Many officials interpreted Abbas' decision as the outcome of last week’s mutual declarations of Hamas and Fatah that they would exchange lists of detainees to break the ice before forthcoming discussions in Cairo. Azam al-Ahmad, the head of the Fatah bloc in the Palestinian Legislative Council, said: "The gesture aims at putting an end to division and lays the ground for Palestinian reconciliation talks to be held by Egypt next month."
This is a partial explanation for Abbas' move, but its wider implications should be noted. After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had declared the recognition of a de-militarized Palestinian state, surrounded with ironclad security provisions, the Palestinian Authority leader needed to hit back. And, unless many occasions in the past, Abbas had some leverage. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in his meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, might have maintained the hard-line position of the Netanyahu Government on Israeli settlements, but Clinton did not fold. So Abbas, if he could get an easing of tensions with Hamas, might be in a position to put some pressure on Tel Aviv.
This is not the end of the story, however. Israel tried to play down the Abbas initiative --- "It is just an exchange of prisoners for the expected round of reconciliation talks" --- but recognised that this might not be enough. So, on Tuesday, Israel released the Hamas speaker of the Palestinian parliament, Aziz Dweik, who had been in prison since 2006. This was no minor prisoner: Aziz Dweik had been captured by Israeli Defense Forces just after Hamas militants had abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006 and had been a possible bargaining chip for Shalit's return.
The moral may be that moving detainees about might buy time and a bit of breathing space, but it is no substitute for firm agreements. Next scene? The Fatah-Hamas talks in Cairo.
On Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his US colleague, Hillary Clinton, met in Washington. The main subjects for discussion were the peace process in the Middle East, with particular attention to the American demand for a freeze on expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and the Iranian elections.
Speaking to the press after the meeting, Clinton began by underlining the special relationship between Israel and the US. This, however, was only a prelude to more substantive differences with both Clinton and Lieberman being "clear" about their positions. The Israeli Foreign Minister said:
We cannot accept this vision about absolutely completely freezing call for our settlements. I think that we must keep the natural growth. The Prime Minister spoke about this in his speech. I think that this position, it’s – this view, this approach, it’s very clear.
Clinton was more measured, even cautious, in her statement but --- between the words --- calling for a shift in Israeli position:
Well, I think if one looks at Israeli history, there have been prime ministers going back to the beginning of Israelis’ statehood that have staked out positions which have changed over time. I personally have known such prime ministers from Labor, Likud and Kadima, who started in one place, but in the process of evaluating what was in the best interests of Israel, and that has to be the primary obligation of any leader of Israel: What is in the best interests of my people and the future of my state?
And these prime ministers have moved to positions that they never would have thought they could have advocated before they started looking hard and thinking hard about what the future should be. But that’s what negotiations are for.
While the US has yet to convince Israel on the settlements issue, Clinton did indicate that Washington had succeeded in another important area: keeping Iran in the background, rather than at the forefront, of US-Israel discussions. Speaking about the current crisis over the Presidential election, she re-emphasized that the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran while maintaining the openness of the Obama Administration to engagement with the next Iranian Government, whoever was in charge.
TRANSCRIPT
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Lieberman to the State Department today for his first official visit to Washington in his new role. Minister Lieberman’s visit gave me the opportunity to reaffirm the United States deep, unshakable friendship and bond with Israel. Our commitment to Israel’s security is and will remain a cornerstone of our foreign policy, and I was pleased to have this chance to express that personally to the foreign minister. The United States has no greater ally in the Middle East and no greater friend than Israel.
Because our countries are close friends, we spoke honestly and openly about a range of issues. And we are looking forward to continuing that dialogue in the U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue, which has provided a useful forum for discussion of shared concerns and challenges over recent years. We exchanged views on the Middle East, including Iran, and reiterated the need for Iran’s leaders to comply with obligations to the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. And we look forward to Iran’s response to our offers of engagement.
And of course, we also focused on efforts to bring about a comprehensive peace between Israel and her neighbors in the region. Israel’s right to exist in peace and security is undeniable and non-negotiable. Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and security in two states that will entail both parties fulfilling their obligations under the Roadmap.
