Middle East Economic Survey
VOL. LII
No 47
POLITICAL COMMENT
Political Comment (23 November 2009)
The timing of Israel's announcement that it will build 900 new houses in Jerusalem is a potentially lethal blow to American attempts to resuscitate the peace process, and the Palestinians are considering going to the Security Council to seek international backing for a two-state solution. Iraq's election law has been vetoed by Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi. Iran's foreign minister has come close to rejecting the P5+1 proposal to process Iranian uranium abroad.
Israel Approves New Housing In Jerusalem
Coming after Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's outright refusal to accommodate American requests to halt settlement expansion in the occupied territories, the timing of Israel's 17 November announcement that it had approved the construction of 900 housing units for Jews in Gilo ‒ part of the occupied West Bank which Israel annexed to the Jerusalem municipality after the 1967 war ‒ looked very much like a calculated move designed to prevent the resumption of peace talks and, as far as the Americans are concerned, to add insult to injury. Certainly an aide to Palestinian President Mahmud 'Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudaina, believes that the move "destroys the last chances for the peace process." And on the same day, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued the following strongly worded statement: "We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee's decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally preempt, or appear to preempt, negotiations. The US also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties." As for President Barack Obama, he reiterated on 18 November that "I think additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous." That may be true but beside the point. The fact is that Mr Obama's regional credibility has been seriously eroded by his retreat on the issue of settlements, and unless this time his words are backed by action, his attempt to resuscitate the peace process may very well be on its last legs.
The Palestinians' Plan B
If so, the Palestinians have a Plan B of sorts ‒ a resort to the Security Council to seek international support "to preserve the two-state solution," as Palestinian negotiator Saib 'Uraiqat put it on 15 November. The next day Mr 'Uraiqat explained that "heading to the Security Council to issue a resolution recognizing an independent Palestinian state…differs entirely from a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. The PLO is not proposing the option of declaring a state unilaterally." Or, in the words of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the time has come for the international community to take responsibility for "the mission of ending the occupation. This is the responsibility of the international community and when we talk about that and international law, of course we are talking about the UN."
Action along these lines may have been suggested to the Palestinians by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who said in mid-July that international mediators should set a timetable for a peace agreement and "if the parties are not able to stick to it, then a solution backed by the international community should be put on the table" ‒ and "after a fixed deadline a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of a two-state solution." Whatever the origins of the idea, however, it is not at all to the liking of the Israelis. Mr Netanyahu said on 16 November that "there is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral path will only unravel the framework of agreements between us and will only bring unilateral steps from Israel's side." Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman suggested that "any such step by the Palestinians would not pass without an Israeli response." And Environment Minister Gilad Erdan was more specific, saying that "if the Palestinians take such a unilateral line, Israel should also consider passing a law to annex some of the settlements."
Hashimi Vetoes Iraqi Election Law
Just when it seemed the way was clear for Iraq to hold a general election in January, Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi ‒ a member of the three man presidential council which must approve any new law ‒ threw a spanner in the works on 18 November by vetoing one article of the election law passed on 8 November, on the grounds that although the law allocated 5% of the 323 seats in the next parliament to minorities and internally displaced Iraqis, it made no provision for the estimated two million Iraqi refugees outside the country. Mr Hashimi claimed that his veto was unlikely to delay the election, now scheduled to be held between 18 and 23 January, but an electoral commission official, Hamdiya al-Husaini, said on the same day that "as a result of the veto, we have decided to stop all our activities and work as we await a final law." Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki described the veto as "a serious threat to democracy and the political process" and in Washington, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said that "we're disappointed at these developments…we urge Iraqi leaders in parliament to take quick action to resolve any of the outstanding concerns that have been expressed so elections can go forward. " As for the impact of any delay in the elections on the 31 August deadline set by Mr Obama for an end to combat operations by US troops in Iraq, the American commander, Gen Ray Odierno, said on 18 November that "I feel very confident that we don't have to make any decision until late spring."
Mottaki Says Iran Will Nor Send Uranium Abroad
After nearly two months of equivocation, Iran came within touching distance of explicitly rejecting the proposal by the P5+1 (the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany) to send its low-enriched uranium abroad for further processing when Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki declared on 18 November that ″surely we will not send our 3.5% fuel abroad but can review swapping it simultaneously with nuclear fuel inside Iran." Nonetheless, President Obama was careful not to close the door on negotiations the next day while warning that time was running short, saying that "Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal…and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences. Our expectation is that, over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take, that would indicate our seriousness to Iran." Expressing the hope that the Iranians "may walk through this door," Mr Obama praised "the extraordinary international unity that we've seen," saying "if you think at the beginning of the year how disjointed international efforts were and how uneven perceptions were about Iran's nuclear program and where we are today, I think it's an indication that we've taken the right approach." However, it would appear that international unity goes only so far, as Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said on 19 November that "as far as we know, there has so far been no final official answer from Tehran. There is currently no discussion on working out additional sanctions against Iran."
Charles Snow