The vision of two separate states, with Israelis and Palestinians
living side by side in peace, has been at the core of years of arduous
negotiations to solve the Middle East conflict. But with the two-state solution
no closer to reality than it was decades ago, some Israelis on the far right are
pushing other possibilities — including what might be called a one-state
solution that could involve Israel’s annexing the largely Palestinian West Bank.
A national election set for March could determine whether this idea has a
serious future.
It is, admittedly, a long shot. Anything less than statehood will not satisfy
the Palestinians’ longing for a self-governing homeland or end the resentment of
Israeli rule that leads to unrest. Successive Israeli governments, including
that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have long negotiated on the basis of
a two-state solution, and the international community, starting with the United
States, remains firmly, and correctly, committed to this end.
Even so, it is little surprise that some are seeking alternatives. After
countless negotiating failures, there is declining confidence in a peaceful
solution. When the latest American-mediated round collapsed in June, a Pew
Research Center poll found that 45 percent of Israelis and 60 percent of
Palestinians in the West Bank believe that Israel and a Palestinian state cannot
coexist peacefully.
Among those pushing a one-state alternative is Naftali Bennett, the hard-line
leader of the Jewish Home party and a challenger to Mr. Netanyahu. The two-state
idea centers on Israel’s ceding land seized during the 1967 war, with minor
adjustments. Mr. Bennett has a different vision. “You think that we need to give
up our land to the ’67 lines, plus/minus, swap it, whatever,” he said recently.
“I don’t. My people don’t. We think that would be tantamount to national
suicide.”
He says that Israel, which withdrew from Gaza in 2005, cannot tolerate a
contiguous Palestinian state that, in his view, would become a haven for
terrorists. He would annex some 60 percent of the West Bank where Israel
exercises full control, but he would give Palestinians more autonomy in areas of
the West Bank administered by the Palestinian Authority, upgrading roads and
removing checkpoints. Similar, though hardly identical, proposals abound. Dani
Dayan, a leader of Israel’s settler community, is promoting a gauzy notion of
“reconciliation” with Palestinians that he admits is “not a plan for permanent
peace.” Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s president, is pushing annexation of the entire
West Bank as part of a single Jewish state. He would give full citizenship to
Palestinians even if annexation left Jews in the minority
As The Times has reported, some Palestinians are also tempted by a one-state
solution, but talk of full rights draws skepticism. Many Palestinians who live
in Israel and are citizens already feel they are discriminated against and fear
this will worsen if Israel adopts a new law under consideration emphasizing the
country’s Jewishness over democracy. There are risks in annexation and a
one-state solution for Israelis, too. Many Israelis worry that will lead to a
Palestinian majority, thus endangering the country’s democratic ideals and
Jewish character.
With negotiations stalled and Israel narrowing the space for a peace deal by
expanding settlements, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has made a
desperation play for a two-state solution. He is pushing the United Nations
Security Council to adopt a resolution that would set a deadline for full Israel
withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and for recognition of a
Palestinian state. He has strong support from Europe, where some governments
have ratcheted up the pressure on Israel by individually endorsing Palestinian
statehood.
The United States, trying to protect Israel’s interest, wants at the very least
to delay a Security Council vote until after the Israeli election. That makes
sense, since a showdown now almost certainly will benefit the opponents of a
two-state solution. The campaign — in which a coalition formed by Isaac Herzog,
head of the opposition Labor party, and Tzipi Livni, the recently dismissed
justice minister, favors a two-state solution — is likely to focus on domestic
issues. But the outcome could well determine the prospects for the elusive dream
of a Palestinian state.
A version of this editorial appears in print on December 20, 2014, on page A20
of the New York edition with the headline: The Embattled Dream of Palestine.
UNITED NATIONS — More than 130 countries voted on Thursday to
upgrade Palestine to a nonmember observer state of the United Nations, a triumph
for Palestinian diplomacy and a sharp rebuke to the United States and Israel.
But the vote, at least for now, did little to bring either the Palestinians or
the Israelis closer to the goal they claim to seek: two states living side by
side, or increased Palestinian unity. Israel and the militant group Hamas both
responded critically to the day’s events, though for different reasons.
The new status will give the Palestinians more tools to challenge Israel in
international legal forums for its occupation activities in the West Bank,
including settlement-building, and it helped bolster the Palestinian Authority,
weakened after eight days of battle between its rival Hamas and Israel.
But even as a small but determined crowd of 2,000 celebrated in central Ramallah
in the West Bank, waving flags and dancing, there was an underlying sense of
concerned resignation.
“I hope this is good,” said Munir Shafie, 36, an electrical engineer who was
there. “But how are we going to benefit?”
Still, the General Assembly vote — 138 countries in favor, 9 opposed and 41
abstaining — showed impressive backing for the Palestinians at a difficult time.
It was taken on the 65th anniversary of the vote to divide the former British
mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, a vote Israel
considers the international seal of approval for its birth.
The past two years of Arab uprisings have marginalized the Palestinian cause to
some extent as nations that focused their political aspirations on the
Palestinian struggle have turned inward. The vote on Thursday, coming so soon
after the Gaza fighting, put the Palestinians again — if briefly, perhaps — at
the center of international discussion.
“The question is, where do we go from here and what does it mean?” Salam Fayyad,
the Palestinian prime minister, who was in New York for the vote, said in an
interview. “The sooner the tough rhetoric of this can subside and the more this
is viewed as a logical consequence of many years of failure to move the process
forward, the better.” He said nothing would change without deep American
involvement.
President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, speaking to the assembly’s
member nations, said, “The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a
birth certificate of the reality of the state of Palestine,” and he condemned
what he called Israeli racism and colonialism. His remarks seemed aimed in part
at Israel and in part at Hamas. But both quickly attacked him for the parts they
found offensive.
“The world watched a defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious
propaganda against the Israel Defense Forces and the citizens of Israel,” Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel responded. “Someone who wants peace does
not talk in such a manner.”
While Hamas had officially backed the United Nations bid of Mr. Abbas, it
quickly criticized his speech because the group does not recognize Israel.
“There are controversial issues in the points that Abbas raised, and Hamas has
the right to preserve its position over them,” said Salah al-Bardaweel, a
spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, on Thursday.
“We do not recognize Israel, nor the partition of Palestine, and Israel has no
right in Palestine,” he added. “Getting our membership in the U.N. bodies is our
natural right, but without giving up any inch of Palestine’s soil.”
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, spoke after Mr. Abbas and
said he was concerned that the Palestinian Authority failed to recognize Israel
for what it is.
“Three months ago, Israel’s prime minister stood in this very hall and extended
his hand in peace to President Abbas,” Mr. Prosor said. “He reiterated that his
goal was to create a solution of two states for two peoples, where a
demilitarized Palestinian state will recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
“That’s right. Two states for two peoples. In fact, President Abbas, I did not
hear you use the phrase ‘two states for two peoples’ this afternoon. In fact, I
have never heard you say the phrase ‘two states for two peoples’ because the
Palestinian leadership has never recognized that Israel is the nation-state of
the Jewish people.”
The Israelis also say that the fact that Mr. Abbas is not welcome in Gaza, the
Palestinian coastal enclave run by Hamas, from which he was ejected five years
ago, shows that there is no viable Palestinian leadership living up to its
obligations now.
As expected, the vote won backing from a number of European countries, and was a
rebuff to intense American and Israeli diplomacy. France, Spain, Italy and
Switzerland all voted yes. Britain and Germany abstained. Apart from Canada, no
major country joined the United States and Israel in voting no. The other
opponents included Palau, Panama and Micronesia.
Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, was dismissive of
the entire exercise. “Today’s grand pronouncements will soon fade,” she said.
“And the Palestinian people will wake up tomorrow and find that little about
their lives has changed, save that the prospects of a durable peace have only
receded.”
A major concern for the Americans is that the Palestinians may use their new
status to try to join the International Criminal Court. That prospect
particularly worries the Israelis, who fear that the Palestinians may press for
an investigation of their practices in the occupied territories widely viewed as
violations of international law.
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that after the vote “life
will not be the same” because “Palestine will become a country under
occupation.”
“The terms of reference for any negotiations become withdrawal,” Mr. Erekat
said.
Another worry is that the Palestinians may use the vote to seek membership in
specialized agencies of the United Nations, a move that could have consequences
for the financing of the international organizations as well as the Palestinian
Authority itself. Congress cut off financing to the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, known as Unesco, in 2011 after it accepted
Palestine as a member. The United States is a major contributor to many of these
agencies and is active on their governing boards.
In response to the Palestinian bid, a bipartisan group of senators said Thursday
that they would introduce legislation that would cut off foreign aid to the
authority if it tried to use the International Criminal Court against Israel,
and close the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington if
Palestinians refused to negotiate with Israel.
Calling the Palestinian bid “an unhealthy step that could undermine the peace
process,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that he and
the other senators, including Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, would be
closely monitoring the situation.
The vote came shortly after an eight-day Israeli military assault on Gaza that
Israel described as a response to stepped-up rocket fire into Israel. The
operation killed scores of Palestinians and was aimed at reducing the arsenal of
Hamas in Gaza, part of the territory that the United Nations resolution expects
to make up a future state of Palestine.
The Palestinian Authority, based in Ramallah, was politically weakened by the
Gaza fighting, with its rivals in Hamas seen by many Palestinians as more
willing to stand up to Israel and fight back. That shift in sentiment is one
reason that some Western countries gave for backing the United Nations
resolution, to strengthen Mr. Abbas and his more moderate colleagues in their
contest with Hamas.
September
23, 2011
The New York Times
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
and STEVEN LEE MYERS
UNITED
NATIONS — Shortly after President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority
formally requested the Security Council to grant full United Nations membership
on Friday, international powers reached an agreement on terms to restart talks
between Israel and the Palestinians, diplomats and Obama administration
officials said.
Details of the understanding between the United States, the United Nations, the
European Union and Russia, known as the Quartet, were due to be announced later
on Friday. But officials said they hoped the statement would lead to a new round
of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership after many months
of stalemate.
Catherine Ashton, the European foreign policy chief, said the proposal did not
try to solve the preconditions that both presidents have stated before and
repeated Friday in their statements at the United Nations. The Palestinians have
demanded a freeze on settlement expansion, for example, while Israel wants to be
recognized as a Jewish state.
“What we have tried to do is to set the framework in which they can have those
discussions and reach agreement,” Ms. Ashton told a news conference. She said
the most important aspect of the statement was the time frame: beginning talks
within four weeks, significant progress on borders and security within three
months and a full agreement by the end of 2012.
Yet, the Quartet’s statement was a watered down document, avoiding any of the
difficult — and highly contentious — issues that have been the focus of
negotiations for months and that continue to divide the Israelis and
Palestinians. It did reaffirm “strong support for the vision of
Israeli-Palestinian peace” outlined by President Obama in May. That included two
states separated by the borders that existed in 1967 with “land swaps” to
account for Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
It called on the Israelis and Palestinians to meet and agree on an agenda and
schedule for resuming direct negotiations within a month and to come forward
with “comprehensive proposals” on territory and security within three months,
before the end of this year. The two sides should make “substantial progress”
within six months and complete a final agreement before the end of 2012.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton emerged from the unexpected meeting of
the Quartet at the United Nations and praised the “concrete and detailed
proposal.”
She added: “We urge both parties to take advantage of this opportunity to get
back to get back to talks, and the United States pledges our support as the
parties themselves take the important next steps for a two-solution, which is
what all of us are hoping to achieve.”
Even though Ms. Ashton called it a comprehensive approach, the real prospects of
meaningful negotiations remained doubtful on a day when Mr. Abbas and the
Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, delivered strongly worded addresses
stoutly defending their respective positions. Even so, both leaders said in
their speeches they were open to talks, though neither reacted immediately to
the Quartet’s proposal.
Mr. Abbas was greeted by numerous standing ovations from the moment he
approached the lectern to deliver his speech to the General Assembly. “I do not
believe anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for full
admission in the United Nations,” Mr. Abbas said, calling statehood “the
realization of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people.”
The largest and most sustained applause, along with cheers and whistles of
approval, came as Mr. Abbas held up a copy of the letter requesting membership
that he said he had handed to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon shortly before. “The
time has come,” he said.
Less than an hour later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel took to the
same lectern in “a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my
country” and said that he would not be seeking applause but rather speaking hard
truths. “The truth is the Palestinians want a state without peace and you should
not let that happen,” he said.
Mr. Netanyahu lashed out at the United Nations, whose prior actions against
Israeli he described as “a theater of the absurd,” and challenged a comment by
Mr. Abbas that the Palestinians were armed “only with their hopes and dreams.”
“Hopes, dreams — and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran," Mr.
Netanyahu said. He repeatedly stressed Israel’s small size, saying it needed
strategic depth to defend itself, particularly from the growing threat of
militant Islam in the region.
Both men spoke for about 40-minutes, often in almost professorial tones, with
Mr. Netanyahu sounding like a geography professor as he laid out the threat
Israel faced from so close at hand.
The request for Palestinian statehood on land occupied by Israel has become the
dominant issue at this year’s General Assembly, refocusing global attention on
one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.
Both men used the occasion to summarize the history of the conflict from their
own perspectives. Mr. Netanyahu, in his early remarks, reviewed the many
occasions when the United Nations had issued resolutions against Israel, saying
the country had been unjustly singled out for condemnation “more often than all
the other nations combined.”
Mr. Abbas said every previous peace effort had been “shattered on the rock” of
Israeli settlements and cited what he said was the historical responsibility of
the United Nations to solve the problem.
He described the West Bank as “the last occupation” in the world, one that
showed no sign of ending. “It is neither possible nor practical nor acceptable
to return to conducting business as usual,” he said.
Drawing a line between his statehood request and the revolutions that swept
through the Arab world this spring, he said, “The time has come also for the
Palestinian spring, the time for independence.”
The Security Council is likely to take up the issue in earnest next week,
diplomats said, when the question becomes whether the United States and its
allies can stall it.
Washington is also working to prevent the Palestinians from gathering the nine
votes needed for it to pass in the full council and thus avoid further wrecking
the image of the United States in the Middle East by casting yet another veto
against something Arabs dearly want.
The United States and the other members of the quartet that guides the
negotiations — the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia — are all
trying to restart direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians before any
vote becomes necessary. The hope is that if negotiations begin in earnest, that
the membership request can be postponed until the negotiations are over.
The diplomatic wrangling at the United Nations is expected to take several weeks
before the question of a vote arises.
Among the 15 members, some are expected to stay solidly in the Palestinian camp,
including Brazil, China, India, Lebanon, South Africa and Russia. The United
States is a solid vote against, and the five European members — Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal — are all question marks.
The positions of Colombia, Gabon and Nigeria are also murky.
The African Union supports membership, but it is not entirely clear if Gabon and
Nigeria will go along. President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria did not mention
the issue in his speech to the General Assembly, unlike many leaders from the
developing world who support Palestine, and the statement by President Ali Bongo
Ondimba of Gabon, was somewhat enigmatic. He said he hoped to soon see a
Palestinian state, but noted that both the Palestinians and the people of Israel
are friends of Gabon.
In Europe, Germany tends to lean against, its relations with Israel always
overshadowed by the legacy of World War II. France leans the other way, while
Britain sits on the fence. Portugal and Bosnia have been close to the
Palestinians and the Arab world in the past, but their support is not assured
this time around.
In theory, United Nations procedures demand that the special 15-member committee
— one from each state — that studies the membership issue report back in 35
days, but nothing is more flexible than a deadline at the United Nations.
Security Council members can stall things for weeks and weeks by requesting more
information or by saying they are waiting for instructions from their capitals.
Behind them, though, looms the policy enunciated by President Nicholas Sarkozy
of France, who said that the Palestinians should get enhanced status in the
General Assembly, moving from an observer entity to a non-member observer state.
Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said it would wait to see what happens
in the Security Council before moving forward. By tradition, the General
Assembly does not take up an issue when the Security Council is studying it and
vice versa, but it is not impossible.
The historic day of speeches engendered a sense that the issue of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict had come full circle. The Palestinians call their
membership application a desperate attempt to preserve the two-state solution
despite encroaching Israeli settlements, as well as an attempt to shake up the
negotiations that they feel have achieved little after 20 years of American
oversight.
The question is whether trying to bring the intractable problem back to its
international roots will somehow provide the needed jolt to get negotiations
moving again.
The general point of view of the Israeli government and its supporters is that
the Palestinians and their Arab allies gave up the right to the United Nations
resolutions detailing a two state solution by rejecting that original plan and
waging war against Israel for six decades.
But after every war, the United Nations resolutions and indeed the peace
treaties with other Arab states have all reaffirmed the resolutions that outline
the two-state compromise, starting with General Assembly resolution 181 in 1947.
In the annex of their membership application submitted to Mr. Ban today, the
Palestinians listed every United Nations resolution that envisioned a two-state
solution that has not been implemented, they said.
Neil MacFarquhar reported from the United Nations
and Steve Lee Myers from
Washington.
J. David Goodman contributed reporting from New York.
September
21, 2011
The New York Times
By EHUD OLMERT
Jerusalem
AS the
United Nations General Assembly opens this year, I feel uneasy. An unnecessary
diplomatic clash between Israel and the Palestinians is taking shape in New
York, and it will be harmful to Israel and to the future of the Middle East.
I know that things could and should have been different.
I truly believe that a two-state solution is the only way to ensure a more
stable Middle East and to grant Israel the security and well-being it desires.
As tensions grow, I cannot but feel that we in the region are on the verge of
missing an opportunity — one that we cannot afford to miss.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, plans to make a unilateral bid for
recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations on Friday. He has the
right to do so, and the vast majority of countries in the General Assembly
support his move. But this is not the wisest step Mr. Abbas can take.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has declared publicly that he
believes in the two-state solution, but he is expending all of his political
effort to block Mr. Abbas’s bid for statehood by rallying domestic support and
appealing to other countries. This is not the wisest step Mr. Netanyahu can
take.
In the worst-case scenario, chaos and violence could erupt, making the
possibility of an agreement even more distant, if not impossible. If that
happens, peace will definitely not be the outcome.
