Subscribe to The Jewish Standard free weekly newsletter

 
Blogs
 

entries tagged with: David Makovsky

 

WikiLeaks reveals secrets — and cluelessness

WASHINGTON – A careful reading of the WikiLeaks trove of State Department cables — which is laying bare some 250,000 secret dispatches detailing private conversations, assessments, and dealmaking of U.S. diplomats — reveals a notable if perhaps surprising pattern: how often they get things wrong.

Again and again the cables show diplomats, lawmakers, and heads of state predicting outcomes that never come to pass.

A year ago, top Israeli defense officials, in a meeting with their U.S. counterparts, set 2010 as the absolute deadline to squeeze Iran on its nuclear program. Now Israeli officials say the date is 2012.

In a 2005 assessment, the same Israeli cadre told U.S. interlocutors that the point of no return would be Iran’s ability to enrich uranium without assistance. Iran has had that capacity for years.

In January 2008, Egypt’s intelligence chief said Hamas was isolated and would not stand in the way of a peace agreement. Hamas’ continuing control of Gaza, even following the war that broke out 11 months after the Egyptian assessment, still undercuts Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In 2007, U.S. diplomats called Tzipi Livni an up-and-comer. Though now the leader of the Israeli opposition as head of the Kadima Party, Livni twice failed in bids to become Israel’s prime minister.

The same State Department cable said the Israeli military and government don’t get along — “never the twain shall meet!” But they do get along, mostly, and meet often; the lack of cooperation in 2007 was the result of the short-lived term of Amir Peretz as Israeli defense minister.

The disparities between predictions and reality reflect the on-the-fly nature of the discussions detailed in the newly revealed cables.

Ed Abington, a former U.S. consul in Jerusalem who has consulted for the Palestinian Authority, said the authors of such cables work under pressure to come up with “added value” in analysis and fill in the vacuum with chatter that might not have any basis in reality.

“You’re looking for what you can add that makes it relevant to policymakers in Washington and elsewhere — analysis, insight,” Abington told JTA. “A lot of the reporting, in hindsight, is irrelevant.”

David Makovsky, a senior analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said facts on the ground also change rapidly — a factor that helps explain how dire Israeli predictions about Iran’s imminent weapons program have dissipated, at least for now.

Part of that may be attributable to efforts by the West to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. Makovsky cited the recent success of the Stuxnet computer worm, which apparently disrupted Iranian centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to bomb-making capacity.

Much of the material in the leaked cables offers frank U.S. assessments of everything from the temperament of foreign leaders to the shipment of arms between foes of the United States.

In late 2009, U.S. officials told their Russian counterparts that they believed North Korea had shipped missiles to Iran capable of hitting capitals in western Europe. The Russians were skeptical, but agreed that there was evidence of increased cooperation between the two rogue nations and it posed new dangers.

The cables also track increasing concern among the United States, Israel, and Western nations that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is leading Turkey along a path to Islamism — and beyond the point of no return of accommodation with the West.

In Cairo, U.S. diplomats told Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that in meetings with Egyptian leaders, she should defer to Egyptian self-regard as the indispensable Arab state while acknowledging that the perception is long past its due date.

Tracking the cables that straddle the Bush and Obama administrations also demonstrates that on some matters policies have changed little, if at all.

Stuart Levey, the treasury undersecretary charged with enforcing Iran sanctions, reassured Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan in December 2008 that President Obama was as determined as George W. Bush to isolate Iran through sanctions. Within a few weeks, Obama would confirm the point by reappointing Levey to the job, ensuring consistency.

The leaks also show Iranian and Syrian duplicity. A 2008 memo, apparently from an Iranian source, details how Iran used the cover of the Iranian Red Crescent to smuggle officers into Lebanon in 2006 to assist in Hezbollah’s war against Israel. Syria apparently provided sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah within weeks of pledging to U.S. officials that it would not do so.

Some of those named in the leaks worried that their publication could inhibit frank dialogue.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) was outraged that her private exchange with Netanyahu on Iran and Palestinian issues in a 2009 meeting became public knowledge.

“If Congress has no ability to have candid conversations with foreign leaders, we won’t have some of the critical information we need to make the judgments we need to make about countries like Iran,” she told The Daily Beast.

In condemning the leaks, Clinton said Monday that they represent policymaking only in its most nascent stages. Once the heavy hitters become involved, the policy is changed. So the content of the leaked cables is not of vital importance, she argued.

