Perfidy In The Shadow Of Highly Touted Friendship

Global Geopolitics Net Sites / IDN

By Ernest Corea

IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis

WASHINGTON DC (IDN) – Senator George Mitchell, the Obama Administration’s special envoy for the Middle East, is expected somehow to keep the planned Palestinian-Israeli “proximity talks” process alive, despite the Government of Israel’s attempt to pull the plug on it.

Whatever happens now, however, the Government of Israel’s (mis)conduct during Vice President Joseph Biden’s recent visit will only strengthen the view of Israel’s critics that it is an unwilling and unhelpful negotiating partner in a quest for a lasting regional peace.

Israel’s friends and neutral observers must necessarily ask themselves why the prospect of a possible movement towards peace terrifies the Government of Israel.

REASSURANCE

Biden was in Israel to reassure Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that U.S. commitments to Israel have not diminished, to secure his continued support of the peace process that Mitchell has been working on and, more broadly, of efforts to maintain regional peace and stability.

Biden “swore allegiance to the security of Israel, but was slapped in the face with such force that it was heard in Washington,” Israeli political commentator Akiva Eldar wrote in the newspaper Haaretz.

The “slap in the face” to which Eldar referred was a statement by Interior Minister Eli Yishni, delivered while Biden was in town, that the Government of Israel had authorized the construction of 1600 new settlement buildings in East Jerusalem.

Subsequent press reports claimed that this is the first batch of 50,000 new units that Israel plans to build on occupied territory.

Eldar’s emphasis on what he perceives as a gratuitous personal insult actually reduces the Government of Israel’s action from a subversion of policy to a lack of couth.

PERFIDY

Netanyahu welcomed Biden to Israel as “my friend Joe.”

As an affirmation of that friendship, Netanyahu announced in public, the Government of Israel had planted a circle of trees, right next to trees that memorialize the leaders of nations, in a tribute to an indomitable Irish woman: Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden, the Vice President’s mother.

Can perfidy be greater than when it is practiced in the shadow of highly touted friendship?

In any event, if only a personal affront was involved, there are few figures in Washington better equipped than Biden to treat a slight with the contempt it deserves, and proceed with his own official responsibilities. On many occasions, he has overcome personal tragedy and political adversity with exemplary fortitude.

The Israeli action was only outwardly personal. It was intensely, historically, intrusively, and deeply political. It was nothing short of a move that could sabotage a peace process even before the process began.

Israel’s illegal settlements on occupied territory constitute a major problem that has to be resolved as part of any long-term resolution of contentious issues.

By announcing an expansion of settlements on the eve of peace talks, the Government of Israel was flatly staking out the position that the issue of territorial expansion, colloquially described as land-grabbing, has been settled – by the Government of Israel, on its own terms. The Israeli position, therefore, is not open to negotiation. It is off the agenda, off the table, out of the room, outside the building.

“Netanyahu forced the White House to choose between two options,” wrote Eldar. Washington could “turn the other cheek and lose the Palestinians for the last time, making Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s day, or slap back immediately. Washington chose the second option.”

CONDEMNATION

In a sense, Washington had no choice. If it wished to continue as a “player” in the search for peace in the Middle East it had no alternative but to react forcefully, and with clarity. Anything less would have written it out of the process.

So the formal statement issued in Israel by Biden said: “I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel."

Biden conveyed the Obama Administration’s response to Netanyahu while both of them and other guests were at dinner. Over dessert, perhaps, to sweeten the message?

Biden made it clear, too, that the condemnation he conveyed to the Government of Israel was official, not just a personal reaction. He had “condemned” the Israeli action “immediately and unequivocally” at the request of President Obama, he told an audience at the University of Tel Aviv.

Subsequently, after Biden had left Israel, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Netanyahu to double-wallop the rebuke.

SPECIFICS

Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip J. Crowley told the State Department’s daily media briefing (March 12) that Clinton reiterated the strong objections of the U.S. Government to Ishni’s announcement, “not just in terms of timing, but also in its substance.”

She made it clear that the “U.S. considers the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship – and counter to the spirit of the Vice President’s trip.” The Israeli action had “undermined trust and confidence in the peace process, and in America’s interests.”

Clinton said she “could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security,” Crowley reported

And she made clear that “the Israeli Government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process.”

Earlier, Netanyahu and Ishni had both apologised for the timing of the land-grab announcement – but not for its substance. Israeli officials tried to explain that Netanyahu was caught unawares and that implementation of the decision announced by Ishni is months or years away.

Nobody who has any knowledge of how a government works can suspend disbelief long enough to buy into these explanations.

GLOBAL REACTION

Reaction from the world at large was swift.

A public statement released at the UN said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon “condemns the approval of plans for the building of 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem by the Israeli Ministry of Interior……He reiterates that settlements are illegal under international law. Furthermore, he underscores that settlement activity is contrary to Israel’s obligations under the Roadmap, and undermines any movement towards a viable peace process.”

(The Roadmap, endorsed by the diplomatic Quartet comprising the UN, the European Union, the U.S. and Russia, calls for two states – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security.)

The Quartet issued a statement in New York which “condemns Israel’s decision to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem.”

“Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognised by the international community.”

Filippo Grandi, the new Commissioner General of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), told the media that “unfortunately, the decisions that have been taken in the past few days are not helpful… to build a climate of trust,”

The Arab League whose earlier support encouraged the Palestinian leadership to accept the U.S. proposal for “proximity talks” withdrew that support. However, Mitchell and Assistant Secretary of State (Near East) Jefffrey Feltman had been in contact with a number of Arab leaders including Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa and several foreign ministers.

Crowley said he thought they “jointly remain committed to this process, acknowledging that obviously it is a difficult environment given the Israeli statement.”

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat said that "it is very difficult for us to engage in any negotiations unless the order (to build the homes) is revoked". He added that Palestinians had urged the U.S. to get the order revoked.

Erakat told BBC that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had notified Amr Moussa and Biden of his difficulties with the talks and settlements. Abbas told Moussa that he (Abbas) was waiting for Mitchell to come back next week “to give us the answer that the (settlements) decision has been cancelled."

Ayman Abu-Nahiyah, wrote in the Palestinian Filastin: “The U.S. administration that endorsed the Roadmap, Annapolis (proposals) and the indirect negotiations is unable to force the Netanyahu government to stop the settlement activity in the Palestinian territories even for a single day? So in the light of this, will it be able to achieve any progress in the peace process via indirect negotiations?”

PROXIMITY TALKS

Indirect negotiations between contending parties, communicating through a mediator who shuttles between them, were first set up by Nobel laureate Ralph Bunche who took over the task of seeking an Arab-Israeli armistice when his predecessor Count Folke Bernadotte was assassinated by one of the Israeli gangs that introduced terrorism to the Middle East.

As Arabs and Israelis would not talk direct to each other, Bunche located them in separate rooms in a hotel on the Greek island of Rhodes and carried messages back and forth until, finally, an armistice agreement was signed in February 1949. That agreement stopped the bloodletting but did not end its causes.

In later years, when U.S. diplomats used the same process to facilitate discussions between Egyptian and Israeli delegations occupying separate suites in a New York hotel, the Israelis derisively called it “bellhop diplomacy” and a distinguished American diplomat, Joseph Sisco, gave it the more dignified name, “proximity talks.”

“Proximity talks” might seem a poor substitute for direct, face-to-face negotiations in which the parties concerned genuinely seek dignified compromise and agreement. An indirect discussion, nevertheless, is better than nothing at all. In this case, it was heartening that the ‘proximity talks’ were meant to lead to direct talks after a fixed period of four months.

If “proximity talks” do take place, despite the Government of Israel’s act of betrayal, they can work, like any other talks, only if the negotiating parties want to make them work – or if a third party can persuade them to make it work. (IDN-InDepthNews/13.03.2010)

Copyright © 2010 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission the original author or copyright holder.
—–

The writer has served as Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and the USA. He was Chairman of the Commonwealth Select Committee on the media and development, Editor of the Ceylon ‘Daily News’ and the Ceylon ‘Observer’, and was for a time Features Editor and Foreign Affairs columnist of the Singapore ‘Straits Times’. He is on the IDN editorial board.