Palestine: Abbas Resign? It's a Bluff

Israel-Palestine: Clinton Tries to Help Abbas

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

Just before the arrivals of the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Israel, the declaration of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas that he would resign or decline to run in next January's elections have been exposed as a bluff.

A high-ranking figure in Fatah told journalists, "You can remain calm. On our side, no senior official resigns."

Israel-Palestine: Clinton Tries to Help Abbas

Israel: Netanyahu and Barak Limit the Gaza Inquiry

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

Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, is using every means available to press Washington on the Israel-Palestine issue. It emerged yesterday that last week Abbas told President Obama by phone last week that he wants to leave his post since he sees no chance for peace with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On the same day, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat blamed Israel for the current impasse:

The gap is still wide and Israel does not give a single sign of meeting its obligations under the road map, halting settlement activities and resuming negotiations where they left off. I do not see any possibility for restarting peace talks in the near future.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has joined the debate, saying that the Abbas administration must be bolstered against Israel's unwillingness and Hamas's resistance. She suggested that Israel carry out a series of goodwill actions and show greater flexibility to facilitate the resumption of talks and thatArab foreign ministers, meeting in Morocco on 2 November, step up their political and economic support for Abbas vis-a-vis Hamas.

It is unclear, however, what Washington will or can do beyond Clinton's general call. Israel has already stated that it will stop settlement constructions temporarily without the "natural growth." "One more step" means the demand on Israel for the full concession of a complete halt. As for the request to Arab foreign ministers to increase their support to the Palestine Authority: will that be enough to destroy Hamas or will it only contribute to a tougher line by the Gazan leadership?

Abbas will probably not resign; after all, he just gambled on his political future by announcing January elections. Look instead for him and Netanyahu to nod their hands as negotiations continue to drift about very distant peace talks.

Israel-Palestine: Space for a US-Brokered Solution Narrows

Bring It On: Israel Counter-attacks UN over Gaza Enquiry
Palestine: Suffering Life at Israeli Checkpoints

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

Is there any space left for the US as the "honest broker" of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks?

On Tuesday night, President Obama declared, on the eve of Israeli President Shimon Peres's Facing Tomorrow Conference in Jerusalem, that Israeli-US relations were "more than a strategic alliance." In a speech full of praises on Peres, he added:

Our moment in history is filled with challenges that test our will and invite pessimism. We can choose to defer action, to sustain a dangerous status quo, or we can meet the challenges of our time head-on. Like you, I believe now is the time to act.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhQaubxx6Rw[/youtube]

Obama's speech was undercut, however, by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Ostensibly, he was calling for "peace", by putting the burden upon Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas:

Now it is your turn to say the truth about peace, the need for it and the true way to achieve it. What is important is to do it publicly, not just behind closed doors; to say the truth about peace publicly, to our people and to the Palestinian people.

The problem is that Netanyahu's demands comes in the context of a series of Israeli conditions on the talks, including the dispute over expansion of settlements and Tel Aviv's insistence on addressing of specific economic and security issues rather than the general recognition of a Palestinian state. So PA negotiator Saeb Erekat, who happened to be in Washington, pointedly said, "There's no agreement" and accused Israel of feigning interest in negotiations while claiming the Palestinians were preventing progress.

Israeli representatives were unable to reach common ground with Palestinians over three demands put by the latter: the start of the negotiations would be accompanied by a statement saying the goal was to reach an agreement within two years; the goal would the establishment of a Palestinian state with permanent borders based on an Israeli withdrawal; and there would a complete halt to construction of settlements, including in East Jerusalem. Late Tuesday, Israeli sources stated that negotiations failed.

Still the US persists. On Wednesday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice told Israelis to "relaunch Middle East talks now" At Peres's conference, she said: "As President Peres always reminds us, being serious about peace means taking risks for peace. Being serious about peace means understanding that tomorrow need not look like yesterday."

