.

This was a follow-up to Ahmad Dari’s earlier observations on the mission of former U.S. Special Envoy, George Mitchell, posted on Youtube here:

.

The Palestinian leadership gave the USA an additional four days — until 30 September — to keep trying.

But, there was no movement.

After that, the rump PLO leadership and the Fatah Central Committee meet in the Presidential headquarters in Ramallah, and urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to stop “direct” talks with Israel as long as there is any settlement construction going on. Following Saturday’s meeting, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Secretary of the PLO Executive Committee, said that “The leadership confirms that the resumption of talks requires tangible steps, the first of them a freeze on settlements”…

Netanyahu said there should be no preconditions.

An Arab League summit meeting is due to convene in Sirte, Libya, on 8 October. Palestinian proposals to have earlier emergency consultations with the Arab League have been cancelled.

Fatah Central Committee member Mohammad Dahlan was reported by Ma’an News Agency as saying that Abbas will tender his resignation when the Arab League summit meeting does open. Dahlan is in charge of the Media portfolio for Fatah. His comments are reported here.

[So, Abbas will not resign in front of his own people, but rather in front of Arab leaders?]

Meanwhile, Abbas is saying he still intends to work with the U.S. to find a solution…

Meanwhile, Haaretz’s Barak Ravid reports on Sunday that, so far, “Netanyahu refused to hold a serious discussion on any of the core issues apart from security, Abbas reportedly told diplomats he met at the UN General Assembly. Israeli and foreign sources say the main problem is that Netanyahu refuses to present fundamental positions or discuss the borders of the Palestinian state … Five Israeli and foreign diplomats, who were briefed about the Netanyahu-Abbas meetings by one of the parties or by senior American officials, said prospects for progress in the talks remained gloomy, even if the construction crisis were solved. The two first meetings, held during the talks’ launch in Washington on September 2 and at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit on September 14, mainly dealt with technical matters like the order of the topics to be discussed and the future of the construction freeze in the settlements. The first meeting dealt with setting a date for the next meeting and with formulating a ‘conduct code’ for the talks, mainly to prevent leaks. They also discussed the construction freeze and what to discuss first – security or borders. After the second meeting, Mitchell said the parties had discussed seriously and in detail core issues of the final status arrangement. But officials briefed about that meeting said it dealt with an attempt to define the ‘core issues’ rather than presenting positions on them. The sources said this discussion was strange as at least two Israeli governments had reached an agreement with the Palestinians on this issue. The sources said the sterile discussion about whether to discuss borders or security first, or both issues simultaneously, continued. Mitchell described the third meeting, held on September 15 in Jerusalem, as very positive and said it made considerable progress. Here too officials familiar with the talks said the opposite is true. Abbas presented Netanyahu with all the details of his talks with former prime minister Ehud Olmert and the current Palestinian stands on borders, security, the refugees, Jerusalem and the settlements. Netanyahu refused to comment on the Palestinian positions, especially on the borders, and would only present his position on the security arrangements. Abbas was ‘alarmed’ to hear at that meeting that Netanyahu was interested in reaching a framework agreement within a year, but in implementing it over a period of at least 20 years, a European diplomat said … A source close to the prime minister confirmed that Netanyahu refused to go into core issues such as the borders in detail“. This report is posted here.

“The representatives of the Quartet reaffirm their strong support for direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve all final status issues. The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements, including in Trieste on 26 June 2009, in New York on 24 September 2009, and its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010 which provides that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should ‘lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors’. The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year, and the implementation of an agreement”…

The statement continues: “The Quartet again calls on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric. Welcoming the result of the Arab Peace Initiative Committee in Cairo on July 29, the Quartet notes that success will require sustained regional and international support for the negotiations and the parallel process of Palestinian state-building and the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace as envisaged in the Madrid terms of reference, Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative. The Quartet Principals intend to meet with their colleagues from the Arab League in September in New York to review the situation. Accordingly, the Quartet calls on the Israelis and the Palestinians to join in launching direct negotiations on September 2 in Washington, D.C. to resolve all final status issues and fulfill the aspirations of both parties”.

