Israel-Palestine: Space for a US-Brokered Solution Narrows

Bring It On: Israel Counter-attacks UN over Gaza Enquiry
Palestine: Suffering Life at Israeli Checkpoints

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Is there any space left for the US as the "honest broker" of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks?

On Tuesday night, President Obama declared, on the eve of Israeli President Shimon Peres's Facing Tomorrow Conference in Jerusalem, that Israeli-US relations were "more than a strategic alliance." In a speech full of praises on Peres, he added:

Our moment in history is filled with challenges that test our will and invite pessimism. We can choose to defer action, to sustain a dangerous status quo, or we can meet the challenges of our time head-on. Like you, I believe now is the time to act.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhQaubxx6Rw[/youtube]

Obama's speech was undercut, however, by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Ostensibly, he was calling for "peace", by putting the burden upon Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas:

Now it is your turn to say the truth about peace, the need for it and the true way to achieve it. What is important is to do it publicly, not just behind closed doors; to say the truth about peace publicly, to our people and to the Palestinian people.

The problem is that Netanyahu's demands comes in the context of a series of Israeli conditions on the talks, including the dispute over expansion of settlements and Tel Aviv's insistence on addressing of specific economic and security issues rather than the general recognition of a Palestinian state. So PA negotiator Saeb Erekat, who happened to be in Washington, pointedly said, "There's no agreement" and accused Israel of feigning interest in negotiations while claiming the Palestinians were preventing progress.

Israeli representatives were unable to reach common ground with Palestinians over three demands put by the latter: the start of the negotiations would be accompanied by a statement saying the goal was to reach an agreement within two years; the goal would the establishment of a Palestinian state with permanent borders based on an Israeli withdrawal; and there would a complete halt to construction of settlements, including in East Jerusalem. Late Tuesday, Israeli sources stated that negotiations failed.

Still the US persists. On Wednesday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice told Israelis to "relaunch Middle East talks now" At Peres's conference, she said: "As President Peres always reminds us, being serious about peace means taking risks for peace. Being serious about peace means understanding that tomorrow need not look like yesterday."

That is enough for now, it appears, to keep the idea of a negotiation alive. After the message of the Obama Administration, One Israeli official said, "There appears to be a meeting of the minds and hopefully the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue will be able to re-start in the near future." Another explained under the prospective deal, on which Palestinians have not yet commented, the negotiations could be held on the basis of two UN Security Council resolutions, 242 and 338, from the 1960s and 1970s.

The resolutions call for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"; however, each party interprets this in its own way. For Palestinians, it obliges Israelis to withdraw unconditionally to pre-1967 borders, whereas Israel interprets this as a partial withdrawal.

So far from making Washington's task easier, the border issue may bring talks to a critical stage. Unless Israel is willing to drop its step-by-step approach in favour of a grand resolution, or conversely the Palestinians are willing to compromise on a de facto Israeli occupation while other issues are considered, there will be a stalemate, if not a dramatic collapse. Saed Erekat's words, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepared her detailed report on talks to Obama, laid the foundation for blame rather than agreement, "The report would identify the spoiler in the talks."

UPDATED Afghanistan: Here is What Will Happen (in 4 Sentences)

Understanding “Mr Obama’s Wars”: Five Essential Analyses on Afghanistan and Pakistan
Afghanistan: The Real Importance of The“Non-Story” of 13,000 Support Troops

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



UPDATE 21 October: Overwhelmed by the mass of media coverage on the developments in Afghanistan? Well, just before going to the best inside story --- Karen DeYoung and Joshua Partlow in The Washington Post --- let's have a look at EA's four sentences from yesterday and see how they hold up:

1. Karzai accepts runoff. Check.
2. US declares satisfaction. President Obama to reporters, "President Karzai, as well as the other candidates have shown that they have the interests of the Afghan people at heart." Check.

3. Closest challenger Abdullah Abdullah accepts runoff. Check.

4. Coalition government with both Karzai and Abdullah to be formed. Wait for it --- it will come soon after the 7 November run-off.

5. US then declares troop escalation. Could be a pre-Christmas present for all of us.


Let's cut through the acres of newsprint and hours of broadcasts trying to get to grips with the controversy over the Afghanistan Presidential election, after a UN-backed electoral commission threw out 28 percent of the votes for current President and front-runner Hamid Karzai and 18 percent of the votes for his closest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

Today Karzai will reluctantly accept the finding that he received less than 50 percent of the first-round tally and will have to go through a run-off vote, secure in the knowledge that he will win. The US Government will declare its satisfaction with the outcome, knowing that Karzai will remain as President after the next ballot. Abdullah will be offered a prominent position in a new "national unity" Government. If he accepts, Washington will pronounce that the political conditions have been met for a (size still to be determined) military escalation.

Spread the word.

Turkey's Ambitions and US Plans: Obama Draws the Line on Israel

Israel-Turkey Crisis: Obama Intervenes

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

In January, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out of a session at the Davos Summit after telling off Israeli President Shimon Peres over Israel's invasion of Gaza. That was the most striking picture of Turkey’s so-called “strategic depth strategy”, developed by Ahmet Davutoglu, a personal advisor to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan before he was appointed Foreign Minister in May.