Building on the Arab Peace Initiative, Arab states must do their part to support the Palestinian people as they develop the institutions that will sustain their state. And they must recognize Israel’s legitimacy and, in doing so, choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
The United States will never do anything to undermine Israel’s security, and the United States also supports a viable Palestinian state. We do not believe that these two objectives are incompatible. In fact, we believe they are both critical elements of a comprehensive and secure peace.
Minister Lieberman, I hope that you enjoy your first visit to the United States as your country’s foreign minister, and I look forward to continuing our conversation and working with you more on these issues in the future.
FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Madame Secretary, at the outset, I would like to say to you how much the people and the Government of Israel appreciate your consistent support of Israel. We value your friendship greatly. We remember the many contributions you have made personally, even before you became a United States senator from New York. We thank you, Your Excellency, for your longstanding commitment to Israel and to strengthening the American-Israeli special relationship and friendship.
I think that we have had a good discussion today covering a broad spectrum of regional and global issues. We also covered a wide range of important bilateral topics. Madame Secretary, I thank you for your very kind hospitality today, and I look forward to our future friendly dialogue, both in Washington and in Jerusalem. Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: Our first question goes to Lachlan Carmichael.
QUESTION: Yes, Minister --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Here comes the microphone, Lachlan.
QUESTION: Minister Lieberman, first, Ambassador Oren, the new ambassador to Washington, is talking about some interesting proposals on settlements. Could you elaborate on what they might be? And then for Secretary Clinton, does that mean there is some wiggle room to your statement that there should be no such settlement activity?
And finally, for both of you, did you discuss previous President George Bush’s letters, private letters to the Israeli Government? Is that issue over with?
FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Thank you. It’s a long question. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s actually three questions.
FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Three questions, yeah. First of all, we really don’t have any intention to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria. But we think that, you know, as – in every place around the world, baby are born (inaudible), people get married, some pass away. And we cannot accept – we cannot accept this vision about absolutely completely freezing call for our settlements. I think that we must keep the natural growth. Prime minister spoke about this in his speech. I think that this position, it’s – this view, this approach, it’s very clear.
And also, we had some understandings with the previous administration and we tried to keep this direction. And we are, of course, ready for immediately direct talks with the Palestinians.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as President Obama, Senator Mitchell and I have said, we want to see a stop to the settlements. We think that is an important and essential part of pursuing the efforts leading to a comprehensive peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state next to a Israeli-Jewish state that is secure in its borders and future. We believe that this process which Senator Mitchell is quarterbacking for us has just begun. There are a number of critical concerns, many of which overlap in their impact and significance, that will be explored in the coming weeks as Senator Mitchell engages more deeply into the specifics as to where the Israelis and the Palestinians are willing to go together.
I think that the whole issue that you’ve raised is one that we’ve expressed our opinion on. And in looking at the history of the Bush Administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the Administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility. Our former ambassador Dan Kurtzer has written an op-ed that appeared in the last few days that lays out our position on that.
MR. KELLY: Our next question, Israeli television, Channel 2.
QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, I’m interested to know, how do you envision any progress, any chance for achievement of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track when the Israeli prime minister and the foreign minister have put so many conditions on the existing of a Palestinian state, conditions that are all – all-out refused by their Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians? And when you hear that the Israeli – current Israeli Government refuses totally to talk about your demand of freezing the settlement activity, how do you envision a progress on that track?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think if one looks at Israeli history, there have been prime ministers going back to the beginning of Israelis’ statehood that have staked out positions which have changed over time. I personally have known such prime ministers from Labor, Likud and Kadima, who started in one place, but in the process of evaluating what was in the best interests of Israel, and that has to be the primary obligation of any leader of Israel: What is in the best interests of my people and the future of my state?
And these prime ministers have moved to positions that they never would have thought they could have advocated before they started looking hard and thinking hard about what the future should be. But that’s what negotiations are for.
QUESTION: Do you hold out that Netanyahu and Lieberman will follow through (inaudible)?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I leave that to them to decide. I’m just reflecting on history and on people who have been in these positions over the last 30, 40 years. And there has been an evolution in thought. And I thought Prime Minister Netanyahu, in recognizing the aspirations of the Palestinians for a state of their own in his speech on Sunday night, said something that many people were waiting to hear him say.