An announcement was made at the U.S. State Department in Washington by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton:
“Since the beginning of this Administration, we have worked with the Israelis and Palestinians and our international partners to advance the cause of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution which ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians. The President and I are encouraged by the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas and fully share their commitment to the goal of two states – Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. After proximity talks and consultations with both sides, on behalf of the United States Government, I’ve invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on September 2nd in Washington, D.C. to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year. President Obama has invited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort. Their continued leadership and commitment to peace will be essential to our success. The President will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders followed by a dinner with them on September 1st. The Quartet Representative Tony Blair has also been invited to the dinner in view of his important work to help Palestinians build the institutions of their future state, an effort which must continue during the negotiations. I’ve invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to join me here at the State Department on the following day for a trilateral meeting to re-launch direct negotiations. As we move forward, it is important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it. There have been difficulties in the past; there will be difficulties ahead. Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles. The enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail these talks. But I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even through difficult times, and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region. As we have said before, these negotiations should take place without preconditions and be characterized by good faith and a commitment to their success, which will bring a better future to all of the people of the region”.

The invitation was immediately snapped up by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, but Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ response was still forthcoming on Friday night.

Indirect talks were supposed to have started in March, but actually began only in May; some 6 or 7 rounds were held in the region.

The Annapolis process of direct negotiations that began under former U.S. President George W. Bush in November 2007, with the aim of creation of a Palestinian state within one year, came to a screeching halt at the end of December 2008, when Israel launched a massive three-week military assault against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was said to have offered terms of a deal in September 2008, and Palestinian President Abbas had also outlined some part of a position, but no agreement was reached. The Palestinian leadership wants any new talks to begin where they left off in late 2008.

***********************

With Hillary Clinton standing at his side, the U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East Peace Process, George Mitchell, fielded journalists’ questions on Friday afternoon on Washington. Here are some excerpts from the exchange:

“QUESTION: Can you tell us what was the turning point here? What was it that got the – that overcame the final snags to get them to come back to direct talks?

MR. MITCHELL: “We believe it’s the recognition by the parties themselves, by their leaders – Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas – that the best outcome is an agreement which results in two states living side by side in peace and security, and that the only way that can be achieved is through direct negotiations between the parties in which the United States will be an active and sustained participant, and with the full support of our many friends and allies around the world, including, of course, specifically, the Quartet … I think it’s the cumulative result of the efforts made over that time and the recognition by the parties that this is the right time. We will be active participants and there is broad support, as you know, by members of the Quartet and others around the world. But in the end, these decisions will be made by the parties themselves … All permanent status issues will be on the table. It will be for the parties themselves to decide the manner by which they should be addressed … We are all well aware that there remains mistrust between the parties, a residue of hostility developed over many decades of conflict, many previous efforts that have been made to resolve the conflict that had not succeeded, all of which takes a very heavy toll on both societies and their leaders. In addition, we all know that, as with all societies, there are differences of opinion on both sides on how best to proceed, and as a result, this conflict has remained unresolved over many decades and through many efforts. We don’t expect all of those differences to disappear when talks begin. Indeed, we expect that they will be presented, debated, discussed, and that differences are not going to be resolved immediately. But we do believe that peace in the Middle East, comprehensive peace, including, but not limited to, an end to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, is very much in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, of all people in the region; it’s in the national security interests of the United States, and therefore, we are going to continue to pursue that objective with patience, perseverance, and determination. We know that will be difficult. We know, as the Secretary said, there will be obstacles. But we’re going to proceed, as I said, with patience, perseverance, and determination … I will say that I believe that it is very much in the interest of people in both societies that there be an end to this conflict enabling both to live in peace and security. And I believe that their leaders believe and understand that, and therefore, notwithstanding the many difficulties that they face – and we recognize those difficulties – this is the best course for them … And we approach this task with the same determination to succeed notwithstanding the difficulties and notwithstanding the inability to get a final result so far, including past efforts. But past efforts at peace that did not succeed cannot deter us from trying again, because the cause is noble and just and right for all concerned … the cause is so important, so right, so just, that our continued effort is the right thing to do, and we are going to pursue it with determination. I believe that the two leaders themselves, President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, are sincere and serious and believe that it can be done, and we will do everything humanly possible to help them see that it is done … We have been in consultation with both. We expect to hear from them shortly, but it will be their decisions on whether to accept”.
…

