Netanyahu Buckles On Settlements?

Bibi Netanyahu rebuffing the Obama Administration on a settlement freeze has sure won him plaudits at home, according to members of his cabinet and center-right parties. Except, um, he hasn't rebuffed the President at all.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has exploited such sentiment to depict Washington's opposition to settlement growth as unreasonable. But Israeli officials say he is also seeking a compromise that would limit the growth and facilitate Obama's goal of restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Several officials said Tuesday that Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Housing Minister Ariel Atias had quietly agreed to suspend all government tenders to build new Jewish housing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem at least until the start of next year.

The government and its critics acknowledge that there has been no green light for construction bids since November and that Netanyahu, after taking office on March 31, allowed the de facto suspension to continue.

One official said the recent decision, which was not announced, makes the suspension explicit in advance of a new round of talks set for next week between Netanyahu and U.S. envoy George J. Mitchell.

Netanyahu's trying to thread a delicate needle. Obviously he needs US support for Israel's economic survival. At the same time, his right-wing base wants him to hold firm on settlements, particularly the settlers. This is the big obstacle to Middle East peace - the thorough intransigence among all sides of the debate. But the US does have power in the region, as evidenced by getting a right-wing Prime Minister of Israel to essentially agree to demands that could eventually hurt him politically.

Define "Complete Settlement Freeze"

That's not what this looks like to me:

Israel would be open to a complete freeze of settlement building in the West Bank for three to six months as part of a broad Middle East peace endeavor that included a Palestinian agreement to negotiate an end to the conflict and confidence-building steps by major Arab nations, senior Israeli officials said Sunday [...]

The freeze would not affect construction that was already under way, nor include East Jerusalem. But it would mean that during the specified time no construction of any kind could start even in the close-in settlement blocks that Israel expects to keep in any future two-state agreement with the Palestinians.

A settlement "freeze" that doesn't affect current construction, has a three-to-six month end date, imposes multiple conditions on the Palestinians and doesn't include one of the settlement areas?

That's not even a thaw, let alone a freeze. The senior ministers, by the way, don't even agree on these decidedly uninspiring terms.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Middle East envoy George Mitchell met in New York yesterday and reached some agreement, and Israel appeared to be knuckling under slightly in the face of US pressure. But if this is the end result, I don't suspect that the Palestinians will perceive it as some grand concession. US officials adamantly asserted that they have not moved back on their position of a full settlement freeze including "natural growth." We'll see soon enough.

Obama's Charm Offensive In The Arab World

President Obama's tendency to dialogue with those not disposed to him may be a hindrance when dealing with Republicans, but in the arena of public diplomacy it's going to be a great help. Obama sat down with Al-Arabiya television yesterday, not a US front but a real Arab network, and made a call for dialogue and peace.

In an interview with one of the Middle East’s major broadcasters, President Barack Obama struck a conciliatory tone toward the Islamic world, saying he wanted to persuade Muslims that “the Americans are not your enemy.” He also said “the moment is ripe” for negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

The interview with Al Arabiya, an Arabic-language news channel based in Dubai, signaled a shift — in style and manner at least — from the Bush administration, offering what he depicted as a new readiness to listen rather than dictate.

It was Mr. Obama’s first televised interview from the White House and the first with any foreign news outlet.

A full transcript of the interview is here. It's wonderful to have someone who is sensitive to the concerns of the world, who will apply principles but also intelligence and a recognition of the full stakes to bring a better relationship forward. This answer about new Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who is in the region today, is in particular very astute.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.

And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.

And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress [...] I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

That's just a brilliant answer. It speaks to the knowledge Obama has that all people have common hopes and common dreams, and that through dialogue and personal expression we can move mountains. This part, discussing the importance of language and how we cannot demonize Islam because of those who pervert the faith for their own ends, is also good.

I don't think Obama is being naive, though recent events have made it very difficult for him. The Israeli war on Gaza complicated this public diplomacy launch in many ways, particularly in making the possibility for early peace talks less likely. And if Bibi Netanyahu wins the Israeli elections, as expected, his support for additional settlements in the West Bank could be extremely stabilizing (as could today's roadside bombing which may complicate the truce in Gaza). However, for the moment, Obama's interview last night is a triumph, as Marc Lynch explained.