MR. KELLY: Next question, Charlie Wolfson from CBS News.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, on Iran, and also for the foreign minister. The Iranians have protested U.S. actions through the Swiss ambassador today. Could you bring us up to date on those protests? And there have also been criticisms or reports of criticisms about U.S. interference in Iranian affairs because of the call to Twitter, if you could comment on that.
And for the foreign minister, does the outcome of the Iranian election change Israel’s position in any way, and were your discussions today – did they touch on that, and any actions you asked the Administration to do?
SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s four questions for the foreign minister. (Laughter.) We have very creative reporters on both sides here. (Laughter.)
The United States believes passionately and strongly in the basic principle of free expression. We believe that it is a fundamental human right for people to be able to communicate, to express their opinions, to take positions. And this is a view that goes back to the founding of our country, and we stand firmly behind it.
And therefore, we promote the right of free expression. And it is the case that one of the means of expression, the use of Twitter, is a very important one not only to the Iranian people, but now increasingly to people around the world, and most particularly young people. I wouldn’t know a Twitter from a tweeter – (laughter) – but apparently, it is very important. And I think keeping that line of communications open and enabling people to share information, particularly at a time when there was not many other sources of information, is an important expression of the right to speak out and to be able to organize that we value.
FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Thank you. As somebody said before you, we support evolution, not a revolution, and we never interfered in any internal affairs of the different countries. And what it’s important for us, not the personal creation, but the creation of policy. And what we saw during this elections, it was only one point that every candidates were united: its achieving, quote, nuclear capability; and maybe the other point, the hatred to Israel. What it’s important for us, it’s real – not the domestic problems of Iran, but their policy. And we hope that they will change their policy.
MR. KELLY: Last question for Channel One, Israel Television.
QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, given the latest unrest in Iran and the very brutal way the regime there is moving to quash these protests, does the Administration still believe there is room to engage diplomatically with Iran? And are you concerned that such engagement might embolden actually Ahmadinejad and his regime?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that the people of Iran deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted. The outcome of any election should reflect the will of the people. And it is for the Iranians to determine how they resolve this internal protest concerning the outcome of the recent election. But it is a fundamental value that the United States holds with respect to free and fair and credible elections.
With regard to engagement, obviously we intend to pursue engagement because we think it’s in the interests of the United States and the world community to discuss with the Iranian Government important matters such as the one Minister Lieberman raised concerning their intentions for their nuclear program, their support of terrorism, their interference with the affairs of their neighbors and other states.
So yes, we think there is much to talk about. And I would think it’s a useful exercise to look back on history and to see where countries, most particularly my own, have engaged in ongoing diplomatic discussions with countries whose regimes we’ve disapproved of, that we rejected. We never stopped negotiating with the former Soviet Union. They invaded countries. They promoted unrest. But we knew we had an opportunity to learn more, to discuss fully, and perhaps to reach better understandings than we might have in the absence of such engagement, so we pursued it.
We are doing this out of what we view as our interest and the interests of friends and allies such as Israel. So now we are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran to discuss these matters.
“I'm warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade. The result... will jeopardize the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny.”
Mehdi Karroubi, Reformist Candidate:
“Evidently the results and the institution coming out of such a vote count is illegitimate and unacceptable.”
Mohsen Rezai, Conservative Candidate:
“It is obvious that the person who has been declared president following the legal procedures is the president of all Iranian people. I will support him in a bid to prevent any delays in the provision of services to the people.”
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader:
“The chosen and respected president is the president of all the Iranian nation and everyone, including yesterday's competitors, must unanimously support and help him.”
Hamid Karzai, Afghan President:
“The selection of Dr Ahmadinejad with a definitive majority of the Iranian people's vote is a suitable selection for the continuous progress and welfare of the Iranian nation.”
Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli Foreign Minister:
“Given the continued Iranian policies, and particularly following the victory and continued rule of Ahmadinejad, the international community must continue to act in an uncompromising manner to stop Iran from going nuclear, stop its support for terror organisations and its undermining of Middle East stability.”
