How US Duplicity Undermined the Peace Process

If this administration's foreign policy has a hallmark, it is probably alienating friends while cozying up to enemies.  Still, even in that context, Wednesday's BuzzFeed headline, "The U.S. Has Been Speaking to Hamas Through Back Channels for More than Six Months,"  is shocking.  http://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/the-us-has-been-speaking-to-hamas-through-backchannels-for-o

It's not speaking to Hamas itself that is so problematic -- it is true that we speak to plenty of enemies and plenty of terrorists all the time.  What is appalling, however, is that the U.S. was, if the allegations are true, conducting secret talks to facilitate the formation of a unity government between Fatah and Hamas, at the very same time that it was publicly pressuring Israel to make more and more concessions in negotiations that the U.S. was supposedly facilitating.  Even more shocking, is that Kerry sat before Congress and blamed the failure of the talks on a few apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, when it now appears that it was the U.S. itself that was undermining those very talks.  http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israels-deeply-disappointed-with-Kerrys-poof-speech-348039   

If the allegations are true, it seems likely that the reason for the PA's actions in applying to fifteen UN treaties, an action it must have known would signal the de facto end of the negotiations, was neither building in Jerusalem nor a delay in the release of prisoners.  The reason, instead, was that the Fatah-dominated PA saw that the U.S. would sanction an alliance with Hamas, and it chose to throw its lot in with Hamas rather than make compromises with Israel. 

The U.S. has, of course, denied this report.  But this version of events seems to explain why Hamas and Fatah were successful in setting up a unity government this time, when they were not successful in this endeavor in the past.  It seems likely that Abbas had some assurance from the administration that U.S. aid to the new government would continue.  It also explains why the U.S. State Department spokesperson rushed to recognize this unity government so quickly. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4526707,00.html  To many watching from within the U.S., moreover, this scandal-ridden administration does not have much credibility left.  

This administration's behavior with respect to its supposed ally Israel has been shockingly duplicitous.  

More One-Sidedness: Blaming Israel for Humiliations During Talks

I seem to be reading over and over that Israel took actions that "humiliated" Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas over the course of the recently collapsed peace talks.

At a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on May 8, Martin Indyk blamed Israel for humiliating Abbas by claiming that he had agreed to increased settlement activity. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/180438#.U3jEyvldUeh .  Washintgon Post columnist David Ignatius makes a similar claim in his May 15 Op-Ed, when he stated that Israeli building in a Jerusalem suburb "humiliated" Abbas.  See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-why-the-mideast-peace-process-is-in-tatters/2014/05/15/c8345e78-dc5b-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html?hp .

If diplomatic humiliation is a sufficient reason to end the talks, however, then by all rights, Israel should have walked away long ago.  Was Prime Minister Netanyahu not humiliated when he was forced to release 26 murderers of Jews from Israeli prisons in July of last year just to start the talks?  Was he not further humiliated by the heroes' welcome they received from Abbas?  Were Israel and its Prime Minister not humiliated when these events repeated themselves two more times in October and December of 2013, with each prisoner being rewarded by the Palestinian Authority with cash payments?  http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-authority-gives-freed-prisoners-50000-each/

A whole new source of humiliation came from the US itself, when US President Obama effectively threatened Netanyahu in an interview with Jeff Goldberg, telling him that the US would stop defending Israel from the onslaught of OIC-inspired condemnations at the UN. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out

Each of these events was its own diplomatic humiliation, of course.  Netanyahu responded to these humiliations, however, with relative indifference.  He even stated in December, after the third prisoner release, that "leadership is tested by making the difficult decisions.  We were not elected to lead Israel by making the easy decisions."  http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Israel-prepares-to-release-third-group-of-Palestinian-prisoners-336601 .  He continued to move forward until it became clear that no progress was being made.

Israel's supposed humiliations of Abbas, therefore, are simply no excuse for Abbas's behavior.