The parameters of a peace deal are well known and they have already been put on
the table. I put them there in September 2008 when I presented a far-reaching
offer to Mr. Abbas.
According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a
Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and
Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new
realities on the ground.
The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of
Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither
side would declare sovereignty over the city’s holy places; they would be
administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United
States.
The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the
2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of
all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the
Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of
refugees on humanitarian grounds.
Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any
agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form
military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight
terrorism and violence.
These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be
put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make
brave and difficult decisions.
We Israelis simply do not have the luxury of spending more time postponing a
solution. A further delay will only help extremists on both sides who seek to
sabotage any prospect of a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution.
Moreover, the Arab Spring has changed the Middle East, and unpredictable
developments in the region, such as the recent attack on Israel’s embassy in
Cairo, could easily explode into widespread chaos. It is therefore in Israel’s
strategic interest to cement existing peace agreements with its neighbors, Egypt
and Jordan.
In addition, Israel must make every effort to defuse tensions with Turkey as
soon as possible. Turkey is not an enemy of Israel. I have worked closely with
the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In spite of his recent
statements and actions, I believe that he understands the importance of
relations with Israel. Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Netanyahu must work to end this
crisis immediately for the benefit of both countries and the stability of the
region.
In Israel, we are sorry for the loss of life of Turkish citizens in May 2010,
when Israel confronted a provocative flotilla of ships bound for Gaza. I am sure
that the proper way to express these sentiments to the Turkish government and
the Turkish people can be found.
The time for true leadership has come. Leadership is tested not by one’s
capacity to survive politically but by the ability to make tough decisions in
trying times.
When I addressed international forums as prime minister, the Israeli people
expected me to present bold political initiatives that would bring peace — not
arguments outlining why achieving peace now is not possible. Today, such an
initiative is more necessary than ever to prove to the world that Israel is a
peace-seeking country.
The window of opportunity is limited. Israel will not always find itself sitting
across the table from Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas and the prime minister,
Salam Fayyad, who object to terrorism and want peace. Indeed, future Palestinian
leaders might abandon the idea of two states and seek a one-state solution,
making reconciliation impossible.
Now is the time. There will be no better one. I hope that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr.
Abbas will meet the challenge.
UNITED
NATIONS | Wed Sep 21, 2011
10:11am EDT
Reuters
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED
NATIONS (Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has vowed to request
U.N. membership for a Palestinian state when he addresses the U.N. on Friday,
defying opposition from Israel and the United States.
Here are some questions and answers about the Palestinian push at the United
Nations during this year's annual gathering of world leaders for the annual U.N.
General Assembly session in New York, as well as some of the possible
consequences.
WHY DO THE
PALESTINIANS WANT TO GO TO THE UNITED NATIONS?
Abbas says 20 years of U.S.-led peace talks have gone nowhere and wants a vote
in the United Nations to bestow the Palestinians with the cherished mantle of
statehood. He recognizes, however, that negotiations with Israel will still be
needed to establish a properly functioning state.
Justifying the move, the Palestinians point to the success of a Western-backed,
two-year plan to build institutions ready for statehood which they say is now
finished.
THE
PALESTINIANS WANT RECOGNITION ON 1967 LINES. WHY?
The Palestinian Authority says placing their state firmly in the context of
territory seized by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War would provide clear terms of
reference and mean Israel would no longer be able to call the land "disputed."
Instead, it would make clear that land is occupied. Israel fears this would
enable Palestinians to start legal proceedings in the International Criminal
Court against some 500,000 Israelis who live in East Jerusalem and the West
Bank.
HOW DOES
THE U.N. ADMIT NEW MEMBER STATES?
Countries seeking to join the United Nations usually present an application to
the U.N. secretary-general, who passes it to the Security Council to assess and
vote on. If the 15-nation council approves the membership request, it is passed
to the General Assembly for approval. A membership request needs a two-thirds
majority, or 129 votes, for approval.
A country cannot join the United Nations unless both the Security Council and
General Assembly approve its application.
COULD THE
PALESTINIANS JOIN THE U.N.?
In theory, yes. But Washington has made clear it would veto such a request,
meaning it has no chance of success. Even if the Palestinians secure a
two-thirds majority of votes in the General Assembly, there is no getting around
the need for prior approval of the Security Council.
DO THE
PALESTINIANS HAVE THE VOTES ON THE SECURITY
COUNCIL?
Nine votes and no vetoes from the five permanent members are needed for a
resolution to pass the Security Council. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad
al-Malki said his delegation was working to secure the minimum nine votes in the
council needed to secure U.N. membership and he was confident they would
succeed. [ID:nS1E78J0FS]
Diplomats say the United States is the only permanent council member expected to
use its veto to block a Palestinian membership bid.
WHAT
HAPPENS AFTER PALESTINE APPLIES FOR U.N. MEMBERSHIP?
Abbas has said he would bring an application for U.N. membership to
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday. After an initial review, Ban would pass
it to the current president of the Security Council, Lebanese U.N. Ambassador
Nawaf Salam.
Salam would establish a committee to review and assess the application. Standard
practice is to complete the assessment within 35 days, but this can be waived.
Diplomats and U.N. officials say it is likely that council members will take
their time reviewing the Palestinian application. One diplomat said the review
process could drag on for years before there is a vote.
IS
"NON-MEMBER STATE" STATUS AN OPTION?
In addition to applying to become a U.N. member state, the Palestinians could
seek upgraded observer status as a non-member state. That is what the Vatican
has. Such status, U.N. envoys say, could be interpreted as implicit U.N.
recognition of Palestinian statehood because the assembly would be acknowledging
that the Palestinians control a "state."
One advantage of this option is that it would require only a simple majority of
the 193-nation General Assembly, not a two-thirds majority. Abbas has said that
more than 126 states already recognize the state of Palestine, meaning he could
probably win such a vote with ease.
WHAT WOULD
BE THE ADVANTAGE OF THAT?
Besides granting them the all-important title "state," diplomats say it would
likely enable the Palestinians to join the ICC, where it could pursue criminal
cases against Israel over the partial blockade of Gaza, the settlements and the
December 2008-January 2009 war in the Gaza Strip.
