After The Obama-Abbas Meeting: A Palestinian Stuck between Washington and Tel Aviv

Latest Post: Damascus Matters - Syria, the US, and the New Middle East
Video: Palestine Latest - Settlements and Blockades but No Reconstruction

Video and Full Transcript of Obama-Abbas Meeting(28 May)

At his meeting with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, President Obama again highlighted the significance of an Israeli freeze on settlements in the West Bank. Obama did not mention any timeline for his demand being accepted by the Israeli authorities, indicating that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needed time to persuade his Cabinet; however, he also did not want his position to be seen as weak and passive. So Obama stated that he would not wait until the end of his first term to make progress; if is no action on the Israeli side, US pressure is likely to be applied on Tel Aviv. Obama also stated his general hope for a settlement “if they (Israel and Palestine) keep in mind not just the short-term tactical issues that are involved, but the long-term strategic interests of both the Israelis and the Palestinians to live side by side in peace and security".

Mahmoud Abbas, however, does not have the luxury of general aspirations and time: every passing hour undermines his authority.

Abbas acted fast to form a new government last week after the failure to form a unity administration between Fatah and Hamas. Abbas wanted to strengthen his hand before his visit to Washington; however, the new government was rejected not only by Hamas but also by many in Fatah and by several other Palestinian factions such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Palestinian People's Party amidst accusations of nepotism, cronyism, and lack of accountability or transparency.

In Gaza, Hamas has been increasing its support since the end of Israel's Operation Cast Lead. So Abbas needs the symbolic as well as practical support offered by the popularity of President Obama. That is why the Palestinian politician told Jackson Diehl and Fred Hiatt, in his audience with [italics]The Washington Post[/italics]:
[blockquote]
The Americans are the leaders of the world; they can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, "You have to comply with the conditions."
[/blockquote]
But, even if Obama is happy to be Abbas' saviour, there's the small matter of the Israeli dynamic. Even if Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to freeze settlements, he might be have trouble convincing 30 Ministers in his Cabinet. Nor is Obama's "more time" likely to alter the situation, with the Israeli public becoming more intransigent as time goes by.

For the time being, the Netanyahu Government is trying to fudge the issue. The Prime Minister Netanyahu has already stated that there would be no freeze in current settlements, but new settlements would not be authorised and illegal outposts would not be tolerated. Rhetorically, however, Netanyahu's ministers are dismissing the issue. Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon told Israel's Channel 2, “Settlements are not the reason that the peace process is failing, they were never an obstacle, not at any stage."

Netanyahu may not have staked himself to the rhetoric of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman: “Peace for Peace” without any preconditions. Yet it is difficult to see what Tel Aviv is willing to offer, especially when Arab states backing the peace initiative have declared that they are ready to recognise Israel.

Thus Obama, less than a week before his Cairo speech, still has nothing --- not even a modest Israeli concession --- to anchor his general wishes for peace. Stiil, in comparison to others, he might be considered fortunate. For Mahmoud Abbas does not even have the trappings of authority as the non-peace process drags on.

Video: Brzezinski --- "This is the Last Chance for Peace in the Middle East"

Speaking on MSNBC's Morning Joe this week, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, reviewed the Middle East peace process. He declared that President Obama found himself between two options/schools of thought: Israel’s official perspective of delaying the peace with Palestinians, by presenting the Iranian danger as the priority of “existential threat”, and the demand for a two-state solution.

For Brzezinski, the outcome of Obama’s speech in Cairo on July 4 will be the turning point in US policy. It will ether foster a solution or, in its failure, ensure the peace process will be stuck for a long time. Thus, the US must make it clear to Israelis and Palestinians that this is the last chance for peace in the region, particular as the tension with Iran is worsening.

