Middle East peace process. About a dozen steps back from where we started.

False Starts

Here's the down-low. After an upbeat set of promises to bring old foes to the Mideast negotiating table, Obama realized that Israel would not move so much as an inch on freezing illegal settlement-building activity -- a fundamental necessity since there can be no land-for-peace agreement without land to cede.

The Obama presidency began just days after Israel's three-week military devastation of Gaza concluded, putting not even the most sycophantic of Palestinian leaders in a position to be generous without a significant Israeli goodwill gesture. Then Benjamin Netanyahu emerged victorious from Israeli national elections and the die was cast.

Netanyahu's Likud Party has never accepted a Two-State Solution, and Obama wasted much time wresting a luke-warm endorsement of this plan from the new Israeli prime minister. But while Netanyahu's "compromise" was lauded by US officials and media pundits, the fact is that Mideast observers knew there was nothing new in his for-the-cameras acceptance of a Palestinian state minus sovereignty.

On the other side of the fence, the increasingly unpopular Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) government -- as corrupt and ineffectual as our Arab allies come -- desperately needed an active peace process to give it a veneer of respectability. Fatah's credibility is in serious jeopardy -- it pushed for participation in peace talks with Israel almost two decades ago at the Madrid Peace Conference -- and has virtually nothing to show for it.

Well, except for the fact that Jewish settlers in the West Bank have quintupled in number and that Israel has managed to divide up the West Bank to its advantage, with Jewish-only roads and checkpoints cutting off Palestinian movement and freedoms further.

But PA leader Mahmoud Abbas was unable to participate in post-Gaza peace talks without a settlement halt -- he had drawn that line in the sand after Obama offered up a settlement freeze as part of his fantasy-based approach to peacemaking.

Eureka!

So, as Israel continued to announce new settlement projects and evict Palestinians in hotly-contested Jerusalem from their homes, Abbas and Obama looked desperately for a way to hang on to credibility and launch talks in some form.

And then the brilliant idea struck. Why, if we can't talk to Israel directly because of its flagrant violations of international principles and laws, let's just have the Americans do it for us. And this way, if anything goes wrong and our popularity suffers, we have plausible deniability and can blame it all on the US.

The Proximity Talks were thus born. Presumably that means "talks that are close, but not too close."

And the absurdity continues. US Vice President Joe Biden, during his visit to Israel on Monday said: "If the talks develop, we believe that we'll be able to bridge the gaps and that the conflict will be ended."

Really? Two decades of talks between Palestinians and Israelis when the players were far more motivated to deliver a solution -- and now -- Biden believes the conflict will be "ended."

One-Way Street To Irrelevance

Here's what I think is actually happening:

I think Obama is realigning his peacemaking priorities in the Middle East -- at least until he has the US economy, health care reform and Iraq under his belt -- a must if he wants to be re-elected in 2012. For both domestic and international public consumption, he cannot accept complete failure in such a visibly-touted part of his global agenda. There must be talks in some form, but they will be placed on a low burner, increasing the risk of more of the same endless "process without peace" that the US has sponsored since 1991.

Instead, Obama is placing his bets on Iran to bring him home a foreign policy "victory" -- contradicting his earlier claims that Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution should be tackled first, as this will diffuse Iran's grandstanding and reduce its regional influence.

The US's Mideast allies have to be dealt with in the meantime. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is getting testy watching Iran's ascendency in the Persian Gulf, and is champing at the bit to halt this trend. The Saudi King is the proud benefactor of the Arab Peace Plan and he would like to see it advanced. As would Egypt -- facing key elections in 2011 and suffering from regional criticism for its own blockade of Gaza. In return for Saudi and Egyptian cooperation on isolating Iran further - and financial/political help in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the US will push forward its half-baked peace process and try to keep the wheels grinding as long as humanly possible.

In the meantime, the entire US "Camp" is doing all it can to retain the status quo in the Mideast. It isn't just Iran that threatens. The rising popularity of a bloc of nations, leaders and groups that challenges US, Israeli, Saudi and Egyptian hegemony in the region just keeps growing. The Arab and Muslim Street is with the new bloc -- decades of corruption, occupation and stagnation have seen to that.

