Assad not hopeful of Israel talks

Author:
Source: Arab News
Date: 2009-04-27

Syrian President Bashar Assad insisted on the return of the Golan Heights but said he could not foresee peace talks with Israel anytime soon, in an interview with an Austrian daily published yesterday.

“What counts in the end, is that there is occupied territory that must be returned to Syria, and then we can talk about peace,” Assad told the newspaper Die Presse, ahead of a visit to Austria yesterday. “We do not make a peaceful solution dependent on the Israeli government. Governments in Israel come and go, whereas peace is a fixed goal that one must work toward consistently, even when there is no partner,” he said.

Meanwhile, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman yesterday toned down his previous statements regarding peace prospects with Syria, telling Israel Radio he would be willing to immediately hold peace talks with Syria, but only without preconditions.

Over the weekend, Lieberman was quoted in the Austrian daily Kleine Zeitung saying Syria is not a partner for peace as it “hosts the headquarters of terror organizations” and “supports Iran’s nuclear program.” The Foreign Minister also recently told Israeli daily Jerusalem Post that Israel doesn’t “see any good will from the Syrian side, only the threats.”

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

Local press welcomes Obama’s stand on Mideast conflict

Author: Mohammad Ghazal
Source: The Jordan Times
Date: 2009-04-23

His Majesty King Abdullah's meeting with US President Barack Obama was the focus of editorials in the country's press on Wednesday, with many highlighting the two countries' commitment to the two-state solution as key to ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The editorials also addressed Obama’s support for the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, emphasising King Abdullah's "Pan-Arab mission" to convey a unified Arab stance to the US administration. In remarks to the press Tuesday following his meeting with King Abdullah, Obama said he is a strong supporter of a two-state solution, pinpointing his country's support for the Arab peace overture, which offers Israel normalisation with the Arab world in return for withdrawal from Arab territories it occupied in 1967. "The Arab Peace Initiative is very constructive," he said.
Al Rai's editorial said the Monarch's meeting with Obama was the focus of Arab and international media as King Abdullah was at the White House to convey the unified Arab position aiming to resolve the decades-old Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

In its editorial, the newspaper shed light on the King's effective role in helping bring about peace in the region and urging the US to be effectively involved in finding a solution to the conflict, reporting that Obama's invitation to Egyptian, Palestinian and Israeli leaders to visit Washington for separate talks clearly shows the positive outcome of the King's effort.

Ad Dustour newspaper described the visit of King Abdullah, the first Arab leader to hold talks with Obama, as historic, saying it comes at a crucial time.

The daily emphasised that Obama’s commitment to the Arab peace plan and the two-state solution is of great significance as it comes at a time witnessing the rise of an extremist right-wing government in Israel. This goverment has refused to recognise Palestinians as peace partners and rejected the Annapolis accords, under which Palestinian-Israeli negotiations were relaunched to include final status issues, such as the fate of Jerusalem and a solution to the refugee problem, added the paper.

Al Arab Al Yawm's editorial said Obama’s decision to stress his commitment to the two-state solution and to welcome the Arab Peace Initiative is a significant indicator of the importance of the King's trip.

The newspaper added that Obama's clear endorsement of the two-state solution is a response to recent remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who have both shown opposition to the Arab Peace Initiative and the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

Shifting US position on Israel an opportunity for Arabs - analysts

Author: Mohammad Ghazal
Source: The Jordan Times
Date: 2009-04-23

Arabs should build on the US stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict declared by President Barack Obama at his meeting with His Majesty King Abdullah Tuesday, analysts said Wednesday.

Obama's strong support for the two-state solution, which envisages the creation of an independent Palestinian state, and his commitment to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which he described Tuesday as a "very constructive start", are positive indictators that Arabs should build on to demonstrate their pro-peace stance in light of the Israeli rejection of the two-state solution and the peace overture, the analysts noted.

"The US policy is in the process of being formulated and Arabs should highlight their peace-loving stance to the international community and the US administration in particular… For the first time there are clear differences between the US and Israel," writer and political analyst Nasouh Majali told The Jordan Times Wednesday.

Israel's position which rejects the two-state solution and peace efforts is being exposed to the rest of the world, said Majali, adding that Arabs, led by King Abdullah, want to create an international position that is supportive of peace, thus placing Israel under pressure to comply to the will of the world community.

"Israel cannot play a political game for a long time against the will of America and the Arabs. Israel will find itself in a position against the whole world if it goes on with its hardline policies," Majali stressed.

On Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman branded the Arab Peace Initiative as “dangerous" because it requires the Jewish state to allow Palestinian refugees to return to its borders, Agence France-Presse reported.

Lieberman has refused to endorse the 2007 US-backed deal agreed to during a conference in Annapolis, Maryland, to relaunch negotiations with the Palestinians.
His hardline position, coupled with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to publicly endorse the creation of a Palestinian state, has raised fears that Israel's new Cabinet is on a collision course with Obama's administration, which has vowed to push the faltering Middle East peace talks, according to the agency.

Political science professor at Yarmouk University Mohammad Momani said it is of great significance that the Arabs support Obama and commit to the peace plan.
"It is important not to give Israel any excuse to try to undermine the American determination and it is important that the Arabs continue to support the peace proposal and commit to peace, as otherwise Israel will say there is no partner on the Arab side," Momani said in a telephone interview.

It is also important to engage and involve pro-Israel institutions in the US in the process, said Momani, referring to the King's recent meeting with Jewish religious leaders in Washington.
Fares Breizat, political analyst and pollster, said the Arabs should "stick to their guns" and renew their commitment to the peace initiative to show the world and the US in particular that Israel is not serious about peace.

"Israel has managed to process the peace process. Israeli politicians have become masters in processing the process and society has learned to live with it and accommodate the status quo. On another front, the Arabs should lobby Brussels, London, Paris, Moscow and the UN General Assembly to expose Israel's shallow commitment to peace in the region," said Breizat in an e-mail sent to The Jordan Times.

More work must be done on American public opinion to create some sort of balance between the Israeli and the Arab narratives, said the pollster, adding that Arabs must get involved and remain persistent in lobbying Washington and the political community inside the Beltway.
Urging the Arabs to make use of what he said was a "less-biased" American stance towards Israel, MP Mamdouh Abbadi said: “The Arabs should make use of this fact. It is a big gain that they should build on."

"The ball is in the court of the Arabs at this stage and they should make use of that as indictors from the US are positive on this issue," said Abbadi.

But former Lower House speaker Abdul Latif Arabiyat criticised Obama's approach and expressed pessimism about a speedy solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
"The Arabs gave grand concessions and offered all that they could offer through the peace overture and Obama is asking for more, deeming the initiative only a start," Arabiyat said.
"As long as Israel is under the protection of the US, the Israelis will never change and they will not give anything and that should be taken into consideration," the Islamist added.
Israel's inflexibility and its rejection of peace are being exposed to the entire world, Arabiyat said, and only full support by the Arabs, the West and the US in particular for the peace initiative will further expose Israel's stubborn position, forcing it to change.

"Statements by Obama are meant to waste time and delay a solution to the conflict…I do not expect anything to happen in the near future unless the US stops protecting Israel and being its absolute supporter," Arabiyat told The Jordan Times.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

The American Change

Author: Abdullah Iskandar
Source: Al-Hayat
Date: 2009-04-19

The US has taken a big step forward in its outlook on the Arab-Israeli conflict and how to resolve it, ending decades of complete adherence to Israel's stance. It has begun to sense the need to look into the demands of Arabs, i.e. into the demands of the other party to the conflict. Perhaps for the first time in the history of the US dealing with the conflict in the region, Presidential Envoy George Mitchell expressed a truth the Arabs have been pointing out for decades: peace in the Middle East is in the US's interest, with the Arab peace initiative constituting one of its bases.

Thus President Barack Obama's administration would have come closer than ever before to a comprehensive notion of peace, one that goes beyond the security and protection of Israel to take into consideration the demands of Arabs to liberate their land and establish a Palestinian state.

Israel has grasped the meaning of this big change in the US's stance. It understood that the Obama administration is devoting itself to formulating such a strategy, that it is on the verge of taking action on its basis, and that it is no longer useful to conceal the nature of the conflict by fabricating fictional threats (terrorism, Iran, etc...) or through the campaigns of the Jewish lobby in the United States. Indeed, the American message was clear, through Mitchell's discussions with Israeli officials and through the advice given by US officials, most prominently White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, signifying that there is no going back on the two-state solution and on the land for peace principle, and that the relationship between the White House and the Israeli government is tied to the latter's stance of the new US outlook on the conflict. Leaks in the Israeli press indicate that Netanyahu's government has become aware of the limits of its ability to maneuver in this respect. Its choices have become restricted to trying to come out with a stance that would not harm the historical relationship with the United States, which now has an interest in peace.

