The Evacuation of an Outpost in East Jerusalem: Is It a Sign?

On Thursday, the Israeli police destroyed an outpost of seven huts in the East Jerusalem, considered illegal under the Israeli law and built without government authorization. While the inhabitants of these settlements vowed to rebuild their houses (and some did), the Israeli officials are worried about the evacuations of larger settlements if there is a broad-based dismantlement plan in the future. About 500,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank .

For those thinking there is a  connection between US pressure and the demolition, Defense Minister Ehud Barak publicly stated that the dismantlement of illegal outposts had nothing to do with the Obama Administration. At the same time, is this really a sign of the independent willingness & readiness of  Tel Aviv to freeze the current settlements in the West Bank? Beyond the question of whether the Netanyahu Government's strategic intentions, as opposed to its tactical manoeuvres, is any Israeli administration strong enough to face the resistance of settlers, especially with memories of the 2005 Gaza pullout still very fresh amongst the Israeli public?

Hillary Clinton on Al-Jazeera: "Stop the Settlement Construction."

On Friday, we noted the aftermath of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting in Washington, with an emerging Israeli attempt to undermine a "grand design" by the US for the Middle East. More specifically, the two countries are at odds over the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

This is the interview that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave to Al-Jazaeera on Tuesday, where her assurance that Hamas remained on the outside of the process sat alongside her denunciation of the setttlements:.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEmMQOx0Hwk[/youtube]

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thanks for your time, first of all, for talking to this program on Al-Jazeera.

The meeting yesterday between President Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after the meeting, President Obama could not have made it any clearer that he wanted a two-state solution. On the other hand, Prime Minister Netanyahu sort of danced around the issue without using the terminology, which has raised concerns in the Arab world. How concerned are you about the fact that he didn’t actually mention once “two-state solution”?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is the beginning, and we see this as an intensive period of our outreach and of our frankly laying out what we want to see happen. You rightly point out that the President underscored our commitment to a two-state solution and also called for a stop to the settlements. We have made that very clear. I reinforced that last night at a dinner that I hosted for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Now the hard work starts. But I think it is significant that the Obama Administration is not waiting. We are starting this intensive engagement right now, very early in our Administration. We have consulted broadly already. Both George Mitchell and I have spoken with many Arab leaders, as well, of course, with the Palestinians and the Israelis. And we are determined to forge ahead on what we believe is in the best interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians, the larger region, and the world, as well as what we think is right. And the President – our President has often said, “Judge us on our actions, not our words.” But his words were very strong, and now we intend to match those words with our actions.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, when President Obama yesterday talked about the issue of settlements and he said that he wanted the Israelis to freeze the building on the West Bank, does that mean that he wants the settlements, the existing settlements, to be rolled back to the 1967 border, specifically?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there are two pieces to that question. First, we want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth – any kind of settlement activity. That is what the President has called for. We also are going to be pushing for a two-state solution which, by its very name, implies borders that have to be agreed to. And we expect to see two states living side by side, a state for the Palestinians that will be sovereign and within which the Palestinians will have the authorities that come with being in charge of a state with respect to such activities as settlements. So it’s really a two-step effort here. We want to see a stop now, and then, as part of this intensive engagement that Senator Mitchell is leading for us, we want to move toward a two-state solution with borders for the Palestinians.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, on the issue of the division, the split within the Palestinian body, Fatah and Hamas, can you envisage a scenario where you would be able to achieve a two-state solution without talking in some way, in some form, to Hamas?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I believe that Hamas has to comply with not only the Quartet principles but the underlying principles of the Arab Peace Initiative. You cannot expect either Fatah or the Israelis or Arabs who wish to see this matter resolved, with a two-state solution, to work with a group that does not believe in the outcome of these efforts. And in any peace negotiation that I’m aware of anywhere in the world, groups that are resistance groups, insurgent groups, guerilla groups, when they come to the peace table have to commit to peace. And we would expect Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist, to renounce violence as the way to the achievement of a homeland for the Palestinian people, and to recognize the prior agreements that have been entered into by the Palestinians either through the PLO or the PA.

