Biden said that the “substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel. We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them. The announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve all the outstanding issues of the conflict.”

 

He added that the US believes “that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Yerushalayim and safeguards its status for people around the world. Unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations on permanent status issues.”

 

Earlier Tuesday, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs voiced White House objections to the Israeli government action in approving the construction project. and told reporters that Vice President Biden would provide further details..

 

Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) issued a statement saying that the planning process for the Ramat Shlomo housing project has been in the works for several years, and that the timing of Tuesday’s announcement “has no connection to the Vice President’s visit.”

 

Earlier, a ministry spokesman said that the approval of the construction plan was not final, and that there was a 60-day appeal period for those who wished to raise objections to the decision.

 

However, PA negotiator Saeb Erekat saw no need to wait that long. He blasted the Israeli announcement, saying, “With such an announcement, how can you build trust? This is destroying our efforts to work with Mr. Mitchell. It’s a really disastrous situation. I hope that this will be an eye-opener for all in the international community about the need to have the Israeli government stop such futile exercises.”

 

PROXIMITY TALKS

 

The new round of peace negotiations are being called “proximity talks,” because the Palestinians still refuse to negotiate with Israel face to face. Instead, Mitchell will shuttle between the two sides carrying their respective offers. It is not yet clear whether the talks will be held in the region, in Washington DC, or in Europe.

 

Israel and the US would much prefer face-to-face talks, but after months of Palestinian resistance, they both agreed to accept indirect negotiations as better than nothing. However, none of the three parties is holding out much hope for a breakthrough. They talks are seen as more of a way to keep the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue going, even on a low level, in the hope that chances for eventually reaching a peace agreement will eventually improve.

 

The resumption of negotiations, even at this low level, is seen as a minor victory for the Obama administration, whose previous attempts to force the resumption of peace talks backfired. The start of the talks may have prompted moves by both Israel and the Palestinians which have raised tensions over key points of dispute between them.

 

For example, the renewal of negotiations over the fate of the West Bank could be another reason why the Israeli government recently added the Meoras Hamachpela and Kever Rochel to its official list of national heritage sites in addition to the obvious motive, to keep the two historic holy places which are regularly visited by Jews from around the world in good repair.

 

ABBAS CALLS FOR A “RELIGIOUS WAR”

 

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas went so far as to warn that the Israeli action could result in the outbreak of a “religious war,” which was seen as a threat to trigger another Arab intifada.

 

Abbas’ statement triggered a number of Arab riots, culminating in a stone-throwing attack last Erev Shabbos on Jews davening in front of the Kosel, by Arabs on the Har HaBayis above. Israeli security forces moved onto the Har HaBayis to stop it.

 

Dozens were hurt on both sides in clashes which soon spread into the Old City’s Muslim Quarter and to several East Yerushalayim neighborhoods. Fortunately, Israeli security officials were able to quell the disturbances with crowd control tactics that prevented the violence from growing out of control. That policy of restraint allowed tempers to cool, and quiet to return to the Old City by the time Shabbos began.

 

Even though the violence was deliberately instigated by the Palestinian Authority, the international media blamed Israel for provoking it by daring to assert that Jews have any historic and religious rights to Jewish holy places in Yerushalayim and the West Bank. Media reports gave short shrift to the fact that Jews have been coming to daven at the Kosel, the Meoras Hamachpela and Kever Rochel for thousands of years. At the same time the mainstream media has given unwarranted credence to clearly bogus recent Arab claims that the Kosel and Kever Rochel are Muslim holy sites, and the outrageous Arab attempts to rewrite history by denying that all three sites are an integral part of the Jewish religious heritage.

 

CONFLICTS SMOLDERING

 

If the Arab riots had led to serious injuries or deaths on either side, there was a real danger that they could have triggered a major outbreak of violence, reigniting the intifada.

 

The Arab-Israeli conflict seems to be constantly smoldering just under the surface in several areas in Yerushalayim. The Har HaBayis and the Old City are the most sensitive areas. Even the most minor changes there instantly have major political and diplomatic ramifications. Elsewhere in the eastern portions of the city which Israel captured in 1967, any move by the Israeli government or private citizens to change the status quo is a potential source of controversy.

 

That includes the launching of an urban renewal project in the Silwan area, sponsored by Yerushalayim Mayor Nir Barkat. The project was announced and then immediately postponed last week at the request of Prime Minister Netanyahu, because, even though it included new housing earmarked for the Arabs, it would relocate 20 Arab families from their current homes.

