Ira Glunts writes:
The flap over the settlement freeze is an indication of the difficulty the U.S. will continue to encounter in any effort to obtain Israeli cooperation with Obama’s two-state solution plans. The Netanyahu government is not interested in restarting the substantive peace negotiations over final status issues that ceased nine years ago. The Israeli plan is publicly to agree to the talks, participate in them if necessary, but be as intransigent as the Americans will allow–since in Jerusalem’s view the status quo is a comfortable situation. And Israel is surely not likely willingly to stop settlement expansion that it believes will, in the end, strengthen its bargaining position through “creating facts on the ground.” Currently there are almost 500,000 facts parked illegally in the territories, and a vast majority of them are conceded by most to be living on land that will eventually be incorporated into Israel.
Helena Cobban, on her blog, rightly praises the Obama administration for sticking to its position on the freeze which she claims created an awareness among members of Congress about Netanyahu’s “lack of good faith.”
He [Obama] and his officials have all remained quite firm on verbally requesting a complete settlement freeze, and on justifying that request in the public arena; but they have as yet undertaken no actual policy actions to hold Israel accountable for following through on that demand. My sense is that they are holding their political "big guns" for a confrontation with Netanyahu's government that may well lie shortly ahead– over the big issue of the final-status peace.
Meanwhile, by rhetorically holding firm on the settlement-building issue they have been able to educate many key members of the US Congress about the importance of the territorial issues underlying it, and about Netanyahu's lack of good faith in this negotiating arena. They have also quietly but steadily been building the domestic constituency inside the US for forthright action on securing the final peace.
I agree that the flare-up over the freeze highlights Netanyahu’s lack of enthusiasm for the peace process and his lack of good faith, although I question how many in Congress are being educated by the debate.
It should be pointed out that the idea of instituting a freeze as a precondition for negotiations originally appeared in the Mitchell Report of 2001, which presented suggestions for restarting the failed Oslo negotiations. I am guessing that Mitchell is taking the lead with the Israelis. M.J Rosenberg, who claims, in the comments section, to have spoken to someone who attended the last Barak-Mitchell meeting, says that Mitchell did not give any ground on the complete freeze demand. However, the Israelis and Americans have agreed to continue the debate privately, so no official indication has been given as to the status of the issue.
I share the Israeli surprise at the aggressiveness of team Obama at this early stage. It has not been the President’s style to employ such a confrontational approach, which suggests that this is Mitchell’s doing. If Mitchell is indeed taking the lead, he is proving that we were correct to rejoice when he was appointed Special Envoy, at a time many feared Dennis Ross would be given that post. However, the recent appointment of Ross to the NSC where he will be reporting directly to the President may set up a situation where Mitchell and Ross compete for the lead role in shaping U.S-Israel policy.
Nathan Guttman, writing in the Forward about Dennis Ross’ new position at NSC, claims that bringing Ross in to the White House at this juncture will assist Obama in mending the damaged relations with Israel that have resulted from the freeze flap. He writes:
Based on their previous work and statements, Ross and Mitchell represent different approaches to the conflict: Mitchell has a strong belief that an agreement is possible, based on his successful experience in Northern Ireland, while Ross brings a more skeptical approach based on three decades of fruitless negotiations in the Middle East.
The translation of the above paragraph is that Mitchell wants to work to achieve a two-state solution. Ross would rather follow the lead of Netanyahu and Barak, avoid pressuring Israel and work to preserve the status quo. I have to praise Guttman for his honesty.
My advice to those who are trying to predict what will happen is, Do not underestimate how difficult Netanyahu will be. The freeze flap is only the beginning. The current Israeli leaders are less interested in a peace treaty with the Palestinians than they were in the 90s. The same is true of the Israeli Jewish population. In the end, it will be the Americans who will decide if and what type of peace will be achieved. American success will come as a result of a willingness to use all diplomatic means necessary to move the Israelis away from their present inflexible position. In this effort, former Senator George Mitchell could be the man.