COULD
ISRAEL OR WASHINGTON EXACT PUNISHMENT ON THE PA?
Israel could pursue ICC action against the Palestinians for rockets fired
against Israel.
Israeli officials have suggested a range of possible measures, including
limiting travel privileges for Palestinian leaders seeking to exit the West
Bank, halting the transfer of crucial tax revenues to the Palestinians and even
annexing West Bank settlement blocs to try to sidestep ICC legal action. Some
U.S. officials have warned that they might cut their annual aid to the
Palestinian Authority, which runs to some $450 million.
(Additional
reporting by Crispian Balmer in Jerusalem;
September
13, 2011
The New York Times
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON
— The United States is facing increasing pressure as the Palestinian quest for
statehood gained support from Turkey and other countries, even as the Obama
administration sought an 11th-hour compromise that would avoid a confrontation
at the United Nations next week.
With only days to go before world leaders gather in New York, the maneuvering
became an exercise in brinkmanship as the administration wrestles with roiling
tensions in the region, including a sharp deterioration of relations between
three of its closest allies in the region: Egypt, Israel and Turkey.
Nabil el-Araby, secretary general of the Arab League, said after meeting with
the Palestinians that “it is obvious that the Palestinian Authority and the Arab
countries are leaning towards going to the General Assembly,” where a successful
vote could elevate the status of the Palestinian Authority from nonvoting
“observer entity” to “observer state,” a status equal to that of the Holy See.
Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey ratcheted up
pressure on the United States and Israel by telling Arab League ministers that
recognition of a Palestinian state was “not a choice but an obligation.”
In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that American
negotiators would return to the region on Wednesday to meet with Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian
Authority in a final effort to avert a vote on the matter.
The administration, working with the European Union’s foreign policy chief,
Catherine Ashton, and Tony Blair, who serves as a special envoy to the region,
continued to seek international support for what Mrs. Clinton described as “a
sustainable platform for negotiations” between the Israelis and the Palestinians
to create a Palestinian state.
She did not elaborate, but the administration hopes that a negotiated agreement
on a prospective deal could avert a vote at the United Nations — or even be
submitted for approval by the Security Council or the General Assembly in lieu
of a Palestinian request for either membership or status as an observer state,
administration officials said.
“We all know that no matter what happens or doesn’t happen at the U.N., the next
day is not going to result in the kind of changes that the United States wishes
to see that will move us toward the two-state solution that we strongly
support,” Mrs. Clinton said Tuesday. “The only way of getting a lasting solution
is through direct negotiations between the parties, and the route to that lies
in Jerusalem and Ramallah, not in New York.”
The administration has spent months trying to avoid casting its veto in the
Security Council to block membership of a Palestinian state. It also hopes to
avert a vote for the more symbolic change in status in the General Assembly,
which senior officials, echoing the Israelis, have warned would be harmful to
Israeli-Palestinian peace and could foment violence.
But with negotiations long stalled, the Palestinians and their allies say that
such a vote would preserve the idea of a two-state solution.
The timing of the confrontation has created a diplomatic quandary for President
Obama, putting him in the position of opposing Palestinian aspirations for
self-determination even as his administration has championed Arabs who have
overthrown leaders in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya or who seek to in Syria. At the
same time, he faces pressure from Israel’s vocal supporters in Congress to block
the vote or cut off military and economic assistance the United States has given
to the Palestinians.
Internationally, however, the United States and Israel appeared increasingly
isolated, with even some European nations, from Russia to France, signaling
support for at least a General Assembly vote for the Palestinians.
The support for the Palestinians from the Turkish prime minister was not a
surprise, but the commanding tone of his endorsement — coupled with Turkey’s
souring relations with Israel, once a close ally — underscored the growing
sympathy for Palestinian aspirations for sovereignty and statehood.
“Let’s raise the Palestinian flag, and let that flag be the symbol of peace and
justice in the Middle East,” said Mr. Erdogan, the increasingly influential
leader of a NATO ally. He also took a harsh tone toward Israel, saying it is
“the West’s spoiled child.”
The Arab League signaled that it would press the Palestinians to seek a General
Assembly vote to elevate the status of the Palestinian Authority from nonvoting
“observer entity” to “observer state.” Some Palestinian leaders, though,
continued to press for a Security Council vote.
Although a vote in the General Assembly would not formally recognize a state of
Palestine, it would give the Palestinians rights to observe and submit
resolutions and join other United Nations bodies and conventions. It could also
strengthen their ability to pursue legal cases in the International Criminal
Court, something that alarms Israel and the United States in particular.
But the Palestinians also seemed open to the compromise being brokered by Mr.
Blair and the American envoys, David M. Hale from the State Department and
Dennis B. Ross from the National Security Council.
A top negotiator for the Palestinian Authority said Tuesday night that its
leadership was considering strong appeals by the Arab states and the Europeans
to turn to the General Assembly, where it is certain to have majority support,
and not the Security Council, where the United States can veto any resolution.
The negotiator, Saeb Erekat, added that Mr. Abbas told Arab ministers that the
Palestinian Authority had not yet decided, suggesting that it was still
considering its options. Mr. Abbas is expected to go to Amman, Jordan, on
Wednesday to discuss the issue with Mr. Blair. Mr. Blair and the Europeans “said
they have some ideas, and we are waiting to see the ideas formulated,” Mr.
Erekat said.
“We don’t intend to confront the U.S., or anyone else for that matter,” he
added. “We want to present the United Nations vote as an opportunity for all of
us to preserve the two-state solution.”
Mr. Abbas and his Arab allies argue that Israel’s unwillingness to take
sufficient steps to create a state of Palestine had obviated the path laid out
in the Oslo peace accords of 1993. Mr. Araby said that a United Nations vote
would “change the Israel-Palestinian conflict” and become an important step
toward a resolution. “It will turn from a conflict about existence to a conflict
about borders,” he said.
Some European diplomats have agreed, but urged the Palestinians to turn to the
General Assembly because they argued that its approval was more likely to
facilitate negotiations rather than a vetoed bid at the Security Council. Mr.
Araby said that Ms. Ashton, the European Union’s chief diplomat, expected strong
European support for an elevation of the Palestinians’ status to “observer
state.”
