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

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share