Middle East peace talks stall as US fails to sway Israel over settlements
Process 'in crisis', says Mahmoud Abbas, as Binyamin Netanyahu refuses to back down on settlement freeze
Ian Black and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 8 December 2010
Palestinians and Israelis were tonight blaming each other for sabotaging peace talks after the US admitted it had failed to persuade Binyamin Netanyahu to freeze West Bank settlements to allow stalled negotiations to resume.
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, who had insisted on a new moratorium on settlements before returning to direct negotiations, agreed the peace process was now "in crisis".
Abbas is due in Cairo on Thursday to consult the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Arab League. Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said discussions should now shift to an "endgame" for resolving the issue.
Palestinian spokesmen expressed dismay at the news that the Obama administration had formally decided to abandon its efforts to persuade Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to ignore rightwing critics and back down over settlements.
The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is expected to insist in a speech in Washington on Friday that the US will not walk away from attempts to secure peace and the Obama administration remains committed to seeking a solution.
In the Middle East, Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian parliament, told al-Jazeera TV: "If the US fails to pressure Israel to abide by what … the international community demands – a complete freeze to settlement activities – then there is no peace process and the reason for this is Israel."
Yasser Abed Rabbo, of the PLO executive committee, said: "The policy and efforts of the US administration failed because of the blow it received from the Israeli government."
But Israel's cabinet secretary, Tzvi Hauser, warned: "The Palestinians need to understand, as the Americans do, that it is unacceptable for either side to set pre-conditions."
Tony Blair, representing the Quartet of United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia, called the US decision "sensible … in the light of the impasse that we reached."
Abbas had insisted there should be a halt to building outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – with Israel seeking to exclude the latter from any freeze – before agreeing to resume direct talks.
But there was no immediate sign that the PLO was preparing to pull out of talks, as its Islamist rival Hamas insisted it should. The US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, is reportedly planning to meet separately with PLO and Israeli negotiators in the coming days. "We have been pursuing a moratorium as a means to create conditions for a return to meaningful and sustained negotiations," Philip Crowley, the state department spokesman, told reporters in a televised press briefing in New York City. "After a considerable effort, we have concluded that this does not create a firm basis to work towards our shared goal of a framework agreement."
Crowley denied that the US had been distracted by the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables.
Aaron David Miller, a Washington-based Middle East analyst who advised six secretaries of state, said he expected Clinton to concentrate in her speech mainly on the background to the US peace efforts rather than a new blueprint.
Miller, author of The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace, said: "The administration now has some pretty bad options. One is walking away and the other is laying out your own policy. Neither is possible. The middle way is to talk quietly to both sides on borders and security, and you might get traction and then conceivably work on Jerusalem and refugees."
He said domestic problems for the Israeli government, the Palestinians and the Obama administration do not bode well for a deal. "The Obama administration has so many headaches: jobs, the Republican party will have more senators, bogged down in two wars. The question for the administration is how important is this and are they ready to risk a high-profile failure," Miller said.
David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy, said it would be a mistake either to think the US is going to let the effort drop or to see it as a sign of failure on the part of the Obama administration. He expected the focus to shift away from settlements and the future of Jerusalem to issues on which agreement might be easier, namely security and borders.
"I see it as a refocusing and not a retreat," Makovsky said.
Palestinian officials have suggested that if there is no progress with Israel, they would take unilateral action, such as seeking to win international recognition for an independent state. That could involve lobbying for a UN security council resolution, or issuing their own unilateral declaration – though that would not be supported by Hamas or affect Gaza.
The dangers are that the first would be vetoed by the US or that Israel might retaliate by annexing parts of the West Bank and blaming the Palestinians for torpedoing negotiations.
Brazil and Argentina announced this week that they would recognise a Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders, and Uruguay pledged to do the same next year. The US quickly condemned these moves as "counterproductive".
Palestinians and other Arabs were furious when, in a last-ditch attempt to revive direct talks, Obama offered Israel a package of incentives including 20 F-35 fighter planes worth $3bn in exchange for a new three-month settlement ban. Washington also promised not to seek an additional freeze and pledged to provide Israel with diplomatic support, including vetoing anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.
