After the bluster of yesterday’s dramatic, tension-filled, meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a clearer picture is emerging of the behind the scenes posturing, revealing that presidential advisor Dennis Ross continues to play a key roll.
Helene Cooper and Mark Landler, of the New York Times report that
Mr. Ross made clear that he was opposed to having Mr. Obama push Israel by putting forth a comprehensive American plan for a peace deal with the Palestinians, according to officials involved in the debate.
George J. Mitchell, who was Mr. Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, backed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, argued in favor of a comprehensive American proposal that would include borders, security and the fate of Jerusalem and refugees. But Mr. Ross balked, administration officials said, arguing that it was unwise for the United States to look as if it were publicly breaking with Israel.
Mr. Netanyahu and Israel’s backers in the United States view Mr. Ross as a key to holding at bay what they see as pro-Palestinian sympathies expressed by Mr. Mitchell; Mr. Obama’s first national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones; and even the president himself.
“Starting with Mitchell and Jones, there was a preponderance of advisers who were more in tune with the Palestinian narrative than the Israeli narrative,” said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a friend of Mr. Ross. “Dennis balanced that.”
One of the core beliefs behind much of Dennis Ross’ thinking is that “ peace negotiations will succeed only if the United States closely coordinates its efforts with the Israelis.”
This view is bolstered by the observations of King Abdullah II of Jordan, who
gave his assessment of how Arabs view the debate within the Obama administration over how far to push Israel on concessions for peace with the Palestinians.
From the State Department, “we get good responses,” the Jordanian king said, according to several people who were in the room. And from the Pentagon, too. “But not from the White House, and we know the reason why is because of Dennis Ross” — President Obama’s chief Middle East adviser. Mr. Ross, King Abdullah concluded, “is giving wrong advice to the White House.”
Another, interesting tidbit we glean from this Cooper, Landler, NYT article is that Dennis Ross may have played a role in George Mitchells resignation.
In April, Mr. Mitchell, who, one Arab official said, often held up the specter of Mr. Ross to the Palestinians as an example of whom they would end up with if he left, sent Mr. Obama a letter of resignation. By some accounts, one reason was his inability to see eye to eye with Mr. Ross.
“Mitchell wanted something broader and more forward-leaning, and Dennis seems to be taking a more traditional stance,” said David J. Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has written about the National Security Council.
But, Mr. Rothkopf said, Mr. Obama must now take into account the emerging realities in the Arab world, including a new populism brought by the democratic movement that may make even governments that were not hostile to Israel, like Egypt and Jordan, more insistent on pushing the case of the Palestinians. “Experience can be helpful, but it can also be an impediment to viewing things in a new way,” he said.
Expanding on this emerging theme of the differences of viewpoint, and cognitive style between President Obama, and his advisor, Landler and Cooper note, that Ross’ strategy “sometimes contrasts sharply with that of a president who has bold instincts and a willingness to elevate the plight of the Palestinians to a status equal to that of the Israelis.”
But now, as the president is embarking on a course that, once again, puts him at odds with Israel’s conservative prime minister, the question is how much of a split the president is willing to make not only with the Israeli leader, but with his own hand-picked Middle East adviser.
The news is filled with lots more analyses, and reports of the meeting that seems more dramatic than substantive.
The big controversy over President Obama’s suggestion that the 1967 borders be the starting point for discussions of mutually-agreed upon swaps of land to meet the security needs of Israel, and other interests of both parties, has been the official US position since President Carter, and has also been a substantive part of all previous agreements that both parties have almost agreed to.
While Israel want’s to include as many settlements as possible, and widen its narrow mid-borders, Palestine also favors swaps, for access roads between Gaza, and the West Bank, as well as gaining access to water, and concentrations of non-Jewish Arab populations that Israel does not want to include in it’s final borders to strengthen the religious nature of the its state.
In another NYT article Isabel Kershner, reports
An Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations, quoted Mr. Netanyahu as telling his aides: “I went in with certain concerns. I came out encouraged.”
Publicly, Mr. Obama reassured Mr. Netanyahu that Israel’s security would remain paramount in any American push to resolve the conflict. “Our ultimate goal has to be a secure Israel state, a Jewish state, living side by side in peace and security with a contiguous, functioning and effective Palestinian state,” Mr. Obama said. “Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language, and that’s going to happen between friends.”
The president also joined the Israeli leader in raising concerns about Hamas, the militant faction that controls Gaza but recently agreed to reconcile with Fatah, which controls the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority. “Hamas has been, and is, an organization that has resorted to terror, that has refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist,” he said. “It is not a partner for a significant, realistic peace process.”
Mr. Netanyahu characterized Hamas as “the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda” and flatly refused to hold any talks with the Palestinians if Hamas was included.
A key thing to note here, is that President Obama is acknowledging key sections of the Israel negotiating position.
So, it turns out that Prime Minister Netanyahu is apparently a lot happier than he appears.
If there is sufficient interest, I can sum up an overview of other articles that provide more substantive overviews, of the negotiating positions, which may actually be closer than appears.
Given the intensity of the schedules, some speculation is emerging, that we may be seeing the groundwork being laid out, for one last change push for negotiation prior to President Abbas' proposal to the UN General Assembly, in September.
If so, this would be very good news.
And, as always, folks can use my comments like an open thread. My only request is that we be as respectful, as possible. Well, I guess, if I can makes requests, I might as well, suggest folks be upbeat, light-hearted, kind, funny, witty, noble of mind and spirt, purposeful, spontaneous, and have fun. But, these are just suggestings, not requirements.
It's a sunny day, here in Massachusetts, so I am in a good mood, and sort of glad to still be here, after all the fuss. But, I am dressed up with my pitchfork, and allumunum hat, just in case, I have to battle devils and monsters of the deep later in the day.