The consequences of that, however, remained unclear. In Congress, senior
Republican lawmakers have introduced language in an appropriations bill that
would sever American aid to the Palestinians if they proceeded with the vote.
Representative Kay Granger, a Republican from Texas who is the chairwoman of the
House appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign aid, said she had
explained that view personally to the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad,
during a visit to Israel and the West Bank last month.
“It’s very bad,” Ms. Granger said of the Palestinian bid at the United Nations.
“If they take that step, then we no longer fund. We stop our funding because our
position is that it stops the peace process — because they are going outside the
peace process.”
She called the expected confrontation in New York next week “a train wreck
coming.”
September
3, 2011
The New York Times
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and MARK LANDLER
WASHINGTON
— The Obama administration has initiated a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to
avert a confrontation this month over a plan by Palestinians to seek recognition
as a state at the United Nations, but it may already be too late, according to
senior American officials and foreign diplomats.
The administration has circulated a proposal for renewed peace talks with the
Israelis in the hopes of persuading the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to
abandon the bid for recognition at the annual gathering of world leaders at the
United Nations General Assembly beginning Sept. 20.
The administration has made it clear to Mr. Abbas that it will veto any request
presented to the United Nations Security Council to make a Palestinian state a
new member outright.
But the United States does not have enough support to block a vote by the
General Assembly to elevate the status of the Palestinians’ nonvoting observer
“entity” to that of a nonvoting observer state. The change would pave the way
for the Palestinians to join dozens of United Nations bodies and conventions,
and it could strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the
International Criminal Court.
Senior officials said the administration wanted to avoid not only a veto but
also the more symbolic and potent General Assembly vote that would leave the
United States and only a handful of other nations in the opposition. The
officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic
maneuverings, said they feared that in either case a wave of anger could sweep
the Palestinian territories and the wider Arab world at a time when the region
is already in tumult. President Obama would be put in the position of
threatening to veto recognition of the aspirations of most Palestinians or risk
alienating Israel and its political supporters in the United States.
“If you put the alternative out there, then you’ve suddenly just changed the
circumstances and changed the dynamic,” a senior administration official
involved in the flurry of diplomacy said Thursday. “And that’s what we’re trying
very much to do.”
Efforts to head off the Palestinian diplomatic drive have percolated all summer
but have taken on urgency as the vote looms in the coming weeks. “It’s not clear
to me how it can be avoided at the moment,” said Ghaith al-Omari, a former
Palestinian negotiator who is now executive director of the American Task Force
on Palestine in Washington. “An American veto could inflame emotions and bring
anti-American sentiment to the forefront across the region.”
While some officials remain optimistic that a compromise can be found, the
administration has simultaneously begun planning to limit the fallout of a
statehood vote. A primary focus is to ensure the Israelis and Palestinians
continue to cooperate on security matters in the West Bank and along Israel’s
borders, administration officials said.
“We’re still focused on Plan A,” another senior administration official said,
referring to the diplomatic efforts by the administration’s new special envoy,
David M. Hale, and the president’s Middle East adviser on the National Security
Council, Dennis B. Ross. Mr. Hale replaced the more prominent George J. Mitchell
Jr., who resigned in May after two years of frustrated efforts to make progress
on a peace deal.
The State Department late last month issued a formal diplomatic message to more
than 70 countries urging them to oppose any unilateral moves by the Palestinians
at the United Nations. The message, delivered by American ambassadors to their
diplomatic counterparts in those countries, argued that a vote would destabilize
the region and undermine peace efforts, though those are, at least for now,
moribund.
Two administration officials said that the intent of the message was to narrow
the majority the Palestinians are expected to have in the General Assembly. They
said that and the new peace proposal — to be issued in a statement by the
Quartet, the diplomatic group focused on the Middle East comprising the United
States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations — could persuade
potential supporters to step back from a vote on recognition, and thus force Mr.
Abbas to have second thoughts.
“The fact is there are countries who would choose not to do that vote if there
was an alternative,” the first senior administration official said.
In essence, the administration is trying to translate the broad principles Mr.
Obama outlined in May into a concrete road map for talks that would succeed
where past efforts have failed: satisfy Israel, give the Palestinians an
alternative to going to the United Nations and win the endorsement of the
Europeans.
Diplomats are laboring to formulate language that would bridge stubborn
differences over how to treat Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and over
Israel’s demand for recognition of its status as a Jewish state. A statement by
the Quartet would be more than a symbolic gesture. It would outline a series of
meetings and actions to resume talks to create a Palestinian state.
The Quartet’s members are divided over the proposal’s terms and continue to
negotiate them among themselves, and with the Palestinians and Israelis.
Among the issues still on the table are how explicitly to account for the
growing settlements in the West Bank. The question of Israel’s status is also
opposed by Russia and viewed warily by some European countries. The Palestinians
have never acceded to a formal recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, in
deference at least in part to the Palestinians who live in Israel.
The Quartet’s envoy, Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, visited
Jerusalem on Tuesday to negotiate the terms of the proposal with the Israelis.
He is expected to discuss it with the Palestinians soon.
The Israelis have so far responded positively to the draft, but the Palestinian
position remains unclear.
Two administration officials said that Mr. Abbas had recently indicated that he
would forgo a United Nations vote in favor of real talks. But a senior
Palestinian official, Nabil Shaath, angrily dismissed the American proposal as
inadequate and said a vote would go ahead regardless.
“Whoever wrote this thought we are so weak that we cannot even wiggle or that we
are stupid,” he said in a telephone interview from Ramallah in the West Bank. He
added, “Whatever is to be offered, it is too late.”
Within the administration, there are different views of the situation’s urgency.
Some officials believe that the United States can weather a veto diplomatically,
as it has before, and politically at home because of the strong support for
Israel in Congress. But others view the Palestinian push for recognition as
deeply alarming, raising the specter of new instability and violence in the West
Bank and Gaza.
“The most powerful argument is that this will provoke a Palestinian awakening,
that there will be a new violence and that we’ll be blamed,” said Martin S.
Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States on Friday vetoed a draft U.N.
Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements on Palestinian land
after the Palestinians refused a compromise offer from Washington.
The U.S. move was welcomed by American pro-Israel groups, some of which have
previously criticized President Barack Obama's administration for what they see
as its record of lukewarm support for Israel.
U.N. diplomats say the Palestinian Authority, which has been trying to defend
itself against critics who accuse it of caving in to the Americans and Israelis
during peace talks, was eager to show that it can stand up to Washington.
The other 14 Security Council members voted in favor of the draft resolution.
But the United States, as one of the five permanent council members with the
power to block any action by the Security Council, voted against it and struck
it down.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told council members that the
veto "should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity." The
U.S. position is that continued Israeli settlements lack legitimacy, she said.
But Rice said the draft "risks hardening the position of both sides" and
reiterated the U.S. view that settlements and other contentious issues should be
resolved in direct Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
The resolution described the settlements as "illegal" and urged the Jewish state
to "immediately and completely" halt all settlement activities. Diplomats said
the views contained in the resolution, which would have been legally binding had
it passed, are generally supported by the Obama administration.
However, they said, the United States refuses to allow the Security Council to
intervene with binding resolutions on issues it feels belongs to direct peace
talks.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement Israel "deeply
appreciates" the U.S. decision to veto the resolution.
Israeli Ambassador Meron Reuben, opposing the resolution, urged the Palestinians
to "return to negotiations without preconditions." U.S.-brokered peace talks
collapsed last year after Israel refused to extend a moratorium on settlements.
The Palestinians say continued building flouts the internationally backed peace
plan that will permit them to create a viable, contiguous state on the land
after a treaty with Israel to end its occupation and 62 years of conflict.
Israel says this is an excuse for avoiding peace talks and a precondition never
demanded before during 17 years of negotiation, which has so far produced no
agreement.
HYPOCRITICAL?
World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder thanked Obama, saying his veto
showed "America's support for the rights of the Jewish state and for the Middle
East peace process." Other pro-Israel groups also praised Obama.
Obama's offer to support a non-binding Security Council statement chiding Israel
over the settlements instead of a binding resolution had been criticized by
pro-Israel lobby groups and some members of the U.S. Congress.
British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, speaking on behalf of Britain, France and
Germany, condemned Israeli settlements as "illegal under international law."
He added that the European Union's three biggest nations hope that an
independent state of Palestine will join the United Nations as a new member
state by September 2011.
Several EU nations, including Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden, were among the
resolution's more than 100 co-sponsors.
The Palestinian Authority earlier on Friday decided to insist that the
resolution be put to the council, and rejected the U.S. compromise offer despite
a telephone call from Obama to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday.
The permanent Palestinian observer to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, said
the U.S. veto could send the wrong signal to Israel. "We fear ... that the
message sent today may be one that further encourages Israeli intransigence and
impunity," he said.
Mansour declined to comment on media reports that Obama warned Abbas of
repercussions if the Palestinians did not withdraw the draft resolution.
The decision to put it to a vote was made unanimously by the Palestine
Liberation Organization's executive and the central committee of Abbas's Fatah
movement at a meeting in Ramallah on Friday to discuss Obama's appeal to Abbas.
"The Palestinian leadership has decided to proceed to the U.N. Security Council,
to pressure Israel to halt settlement activities. The decision was taken despite
American pressure," said Wasel Abu Yousef, a PLO executive member.
New York-based Human Rights Watch issued a statement saying the U.S. veto
undermined international law and suggested the Obama administration was being
hypocritical.
"President Obama wants to tell the Arab world in his speeches that he opposes
settlements, but he won't let the Security Council tell Israel to stop them in a
legally binding way," said HRW's Middle East director, Sarah Leah Whitson.
June 1, 2010
Filed at 12:33 a.m. ET
The New York Times
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel's bloody, bungled takeover of a Gaza-bound Turkish
aid vessel is complicating U.S.-led Mideast peace efforts, deepening Israel's
international isolation and threatening to destroy the Jewish state's ties with
key regional ally Turkey.
And while Israel had hoped to defend its tight blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza with
Monday's high-seas raid, it instead appeared to be hastening the embargo's
demise, judging by initial international condemnation.
The pre-dawn commando operation, which killed nine pro-Palestinian activists,
was also sure to strengthen Gaza's Islamic militant Hamas rulers at the expense
of U.S. allies in the region, key among them Hamas' main rival, Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as Egypt and Jordan.
''The attack on a humanitarian mission ... will only further alienate the
international community and isolate Israel while granting added legitimacy to
Hamas' claim to represent the plight of the Palestinian people,'' said Scott
Atran, an analyst at the University of Michigan.
The Mediterranean bloodshed dealt another blow to the Obama administration's
efforts to get peace talks back on track. It raised new questions about one of
the pillars of U.S. policy -- that Hamas can be left unattended as Washington
tries to broker a peace deal between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
The raid tested U.S.-Israeli ties that have not yet fully recovered from their
most serious dispute in decades, triggered by Israeli construction plans in
disputed east Jerusalem.
In the most immediate fallout, the interception of the six-boat flotilla
carrying 10,000 tons of supplies for Gaza trained the global spotlight on the
blockade of the territory. Israel and Egypt sealed Gaza's borders after Hamas
overran the territory in 2007, wresting control from Abbas-loyal forces.
The blockade, under which Israel allows in only essential humanitarian supplies,
was intended to squeeze the militants. Instead, it has failed to dislodge Hamas,
driven ordinary Gazans deeper into poverty and emerged as a constant source of
friction and instability. In trying to shake off the blockade, Hamas intensified
rocket fire on Israeli border towns, provoking Israel's three-week military
offensive against Gaza 16 months ago.
After the war, the international community remained reluctant to push hard for
an end to the blockade, for fear it could prolong the rule of Hamas, branded a
terrorist organization by the West.
But after Monday's deadly clash, Israel may find itself under growing pressure
to at least ease the blockade significantly.
European diplomats on Monday demanded a swift end to the border closure, while
U.S. officials said statements would call for greater assistance to the people
of Gaza. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of
the situation.
The fate of U.S.-led indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians was
uncertain.