“I want to make clear that our official foreign policy is not set through these messages but here in Washington,” Clinton said. “Our policy is a matter of public record, as reflected in our statements and our actions around the world.”

But the cables reveal policy discussions in blunter terms and show the inner workings of intergovernmental relationships that the parties would rather have kept private.

Saudi Arabia, for example, is shown in the cables to be beating the war drum for a U.S. attack against Iran — a stance quite different from its public posture.

In a 2008 meeting, the Saudi ambassador to United States reminds U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, about the multiple times Saudi King Abdullah called on the United States to “cut off the head of the snake” — attack Iran to stop its nuclear program.

But the message is not consistent. Other cables describe meetings in the Persian Gulf with Arab officials, including Saudis, who counsel against a strike, saying that the backlash would be incalculable.

The cables least prone to such disparity may be those that describe meetings with Israeli officials. Successive Israeli prime ministers and defense ministers all say the same things — and in the same ways that they do in briefings with reporters.

Meeting this week with Israeli reporters after WikiLeaks began publishing the cables, Netanyahu said the Israeli government takes pains to make sure the most sensitive discussions are kept private.

“It influences our work, what we do in meetings, who we bring into meetings, what we say in them, and when we narrow the meeting to two people,” he was quoted as saying by the Jerusalem Post.

The most important exchanges between the U.S. and Israeli governments are not detailed in the cables because top U.S. and Israeli political leaders speak directly to each other.

The cables leaked by WikiLeaks, about 1 percent of which have been published so far, have low secrecy classifications and were written by relatively low-level diplomats. They were stored in a computer system that more than 2 million people had clearance to access.

Newspapers reported this week that a U.S. soldier, Bradley Manning, is allegedly behind the leaks to WikiLeaks. Manning, a private, is facing trial in another leaks case.

JTA Wire Service

 
 

More than kashrut

OU convention in North Jersey spotlights programs, calls for action

image
More than 700 people came to the OU’s conference on Jewish life in Woodcliff Lake on Sunday. Courtesy the Orthodox Union

The Orthodox Union is more than just that little OU symbol on your can of baked beans, and that message was the focus on the OU’s biennial convention over the weekend in Woodcliff Lake.

More than 700 people from across the country came out to the Hilton in Woodcliff Lake, where more than 25 sessions during Sunday’s one-day conference on Jewish life focused on Torah, synagogue life, and communal life. The OU also installed its new president, Rabbi Simcha Katz of Teaneck, and passed a series of resolutions to guide the organization through the next two years.

The past three OU conventions were held in Israel, at the directive of outgoing President Stephen Savitsky, who wanted to boost the Israeli economy when it was suffering under the Palestinian intifada. When organizers decided to bring the conference stateside, Bergen County provided easy access for a large number of the OU’s members in the tri-state area, according to organizers.

One of the conference’s goals, according to Emanuel Adler, the Teaneck resident who chaired the convention, was to shine a light on the OU’s various programs and dispel the idea that the organization only provides kosher certification.

“The OU is really so much broader than OU kashrus,” Adler told The Jewish Standard after the convention. “We’re really a movement.”

Before the day’s plenary sessions, attendees watched videos highlighting such programs as NCSY, Yachad, and the OU Job Board, which showed the OU’s programmatic diversity.

“Community affairs, marriage seminars, publications … numerous services we provide to the community, our campus initiative, which is relatively new in the OU — all of these things we do really come together to make the OU that more powerful a movement,” Adler said.

The purpose of Israel’s bondage in Egypt, according to Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, considered the father of modern Orthodoxy, was to create a sense of family among the Israelites, Katz said Sunday during his inaugural speech.

“The OU in its many activities is a communal manifestation of this sense of unity and caring,” Katz said. “Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of Jewish life. We are a great unifying tent encompassing hundreds of synagogues across North America, and as such we are the central address for those issues that can best be handled on a national basis.”

The sessions

Panels at the convention were divided among three tracks: Torah life, community life, and synagogue life. Among the more than 25 sessions, Rabbi Daniel Feldman, religious leader of Teaneck’s Cong. Etz Chaim, led a discussion on “The Hidden Cost of Free Speech on the Internet,” focusing on what constitutes lashon harah in a public forum; Rabbi Menachem Genack, religious leader of Cong. Shomrei Emunah in Englewood and CEO of the OU’s kashrut division, led a discussion on contemporary issues in kashrut; and Rookie Billet, former principal of Ma’ayanot Yeshiva High School for Girls in Teaneck, led a discussion on “Dating and Mating: A Common Sense Approach for Singles, Parents, and Educators.”