Ian Black and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 8 December 2010
Palestinians and Israelis were tonight blaming each other for sabotaging peace talks after the US admitted it had failed to persuade Binyamin Netanyahu to freeze West Bank settlements to allow stalled negotiations to resume.
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, who had insisted on a new moratorium on settlements before returning to direct negotiations, agreed the peace process was now "in crisis".
Abbas is due in Cairo on Thursday to consult the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Arab League. Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said discussions should now shift to an "endgame" for resolving the issue.
Palestinian spokesmen expressed dismay at the news that the Obama administration had formally decided to abandon its efforts to persuade Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to ignore rightwing critics and back down over settlements.
The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is expected to insist in a speech in Washington on Friday that the US will not walk away from attempts to secure peace and the Obama administration remains committed to seeking a solution.
In the Middle East, Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian parliament, told al-Jazeera TV: "If the US fails to pressure Israel to abide by what … the international community demands – a complete freeze to settlement activities – then there is no peace process and the reason for this is Israel."
Yasser Abed Rabbo, of the PLO executive committee, said: "The policy and efforts of the US administration failed because of the blow it received from the Israeli government."
But Israel's cabinet secretary, Tzvi Hauser, warned: "The Palestinians need to understand, as the Americans do, that it is unacceptable for either side to set pre-conditions."
Tony Blair, representing the Quartet of United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia, called the US decision "sensible … in the light of the impasse that we reached."
Abbas had insisted there should be a halt to building outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – with Israel seeking to exclude the latter from any freeze – before agreeing to resume direct talks.
But there was no immediate sign that the PLO was preparing to pull out of talks, as its Islamist rival Hamas insisted it should. The US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, is reportedly planning to meet separately with PLO and Israeli negotiators in the coming days. "We have been pursuing a moratorium as a means to create conditions for a return to meaningful and sustained negotiations," Philip Crowley, the state department spokesman, told reporters in a televised press briefing in New York City. "After a considerable effort, we have concluded that this does not create a firm basis to work towards our shared goal of a framework agreement."
Crowley denied that the US had been distracted by the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables.
Aaron David Miller, a Washington-based Middle East analyst who advised six secretaries of state, said he expected Clinton to concentrate in her speech mainly on the background to the US peace efforts rather than a new blueprint.
Miller, author of The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace, said: "The administration now has some pretty bad options. One is walking away and the other is laying out your own policy. Neither is possible. The middle way is to talk quietly to both sides on borders and security, and you might get traction and then conceivably work on Jerusalem and refugees."
He said domestic problems for the Israeli government, the Palestinians and the Obama administration do not bode well for a deal. "The Obama administration has so many headaches: jobs, the Republican party will have more senators, bogged down in two wars. The question for the administration is how important is this and are they ready to risk a high-profile failure," Miller said.
David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy, said it would be a mistake either to think the US is going to let the effort drop or to see it as a sign of failure on the part of the Obama administration. He expected the focus to shift away from settlements and the future of Jerusalem to issues on which agreement might be easier, namely security and borders.
"I see it as a refocusing and not a retreat," Makovsky said.
Palestinian officials have suggested that if there is no progress with Israel, they would take unilateral action, such as seeking to win international recognition for an independent state. That could involve lobbying for a UN security council resolution, or issuing their own unilateral declaration – though that would not be supported by Hamas or affect Gaza.
The dangers are that the first would be vetoed by the US or that Israel might retaliate by annexing parts of the West Bank and blaming the Palestinians for torpedoing negotiations.
Brazil and Argentina announced this week that they would recognise a Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders, and Uruguay pledged to do the same next year. The US quickly condemned these moves as "counterproductive".
Palestinians and other Arabs were furious when, in a last-ditch attempt to revive direct talks, Obama offered Israel a package of incentives including 20 F-35 fighter planes worth $3bn in exchange for a new three-month settlement ban. Washington also promised not to seek an additional freeze and pledged to provide Israel with diplomatic support, including vetoing anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 11:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home