 

A short walk from the Maalot Dafna religious neighborhood in Yerushalayim, near the Kever of Shimon Hatzaddik, religious protesters and Israeli leftist “Peace Now”  supporters held competing demonstrations over a court order to remove Arab residents from homes for which they had stopped paying rent to the property’s Jewish owners. The leftists object to Jews now moving into the Jewish-owned houses in what became known as the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood from 1948-1967, when the Jordanian army occupied that part of the city. Previously, Jews had owned and lived on most of the property in that area since 1888.

 

STIRRING UP CHEVRON

 

On the other hand, things had been relatively quiet in Chevron before the Israeli government action again drew attention to the status of the Meoras Hamachpela. David Wilder, the spokesman for Chevron’s Jewish community, protested that the government action should not have been cause for international condemnation, noting that, “in any normal country, people would consider turning a holy site like the Meoras Hamachpela into a nationally recognized monument as a proper course of action.”

 

Chevron has long been a flashpoint for the Arab-Israeli conflict. It was the site of an Arab massacre in 1929 in which 67 Jews were murdered, and the incident involving Dr. Boruch Goldstein in 1994 which led to his own death and that of 29 Arabs. There were also frequent clashes in Chevron between Arab rioters and Israeli soldiers during the intifada.

 

Under the Oslo Peace Accords, the city was divided in 1997. Its smaller Jewish portion, known as H2, contains the holy sites, yeshivos, and the homes of its Jewish residents, living adjacent to 30,000 Arabs, and a short walk from the nearby settlement of Kiryat Arba. The 140,000 residents of the all-Arab portion of the city, known as H1 have become much more prosperous in recent years due to the rapid growth of the West Bank economy.

 

Yet the tensions in the city remain. The designation of Meoras Hamachpela and Kever Rochel as national heritage sites, which should have been seen as a routine government action, prompted Arabs in Chevron to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers last week.

 

PRACTICAL AND SYMBOLIC ACTIONS

 

It also triggered angry statements by Arab leaders around the world, sharp criticism from the United States, the United Nations and the European Union, the dark threat from Abbas, and outrageous statements by other Muslim leaders around the world.

 

One example was a statement by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to a Saudi newspaper declaring that the al Aksa Mosque on the Har HaBayis, the Meoras Hamachpela and Kever Rochel “were not and never will be Jewish sites, but Islamic sites.” Until Erdogan’s rhetoric turned violently against Israel during the war in Gaza in December, 2008, Israel had counted Turkey as one of its few allies in the region. Today the once-friendly relationship between Israel and Turkey which had been painstakingly built up over a period of years hangs by a thread.

 

As a practical matter, the government designation of the holy sites means that the Meoras Hamachpela will get long-needed additional bathrooms and a new roof over an outdoor prayer area, as part of a $100 million rehabilitation program benefitting 150 national heritage sites around the country. Kever Rochel will get improvements as well. But at the same time, the improvements will demonstrate continued Israeli control and responsibility over the two sites.

 

UNDERSTANDING THE POLITICAL CONTEXT

 

The Israeli move and the Palestinian overreaction to it make more political sense in light of the fact that they occurred just before the announcement of the US-sponsored peace talks.

 

The designation of Kever Rochel and the Meoras Hamachpela as national heritage sites reinforces the claims of the Israeli government to those areas of the West Bank. Abbas’ deliberate overreaction to that move strengthened his image as a protector of Palestinian rights, at a time when he was about to put that image in further jeopardy, in the eyes of his own people, by softening his objections to renewing peace talks.

 

The Arabs argued that the Israeli government was playing the same diplomatic game, by announcing the approval of a relatively small new housing project in the West Bank town of Beitar Illit almost simultaneously with the announcement that the indirect proximity talks were about to begin.

 

In fact, this maneuvering by both sides is another indication that these indirect talks are mostly for show, and are not being taken seriously. While they are politically convenient for the Obama administration and serve other tactical purposes for both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, none of the parties sees them as a serious attempt to make meaningful progress towards a peace agreement, a goal which has eluded Israeli and Palestinian negotiators for more than a decade.

 

THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS PEACEMAKING EFFORT

 

According to an internal Israeli Foreign Ministry analysis leaked to the Israel media a few days prior to the announcement of the indirect talks, the Obama administration does not intend to put a lot of effort into them. Instead, the talks give the Obama administration some much-needed diplomatic breathing room, allowing it to focus on its domestic political problems in the campaign leading up to the November midterm Congressional elections.

 

The report, which was written by the Foreign Ministry’s center for political research, also indicates that the Obama administration is in sympathy “with Palestinian demands in regard to the framework and structure of negotiations.” However, the report goes on to point out that at this stage, the US government has still avoided stating “its position on core issues” in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Foreign Ministry report notes that this decision to avoid taking sides is also politically pragmatic for the Obama administration. It has enough domestic political problems on its plate right now without further antagonizing Israel’s friends in Congress by publicly supporting the Palestinian position.

 

Instead, for the time being, the US is concentrating on the limited goal of restarting the peace negotiations, and will leave the progress of the talks largely in Mitchell’s hands.

 

WHERE THE NEGOTIATIONS BROKE OFF

 

The Palestinians broke off direct peace talks with the previous Israeli government 14-months ago, and until now, had refused to resume any kind of negotiations with the Netanyahu government, unless it agreed to impose a total new construction freeze on the West Bank and East Yerushalayim. Abbas also demanded that the talks resume based upon the last offer that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made before the Palestinians shut down the negotiations.

 

Olmert had agreed to start upon the basis of a complete return to Israel’s pre-‘67 borders, with Israel and the Palestinians then agreeing to a small land swap. Israel would be allowed to retain the major West Bank settlement blocs, in exchange for a 1-to-1 exchange of Israeli territory within the ‘67 borders. Netanyahu has not accepted that concept, and argues that since the Palestinians rejected Olmert’s offer at that time, and no written agreement on it was ever signed, the ground rules of the peace process allow him to withdraw the offer and substitute his own.

 

NETANYAHU’S PLAN

 

As outlined in the speech he gave at Bar Ilan University last June, Netanyahu accepts the so-called two state solution in principle, but on his own terms. He insists that, to protect Israeli security, the future Palestinian state must be demilitarized. He also insists that as part of any comprehensive peace agreement, the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world must recognize the Jewish character of Israel, and drop their demands for a Palestinian “right of return” which would have the effect of overwhelming Israel demographically with millions of openly hostile Arab immigrants.

 

More recently, Netanyahu has publicly added another security demand. He insists that Israel be allowed to keep a military presence on the eastern border of the future Palestinian state to prevent terrorists from importing weapons and rockets which could then be used to attack Israel’s population centers.

 

The Palestinians flatly reject all of these negotiating demands by Netanyahu.

 

Despite the agreement to resume indirect talks, no progress whatsoever has been made in closing the gap between Netanyahu’s positions and the Palestinian demands. That is why nobody expects any meaningful progress on the substance of the dispute from the new round of talks.

 

OBAMA’S FREEZE DEMAND BLUNDER

 

Nevertheless, the US seems relieved that it has finally been able to find a way around Abbas’ insistence on Israeli acceptance of a complete construction freeze as a precondition to restarting any kind of peace negotiations, limited though they may be.

 

The Obama administration has nobody but themselves to blame for this problem. They were the first to make the demand for a construction freeze a precondition on Israel. But the Palestinians refused to give it up even after the US government dropped the demand last summer. Despite the fact that a construction freeze had never been a pre-condition in the peace talks over the previous 14 years, Abbas refused to back down from it.

 

Even after announced a partial, 10-month housing construction freeze in the West Bank, the Palestinians refused to come to the negotiating table. They demanded that the freeze include East Yerushalayim, and put a halt to all Jewish construction on the West Bank. Netanyahu’s voluntary freeze does not apply to approximately 3,000 apartments that have received final approval or which are already under construction in the West Bank.

 

Abbas refused several opportunities offered by the US and Israel to help him to “climb down” from the freeze demand, in part because Abbas apparently saw political advantage in maintaining the diplomatic deadlock.

 

BIDEN’S VISIT

 

The announcement of the resumption of talks was made Monday by the US government in Washington, the same day that US Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Israel for a five day visit to the region.

 

After Biden and Netanyahu met Monday morning, Biden publicly reaffirmed America’s “absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security.” He praised Netanyahu for “the moratorium that has limited new settlement construction activity,” and for the removal of security checkpoints which made it easier for Palestinians to travel around in the West Bank. He also praised the Palestinians for “beginning to make progress” on reforming their institutions of government and improving their security forces.

 

THE US AND THE IRAN PROBLEM

 

 A major part of Biden’s mission will be to reassure Israeli leaders that the Obama administration shares their fear of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. During his visit, Biden told Netanyahu flatly, “We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

 

The Vice President elaborated on that point in an interview with Yediot Acharonot, in which he said, “I can promise the nation of Israel that we will meet, as allies, any security challenge that we may face. Iran equipped with nuclear weapons will constitute a threat not only to Israel, but also to the United States. Iran’s obtaining nuclear arms will deeply undermine the stability of the entire international community and could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that will be extremely dangerous for everyone involved, including Iran. For this reason, our administration is mobilizing the international community to insist that Iran fulfill its international commitments. If it does not, it will have to deal with serious consequences and with increasing isolation.”

