resources
Thursday, August 26, 2010 | return to: views, opinions


Share
 

Stakes are too high for peace talks to fail this time

by Douglas M. Bloomfield

Follow j. on   and 

Related Stories:

Settlement activity makes Israel’s intentions clear

In trying to satisfy everyone, peace talks may go nowhere

Netanyahu: Peace ‘difficult but possible’

Abbas: No talks if Israel ends freeze on new settlements

No sooner had Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced the resumption of Mideast peace talks “without preconditions” than the Palestinians threatened to walk out, nearly two weeks before negotiations were even scheduled to begin, unless their conditions were met.

bloomfield_d_177Mahmoud Abbas, who constantly kvetched that everyone in the world, particularly his Arab brethren, was pressuring him to sit down with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, demanded all Jewish construction in territories he wants for a Palestinian state be frozen before he’d talk.

That was shot down Aug. 23 by the State Department, which told him to take it up personally with Netanyahu.

Look for Netanyahu to extend the freeze, but not without some of his own moaning and groaning. The 10-month moratorium he announced last year expires Sept. 26, and Netanyahu has complained that he is under intense pressure to resume construction.

It’s not as tough as he’d have us believe. He can win the political backing he needs by pointing to the success of his freeze in repairing relations with Washington, achieving better coordination on Iran policy, improving Israel’s international image and getting direct talks started. He is politically popular at home, has no viable political opposition from either direction, and if far-right members of his coalition decide to quit he can replace them with centrists willing to give peace a chance.

Abbas lost on his insistence that talks resume where they left off the last time he walked out, in December 2008, but he did win on his demand that all final status issues be on the table and that there be a time frame for completion.

But his most important achievement went virtually unnoticed. U.S. peace envoy George Mitchell opened the door to an American peace plan when he announced Washington will be an “active and sustained partner” free to offer “bridging proposals” to break any impasse, not only when asked but when “we deem necessary and appropriate.”

Abbas, unlike Netanyahu, encourages more active U.S. involvement, confident Washington’s positions on many issues — most notably settlements — are closer to his own, but the Palestinians’ Achilles heel has been their stubborn and unrealistic confidence that others would force their terms on Israel, saving them from serious bargaining.

The administration has repeatedly denied it would offer an American plan, much less try to impose it, a move that would be politically very risky.

This is an American show, announced by the secretary of state and launched with a Sept. 2 White House dinner. The Quartet, which is supposed to oversee the peace process, will be represented only by Tony Blair, and the Arab League by Jordanian King Abdullah II and, health permitting, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in a supporting role.

The one-year time frame is not a deadline, as Palestinians would have preferred, and if the talks are going well a year from now, they will likely be extended.

Some unnamed Palestinian officials have hinted that if they’re unsatisfied with progress in the talks, Abbas might go to the United Nations to seek recognition for statehood, bypassing negotiations. Look for Washington to block that move as dangerously provocative.

Barack Obama appears to be keeping a low profile for a president who has made this a centerpiece of his foreign policy. He let his secretary of state make the announcement and he is only hosting a private dinner the evening before talks begin. But should they fail, as most people expect, the blame will be his.

Now that he has Palestinian and Israeli leaders meeting face-to-face, Obama needs his own face time with their constituents. That means going to Israel and to the Palestinian territories to sell skeptical publics, especially in Israel, on his vision for peace and reliability as a friend. That long-overdue trip is critical to winning needed support.

Don’t rush out to reserve your place for the peace treaty signing ceremony. It is hard to find much optimism for a peace process that neither Abbas nor Netanyahu seems to want or be prepared for.

Israeli analyst Yossi Alpher has said neither man is “ideologically inclined or politically positioned to resolve all the final status issues.”

For now, Netanyahu is winning the PR game, welcoming the talks, sounding optimistic and vowing to “surprise the critics and skeptics” with his readiness to make peace, while a weak and pessimistic Abbas is writing the obituary before the negotiations take their first breath. Mitchell insists both leaders are serious and sincere and believe peace can be achieved.

But it will take a lot more than rhetoric and testimonials. Both sides have an American president who wants to see the process succeed; their own constituents, who are enjoying economic prosperity and political stability, are telling pollsters they are ready for a two-state solution, and they don’t want to see another intifada.

But are their leaders ready? Can they afford to raise expectations only to see them crash and burn once again?

Douglas M. Bloomfield is the president of Bloomfield Associates Inc., a Washington, D.C., lobbying and consulting firm. He spent nine years as the legislative director and chief lobbyist for AIPAC.


Comments

Posted by grf
08/27/2010  at  04:41 PM
What a joke....

Israel’s so-called freeze has been nonexistent from the start. Of course the Palestinians want the Israelis to stop stealing more land.

Negotiating with Israel is like negotiating with Bloomfield over sharing a pizza while he continues eating it. He keeps wanting half of what remains.

Login to reply to this comment or post your own
Posted by Dan Spitzer
08/27/2010  at  07:24 PM
Ignore This Israel Hater

I will note this everytime I see grf pay a visit with posts on J’s site and then say no more.

grf, a frequent visitor to J’s commentary sites, is an anti-Semite who does not support Israel’s existence as a Jewish State. Instead, he is a supporter of the so called “single state solution” which, of course, would mean the end of Israel. He is a champion of the ISM an Israel-loathing bigot of the worst order.

Correspondingly, the best way to deal with such cretins is to ignore them and let them throw their tantrums knowing they have no audience to which to play. Sooner or later they will take their toys and go home…

Login to reply to this comment or post your own
Posted by grf
08/28/2010  at  09:46 AM
Good to hear from Dan again...

...but too bad he’s not back on his medication. As usual for heel-clicking ethnic nationalists Spitzer can only hate and denigrate those who disagree with him and offer anything but adulation for his vision of Israel.

He’s not interested in the reality of the two-state talks, for he’s not interested in a two-state solution. What he wants is one state, but one where any remaining Palestinians are invisible, without rights, land, or possessions. He is truly the ugly face of Zionist extremism.

Login to reply to this comment or post your own
Posted by rfaelmoshe
09/01/2010  at  05:00 PM
Let's talk about "Anti-Semitism"

“Anti-Semitism”,is a term from Victorian Era Germany, to use in place of the tradional term, “Juden Hass” or “Jew Hatred.”  It seems that people that are in political opposition to the existance of the state of Israel as a Jewish state often resent being called “Anti-Semites”, as , in their minds, “Anti-Zionism” is a political stance only.  However, the basic premise of “Anti-Zionism”, is that the Jewish people, but only the Jewish people, of all the “peoples” in the world,do not have the right of national self determiation. To this end, “Anti-Zionists” apply a very different standard of behavior towards Israel, and they seem to microscopically focus on everything and anything that Israel ,as the world’s only Jewish nation, does or doesn’t do ,but to the exclusion of all other countries. If one thinks about it, there is a distinction but not really a deep difference.

Login to reply to this comment or post your own



Leave a Comment

In order to post a comment, you must first log in.
Are you looking for user registration? Or have you forgotten your password?



Auto-login on future visits