The Sting: How Kerry and Indyk Set Israel Up to Fail

Martin Indyk has been quite busy of late.  A few days ago, he gave a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, described here:  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/180438#.U269LfldUeg . In another case, he has been identified by The Washington Free Beacon as the anonymous source for this interview in the Israeli press: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4515821,00.html .  In both cases, Indyk opines that the cause of the collapse of US instigated peace talks between Israel and the PA was Israel's settlement building.  This follows Secretary Kerry's assertion of the same before Congress in early April. http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israels-deeply-disappointed-with-Kerrys-poof-speech-348039

This claim, however, only serves to reveal that the US was never an impartial mediator, and that the State Department essentially knew from the beginning that talks would fail.  

As far back as July of 2013, when the talks began, it was clear that there was no settlement freeze in place.  In plain English, that means that it was made clear to all parties, including the U.S. State Department, that construction of housing in the West Bank -- and certainly in Jerusalem -- was going to continue during the time the talks were taking place.  As we all know, what Israel offered, and the PA accepted, in place of a settlement freeze was the release of murderers of Jews from Israeli prisons.  

If Indyk and Kerry truly believe that West Bank construction is a legitimate reason for the Palestinians to torpedo the talks, then they must admit that they knew from the beginning that talks would eventually blow up.  In fact, this is essentially what the "anonymous source" told Nahum Barnea: 

Q: Let's go back to the beginning. Was this round not doomed for failure from day one?

"The negotiations had to start with a decision to freeze settlement construction."  

In other words, yes, the State Department had the information available from the beginning that these talks would not succeed, because the talks did not include what the US diplomats believed to be an essential condition for success.  As they knew all along that this is what would occur, it is clear that they have simply set Israel up to fail from the beginning.  Kerry et al have simply swindled Israel to pay a heavy price for negotiations that they knew were destined to fail, while setting that country up to take even more blame for a conflict that it has tried repeatedly to end. 

A Disproportionate Response

Anytime Israel responds to rocket fire from Gaza with IDF action, we see the media, the UN, the EU, and of course the left-wing American Jews all complaining of Israel's "disproportionate" response.  It was just a few rockets, there were hardly any casualties, they will say.  Sure, it was technically bad, but Israel needs to use proportionality in its response, the chorus cries.

The concept of proportionality, however, seems to be entirely missing from the discussion of the latest crisis in negotiations, and most particularly from Kerry's analysis of it.  There does not seem to be any debate about the fact that Israel's release of the fourth batch of murderers had only been delayed, not cancelled, when Abbas made his grand show of applying to 15 UN bodies and treaties.  I have seen different reasons given for the cause of the delay, with the Naharnet website quoting Livni saying that there was disagreement as to which individuals would be released, and other news outlets saying the extension of the negotiations was being discussed.  But I have not seen any reputable news organization saying that Israel had actually cancelled the release at that point.

Considering that once these murderers are freed, their freedom is permanent (at least until they commit more crimes), and considering that their release is purely a political device and has nothing to do with the individuals' own guilt or innocence, or any due process concerns, a delay of a few days while additional details are being discussed hardly seems like a major infraction.  Since there was never any agreement to halt settlement construction during negotiations, and especially not in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, the announcement of those units was not in any way a breach of any agreement.  Abbas's response, a flagrant violation of the terms under which negotiations were taking place, is hugely out of proportion to the perceived offenses.  So where's the outcry?

Kerry: When All Else Fails, Blame the Jews

I'm not disappointed that the talks failed. No one who has a realistic grasp of the situation could have expected otherwise.  But I did think that *when* the talks failed, our President and Secretary of State would finally come to grips with the fact that it is the Palestinians who are unwilling to accept peace, even when it is offered to them.  Apparently even that was naive.