QUESTION: Yeah. Do both parties have to ask for the U.S. to step in with its bridging proposals, or is it enough for one party to ask for that bridging proposal?

MR. MITCHELL: We’re getting a little bit ahead of the game now to be speculating on what may or may not occur well into the process. As I stated earlier, this is a direct bilateral negotiation with the active and sustained support of the United States. And we will make bridging proposals at such time as we deem necessary and appropriate. But I don’t want anyone to have the impression that we are somehow going to supplant or displace the roles of the parties themselves, nor do we have any view other than that this must, in the end, be an agreement by the parties themselves.

…

QUESTION: … One technical question and then a real question. On September the 2nd – is that – are they actually – are you actually launching direct talks on September the 2nd, or are the leaders getting together with the Secretary to discuss the re-launching of direct talks? And the other thing: What role, if any, does Hamas have in this process?

MR. MITCHELL: The first question is yes, we are launching direct negotiations beginning on September 2nd. And the second question is:  None.

QUESTION: Senator, is re-launching the direct negotiations without preconditions means that we are re-launching the direct negotiations without terms and references?

MR. MITCHELL: Only the parties can determine terms of reference and basis for negotiations, and they will do so when they meet and discuss these matters. As you know, both we and the Quartet have previously said that the negotiations should be without preconditions.

QUESTION: … Can you tell us whether they’re going to start from scratch, or will they build on what talks that – during the Olmert period? And the second question is whether Israel is expected to continue the freeze. Do you think that they’ll continue the freeze? Do you think the Palestinians will continue their boycott of settler goods?

MR. MITCHELL: The parties themselves will determine the basis on which they will proceed in the discussions, in response to your first question. In response to the second, our position on settlements is well-known and remains unchanged. We’ve always made clear that the parties should promote an environment that is conducive to negotiations. And as the Secretary said in her statement a few moments ago, it’s important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it.

QUESTION: Senator, just to follow up on that and a previous question, your position is well-known on settlements, but the Israelis, when they’ve chosen to, have ignored it and gone ahead with settlement construction as they’ve seen fit to do. Do you have any understanding from them that they will not do that this time? And referring to the earlier question on Hamas and your quick answer that they will have no role, how do you get around the fact, even in the best of all circumstances that you negotiate an agreement, how do you get around the fact that Hamas is playing a huge role in Gaza?

MR. MITCHELL: With respect to the first question, let’s be clear that the declaration of the moratorium itself last November was a significant action, which has had a significant effect on new housing construction starts in the West Bank. And as I said, our position on settlements is well-known, remains unchanged, and we expect both parties to promote an environment conducive to negotiations. With respect to Hamas, let’s be clear. Hamas won a legislative election. They acknowledge the continued executive authority of President Abbas and his team, and it is entirely appropriate that we negotiate with the executive head of that government. When Democrats regained control of the Congress in 2006, that didn’t end President Bush’s tenure as president, and others who wanted to negotiate with the United States negotiated with the legally elected and then-chief of our executive branch of government. And that is the situation here.
…
QUESTION: Senator Mitchell, is it your understanding that this would be a shelf agreement, something to take effect at a later date when political conditions in the Palestinian territories allow, or is it your understanding that this is something that would take effect in a very short period after it was agreed?