I think that’s an incredibly reasonable request. Now, it is truly up to Hamas. The unity efforts that Egypt has been leading have been difficult because, clearly, there are very strongly divergent opinions that are being expressed. My hope is that I will see, you will see Palestinian children in their own state having a chance to lead normal lives, being given the opportunity to fulfill their own God-given potential, to get an education, to get the healthcare they need, to have good jobs and pursue their dreams. I don’t want to see them consigned to years more of conflict that just destroys that future.
And I think we have an opportunity now. We have a President of the United States who has already reached out and said here is what I’m committed to doing. I am committed. We have a team in this Administration, and we are looking for partners. We think that the Palestinian Authority is ready to be a partner. We believe through our efforts we will get the Israelis to make the kind of commitment to a two-state solution that is absolutely necessary. We know that many leaders in the Arab world see this in a different way, as the Arab Peace Initiative suggests. So let’s try to bring people to that recognition, and that includes Hamas.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thanks for the time, and I hope we can have you again on Al Jazeera.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. Nice to talk to you.

QUESTION: Great to see you. Thank you very much.

EA Exclusive: Israel Unravels Obama's "Grand Design" for the Middle East

On Monday, Benjamin Netanyahu had a chat with President Obama. We wrote at the time, "The very public refusal of the Israeli Prime Minister [to accept separate Israeli and Palestinian states] is likely to damage, if not sink, far more than the American position on Israel-Palestine. The bigger casualty may be Obama’s strategy towards the Middle East and the Islamic world."

We wrote too soon. What happened after Netanyahu left the White House--- according to Israeli media, unnoticed by most US outlets --- is even more important.

President Obama, contrary to our earlier assessments, may have had a grand plan to offer on 4 June in Cairo. And Israeli officials, publicly and privately, have spent the last 96 hours ripping that plan apart.

The first revelation came on Wednesday in the Hebrew-language newspaper Yediot Arhonot. A report, summarised by the English-language Jerusalem Post, claimed that the Obama Administration was preparing the proposal of "a demilitarized Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital, within the next four years....[The] independent, democratic and contiguous Palestinian state would not have its own army and would be forbidden from making military agreements with other states, in order to provide for Israel's security." Palestinians would give up their claim of a "right of return" to land previously held in Israel, with Europe and the US arranging compensation for refugees.

The newspaper, citing Palestinian sources, claimed that the plan was developed in recent talks between President Obama and King Abdullah. There would also be wider talks with Syria and Lebanon, and an effect to get a general agreement between Israel and Arab States.

Some of Yediot Arhonot's information is shaky. There is an inconsistency between East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital and the paper's later assertion of Jerusalem as an international city, and Abdullah's meetings in Washington were to brief him as an emissary for the plan. Still the revelations, when matched up to the diplomacy of Obama officials and allies like Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in recent weeks, make sense.

Most importantly, Israeli officials believe this is a possibility. That is why, on the plane back from Washington, Netanyahu advisors told reporters that Obama's two-state plan was "childish" and "juvenile". (I first read this news on Wednesday, again via Yediot Arhonot; it was later picked up by the Associated Press, although I saw no mention of it in US newspapers or television.) Far from contradicting those advisors, the Prime Minister --- speaking on Jerusalem Day, which commemorating the Israeli takeover of the city in the 1967 Six-Day War --- declared yesterday, "Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours."

Netanyahu has made other, balancing manoeuvres. He held out the prospect of renewed discussions with Syria, although he pointedly added that there must be no preconditions, such as a Syrian demand for the return of the Golan Heights. Israeli forces destroyed an illegal settlement yesterday.

These, however, are only sidesteps as Israel re-stakes its position both against specific US demands and the general Obama plan. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton renewed Obama's call for a halt to Israeli expansion, putting it in stronger terms, ""We want to see a stop to settlement construction - additions, natural growth, any kind of settlement activity - that is what the president has called for." The removal of one illegal settlement could not cover up the resounding silence of the Netanyahu Government to Clinton's demand.

More importantly, the Obama Administration appears to be stuck --- in the face of far-from-subtle Israeli opposition --- on how to re-shape the grand design for a Palestinian state and Arab-Israeli agreements. Having found a way to exclude Hamas from the "engagement", Obama has been unable to bring Netanyahu on board.

Which means --- with 13 days to the Cairo speech --- that Israel has sabotaged Plan A. Is there any prospect of a Plan B?

The UN Special Envoy to the Middle East: "Let's Wait and See."

Robert Serry, the UN Special Envoy to the Middle East, appeared on BBC's Hard Talk, hosted by Stephen Sackur, last Monday.  Serry's "wait and see" approach, shedding light on the relationship between Israel and the UN since Operation Cast Lead in January, again called the extent of the effectiveness of the UN into question.

Here are some remarkable extracts from the conversation:

The Confession of the Trust Problem between the United Nations and the State of Israel

S.S.: Robert Serry, welcome to Hard Talk. Would you accept that you have a problem? You are the UN’s envoy to the Middle East peace process, yet one party to the Middle East conflict, that is, Israel, does not trust the UN.

R.S.: I took the job; I knew it was not going to be an easy one. What you refer to is something which I think we have to resolve. And I do believe that Israel will look at peacekeeping operations. And the UN peacekeeping operation is one of the most successful.

S.S.: UN plays a role in various ways across the Middle East region. But would you accept that there is a fundamental problem of trust between Israel and the United Nations?

R.S.: Yes, I think we have a problem, and it is there to be resolved.

“Yes” to an Investigation but No Breakthrough:

S.S.: Do you believe that war crimes were committed? And a special panel created by the Human Rights Council must go to Gaza and Israel and do a detailed investigation of allegations these war crimes?

R.S.: Certainly. And the Goldstone mission is preparing to go.

S.S.: The Israelis will not let you into Gaza. What did they say; when you said the panel must be allowed in? What did they say?

R.S.: We have not yet received a final answer on that issue.

A Vague Answer to the Current Situation of Gazans:

S.S.: John Ging who runs the Relief Operation in Gaza Strip. I am quoting his words: “The level of access to humanitarian assistance in Gaza today is wholly and totally inadequate.” If the situation is current and if the Israelis are refusing to lift the blockade, to stop the situation being wholly and totally inadequate, does that constitute a violation of humanitarian law?

R.S.: You can not keep a population hostage, no matter how difficult a security situation Israel claims it finds itself in. We have had a war, and after the war, none of the underlying issues in Gaza have been resolved. The rocket fire, into the southern Israel, which is completely unacceptable, and the Secretary General has always called it for what it is, terror acts. But for the moment, there is a relative calm. Then we have the continued siege. There is enough food and medicine, but we cannot start the process of reconstruction four months after the conflict. Then you have Palestinian reconciliation. You have illicit smuggling of arms, and of course, Gilad Shalit. We had all these issues before, and we still have them. We desperately need a more positive situation for Gaza. The UN has been one of the first to go for that.

A Cold Shower:

S.S.: When I hear that long list, I wonder if you have one of the most frustrating jobs in the world. I can talk about a number of mission you have tried to undertake, and it seems that you have absolutely no leverage, no impact at all.

R.S.: I don’t think so.

S.S.: Can you point to where you have actually changed the situation on the ground in this conflict between Israel and the Palestinians?

R.S.: Come back to Gaza, we are making a difference. We are involved in the difficult situation between the Palestinian factions.

Did Someone Ask about Hamas?

S.S.: But you can not talk to Hamas, can you?
R.S.: I don’t talk to them myself.
S.S.: You do not to talk to Hamas, do you think you should?
R.S.: Let us take a step back.
S.S.: A direct question, should you be able to talking to Hamas, given your role as the UN Special Envoy?
S.R.: If Hamas would take the steps which and I needed to have a successful reconciliation – these are the real issues. If it would be like that, I would be the first to talk to them.
S.S.: Your predecessor has made it quite plain that he believes the UN, the players to the peace process, must engage with and involve Hamas. He said that isolating them has been a disaster.
S.R.: I agree with him there. Having a siege in Gaza leads nowhere. It is a policy which I do not support. We have the Quartet. We have the so called Quartet principles which mean that the Palestinian government needs to renounce violence. It needs to recognize Israel and abide by previous commitments. We are now at a very important moment if we are looking ahead. A renewed, serious attempt, led by the new administration of the United States.
S.S.: Here is what strikes me… The situation has changed. We have Barak Obama in the White House; a man who says he wants to reach out to those enemies who prepared to unclench their fists. We have George Mitchell who was involved in the process of making peace in Northern Ireland when the peacemakers had to talk to the IRA long before they put down their weapons and committed to the lasting peace. We also have the Americans in Iraq who worked with indeed armed men. In this 21st century of peacemaking, can you not accept that you will have to accept Hamas?
R.S.: I would be the first and happy to talk to Hamas if it indeed leads to some positive results.