I admit that I'm a little biased here. How can I not be thrilled that Obama has adopted the policy advice I've been offering since the publication of "Taking Arabs Seriously" in Foreign Affairs back in 2003? And in his first interview anywhere, less than a week into job, no less. I have to admit it feels a bit odd to see an administration doing things right after all these years. But that said, credit should go where credit is due. I do think that this is an extremely significant gambit which signals his commitment to real public diplomacy, his engagement with Middle East issues (repudiating all the pundits expecting him to neglect foreign policy), and his ability to speak in a genuinely new way to the Muslim world.

His remarks hit the sweet spot again and again. He repeatedly emphasized his intention of moving past the iron walls of the 'war on terror' and 'clash of civilizations' which so dominated the Bush era. "My job is to communicate to the Muslim world that the United States is not your enemy," Obama said, emphasizing as in his inaugural address that he is "ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest." [...] And above all, he understands that words are only the beginning, and that ultimately deeds and policy will determine Arab views of the United States. Public diplomacy is not about marketing a lousy policy -- it's about engaging honestly, publicly, and directly with foreign publics about those policies, explaining and listening and adjusting where appropriate.

This is an extension of Dr. Susan Rice's prediction of direct diplomacy with Iran. Ultimately, we not only have to talk to our adversaries but create conditions of mutual respect so that those talks can actually be fruitful. All of this has the extremist forces in the Muslim world very unnerved. They don't quite know how to react to Obama.

Soon after the November election, al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader took stock of America's new president-elect and dismissed him with an insulting epithet. "A house Negro," Ayman al-Zawahiri said.

That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a "hypocrite," a "killer" of innocents, an "enemy of Muslims." He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.

"He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection," an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month.

The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda's skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.

Obama will be judged on actions, and Al Qaeda will have every opportunity to gain recruits if he, say, keeps on killing civilians with airstrikes in Pakistan (I'll return to that). Right now, however, I'd say he's going about this very well, and a frustrated Al Qaeda is an ineffective Al Qaeda.

Mitchell In As Mid-East Envoy

Despite the calls that he was "too fair" to possibly work for peace, George Mitchell was announced as the main envoy to the Middle East today. Richard Holbrooke has the Pakistan and Afghanistan envoy's job, and if he can pull off something like the Dayton accords there, I can forgive his past trespasses.

I'm getting the feeling that the adults are back in charge. Feels good.

...J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami has more on Mitchell.

Strong Steps Backwards and Forwards On The Middle East

The Israeli assault on Gaza has ended. 50,000 Gazans are homeless and 21,000 buildings are destroyed. And at least 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis are dead. And for what? Nobody seems to know, other than killing for killing's sake.

Elad Katzir, a potato farmer, was nervous as he drove through the lush fields, agreeing to stop the car only behind clumps of trees or bushes as cover in case of sniper fire. By one thicket, nestled among wildflowers, was a memorial to a soldier who was shot dead here while on patrol seven years ago.

“I do not feel any victory,” Mr. Katzir said. “I still do not feel safe.” [...]

“So they changed the security situation for the next six months, bravo,” said another potato farmer, Eyal Barad. He added, “They should have gone on longer and finished the job.”

After such a tremendous show of force, many Israelis were hoping to see a more definitive picture of victory, like a scene of Hamas leaders coming out of their bunkers and raising a white flag. At the very least, several said, Israel should not have left Gaza without Gilad Shalit, the Israeli corporal who was captured in a cross-border raid and taken into the Palestinian enclave in 2006 and has been held hostage by Hamas ever since.

There was no job to finish. The strategic interests in the assault were obscure. Hamas was never going to be destroyed because their destruction would have required a mass annihilation of the entire area. So they are predictably holding victory rallies and restoring order to the community. Meanwhile, the more moderate Fatah has been significantly weakened by the events, making more remote the possibility of their partnership in a peaceful solution.