MR. MITCHELL: That’s obviously subject to the results of the negotiations. We are not creating limitations or restraints upon what the parties may agree to. Our hope is that there will be an agreement that will end the conflict for all time and will result in the establishment of a viable, democratic, and independent state of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel.
…

QUESTION: Hi, thanks for taking our questions. The Palestinian press has reported that the U.S. put the harshest pressure to date on the Palestinians to get them into the talks. What I want to know is why did the U.S. feel that this was the time, in the Palestinians’ view, to bully the Palestinians into talking, considering the politics of the Israeli administration right now?

MR. MITCHELL: The United States position has been well-known from the time that this administration entered office. We have and we do favor direct negotiation between the parties to resolve the conflict and to produce an agreement that results in two states living side by side in peace and security. We have encouraged the two parties to enter into such negotiations and they have now agreed. And we are – we believe it’s the right thing to do, we think that both of the leaders believe it’s the right thing to do, and we believe it’s in the best interests of the people they represent.
…
QUESTION: Senator, do you understand that – you expect Abbas to accept entering these talks without preconditions?

MR. MITCHELL: Both the United States and the Quartet have said that we believe there should be direct talks without preconditions. And we also have said many times that we think that these talks should be conducted in a positive atmosphere in which the parties refrain from taking any steps that are not conducive to making progress in the discussions, that negotiate seriously and in good faith. And in all of these respects, we think that there is a basis for making progress.

QUESTION: So the talks won’t be based on the Quartet statement of March 19?

MR. MITCHELL: The parties are the only ones who can determine what the basis of their discussions are, and that is the case.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Senator, so many Palestinians, as you know, and Arabs believe peace with the actual Israeli Government is practically impossible because of its nature, past statement regarding refugees, Jerusalem, et cetera. Aren’t you concerned that by setting this one-year deadline, you’ll probably be raising expectations just like a la Camp David and all what happened after that?

MR. MITCHELL: The reality is, of course, that there are some in both societies who do not believe that the other side is serious, who do not trust the other side, who do not wish to proceed with the other side. And if we accept the premise that because some in one or both societies hold these views that we cannot proceed, then of course, what we are doing is consigning all of those people to never-ending conflict, never-ending difficulties. We simply don’t believe that’s a proper basis for any country, and certainly not ours, the United States, on which to base its policy. We believe that the best course of action is the direct negotiations that result in a peace agreement ending this conflict and resulting in two states living side by side in peace and security. We believe the only way to achieve that is through direct negotiations. We believe that if those negotiations are conducted seriously and in good faith, they can produce such an agreement within 12 months. And that is our objective. We acknowledge, we recognize, as you have just stated, that there are many who don’t believe that, many who don’t want that, many who will act to prevent that. But their lack of belief, their contrary views, their contrary actions cannot serve to prevent us from trying to deal with this conflict, nor can it prevent the leaders of those countries who both recognize that the interests of their people, the future of their societies rests upon resolving this conflict and achieving the kind of peace and stability and security from which they will all benefit.

***********************

Laura Rozen wrote on Politico.com that “Even staunch administration supporters were struck that Clinton’s Friday announcement was noticeably short on details concerning how the talks would proceed. Several suggested the actual format for the talks and the core issues to be discussed do not appear to have yet been worked out or agreed to by the parties. But some who watch the process closely saw reason for hope that the renewed American involvement and the new deadline would bring, if not resolution, real progress. ‘The hope of a comprehensive deal within a year is a bit overly ambitious, but I think there’s a chance with security and borders’, said David Makovsky, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ‘Jerusalem and refugees are harder’, he said, because they are so central to the identities of the two sides. ‘Neither leader has conditioned the societal landscape to be conducive to breakthrough’, he said. And other Washington Middle East hands said the accomplishment of getting the parties into direct negotiations shouldn’t be diminished and noted that the process itself could improve the dynamic, including by locking the parties into longer-term talks in which they might be able to narrow the gaps on contentious core issues such as refugees and Jerusalem. ‘I think they [the Obama administration] have been focusing … on actually getting the parties to the negotiations and hoping that once they are in negotiations, the dynamics will change’, the American Task Force for Palestine’s Ghaith al-Omari told POLITICO. ‘Both of them [the Israelis and Palestinians] will be locked into the process; both will have to be more responsive; the administration will have more leverage’ in the process”… This analysis is posted here.