 

The Israeli military has been preparing plans for an attack on Iran as a last resort to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. At the same time, US officials have been urging Israeli officials to hold off, in the hope that sanctions on the Iranian regime would be effective. Prior to Biden’s arrival, that same message was delivered in person to Israeli leaders by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leon Panetta, director of the CIA and James Jones, the White House National Security Adviser.

 

TIMETABLE FOR NEW IRAN SANCTIONS SLIPS AGAIN

 

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that sanctions against Iran will go into effect within the next few months. That represented another delay in the implementation of Obama’s promise that Iran would face serious “consequences” if it did not start negotiating with the US in good faith over its nuclear program by the beginning of this year.

 

The Obama administration has told Israeli officials that the US plans to step up its efforts to pressure Iran at a conference on nuclear weapons to be held in Washington next month. The first stage of that pressure will be the passage of another UN Security Council Resolution strongly condemning Iran for violating its orders to halt its nuclear programs. Russian which has tried to shield Iran from Security Council sanctions in the past, reportedly is now more willing to support sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and their international business interests.

 

However, the sanctions on Iran in the new Security Council resolution will again have to be watered down to avoid a veto by China, which is seeking to protect Iran’s status as one of China’s major oil suppliers. Recently the US has been trying to secure a guarantee from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf oil-producing states that to make up any loss in oil to China due to a possible cutoff in Iranian supplies, but so far China has not agreed to back harsh new sanctions on Iran in return for such a guarantee.

 

OBAMA STILL HOPING TO TALK IRAN DOWN

 

The next stage of the American plan to pressure Iran calls for more stringent sanctions which will be imposed outside the framework of the Security Council with the cooperation of US allies in Europe, Canada and Australia.

 

However, nobody believes that these sanctions alone will succeed in pressuring Iran into giving up its nuclear program. Obama reportedly still believes that he can eventually get the Iranians to negotiate seriously, if Israel does not launch a preemptive strike against it first. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen wrote last week that Obama “remains intellectually committed to the idea of an Iran breakthrough,” and believes that an Israeli military strike against Iran would be disastrous on several levels.

 

In addition to Iran’s nuclear threat, Israel is also worried about Iran’s efforts, in partnership with Syria, to provide Hezbollah with sophisticated, long range weapons which threaten population centers throughout Israel. In recent weeks, both Israeli and American officials have condemned Syria and Iran for delivering arms to Hezbollah that could destabilize the security equilibrium in the region.

 

ABBAS GIVEN POLITICAL COVER

 

The announcement of the proximity talks came a day after the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization endorsed the indirect talks, and several days after the Arab League approved four months of negotiations, at the request of the US. The PLO and Arab League decisions gave Abbas the political cover he needed to re-engage in talks with Israel without a total settlement freeze. However, Abbas still insists that he will not agree to resume face to face talks with Israeli leaders until such a freeze is in place.

 

Nevertheless Hamas and several Damascus-based Palestinian terrorist groups condemned Abbas for agreeing to renew talks with Israel, and accused the PA of caving in to pressure from the US.

 

NETANYAHU’S REACTION

 

Netanyahu welcomed the resumption of negotiations. He sounded upbeat after his meeting with Mitchell Monday, saying, “We have been close to resuming talks, without preconditions, for nearly a year. I hope we can soon move to direct negotiations which will truly facilitate peace. I believe we will succeed in advancing the diplomatic process. But the diplomatic process is not a game, it is real, and rooted first and foremost in (Israel’s) security.”

 

In another speech he made later Monday, Netanyahu said, “I hope the proximity talks will quickly lead to direct talks that would really allow the promotion of peace.” He added that the negotiations would only succeed if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and if Israel’s security is guaranteed by the negotiated agreement.

 

Netanyahu also addressed the Iranian threat, saying that if Iran were to achieve nuclear capabilities “the world will never be the same. Harsh sanctions must be applied. We must stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, just as we must strike peace with our neighbors,” he said.

 

ABBAS STICK TO HIS DEMANDS

 

While Abbas has now agreed to the indirect talks, he voiced doubts on Monday in a meeting with Mitchell about the prospects for reaching an agreement with Israel. He presented Mitchell with a document outlining the Palestinian demands for a unified state in Gaza and the West Bank, with minor border adjustments. However, the PA’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said that the Palestinians are demanding that after the border adjustment, the Palestinian state be the same size as the Jordanian-occupied West Bank was prior to the Six Day War in 1967. “I’m not saying the borders of ’67, I’m saying the size of ’67,” Erekat said.

