WASHINGTON - With a key Arab League meeting delayed until Friday, the
administration of United States President Barack Obama is scrambling to keep
one-month-old direct Israeli- Palestinian peace talks alive.
The stakes are high. If the talks fall apart, a number of observers believe a
third intifada could break out on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem where
tensions have been simmering over the demolition of Palestinian homes for some
months.
A new poll of Palestinian opinion released on Monday found majority support for
a recent attack by Hamas that killed four Jewish settlers on the West Bank,
while harassment and vandalism by settlers - including an arson attack on a
mosque
near Bethlehem on Monday - have further stirred the pot.
Obama's special envoy, former senator George Mitchell, is currently shuttling
between Arab capitals in hopes that he can rally enough diplomatic support to
permit Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas to return to the
negotiating table he left after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
refused to extend a 10-month partial moratorium on settlement construction in
the occupied West Bank late last month.
While Arab leaders have so far been non-committal, the senior leadership of the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Abbas' own faction, Fatah, said
after a Saturday meeting that Abbas should not return to the talks unless
Netanyahu agrees to freeze settlements.
Washington is hoping that Netanyahu himself will indeed reverse his decision in
light of the number and value of inducements the Obama administration has
informally offered him if he agrees to extend the moratorium for a mere 60
days.
Over the weekend, some of Netanyahu's aides suggested that the Likud leader -
who heads the most right-wing government in Israel's history - was indeed
reviewing his refusal to extend the moratorium and would bring up the question
at a cabinet meeting this week before the Arab League meeting, which is to be
hosted by Libya.
Netanyahu was reportedly also coming under informal pressure from a number of
key US Jewish figures - including members of the more-hawkish leadership of the
so-called "Israel Lobby" - to accept the carrots offered by Obama.
"Those are juicy carrots," one official of a major pro-Israel group told Inter
Press Service (IPS). "It's pretty clear that Netanyahu's initial rejection was
not well received among some of his friends here."
Those carrots, which reportedly came in the form of a "draft" letter negotiated
late last month primarily between Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and a top
Obama Middle East aide, Dennis Ross, include a number of items that Israel has
long sought.
As disclosed last week by David Makovsky, a close associate of Ross who also
co-authored a book with him about Middle East peace-making published shortly
before Obama's inauguration, the offer included a pledge to support Israel's
stationing of Israeli troops between any eventual Palestinian state on the West
Bank and the Jordanian border to prevent arms smuggling or infiltration.
It also promised that Washington will veto any United Nations Security Council
resolutions critical of Israel over the next year and provide additional
weapons systems - including missiles, aircraft, and satellites - that have not
been included in previous arm packages.
Finally, the offer included a pledge not to ask Netanyahu for any further
extensions of the settlement moratorium after the 60 days have expired.
Most observers believe the content of the package was deliberately leaked to
Makovsky, in order to exert pressure on Netanyahu after his initial rejection.
In addition to his close ties to Ross, Makovsky is a veteran official of the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think tank created 25
years ago by the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Makovsky suggested that if Netanyahu failed to accept the inducements,
Washington may "explicitly adopt a position favored by Abbas, who argues that
the 1967 border should be the baseline for talks, with minor modifications
allowing Israel to trade for settlement blocs adjacent to its cities in
exchange for land from within the 1967 border." Such a formal position on the
1967 border on Washington's part has long been sought by Arab states, as well.
The offer - and particularly Netanyahu's initial reaction - has provoked
conflicting reactions both here and in Israel.
"It is hard to imagine anything Ross left out," wrote M J Rosenberg, a
long-time observer of Israel-Arab peace efforts on his "Foreign Policy Matters"
blog. "Bibi [Netanyahu] seems not to believe that his dealings with America
have to be two-way streets. He will only consider deals where the United States
gives and he gets."
"[O]ne can only imagine what the US president would offer Israel if it were to
reach a full agreement with the Palestinians, if he agreed to give all that
merely in exchange for an additional 60-day freeze," noted Orly Azulai of
Israel Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. "President [George W] Bush, in all his years
of friendship with Israel, did not offer it so much in exchange for so little."
Stephen Walt, a prominent Harvard professor and co-author of the controversial
2007 book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, suggested the
package's generosity will deliver yet another blow to Obama's credibility as an
honest broker in the Arab world, coming, in particular, in the wake of a highly
embarrassing retreat earlier this year from his demand for a total settlement
freeze by Israel covering both the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
"Not only is the United States acting in a remarkably craven fashion, it's just
plain stupid," Walt wrote on his blog at foreignpolicy.com after the Makovsky
leak. "How will this latest bribe change anything for the better? What do we
think will have changed in two months?"
The most-hawkish elements of the "Israel Lobby" - including some groups
associated with the Jewish settler movement - have, on the other hand, echoed
the far right in Israel by denouncing the package as either meaningless,
insufficient, or a trick.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, for example, focused on the
"implicit threat that if Israel doesn't take the deal, it will be punished with
the corollary that the United States now conditions its commitment to Israel's
security on being obeyed."
Israel's far-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman echoed that concern on
Sunday, arguing that the offer was part of a plan "to force a permanent
agreement on Israel - two states for two peoples along the 1967 borders, plus
or minus three or four percent of the territory exchanged. [T]he objective of a
continued freeze [is] to give the US and the international community two months
to come up with a solution that will be forced on Israel."
Palestinian officials meanwhile have denounced the package, saying it
effectively rewards Netanyahu's refusal to extend the moratorium unilaterally.
Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
