Opinion Smile please,shake hands

Only the Americans still showed a sense of desperation to make the meet more than a photo opportunity. It ended up being just that: a cold handshake between Netanyahu and Abbas,with Obama in the background. The meeting was protocol,not political. An inventory of what Obama had hoped for would run: agreement on reopening peace negotiations,with the objective of creating a Palestinian state,and an announcement that he would make to that effect; with that first objective achieved,announcement of a deadline for the Palestinian state; agreement on the principles and processes of the peace talks; a final,unambiguous declaration of confidence-building measures that would certainly include Israel’s settlement freeze and concrete efforts by Arab states for normalising relations with Israel.

Early Tuesday,hours before the meet,news broke that Israel had “secretly” agreed to a partial settlement freeze for six to nine months,exempting however the 2500-3000 homes Netanyahu’s government had already cleared and East Jerusalem. Why this was even considered news is a journalistic mystery since Netanyahu was expected to make the offer,which would anyway fall short of US demands of a yearlong freeze that would

include East Jerusalem. But this “private” Israeli position,as opposed to Netanyahu’s rhetoric-laden “public” stance,was linked to “private” assurances Mitchell apparently got from a handful of Gulf and North African states guaranteeing over-flight rights to Israel,withdrawing travel bans against Israelis and opening interest sections in Israel. None of that would wash,since Saudi Arabia will not grant the same without a peace agreement. And Abbas will not even begin to negotiate without a total freeze.

The most informed and engaged may still be naive. Did Obama miscalculate? Did he make matters worse by raising expectations? Netanyahu,always a public relations expert,was diplomatic enough to deflect attention from the US failure and say instead that the demand for a freeze was costing the peace process “a great deal of time”. But Avigdor Lieberman,Israel’s foreign minister,lacking diplomatic tact,was blunt: that the meeting took place despite Israel’s opposition to settlement freeze was its victory. In fact,the US administration looks rather unsettled now,with Mitchell stating that a settlement freeze was not a precondition — contrary to what both Obama and Hillary Clinton had unambiguously declared earlier — and Obama telling the UN General Assembly that negotiations must begin on the most difficult matters,and without preconditions.

Obama has rightly stressed urgency. But he needs to reconsider his administration’s hitherto inflexibility. No US president has as yet managed a settlement freeze from Israel,and Arab intransigency is legendary. Netanyahu will not risk unseating his own government,with its rightwing presence,while Abbas’s authority is dubious and still under threat from Hamas. In fact,Abbas has emerged weaker from the business,after his own tough rhetoric prior to travelling

to New York.

Israel is more preoccupied with Iran — as are many Arab states — and the Goldstone report on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. The Obama administration had believed energetic engagement would do the trick,and the Americans do deserve praise for pressing on with a meeting here,a nudge there,all in their persistent efforts to clear the ground. But the three weeks Obama has given Israelis and Palestinians to find answers for restarting peace talks will not produce a miracle.

sudeep.paul@expressindia.com