Thread: U.S. and Israel Disagree on Palestinian Contacts

U.S. and Israel Disagree on Palestinian Contacts

By ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: March 19, 2007

JERUSALEM, March 18 — The first fractures surfaced Sunday in the Israeli and American approaches to the new Palestinian unity government, with Israel’s cabinet voting overwhelmingly to boycott it, while the United States Consulate here refused to rule out contacts with some moderate Palestinians who are now serving as ministers.

The American position, while not a change in policy, added to the sense that the new unity government, officially announced Saturday after many weeks of negotiations, had created potential openings with the West, raising the possibility of a resumption of direct international aid and damaging Israeli efforts to maintain a solid boycott.

Britain has also refused to rule out dealing with some members of the new government, France has invited its foreign minister to visit, and Norway said Saturday that it would recognize the new government.


“Cracks are appearing in the walls of isolation and the siege against us,” Ziad Abu Amr, the new Palestinian foreign minister, told Ynet, the Web site of the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot, referring to the French and Norwegian statements.

Direct international aid to the Palestinian Authority was suspended more than a year ago when Hamas, the radical Islamic movement that refuses to recognize Israel, won control of the government in elections. The new unity government is still dominated by Hamas, defined as a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel and the European Union. But it also includes figures from the mainstream Fatah faction and several independents.

Two independent members in important posts, Mr. Abu Amr and the new finance minister, Salam Fayyad, have had good relations with the West in the past.

Israel’s Cabinet, in a vote on Sunday, said it objected to any dealings with the new unity government because Hamas is part of it. The American position emerged through statements made by a spokeswoman for the United States Consulate in Jerusalem.

“We are not going to change our policy of not dealing with foreign terrorist organizations, of which Hamas is one,” said the spokeswoman, Micaela Schweitzer-Bluhm. “We won’t rule out contact with certain individuals with whom we have had contact before. We will evaluate the situation as we go along.”


The use of the word “individuals” seems to imply that any contacts would be as private citizens, rather than as government officials.

Indeed, American officials said they were disappointed, on first impression, with the unity government platform made public on Saturday. Ms. Schweitzer-Bluhm said that Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, of Hamas, had “failed to step up to international standards.”

Israel and the West had hoped that the new government would explicitly recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and accept all previous signed agreements. Instead, the new government agreed only to respect previous agreements, did not specifically endorse a two-state solution as had Fatah, and insisted on the Palestinians’ “legitimate right” to resist occupation “by all means.”


So far, the Israeli and American positions do not represent a major parting of the ways, and it is unclear what impact the differences will have in the longer run.

Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said Sunday, “The platform of the new government includes very problematic elements that cannot be acceptable to Israel or the international community.”

Israel, like the United States, still sees the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, as a partner for dialogue. Mr. Abbas is not a member of the prime minister’s government and accepts the international principles. But Mr. Olmert said that Israel will now limit its talks with him to humanitarian matters.

There is a certain contradiction in Israel’s willingness to deal with Mr. Abbas but not Palestinian ministers who meet the international criteria, said Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

The United States is trying to leave itself “wiggle room” by allowing for individual contacts, he said in a telephone interview. He added, “The Israeli position leaves itself open to such developments.”


Nabil Abu Rudeina, a spokesman for Mr. Abbas, criticized the American stance toward the Hamas members of the government. He said that the American and Israeli positions “won’t help stability and security in the area,” and that the unity government should be given a chance. Israel’s minister of internal security, Avi Dichter, a member of Mr. Olmert’s Kadima Party, has also proposed talking to Palestinian ministers who accept the international principles, Israel Radio said.

But an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, rejected any distinction among Palestinian ministers. “Moderates in the Palestinian government cannot be fig leaves” for Mr. Haniya and the “extremist” platform, he said. “It is one government, with one platform and one prime minister.”

He did not react to the statement from the American Consulate, but said: “We have an open dialogue with the United States. Obviously we’re following events closely.”

In Gaza on Sunday, Mr. Abbas appointed Muhammad Dahlan, of Fatah, to head a new National Security Council, responsible for reorganizing the security services. Hostility has flared between Mr. Dahlan and Hamas in the past. Tension remains high in Gaza between the armed wings of Fatah and Hamas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/wo...in&oref=slogin

The sanctions, it appears, has had a telling effect on the Palestinians, so much so they have had to forge a national unity government.

From the Israeli standpoint, it is not extraordinary that they have adopted the line that is their hallmark.

However, for the US, the issue is a bit different.

US has to assert itself in the world arena. The Middle East developments have totally upset the apple cart. The Islamist fundamentalist have in no way given up their jihad, even though it has lost much of its edge. One does not know if it is lull before the storm.

Iraq has not panned out as per the design the War on Iraq was to take. It has become a problem not only on the international field but also domestically now. The Coalition of the Willing is slowly disintegrating as member nations wind up leaving US to pump in more troops. The clamour to bring back the soldiers is getting shriller day by day. The recent election has left the Republicans wallowing in wonderment and the US Presidential elections looms on the horizon.

The strident bellicosity that was the signature on the Iran issue has lost its edge and instead the US has had to backdown and be ready to have talks with Iran and Syria, ostentatiously to ease out the Iraqi imbroglio. This has come from no less a personage than the Secretary of State herself!

The Israeli action in Lebanon failed to replicate the wonders of the other Israeli - Arab Wars, and thereby losing the moral ascendancy that was always there. The fact that the Hezbollah is an ally of Iran and Syria does not make the situation any more comfortable! In fact, the destablising factor of Hezbollah in Lebanese politics is getting worse.

Egypt's democratic reforms are being held to question inspite of the best effort and money that the US is pumping into Egypt.

The Afghan war is not shaping up either. Pakistan is no playing ball and the US protege, Musharraf is currently in deep trouble.

The Europeans have most of the time has a different agenda than the US regarding Palestine.

Therefore, the US has to put up a more 'reasonable' face to the Islamic nations!

Hence, though there is no change in policy, the US has been forced by the circumstances to temper down the stance on the Palestinian issue.

But that does not mean that the US has abandoned Israel. She cannot since Israel is essential and an important cog in ensuring that US interests in the ME is not compromised by the spatiotemporal environment.

Notwithstanding, one wonders how the new US stance vis a vis the Israeli stand will affect the Palestinian Question.