And here we are, just la-la-la plodding along, ignoring facts and realities in a quick-changing landscape. We are not the economic and military power of yesteryear -- protracted, unwinnable battles in tribal Afghanistan and splintered Iraq demonstrate that we can not even win an elementary victory in the Mideast.

We listen to political decision makers -- not area experts who can clue us in -- and advance forward as though nothing has changed, as though we are the only player that counts. We decide who plays with us -- not the democratically-elected Hezbollah and Hamas whose critical part in any feasible and long lasting Mideast solution we still refuse to acknowledge.

We vilify Iran and others who threaten our view of things, not realizing that this opposition emerges because of our blinkered behaviors and double standards in a region straining to discover its own identity and set wrongs right.

Double standards have destroyed any credibility we have in the region. We resist international demands that Israel and its 300 nuclear warheads join the IAEA, but censure the longstanding IAEA member, Iran, from pursuing a nuclear energy program. We back some of the most despicable dictatorships in the Arab world and then undermine the electoral victories of those we oppose. We send troops and funding to rein in Salafi jihadists throughout the region without a backward glance at the most intolerant nation of them all, our ally Saudi Arabia, the very source of radical militancy. And we don't even offer an apology for the wrongful deaths of hundreds of thousands of their civilians in our zealous attempts to avenge the deaths of 2,750 of ours.

And now we are hosting the Theater of the Absurd -- these so-called proximity talks -- where there are no actors, just us, sitting in a room alone, talking to ourselves. We have fooled them all! Or have we?

Israel-Palestine-Hamas Mystery: Questions & A Response

The question: what did the secret internal Foreign Ministry report distributed to Israeli diplomatic missions abroad mean? The document declares that the US administration will not put much effort into the upcoming indirect negotiations, opting instead to focus on November’s Congressional elections.

Why was this released in the wake of the visit of Vice President Joe Biden to Israel? Was this a message to Washington over the previous "unwanted" Ametrican statements on settlements in East Jerusalem and West Bank or was it just an example of Israel trying to box in the Obama Administration by revealing, through a well-timed leak, the supposed US policy?

Israel-Palestine: “Proximity Talks” and US Vice President Biden

Then there's the Hamas question: on Sunday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed to Hamas to argue that an early deal for a Palestinian state is unlikely, given the strength of the organisation in the Gaza Strip.



David Zonseine,  joint founder of an initiative seeking direct and open talks with Hamas, gave a blunt answer to the Prime Minister:

Israel must talk to Hamas. Not secretly. Not indirectly. Not for a politician to rehabilitate himself on the way to taking over the leadership of a party, as Kadima's Shaul Mofaz tried to do, but openly and seriously. Just as the United States regularly talks to the Israeli opposition, Israel should maintain a dialogue with the Palestinian opposition. The dialogue should cover all core issues including a final settlement.

It's not a simple matter, of course. There is agreement across the political spectrum to reduce the debate to a demonization of Hamas, dwelling on the organization's external attributes as perceived by Israel - religious, extremist and desiring all the territory between the river and the sea. This debate does not focus on the Israeli interest. We should be asking ourselves the following questions: Is it worthwhile to speak with Hamas? What are our reasons for not talking to them? Is boycotting them linked to an erroneous preconception?

Israel rigorously insists that Hamas is not a partner and that our partner is Fatah, headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. But negotiations with Fatah have been going on for nearly two decades, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's declaration that he accepts the principle of two states for two peoples looks like just another trick to postpone the demise of the current negotiation process.

In 2004, the Israeli government decided that Yasser Arafat was not relevant. Abbas, Israel's leaders have said, is weak. At the same time, Israel has for years been doing all it can to weaken the Palestinian Authority. That way, it will be possible to prove yet again that although "we have to talk, there's no one you can close a deal with." Even if an agreement is signed under American pressure, the PA will not be able to implement it because more than half the Palestinians don't accept its authority. This is why the refusal to speak with Hamas is pointless. It is no more than a continuation of avoiding talking to the Palestinians by other means.

