The Arabs and the American–Israeli Reconciliation
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s enthusiasm won’t be enough to make the Israeli government take the necessary steps with the Palestinians for the peace process, nor for the establishment of their own independent state on the lands occupied in 1967. The Quadrilateral Committee’s announcement won’t be enough, either, to make Netanyahu relinquish his plans to build more settlements in occupied territory, even if it came from a meeting at the ministerial level with the attendance of Ban. These failings will surely thwart even an attempt at the indirect negotiations with the Palestinian Authority America has been pushing for.
Perhaps the U.N. secretary general’s sudden visit to the region, which came a day after the Quadrilateral Committee’s announcement, was to show concern and good intentions in demonstrating support for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and to take advantage of the Arab agreement for indirect negotiations and the urgent American desire to begin the process. And maybe it was to encourage the Arabs, who are having their summit next week, to continue supporting these negotiations.
Once again, however, the problem isn’t on the Arab or Palestinian side, but instead lies in the power of the Quadrilateral Committee, a reflection of the policies of the USA, Russia, the U.N. and the E.U., to ensure that Israel will make the necessary concessions for negotiations, especially since the committee deprived itself of any serious means to pressure Israel, such as returning the issue to the Security Council.
It’s no secret that Barack Obama’s administration wants to score a political point on its invitation for indirect negotiations, especially following Israel’s ongoing disrespect to its envoys in the region by clinging to its policy of ignoring the fundamentals of the establishment of a Palestinian nation, including the cessation of settlement in Palestinian territory.
And here the American administration is walking two distinct lines.
The first line is of constant reassurance to Arabs and Palestinians to keep them within the scope of the invitation to indirect negotiations. This is what was expressed in the Quadrilateral Committee’s public declarations and last message, as well as Ban’s visit. And here it can be considered that this most recent initiative in expressing outright refusal for unilateral actions, meaning Israeli plans for new settlements, is essentially being directed solely at the Arabs.
The second line is the attempt to find a way to reach an agreement with Netanyahu’s government to overcome the crisis over new settlements, which was sharply obvious the day before the Israeli head of state’s visit to the USA. Despite the tumult in Washington and Tel Aviv over the sharpness of their disagreement, the administration managed to settle the issue while avoiding any direct confrontation with the Jewish lobby, in the shadow of important internal American dues and loyalties. It in their interest to settle this disagreement with the Israeli government because, if they would only reconsider the plans for new settlements, it would provide justification for the American administration to say that it got Israel to make concessions. However, the outcome of this reconsideration, which could just as easily be described as a response to American demands, will just be the building of new settlements, without the same controversy that accompanied the last announcement of more settlements in occupied Jerusalem, which came during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit.
With this outcome in mind, it can be considered that presidential envoy George Mitchell’s next scheduled tour will be more targeted at preparing for Netanyahu’s visit to the USA than at getting Israel to make the necessary concessions to restart negotiations. In other words, it is targeted at setting the stage for reconciliation between Obama’s administration and Netanyahu’s government, and not at pressuring Israel to comply with the stipulations put forth by the Quadrilateral Committee to restart negotiations and accept its goals.
Pressure is once again being put on the the Arabs to accept the results of the American-Israeli reconciliation and the new demands that will come of it, instead of an escalation of international pressure on Israel to comply with the demands of the peace process, especially on the part of America.
Perhaps the U.N. secretary general’s sudden visit to the region, which came a day after the Quadrilateral Committee’s announcement, was to show concern and good intentions in demonstrating support for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and to take advantage of the Arab agreement for indirect negotiations and the urgent American desire to begin the process. And maybe it was to encourage the Arabs, who are having their summit next week, to continue supporting these negotiations.
Once again, however, the problem isn’t on the Arab or Palestinian side, but instead lies in the power of the Quadrilateral Committee, a reflection of the policies of the USA, Russia, the U.N. and the E.U., to ensure that Israel will make the necessary concessions for negotiations, especially since the committee deprived itself of any serious means to pressure Israel, such as returning the issue to the Security Council.
It’s no secret that Barack Obama’s administration wants to score a political point on its invitation for indirect negotiations, especially following Israel’s ongoing disrespect to its envoys in the region by clinging to its policy of ignoring the fundamentals of the establishment of a Palestinian nation, including the cessation of settlement in Palestinian territory.
And here the American administration is walking two distinct lines.
The first line is of constant reassurance to Arabs and Palestinians to keep them within the scope of the invitation to indirect negotiations. This is what was expressed in the Quadrilateral Committee’s public declarations and last message, as well as Ban’s visit. And here it can be considered that this most recent initiative in expressing outright refusal for unilateral actions, meaning Israeli plans for new settlements, is essentially being directed solely at the Arabs.
The second line is the attempt to find a way to reach an agreement with Netanyahu’s government to overcome the crisis over new settlements, which was sharply obvious the day before the Israeli head of state’s visit to the USA. Despite the tumult in Washington and Tel Aviv over the sharpness of their disagreement, the administration managed to settle the issue while avoiding any direct confrontation with the Jewish lobby, in the shadow of important internal American dues and loyalties. It in their interest to settle this disagreement with the Israeli government because, if they would only reconsider the plans for new settlements, it would provide justification for the American administration to say that it got Israel to make concessions. However, the outcome of this reconsideration, which could just as easily be described as a response to American demands, will just be the building of new settlements, without the same controversy that accompanied the last announcement of more settlements in occupied Jerusalem, which came during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit.
With this outcome in mind, it can be considered that presidential envoy George Mitchell’s next scheduled tour will be more targeted at preparing for Netanyahu’s visit to the USA than at getting Israel to make the necessary concessions to restart negotiations. In other words, it is targeted at setting the stage for reconciliation between Obama’s administration and Netanyahu’s government, and not at pressuring Israel to comply with the stipulations put forth by the Quadrilateral Committee to restart negotiations and accept its goals.
Pressure is once again being put on the the Arabs to accept the results of the American-Israeli reconciliation and the new demands that will come of it, instead of an escalation of international pressure on Israel to comply with the demands of the peace process, especially on the part of America.