Analysis: The Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy Game

At first, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam on Saturday that the Palestinian Authority is considering seeking recognition from the United Nations Security Council of a Palestinian state along 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

On Sunday (which was the anniversary of the symbolic Nov. 15, 1988 declaration of independence by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat), Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said that the Palestinian Authority is working on a two-year development plan aimed at consolidating the groundwork for independence. It was also stated that these two issues- applying to the United Nations Security Council to have the independence legitimized in the eyes of international law, and the two-year-long economic development plan- were separate issues. Fayyad said:

I know some people are concerned that this is unilateral development plan. But it seems to me that it is unilateral in a healthy sense of self-development.

However these two statements are lacking a strong vision when it comes to the realities of the region. First of all, as I stated yesterday, there is no need to guess at Washington's approach to an appeal for a unilateral demand to be recognized in the UN Security Council. Secondly, the fact that the first plan cannot be achieved overnight breaks apart the claim that they are not inter-related. Fayyad stated that they need two years in which the economic power of the Palestinian Authority can be strengthened - a plan that he hopes will weaken Israel's position and gain US support. Of course, it is not possible and not consistent with the realities Palestinians face today. Can anyone think of an economic development in the West Bank that will strengthen the Palestinian Authority politically yet weaken Tel Aviv, as if the latter has no interest in this land's economic development? Do not forget that it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has been highlighting "the significance of the economic development of the West Bank"! So, the economic liberalization process of the West Bank is already in Tel Aviv's interest.

The statements from the Palestinian Authority are aimed at consolidating their position and strengthening it legitimacy in the West Bank, and are not rationally-formulated and strongly-believed plans to make progress toward peace. In other words, they have grown out domestic concerns rather than any deep and wise plans to save Palestine from Israeli occupation.

On the other side of this game, Netanyahu warned that Israel would respond to any unilateral Palestinian steps - particularly declarations of statehood - with one-sided steps of its own. He said:

There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral path will only unravel the framework of agreements between us and will only bring unilateral steps from Israel's side.

At the end of the day, there is still a big question as to whether the statements of the Palestinian Authority will work as they desire them to- are they pushing Netanyahu into the corner or are they merely helping Netanyahu show the Israeli public how "uncompromising" Palestinians are following Netanyahu's continuing rhetoric that "Israel is ready to sit at the negotiating table without any pre-conditions?"

Yes, Washington is stuck in the middle of this game. However, the Obama Administration needs to work harder than ever and show its seriousness with concrete action on both sides.

Photo Diplomacy: The Meaning Behind the Picture at the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting

Haaretz Correspondent Roey Simioni offers an interesting take on photo diplomacy in Washington.

The only photo released by the White House of the recent meeting between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu shows both men talking seriously in a friendly and calm dinner setting. One might say that the Obama administration could have leaked a photo in which Obama is pointing his finger toward Netanyahu's face, or another pose which could raise questions regarding the atmosphere of the meeting. However this picture looks like the best of bad lot.

Here is Simioni's opinion:

A painting hangs on the wall beside the two leaders, which if Netanyahu did not see it, or saw it and did not understand its significance, then Obama, who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize, must have taken the trouble to explain to him its historic importance.

Obama's message to Netanyahu, if there really was such a message, is quite clear: If you end the blood feud and make a peace of the brave, you will be remembered in history as a great leader, like Lincoln (the former president most esteemed by Obama).

In the picture, which was painted in 1865 by the artist George Peter Alexander Healy, Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, is seen conferring with William Sherman, Ulysses Grant and David Porter, the commanders of the Union army. During conversations the four men held on the River Queen steamboat on March 27 and March 28 of that year, just over a week before the end of the U.S. Civil War, they discussed the conditions of the peace treaty they would offer the defeated Confederate forces. The accord, even if it had many deficiencies, brought about the reunion of the North and South, the economic recovery of the South, the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of African Americans.

Israel-Palestine: State Department Changes Tone on Settlements

Israel: Obama’s Photograph Politics
Israel-Palestine & France: Sarkozy Calls Abbas after Meeting Netanyahu
Palestine: Abbas Bluffs & Wins — January Election Postponed
Netanyahu in Paris: Is France Mediating Israel-Syria Talks?
Inside Line on Hamas & Hezbollah: Their Thoughts on Obama, Unity Governments, & Oprah

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "unproductive" visit to Washington, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns said on Tuesday said that the Obama administration does not "accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements". Only days after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Tel Aviv's "unprecedented" steps, Burns offered a correction in tone:

We consider the Israeli offer to restrain settlement activity to be a potentially important step, but it obviously falls short of the continuing Road Map obligation for a full settlement freeze.