As I have noted earlier in this blog, as the negotiations went on, Abbas stated repeatedly that he would not make a single concession, seemingly oblivious to the definition of the word "negotiate."  And it does appear that within the secrecy of the negotiations, he stuck by his public statements, rejecting Kerry's "framework" proposals and refusing to extend the negotiation schedule.  Indeed, by all appearances, his only intent in entering into negotiations at all was to accept the proffered bribe of prisoner releases, without offering up one single thing in return.  Israel, for its part, released over 70 murderers from jail without, in the end, getting anything at all in exchange except more bad PR.  Those individuals are now free, treated as heroes, getting paid a stipend with international funds, and despite the lack of any progress at all, they are never going back. No settlement freeze was ever part of the agreement, least of all, not in Jerusalem.  And yet Kerry is so blind, so married to his fanciful worldview, that he blames 700 apartments in the Jewish section of Jerusalem for the collapse of the talks. When all else fails, blame the Jews.

Dear Palestinian Authority: I don't think "negotiate" means what you think it means, Part II

In July of 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry achieved what no one thought was possible: In exchange for Israel's promise to release over 100 Palestinian murderers from jail, he persuaded Palestinian Authority President Abbas to resume negotiations with Israel.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-to-free-104-palestinian-prisoners/2013/07/28/390ad8d2-f7a3-11e2-a954-358d90d5d72d_story.html

But what did that mean? The Oxford online dictionary defines "negotiate" as "to try to reach an agreement or compromise."  The legal dictionary at the online thefreedictionary.com defines it as a "give-and-take discussion."  USLegal.com defines it as a "communication process between individuals that is intended to reach a compromise."  And what does "compromise" mean?  Fairly basic.  Compromise means "a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions."   (See, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/negotiate, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/negotiation,  http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/negotiation/   http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compromise.)

The disagreement over issues between Israel and the PA is clear and well-known.  From the outset, the premise of "negotiations" has been that, in an attempt to reach a compromise, each side will make concessions, that is to say, give up something that it did not want to give up, in order to reach a common end goal: conflict resolution.

But as I've noted previously, throughout this process, Abbas has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to make any concessions.  http://mirasmicrophone.blogspot.com/2013/11/dear-palestinian-authority-i-dont-think.html.  What, then, did he think the point of these negotiations were?

Abbas has now reportedly told Obama that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, that he will never abandon the so-called right of return, and that he will not even commit to ending the conflict.  http://www.timesofisrael.com/tv-report-abbas-said-no-to-obama-on-3-core-peace-issues/, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4224/abbas-obama-no.  This is not a negotiation, it is merely a staged show.  Abbas should be declared to be in breach of his promise to negotiate, and Israel should keep the final group of murderers where they belong -- in prison.

Obama's Fantastic View of President Abbas

After reading Jeff Goldberg's recent interview with Obama, I can only conclude that Obama is living in a reality of his own construction, one that bears no resemblance to actual events.  http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out  Obama states that Abbas is "a partner . . . who is prepared to negotiate seriously."  Yet, Abbas has stated repeatedly that he is "not prepared to give up one once of Palestinian demands."  See, e.g., http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4459571,00.html.  NB, Obama, the very definition of negotiate requires that each side make concessions.  A person who states from the outset that he refuses to make a single concession, is not negotiating in good faith.

Obama also tells Goldberg that he "believe[s] that President Abbas is sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist."  This statement is really quite extraordinary, in light of the fact that Abbas has also stated repeatedly that he will never recognize such a right.  As reported by the Obama PR Team at the New York Times, in December of 2013, Abbas made this statement in a letter to Obama himself.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/world/middleeast/sticking-point-in-peace-talks-recognition-of-a-jewish-state.html.

Most importantly, Obama appears to be willfully ignorant of the events in 2000 at Camp David and in 2008 in Israel, in which, in both cases, Israel attempted to reach peace deals with the Palestinians, but was rebuffed.  He appears ignorant, as well, of the events of 2005, in which Israel attempted to begin a process of unilateral withdrawal, which resulted in the election of Hamas in Gaza and barrages of rockets aimed at civilian residences in Israel.  Had any one of these attempts to grant Palestinians what they claim to want so badly been successful, there would be no settlement construction today.