–updated–
Reports out of the Middle East are disheartening with regard to negotiation possibilities going forward.
After nine months of shuttle diplomacy by U.S. special envoy George J. Mitchell, the gap between Israeli and Palestinian leaders appears to have grown, and it now includes not only a dispute over Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, but also renewed tension over Jerusalem, disagreement over the framework for the talks and controversy over a U.N. report on alleged war crimes during Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip last winter.
When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mitchell report to the White House next week on the administration’s goal of restarting the peace talks, they will be describing a situation that has arguably regressed, particularly in the three weeks since a high-level session in New York involving President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
So, I have absolutely no idea where Fareed Zakaria gets his optimism, let alone the nonsensical witticism, “There’s light. There’s just no tunnel.”
The problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Zakaria said, is not a lack of vision for the future, but a disagreement over how to get there. While some believe there is no light at the end of tunnel, Zakaria said, “There’s light. There’s just no tunnel.”
The ideas are good, just no way to get there?
It was disastrous that after starting out firm on settlements, Pres. Obama caved, which came as months and months ticked off without anything concrete happening.
The problem was illuminated yesterday during a call I was on with Sen. Arlen Specter, when he uttered the usual line about Netanyahu and settlements. The back and forth went like this:
Taylor Marsh: Would you give your thoughts on the Obama drawing the line on the settlement freeze?
Specter: “Netanyahu has a point… had assurances on settlements from both Bush and Clinton.” … “What constitutes an enlargement.” …”Israelis willing to give up quite a lot… Not in east Jerusalem.” Bigger issues involve Iran and their nuclear weapons. “(Obama’s) got one of the smartest guys on the case, George Mitchell.” … “I would tell him to listen to Joe Biden who knows a lot on the issue.”
Specter’s a smart man who is spouting a very old line that’s gotten us nowhere. He has lots of company on that one. And because the conversation yesterday was just that, focusing almost entirely on healthcare, it wasn’t conducive for me to start battling it out with him on settlements and all things Middle East. But it’s preposterous for any person interested in moving negotiations forward to postulate that “Iran and their nuclear weapons” is more important to negotiating a Palestinian state than an agreement on settlements. It is for the Israelis.
Secondly, Sen. Specter saying “Netanyahu has a point… had assurances on settlements from both Bush and Clinton” has already been rebutted firmly by the Obama administration through Secretary Clinton:
“There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements,” Clinton said at a June 5 news conference (in Washington). “If they did occur, which of course people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the United States government.” – Bloomberg
Now, I’m not trying to pick on Sen. Specter, as he is simply stating the conventional wisdom of most in Congress, while also illustrating why we never get anywhere. As to Specter’s “what constitutes and enlargement,” well, I reject his Which came first, the chicken or the egg language.
Complicating all of this was the Goldstone report, which even the administration tried their hardest to ignore.
But let me be blunt about why we’re in such a muddle. Pres. Obama sent strong signals to the Palestinians when he came out for the settlement freeze. The Israeli press went wild, obliterating his support in Israel. Meanwhile, Palestinians (and other Arabs and Muslims) started trusting him. Abbas, specifically, has now been weakened with Obama’s cave in on settlements, compounded when the Obama administration asked the Palestinians to delay debating the Goldstone report at the U.N. Human Rights Council for six months. Now the Palestinians are ticked off, with Abbas hobbled as a result. Israelis who are thinking short-term only like the results.
From the Washington Post report:
The rival Islamist Hamas movement, which runs the Gaza Strip, has tried to capitalize on Abbas’s troubles. His term expires in January, and with no clear schedule for new elections, there is growing likelihood that some sort of interim arrangement will be needed to keep him in power.
The Israeli government has taken notice of Abbas’s difficulties. Two weeks ago, as the war crimes report was heading to apparent endorsement by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Israeli officials issued blistering statements accusing Abbas and the Palestinians of incitement against them and demanding that the report be withdrawn.
But after Abbas supported the delay in the council’s consideration of the report, orders went down through the Israeli Foreign Ministry and elsewhere to halt criticism of the Palestinian leader. “It was very dramatic, substantial and quick,” said an Israeli government official, who spoke about the issue on the condition of anonymity. “It took a perverse turn.”
It’s quite possible Obama’s credibility has been weakened as well, which if true would be incredibly sad.
However, once you draw a line in the Middle East sand, erasing it is impossible unless you want to also obliterate your own credibility in manifesting results, as well as those of your allies.
If things stay as they are today, which I hope won’t happen and George Mitchell will pull a miracle out of his hat, all of this could be pushed to the 2012 re-election campaign season, as next year is an election year as well, with mid-terms promising to be brutal for Democrats, especially in voter turnout.
Expect more promises.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu continues his waiting game. The neocons are coming.
Comments are closed.