U.S. officials attempted to spin the tripartite meeting yesterday between President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as a success that managed to re-infuse urgency into a stalled peace process. Moreover, direct negotiations with no preconditions between Israeli and Palestinian officials may formally resume within the next couple of months.

Under this context, the trilateral meeting seems like a significant breakthrough that could lead to a lasting peace between Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state. However, the peace process could dissolve into another Oslo -at worst Annapolis-  or cease to even begin if Obama’s diplomatic tactics are dismissed by his Middle Eastern counterparts.

The U.S. President pinned his reputation and his clout on securing the three-way summit during the United Nations General Assembly. As both Palestinian and Israeli officials expressed a reluctance for face-to-face discussions with one another, Obama dispatched Ambassador George Mitchell to the region for a week-long session of shuttle diplomacy. Mitchell succeeded in luring Netanyahu and Abbas to the meeting, but not until both leaders grumbled about it to both domestic and foreign press.

Many analysts contend that both Netanyahu and particularly Abbas only agreed to attend the summit to prevent embarrassing Obama by rejecting him. Abbas repeatedly expressed his refusal to meet with Netanyahu until a full settlement freeze, a position he clearly retracted, or at  least had to amend, by meeting with the Israeli leader. The likely domestic fallout that Abbas will encounter potentially weakened his already low stature with the Palestinian people.

Israeli officials claim victory for attending the summit, with far-left Israeli politician Yossi Beilin dismissing the meeting as a “pathetic” attempt at restoring the peace process. Beilin previously served as the chairman of the left-wing Meretz party and is largely considered a “co-architect” of the Oslo Accords.

From observations of Obama’s perspective, the meeting likely increased U.S. officials’ frustrations with the peace process and may not have accomplished anything. The meeting was largely cast as “business like” as opposed to friendly, with some media accounts describing the atmosphere as “cold,” leaving the peace process in a “deadlock” and “deep stalemate.” Some news reports even described Obama as “impatient,” “grumpy,” and “fed up” following yesterday’s meetings likely due to no apparent breakthroughs in the process. Obama generally attempts to use his charisma and penetrating personality to obtain concessions from both political allies and opponents, a strategy that seemed to fall short of his expectations with Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

By calling the summit, Obama used up some of his clout and any future concessions to Obama by Israeli and Palestinian officials, but particularly Abbas, would require significantly more accomplished than yesterday’s meeting.

Moreover, the Obama Administration’s position on an unconditional settlement freeze, including East Jerusalem, has yet to come into fruition. Even tentative indications of an Israeli halt to settlements would only be temporary and exclude East Jerusalem, a compromise favoring the Israeli position far more than Obama’s stance. Similarly, Netanyahu even attacked the U.S. insistence of a settlement freeze as “costing us a great deal of time” as Obama called for urgency in the overall process. Instead, it seems that Obama will dial down his rhetoric on settlements to focus on other issues in the peace process in order to attain minor victories in Middle East diplomacy.

That said, the true fruit from yesterday’s meetings will only be seen in the months to come as either the parties resume negotiations, the situation remains the same, or an all-out war commences. While heralded as an opportunity to restart the peace process, yesterday’s meeting may have cost Obama more than he would have liked.

Along with Obama, Netanyahu, and Abbas, other officials attended the tripartite meeting, including:

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
• National Security Advisor General James Jones
• Ambassador George Mitchell
• Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
• Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
• Israeli National Security Advisor Uzi Arad
• Palestinian Advisor and PLO Executive Committee Member Yasser Abed Rabbo
• Long-time Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat
• Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki

Photo taken from the New York Times.

A recent op-ed in Al-Ahram is not notable for any intellect in the writing, unmatched analysis, or strong arguments proving any one particular point. Instead, the shear, unbridled hatred is the only noteworthy aspect of the article, which concludes that Israel perpetrated an unprecedented hoax during 9/11 to blame Islamic fundamentalists for the terror attacks and embed the United States military in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately, this sentiment seems prevalent in anti-Israel circles. As opposed to producing actual evidence to support the conspiracy theory, the author and his compatriots only soil the memories of thousands of innocent people.

What’s more startling, although not surprising, is Al-Ahram’s willingness to publish such an absurd and baseless libel.

