Israel-Palestine: Arab League Supports Indirect Talks (Yenidunya)

The Arab League nations backed indirect talks between Israelis and Palestinians on Saturday. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa told reporters: "The timeframe of indirect talks will not change from what was agreed to in March, and there will be no change from indirect talks to direct talks until after the outcome of indirect talks has been assessed."

Middle East Analysis: Washington’s Latest Stick for an Israel-Palestine Solution

The top Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, filled in the detail on the "assessment of the indirect talks", "If Israel builds one house in the West Bank, Palestinians will immediately stop the negotiations." Arab foreign ministers added East Jerusalem to the agenda, warning that peace efforts would collapse if Israel continued to build settlements in the city as well as in the West Bank.



The Arab League, who gave the U.S. four months from March for so-called proximity talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, said that it had received "positive signs" from the United States.

Hamas, the Palestinian leadership in Gaza, criticized this support: "The endorsement and support for the Arab Committee to resume negotiations again, even after the occupation continues with its policies and settlements, is considered as accepting the situation as it is, and a new umbrella for it to commit more crimes and violations against the Palestinian people."

In contrast, Israeli officials welcomed the League's endorsement. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement, "Israel is willing to renew negotiations with the Palestinians at any time and at any place." President Shimon Peres added:

There is a readiness in Israel to solve the obstacles at the basis of peace negotiations. It took a little longer than we hoped for and problems are not yet solved but at least the way to handle them is open.

Israel has adopted the principle of two states for two peoples, and we extend our hand for an honest peace with our neighbours.

For now, Israeli officials are not saying a word about settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

On Sunday, Palestinian Authority Secretary General Tayeb Abdel Rahim said that U.S. President Barack Obama has assured the PA that Washington is committed to a two-state solution and that a future Palestinian state will be independent and have territorial continuity. Rahim added that the U.S. vowed to assign blame publicly to any party that takes provocative actions or jeopardizes prospects for peace.

London-based Arab-language newspaper Al-Hayat claims that Obama has promised Abbas a prolonged Israeli settlement freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The report asserts that Saeb Erekat told the Arab League ministers Saturday night that Obama made his promise off the record in order to avoid conflict with right-wing factions in Israel.

Comments

[Bijan77]

Ali -

Behind the scenes, what is the sentiment of the Arab League as you understand it to be? In my opinion, I imagine the comments made were simply "political" and created to show publicly that the Arab League supports progress but in reality is skeptical of the Netanyahu government to fullfill on any concessions specifically as it relates to halting building activities. I would imagine, privately, many in the Arab sphere share sentiments closer to that as expressed by Hamas.

Secondly, I must admit to being rather skeptical myself and feel Obama may be creating a space for himself to lose further credibility with the Muslim world as he makes promises as noted in Al Hayat that he has little control over...let me say it this way, in order for the Israeli government to act in a way which mirrors Obama's promises to Abbas I believe Obama would have to exert a level of pressure he will is unable to do, whether personally or politically he feels he should, simply based on the pressures he will face internally.

[aliyenidunya]

Bijan,

I totally agree with you. Yes, the Arab League is sceptical about the Netanyahu Government's further steps in the peace process but also needs to show "willingness" for peace itself and should not give that "not missing any opportunity to miss an opportunity" impression.

[Bijan77]

I feel the ultimate question is not will the proximity talks "work" but rather what steps will be taken when they do not. Given statements by Netanyahu himself and others within the coalition (granted some voices are more conservative then his but at the same time some or more moderate) that all point to a general unwillingness to concede on key issues as presented by Abbas, I am skeptical on the effectiveness of the proximity talks and in my opinion it is another "saving face" move vis a vis Obama's push to make whole on promises in his campaign. To be fair, while I do not think the Palestinian demands are outragous, I do not see a willingness by Abbas to make large concessions either. I lean towards the notion that the proximity talks are nothing more than the title suggestions..that there will be little ground gained. I hope I am being overly skeptical.....

Another question if I may, what is the risk that Hamas unilaterally takes action if the talks do (or do not for that matter) result in any favorable action to the Palestinians by the Israeli government?

[aliyenidunya]

Actually, the problem is more than the sustainability of the proximity talks. While Israelis are already seeing indirect talks as nothing but a necessary step to be bypassed quickly, Palestinians are waiting an announcement on East Jerusalem and the West Bank during this time. So, it does not look like it will work for both sides unless there is an imposed last minute formula by Washington.

If it does not work, each side is going to blame each side of course but more important thing is not the result of indirect talks; but the process itself and how sides will handle it. If it is again Israel not "willing" to give further concession and cannot convince Washington with regards to its security concerns, then this new era will give Washington a new opportunity to increase the pressure on Israel. However, again, the critical point comes to Washington's perception of Israel's security. If you consider American administrations' understanding about Israel's security concerns, then we will see that there is no big enough space for the Obama Administration to manoeuvre within this context.

As for Hamas, it is out of the game for the time being. If talks do not produce an understanding for direct talks or after that, then Hamas will increase its credibility of course in the region. On the other hand, if there is a settlement at any time, then Hamas will feel the pressure to engage with Ramallah.

[Bijan77]

Agreed. Points well made Ali.

How do the points made by the military establishment that the US must view this conflict in broader terms of US national security going to play into the manoeuvre space you elude to above? Is this significant enough for Obama to take note and to, perhaps, increase his rhetoric against the Israeli government?

[aliyenidunya]

Absolutely! The Obama Administration just needs to find the best conjuncture both inside and on the international level to set up a new track in which both the Americans - including his opponent Republicans - and core international actors such as EU, Russia and China will come to a point where backing up the Obama Administration will sound more beneficiary to all, including Israel. Washington needs an urgent move vis-a-vis Israel's intransigence more than anything in the region now but the issue of pressuring Israel is also linked to other regional problems which requires more than the Obama Administration's willingness and discursive support for a two-state solution. On the other hand, the clock is ticking. So, here is Washington's problem. What do you think Bijan?

[Mortgage rates dip for 2nd wee]

[...] Israel-Palestine: Arab League Supports Indirect Talks (Yenidunya) | Enduring America [...]