The two men reportedly met again on Sunday, in Amman — after Mitchell had a second meeting while in the region with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. — and no details of the second meeting have been released.

But, according to the Ma’an report today, Presidential aide Nimr Hammad said “that Abbas asked first that Israel commit to a settlement freeze even for a limited period of time. He also asked that negotiations be on the basis of a withdrawal” to the lines of 4 June 1967.

The Presidential aide offered the following summary of the Friday meeting:

“Mitchell: The Israelis have requested renewed negotiations, saying they froze settlements for ten months.

“Abbas: Go to Jerusalem and see for yourself the settlement activity and Judaization of the city – you’ll see the situation on the ground looks nothing like a settlement freeze.

“Mitchell: The Israelis could take confidence-building steps like releasing prisoners, removing checkpoints, changing areas classified as “C” [according to the Oslo Accords] to “B” classification, and areas “B” to “A.”

“Abbas: This is a good thing.

“Mitchell: But there’s a prerequisite for that, resuming negotiations.

“Abbas: We welcome these ideas but not as preconditions for talks.

“After this dialogue, Mitchell suggested indirect negotiations between other parties, during which he would shuffle between other sides, including the Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese.

This summary account of last Friday’s Abu Mazen-George Mitchell talks is published here.

Separately, Ma’an also reported today that “Peace talks with the current Israeli administration are doubtful on account of its ‘stubbornness, procrastination, refusal to respond to the requirements of peace and to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state’, said member of Fatah’s Central Committee Nabil Sha’th on Tuesday”. This was reported by Ma’an here.

Meanwhile, Haaretz reported that one of its journalists have done an nvestigation on the ground in the West Bank, and discovered that “Israel claims to have eased Palestinian movement in the West Bank, but the Palestinians insist that more roadblocks have been appearing throughout the area. It turns out both Israel and the Palestinians are telling the truth, Haaretz has learned … The number of manned checkpoints across the territory has remarkably decreased, particularly those placed near central large cities – as per U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand. However, the Palestinian Authority has complained of a growing number of roadblocks. A Haaretz probe reveals that while the number of checkpoints with a consistent Israel Defense Forces presence has indeed dropped, the army has been positioning more roadblocks with only sporadic supervision on an operational basis. This phenomenon is true not only along the Green Line, but also near major cities in the northern West Bank – including Ramallah, Nablus and Tul Karm … The unmanned roadblocks have not eased movement, according to the Palestinians, because of the severe traffic jams they create. The IDF troops sporadically manning these stations tend to carry out meticulous searches, again causing severe delays and making movement slow. The IDF admitted that its troops sometimes conduct extensive searches at the unmanned roadblocks, but said such checks were warranted by specific intelligence information”. This report was published on the Haaretz website here.

On this point, YNet followed up today on an earlier report, and stated that “A senior American diplomat recently told representatives of the Israeli Defense and Foreign ministries, ‘I don’t want your security officers to check our cars. What if there are settlers among them? I will not have my people end up like (slain Prime Minister Yitzhak) Rabin’. The remark was made by Tim Laas, the regional security officer at the American Consulate in Jerusalem, during a discussion in the office of Deputy Inspector General Meir Ben-Yishai, head of security at the Israel Police. The discussion was held following a serious diplomatic incident, which took place about two months ago at the Gilboa crossing in the Jenin area, when a Defense Ministry inspectors stationed at crossing between Israel and the Palestinian Authority stopped a convoy of vehicles belonging to the American Consulate. The security guards asked the convoy passengers to identify themselves, but the latter refused to open a door or a window and barricaded themselves inside the vehicles in protest of the Israeli demand to run a security check, blocking the crossing for hours”.