To get a feel for the hate, read the excerpt below:

“America is far less safe than before 9/11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial provocations, as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of settlements. Israel has shown no sign of a willingness to negotiate in good faith or to take the steps required to make peace a possibility. To date, Barack Obama appears unwilling to name senior appointees who are not either Zionists or are strongly pro-Israeli. The greatest threat to world peace is not terrorists. The greatest threat is the US-Israeli relationship.

In the same way that a decade of pre-staging was required to plausibly induce the US to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to persuade the US to invade Iran or to support and condone an attack by Israel. The same duplicity is again at work, including the high- profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer. From its very outset, the Zionist enterprise focussed on hegemony in the Middle East. Its entangled alliance with the US enabled this enterprise to deploy American might for that purpose.

Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the US to war in the Middle East while also making it appear that Islam is the problem. If Obama continues to defer to Tel Aviv, he can rightly be blamed when the next attack occurs in the US or the European Union featuring the usual orgy of evidence pointing to a predetermined target. Should another mass murder occur, that event will be traceable directly to the US-Israeli relationship and the failure of US policy-makers to free America from this enemy within.”

Even though Palestinian and Israeli officials announced their refusal to meet at this week’s United Nations General Assembly, the obstinate statesmen reluctantly agreed to tripartite talks between President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Special Envoy George Mitchell spent all of last week in negotiations in the Middle East to secure the meeting, considered an early success for Obama. Originally, Abbas declared that he would not meet with any Israeli officials until there is a complete settlement freeze in the West Bank. Netanyahu continues to refuse to freeze settlements, although a temporary freeze agreement is likely in the works.

Separate meetings between Obama and each of the two other leaders will precede the three way discussion. While officials do not expect the brief meeting to result in the resumption of the peace process, the encounter represents a breakthrough that could soften the ground for additional negotiations.

Both the Palestinians and Israelis agreed to the meeting in order to avoid being blamed for refusing to even begin some sort of reconciliation. Further, any refusal to meet would result in a diplomatic blow to Obama, who has called for the meeting.

Meanwhile, Palestinian officials took a hard-line approach against Israel, with Jordanian King Abdullah joining a growing chorus of Arab leaders ahead of the UN summit that urge a settlement freeze. A statement issued from Amman said:

“The two leaders [Abbas and Abdullah] believe that the world community must now take responsibilities by preventing Israel from scuttling current efforts aimed at relaunching serious and effective negotiations that can lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

“They warned that losing the opportunity currently available for achieving peace will jeopardize security and stability in the region.”

We’ve heard mainly groans from Israeli politicians on the recently released Goldstone report on alleged Israeli human rights violations in the Gaza Strip. However, U.S. officials began chiming in with criticisms of the document. Notably, U.S. State Department Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley attempted to deflect discussion of the report at today’s press conference onto the “underlying” reason for Israel’s strike on Gaza, which he described as the lack of a peace process. Crowley continued by expressing the concern of other U.S. officials regarding the report but he refused to elaborate. His comments include:

“Well, as to the contents of the report, we continue to review it. But I think from our standpoint, let’s remember the underlying causes of the tragedy in Gaza early this year, which was the lack of a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I think we do have concerns about the contents of the report. We are beginning to consult with countries represented in the Human Rights Council and to talk about what to do in light of the report.

But I think we should be cautious at this point that the report should not be used as a mechanism to add impediments to getting back to the peace process. It would be a sad irony if this report that is designed to protect human rights gets in the way of the process that we believe will benefit all in the region and ultimately lead to greater and deeper human rights in the Middle East. So we will continue our efforts through the UN, through the Human Rights Council, other national bodies looking forward – not backward – to try to get to a negotiation that leads to a two-state solution.”…

“We have reviewed the report. There was a one-sided unacceptable mandate for this fact-finding investigation and that mandate was set forth before we joined the Human Rights Council. Now we have a report. We’re going to take a look at it. I’m not going to talk about the substance of the report at this point. But in terms of its recommendations, we will consult with various countries and determine how to take action going forward. But again, our –”…

“I’m not going to – at this point, I’m not prepared to go into the content of the report. We continue to evaluate it. We have some concerns about it. We’re talking to countries about those concerns and about ways to work going forward within the Human Rights Council on this report.”

It appears that Israeli women just might be among the most incredible females out there.

Earlier this year, Sports Illustrated featured Israeli model Bar Rafaeli on the cover of the Swimsuit Issue.