Brzezinski believes Israel must withdraw from occupied Palestine and must be pushed to share Jerusalem and stop the expansion settlements. In return, Israel must be assured that it does not have to accept any Palestinian refugees via a "right to return". Otherwise, a polarization would continue, with Palestinians seeing no alternative outside Hamas.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Turkey: Manoeuvring Against Israel Over Palestine

Last Friday, Istanbul hosted the International Conference on Palestinian Solidarity. Amongst those present were the International Union for Muslim Scholars run by Yusuf Al-Kardavi, many members of Parliament and the Turkish Assembly, and the Palestine Friendship Group.

Journalists who focused on the separate seating of men and women at the meeting missed these important developments:

One of the MPs of the ruling Justice and Development Party, Zeyid Arslan, who is also the Chairman of the TBMM-Palestine Friendship Group, said, ‘As long as Hamas, which came to power through its people, is not seen as the representative of its people but as a terrorist group, solution of the Palestinian question is impossible.’ Indeed, he went further and accused Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians: “Everyone who is silent over Israel’s committing genocide is going to pay the price before history.”

So three years after the leader of the JDP, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met Hamas political director, Khalied Meshaal, this is important because after Erdogan-Mashal meeting in 2006 and four months after Erdogan’s walk-out on Israeli President Shimon Peres at the Davos summit, the Justice and Development Party is still standing against Israel's line on Palestine and Hamas..

Other political leaders joined in. Yusuf Al-Kardavi called on Muslims to boycott American and Israeli goods. Raid Salah, head of the Islamic Movement, said: “We are going to maintain our struggle until we form the Palestinian state and declare Jerusalem as its capital.” Emanuel Musellem, head of the Catholic Church in Palestine, joined via teleconference to blame Israel for pressing of Muslims and Christians into a "Jewish" existence.

Thus, the political dance --- hastened by Israel's invasion --- continues. Is Turkey, led by Erdogan, prepared to step away from Israel or, given its long-term strategic links, will it continue to discreetly hold Tel Aviv's hand?

May Plan C on the Israeli-Arab Peace Process Work?

My colleague Scott Lucas wondered for weeks whether the Obama Administration has a Plan A for the Middle East before, last Friday, he finally wrote of an American "grand design".

With respect, I differ. The President and his advisors not only have a Plan A. They are ready with a Plan B and a Plan C.

Obama put Plan A for a two-state Israel-Palestine outcome and general Arab-Islamic agreements to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israelis made clear, and let the press know they had made clear, that this was not acceptable. So Plan B is working groups with the Israelis while encouraging regional leaders, such as Jordan's King Abdullah, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to maintain the call for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Then there is Plan C. The Associated Press reported last week that the Obama Administration may set a deadline of the end of 2009 on talks with Iran if they are not producing result.

The immediate reading was that Washington might be siding with Tel Aviv on the need for an eventual showdown with Iran. The reality could be more nuanced: the Obama Administration may use Tehran’s uncompromising position to pull Arabs and Israelis together for a regional process including Israel-Palestine.

Although some claim that this Plan C will never work, since Arabs and Israelis have different fears with regards to Iran’s policies, others argue that it is the best path. "The administration has to find the best path," says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Is this the best path? Given the opportunities, yes. They may not produce success but they offer the best alternative available."

The key to full Arab participation may be Syria, which has recently been in talks with Iran on a possible common approach. Here George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East envoy and a legendary negotiator, comes into play. Washington's ploy may be for Mitchell talks in Damascus to open the doors both to a diminishing of Iran’s influence and Israeli-Syrian talks.

Because Israel wants to see the Iranian threat "dealt with" before any peace deals with the Arabs, this subtle move by the Obama Administration could bring success. Instead of Israel’s insistence on clearing Tehran's nuclear facilities, Washington can change the context of the Tehran issue by adding the more political yet still forthright policies of Arab states into a broad-based coalition against Tehran. This approach may be enough to allay Tel Aviv’s concerns.

Hillary Clinton on Al-Jazeera: "Stop the Settlement Construction."