Amr Moussa, Arab League Secretary-General:
“We hope that the next term will witness progress on the relations between Iran and the Arab world and co-operation in establishing peace in the Middle East.”
Bashar Al-Assad, Syrian President:
Expressed "his faith that relations and co-operation will be reinforced between Syria and Iran."
Ali Al-Dabbagh, Iraqi Government Spokesman:
“Iraq will deal with any choice that is decided by the Iranian people. Iraq hopes to maintain friendly relations with Iran.”
Fawzi Salloukh, Lebanese Foreign Minister:
“We hope that the success of President Ahmadinejad in Iran will be in the service of peace and calmness in the Middle East.”
Fawzi Barhum, Hamas Spokesman:
“The results of the Iranian election are a victory for Iranian democracy, the Iranian people, the leaders and all parties and factions that participated.”
Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State:
“We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran. But we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide. We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people.”
EU Presidency:
“The presidency is concerned about alleged irregularities during the election process and post-election violence that broke out immediately after the release of the official election results on 13 June 2009. The presidency hopes that the outcome of the presidential elections will bring the opportunity to resume dialogue on the nuclear issue and clear up the Iranian position in this regard.”
French Foreign Ministry:
“We have noted the results of the presidential elections in Iran as announced by the Iranian authorities, which returned Mr Ahmadinejad for a second term as head of the Iranian government, and that they are contested by two of the candidates. We are continuing to follow the situation closely.”
Lawrance Cannon, Canadian Foreign Minister:
“Canada is deeply, deeply concerned by reports about voting irregularities in the Iranian election. We're troubled by reports of intimidation of opposition candidates' offices by security forces.”
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, German Foreign Minister:
“The violent actions of the security forces against demonstrators is not acceptable, nor is preventing peaceful protest. We will continue to monitor the situation on the ground very carefully.”
UPDATE (13:15 GMT): After his meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas today, George Mitchell restated his mantra that both sides should adhere to the 2003 "road map". Significantly, however, he made explicit the US commitment to an outcome with an independent Palestine: "The only viable resolution to this conflict is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states."
President Obama's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, visited Israeli leaders on Tuesday and again established why he is an outstanding diplomat. Only problem? Someone is trying to out-flank him, and that someone is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
After discussions with Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and President Shimon Peres. Rather, Mitchell showed his ability to make a suitable statement to the press without revealing any substance of the talks. Mitchell had told Netanyahu, ""We are two allies, two friends, and our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable....We come here to talk not as adversaries in disagreement but as friends in discussion."
As for the issues, Mitchell said they were "complex and many. But we hope that we're going to work our way through them to achieve the objective that we share with [Israel], and that is peace, security, and prosperity throughout the region." President Peres' office gave the vaguest of explanations in a statement (no doubt agreed with Mitchell) that all parties “have a responsibility to meet their obligations under the road map". There was no specific reference to the touchstone issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which is in that 2003 "road map". (Indeed, there was so little on the surface to "report" that The Washington Post did not even bother to cover the story.)
Beyond Mitchell, however, Israeli officials had offered more than enough to flesh out the current state of US-Israel talks and tensions. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, disguising its sources, revealed that Mitchell had "reiterated...that the Obama administration is adamantly insisting on a freeze of construction in all Israeli settlements in the West Bank", although he "demonstrated a more moderate tack in discussing his government's disagreements". The Jerusalem Post, courtesy of Netanyahu's office, offered the other side of the coin: while a senior official said there was a move towards "definition of the issues" with some "convergence", "Mitchell..was told that Israel would not bring all settlement construction to a complete halt".
These leaks, however, are far from the entire story. Indeed, it appears that the Mitchell discussions are an (important sideshow) to the main event: Netanyahu's manoeuvres to seize control of the Palestine issue.
On Sunday, the Israeli Prime Minister declared that he would make a "major" speech on foreign policy in the following week. Later he talked to Barack Obama by phone, no doubt exchanging pleasantries about the arrival of the President's envoy.