Obama administration is committed to achieve two states living side by side in peace and security

A Jewish state of Israel, with which America retains unbreakable bonds, and with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, that ends the daily humiliations of Palestinians under occupation, and that realizes the full and remarkable potential of the Palestinian people...

Israel: Obama's Photograph Politics

Israel-Palestine & France: Sarkozy Calls Abbas after Meeting Netanyahu
Palestine: Abbas Bluffs & Wins — January Election Postponed
Netanyahu in Paris: Is France Mediating Israel-Syria Talks?
Inside Line on Hamas & Hezbollah: Their Thoughts on Obama, Unity Governments, & Oprah

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

After four days, the White House released a photograph
of the meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office private dining room.

Washington wanted to maintain a low profile for the encounter, given Netanyahu's unwillingness to put forward concrete steps for peace talks with Palestine. As a sign of displeasure, Obama's advisors did not give permission for press members to capture a scene from the meeting, allowing only the White House photographer to record the event.

So, the release of this photo after four days is a sign of Washington's continuing displeasure over the manoeuvres of its Israeli ally. The question remains: is picture politics the extent of its response to those tactics?

Afghanistan Follow-Up: Civil War in the Obama Administration

Afghanistan Special: The Obama Administration Breaks Apart Over Military Escalation
Afghanistan Video: Obama Rejects “All Military Options”?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



UPDATE 1525 GMT: Spencer Ackerman has now retracted his original story that the anti-Eikenberry statement --- "he has a beef with McChrystal" --- came from a National Security Council staffer who was at the NSC meeting on Wednesday, although "my original source for the post stands by the account provided". Pity that Ackerman doesn't then ask the follow-up question: "How bad are relations within the White House over Afghanistan that officials are slinging mud by passing on 'information' from others who were in the high-level discussions?"

Yesterday we reported on the sudden emergence of the rift within the US Government over military escalation in Afghanistan. This was symbolised by the leaking of the call by the US Ambassador,  Karl Eikenberry, for no troop increase because of the instability of the Afghan Government and, more importantly, established by President Obama's reported "rejection" of all four proposals --- ranging from an escalation of 15,000 troops to a fulfilment of US commander Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 --- on the table.

24 hours later and the dispute rages on. The immediate reaction was an effort by pro-escalation forces to trash Eikenberry by claiming “he leaked his own cables” because “he has a beef with McChrystal" and alleging that the mess in Afghanistan occurred during Eikenberry's tenure as military commander between 2005 and 2007. Meanwhile, those inside the White House (note, not inside the US Embassy but inside the White House) are maintaining the pressure against an acceptance of any significant troop increase by criticising both sides of the Af-Pak strategy: "Do we have any assurances of what Pakistan will do? At least in Iraq, you had some functioning government there at the time of the surge. In Afghanistan, there is no government there."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is trying to hold the Administration together with the insistence that a National Security meeting yesterday focused on progress rather than retribution: “I would say it was more, how can we combine some of the best features of several of the options to maximum good effect? So there is a little more work to do, but I think we’re getting toward the end of the process.” Yet Gates also hinted at the growing doubts about the Kabul Government that have first delayed and now jeopardised an acceptance of the McChrystal recommendations, “How do we signal resolve, and at the same time signal to the Afghans, as well as the American people, that this is not an open-ended commitment?”

In the coverage today, however, no one is coming back to the question: who leaked the Eikenberry objections? And no one is picking up on the significance of that leak and the disputes of this week.

The tensions between the White House, other agencies, and the US military have been present since Obama took office in January. Here's the difference now: those tensions may now have become the primary issue, overtaking any specific decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. If the President finally authorises the 40,000, he will be seen as caving in to the pressure of the military, disregarding not only advisors such as Eikenberry but sceptics within his White House. If he refuses escalation or offers only a token increase, he will incur the wrath of commanders who are willing to "spin" against him and their allies in the media ("Obama the ditherer"; "Obama the appeaser"). If he tries to split the difference, he will get the worst of both worlds --- loyalists like Gates will try to prop him up, but Obama will be facing objections (mainly through more leaks) from within the White House and within other departments.

That is why the most significant part of Gates's statement to the press yesterday was not his "Don't Worry, All is On Course for A Decision", but his warning to those out of line in the the Administration: “I have been appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on in this process....A lot of different places are leaking...[and I am] confident that the Department of Defense is one of them....And frankly if I found out with high confidence anybody who was leaking in the Department of Defense, who that was, that would probably be a career ender.”

Which, in "normal" times, might be enough to put everyone and everything back in line. But Afghanistan --- in symbolism and in political reality --- is beyond normal, and this civil war is now beyond even an Enforcer like Gates.