That is enough for now, it appears, to keep the idea of a negotiation alive. After the message of the Obama Administration, One Israeli official said, "There appears to be a meeting of the minds and hopefully the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue will be able to re-start in the near future." Another explained under the prospective deal, on which Palestinians have not yet commented, the negotiations could be held on the basis of two UN Security Council resolutions, 242 and 338, from the 1960s and 1970s.

The resolutions call for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"; however, each party interprets this in its own way. For Palestinians, it obliges Israelis to withdraw unconditionally to pre-1967 borders, whereas Israel interprets this as a partial withdrawal.

So far from making Washington's task easier, the border issue may bring talks to a critical stage. Unless Israel is willing to drop its step-by-step approach in favour of a grand resolution, or conversely the Palestinians are willing to compromise on a de facto Israeli occupation while other issues are considered, there will be a stalemate, if not a dramatic collapse. Saed Erekat's words, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepared her detailed report on talks to Obama, laid the foundation for blame rather than agreement, "The report would identify the spoiler in the talks."

Israel: Barak Repairing Position with US Government on Palestine Talks?

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

On Sunday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak called on government officials to coordinate with the United States to renew talks with the Palestinian Authority: "We must work with the American administration and consolidate an agreement to open negotiations as soon as possible, even if the conditions aren't perfect and even if we have to make difficult concessions."

Although Barak's suggestion follows the recent, inconclusive trip of President Obama's special envoy George Mitchell to Israel and Palestine, it may be spurred even more by domestic political considerations. Barak is enjoying a favourable wind, as Minister Avigdor Lieberman and possibly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be in trouble with Washington over their resistance to US demands for a full settlement freeze in the West Bank. If the Labour Party's top politician sees this spilling over into discontent amongst Israeli voters, he may be willing to push his position against his coaliation partners.

Israel-Palestine: UN Council Endorses Goldstone Report --- What Now?

Israel-Palestine: No UN Progress on Goldstone Report on Gaza
Transcript: The Palestinian Authority Draft to UN Human Rights Council (15 October)

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

On Friday the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed the Goldstone Report, which found evidence of war crimes by both Hamas and Israel in the Gaza War. The vote was 25-6 with 16 abstentions. The US opposed the resolution while Britain and France did not vote. (The full list is at the bottom of the entry.)

The five-page resolution was remarkable for two reasons. First, it not only condemned Israeli crimes during Operation Cast Lead but also, beyond the war, denounced Israeli human rights violations in east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Second, although Goldstone Report cites both Hamas and Israel, the resolution explicitly names only Israel as a violator of international law. Goldstone criticized the UN decision to condemn only Israel, saying that the wording of the resolution was unfortunate.

Israel's Foreign Ministry rejected the resolution and called the decision "unjust":

Israel will continue to exercise its right to self-defense and to preserve the security of its citizens.

Israel believes that the decision harms efforts to protect human rights in accordance with international law and hinders efforts to promote the peace process as well as encouraging terror organizations around the world.

Israel thanks the countries that supported our position, and those who, with their vote, voiced their opposition to the unjust decision which ignores the murderous Hamas attacks against Israeli citizens... The decision ignores the fact that the Israel Defense Forces took unprecedented measures to avoid harming innocent civilians, and the fact that terror organizations used civilians as human shields in Gaza.

In contrast, Hamas welcomed the decision and said that they hoped that it would lead to "the beginning of the prosecution of the leaders of the occupation". The Palestinian Authority said that a follow-up on implementation of the recommandations in the report, "to protect the Palestinian people from Israeli aggression", was needed.

This may be the end of the line, however, for the report. The resolution asks that the Security Council forward the findings to the International Criminal Court, but the US, France, and Britain are unlikely to support the move. Indeed, with substantive action unlikely, the resolution may be an unexpected victory for Israel, with the United Nations proving its "one-sided position".

FOR the resolution: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djbouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia

AGAINST the resolution: United States, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia and Ukraine

ABSTAINING: Belgium, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Korea, Slovenia, Uruguay, Britain, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan and Angola