And so how is the Obama initiative for the Middle East Peace going? Here are some interesting developments: hubris, blackmail, EU on board, Netanyahu peace plan stall, a Norwegian war crimes tribunal, and the sobering words of Gideon Levy.
And from these developments, what can one conclude? Israel has given up Hamas as its last red herring, to be replaced by Iran.
Lieberman: “Believe me, America accepts all our decisions”
Email from the Institute for Middle East Understanding, Apr 23, 2009
Are the U.S. and Israel headed for a conflict? Not according to Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman who just told the Russian daily Moskovskiy Komosolets that the Obama Administration will only propose new peace initiatives if Israel wants it to. “Believe me, America accepts all our decisions,” he said. Lieberman’s hubris aside, major policy differences are surfacing: President Obama wants to reach an agreement on Palestinian statehood by the end of his first term. According to his Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell, a Palestinian state is a U.S. national interest. Israel’s new Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to accept a Palestinian state, and according to top Israeli government officials, will not talk peace with the Palestinians until the U.S. makes progress in stemming Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Netanyahu’s Mideast policy damaging EU ties
From Haaretz, Apr 23, 2009
The foreign policy of the Netanyahu government, which deems unacceptable the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict as an outline for negotiations with the Palestinians, has damaged Israel’s relations with the European Union.
The Anapolis conference in late 2007, which set the outline of the two-state solution, made it possible for Israel to strengthen its ties with Europe. The main expression of the closer ties has been the forging of agreements to hold summits with European heads of state and foreign ministers, and for Israel to participate in programs and agencies of the European Union.
However, an internal Foreign Ministry document last week stated that following Operation Cast Lead, diplomatic bodies in a number of European countries have called for a freeze on the upgrade, citing the pressure of domestic public opinion. Four European states have already said that if Israel did not agree to a two-state solution, they would oppose upgrading relations.
Netanyahu to offer U.S. three-part plan for peace talks
From Haartez, Apr 23, 2009
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is developing a “laundry list” that he will present to U.S. President Barack Obama when they meet next month in Washington. The Israeli premier will present Obama with a three-part plan involving halting Iran’s nuclear program, closer relations with moderate Arab states and dealing with the Palestinian issue through several channels.
Netanyahu will tell Obama that he will not recognize a nation-state providing Palestinian self-determination if the Palestinians don’t recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. From the standpoint of the Israeli prime minister, the requirement that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is a fundamental demand in any negotiations on a final settlement. It is not a precondition to conducting negotiations, but rather necessary to progress towards an agreement.
(snip)
Why is Netanyahu insistent on Palestinian recognition of Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people,” rejecting critics who see the demand as a means to scuttle negotiations? There are a few explanations for his position. First of all, Netanyahu wants to present an Israeli demand for recognition of national rights as a counterweight to the demand that Israel recognize “Palestinian rights.” Second, he is concerned that if the Palestinians evade such recognition in political negotiations, they will also refrain from telling their constituency that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and will continue to pursue the conflict even after a settlement is reached. Third, recognition of a Jewish state will neutralize the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees.
Norwegian lawyers to accuse Israeli leaders of war crimes
OSLO (AFP) – Israel’s former prime minister Ehud Olmert and other top officials could face legal action in Norway over the Gaza offensive after six Norwegian lawyers said Tuesday they would accuse them of war crimes.
The lawyers, who plan to file their complaint with Norway’s chief prosecutor on Wednesday, said they will call for the arrest and extradition of Olmert as well as former foreign affairs minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and seven senior Israeli army officers.
Under the Norwegian penal code, courts may hear cases involving war crimes and other major violations of human rights.
The lawyers released a statement accusing Israel of “massive terrorist attacks” in the Gaza Strip from December 27 last year to January 25, killing civilians, illegally using weapons against civilian targets and deliberately attacking hospitals and medical staff.
Gideon Levy, Haaretz, Apr 23, 2009
Lord have mercy: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has relinquished for the moment his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as “a Jewish state” as a condition for negotiations. He has deigned to postpone the demand until future stages. Listen up, world: Perhaps, just perhaps, Netanyahu will also see fit to utter the forbidden phrase “two states for two peoples.”
The slogan of yesterday’s illegitimate radical left will be heard publicly in Washington from the mouth of Israel’s most right-wing prime minister ever, and everyone will sing the praises of the historic turnaround. The diplomatic process will again take wing and the expectations will soar. Peace is just around the corner.
Once again the diplomatic arena has become a playground of words. This will be said and that will be declared and the other will be proclaimed. This is a guarantee of another foregone failure.
And so Israel’s (today read Likud’s; yesterday, Kadima or Labor’s)) merry go round remains operational. Stalling for the sake of the continuing colonialism.