On Friday, we noted the aftermath of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting in Washington, with an emerging Israeli attempt to undermine a "grand design" by the US for the Middle East. More specifically, the two countries are at odds over the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

This is the interview that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave to Al-Jazaeera on Tuesday, where her assurance that Hamas remained on the outside of the process sat alongside her denunciation of the setttlements:.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEmMQOx0Hwk[/youtube]

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thanks for your time, first of all, for talking to this program on Al-Jazeera.

The meeting yesterday between President Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after the meeting, President Obama could not have made it any clearer that he wanted a two-state solution. On the other hand, Prime Minister Netanyahu sort of danced around the issue without using the terminology, which has raised concerns in the Arab world. How concerned are you about the fact that he didn’t actually mention once “two-state solution”?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is the beginning, and we see this as an intensive period of our outreach and of our frankly laying out what we want to see happen. You rightly point out that the President underscored our commitment to a two-state solution and also called for a stop to the settlements. We have made that very clear. I reinforced that last night at a dinner that I hosted for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Now the hard work starts. But I think it is significant that the Obama Administration is not waiting. We are starting this intensive engagement right now, very early in our Administration. We have consulted broadly already. Both George Mitchell and I have spoken with many Arab leaders, as well, of course, with the Palestinians and the Israelis. And we are determined to forge ahead on what we believe is in the best interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians, the larger region, and the world, as well as what we think is right. And the President – our President has often said, “Judge us on our actions, not our words.” But his words were very strong, and now we intend to match those words with our actions.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, when President Obama yesterday talked about the issue of settlements and he said that he wanted the Israelis to freeze the building on the West Bank, does that mean that he wants the settlements, the existing settlements, to be rolled back to the 1967 border, specifically?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there are two pieces to that question. First, we want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth – any kind of settlement activity. That is what the President has called for. We also are going to be pushing for a two-state solution which, by its very name, implies borders that have to be agreed to. And we expect to see two states living side by side, a state for the Palestinians that will be sovereign and within which the Palestinians will have the authorities that come with being in charge of a state with respect to such activities as settlements. So it’s really a two-step effort here. We want to see a stop now, and then, as part of this intensive engagement that Senator Mitchell is leading for us, we want to move toward a two-state solution with borders for the Palestinians.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, on the issue of the division, the split within the Palestinian body, Fatah and Hamas, can you envisage a scenario where you would be able to achieve a two-state solution without talking in some way, in some form, to Hamas?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I believe that Hamas has to comply with not only the Quartet principles but the underlying principles of the Arab Peace Initiative. You cannot expect either Fatah or the Israelis or Arabs who wish to see this matter resolved, with a two-state solution, to work with a group that does not believe in the outcome of these efforts. And in any peace negotiation that I’m aware of anywhere in the world, groups that are resistance groups, insurgent groups, guerilla groups, when they come to the peace table have to commit to peace. And we would expect Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist, to renounce violence as the way to the achievement of a homeland for the Palestinian people, and to recognize the prior agreements that have been entered into by the Palestinians either through the PLO or the PA.

I think that’s an incredibly reasonable request. Now, it is truly up to Hamas. The unity efforts that Egypt has been leading have been difficult because, clearly, there are very strongly divergent opinions that are being expressed. My hope is that I will see, you will see Palestinian children in their own state having a chance to lead normal lives, being given the opportunity to fulfill their own God-given potential, to get an education, to get the healthcare they need, to have good jobs and pursue their dreams. I don’t want to see them consigned to years more of conflict that just destroys that future.
And I think we have an opportunity now. We have a President of the United States who has already reached out and said here is what I’m committed to doing. I am committed. We have a team in this Administration, and we are looking for partners. We think that the Palestinian Authority is ready to be a partner. We believe through our efforts we will get the Israelis to make the kind of commitment to a two-state solution that is absolutely necessary. We know that many leaders in the Arab world see this in a different way, as the Arab Peace Initiative suggests. So let’s try to bring people to that recognition, and that includes Hamas.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thanks for the time, and I hope we can have you again on Al Jazeera.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. Nice to talk to you.

QUESTION: Great to see you. Thank you very much.