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

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.