Analysis: 'New' Washington Consensus on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process!

The tripartite meeting between Israeli, Palestinian, and American delegations took place in New York on Tuesday, with the leaders of the three groups participating. This was the picture which signals a shift in the US apparoach towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict , from a step-by-step Road Map to an edited Washington version of a 2002 Saudi initiative based on wider issues and a regional context.

Yet Washington's "middle way" between the demands of Palestinians and Israelis is not new. The steps taken in the Obama Administration's Middle East foreign policy since last January were supposed to be clearer when the leaders of Israelis and Palestinians shook hands on Tuesday. But even this picture is incomplete, since the failure to include regional actors such as Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Iraq will undermine any effort on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

According to Washington, the final status agreement must come with continuing negotiations on other issues, especially on the Israeli halt of settlements in the West Bank. The formula is clear: the reassurance of the Palestinian side with the promised withdrawal of Israelis to pre-1967 war borders while reducing pressure on the Israeli side by moving the discourse of “total settlement freeze” to that of “restraining settlements activity” as the Israeli concede a nine-month freeze.



On Tuesday, U.S. President met with the Israeli delegation at first. Then, he talked to the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and his aides. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, National Security Council head Uzi Arad, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mitchell took part in the earlier bilateral Israeli-American meeting. At the end, the tripartite meeting finally was displayed.

"Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed," Obama said and added:

It is past time to talk about starting negotiations; it is time to move forward. It is time to show flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that is necessary to achieve our goals... Leaders in the Middle East could not continue 'the same patterns, taking tentative steps forward, then taking steps back.'

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel achieved what it had wanted after the tripartite meeting. He said to reporters in New York:

There was general agreement, including on the part of the Palestinians, that the peace process has to be resumed as soon as possible with no preconditions... We had two good meetings, even very good, I would say – one with President Obama and his team and later with the Palestinian team. Although the importance of the meeting is in its existence, it was an ice-breaking meeting between people who have not worked with each other for months. It provides a possibility to change things in the future.

However, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was not as “positive” as his premier. He actually saw eye to eye with Abbas and said that "although the Palestinian side is saying it has no preconditions, it has all kinds of demands for moves in the West Bank." On the other hand, Netanyahu kept calm and came closer to Obama's diplomatic stance. He said:

They can raise the Jerusalem issue and we'll present our stance... In the joint meeting with Abu Mazen (Abbas) I told him that 'there is no use in insisting on these matters. Let's move forward.'

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas did not mention Netanyahu's 'talks without any preconditions' and reiterated that Israel had to leave all occupied lands and stop construction in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He said:

In today's meetings we confirmed our positions and commitment to the road map and its implementation. We also demanded that the Israeli side fulfill its commitments on settlements, including on natural growth.

As for resuming talks, this depends on a definition of the negotiating process that means basing them on recognizing the need to withdraw to the 1967 borders and ending the occupation, as was discussed with the previous Israeli government when we defined the occupied territories as the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.

This was reiterated in the talks with President Obama and in the trilateral talks. We believe the American administration will review the positions of the two sides in the coming weeks to make it possible for us to renew peace talks based on our stated position.

At the end of the tripartite meeting, we can say that the political discourses of each disputed party has not changed. For Israel, the following negotiations will continue without any Palestinian pre-conditions and for Palestinians, there will be no agreement without the withdrawal of Israeli existence and without a full halt to settlement construction. Lastly, and more importantly, for the Obama Administration, the process is likely to be a middle way: Guaranteeing Palestinians the full withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the occupied lands and the Israeli halt to settlement freeze under Israeli authorization in the course of time; all of which to be mentioned in the final status agreement whereas confirming Israeli temporary freeze in settlements which is to come closer to a total halt in the course of time in return of Arab concessions in the name of normalization with Israel. So, all parties look like they have taken from the meeting now.

George Mitchell's answer to a question on whether the Obama Administration had skipped the settlement freeze focus and moved straight to final status issue tipped off the US position:

We have always made clear that they are means to an end, the end being the re-launching of negotiations on permanent status in a context in which there is a reasonable prospect for a successful conclusion to those negotiations... So there is absolutely no change in our focus.