The inviolability of diplomatic vehicles is something that arises episodically in the West Bank and in Gaza, as Israeli soldiers try, periodically, to erode long-standing diplomatic conventions. It is not entirely clear from the YNet report today how this is being resolved — but it sounds like yet another version of “We’ve done a thorough investigation and found that we are right and you are wrong”.

The YNet report, somewhat incomprehensibly, says that “Following the incident, the Defense Ministry filed a complaint with the Foreign Ministry against the American Embassy and is considering filing a complaint with the police against the Palestinian drivers. Laas said during the discussion, ‘It’s inconceivable that American diplomats should have to open a door to identify themselves. I find it unacceptable to have a simple guard run a security check on senior officials and diplomats. We are not a Coca Cola truck’. A representative of the American Embassy apologized for the incident during the meeting. Foreign Ministry representative Gil Lainer said that ‘there are procedures and rules and they must be honored’. Deputy Inspector General Ben-Yishai concluded the discussion by saying that the Americans acted inappropriately and that the security guards were simply trying to check the Palestinians driving the vehicles. At the end of the discussion it was decided to form new procedures, according to which only Palestinian drivers would be checked and passengers refusing to identify themselves would be detained for an unlimited period of time“. This YNet report can be read in full here.

The Director of Policy and Government Relations at the Washington-based group Americans for Peace Now (APN is a spin-off of the original Israeli Peace Now movement), Lara Friedman, wrote last week in a post entitled Democracy in jeopardy: Israel intensifying efforts to quash dissent, published here on the APN website that “It is clear to all of us who work on issues related to peace, human rights or Israeli civil society, that the government of Israel is deliberately and systematically upping the ante and increasing the pressure on those who do not toe the Israel policy line. We are seeing this in the treatment of foreigners who have anything to do with the Palestinians … We are seeing it, too, in the outrageous tactics being used against peaceful and legal protests against the situation in Sheikh Jarrah … And we are seeing this in the heavy-handed approach to foreign diplomats posted to Israel … Israel’s foreign minister is accusing diplomats of smuggling money into Gaza and is establishing a new policy requiring that diplomats and their cars be searched before entering Gaza … [n.b. - The original report is published in translation from the Hebrew on Didi Remez' blog here, which notes that Israeli authorities are vowing to conduct intensified searches at Erez crossing to prevent the transfer of amounts more than 90,000 N.I.S., or shekels, even divided among multiple vehicles ...].

Lara Friedman then comments that “In one fell swoop Israel is (a) implicitly accusing foreign diplomats of financing Hamas and (b) throwing away hundreds of years of diplomatic custom that makes diplomats (their persons and their vehicles) immune from search. Does Israel seriously expect diplomats to agree to this? Of course not, but the result will be a ‘chilling effect’ – as in, no country will agree to have its diplomats subjected to such treatment and therefore diplomats will stop going to Gaza. This is just the latest effort to make life difficult for diplomats whose job it is to deal with the Palestinians.  Precedents include the harassment of US diplomats entering and exiting the West Bank, under the pretext that they might be smuggling Palestinians into Israel.  The implication, of course, is that Israel cannot trust US diplomats – like General Keith Dayton – not to smuggle terrorists into Israel. (The original headline of the linked article, which ran as a Jerusalem Post ‘exclusive’, read ‘US consulate car tried to run over checkpoint guard‘ – this is the headline that still shows up in google and in the tab on the top of the JPost page; it was subsequently amended to ‘nearly runs over guard’ – perhaps after a US protest – but the original has been copied all over the internet) … We are also seeing this with attacks – some by the government, some by Knesset firebrands and their supporters (and not opposed in any way publicly by the government) – on funding for Israeli NGOs working on these issues”…

Meanwhile, Akiva Eldar reported in Haaretz today that “Monday morning, as George Mitchell was on the way home from another diplomatic mission short on breakthroughs, Saeb Erekat did not sound dismayed. On the contrary, the head of the Palestinian negotiation team vehemently argued that the American envoy’s last visit actually moved up the moment of truth for the White House. The veteran adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s favorite move of throwing the ball into the Palestinians’ court stopped working with the Americans. They are patiently waiting for the prime minister’s answer to two questions: First, is he ready for the negotiations to pick up where they left off at the end of the former prime minister Ehud Olmert’s term? Second, does he accept the principle that the territory transferred to a Palestinian state will be the same size as the territory captured by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza during the Six-Day War. The international community’s patience, Erekat concluded, is wearing thin. Erekat is not alone in his thinking. Over the weekend, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pointed at Israel as not only the one responsible for the stagnation in the diplomatic process, but also for the thawing of the freeze on construction in the settlements. Two months after the government decision on November 26 to freeze construction in Jewish settlements for 10 months, you’d have to be blind, an idiot, or a member of the Yesha Council of settlements to use the term ‘freeze’ to describe the real estate situation in Judea and Samaria … The Civil Administration confirmed that the freeze also applied to industrial and commercial zones, and that surveys conducted last week in the Ariel region found several violations of the freeze order and an injunction to halt the construction was even issued. So what? As mentioned, two days ago Haaretz documented bulldozers at work there (and also in the Barkan industrial zone) … It seems that the freeze on the construction of new industrial zones in national priority zones of the government in the heart of the West Bank is not at the top of the defense minister’s list of priorities. He apparently was busy upgrading the status of Ariel University Center of Samaria. Netanyahu’s colleagues will probably explain to the Americans that besides for the settlers, factories also experience natural growth”. This Akiva Eldar report can be read in full here.

“Why have the Palestinians failed?

“We failed, it is true, partly because of our inability to negotiate or to understand negotiating, and partly because of our corruption. Still worse, while playing politics, while running after a state, we allowed the living conditions of our people to deteriorate significantly. Twenty years ago, Palestinians in Gaza had no political rights, but they could travel to the West Bank, or even to Tel Aviv, to work there, go to the beach, to the restaurant. But we also failed because of the other party, which didn’t want to give us anything. Today, the Israeli dynamic goes against any concession. They no longer see the need for a compromise. The Israelis think more than ever in a Machiavellian way, believing that force is the only thing that matters, that it is the only guarantee of survival. Why would they be interested in negotiations?…

What do you recommend today?

The latest plan I have proposed is a letter I sent six months ago to Obama and George Mitchell. I suggested they should immediately stop the negotiations, which have become useless; all the issues have been more or less settled, only the unsolvable points remain. Instead, the United States should propose its own solution to the remaining problems. Each side would put forward this plan to its own people in a referendum. The vote would take place on the same day, and the result would be conditional upon the acceptance of the other party”

These excerpts are from the translation posted on the Lawrence of Cyberia blog here.  The full original text, in French, is published here.

**************************

[Another exchange from the interview with Sari Nusseibeh published by Le Figaro that Lawrence of Cyberia posted, which shows a slightly less pessimistic attitude, is this:

“What will happen to the Palestinians without a state?

We are still there, and that’s the paradox: in 1948, the Israelis wanted to create a state without Palestinians, and they almost succeeded in driving them out.  In 1967, their victory reunited the refugees with those who had remained in Israel. We were scattered, they brought us back together. The Israelis are sowing their own failure by their success. The colonization of Jerusalem and the West Bank, which makes impossible a two-state solution, will force Israel to live with a sizeable Arab population and to reconsider its democratic system“.

For that matter, neither is George Mitchell a Brent Scowcroft, either …

When Mitchell’s appointment was announced in January, a day or two after Obama’s inauguration, it seemed clear that Mitchell would report to the President. When Hilary Clinton visited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the Palestinian Presidential Headquarters in the Muqata’a on 11 March, she indicated that Mitchell reports to both her and to Obama.

