For those of us eager to see the Obama administration plot a new course for the Middle East, the last few weeks have been a waiting game. After the highly encouraging appointment of George Mitchell, the Israeli elections have kept the first 20 days fairly quiet. Tonight, however, reading over the headlines from Haaretz, one begins to see some very interesting signals. Consider the following three stories, which are all currently listed on the front page:
"U.S. expected to pressure Israel over settlement construction". The fact that sticks (not just carrots) are already being presented to Israel is a welcome first step. But more significantly, I think, is the bluntness of the terms:
The Americans will demand that Israel avoid creating new facts on the ground that may burden achieving an agreement in the future. Toward this end, the U.S. administration is preparing to put heavy pressure on the new government to freeze all settlement construction and keep its promises to lift roadblocks. A freeze on settlement activity will be a higher priority than removing illegal outposts...
Measures the Obama administration is likely will be to cut the equivalent sum of the latest investments in settlements from the remaining budget for U.S. guaranteed loans, approximately $1.3 billion out of a total of $10 billion that the U.S. made available to Israel for it to absorb immigrants from the former Soviet Union....
Senator Mitchell's team will include experts who are familiar with the subject of the settlements and the ways in which Israel has avoided meeting its obligations for years.
For those who have followed the issue closely, the language here is rather striking. It isn't unexpected that Obama/Mitchell would insist on a settlement freeze (although it is big step forward from Bush's policy), but the tough line taken here - removed from any parallel demand from the Palestinian side - is a rather bold departure. It sounds like the position of a true mediator.
Even more striking is the news tucked at the bottom of the article:
Meanwhile the State Department is evaluating the implication of reports that MK Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beiteinu, was a member of the extreme right group Kach. It appears on a State Department list of terrorist organizations.
If the Obama administration confirms the report that appeared last week in Haaretz, and which was not denied by Lieberman, the Yisrael Beiteinu leader may not be granted a visa to enter the U.S. The close cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on matters of strategy, defense, economics, commerce, tourism and transportation means that ministers charged with relevant portfolios often visit the United States.
This is huge, to say the least. It isn't clear from the article if the State Dept. initiated the review, or whether it was pushed upon them by the Haaretz story, but either way, it's a pretty remarkable development on many levels. Beyond the rightful stigma it would impose on Lieberman, one could see how - indirectly - it might ease the way to direct talks with Hamas, insofar as "terrorist organization" will no longer be an exclusive club.
The second Haaretz story is no less surprising: "U.S. fends off Israeli pressure, decides to help plan 'Durban 2' ". The gist of the story is that the State department has decided to participate in planning this year's UN-sponsored "World Conference Against Racism", despite heavy lobbying by Israel to boycott. The conference is controversial in the U.S. for being very hard on Israel - comparing Zionism to Racism - and the Bush administration had previously agreed to boycott any involvement. The Obama team is explaining the decision in just the right way: not as an endorsement of the previous Conference, but as a way of positively engaging with the participants and helping bring a more balanced perspective. The decision was made, it appears, as a result of pressure by Susan Rice and Samantha Power, but - and this is where it gets really interesting - over objections from other unnamed officials at the Department.
One of the leading officials pressuring Clinton on "Durban 2" is the new U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who was Obama's close campaign adviser. The other official...is Samantha Power, another Obama adviser at the National Security Council. Power participated in the initial Durban conference as the representative of a non-government organization and is known for her strong criticism of Israel. In the past, she expressed support for cutting U.S. military assistance to Israel and transferring the funds as aid to build a Palestinian state.
Senior State Department officials contacted Israeli diplomats and asked them to take swift action to block the Durban initiative. "This is the time for Israel and Jewish organizations to intervene," U.S. officials said.
If I read that last quote correctly, this was a case where State Dept. officials were telling 'Jewish organizations' (read: AIPAC) to lobby Obama to stop other people at State (Power/Rice). Apparently, they weren't successful (though the U.S. has not yet promised to attend the final conference - just the planning part). Anyway, this is definitely a dynamic to keep an eye on.
Finally, a third article - "Israel worried about Obama delay in stance on Iran nukes Iran Nukes" describes the growing Israeli impatience with Obama's Iran policy: that it's too slow and too diplomatic. I recommend reading the whole thing; especially noteworthy is the discussion of Obama's still-not-announcement Iran Envoy (previously thought to be Dennis Ross), whose absence is making Israel nervous.
Any one of these stories would be welcome news, but I must say, to see them all in one newspaper seemed like a pretty definitive signal to me that something is, indeed, changing.
What do you all think?