Conflicts and Negotiations

By HU SHAOCONG

Conflicts and Negotiations

By HU SHAOCONG

Israel adopts a two-pronged strategy to dominate the Middle East situation

The author is an associate research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies

Recently, Israel has had several conflicts with its Middle East neighbors. At the same time, however, it has prepared to begin direct negotiations with the Palestinians.

Its relationship with northern neighbor Lebanon became tense again in August. On August 3, the two countries exchanged fire along their border, killing three Lebanese soldiers, one Lebanese reporter and one Israeli officer. The Lebanese Government accused Israel of violating the UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for a ceasefire in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

In mid-August, Israel, displaying its military might, launched a large-scale military exercise in a northern area that borders Lebanon.

In late July and early August, Lebanese security authorities arrested more than a dozen Lebanese officials suspected of offering information to Israel.

On August 9, Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Lebanese paramilitary and political organization Hezbollah, accused Israel of assassinating former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. He also showed a photo of an unmanned Israeli plane hovering above Hariri’s home.

Two months earlier, Israel created another conflict that drew vehement condemnation in the international arena. On May 31, Israeli commandos raided an international aid flotilla bound for Gaza, and caused a number of deaths.

Despite the conflicts, Israel has recently responded to U.S. appeals, expressing its willingness to open direct negotiations with the Palestinians.

Official Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations came to a halt in late 2008 when Israel launched attacks on Gaza. The United States hopes the two sides can restart negotiations before September so that Israel’s construction of Jewish settlements does not pose a threat to negotiations. Israel promised to suspend the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank until September.

Although Israel doesn’t want to compromise on this issue, it hopes to engage the Palestinians in the name of negotiations. That’s why it insists that the Palestinians should not set any preconditions for direct negotiations.

The Palestinians believed direct negotiations would make no sense as indirect talks brokered by the United States had failed to make progress on key issues like security and border disputes.

However, the Palestinian side could not resist pressure from Europe and the United States and agreed to hold direct negotiations, so long as they are based on the Middle East Quartet’s statement in March.

The statement, issued by the United States, Russia, the EU and the UN, urged Israel to freeze all settlement activities. It also set a 24-month deadline for the final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Flexing muscles

One of the reasons behind the recent conflicts is that Israel is determined to maintain its military advantage by blocking Gaza and beefing up military deterrence against Lebanon. It needs to constantly show off its military power because the country’s security is based on absolute military dominance over the Palestinians and other Arab nations, as well as over regional anti-Israel forces, like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Therefore, Israel always prefers military reactions when challenged.

Upon discovering the international humanitarian aid flotilla’s plan to break the Gaza blockade, Israel chose to stop the flotilla, even if it meant using military force. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t worry about the decision’s potential impact on the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

After the military strike, the U.S. Government didn’t condemn Israel. Instead, it only postponed Netanyahu’s planned visit to the United States.

“I want it to be clear to Hamas, as well as to the Lebanese Government, which we hold responsible for the violent provocations against our soldiers: Do not test our determination to protect Israeli citizens and soldiers. Our policy is clear. Israel responds and will continue to respond forcibly to every attack against its citizens and soldiers,” Netanyahu said.

Another reason for Israel’s conflicts with its neighbors is growing international anti-Israel sentiments. Israel’s blockade of Gaza has led to a humanitarian disaster in the region. Arab nations in the Middle East as well as Turkey and Iran, strongly oppose Israel’s policy. Some European countries also show sympathy to Gaza residents.

In this context, NGOs’ humanitarian assistance to Gaza has received wide international support. This was, in part, why activists from Turkey and other countries tried to break Israel’s Gaza blockade on May 31.

Even though Israel never hesitates to use military power, it doesn’t want to see conflicts escalate or launch large-scale military actions. Israel’s policy is linked to U.S. policy in the Middle East. The Obama administration needs to show that it has made some progress in its foreign policy before the midterm elections.

DEAL BEING SET: U.S. President Barack Obama meets with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on July 6

On August 2, Obama announced that U.S. forces would end all combat operations in Iraq by the end of August, as scheduled. Obama needs a relatively stable environment in the Middle East to help him realize his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq. In accordance with U.S. policy, Israel also sees to it that conflicts with neighbors do not escalate.

Accommodating U.S. policy

To coordinate with U.S. Middle East policy, Netanyahu agreed to open direct negotiations, without preconditions, with the Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. After the Gaza War in late 2008, Netanyahu hoped to support the Abbas administration to establish an order that allowed cooperation with Israel in the West Bank, while still blocking Gaza. But he didn’t want to open negotiations with the Palestinians too soon.

After taking office in 2009, Obama called on Israel and the Palestinians to reopen talks as part of his efforts to improve relations with Arab countries. Netanyahu agreed to reopen negotiations under U.S. pressure, but he is unlikely to give in on fundamental issues.

Netanyahu rejected calls from the United States and the Palestinians to stop the construction of Jewish settlements, saying that his administration might collapse if he were to agree. Compromising a bit, though, Netanyahu’s administration declared in November 2009 that it would suspend settlement construction in the West Bank for 10 months.

The Netanyahu administration also used Jewish interest groups in the United States to pressure the White House. To get Jewish votes in the upcoming midterm elections, the Obama administration yielded, telling Abbas not to demand a stop to settlement construction. Netanyahu finally won the game.

Despite incessant conflicts, the situation in the Middle East is still under U.S. and Israeli control. By adopting a tough stance on Jewish settlement construction and launching armed attacks on anti-Israel forces, Netanyahu gained support from the Israeli right wing, thus stabilizing his fragile coalition. Netanyahu would like to sustain the current situation until the U.S. midterm elections.

Israel’s future policy hinges on its domestic needs, U.S. regional policy and changes in the regional situation. A key factor is how Israel evaluates threats from Iran and Iran-backed Hezbollah.

Israel believes Iran is close to possessing nuclear weapons, and this is the biggest single threat to Israel’s existence. So it has advocated containment against Iran and even prepared to launch military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. If Israel feels the Iranian threat is growing, it might adjust the current policy, which is considered to be relatively moderate.

If Israel wants to launch a military strike against Iran, it must first take military actions to erase threats posed by Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Therefore, Israel’s policy changes toward Lebanon will be a prelude to its policy changes toward Iran.

Israel’s policy changes toward Lebanon will be a prelude to its policy changes toward Iran