According to reports in recent days, President Obama has decided to take a more direct role in the stalled Israeli-Palestinian “Peace Talks”. In that context the White house has scheduled two meetings. The first is with Prime Minister Netanyahu on March 3rd, and the second with PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) later this month.
First we have a lowering of expectations by all sides, with senior officials describing the chance of success at: “less than 50%”, “not good”, “impossible”, “very small”, etc.
Then there was a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Abu Mazen last week in Paris where Kerry presented his latest proposals based on discussions with the Israelis and some of the Palestinian’s demands. According to Palestinian reports Abu Mazen “went into a rage”, rejecting the proposals as “insane”.
Then we have the latest, and most difficult to understand episode. In a long interview with Geoffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg View, timed to be published just one day before his Oval Office meeting with Netanyahu this week, President Obama threatened Israel that it would “face a bleak future - one of international isolation and demographic disaster - if he (Netanyahu) refuses to endorse a U.S.-drafted framework agreement for peace with the Palestinians”
The President went on to say that he “views Abbas as the most politically moderate leader the Palestinians may ever have.”
Goldberg went on to write in Bloomberg: “It seemed obvious to me that the president believes that the next move is Netanyahu's. Obama said: "If there's something you know you have to do, even if it's difficult or unpleasant, you might as well just go ahead and do it, because waiting isn't going to help. When I have a conversation with Bibi, that's the essence of my conversation: If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who? How does this get resolved?"
According to David Horowitz in Israel News on March 3rd: “The timing of President Obama's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg could not have been any more deliberate - an assault on the prime minister's policies delivered precisely as Netanyahu was flying in to meet with him. At the very least, that might be considered bad manners, poor diplomatic protocol, a resounding preemptive slap in the face: I've just told the world you're leading your country to ruin, Mr. Prime Minister. Now, what was it you wanted to talk to me about?”
Horowitz continues: “The president's comments reinforce years of grievance that have accumulated in Netanyahu's circles and some distance beyond, to the effect that the president ignores the inconsistencies, duplicities and worse of the Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas, while placing exaggerated blame for the failure of peace efforts at the door of the Israeli government. The president's public display of disaffection will hardly encourage the Palestinians to adopt more flexible positions on such core issues as their demand for a "right of return" for millions of Palestinians to Israel. The president's resort to an interview on the eve of their talks to issue near-apocalyptic warnings to Netanyahu is unlikely to bolster the prime minister's confidence in their alliance.”
Between the Paris meeting and the Goldberg interview, it’s hard to see anything more than a hardening of positions on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides.
By the time you read this column it will be after Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu, and before the one with Abu Mazen.
The post-meeting spin and commentary may try to create a positive perception for the outcome of the current effort to resolve the conflict. However I believe that the differences remain unbridgeable, at least until the Palestinians get a leader who really wants peace with the Jewish State, and is willing and able to convince them to amend their 66 year old narrative, and their currently unrealistic expectations.
And no, Mr. President: With all due respect – Mahmoud Abbas is not that leader.
Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment