US presents plan for PA to defer UN bid for one year
AP
The US and its allies changed tactics on how to avert a crisis over a Palestinian statehood bid, as the White House announced Tuesday that President Barack Obama would meet Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. At the same time, US officials conceded they could not stop Abbas from officially launching his case for the Security Council’s approval of the statehood effort.
But they hoped to contain the fallout by urging Abbas not to push for an actual vote in the Council, where the US has promised a veto, to give international peacemakers time to produce a statement that would be the basis for resumed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Obama is expected to make a pro forma request to Abbas when they meet Wednesday not to proceed with his initial plan, but also make the case for the Palestinian leader to essentially drop the move for statehood recognition after delivering his letter of intent to the UN, expected Friday.
“The president will be able to say very directly why we believe that action at the United Nations is not the way to achieve a Palestinian state,” said Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser. He noted that Abbas has indicated his intent to go the Security Council, but said Obama “has made it clear that we do not believe that that will lead to a Palestinian state, that we oppose such efforts.”
Obama will also meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday.
The new approach would see the Quartet of Mideast peace mediators — the US, European Union, United Nations and Russia — issue a statement addressing both Palestinian and Israeli concerns and setting a timetable for a return to the long-stalled peace talks, officials said.
Israel would have to accept its pre-1967 borders with land exchanges as the basis for a two-state solution, and the Palestinians would have to recognize Israel’s Jewish character if they were to reach a deal quickly, officials close to the talks said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing diplomacy.
Mediators less than optimistic
European officials, supported by the United States, were presenting the contours of a compromise agreement to the Israeli and Palestinian governments and asking for tough concessions from each. Officials said several extremely challenging hurdles were leading to some pessimism as to whether mediators would be able to bring Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, with both sides being pressed to accept positions they’ve long deemed anathema to their visions of a two-state peace pact.
The difficult diplomacy reflected in some ways the intractability of a dispute that has foiled would-be peacemakers for decades, even though none of the actual elements of a final agreement was being discussed.
Quartet envoys met for a third straight day in New York to come up with a formula that would lead to direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The goal is to reach a comprehensive agreement that would address this week’s three major issues, officials said.
The Palestinians would be allowed to deliver their letter of request Friday to the United Nations, but the Palestinians would not act on it for a year or would withdraw it at a later point. That would allow Abbas to save face and prevent an embarrassing defeat that might empower his party’s rival faction, Hamas, which is considered a terrorist group by Israel and the United States.
The Palestinians could also go to the UN General Assembly, where they have overwhelming support, but would have to seek instead some form of intermediate upgrade that would stop short of a full recognition of statehood.
And the quartet, with Israel and the Palestinians’ advance approval, would give the two sides a year to reach a framework agreement, based on Obama’s vision of borders fashioned from Israel’s pre-1967 boundary, with agreed land swaps. The statement would also endorse the idea of “two states for two peoples, Jewish and Palestinian,” which would be a slightly amended version of Israel’s demand for recognition specifically as a “Jewish state.”
So far, neither side seemed willing to make such a dramatic concession, officials said. There was also some disagreement among the Quartet with Russia expressing its displeasure with a number of EU and US supported ideas, they said. And they cautioned that the agreement could cause the same conundrum at next year’s UN General Assembly meeting if talks fail to advance by then.
I find it charming to see the State Department pitching that fare through Mr. Obama.
Price tag? It is anyone’s guess. Friday’s speeches may shed some light on this, or not.
In Eretz Israel the State Department lost two of their top line wotkers, Barak and Livni. And a large contingent of lesser peons. One is unlikely to be in Parliament next elections and the snake skinned lass will see most of her followers gone as well.
I would wait and see the outcome of the SD course correction or is it?
I’m with you on this one.
I’ve been asking the same question.
Barak’s lisping obsequiousness came damned near to making me lose my lunch.
My long standing position for many reasons is that Israel should not be receiving aid from any nation especially the USA. It isn’t that much and we are not so poor that we need it. The latest example of the Cost of US aid: Heron drones
Israel lost the Russian market for mid-range Heron drones. Under US pressure, Israel refused to sell them, and the Russians are now engineering their own version.
We lose much more from the White House’s restrictions on our weapons sales than we gain from the US aid.
Israel receives the same nominal value of aid from America as we did in 1982, inflation and the skyrocketing cost of American arms has reduced in relationship to 1982 dollars about $500 million.
In a single speech Obama has returned all or most of his shaky Jewish loyalists and their political financial donations. BB, Barak and Lieberman praised him to the heavens, which will be used in all his campaigning from her on out. BB has just thrown the Republicans under the bus, pending further developments. My question is: What was the real price tag exacted from BB for Obama’s speech? America never gave Israel anything without quid pro quo??
“considered” a terrorist group?
The AP is such a gaggle of pussies.
We should call them on their use of this imbecilic, candy-assed formula
— as in, “considered a terrorist group?
“You mean you’re not sure?
“Either Hamas is — or it isn’t — a terrorist group.
“The question is not matter of ‘opinion.’
“WTF would you call an outfit that deliberately & routinely targets noncombatants for death (or intentionally makes no distinction betw military & civilian targets), with the express intent of instilling fear in the targeted populace, and for the purpose of politically intimidating the government representing that populace?
“You got another name for it?”
It’s a mistake — and a serious one — to allow the MSM to get away with setting such a (non)standard for the use of language. If there are no objective criteria for the meanings of words, then whoever controls the mass media controls the language, and whoever controls that controls the PUBLIC AGENDA. It’s inescapable.
This is a lesson the Left learned long ago. . . .
Another reason for moving US’s Israel funding from foreign aid to the defense budget.
The way things are proceeding, this could be the demise of Obama. He satisfies neither side, and is failing his paymasters.
Wishful thinking? I hope not.
No they wouldn’t. They would cheer them on.
You got that right.
Finish your thought completely.
What if the average american is tired of paying for welfare to foreigners? We can’t afford it. It’s unfair. It is interventionist and entangles us in the internal affairs and politics of other nations.
Palestinian statehood: when everyone is bluffing
Abbas and Obama A year ago, without thinking much, Obama said to the UN that next year he hopes to see Palestine among its members. The PLO’s leadership took him at his word and launched a campaign for UNGA statehood recognition. Now the White House is pressing Abbas to abstain—not so much because of Israel, but to avoid discrediting Washington as the regional broker.
Abbas would be happy to abandon the bid for statehood, but he cannot. His refusal to prosecute Israel in the UN over the Gaza war still reverberates in Palestinian society, and backing down from the campaign for UN recognition might well bring him down. His international credibility will also hit new lows if he withdraws after Arab countries have decided to support his bid.
The US will not cut Palestinian aid, as the White House has threatened to do if Abbas goes to the UN. The US provides aid to several non-compliant regimes, including Pakistan and Egypt, and cannot cut aid to Palestine, if only because it supports Israel as well, and needs to appear evenhanded. Indeed, Abbas would gain a lot by going to the UNGA: at home and abroad he will be seen as a strong statesman defying the Americans.
Foreign Ministry of what state?
Lieberman’s Foreign Ministry is pressuring the EU and US to aid the PA, despite its unilateral UN bid.
Only Jews can be that masochistic.
The PA will not accept Israel as a Jewish State but wants a Muslim State free of Jews.
The above is a complete non-starter for any negotiations!
Even anti-Israel supporters would surely be shocked if this new Muslim State started forcibly removing 500,000 Jews from their homes.
And Israel would sit back and watch?
Why does Abbas refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish State?
He wants millions of Muslims to return (700,000 left) to Israel but can’t insist on that if Israel is a Jewish State.