Within hours of that talk, however, the Prime Minister moved aggressively. "Netanyahu's confidants" told Ha'aretz, "[He] believes that U.S. President Barack Obama wants a confrontation with Israel, based on Obama's speech in Cairo last week." Netanyahu's office also is the probable source of press stories that Obama is making unreasonable demands for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement by the end of July:
Netanyahu expects Obama to present his plan for peace in the Middle East next month. He fears that the president will present positions that will not be easy for Israel to accept, such as a demand to withdraw to the lines of June 4, 1967.
And here's the twist in the tale. The immediate challenge to Netanyahu may not come from Washington: with no immediate concessions, Mitchell moves today to talks with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas to keep all the pieces in play. Instead, the Prime Minister was openly opposed last night by his own Defense Minister, Ehud Barak.
It would be a mistake for Israel to be the one preventing Obama from trying to bring a peace agreement to the Middle East....If we do not accept the two-state solution, we will find ourselves with an apartheid policy or a state in which we are the minority.
Barak added the caveat that, up to now, the responsibility for the failure to get a solution lay with the Palestinians: "For years, we have tried to reach just such an agreement, but always failed because of the other side." He said that Israel had to maintain flexibility as it sought a settlement that "cannot be reopened again in the future".
The Palestinians, however, are in the distance. For now, the main concern of the US and even of some in the Israeli Cabinet is Benjamin Netanyahu. What will he say on Sunday? Barak replied directly to the question, "I don't know. I have guesses, but nothing more."
As the advent of the Obama Administration brings back the "multipolar" in international relations, some of its most enthusiastic backers are in Moscow. During the Bush years, President Vladimir Putin publicly criticized Washington's unilateralism. Sometimes the challenge was rhetorical to the "new bombs" of the US. Sometimes it was much more: when the Bush Administration tried to isolate Russia from NATO’s "impact zone" in Eastern Europe by proposing a missile umbrella in the Czech Republic and Poland, Putin raised the threat of a nuclear attack if Poland accepted a US missile interceptor base on its soil.
The intensity of attention to the "change" in Barack Obama’s rhetoric, especially toward the Israeli-Palestine/Arab problem, has contributed to this transformation. While Washington disowns the policies of the Bush era and puts pressure on Israel for sufficient concessions to start negotiations with Arab states, France has opened its first military base in the gulf region since the 1960s. And Russia becomes one of the first beneficiaries of the "soft power" of the US.
After Russia agreed last year not to sell S-300 missiles to Iran in 2008 and halted the sale of advanced MIG-31 fighter jets to Syria last month, Israel expedited the production of unmanned aerial vehicles to Russia. This was more than a bit of military equipment: as Israel manoeuvres agianst the Arab Peace Initiative, Tel Aviv is seeking a new relationship with Moscow. The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, visited with President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin and declared that he would expand and deepen the strategic ties between two countries, albeit without any intention of replacing the US. "We are expanding in additional directions, including Russia, South America, central Asia and India, but our ties to America come first," asserted a senior official in Lieberman's office.
So the Netanyahu Administration is trying to use Kremlin as leverage against the pressure of the Obama Administration, using Russia's manoeuvring vis-a-vis the US to its advantage. Still, Israeli officials might want to remember that the multipolar works in more than one direction: Moscow has just welcomed Palestinian Authority representatives as part of its interest in a Middle Eastern peace process. If Russia finds common ground with Washington on issues from Eastern Europe to the Caucasus to Central Asia, will Tel Aviv again find itself isolated in this Very New World?
Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 6:00 
The political ground in Palestine changes again. Arrests and violence have tapered off, at least for the time being, and on Monday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas ordered the release of hundreds of Hamas prisoners held in the West Bank.
After the purported re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the President of Iran, a selection of 
UPDATE (13:15 GMT): After his meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas today, 
As the advent of the Obama Administration brings back the "multipolar" in international relations, some of its most enthusiastic backers are in Moscow. During the Bush years, President Vladimir Putin publicly criticized Washington's unilateralism. Sometimes the challenge was rhetorical to the "new bombs" of the US. Sometimes it was much more: when the Bush Administration tried to isolate Russia from NATO’s "impact zone" in Eastern Europe by proposing a missile umbrella in the Czech Republic and Poland, Putin raised the threat of