Netanyahu canceled a scheduled Tuesday meeting with President Barack Obama in
Washington, and the status of a planned visit to Washington by Abbas next week
was not immediately clear.
Abbas temporarily walked away from the negotiations in March, after Israel
announced more housing for Jews in traditionally Arab east Jerusalem.
But while the Palestinian leader denounced Monday's ship raid as a ''sinful
massacre,'' he signaled he would keep going with the indirect talks. Abbas told
senior officials of his Fatah movement and the Palestine Liberation Organization
that there is no need to quit since the Palestinians are talking to the U.S. and
not to Israel, according to his adviser Mohammed Ishtayeh.
Relations between Abbas and Hamas have become increasingly vitriolic, and
extending Hamas rule by lifting the blockade would run counter to Abbas'
objectives.
Abbas must now make a credible effort to open Gaza's borders, said Palestinian
analyst Hani al-Masri. ''Otherwise, he will be viewed as weak or part of the
siege and lose the support of his people,'' al-Masri said.
Israel dismissed the condemnation, saying its forces came under attack when they
tried to board one of the Turkish-flagged aid vessels. However, its point of
view seemed to fall on deaf ears.
''Militarily, we can feel quite safe, but not regarding our political
international standing,'' said Alon Liel, a former Israeli diplomat posted in
Turkey.
Israel also appears close to destroying its relationship with key strategic ally
Turkey.
Turkey decided to scrap three military drills involving Israel and withdrawal of
its ambassador.
Turkey, NATO's sole Muslim member, established close military relations with
Israel in 1996 under U.S. pressure. Today, the Islamic-rooted government's
sensitivities about the plight of Muslims anywhere and aspirations to have a say
in the Middle East and Europe are reshaping Turkish foreign policy.
WASHINGTON — Israel’s deadly commando raid on Monday on a flotilla trying to
break a blockade of Gaza complicated President Obama’s efforts to move ahead on
Middle East peace negotiations and introduced a new strain into an already tense
relationship between the United States and Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel canceled plans to come to Washington
on Tuesday to meet with Mr. Obama. The two men spoke by phone within hours of
the raid, and the White House later released an account of the conversation,
saying Mr. Obama had expressed “deep regret” at the loss of life and recognized
“the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances” as soon as
possible.
While the administration’s public response was restrained, American officials
expressed dismay in private over not only the flotilla raid, with its attendant
deepening of Israel’s isolation around the world, but also over the timing of
the crisis, which comes just as long-delayed American-mediated indirect talks
between Israelis and Palestinians were getting under way.
Some foreign policy experts said the episode highlighted the difficulty of
trying to negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority without taking into
account an element often relegated to the background: how to deal with
Hamas-ruled Gaza. Hamas, the Islamist organization that refuses to recognize
Israel’s existence, operates independently of the Palestinian Authority and has
rejected any peace talks. Gaza has repeatedly complicated Israeli-Palestinian
peace negotiations.
“This regrettable incident underscores that the international blockade of Gaza
is not sustainable,” Martin S. Indyk, the former United States ambassador to
Israel, said Monday. “It helps to stop Hamas attacks on Israelis, but seriously
damages Israel’s international reputation. Our responsibility to Israel is to
help them find a way out of this situation.”
The Obama administration officially supports the Gaza blockade, as the Bush
administration did before it. But Mr. Obama, some aides say, has expressed
strong frustration privately with the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
At a time when the United States is increasingly linking its own national
security interests in the region to the inability of Israelis and Palestinians
to make peace, heightened tensions over Monday’s killings could deepen the
divide between the Israeli government and the Obama administration just as Mr.
Obama and Mr. Netanyahu were trying to overcome recent differences.
“We’re not sure yet where things go from here,” one administration official
said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic delicacy
of the issue. The White House statement said that Mr. Obama “understood the
prime minister’s decision to return immediately to Israel to deal with today’s
events” and that they would reschedule their meeting “at the first opportunity.”
No matter what happens, foreign policy experts who advise the administration
agreed that if Mr. Obama wanted to move ahead with the peace talks, preceded by
the so-called proximity or indirect talks, the flotilla raid demonstrated that
he may have to tackle the thornier issue of the Gaza blockade, which has largely
been in effect since the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007.
Since then, Israel, the United States and Europe have plowed ahead with a
strategy of dealing with the Palestinian Authority, which has control over the
West Bank, while largely ignoring Gaza, home to some 1.5 million Palestinians.
Gaza was left with a deteriorating crisis as Hamas refused to yield to Western
demands that it renounce violence and recognize Israel.
“You can talk all you want about proximity talks, expend as much energy as Obama
has, but if you ignore the huge thorn of Gaza, it will come back to bite you,”
said Robert Malley, program director for the Middle East and North Africa with
the International Crisis Group.
For the Obama administration, the first order of business may be figuring out a
way to hammer out a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas that will end
the blockade of Gaza. Several attempts in the past two years to reach such an
agreement have come close, but ultimately failed, the last time when the two
sides were unable to reach a consensus on the release of an Israeli soldier
captured by Hamas, Gilad Shalit.
Mr. Indyk, the director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, says
that after things cool down, the administration needs to work on a package deal
in which Hamas commits to preventing attacks from, and all smuggling into, Gaza.
In return, Israel would drop the blockade and allow trade in and out. “That deal
would have to include a prisoner swap in which Gilad Shalit is finally freed,”
he said.
It was unclear whether the indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority would suffer an immediate delay. George J. Mitchell, the Obama
administration envoy to the Middle East, was still planning to attend the
Palestine Investment Conference in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on Wednesday
and Thursday.
The indirect talks involved American negotiators shuttling between the Israelis
and Palestinians, and are widely viewed as a step back from nearly two decades
of direct talks.
But their structure may actually serve the purpose of keeping them going. Mr.
Mitchell and his staff have been shuttling between the two sides for more than a
year, meaning that the preparation for indirect talks and the talks themselves
do not look different from the outside. As a result, the American brokers could
continue their shuttles despite the flotilla attack.
While the blockade of Gaza has been widely criticized around the world, Israeli
officials say it has imposed political pressure on Hamas. The group has stopped
firing rockets at southern Israel and is fighting discontent among the people in
Gaza.