Helena reported in this posting on her blog yesterday that one of her “(regrettably anonymous) sources in the administration” … said that “It is very important that there is no daylight between any of the three of them”.

OK.

Then, Helena wrote, “it seems the staffing pieces are starting to fall into place. Mitchell will have, it turns out, four people who will report directly to him. Their exact job titles seem not to be clear– whether they will be “deputies”, or “chief of staff”, or something else…. But the important thing is these four will be expected to coordinate closely with each other and each will report directly to Mitchell”.

Helena’s report continued: “They are:

Gen. Keith Dayton, the guy who’s been running the fairly controversial (in Palestinian circles) effort to train up a pro-Abbas Palestinian security force. He will apparently carry on doing what he is doing– and presumably will also be heavily involved in discussions on the security regime in the OPTs in the context of further Israeli withdrawals. But from now on, he’ll be part of the Mitchell operation, and reporting to Mitchell.

David Hale, until now a deputy assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, and formerly I think Ambassador to Jordan. Hale has been traveling with Mitchell this week. I think the expectation will be that he’ll be the person who’ll go to Jerusalem to set up the office the Mitchell operation will be opening there. (Let’s hope it is of considerably more use all round than the ridiculously expensive and under-performing office that Tony Blair has been maintaining in the American Colony Hotel for the past couple of years…. Also, does this mean curtains for Tony? I certainly hope so.)

Fred Hof. Hof is a longtime Middle East expert, whose principal expertise is in the Syrian-Israeli-Lebanese nexus. But he was also chief of staff of the 2000-2001 Mitchell Commission, which reported on the causes of the outbreak of the Second Intifada, and drafted the commission’s April 2001 report. So Hof knows a lot about Palestinian affairs, too. He will be working primarily from Washington, backing up Mitchell’s efforts on both the Palestinian and Syrian tracks.

Mara Rudman, who worked in the Clinton-era National Security Council and has until now been the executive secretary of the Obama NSC. She has also been traveling with Mitchell this week. Her responsibility on the team will apparently include managing its efforts to coordinate with all the other arms of the federal government. She’s also pretty well connected to various parts of the US Jewish community”.

Today, there was this exchange between the U.S. State Department Spokesperson, and journalists in Washington:

“QUESTION: Senator Mitchell, any more details on his trip for the Gulf? And what’s his position and what’s the Administration’s position on the Saudi peace initiative?

MR. WOOD: You mean the Arab peace initiative?

QUESTION: Yeah, that was sponsored by Saudi Arabia in 2002.

MR. WOOD: Yeah, yeah, I don’t have any update on it. I mean, we still think that it has utility and – but I don’t have any update beyond what we’ve said before” …

This exchange continued:

“QUESTION: Will it be mentioned to the Netanyahu government?

MR. WOOD: There will be a number of issues that Senator Mitchell will be raising with the Israeli Government with regard to the peace process, so I certainly think that’s something that – I would be surprised if it didn’t come up. I don’t have anything beyond what I said yesterday in terms of his travel here. And yes, this is what I gave you yesterday. No update. Sorry”.

This is just a little offhanded. Perhaps Mitchell will have more intensity…

The Israeli press is reporting that, after this trip, Mitchell will return approximately every three weeks, and will open an office in Jerusalem.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli officials do not expect any confrontation with the when Middle East envoy George Mitchell has his first meetings with Binyamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister. The JPost article stated that “neither the new Obama administration nor the Netanyahu government has completed its respective policy review. The prevailing sense in Jerusalem, the Post has learned, is that the Obama polices do not differ too greatly from those of the former Bush administration when it comes to the Middle East, regarding neither a two-state solution nor the settlements” And, the article said, Netanyahu is expected to put together his own initiative, which he will present on his first visit in office to Washington in May.