A black hole

Some people regard Yossi Sarid as a political has-been. Maybe he’s washed- up, an occasionally remembered Knesset retiree, but not altogether forgotten. After thirty two years in the Knesset including two ministerial tenures Sarid despaired of effecting any significant change in Israel's political system and stepped down. Now he writes and comments on Israeli politics and our ongoing regional conflict.

Sarid like many people in Israel wonders what Special Envoy George Mitchell hoped to achieve on his recent visit to the Middle East.

"Mitchell could have sat on the banks of the Potomac River and lamented the bad memories from the Middle East while taking comfort in the good memories from Northern Ireland," wrote Sarid in Haaretz this week.

He urged Senator Mitchell not to come here unless he has a plan in his briefcase.

"What did he think would come of the latest of his who-knows-how-many trips? One in which he arrives with empty hands and a diplomatic mask that conceals the revulsion on his face. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a black hole that swallows up goodwill ambassadors, none have returned alive. Tony Blair is just the latest example of the lost and the despaired. Where is he today?"
"That's why Mitchell should not bother making his next visit without carrying a detailed American plan with him, one marked by boldness and determination. Ambassador Mitchell should put this plan on the table in Jerusalem and Ramallah and then leave. Either take it or shoot yourselves in the head. If there is no such plan, Mitchell might as well stay home and play with his grandchildren."

New York Times op-ed columnist Roger Cohen was here on Independence Day.

He wrote of Israel's "unassailable might and unyielding angst." ….:

"A nation whose army and arsenal are without rival in the Middle East becomes one facing daily existential threat. A nation whose power has grown steadily over decades relative to its scattered enemies becomes one whose future is somehow less secure than ever."

Like Yossi Sarid, Roger Cohen despairs of achieving an amicable solution.

"So here we are, 62 years on, negotiating about negotiations whose prospects of leading anywhere seem fantastically remote" … Our reluctance to take risks really irked Roger Cohen.

He concludes in an ironical vein, "Israelis look more risk-averse than I’ve ever seen them. Life’s not bad in affluent, barrier-bordered Israel even if threats loom."

A Bank of Israel statement published last week certainly supports Cohen's

summing up. The Bank has revised its forecast for the country's annual economic growth estimate in order to accommodate positive first quarter figures.

Apparently Yossi Sarid's "black hole" prediction affected Roger Cohen. Soon after touchdown in the US after his visit here he revised his appraisal.

"Don’t give up just yet even if history, and Hamas, say peace is a pipe dream and Mitchell is next in line for that 'black hole'.”

The major stumbling block preventing the renewal of the negotiations is the Israeli government's refusal to comply with a building freeze in east Jerusalem.

In an interview with Israel Channel 2 last Thursday, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he would not freeze building in Jerusalem. "Our policy in Jerusalem will not change. It's not just my policy, and it's been our policy since the Six Day War. There won't be a freeze in Jerusalem."

What are we building in Jerusalem? "Not much," claims Hagai Segal, a columnist who writes for the Jerusalem Post. Segal is quite emphatic about the current "down tools" situation and says that despite his lofty rhetoric, the prime minister is averse to building anything in Jerusalem.

A report in Haaretz quoting an Associated Press source supported Segal's claim. "Jerusalem officials said on Monday that Israel has frozen new construction in the city's disputed eastern sector - despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's declarations to the contrary."

A member of the Jerusalem city council claims the order to freeze building projects in east Jerusalem came directly from the prime minister's bureau.

Another councilman, who sits on the Interior Ministry committee that approves building plans, said his panel which usually meets once a week has not been convened since the Biden visit.
When government spokesman Mark Regev was asked to comment on the de facto building freeze he replied: "Following the Biden visit and the 'mishap', the prime minister asked that a mechanism be put in place to prevent a recurrence of this kind of debacle."
Regev was reluctant to admit that the mechanism was an order to freeze.
However, Efrat Orbach, a spokeswoman for the Interior Ministry, said this mechanism explained why planning committee meetings were being delayed, because now multiple ministries had to be involved in the coordination.
"There is no freeze, there is bureaucracy," Orbach said

Apparently BBC Online is unaware of the de facto construction freeze because its Jerusalem based staff writer Ilene R. Prusher, asks "Is Israel willing to freeze East Jerusalem construction?" Just the same Ms. Prusher quotes a report in Ma'ariv, claiming that the spiritual leader of the Shas party, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, believes that Israel can afford to suspend construction in Jerusalem if it would help preserve the US-Israel relationship.

Well Rabbi Yosef's ruling almost equal in weight to a papal bull is significant because the Shas party is one of Netanyahu's key coalition partners, and Shas ministers in Netanyahu's cabinet have been the most insistent about continuing to build in east Jerusalem.

Despite that, Bar-Ilan University political analyst Shmuel Sandler says it is unlikely that Netanyahu will attempt to spend the political capital necessary to declare a freeze in Jerusalem. Beyond Shas, other heavyweights in his cabinet – such as Foreign Minster Avigdor Lieberman – also oppose a compromise on building in Jerusalem.