“The idea is there are just so many issues and concerns that unite so many of us,” Adler said. “Being in America for the first time in eight years came as an opportunity to focus on the things we do here in the U.S.”

First-time attendee Carol Ginsberg of Monsey, N.Y., called the sessions “moving and inspiring,” while Esther-Malka Stroemer, another first-time attendee, from Teaneck, said the topics represented an “important beginning of dialogue for the Jewish community and the frum community.”

While Israeli issues played a larger role at past conventions, the Jewish state was still a major focus this year. Nathan Diament, director of the OU’s Institute for Public Affairs in Washington, moderated a panel discussion on U.S.-Israel relations, with Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor Bret Stephens and David Makovsky, director of the Washington Institute’s Project on the Middle East Peace Process.

The “cowboy diplomacy” of the Bush administration alienated many in the Muslim world, while President Obama has made a large effort to reach out to that world, Stephens said, but that has gotten the president very little in reciprocation. Obama’s government, meanwhile, has been the most hostile to Israel since President George H.W. Bush’s, Stephens added.

“What the Netanyahu government seems to be trying to do is put on a good face and wait the Obama administration out,” he said.

“What Israel ought to be doing is pointing out it faces a Palestinian population that doesn’t want a Palestinian state confined to Gaza and the west bank, but to seize Gaza and the west bank as phase one.”

Israel faces a legitimate demographic challenge from the west bank, though. “At some point it is in Israel’s interest to have a Palestinian state alongside it,” Stephens said. The question then will be how that state’s character will be defined.

“Is that state going to be different in the way that Canada is different from the United States? If that state is going to be the tip of an Iranian spear then I have a problem with it,” he said.

Makovsky reminded the audience what the Middle East was like when the late Yasser Arafat headed the P.A. and created a “culture of victimization,” and the idea that Palestinians are victims responsible for nothing but entitled to everything.

“It was terrible for Israelis but no less terrible for Palestinians,” he said.

Since then, there has been a shift in the “culture of accountability” that has given Makovsky some hope because, he said, there is a spreading belief among the Palestinians that the Palestinian cause is “not just about whining about what the Israelis are doing to us but what are we doing for us.”

“We have more hope today than we have had in a very long time,” Makovsky said. “Israel has to stand fast in what it believes in and its security, but it has every interest in encouraging a non-Hamas approach to this problem.”

After the convention, Diament told the Standard that while Stephens and Makovsky differ on many issues, “the OU is a big tent and it’s very important that we bring in front of the community divergent points of view.”

He did regret, though, that Ehud Barak’s resignation from the Labor party and Labor’s resignation from Netanyahu’s coalition came too late in the day to be included in the discussion.

The past and the future

Two plenary sessions examined the role of Jewish tradition and the Jewish community of the future.

Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president emeritus, led the first session on the mesorah, the chain of Jewish tradition, and its place in modern society.

“For me, Torah is a diamond but mesorah is the setting of the diamond. It brings out all the beauty of the diamond. It enhances it. You can remove a diamond from the setting and it remains sparkling and pure, but the beauty is in the [unity of the diamond and the] setting.”

Modernity is the opposite of mesorah, and “modern Orthodox” is actually an oxymoron, Weinreb said.

“Mesorah is the business of preserving the culture of one’s group,” he said. “We’ve suffered worse insults than being called old-fashioned and obsolete.”

The second session focused on “The Orthodox Role in the Jewish Community of Tomorrow” and included Jerry Silverman, president of Jewish Federations of North America, the umbrella group of the federation system; Marian Stoltz-Loike, dean of Lander College for Women/The Anna Ruth and Mark Hasten School of Touro College; Rabbi Jacob J. Schacter, professor of Jewish history and Jewish thought and senior scholar at Yeshiva University’s Center for the Jewish Future; Rabbi Efrem Goldberg of Boca Raton Synagogue in Boca Raton, Fla.; and Rabbi Steven Burg, international director of NCSY, and the OU’s managing director.

Rabbi Steven Weil, OU executive vice president and the panel’s moderator, asked, given the projected growth of the Orthodox community compared to other streams of Judaism in the coming decades, and if the commitment of future generations of non-Orthodox Jews weakens, what is the Orthodox responsibility to the entire Jewish community.

