Right Web

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

Whither the Proximity Talks?

U.S.-backed proximity talks between the Israelis and Palestinians are scheduled to begin just as a growing alignment of international sympathy for the Palestinian perspective of the conflict has started to emerge.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Proximity peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, due to begin shortly after months of delay due to Israel’s continued settlement building on occupied Palestinian land, appear to have little chance of making a breakthrough.

However, there appear to have been some positive developments which have altered the equation somewhat and which could provide a stepping stone for future successful talks.

The Palestinians broke off previous talks after Israel settlement building surged ahead in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, including East Jerusalem, despite unanimous international condemnation.

After much coaxing from the Americans and several rounds of shuttle diplomacy Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA) has agreed to resume negotiations.

But the million dollar question on everybody’s lips is whether the Americans have succeeded in getting Israel to agree to, albeit off the record, to freeze settlement building even on a temporary basis.

The Palestinians have hinted broadly that this is the case, the Israelis have denied it outright, and the Americans are remaining mum.

But, analysts argue, something substantial must have been promised to coax the Palestinians back to the negotiating table after they made it very clear that no future talks would take place while the illegal settlement construction continued.

The next few months should shed light on this sensitive issue. The Arab League, which has supported the PA returning to the negotiating table, has said it will give talks four months to see if any significant progress is made towards a settlement before making any further decisions.

Al Jazeera International interviewed a number of political pundits from both sides of the divide on Tuesday.

Amr Hady from the Brookings Institute in Doha in Qatar was the most optimistic. He said he believed that U.S. President Barack Obama was very serious about resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict during his term in office.

“I believe the Americans are very genuine in their efforts and Obama will do all he can,” said Hady.

There are several developing factors that have changed the equation somewhat and which could be interpreted as light at the end of the tunnel. Washington now believes, as outlined by U.S. Gen. David Petraeus’ (the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq) speech that the continuing conflict is detrimental to U.S. regional security interests, particularly the lives of the thousands of American soldiers stationed in the Mideast.

If the U.S. wants to shore up regional support and save any semblance of remaining Arab respect after the Iraq debacle, they need to rethink their unquestioning support for Israel.

Working into this new realisation is the growing alignment of international sympathy for the Palestinian perspective of the conflict as facts on the ground and human rights abuses in the occupied territory become more widely reported.

This emerging sympathy includes American Jews who are in growing numbers supporting the two-state solution.

A group of European Jewish intellectuals recently penned a letter urging the European Union (EU) to put pressure on Israel to end the occupation. They argue Israel’s right-wing government is endangering the future of the Jewish state.

Furthermore, a growing number of human rights organisations and activists, as well as respected intellectuals, are drawing comparisons between former apartheid South Africa and Israel’s settlement enterprise in the West Bank where Palestinians are third-class citizens in their own country.

Obama has also stated that if the current round of peace talks fails he will turn the issue over to a global summit.

The Palestinians have been working towards international recognition of a Palestinian state with PA foreign minister Salam Fayyad focusing on building state institutions.

“International intervention such as the United Nations recognising a Palestinian state would be a good thing,” stated Israeli analyst Yossi Alpher on Al Jazeera.

“This would move the conflict from one of bilateral negotiations between a weak Palestinian partner and a strong Israeli partner able to dictate the terms to one based on two states negotiating on a more equitable footing,” said Alpher.

International legitimacy in the form of support from the Quartet and the EU would also play into the equation as previous peace plans, such as the Road Map and the Annapolis agreement, international law and U.N. resolutions on the conflict are enforced.

But Samir Awad from Birzeit University, near Ramallah, remains pessimistic, believing that only cosmetic changes will take place.

“The Americans will not pressure Israel to seriously address the core issues. Meanwhile, the Israelis will continue playing for time as they continue to create facts on the ground,” Awad told IPS.

“The only reason the Israelis are agreeing to sit down to talks with the Palestinians is that they want to protect their relationship with the Americans from further deterioration,” he said.

Furthermore, exactly how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will bring his extremist right-wing coalition on board, even if he is serious about negotiations, remains highly questionable.

Israeli analyst Shaul Arieli, commented acerbically in the Israeli daily ‘Haaretz’: “Israel has engaged in a great deal of foreplay in these negotiations, mostly with itself.”

Arieli argues that Netanyahu would have to also convince the Israeli electorate that a sea change in attitudes is necessary for any successful peace talks.

This will include realising that returning West Bank land to its rightful Palestinian owners is not a “concession” but according to U.N. resolutions. The Palestinians have already conceded 78 percent of historical Palestine.

Another Israeli public misconception is that former Israeli premiers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak “gave up everything” for the Palestinians in previous negotiations and “got nothing in return” when in fact the PA made concessions beyond U.N. resolutions.

These include allowing Israel to hold on to some West Bank settlements, as well as some illegal Jewish neighbourhoods in occupied East Jerusalem, and allowing for financial compensation for Palestinian refugees in place of the right of return.

Ultimately, the ball is in Netanyahu’s court. He will have to decide between his right-wing coalition and continuing military, economic and political support from the U.S.

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