Of course, one can hardly wager on an American-Israeli confrontation. And certainly Washington will seek to provide Israel with many economic, security and procedural guarantees. Yet what is also certain is that such guarantees will no longer necessarily be at the expense of the owners of occupied land and of the Arabs. This has become tied to how the Arabs deal with the change that is taking place in the US policy towards the region.

Considering the behavior of President Obama and his administration at the recent Latin American summit, it is no longer unlikely to expect surprising decisions from Washington, decisions that are based on a critique of past experiences, such as what took place with regards to its neighbors in the South, particularly Cuba. This means that Obama's promises in the region that is most sensitive for Washington have begun to find their way to implementation, as long as the opposing side is able to move in their direction. The same conclusion is true for Iran, with which the language of boycott and sanctions is no longer the only one employed to stop its military nuclear program. In fact, Washington offers it direct dialogue without preconditions, taking into consideration legitimate Iranian interests.

Nothing so far calls for making the Arab-Israeli conflict an exception in this overall US revision. One could wager that such a revision is a priceless opportunity to drive the peace process forward, if the Arabs are able to make use of the US coming closer to their demands, and to engage in the political process on this basis. This seems to be what Jordanian Monarch King Abdullah II will try to do in the first Arab-US summit meeting in Washington, which comes after Mitchell has heard similar discourse in the Arab capitals he visited, discourse stressing on Arab readiness for peace by the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative.

Yet such prudent optimism will not reach its expected results, except in the case of the Arabs strongly entering into the peace process, on the basis of the ability to meet the new US direction, which in turn meets international approval and support. The possibility of the entire peace process breaking down still stands if such a climate is not created. This could occur through the parties to which the peace process is harmful, in Israel or on the Arab side, resorting to fabricating instability and military escalation in order to do away with this new opportunity.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

Israel Blackmails Obama… at the Iranian Level

Author: Elias Harfoush
Source: Al-Hayat
Date: 2009-04-19

The US's clear stance on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of the two-state solution is not the only point of divergence between Barack Obama's administration and Benjamin Netanyahu's government. Broader than such a disagreement, and in fact strengthening it, is the other point of divergence, that regarding the manner of resolving the nuclear crisis with Iran. It is this divergence that is now being used by neo-extremists in Israel, the likes of Foreign Minister Lieberman, to blackmail Obama on the issue of a solution with the Palestinians. In such people's opinion, what they consider to be "concessions" made by Israel in the past - the latest being the withdrawal from Gaza - have resulted in encouraging Palestinian extremism at the expense of moderate factions, rather than the opposite. In their view, this confirms that Iran is the main force behind such extremism, and that confronting it should have priority, ahead of exerting pressure on Israel.

Obama's predicament here is as follows: how will he manage to bring together a policy of flexibility with Tehran, one that attempts to lure it with diplomacy and politics into retracting its nuclear program and becoming open to more transparency, and a stringent policy with Israel, to make it accept the "goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security", as the US President stated in his recent speech to the Turkish parliament? If the price required to obtain concessions from Israel in the Palestinian issue is to coordinate with it or to follow its policy in the Iranian issue, then can the Obama Administration bear the cost of such a policy in the region, especially if it is to clear the path for a potential Israeli strike against Iran, with the US providing cover or turning a blind eye, and thus to eliminate any hope of holding Palestinian-Israeli negotiations?

There are certainly broad movements on the US scene that now encourage the new administration to take a stringent stance on Netanyahu and his government. Among such movements are Jewish groups, politically at the left of the AIPAC lobbying group, that consider Israel's long-term interest to lie in resolving the conflict based on a permanent settlement that would be accepted by both parties. There are also voices within Israel itself that call for such stringency. One such example is the editor-in-chief of the Haaretz newspaper David Landau who, upon meeting last September with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, told her that the US should "rape" Israel in order to impose the solution upon it. If such had been the stance of this segment of Israelis under Olmert and Livni, we can only imagine the stance they would take after the statements given by Lieberman before US envoy George Mitchell about Israel refusing to offer "further concessions".

Moreover, Obama benefits from a general Arab concern and European desire to make use of his new image in order to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. Yet one must not make the mistake of being overly optimistic. Indeed, opportunities about which it was said that they needed to be made use of in the past are too numerous to be counted, and the means of putting pressure on Israel held by US administrations have always been there - but have always needed someone to exercise them. From cutting aid (three billion dollars a year) or threatening to do so, to refraining from using veto power at the Security Council against decisions that do not agree with Israeli interests, reducing the level of strategic cooperation between the two countries - especially at the military level, or placing restrictions on the low-interest loans obtained by Israel from US banks - most of which goes to the expansion of settlements. It is a long list of steps that the Obama Administration could resort to if it genuinely sought to change the direction of the Israeli government's policy to make it accept the settlement it seeks, one which would be consistent with the text of the Arab Peace Initiative, the Road Map and the decisions reached at the Annapolis Conference.