Hamas' rule in Gaza is the outcome of despair with the Fatah leadership. The deterioration of the situation in Gaza after the ongoing failure of negotiations and the total dependence on Israel for receiving basic needs intensify the despair and extremism. (And no one is talking about the right to free movement, to go abroad to study.) Even today, there are groups resisting Hamas that resemble Al-Qaida. We can drag things out as much as we want, but we have to admit that the notion that time is on our side is baseless. The people who led Abbas to consider resigning and who refuse to talk to Hamas will find themselves in five years with a partner who reports to Osama bin Laden.

Nothing is possible without Gilad Shalit. People may say that the fate of a country cannot be dependent on what happens to one abducted soldier. There is no greater mistake. The abandonment of Shalit is symptomatic of Zionism's failure, the elevation of pride over wisdom and tactics over strategy. It's the denial of the sanctity of life and redeeming prisoners, values that are at the heart and soul of the nation.

Precisely here, the soft underbelly of public opinion, it would be possible to makes progress on the delicate matter of contacts with Hamas. More than 7,000 Palestinians are being held prisoner in Israel. There is one Israeli prisoner in Palestine. The suffering of both sides, and with it the tremendous joy that a prisoner exchange would produce, can and should be the lever for a stepped-up conciliation process.

For years Israel and its citizens have been paying the price of choosing solutions that were appropriate for the last war. Hiding our head in the sand at such a critical stage is dangerous. We have to declare our readiness to speak with the Palestinian opposition, immediately.

Israel-Palestine: "Proximity Talks" and US Vice President Biden

Here's the background: last Friday, US Mideast Special Envoy George Mitchell's deputy, David Hale, said Israeli-Palestinian understandings since the Annapolis talks would not be binding.

Following the approval of two conditions (the outlines of a border deal with Israel and a complete Israeli settlement construction freeze) by the Palestinian Liberation Organization executive committee, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that he hoped for direct negotiations in the near future, but reiterated that any permanent settlement would require recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a long-term guarantee of Israel's security.

Thus, the clear difference between two disputants' mentalities: on one hand, Ramallah is considering indirect talks as a basis to be consolidated in order to move to the next round of direct talks; on the other hand, West Jerusalem sees indirect talks as a way to block preconditions.

In the midst of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's permission for the construction of 112 housing units in the settlement of Beitar Ilit, despite the construction freeze in the West Bank settlements, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden arrived Israel on Tuesday while Mitchell moved to Ramallah for further talks.

Biden, on early Tuesday, met President Shimon Peres. He said that the agreed resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks provided a "moment of real opportunity" for peace and added:

The interests of both the Palestinians and the Israeli people, if everyone would just step back and take a deep breath, are actually very much more in line than they are in opposition.

Then, Biden talked to PM Netanyahu. He said that "historic peace will require both sides to make historically bold commitments" and gave the golden statement:

There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security.

When it came to the Iranian issue, Biden said: "We're determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and we're working with many countries around the world to convince Tehran to meet its international obligations and cease and desist." President Peres harshly targeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He stated that Ahmadinejad must face "total" international isolation and added:

A person like Ahmadinejad, who calls openly to destroy the state of Israel, cannot be a full member of the United Nations.

A man who calls for acts of terror, and who hangs people in the street ... he should be placed in his proper definition. He cannot go around almost like a cultural hero.

Ahmadinejad has to be isolated and not be welcomed in the capitals of the world.

The Latest from Iran (8 March): Foreign Affairs

2000 GMT: More on Women's Day. An interesting interview with Parvin Ardalan, winner of the Olof Palme Prize in 2005 it was “for making the equal rights of men and women central to the struggle for democracy in Iran”:

Many of the women’s groups decided after the election not to communicate with the government because it has lost its legitimacy. For example, they collected all these signatures for the One Million Signatures campaign to give to the parliament, but now people no longer want to sign anything because they believe that no demands should be sent to a government that has no legitimacy. The situation has changed – people want gender equality but they don’t think the approach is to go to this government to get it. So currently even the groups that did have contact with the government, no longer do

1900 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has met with reformist students of Tehran University for the second time in recent months.

1850 GMT: We've posted the video message of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Iranian women on International Women's Day.

1845 GMT: Political Prisoner News. An Iranian activist reports that Committee of Human Rights Reporters member Mehrad Rahimi was released on bail this evening. Five other CHRR members are still imprisoned.

NEW Latest Iran Video: Hillary Clinton’s Message to Iranian Women (8 March)
NEW Iran: A Journalist Writes Her Detained Husband and “Mr Interrogator”
Video: General Petraeus on Iran and Iraq (7 March)
Iran: Senior Reformist Amani “We Have Not Decided to Remain Silent”
The Latest from Iran (7 March): The Elections Next Door

1800 GMT: How Does Iran Celebrate International Women's Day? Building on the news that poet Simin Behbahani was barred from leaving Iran for ceremonies in Paris (see 0835 GMT), Golnaz Esfandiari notes other cases of restrictions of women's rights in the country.


1755 GMT: War on Terror News. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has announced that Iran has asked Germany to extradite the leader of the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) to stand trial.

1745 GMT: Denial of Day:Tehran Province Governor Morteza Tamaddon claimed today that security and police forces did not enter the campus of Tehran University on the night of 14/15 June.

Responding to an 18-minute video, widely circulated last month, that showed men attacking university dormiitories, Tamaddon warned, “If anyone claims [security and police were present], we are ready to follow up on the matter.” He insisted a small group of students had started a protest in the University residences and were dealt with by the “appropriate authorities.”

1735 GMT: All is Well Press Release of Day. I have to preface this, while trying to keep a straight face, with the note that throughout Sunday, Iranian state media were announcing loudly that President Ahmadinejad would be in Kabul today (see 1055 GMT):

An Iranian diplomat in Kabul said Monday President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would head a high-ranking delegation to Afghanistan on Wednesday, rejecting reports of delays in his visit.

Afghan sources in the presidential office had earlier claimed that Ahmadinejad had postponed his visit, which, they said, had been originally scheduled for Monday.

The Iranian source, however, told Press TV that Tehran had announced that the visit would take place during the week, without specifying that a day had been picked by the president.

The diplomat also rejected reports that the visit's itinerary had been influenced by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' visit to Kabul.

1730 GMT: Communicating with Iran. The US Treasury Department has approved an exemption to American sanctions on Iran, Sudan, and Cuba to allow the export of Internet communications software. Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said that the change is intended to help people "exercise their most basic rights."

1715 GMT: Economy Watch. Looks like the Ahmadinejad Government may have scored a big victory, with the approval of a $347 billion budget for the Iranian year to March 2011.

This is less than the Government's $368.4 billion request. It also appears that the $40 billion sought from subsidy cuts has been reduced to $20 billion. Still, given the criticism of the Government over the proposal, the passage is a significant advance.

The vote for the budget was 151-62 with 12 abstentions.

1420 GMT: An Unwelcome Coincidence. Within 30 seconds of posting the update below, I read the news from the Kalemeh website:

An Iranian appeals court handed a five-year jail term to a reformist journalist...while...authorities freed five other critics on hefty sureties.

The journalist, Bahman Ahmadi Amoui, a prominent critic of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's economic policies, was previously sentenced to seven years in jail and 74 lashes, after a government crackdown on opposition supporters.

But the appeals court reduced that sentence to five years in jail and waived the lashes.

1415 GMT: A Special Letter. A bit limited with updates today because of academic duties; please keep sending in your latest news.

Meanwhile, we've posted a letter from journalist Zhila Baniyaghoub to her husband, Bahman Ahmadi Amoui. Both were detained after the June election, but Baniyaghoub was released while Amoui remains in Evin Prison. The letter, posted on Sunday, is one of the most moving expressions of feeling and thought I have read in this crisis.

1100 GMT: Adding Insult to Injury. Here's US Secretary of State Robert Gates, on his way to meet Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai after Karzai told President Ahmadinejad to stay in Iran: "[Tehran] also understand that our reaction, should they get too aggressive in this, is not one they would want to think about."

