.
Whether it’s his home town Jerusalem or his place of business Washington DC, Dennis Ross is once again the president’s advisor on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I just read two interesting articles/analysis in the Jerusalem Post.
White House advisor defends Obama peace talks stance
WASHINGTON – A top White House advisor defended US President Barack Obama’s controversial posture on peace talks, arguing that his approach was paying off by garnering European support.
Dennis Ross, a senior advisor to Obama on the Middle East, told Jewish newspapers that the president’s call for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on basis of the 1967 lines with agreed land swaps has been welcomed by European leaders during this past week of international meetings surrounding the G-8 summit of world powers.
“The character of discussions with the Europeans has clearly improved for the better,” he said of talks held this week. “They have been endorsing what the president had to say.”
AIM TO REJECT UN VOTE ON PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD
He explained that one of the reasons Obama “became convinced” that it was necessary to lay out this basis for talks was that it would give the US leverage with the Europeans so they wouldn’t support a unilateral declaration of statehood that the Palestinians are seeking at the UN in September.
“It’s important for us to be able to use with the Europeans in particular the fact that there is a credible alternative, there is an alternative basis on which to pursue the negotiation,” he said. “It gives us an ability with the Europeans to say this is not the right way to go. You should be opposing any effort to go to the UN.”
OBTAIN EU SUPPORT TO REJECT HAMAS IN UNITY GOVERNMENT
Ross also warned that the Europeans don’t always believe Netanyahu is “serious” about making peace and see the United States as the Israeli leader’s enabler, Jewish leaders on the call said.
In that conversation as well, Ross defended Obama’s approach, saying doing nothing would have led to a drastically deteriorating situation when it came to heading off a unilateral declaration of statehood, and that it also helped rally international support for standing firm on Hamas after it joined a unity government with Fatah last month.
Diplomacy: Netanyahu and ‘The Book of Why’
Why was Netanyahu’s speech to Congress important, especially since he did not chart any radically new course?
While Netanyahu’s speech did not detail a new Israeli program, it did set down basic markers that are not irrelevant. Or, as Netanyahu himself said in private conversations, what he was trying to do was pound some policy stakes into the ground that would not be moved by the swirling winds in the region.
And those stakes are: No return to 1967, no refugees, no Hamas, and the absolute necessity of the Palestinians recognizing Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Yet there were some other elements of the speech that deserve notice.
The first is that Netanyahu signaled flexibility – that he said he was willing to be “generous” if the Palestinians uttered six key words: “We will accept a Jewish state.”
Second, it is important to notice that Netanyahu never speaks of dismantling, destroying or uprooting settlements.
Instead, as he said to Congress, “in any real peace agreement, in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders.”
Close aides to Netanyahu have said in the past that if a million Arabs live in Israel, there is no reason in the world why a Palestinian state must be cleansed of all Jews.
Third, when talking about a future Palestinian state – saying that Israel will be generous about the size but firm on where the border is put so the lines are defensible – Netanyahu never used the word “contiguity.” This was not an oversight, and it is not clear how exactly he envisions a link between the West Bank and Gaza.
And fourth, he indicated – for the first time publicly – some wiggle room on Jerusalem, saying that while it “must remain the united capital of Israel,” he also believed that “with creativity and with goodwill a solution can be found.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