 

“When we talk about the borders, we are referring to those in the West Bank, including East Yerushalayim, the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley and Gaza,” he said, and added that the Palestinians also want Israel to give them a land bridge between the West Bank and Gaza.

 

Erekat also said that Abbas told Mitchell during their meeting in Ramallah that Israel’s approval of 112 new housing units in Beitar Illit showed that it is not serious about achieving peace with the Palestinians.

 

“The president told Mitchell that if every visit by the US envoy would be accompanied by more settlement construction, unilateral measures, creating facts on the ground and the continuation of assassinations, detentions and closures of Palestinian lands, then this raises a big question mark over all our efforts,” Erekat said.

 

PA THREATENS TO WALK AWAY

 

Erekat also said that Abbas had received a letter from Hillary Clinton last week promising that the US would play an “active and productive” role in the indirect talks. The PA negotiator also said that the indirect talks were the last chance to keep the Middle East peace process alive.

 

In an interview with Israel Army Radio, Erekat said, “The Israeli-Palestinian relationship has deteriorated to the point that the US is now trying to save the peace process with this last attempt. Mark my words - this will be the last attempt in order to see if negotiations can be a tool for an agreement between Palestinians and Israelis,” and added that if the negotiations failed, the Palestinians would demand that Israel relinquish Jewish control over the country.

 

In a separate statement, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a senior Abbas aide said that the Palestinians have set a four month time limit on the indirect talks to create a breakthrough in negotiations, and if there was no breakthrough by then, there would be no point in pursuing the talks.

 

Abdel Rahim said that, if Mitchell can negotiate an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on borders within those four months, the two parties would then launch face to face final status talks on the issues of Palestinian refugees, the status of Yerushalayim, the settlements, water rights, security issues, and the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

 

He said that the Obama administration had assured the Palestinian Authority that the goal of the talks was to “end the occupation that began in 1967 and the establishment of an independent and viable Palestinian state that would live in peace and security alongside Israel.”

 

NEW HOMES APPROVED IN BEITAR ILLIT

 

Mitchell issued a statement welcoming the agreement to restart the peace talks, and announced his plans for working out the details. “We’ve begun to discuss the structure and scope of these talks and I will return to the region next week to continue our discussions. As we’ve said many times, we hope that these will lead to direct negotiations as soon as possible. We also again encourage the parties, and all concerned, to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks.”

 

That comment may have been a veiled reaction to the Israeli announcement that it had approved the construction of 112 new apartments in the religious West Bank community of Beitar Illit. Mitchell has long supported the idea of imposing a complete settlement freeze on the West Bank. He was the first to recommended one in the report of a fact-finding commission he led at the request of then-President Bill Clinton shortly after the outbreak of the 2000 intifada.

 

However, the official US reaction to the new construction in Beitar Illit was muted.

 

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Israeli officials had explained that the construction was approved before the moratorium. “On the one hand, it does not violate the moratorium that the Israelis previously announced. On the other hand, this is the kind of thing that both sides need to be cautious of as we move ahead with these parallel talks,” Crowley said.

 

When Netanyahu announced the partial settlement freeze in November, he said that limited exceptions might be allowed. On Monday, the Ministry of Defense said that Beitar Illit was one such exception because of unspecified safety and infrastructure issues. It is the biggest exception to the settlement freeze since it went into effect.

 

MIXED ISRAELI REACTIONS

 

Other Israeli reaction to the announcement of the indirect talks was mixed. Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that he would rather negotiate with the Palestinians directly, than hold talks through Mitchell, but that it was a necessary interim step to full-scale negotiations.

 

“We would prefer direct negotiations with the Palestinians but in the current climate it was hard enough to achieve indirect talks,” Barak said. He added that the “proximity talks will continue until we have found a way to direct dialogue between us and the Palestinians, in which every issue can be laid on the table,” he said.

 

In last year’s election campaign, Barak, as the chairman of the Labor Party, promised that if he were elected prime minister, he would make reaching a negotiated peace agreement with the Palestinians his top priority.

 

Vice Premier and Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Yaalon, of Likud, took a more pessimistic view of the indirect talks. He said that Abbas’ willingness to hold brokered negotiations “does not bode well,” since they are not an acceptable substitute for direct negotiations.

 

Yaalon said that “(indirect talks) can address the framework for peace talks, but none of the actual issues, especially when the Palestinian leadership continues to negate the Jewish people’s connection to Israel, while fomenting hatred and opposition to Israel’s existence, and trying to discredit Israel in the diplomatic world.”

 

Yaalon then went on to criticize those who contend that Israel has no choice but to accept Arab demands, because time is not on its side. “The fathers of Zionism have taught us that time is on the side of those who take advantage of it,” Yaalon declared.