"If Netanyahu declares a freeze in Jerusalem, it's the end of him," says Prof. Sandler. "It was surprising, what Ovadiah Yosef said, but perhaps it comes from a motivation of not being seen as the one who's stopping Netanyahu from making a deal."

If you find this difficult to follow you are in good company. I'm not sure I've grasped it myself.

Maybe the key to understanding this slightly convoluted series of statements and counter-statements lies in another remark Professor Sandler made,

"I don't think he can do more than he's done: he's already declared a West Bank settlement freeze that expires in September. And that means time for Obama to get the sides to reach a deal is limited, because after September there will be US Congressional elections, and at that time, he won't be able to pressure Israel too much."

An editorial in The Guardian this week expressed a similar opinion, "So what will the proximity talks be about if they go ahead? It will not be the first time that Mr. Netanyahu has miscalculated US politics, but he could be thinking that if only he strings this out to November when he hopes the Republicans will gain control of the House of Representatives, then the pressure will be off him. He will have defanged the Democratic president"

The Guardian continues with an overwhelming conclusion, "President Obama could be clearing away any last hope in the viability of the peace process, before coming up with his own plan. That would be based on the guidelines for a permanent status agreement which were offered by Bill Clinton in 2000, known as the Clinton Parameters. It would then be endorsed by the EU, UN and Russia, who would then have to implement it. Having declared the solution of the conflict vital to US interests, Mr Obama can hardly walk away. Mr Netanyahu would kick and scream against an imposed plan, but that is the consequence of rejecting lesser demands now."

The Guardian editorial refers to the agreement that was almost reached,

"Hints at how close Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert had got, the last time there were direct talks between the two sides, left the impression that the solution is there to be grasped and the script already written, if only the actors could be found to speak the words. The row over building in East Jerusalem has dispelled that illusion. The solution is not there. After 17 years of intermittent negotiation but continuous settlement in the West Bank, there is zero trust between the two sides."

"Former true believers in the peace process are renouncing their faith." Says The Guardian, "Aaron Miller, an adviser on Arab-Israeli negotiations who served six US secretaries of state,is on of them. Arguing against many of the memos he penned to past political masters (after the Wye River accords which were never implemented, he declared the move toward peace was irreversible), Mr. Miller now questions whether the conflict is capable of a negotiated solution and if it isn't, whether it should continue to be regarded as central to the stability of the region. There are ample grounds for thinking that neither Mr. Netanyahu nor Mr. Abbas can negotiate a solution, one because he won't and the other because he can't."

Christian Science Monitor Staff writer Howard LaFranchi, gleans opinions from a few US veteran diplomats “Some US experts in the decades-old conflict now say that minimal interim measures on Jerusalem will be necessary for talks to resume. This reverses long-held thinking that Jerusalem is such a charged and emotional issue that its status would be taken up only as part of “final” negotiations.” He says and quotes Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, “We can’t resolve Jerusalem now, but we can’t ignore it either, we have to find a way to get Jerusalem into talks.”

“Successive American administrations, when confronted with the complexities rolled up in the city, have concluded no good can come from focusing on Jerusalem,” says Martin Indyk, who is now director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “ However,” continues Indyk,” the current state of President Obama’s push for peace demonstrates how that approach can no longer work, it has come down to Jerusalem."

That conclusion is seconded by another former US ambassador to Israel, Sam Lewis. “The idea you can defer Jerusalem to the end of formal peace talks is an idea whose time has come and gone,” he says. “We have to find a way to bring it in now.”

At the end of the week some observers claimed that there good chances of starting proximity talks between the two sides. In a lead article in this week’s print edition of The Economist referring to the “process” the author asks “Is it really back on track? ”Israeli officials say they still suspect the Palestinians intend to let the proximity talks run into the ground and then demand that the Americans ‘impose’ a settlement. Mr Obama has assured Israel that he wants no such thing. But he has also assured Mr Abbas that, in the event of a deadlock in the proximity talks, American influence will be brought to bear. The Israelis say they fear that if the talks founder they will be blamed.”

“Furthermore,” concludes The Economist, “whatever assurances the Americans may have given Mr Netanyahu, it is likely, if the proximity talks stall again, that they will bring their own bridging proposals to the table—or even launch a full-blooded plan of their own. That is a prospect that disturbs Mr Netanyahu.”

Another lead article in the paper was even more emphatic echoing Yossi Sarid. ” Get your plan ready,” Mr Obama, and under the heading,

”As talks look set to resume, Barack Obama must prepare a big plan of his own,” the author explains

“Even by the gloomy standards of the misnamed Middle East peace process, the prospect of a lasting deal between Jews and Arabs in that little strip of land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean has seemed remoter than ever. Yet the latest news offers a rare glimmer of hope. After more than a year of sullen stalemate, indirect talks between the two sides look set to resume. Sadly they are likely to flounder unless the Americans do more than just nudge them along.”

Have a good weekend

Beni 29^th of April, 2010.