But does the climate prevailing in the region allow Obama to exercise such pressures, even if that were his intention? Doubtless Iran and its allies taking the initiative of facilitating such a task would add a powerful means of pressure to those already held by US President. It is true that Israel has enough influence inside the United States to paralyze any initiative by the President, as it has proved in the past. However, the wide base of support enjoyed by Obama, including among Jewish Americans, should give him enough room to move, provided that other crises in the region do not hinder such movement.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

A perilous situation

Author: Abdel-Moneim Said
Source: Al-Ahram Weekly
Date: 200-04-09

As Israel's new government rejects in advance all prospects of peace, it will be Cairo that pays the final cost....

Radical Arab dreams have all just crystallised in the new Israeli government, which has brought together every shade of Israeli extremist. It consists of those who reject peace, those who want to expel the remaining Arabs from Israel, and those who maintain that Israel's relationship with the Palestinians and Arabs is one of permanent warfare. If the Labour Party was rewarded for crawling on its belly at the last moment in the hope of winning a few portfolios and a little political sway, this was only because everyone knows it is on its last legs. Meanwhile, whatever had remained of the so-called peace camp in Israel breathed its last with the second Palestinian Intifada and suicide bombings. Only a paltry handful of left- wing writers and intellectuals remain to plead for peace, and theirs is indeed a cry in the wilderness.

Israel inaugurated its new government with the pronouncement of the death of the Annapolis agreement. Some Arabs had regarded this agreement as a major debacle and an Israeli victory that had to be reversed. Well, this dream also came to pass, as did the departure of its architect, George W Bush. With the end of Annapolis, it is no longer just the Palestinians on the far side of the Green Line who are in danger; Palestinians inside Israel itself face the threat of expulsion and joining the ranks of the millions of Palestine refugees that preceded them in earlier decades.

The situation could not be more perilous. Israel had already grown more belligerent before the formation of the new government. Now it appears that Gaza was only the beginning and that its teeth are bared against established Arab countries. The attack against Sudan was ostensibly intended to target weapons from Iran destined to Hamas in Gaza. Most likely, the agreement that was concluded between the US and Israel at the end of the Bush era was intended to provide the legal cover for plans Israel intended to carry out in any case.

Yet, in spite of this situation, the Arab summit had only one matter to discuss on this issue, which was whether to wave the threat of withdrawing the Arab peace initiative. The idea had been given more than its fair share of bandying about as of late. During the last Davos summit, Amr Moussa had personally asked Israeli President Shimon Peres to give his seal of approval for the initiative, which Israel has not yet done. So, by what logic is withdrawing the initiative supposed to be a threat when Israel had never accepted it to begin with, and when no party to the new government has ever been remotely keen on it?

Apart from this, little else happened in the Arab summit, which was more concerned with protecting President Omar Al-Bashir from facing the International Criminal Court than with the Israeli aerial assault on Sudan. About the latter, Khartoum remained silent for more than two months until news of it was leaked by Sudanese sources that had thought that the US was responsible, only to be contradicted by Pentagon spokespersons who revealed that, no, it was not Washington but rather Israel that had committed the deed. If that attack could have taken place under an Israeli government that believed that it was possible to make peace with the Arabs, and that subscribed to the solution of a Palestinian and an Israeli state living side by side in peace, what might we expect from a government like that just formed by Binyamin Netanyahu?

What seems painfully evident now is that the Arabs have nothing left. Also, now that the Arabs have said that the Arab peace initiative will not remain on the table for long, there will be precious little on the table, either to say or do. Netanyahu will rejoice because no one will be interested in the two-state solution any more. As long as this is the case -- just so we in Egypt are not taken by surprise -- the Arabs and the Arab League as well will turn to us and insist that we do the "right thing". The "right thing", according to them, will be to recall our ambassador and kick out theirs, sever relations and cancel the Qualified Industrial Zones and oil and gas agreements, and open the borders with Gaza so that arms can pour in above ground like they did below ground. But if there is one lesson to be learned from the last Gaza crisis it is that when the Arab world has no ability to act and no solutions to offer, it turns to Cairo to pay for policies that are bankrupt from the outset.

____________________________

Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews