Obama Faces Steep Price to Save Talks -Lachlan Carmichael
The Obama administration may have to pay a steep price to rescue the fledgling Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East peace negotiator, said the administration "hyped, I think probably unnecessarily, the relaunch of the negotiation in Washington. They now need to pay or are considering paying both parties for simply sitting down at the table....If the price is this steep this early on, you can only imagine what will be required when they truly run into an impasse on the substance."
(AFP)
Israel Weighs Response to U.S. Offer -Gil Hoffman
Prime Minister Netanyahu began efforts to persuade cabinet members to support a deal with the U.S. in which Israel would limit construction in settlements for 60 days in return for American promises, including upgrading the IDF, letting the army remain in the Jordan Valley following an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, and a promise not to ask Israel for a further moratorium.
However, after a number of ministers publicly expressed opposition to restarting the construction freeze, Netanyahu has little to no chance of passing such a proposal in the cabinet.
(Jerusalem Post)
U.S. Assurances and the Settlement Freeze -Barry Rubin
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu couldn't continue the freeze because there isn't enough support in his coalition for doing so. Minor U.S. offers won't change that fact. Moreover, the main underlying problem is lack of confidence that the Palestinian Authority wants peace, is willing to compromise or will implement future commitments.
Consider: Why [is Obama] ask[ing] for a two-month extension on the freeze? Why not three or four? What is happening within two months? The U.S. election.
The draft letter promises the U.S. government would veto any UN Security Council resolution against Israel for the next year. This is insulting and signals to Israeli leaders that the current administration isn't exactly reliable. It suggests that after the year is over Washington will not veto such resolutions.
Finally, the U.S. pledges to sell more weapons to Israel after a peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state. Suggesting that this would happen if construction is frozen for two months simultaneously suggests that it won't happen otherwise, withdrawing something Israel was previously expecting.
According to the media, Netanyahu politely pointed out that when the U.S. originally demanded the freeze, it promised that it would secure concessions from Arab states. This didn't happen. It also promised that the Palestinians would be responsive and fulfill their commitments. That didn't happen either.
(Jerusalem Post)
*
The Obama administration may have to pay a steep price to rescue the fledgling Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East peace negotiator, said the administration "hyped, I think probably unnecessarily, the relaunch of the negotiation in Washington. They now need to pay or are considering paying both parties for simply sitting down at the table....If the price is this steep this early on, you can only imagine what will be required when they truly run into an impasse on the substance."
(AFP)
Israel Weighs Response to U.S. Offer -Gil Hoffman
Prime Minister Netanyahu began efforts to persuade cabinet members to support a deal with the U.S. in which Israel would limit construction in settlements for 60 days in return for American promises, including upgrading the IDF, letting the army remain in the Jordan Valley following an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, and a promise not to ask Israel for a further moratorium.
However, after a number of ministers publicly expressed opposition to restarting the construction freeze, Netanyahu has little to no chance of passing such a proposal in the cabinet.
(Jerusalem Post)
U.S. Assurances and the Settlement Freeze -Barry Rubin
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu couldn't continue the freeze because there isn't enough support in his coalition for doing so. Minor U.S. offers won't change that fact. Moreover, the main underlying problem is lack of confidence that the Palestinian Authority wants peace, is willing to compromise or will implement future commitments.
Consider: Why [is Obama] ask[ing] for a two-month extension on the freeze? Why not three or four? What is happening within two months? The U.S. election.
The draft letter promises the U.S. government would veto any UN Security Council resolution against Israel for the next year. This is insulting and signals to Israeli leaders that the current administration isn't exactly reliable. It suggests that after the year is over Washington will not veto such resolutions.
Finally, the U.S. pledges to sell more weapons to Israel after a peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state. Suggesting that this would happen if construction is frozen for two months simultaneously suggests that it won't happen otherwise, withdrawing something Israel was previously expecting.
According to the media, Netanyahu politely pointed out that when the U.S. originally demanded the freeze, it promised that it would secure concessions from Arab states. This didn't happen. It also promised that the Palestinians would be responsive and fulfill their commitments. That didn't happen either.
(Jerusalem Post)
*
No comments:
Post a Comment