Turkey’s initiative to consolidate its "relative autonomy" was far more than an effort to appear pro-Palestinian in the eyes of Middle Eastern people. It came as the United States was suffering from the complications of military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and from the tensions of its political conflict with Iran. The emerging financial crisis was bringing new troubles for Western powers, especially Washington. This, to be blunt, was a Turkish effort, led by Erdogan, to establish its independence of action at a conjunction of international and regional events.

Ironically, Turkey’s interest in strengthening its authority in its region, even though it was propelled by American weakness, was not unwelcome to the US. The Obama Administration was grateful for Ankara’s initiatives in mediating talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv, for its bridging role between the West and Iran, and for the willingness to host Israeli and Palestinian leaders. While Turkey was establishing independence, it was not being "revisionist" to the point where it  threatened Washington's position. The US would have reason to worry if Turkey's approach shifted from a stimulus for the peace process to pressure that would limit and gradually erode Israel's position.

Still, there were always the problems of symbolism.

The walkout in Davos was the first and most sensational image of a putdown for Tel Aviv. Obama was able to calm the situation when he spoke in Ankara in April:

In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel’s quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians.

However, Davos was not forgotten by the Netanyahu Government. That is why apparently minor "cultural" incidents, such as the broadcast of a Turkish series portraying Israeli soldiers as evil creatures shooting innocent children, as well as the political snub of cancelled military exercises has elevated tensions dramatically. And it is why Obama has had to make another intervention, this time through a phone call to Turkish President Abdullah Gul.

So why would Turkey, having made its point at Davos, risk a conflict with the US through renewed public animosity vis-a-vis Israel?Foreign Minister Davutoglu offered the answer in an interview with CNN. Just as Gaza War propelled Turkey's strategy for "strategic depth" because of the political advantage it offered in talks with Middle Eastern countries, so the renewal of the Gaza issue --- this time over the Goldstone Report and the continued Israeli obstacles to political and economic development in the area --- presented another opportunity:

We hope that the situation in Gaza will be improved, that the situation will be back to the diplomatic track. And that will create a new atmosphere in Turkish-Israeli relations as well. But in the existing situation, of course, we are criticizing this approach, [the] Israeli approach.

However, Turkey's decision to risk causing the US a bit of discomfort can be explained by other issues: the dialogue with Armenia and the Kurdish problem. Washington, long plagued by the complications of the two situations for Turkey's place in the "West", wanted resolutions. As long as Ankara moved toward settlements --- which it did with the signing of the Armenian protocols last week, then the US would be satisfied with the big victory and could ignore the lesser challenge regarding Israel.

The Israeli reaction to the Turkish series, however, was too much for the US to ignore, especially given Netanyahu's public criticism. The tension between Washington's two democracies in the region was now jeopardising the US vision of the peace process. Israeli decisionmakers were using the “anti-Semitic” atmosphere, particularly after the endorsement of the Goldstone Report by the UN Human Rights Council, to justify a halt to talks, and Turkey's activities were offering support for that pretext.

And it appears that the Obama phone call is already having the desired effect. While there is still tension with rumors that Israeli ministers will not attend Turkish Ambassador's 29 October celebration of Turkish’s foundation in 1923, Tel Aviv's also announced that it will buy water from Turkey amidst reports that Israeli reserves will soon be exhausted. Israeli Army Radio is also reporting that Ankara is sending a new ambassador to Israel to improve the diplomatic atmosphere.

Up to now, Washington has been content with Turkey’s non-revisionist expansion of its regional position, even if this was propped up by symbolic snubs of Israel. Ankara crossed a line, however, and had to be told so by the US President: Turkey's postures stop when they threaten the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Presumably, with that Obama reminder, Turkey can return to the proper strategic path in the Middle East, even if there are periodic objections from Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel-Turkey Crisis: Obama Intervenes

Israel-Turkey Tensions: Now the Israeli Public Joins In

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

After another downward spiral in Israel-Turkey relations, marked by cultural disputes over the Turkish television series depicting cruelty by Israeli troops and by the military rift of the cancelled multi-national exercise, Barack Obama has intervened.

On Saturday, the US President called his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul. The statement released by the White House said: "The two presidents agreed on the importance of continued consultations on these and other key topics on the global security agenda."

The Jerusalem Post goes beyond this vague declaration to claim, from US sources, that the Obama Administration is very concerned about Turkey's actions towards Israel and growing closeness with Syria. The implication is that the telephone conversation between two leaders brought up the tense relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara.

Great Obama Conspiracy Theories: Glenn Beck, Monty Python, and Anne Elk's Brontosaurus

Rabble-Rouser on Fire: Glenn Beck, Tom Paine, and Obama’s Pearl Harbor/9-11 Fascism

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

There's nothing notable anymore about Glenn Beck's ravings --- how often can you pretend to set someone on fire, use the ghost of Tom Paine to call Barack Obama a fascist, or cry about "what life used to be like"?), be they a quest for fame and lots of money, political psychosis, or genuine bats*** craziness. However, this video from Crooks and Liars elevates Beck's latest conspiracy theory  of "Barack Obama's Six Degrees of Separation from Mao Zedong" by mashing it up with the 1970s wisdom of the famous scientist Miss Anne Elk: