I’m not a big fan of General David Petraeus’ interference in US foreign policymaking, given his challenge to (and potential undermining) of his President on an issue such as Afghanistan, but Mark Perry in Foreign Policy offered a tale where Petraeus’ manoeuvres may lead to a significant — and, I think, productive — re-alignment in US foreign policy.
To be blunt, if you take a charitable interpretation of Petraeus’ move (he was telling the US diplomats to get out of their dead end of caving to Israeli steps such as settlement expansion) rather than the cynical one (he was again seeking to expand his authority), this may open up a prospect — limited but visible — of the US staking out a position where it can challenge Israel’s unilateral obstacles to the peace process.
On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bombarded the Israeli government in an interview with CNN. She said Israel’s announcement of new construction of homes in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem was “insulting” to the United States. She continued:
I mean, it was just really a very unfortunate and difficult moment for everyone — the United States, our vice president who had gone to reassert our strong support for Israeli security — and I regret deeply that that occurred and made that known.
She had words for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well, “He is the prime minister. Like the president or secretary of state … ultimately, you are responsible.”
On Thursday, U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell spoke with Abbas and urged him not to walk away from indirect peace negotiations with Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he believes indirect talks with the Palestinian Authority will continue as planned early next week despite the crisis. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley added:
I don’t think that that report that’s been circulating for the last 24 hours is accurate,” Crowley said. “As far as I know, we are still moving forward. We have not heard from the Palestinians that they have pulled out.
Before US Vice President Joe Biden left for Jordan, he said in Tel Aviv University the US was interested in “putting everything back on the rails.” However, the Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat said that the PA would start the indirect talks “if Mitchell informs us that the Israeli plan has been canceled.
Following Biden’s golden statement in Tel Aviv University, saying that the US has no other friend like Israel, in an interview with Haaretz, Shas chairman and Interior Minister Eli Yishai who authorized 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem emphasized the “unique relationship” with Washington. He said:
Our relationship with the Americans is above all else. It is an alliance that has survived complicated periods, and I had no intention of harming those ties, or to challenge the American administration, or to present obstacles to this important visit by the Vice President.
On Friday, with anticipation of renewed Jerusalem riots in response to a recent government decision to expand settlements in East Jerusalem, Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered Israeli Defense Forces to impose a general closure on the West Bank, preventing Palestinians from entering Israel. The West Bank will be sealed off for 48 hours.
Later on Wednesday, Arab League chief Amr Moussa said that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas haddeclared he would not enter indirect talks with Israel. The situation was still unclear on Thursday, but statements coming from the region now put the “proximity talks” at the edge of a cliff.
Although US Vice President Joe Biden condemned the announcement of the construction of new 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem and questioned Israel’s “trustability” on Tuesday, he stated two days later that the “proximity talks” could continue.
Speaking at Tel Aviv University, Biden said Palestinians had misunderstood Israel’s announcement of the settlement plan, thinking that building would begin immediately. With no construction scheduled for now, he said, negotiators would have time to “resolve this and other outstanding issues.”
We want to hear from [United States envoy George] Mitchell that Israel has cancelled the decision to build housing units before we start the negotiations.
The subsequent news? Israel is planning to build 50,000 new housing units including the recent announcement of 1,600 units in East Jerusalem neighborhoods in the coming years, planning officials told Haaretz.
Here’s someone new to blame for everything: Eli Yishai. After all, Benjamin Netanyahu wanted it so much, Ehud Barak pressed so hard, Shimon Peres wielded so much influence – and along came the interior minister and ruined everything.
There we were, on the brink of another historic upheaval (almost). Proximity talks with the Palestinians were in the air, peace was knocking on the door, the occupation was nearing its end – and then a Shas rogue, who knows nothing about timing and diplomacy, came and shuffled all the proximity and peace cards.
After a year of grandiose declarations on Mideast peace prospects and a gazillion trips to the region by US envoy George Mitchell, the Obama administration has come up with this?
“Proximity Talks.” Look it up in the Dictionary of Realpolitik and you will find the following: “Negotiations going nowhere fast. Wear seatbelts lest the speed of self-destruction spins you off the earth’s axis.”
Palestinians and Israelis are not even going to be at the table together. Mitchell could not even make that happen. This isn’t phase one of a longstanding conflict. These are adversaries who have sat across many tables and struck many agreements over the past 19 years.
The question: what did the secret internal Foreign Ministry report distributed to Israeli diplomatic missions abroad mean? The document declares that the US administration will not put much effort into the upcoming indirect negotiations, opting instead to focus on November’s Congressional elections.
Why was this released in the wake of the visit of Vice President Joe Biden to Israel? Was this a message to Washington over the previous “unwanted” Ametrican statements on settlements in East Jerusalem and West Bank or was it just an example of Israel trying to box in the Obama Administration by revealing, through a well-timed leak, the supposed US policy?
Then there’s the Hamas question: on Sunday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed to Hamas to argue that an early deal for a Palestinian state is unlikely, given the strength of the organisation in the Gaza Strip.
Here’s the background: last Friday, US Mideast Special Envoy George Mitchell’s deputy, David Hale, said Israeli-Palestinian understandings since the Annapolis talks would not be binding.
Following the approval of two conditions (the outlines of a border deal with Israel and a complete Israeli settlement construction freeze) by the Palestinian Liberation Organization executive committee, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that he hoped for direct negotiations in the near future, but reiterated that any permanent settlement would require recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a long-term guarantee of Israel’s security.
Thus, the clear difference between two disputants’ mentalities: on one hand, Ramallah is considering indirect talks as a basis to be consolidated in order to move to the next round of direct talks; on the other hand, West Jerusalem sees indirect talks as a way to block preconditions.
In the midst of Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s permission for the construction of 112 housing units in the settlement of Beitar Ilit, despite the construction freeze in the West Bank settlements, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden arrived Israel on Tuesday while Mitchell moved to Ramallah for further talks. Read the rest of this entry »
I’m not a big fan of General David Petraeus’ interference in US foreign policymaking, given his challenge to (and potential undermining) of his President on an issue such as Afghanistan, but Mark Perry in Foreign Policy offered a tale where Petraeus’ manoeuvres may lead to a significant — and, I think, productive — re-alignment in US foreign policy. 
Entries (RSS)