1055 GMT: Rejected. OK, now the news from Kabul makes sense....

I noticed a few hours ago that US Secretary of State Defense Robert Gates is also in Afghanistan today, paying a visit to President Hamid Karzai. This conjured up wild visions of US and Iranian delegations huddling somewhere in Kabul while Karzai manoeuvred between meetings with Gates and President Ahmadinejad.

But, of course, the simpler outcome is that the Afghan leadership --- whether because of pressure from the Amerians or of their own accord --- would choose their Washington visitors and tell Ahmadinejad to stay home. From Press TV:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has postponed a trip to Afghanistan devoted to providing "solutions for settling the problems" in Iran's eastern neighbor.

The one-day visit, originally scheduled for Monday, would be the President's first visit to Afghanistan since both he and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai were re-elected last year.

"President Ahmadinejad won't be coming to Kabul," an informed source at the Karzai's office told Press TV on condition of anonymity.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the source added, has, however, arrived in Afghanistan on Monday morning on an unannounced visit.

The source did not pinpoint a next date for the meeting between the two presidents.

1030 GMT: Breaking News. It is being reported that President Ahmadinejad has cancelled his trip to Afghanistan, giving no reason.

0905 GMT: In Their Honour. For International Women's Day, Setareh Sabety has posted an essay, "Working Class and Female in Iran": "For whatever it is worth, I thought that I should expose the lives of three very ordinary Iranian women from different backgrounds and different sensibilities. This is for them."

0835 GMT: Stifling the Artists. Iranian authorities have barred one of Iran's most famous poets, Simin Behbahani, from leaving the country. Behbahani had been invited to read her work at International Women's Day ceremonies in Paris.

0730 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. The authorities continue to release the relatives of prominent blogger Agh Bahman: his sisters Banafsheh and Jamileh Darolshafaei. His cousin Yashar Darolshafaei has had bail set at $70,000. However, Abolhasan Darolshafaei, Bahman's father, is still detained.

0715 GMT: The Israel Front. Meanwhile, the US continues to send the Very, Very Concerned message to western Jerusalem, not to encourage an Israeli attack on Iran but to dissuade the Israelis.

The latest high-profile signal comes from Vice President Joe Biden's visit today. Before meeting Israeli officials, he declared:

Though I cannot answer the hypothetical questions you raised about Iran, I can promise the Israeli people that we will confront, as allies, any security challenge it will face. A nuclear-armed Iran would constitute a threat not only to Israel -- it would also constitute a threat to the United States.

0705 GMT: China and Iran. The International Crisis Group offers an incisive analysis on China's position on the Iranian nuclear issue:

Beijing is unconvinced that Iran has the ability to develop nuclear weapons in the short term and does not share the West’s sense of urgency about the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran, despite the risks that this would present to China’s long-term interests. Moreover, it does not believe the sanctions proposed by the West will bring about a solution to the issue, particularly given the failure of this approach so far. And while Beijing has stated that it supports a “nuclear-free” Middle East, it does not want to sacrifice its own energy interests in Iran. However, if China finds itself facing unanimous support for sanctions from other Security Council members, it will delay but not block a resolution, while seeking to weaken its punitive terms.

0635 GMT: Look for Iranian state media to spend Monday playing up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's trip to Kabul to chat with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. After several months of being ostracised by the international community, Ahmadinejad has become one of the big boys again. This visit, following the Iranian President's diiscussions in Damascus, points to the Iranian Government's play for recognition and influence in both the Middle East and Central Asia.

But is Ahmadinejad a central figure or just a figurehead? We're still watching the Japan front on the uranium enrichment story, with yet another sign from Tehran yesterday that a deal may soon be on the table for Tokyo to carry out third-party enrichment.

And, while posting the video, we're trying to read General David Petraeus's appearance on the stage yesterday. His reference to Iran's regime as a "thugocracy" seems a crude attempt, both in rhetoric and conception, to match Hillary Clinton's recent pronouncement of an Iranian "military dictatorship".

However, the most significant part of Petraeus' statement may be his assurance that Tehran is too preoccupied with internal matters to mess around abroad, including in Iraq. That reads as a declaration of the containment of Iran, which indicates that Petraeus will not be pushing for more confrontational measures against Tehran, including military action.