Israel's 22-day assault on Hamas-ruled Gaza made the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority look ineffective and marginalized, unable to stop the carnage. Popular support for its peace talks with Israel, already declining, now seems weaker than ever.

And a tentative cease-fire that left Hamas still in charge of Gaza threatens to reinforce the rift between the Palestinian territories, further setting back hopes for a settlement of the decades-old Middle East conflict.

At an Arab summit in Kuwait on Monday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas pleaded for a revival of the power-sharing arrangement that broke apart in 2007 when Hamas, an armed Islamist movement, ousted his secular Fatah forces from Gaza in a ruthless factional fight.

He called for immediate talks between the two factions to form a "unity government" to rebuild the war-devastated territory, organize elections and negotiate peace with Israel [...]

But the authority has no means to reassert its presence in Gaza without the consent of Hamas. And although Hamas said it was open to a new power-sharing deal, it seemed in no hurry to strike one with Abbas, whom one Hamas official dismissed as "a full partner" in the Israeli assault.

"Hamas will be much less powerful militarily against Israel but significantly stronger against Fatah," said Ghassan Khatib, an independent Palestinian analyst in Ramallah. "No one will challenge its control of Gaza. It is in much less need of a unity government."

All of this is really bad news, and the outcome of 1,300 dead Gazans will not be overcome in a day or a week or maybe a year. But the Obama Administration is starting to move in the right direction. President Obama called leaders in the Middle East today, including Mahmoud Abbas, to "communicate his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term, and to express his hope for their continued cooperation and leadership." He talked about a major rebuilding effort in Gaza, taken hand-in-hand with Fatah, which I think would be smart. While the Saudis have pledged $1bn in aid much more is needed, as well as the open flow of supplies and medicine into the Strip. The US could gain lots of goodwill among Palestinian citizens by being a part of this effort.

(UPDATE: Also, this could backfire heavily. As noted above, the Palestinian Authority is viewed with deep suspicion in Gaza, and if they enter with the US to help rebuild, this could confirm the suspicions that the PA are colluders, and ruin their long-term credibility. Still, I don't know how that can get much worse at this point, so they might as well try to use some carrots. This is how Hamas got the people on their side, after all - by attending to their needs.)

In addition, there are rumors that George Mitchell will be the US envoy to the Middle East, and he is the model of an honest broker with a proven record of bringing warring factions together in the interest of peace. Not to mention he has studied the region and has some good ideas for steps forward.

Mr. Mitchell, 75, was appointed in 2000, in the waning days of the Clinton administration, to lead an international commission to investigate the causes of violence in the Middle East. He released a report in the spring of 2001, during the early days of the Bush administration, that called for a freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank and a Palestinian crackdown on terrorism.

Other Middle East specialists said Sunday that if Mr. Mitchell was named to the job, he would be seen by both sides as a tougher but more balanced negotiator than recent envoys, which could make some Israelis nervous. Mr. Mitchell has Lebanese as well as Irish roots: his father, Joseph Kilroy, was an orphan adopted by a Lebanese family whose Arabic name had been anglicized to Mitchell, and Mr. Mitchell was raised a Maronite Catholic by his Lebanese mother.

The appointment of Mr. Mitchell would be a strong suggestion “that Obama is going to free himself of the exclusive relationship that we’ve had with the Israelis,” said Aaron David Miller, a public policy analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.

“This is the clearest indication to me that they’re trying to inject more balance into the Israeli-U.S. relationship,” he said.

Freezing the settlements is needed urgently, it's a major obstacle to peace right now in my view. Mitchell would signal all that is said above, but also an aggressiveness to pursue peace right from the beginning.

On a non-Obama-related note, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the ban on Arab parties from participating in elections, which removes what would be a nasty bit of discrimination inside Israel. They are facing pressure from both inside and outside now to reject the knee-jerk reactionary stances of the past and press for peace. However, the February elections, with Benjamin Netanyahu lurking as a possible victor, will be crucial.

...Shorter Abe Foxman: George Mitchell would be bad for the Middle East because he's too fair and even-handed. Wait, that's not "shorter," that's exactly what he said. Abe, um, you said that out loud.