EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

Checkmate Israel


Contradictory messages from Tel Aviv regarding possible talks with Palestinians following the Fatah-Hamas unity deal denote confusion on the part of Israel’s leadership.

Israeli President Shimon Peres has recently said that talks with Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas are still on the cards despite the deal with estranged militant faction Hamas. While criticising the deal with Hamas, Peres’ resigned comment that peace talks cannot be abandoned come what may signify a slight shift.
On the other hand the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ruled out any talks with the new Palestinian unity government comprising Hamas unless the group abandons its erstwhile position and renounces violence against the state of Israel.  However, Netanyahu’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak has struck a different note by saying that Israel should talk to the Palestinian government if Hamas accepts the principles laid out by the Mideast Quartet. Interestingly, Barak criticised his government’s refusal to negotiate with the new Palestinian government. He had an apt point when he said that  Israel  to date has held that it cannot negotiate with a divided Palestinian government  especially when Abbas did not enjoy full control over the Palestinian territories. Now with the two factions having buried the hatchet, the talks are even more crucial. But for Israel that holds Hamas as a terrorist group it is near impossible to hold talks unless Hamas changes tracks vis-a-vis Israel. The shift in the Israeli camp may also be because of recent statements from Hamas that signify a change in thoughts on a two state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.  This is probably why Peres and Barak may have decided to seize the initiative and show an opening. 
On another front, that of the Palestinian statehood, which the Palestinian Authority had launched some months back and which gained ground among some key Latin American states and now Egypt, there are some interesting developments.  The declaration of a Palestinian state was an initiative born out of frustration over Tel Aviv’s obdurate stand and unwillingness to make a commitment to resolve the issue, especially after the settlements issue.  With the Palestinian Statehood Resolution now to be put up before the General Assembly in the United Nations this September,  the pressure on Israel is building up. Abbas has laid the ball in the Israeli court by offering to forego the move on the condition that Israel ceases all settlement activity and agrees to pull back to the pre-1967 ceasefire lines.
It now remains to be seen how Tel Aviv battles this checkmate. It should look at this as an opportunity and mend fences with the Palestinians lest the dispute meanders on endlessly.


Undoing Sino-US irritants


Beijing and Washington are in session to discuss sizeable disagreements. The meeting of top officials from across the governmental departments from trade to legislation is, indeed, a welcome development.

The discourse under the Strategic and Economic Dialogue umbrella could go a long way in creating a better understanding of each other’s limitations, and working out the minimum consensus on indispensable issues. The very fact that sectional secretaries and representatives are meeting across a single table hints at the scope of interaction, irrespective of how divergent their interests are in realms of world leadership 
and competition.
The groundwork for this marshal marathon, however, was largely done as US President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao met early this year, and agreed to rewrite a new chapter of interaction. Yet, the talks are unlikely to yield results, as their respective bargaining positions are well entrenched and personalised to the core. This is why it is hoped that even if the dialogue succeeds in listing out new options for scaling down the existing flagship differences, it would be a major breakthrough of sorts. The ice, nonetheless, would be difficult to melt as currency policy and protectionism would continue to act as major hurdles. Similarly, the most cumbersome element will be the chipping in of human rights and other political discords during the talks, rendering the forum quite incapable and incompetent to deal with.
At a time when the US is in neck-deep budget deficit, it cannot continue to browbeat its biggest lender on political assumptions. It would be better if the relationship is purely business-centric and is not complicated with qualitative and intangible issues. The world’s two biggest economies won’t find a day when they will be free from intrigues and reservations. China’s indigenous innovation policy — which American business conglomerates believe has hit them below the belt — will be under the spotlight and put pressure. Similarly, the Chinese will try to cut a deal in convincing the Americans that their self-inflicted restrictions on investments under the cloak of national security are proving detrimental for either sides. The dialogue is in need of political supplements. Merely looking over the shoulder will not work.