Right Web

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

Has Netanyahu Out-Manoeuvred Obama or Vice Versa?

President Obama's decision to shelve his long-held demand for a freeze on Israeli settlements, announced during trilateral talks this week with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, may prove a Pyrrhic victory for Israeli’s Likud-led government.

Inter Press Service

While Israeli officials claimed a major win in President Barack Obama’s decision to shelve his long-held demand for a freeze on Israeli settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, some analysts here believe it may yet prove a Pyrrhic victory for the hard-line government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

The decision, announced at the trilateral meeting between Obama, Netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas in New York City Tuesday, puts an apparent end to a seven-month effort by the U.S. administration – strongly resisted by Netanyahu – to gain Israel’s agreement to freeze settlement activity as the first step toward a renewed peace process.

But the frustration and impatience expressed by Obama before the meeting, as well as his apparent determination to launch permanent-status talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the very near future, suggest that the White House has decided to focus its efforts and engage directly on the terms of a final peace agreement.

“It is past time to talk about starting negotiations; it is time to start moving forward,” Obama declared Tuesday.

“Permanent status negotiations must begin – and begin soon,” he said, adding that he had asked Netanyahu and Abbas to send delegations to Washington next week to meet with his special Mideast envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell, to begin laying out the terms of reference on which they were prepared to negotiate.

He also said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would report back on the status of the talks by mid-October.

On Wednesday, Obama sounded both more specific and more determined. “The time has come to re-launch negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees, and Jerusalem,” he told the U.N. General Assembly, noting that Washington still “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”.

“The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realises the potential of the Palestinian people,” he said, pledging, “I will not waver in my pursuit of peace.”

The impasse on the settlements issue and its de-linking from permanent-status talks was taken by most analysts here as a clear victory for Netanyahu and a major defeat both for the Palestinians, who have insisted on a freeze as a precondition for entering into final-status talks since Obama first demanded an end to settlement construction last spring, as well as a setback for the U.S. administration itself.

“Netanyahu 1, and Abbas, Obama and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, zero,” Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. peace negotiator now at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre here, told McClatchy Newspapers Tuesday in a concise summary of his analysis of Tuesday’s meeting.

“You have the Israelis crowing and the Palestinians looking humiliated in the face of hardliners,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute (AAI).

“That’s not a good place to be. We’re now in a somewhat more difficult situation than we were before these discussions began,” he added.

Indeed, while the Israeli prime minister Tuesday insisted that he was ready to take part in such talks, some analysts here noted that Netanyahu has felt more comfortable dealing with so-called “interim” issues, such as settlements and other confidence-building measures (CBMs), in part because he could count on the support of his right-wing coalition and even the broader Israeli public which, according to recent polls, has become increasingly hostile toward Obama.

“Netanyahu’s preferred approach was to focus on interim issues and CBMs and to avoid negotiating the core issues on which his positions are the most unreasonable,” according to Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiations currently based at the New America Foundation (NAF).

By de-linking settlements – even while continuing to denounce their construction as illegitimate – Obama, in a kind of diplomatic jujitsu, will now force Netanyahu to deal with final-status issues that, among other things, will challenge his ability to maintain his coalition.

“What we have been witnessing thus far … has been a table-setting exercise,” Levy wrote on Foreignpolicy.com.

He argued that the impasse reached after months of effort in gaining a settlement freeze may be part of a “more sophisticated strategy” that will ultimately lead to the “presentation and active promotion, at the appropriate moment, of an American plan for implementing a comprehensive peace” in light of the long-standing inability of the two sides to reach one themselves.

Other analysts disagreed with that analysis, insisting that the administration, even as it has raised the stakes on the urgency of reaching a final peace accord, has not yet made clear how hard it is willing to push Netanyahu, in particular, toward serious negotiations.

“It is quite clear from Round One that Obama underestimated the tenacity of Netanyahu, and the administration did not seem to have thought through what they would do if they didn’t get the cooperation they wanted (on settlements),” said Stephen Walt, an international relations professor at Harvard University and co-author of the “Israel Lobby”.

“If you can’t get Bibi to agree to a temporary freeze, how does one possibly imagine getting him to agree to 1) borders that would establish a viable Palestinian state; 2) a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem; 3) some formula for the Temple Mount; 4) an agreement on refugees; and 5) the withdrawal of the settlers outside the wall?” he added.

For his part, Zogby believes the administration should have simply demanded a settlement freeze instead of negotiating the precise terms over its scope and duration – as Mitchell tried to do over the last several months – and gone directly to final-status talks from the outset.

But he did not exclude the possibility of a larger strategy at work, noting Mitchell’s proven skills as a negotiator in Northern Ireland. “The de-linking of settlements from final status could be a change in tack, or it could be simply salvaging a really bad situation,” Zogby said.

“I do know that Netanyahu is a master-manoeuvrer who uses every situation to his advantage, but I’m confident that Mitchell is quite attuned to that,” he added. “And, in any event, we’re a long way from the end of the game.”

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org/).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share