Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Tweet

It’s hard to know precisely what, if anything, of substance transpired during the two days of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks which ended today.  Some reporters have noted a change in attitude on the part of Mahmoud Abbas, who began the summit with a dour demeanor which, some claim, brightened after his tete a tete with Bibi Netanyahu.  According to Al Hayyat (Arabic):

“Well-informed sources said that the atmosphere in the Palestinian delegation, especially around Abbas, changed 180 degrees from the initial tension. The reasons for this are: American assuring the Palestinians that the administration is serious about reaching a solution; and the success of the bilateral meeting between Abu Mazen & Netanyahu, which lasted 90 minutes, in breaking the ice between them and beginning a serious discussion about many of the issues.”

The BBC correspondent covering the talks wrote this tidbit about parsing Bibi’s attitude during the talks:

It offered a good opportunity to ponder on the significance of the last few days, in which we trailed Mr Netanyahu. Did he change? His speeches, his statements, gestures, all suggested a change of heart.

Voice of Israel Radio has a rather tantalizing report that Bibi is convening a cabinet meeting tomorrow at which he will apprise ministers of the “agreements” formulated in D.C.  It further reported that the “echoes from Washington are very positive.”  I find it interesting that these leaders can meet for two days and already be speaking of “agreements.”  I have no idea what this can mean, though it could, I’m told, merely refer to arrangements for the next round of negotiations.

As for Israel finding the developments to be very positive, this can mean one of two things: either Israel is trying to spin the summit and make it appear productive; or Israel has indications that Abbas will not desert the talks when Bibi and Dennis Ross announce their face-saving version of what they will call a settlement freeze extension come September 26th.  From Bibi’s vantage, it would be wonderful to know Abbas won’t exit the talks and that Israel can resume building in the major settlement blocs.  But how Ross, Obama, et al. will spin this abrogation of the freeze into something positive is a mystery.

Ethan Bronner, after the fact and after much previously published happy talk about how well the summit would go and how much would be accomplished, is finally conceding slightly to the detractors in a piece published today.  He let Sam Bahour have his say:

Bahour, a businessman in…Ramallah, said…that the Palestinian business community was mostly divided between those predicting failed talks and those expecting an agreement so lopsided in Israel’s favor as to make a sham of peace.

“We are in for a long, long crisis,” he said.

He also quotes some sharp, but cynical analysis by Alon Pinkas, Israel’s former consul general in N.Y.:

Israel, he wrote, wants only to give the impression of seeking compromise as “a tax being paid to the United States,” but has no plans to give up anything important. He said the only hope would be a solution presented by President Obama.

Bronner inserts one of his characteristic flourishes into this piece in which he quotes an amazingly self-serving statement by an Israeli source without expressing any comment or analysis at all, as if it deserves to be treated as entirely plausible, when it isn’t:

Aides to Mr. Netanyahu have indicated that he proposes placing all the difficult topics on the table at once — settlements, borders, Jerusalem, security, and Palestinian refugees and their descendants — with the two leaders meeting every two weeks. By setting up a framework whereby no single issue exists on its own and all are negotiated at the highest level and in secrecy, he hopes to promote a process in which both sides will yield.

That way, he hopes, when Sept. 26 arrives and limited building resumes, Mr. Abbas will not walk out because settlement building will be only one issue of several he is in the middle of negotiating.

So between now and Sept. 26th, Bibi proposes throwing every major issue on the table and believes so much progress will be made, and Abbas will be so impressed by Bibi’s flexibility that the former will feel so invested in the outcome that he couldn’t possibly walk out.  If you believe any of this I have a bridge I want to sell you and some Florida real estate as well.

I’m also amused by the pure gold PR Bibi has managed to spin with speculation by both Bronner and Donald Macintyre that only Bibi can actually make peace because only someone of his impeccable far-right credentials can bring along the rest of the Israeli right to the negotiation table and a peace agreement.  Once again, this is happy talk.

Macintyre does add one interesting piece of background information on what he says was a criticial conversation between Bibi and Barack last July:

…What did Benjamin Netanyahu tell Barack Obama in July that convinced the US President that it was worth, first applying fierce pressure on the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to enter direct negotiations with Israel, with a view to achieving a peace deal within a year, and then launching the talks this week in Washington amid such fanfare. The White House has repeatedly made it clear to those who need to know that something was said – but not what it was.

For any of this to be true, Bibi would have to be a combination of Ariel Sharon (Gaza withdrawal), Menachem Begin (Camp David), and DeGaulle (Algeria).  Personally, I don’t think he holds a candle to any of ‘em.  But we’ll see…and may I be proven wrong.

Tweet

The ink isn’t even dry on the press release announcing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks beginning under U.S. auspices on September 2nd, before just about everyone except Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is sighing with abject resignation and conviction that they will be a failure.  Why?  First, because the U.S. president has not publicly told the sides what the consequences of failure will be.  There must be a downside for the parties that will keep them in line when the going gets tough (as it assuredly will).  With no downside, Bibi will play Obama like a tin fiddle.  Second, Bibi doesn’t want the talks to succeed and will do absolutely nothing to make them work.  Why should he?  Where’s the benefit to him?  His coalition is filled with far-right yahoos who will scream bloody murder at the first sign of weakness from their leader.  Does he need such headaches?  Does he relish the idea of retiring to a plush office at the Shalem Center so he can gaze fondly at a portrait of his sugar daddy, Shelly Adelson, on the wall?  Not likely.

Frankly, I can’t see anything in this for Mahmoud Abbas either, and have no clue why he agreed to participate.  Did he enjoy having endless coffees with Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem and Ramallah so much that he wants to resume the pleasure, except his time in Washington?  What will he get from this?  Another upgrade of his D.C. digs from third world backwater semi-official would-be embassy to almost embassy of a soon to be nation in waiting?

If this is all the Obama administration has up its sleeve it has a losing hand.  But if it has a backup plan in the certain event of failure, then it might still wrest victory from the jaws of defeat.  If it is prepared and possibly even expects failure and has a Plan B which would call for an internationally imposed settlement on both sides, then he might be onto something.  In the end, the only thing that can save the parties from mutually assured destruction is external intervention.

The eventual solution is there for all to see and clear as day.  But getting there with these two parties is nigh unto impossible.  So in order to prevent them from doing even more mischief than they have already to regional stability and world order, there must be outside powers who tell them what they will do for peace.  Let them scream bloody murder, swear up and down it will not, indeed cannot happen.  Have no doubt, it will happen.

I more and more see Israel playing the role Serbia did in the Kosovo and Bosnian conflicts.  It too saw itself as victim of NATO and U.S. perfidy.  It swore on the graves of its forefathers that it would never capitulate.  Its national honor was on the line, etc.  And guess what happened?  It blinked when faced with indomitable international pressure.  The same may and could happen with Israel.

As usual, Ethan Bronner’s reporting linked above is full of his typical blithely partisan blather, though the basic reporting of facts is useful.