Silverman called on Jews and Jewish organizations to “collaborate and get in the game.”

Burg called for greater openness in the Orthodox community to welcoming the non-Orthodox.

“What we need to do as an Orthodox community is express our friendship,” he said. “And not just to people who might become Orthodox. Sometimes our shul doors are not as open as they should be.”

Insularity is the challenge of the Orthodox community, Stoltz-Loike said.

“We need to be much more open,” Goldberg said, “and say this is who we are and you may never be Orthodox at the end of the day, but there’s a friendship there and we value you as a human being.”

Too many Jews are focused on ritual instead of passion, he continued. He called for taking outreach out of the domain of the professionals and making it everybody’s concern.

“If we’re going to delegate outreach to the professionals, we’ll never make a dent,” he said. “If we’re going to make a dent [against assimilation], it won’t be with professionals. It’ll be when everybody gets involved.”

A community is different from a shul, he continued; it transcends shul.

“Let’s not be afraid to get involved,” Schacter said. “Our job is to take the world in which we live and try to elevate it; to take the Torah HaShamayim [from the heavens] and bring it down to earth and make it sing and make it meaningful and make us feel so excited about what we do so that we can transmit it via our own ambassadorship to others.”

The day was also one of transitions for the OU, which installed its new president and said goodbye to Savitsky, its president of six years, who assumed the chairmanship of the OU’s board of directors.

Many live their lives as if each day is just another day, Savitsky said during a ceremony marking the end of his three terms.

“When I came to the organization, I said I wanted every day to be yom harishon [the first day], every day is a day we can change the world,” he said, as he accepted a service award. “That’s what we’re about — looking up. If you keep looking up and keep thinking, you get closer and closer to the shechinah,” the presence of the divine.

Setting a political tone

OU members voted on a series of resolutions on Sunday to guide the organization through the next two years. Resolutions included a call for civility in public discourse; uniting with other Jewish organizations to combat the rise of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which seeks to exact economic damage on Israel; and recognizing the growing problem of childhood obesity and eating disorders.

The resolutions passed almost unanimously, said Diament, a member of the resolutions committee. While civility has become a hot-button issue in recent weeks because of the shootings in Tucson, Ariz., the OU’s call for a change in how the community handles public discourse was drafted at least a month before the assault that left six people dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others hospitalized.

“It’s very much in the spirit of what’s going on in the past week,” Diament said. “We need to have more civil discourse in the United States and that’s something everybody ought to be able to agree to.”

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement represents a “clear and present danger to Israel,” Diament said, while health is a primary concern of everyone.

Next year in…

No location has been chosen yet for the next OU convention, which will take place either in late 2012 or early 2013. Adler expected that he and other organizers would spend this week reviewing evaluations, which, he said, have been largely positive.

“There was a real buzz,” he said. “I think people that attended did get a sense of being part of a movement.”

 
 

Leaked maps show gaps in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations

WASHINGTON – This time there are maps — not that they necessarily will help.

After the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000, the Israeli and Palestinian sides bickered about who had offered what, and the competing historical narratives were adopted by either side and around the world.

This time, the proposed territorial concessions that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian negotiators discussed are visible in living color — in a set of leaked Palestinian Authority documents published by Al Jazeera (http://www.jta.org/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.aljazeera.net%2Fpalestinepapers%2F2011%2F01%2F2011122114239940577.html).

The maps are significant because they show how close the two sides are on some issues — for example, which would control certain Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem. But they also show that the gaps on other issues remain far from resolution, particularly regarding Jewish settlements deep inside the west bank.

image
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy published a proposed map for dividing the west bank, above, just before Al Jazeera published leaked map details from Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in 2008 and 2009. Washington Institute

Back in 2000, Dennis Ross, now the lead negotiator on the issue, talked President Clinton into not committing anything to paper because he said the controversy that would ensue from maps and percentage sheets outweighed the value of getting things down in writing. He especially distrusted the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Instead of squelching controversy, however, the absence of written proposals and maps stoked it.

Now the leaked maps will help keep the Palestinian and Israeli positions straight.

The map detailing Olmert’s alleged offer to the Palestinian side shows Israel giving 5.5 percent of territory in Israel proper in exchange for 6.8 percent of the west bank. The swaps that Ahmed Qureia, a former PA prime minister and a top negotiator, reportedly proposed in January 2008 to then-Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni were a 1:1 ratio and amounted to trading to Israel less than 2 percent of the west bank.