However, this new version of Saudi Initiative in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is just a part of the Obama Administration's policy in the region. This middle-way solution can only work with new developments in US and Israeli relations with Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The follow-up period, so sensitive to any regional development, is more significant than the plans of the Obama Administration on paper. Therefore, right after the tripartite meeting, Obama said he is watching the process closely and the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell would meet with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators next week, adding that he had asked his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to report back to him on the status of the talks in October. For now, the Obama Administration has consolidated its position vis-a-vis Palestinians and Israelis. But, that is only for now....

Inside Line Special: Iraq, Syria, and Turkey's Move into the Middle East

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

Iraq and Syria are in the midst of the most serious tension between the two countries since the 2003 Iraq War. The Iraqi Government has blamed two devastating truck bombs that killed 95 people and wounded 600 in Baghdad on August 19 on insurgents who crossed the Syrian border. Yesterday Iraq deployed thousands of reinforcements along the border, and the Government asserted that it had provided Damascus with evidence linking Iraqis in Syria to the bombings.

Two countries' conflict are another's opportunity, however. For Turkey, mediation between Baghdad and Damascus is a chance to implement its "strategy in depth" in the Middle East. On Monday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani in Baghdad.

After offering his condolences to Iraqi people and a denunciation of the bombings as a threat to the stability of Iraq, Davutoglu asked the Iraqi Government to take a become milder line towards Syria, following al-Maliki’s initial harsh statement that Iraq "asked Syria to return to us those targeting the Iraqi people but Syria sent us only common criminals.” Davutoglu told al-Maliki that there was no short-term solution for the crisis and offered to take information and documents to Damascus, establishing co-operation between Syria, Iraq and Turkey.

The documents referred to briefly today in The Washington Post are the outcome of Davutoglu's intervention. But this, for Ankara, is only the beginning. Just as it used another crisis, the Gaza War of December-January, to further its ties with Syria and its Middle Eastern presence, so it will now extend that influence by being the "good broker" to two of its most important neighbours.

Middle East Inside Line: Chavez Attack on Israel, Gaza Low-Intensity Conflict

Chavez's Diplomatic Dive Bombing of Israel: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez targeted Israel and the U.S. during his visit to Syria. After a one-hour meeting with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, Chavez blamed Israel for "dividing the Middle East" as "a country that annihilates people and is hostile to peace":

The entire world knows it. Why was the state of Israel created? ... To divide. To impede the unity of the Arab world. To assure the presence of the North American empire in all these lands.

I believe [this] is a fateful battle. It's either now or never in order to liberate the world from imperialism and change the world from a unipolar into a multi-polar world.

Likud Splitting over Settlements Issue? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is feeling pressure from his Likud Party members in the wake of headlines that he already accepted a temporary freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank. More than half of the party leadership has accepted an invitation to speak at a hawkish rally in Tel Aviv on Wednesday. Vice Premier Silvan Shalom, Ministers Gilad Erdan, Moshe Kahlon, Yuli Edelstein and Michael Eitan, and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin have accepted, while Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon has not decided whether to attend.

Shalom has asserted:

A clear, wide majority in the Likud would not give a hand to any step that would strangle the settlements, which is one of the party's banners... We need to take steps to advance the diplomatic process, but with conditions, and one of them must be not freezing the settlements that we built. The Palestinians cannot ask us to make unilateral, irreversible, far-reaching concessions that impact the permanent [borders] just for agreeing to meet with us.

Shalom added that US President Barack Obama's diplomatic process would "blow up in our face and lead to a dead end."

Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar supported Netanyahu on Thursday:

In today's complex situation, our prime minister whom we chose, Binyamin Netanyahu, must maintain all our national interests - the settlements that are the apple of our eye, Jerusalem, and also our relations with the United States and avoiding international isolation, because we will not be able to do the things that are close to our hearts if we are isolated.

Israel-Gaza Low-Intensity Conflict: Seven mortar shells were fired from Gaza into Israel, all hitting open areas without casualties or damage. On Thursday night, Israeli jets bombed a tunnel in the southern Gaza Strip.