Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Déjà Vu All Over Again?

If the United States succeeds in getting Palestinian President Abbas to agree to direct peace talks, will Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reciprocate?

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

"If you come to a fork in the road, take it." Sometimes, the nonsensical quote of the legendary New York Yankees baseball catcher Yogi Berra has a real message. It can pointedly be applied to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on peace with the Palestinians.

The Israeli leader has been demanding that the Palestinians move from indirect "proximity" talks to direct peace negotiations, also under the auspices of the United States. Time and time again, ever since the start of the six- month proximity talks, it has been his insistent message.

But, now that it seems special U.S. presidential envoy Senator George Mitchell is about to succeed in getting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to take up the Netanyahu challenge, the big question is whether Netanyahu himself is ready to take one of the forks — the one which would lead to a comprehensive peace agreement.

A Palestinian state within two years based on the 1967 borders and a full peace deal between the two states is the declared goal of the U.S. and its allies in the Quartet that provides the international umbrella for Israeli- Palestinian peacemaking.

Over the weekend senior officials in the Obama Administration have been letting it be known that Abbas will announce his readiness to enter into the direct talks "within days". Only some minor details needed to be ironed out, the officials added.

Until now the Palestinians had steadfastly resisted. But, Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, tells IPS in an exclusive telephone interview from Amman, Jordan, "We want to be in full peace talks, we've always wanted to be in talks. The big question is do we know if Netanyahu seriously want to move forward — is he prepared to meet his obligations."

President Abbas has been touring Arab capitals to catch the momentum for the talks when they do finally begin.

Last month, he was already given the backing to enter direct talks by crucial states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This was followed by a green light from the full Arab League. That gave him important legitimacy and also domestic cover against the staunch opposition of Hamas to any talks with Israel.

The U.S. officials said a formal announcement would be followed possibly by a ceremony in Washington, but more likely in Egypt under the auspices of President Hosni Mubarak. Yet, as the legendary Yogi Berra had it, "It ain't over till it's over."

For all Netanyahu's vocal commitment to direct talks, a senior Israeli official told IPS that "Israel is not willing to agree to any preconditions from the back door via a Quartet announcement that will serve as a basis for the negotiations."

"It's not a question of 'conditions' at all, but of the ingredients for success in such talks," Erekat told IPS. "The Israeli moratorium on settlement building must continue," he added forcefully.

The 10-month partial settlement freeze declared by Netanyahu under U.S. pressure is set to end on Sep. 26.

With that deadline looming, there was a weekend of heightened international pressure on Abbas to announce that the Palestinians are now willing to join full-scale talks.

There was wariness among Palestinians following what they perceived as Washington's clumsiness in tackling Netanyahu on the settlement issue.

After Obama demanded that Netanyahu put in place a complete freeze on settlement activity as a prelude to any negotiations, the Palestinian leader followed suit. Then Obama backed down when Netanyahu only implemented a limited and temporary halt to settlement building, leaving Abbas clinging on his own to the original maximal demand.

Asked whether, given the erosion in the U.S. position on settlements, the Palestinians could trust Obama, Erekat said, "the President is doing the job just fine."

In recent weeks, Mitchell has been telling the Palestinians that once direct talks get under way, the Israeli prime minister would have no grounds for ending the settlement freeze. On the other hand, if Abbas stayed away from the table, Netanyahu would have it easy, and use the Palestinians' absence from talks as an excuse to resume Israeli building in the occupied Palestinian territories.

"All through the proximity talks, we have presented our positions clearly. On several occasions the U.S. expressed appreciation for that," the Palestinian negotiator stressed. "It really does depend on where Netanyahu wants to go. As yet, we haven't heard any Israeli answers to our positions."

The Palestinian reluctance to shift into direct talks about all the core issues stemmed also from suspicion of Netanyahu's intentions.

In a New York Times editorial last week, Abbas was exhorted not to miss the opportunity to get into a full-scale peace negotiation: "We don't know whether Mr. Netanyahu, a master manipulator, really wants a deal or whether his hard-line governing coalition would ever let him make one.

"But if Mr. Abbas is not at the table, there is no serious way of testing Mr. Netanyahu's intentions and whether there is any real chance of peacefully achieving a Palestinian state," said The NYT.

The fork in the road is not then whether the Palestinians should go into talks, but whether Netanyahu means to follow the Berra dictum, i.e., not decide whether he really wants to go down the peace road or not.

Unless the U.S. President continues to take a forceful position with both sides, the new 'final' round of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks could end up like the previous, inconclusive. Or, as Yogi Berra would have it "Déjà vu all over again."

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share