“Give Time to Netanyahu”:

S.S.: You told there about a two-state solution. Those are words which Benjamin Netanyahu has steadfastly refused to use since he became the Israeli prime minister. Does that worry you?
R.S.: He will talk with President Obama…
S.S.: You have a Prime Minister who finds it very difficult to even to say the words two-state solution, which you say must be the very underpinning of any solution? Is that a problem?
R.S.: It could be a problem.
S.S.: It is a very big problem.
R.S.: We have a new government. The elected government is having its own policy review at the moment. We have to give time to complete that. They will then tell us where they stand.

“Wait & See” Part 1:

S.S.: If the Israelis refuse to cooperate with this UN Commission, what will relations be?
R.S.: Let’s wait and see.

“Wait & See” Part 2:

S.S.: Do you think the government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is going to stop the settlement expansion?
R.S.: Let’s wait and see.
S.S.: All right, let’s wait and see on that.

Sadly we can't embed a video here, but readers in the UK can watch the show on the BBC iPlayer.

Text: The EastWest Institute (US-Russian) Report on "Iran's Nuclear and Missile Potential"

For more than a year, US and Russian scientists and other experts supported by The EastWest Institute have been studying US-Russian relations and Iran's weapons programmes. Their report, released this week, recommends the suspension of plans for missile defence and pursuit of a diplomatic route, both in the United Nations and directly with Iran, on the nuclear issue.

Recommendations

5.10 This report has concluded that there is at present no IRBM/ICBM [intermediate-range/inter-continental ballistic missile] threat from Iran and that such a threat, even if it were to emerge, is not imminent. Moreover, if such a threat were forthcoming, the proposed European missile defenses would not provide a dependable defense against it. It does not make sense, therefore, to proceed with deployment of the European missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

5.11 The more immediate danger comes from the military and political consequences that would follow if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them against targets in the Middle East. The urgent task, therefore, is for Russia and the United States (and other states) to work closely together to seek, by diplomatic and political means, a resolution of the crisis surrounding the Iranian nuclear program. Such cooperation could be helped if the issue of European
missile defense were set aside.

5.12 If deployment of the European missile defense system were suspended, the United States and Russia could
explore in a serious fashion the possibility of cooperation in ballistic missile defense, an issue also mentioned in
the joint statement of the two presidents. A wide range of options could be explored, including the possibility
of boost-phase missile defense. (See the Technical Addendum for a detailed discussion.)

5.13 There is scope for U.S.-Russian cooperation in thefollowing areas:

a. Ensuring that the sanctions the Security Council has imposed on Iran are implemented strictly;
b. Strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime, and in particular the IAEA’s capacity to implement safeguards and enhance its verification procedures;
c. Strengthening the MTCR [Missile Technology Control Regime] in order to restrict further the export of sensitive missile technologies;
d. Persuading Iran, by diplomatic means, to adopt measures that will reassure its neighbors (and the international community more generally) that its nuclear program is directed solely toward peaceful purposes.
e. Exploring the responses the two countries could take if Iran should expel the IAEA inspectors; and studying other paths by which Iran might seek to “break out” as a nuclear power and devising appropriate responses.
f. Investigating seriously the possibility of cooperation in missile defense.

5.14 The issues dealt with in this report — the potential nuclear-missile challenge from Iran and the role of missile defense in meeting that challenge — have in the past served to worsen U.S.-Russian relations. The analysis given in this paper points to a diff erent possibility: that cooperation between the two countries could help to resolve these important and urgent issues and could play a role in changing the U.S.-Russian relationship for the better.