In the last ten days there have been two so called summit meetings in Europe, one in Paris and the other in Moscow. They have had distinctively different outcomes.
The first summit meeting was called by the French and it was billed as a peace conference to come up with a formula to end the Arab-Israeli conflict without the involvement of representatives of either Israel or the Palestinian Authority. To call the meeting a flop is being charitable. It was a total failure. Nothing happened. No agreements were reached. No proposals were even floated. There wasn't even much attention paid to the meeting by the world.
The second summit meeting also got little attention around the world. Israeli prime minister Netanyahu met in Moscow with the president of Russia Vladimir Putin. It was the fourth meeting between the two men in less than a year. Netanyahu was given a warm welcome by the Russians. Putin want Israeli cooperation with regard to Syria and Russia's foreign adventures in that country. Netanyahu wants Russian support for Israel's position with regard to the Palestinians. It may be too soon to say that the two leaders trust each other, but they are clearly moving towards cooperation between their countries.
These meetings are particularly important given the trial balloon put up by president Obama this week. It was leaked in Washington that next November, after the US presidential election is over, Obama plans to allow the passage of a resolution in the UN Security Council condemning Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and perhaps also recognizing a Palestinian state. That would be a reversal of decades of American foreign policy, and it would be done with minimal political cost for Obama and the Democrats because there would be two years until the next election. For the last fifty years, ever since Israel captured the West Bank in the Six Day War, America's position has been that for peace to be successful, it has to be negotiated between the parties and not imposed from outside. There have been many attempts at negotiation. For example, when Bill Clinton was in office, Israel offered to return over 99% of the West Bank and Gaza and to agree to essentially every Palestinian demand except the right for any Palestinians to settle in Israel proper; what the Israelis demanded in return was recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and peace. Yassir Arafat, then the Palestinian leader, rejected the offer and started a string of terror attacks instead. That was roughly the time that the Israeli minister Abba Eban famously said that "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." In any event, the USA had demanded negotiations between the parties as the basis for any settlement. It has also demanded peace as a condition to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Obama's move in the UN would abandon all that.
It would be very interesting if we get to November and the UN Security Council tries to pass Obama's stab in the back of Israel and the Russians veto it. It is certainly something that is not out of the realm of possibility. We know that Putin does not care about Obama and his reaction. That will be particularly true if Obama only has a month or two left in office. Putin would care about Assad in Syria and Iran, his allies in the region. He might also care about the Sunni countries like the Saudis and the Egyptians. Most likely, however, neither the Saudis or the Egyptians would object to a Russian veto. After all, they want a strong Israel to help protect them against terrorists and Iran. Meanwhile, Assad would not want to have an actively hostile Israel on his southern flank. There is too much military might right on his doorstep for Assad to want to stir things up with Israel. Even Iran might acquiesce to a Russian veto. Remember, Iran's main regional goal is to keep Assad in power. The Iran's are enemies of the Palestinians, especially Hamas. While Iran does not like Israel (to put it mildly), they may well be willing to go along with a Putin veto (silently of course) in order to shore up Assad's position.
The first summit meeting was called by the French and it was billed as a peace conference to come up with a formula to end the Arab-Israeli conflict without the involvement of representatives of either Israel or the Palestinian Authority. To call the meeting a flop is being charitable. It was a total failure. Nothing happened. No agreements were reached. No proposals were even floated. There wasn't even much attention paid to the meeting by the world.
The second summit meeting also got little attention around the world. Israeli prime minister Netanyahu met in Moscow with the president of Russia Vladimir Putin. It was the fourth meeting between the two men in less than a year. Netanyahu was given a warm welcome by the Russians. Putin want Israeli cooperation with regard to Syria and Russia's foreign adventures in that country. Netanyahu wants Russian support for Israel's position with regard to the Palestinians. It may be too soon to say that the two leaders trust each other, but they are clearly moving towards cooperation between their countries.
These meetings are particularly important given the trial balloon put up by president Obama this week. It was leaked in Washington that next November, after the US presidential election is over, Obama plans to allow the passage of a resolution in the UN Security Council condemning Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and perhaps also recognizing a Palestinian state. That would be a reversal of decades of American foreign policy, and it would be done with minimal political cost for Obama and the Democrats because there would be two years until the next election. For the last fifty years, ever since Israel captured the West Bank in the Six Day War, America's position has been that for peace to be successful, it has to be negotiated between the parties and not imposed from outside. There have been many attempts at negotiation. For example, when Bill Clinton was in office, Israel offered to return over 99% of the West Bank and Gaza and to agree to essentially every Palestinian demand except the right for any Palestinians to settle in Israel proper; what the Israelis demanded in return was recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and peace. Yassir Arafat, then the Palestinian leader, rejected the offer and started a string of terror attacks instead. That was roughly the time that the Israeli minister Abba Eban famously said that "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." In any event, the USA had demanded negotiations between the parties as the basis for any settlement. It has also demanded peace as a condition to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Obama's move in the UN would abandon all that.
It would be very interesting if we get to November and the UN Security Council tries to pass Obama's stab in the back of Israel and the Russians veto it. It is certainly something that is not out of the realm of possibility. We know that Putin does not care about Obama and his reaction. That will be particularly true if Obama only has a month or two left in office. Putin would care about Assad in Syria and Iran, his allies in the region. He might also care about the Sunni countries like the Saudis and the Egyptians. Most likely, however, neither the Saudis or the Egyptians would object to a Russian veto. After all, they want a strong Israel to help protect them against terrorists and Iran. Meanwhile, Assad would not want to have an actively hostile Israel on his southern flank. There is too much military might right on his doorstep for Assad to want to stir things up with Israel. Even Iran might acquiesce to a Russian veto. Remember, Iran's main regional goal is to keep Assad in power. The Iran's are enemies of the Palestinians, especially Hamas. While Iran does not like Israel (to put it mildly), they may well be willing to go along with a Putin veto (silently of course) in order to shore up Assad's position.
No comments:
Post a Comment