The Palestinian Authority accounts of meetings with Israeli and American interlocutors reveal many areas of agreement, most of which have been known widely for years. The Palestinians want recognition of the rights of Palestinian refugees and their descendants from Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, but they also acknowledge that the refugees ultimately will remain where they are living now.

“If the Arabs will be part of the solution, there will be no problem in this issue,” Qureia told Livni in 2008. “We have to engage countries that host the refugees.”

Such compromises appear contingent on the relationship between Palestinian and Israeli leaders. Ties between the Palestinian Authority and the Olmert government in 2008 were better than they are now between the Palestinian Authority and Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. In 2008, direct negotiations were a matter of course, not an aspiration.

How mutual suspicion affects talks is made evident in the leaked report of an October 2009 meeting between George Mitchell, the top U.S. envoy to the region, and Saeb Erekat, the lead PA negotiator. Erekat says that if Netanyahu insists on rejecting refugee rights at the outset, the “Palestinian leadership can only respond by insisting on full exercise of right of return.”

The same dynamic, in which friendlier talks lead to more expansive proposals, applies to territory. In May 2008, in another meeting with Livni, Qureia apparently outlined a deal that would allow Israel to retain a chunk of Gush Etzion, the bloc of Jewish settlements south of Jerusalem, near Bethlehem, as well as nearly all of the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. In the October 2009 meeting with Mitchell, Erekat says construction in some of those neighborhoods is inhibiting talks.

The most striking theme that recurs in the documents is how far apart the parties are when it comes to balancing Israel’s reluctance to relocate settlers with Palestinian demands for territorial contiguity in the west bank.

“In the end the whole matter isn’t merely the value of exchange but the reality of those Israelis and where they live,” Livni says in an exchange from the Jan. 27, 2008 meeting between Livni and Qureia in Jerusalem.

Qureia responds, referring to Maaleh Adumim and Givet Zeev, large west bank Jewish settlements that serve as bedroom communities for Jerusalem, “I can’t accept Maaaleh Adumim settlement as a reality because it divides the west bank, and the same goes for Givat Zeev settlement.”

If anything, the documents shatter the illusion that there is a bottom-line consensus about certain settlements being annexed to Israel in a final-status agreement. Many groups refer to these as the “everybody knows” settlements, such as Maaleh Adumim and Efrat, both near Jerusalem.

In fact, the gap is broader than expected, and helps explain why PA President Mahmoud Abbas turned down Olmert’s offer in mid-2008. Olmert refused to give Abbas the map, so Abbas scribbled it down on a paper, and it became known as a “napkin map,” which is what Al Jazeera published this week.

Another “everybody knows” myth shattered by the leaks is the notion that the Palestinians would accept as swaps Negev desert lands adjacent to the Gaza Strip. In the leaked documents, the Palestinians scoff at such swaps and want land equally as arable as the lands they would cede.

The Olmert map, in its attempt to maximize the amount of settlers Israel would retain, resembles a proposal advanced last week by David Makovksy, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington. Makovsky, who is close to Ross, says he has presented the map to officials in the Israeli, Palestinian, and U.S. governments.

“The goal of ‘Imagining the Border’ is to present a menu of options for resolving the territorial component of the conflict, meeting Palestinian demands of minimal land swaps with a 1:1 ratio while allowing Israel to annex areas containing the majority of west bank settlers,” Makovsky says.

Makovsky manages to narrow the gap between Olmert’s 6.8 percent and Qureia’s 1.9 percent to 3.7 percent, but he retains the “fingers” Olmert’s map thrust into the west bank to capture large Israeli settlements. The Palestinians insist those are unacceptable.

Sticking points seem never-ending. The Palestinians regard Latrun, an area southwest of Jerusalem secured by Israel in one of the Independence War’s bloodiest battles, as “no man’s land” because of its designation as such on some maps. They regard its retention by Israel as a concession. Israel and the international community view it as Israeli territory.

Such nitpicking has a toll.

According to the documents, Livni starts the May 4, 2008 meeting at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem dryly: “Based on what I have heard in the trilateral meeting with Condoleeza Rice, I believe that your offer will not be exciting,” she tells Qureia, referring to the then-U.S. secretary of state.

The Palestinians are unrelenting in pleading with the Americans, in meeting after meeting, to press the Israelis to freeze settlement growth.

“Everyone is saying look at what they get from violence, etc.,” Qureia tells Rice in a July 16, 2008 meeting in Washington. “Please. We need your help on settlements” and on the removal of roadblocks and other Palestinians demands.

Settlements continue to dog the talks today.

The Palestinian posture now is not to return to direct talks until Israel reinstates a freeze on Jewish building in the west bank. Palestinian allies are circulating a resolution in the U.N. Security Council that blasts Israel for settlement-building and urges a return to talks. The Obama administration is opposed to the resolution but has not said whether or not it will veto it.

Occasionally, however, the leaked documents show a surprising concession emerges from talks that the sides thought were secret.

Livni, apparently warning the Palestinians not to make an issue of Israel’s Law of Return, tells Qureia and Erekat in January 2008 that “Israel was established to become a national home for Jews from all over the world. The Jew gets the citizenship as soon as he steps in Israel, and therefore don’t say anything about the nature of Israel, as I don’t wish to interfere in the nature of your state.”

That seems to undercut a policy that she introduced and that now haunts talks: That Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

In the same exchange, Erekat also tosses aside the Palestinian doctrine that all Jewish settlers need to leave the west bank.

“We don’t mind to have settlers live as Palestinian citizens who have all rights under the Palestinian law,” he says.

JTA Wire Service

 
 

For Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Hamas’ pen is mightier than bin Laden bullet

WASHINGTON – The pen that launched the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas is likely to have more of an impact on U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the bullet that ended Osama bin Laden’s life.

In at least one respect, Sunday’s raid in Pakistan could have an indirect consequence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to experts: President Obama could try to capitalize on the boost he’s getting from bin Laden’s death to advance a peace process that Israelis and Palestinians have left fallow.

“These kinds of things always affect calculations of presidents,” said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center who has worked as a negotiator for the Clinton and both Bush administrations. “He’s thinking, ‘I’ve got a moment of unity, I feel good.’”

But ultimately, the experts say, the killing of America’s Public Enemy No. 1 may matter less to peacemaking than the willingness of the two sides to start talking again.

“The only problem for the president, who doubtless remains as obsessed with the peace process as he always has been, is that the Hamas-Fatah deal will seriously complicate matters,” said Danielle Pletka, a vice president at the American Enterprise Institute and a former top U.S. Senate aide who dealt with foreign policy.

The new Palestinian unity government makes it harder for Obama to use any additional leverage he has from bin Laden’s killing to push for Israeli-Palestinian peace, she said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu already was planning a major announcement on the Israeli-Palestinian issue in his address to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress later this month, his aides have said.

But after news broke last week of the unity deal between Fatah, the party controlling the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas, the terrorist group that governs the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu warned PA President Mahmoud Abbas that Israel won’t deal with a government that includes Hamas. Netanyahu has the support of a long list of Congress members.

With the inking of the Hamas-Fatah deal in Cairo on Tuesday, all pressure is off, said David Makovsky, a senior analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“What Abbas has done in a stroke of the pen has helped win domestic peace, but he’s also helped Netanyahu,” Makovsky told JTA. “It will be hard to pressure Netanyahu when there’s a power-sharing deal with Hamas. He’s extricated Netanyahu from the pressure.”

Obama has indicated his displeasure with the Fatah-Hamas deal, which was set to kick in Wednesday, but he has not committed to cutting off U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority.

If Obama was contemplating releasing his own parameters for Israeli-Palestinian peace ahead of Netanyahu’s speech, as has been reported, he is more likely to do so now given the success with bin Laden, Miller said.

“It would not surprise me if the administration gave a much more forward-leading speech, although it will be tough to rationalize in light of Hamas-Fatah,” Miller said. “Abbas has given Netanyahu a gift that will not stop giving.”

If the bin Laden killing has any effect on Netanyahu come the third week of May, when he delivers his speech in Congress, it will be to reinforce his claim that Israel and the United States are in the same boat when it comes to terrorism, Makovsky said.

“There’s no doubt that Netanyahu will try to associate Israel with Hamas like America is associated with al-Qaida,” he said.

That’s a view that would garner sympathy in Congress and with the American public, Miller said.

“It’s not the right time for a fight with the Israelis,” Miller said. “Running a counterterrorism operation against Enemy No. 1 is a far cry from bringing pressure on a close American ally.”

JTA Wire Service

 
 
 
Page 1 of 1 pages
 
 
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31