Now, another Israeli woman won a major international contest when she triumphed as the winner of Fox’s hit dating show “More to Love” that features a competition between 20 voluptuous women who try to secure the heart of a 300-pound former offensive lineman.

The winner, Tali, is a 26-year old Israeli artist who moved to the United States only four years ago to pursue a career in New York City. Some members of (now former) bachelor Luke Conley’s family expressed concern regarding Tali due to potential future marital difficulties resulting from her Jewish background and the family’s devout Christian beliefs.

Describing Tali in tonight’s season finale, Conley called Israel a “war-torn country,” an aspect of Tali’s background that shaped her personality into your typical Sabra, the endearing pet name Israelis use for themselves as an allusion to the cactus fruit with needles on the outside and a sweet, tender center. Conley astutely described this aspect of Tali, stating “even though she could be calm and reserved, she’s got fire.”

Yeah. That sounds about right.

Photo taken from here.

When we think of religious conversions in U.S. prisons, we conjure up images of Islamic fundamentalism infused with the roots of anti-Americanism. The issue resulted in high-level officials issuing worried statements about the phenomenon, with Congress even holding hearings with expert testimony on the radicalization of prisoners.

However, just last week, prisoners began embracing a slightly different approach.

Two women in a southern California prison converted to Judaism at their own B’not Mitzvah, the female equivalent of the entrance into Judaism ceremony traditionally held for 13 year-old Jewish males. Both women have Jewish ancestry but lacked any religious upbringing or education. Prior to the event, the women learned Hebrew, wrote speeches, and prepared to lead Torah portions for the ceremony.

One of the women described Judaism as:

“A lifeline of hope and light in an abyss of futility and despair…. [a] renewal style of Judaism embracing and encompassing other religious philosophies, adding an air of tolerance which is tantamount to spiritual practice behind prison walls.”

Many prisoners embrace religion in prison. Some of the inmates that convert to Islam forge a connection with extremists that push anti-American and violent sentiments. It seems that these women, among the many prison converts that embrace spirituality while rejecting violence, are a welcome addition to the American Jewish community.

If you’re for an Israeli freeze on settlements, there is some good and bad news for you (and if you’re opposed to a freeze, just swap the two headings).

The good news: Some reports indicate that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu intends to initiate a settlement freeze in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem construction.

The bad news: The freeze will only come into effect after the approval of construction for hundreds of more homes in the West Bank.

Clearly, U.S. officials who have repeatedly called for a freeze on all settlement activity expressed “regret” regarding the new construction. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement:

“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop.”

“We are working to create a climate in which negotiations can take place, and such actions make it harder to create such a climate… We do appreciate Israel’s stated intent to place limits on settlement activity and will continue to discuss this with the Israelis as these limitations are defined.”

Similarly, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas condemned additional construction and declared the move “unacceptable.” From Paris, Abbas said:

“What the Israeli government said [about the planned construction] is not useful… It is unacceptable for us. We want a freeze on all settlement construction.”

In retaliation for the announcement, Palestinian officials may consider requesting European Union sanctions against Israel to halt additional settlement construction. A P.A. official told the popular Israeli paper Yediot Achronot (Ynet):

“There is not a country in the world that doesn’t believe the danger to peace is Israeli policy, and especially its settlement policy, so we must actualize this concept and translate it into sanctions.”

Up until the recent past, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) dominated the discourse in Washington as the voice of pro-Israel advocates and (unofficially) Jews in America. Because of AIPAC’s arguable reputation as a “right-wing” organization that places Israel’s interests above all else, a new group sprouted to woo moderate and left wing Jews by calling itself the “pro-peace” lobby. This organization, J Street, has received some harsh criticism from its opponents for a stance that is too pro-Palestinian. Further, critics lambasted J Street for its “meddling” in Israeli affairs by launching a public relations campaign against Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman.

Well, J Street seems to be getting attack some more, this time for its upcoming conference that includes some rather controversial figures. Notably, speaker Salam Al-Marayati refuses to condemn Palestinian terrorism but also accused Israel of a role in the 9/11 attacks. He was quoted as saying:

”If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”

Some of the speakers are worth while including former Shin Bet Chief Ami Ayalon, former IDF Chief of Staff Amnon Shahak, and Ambassador Martin Indyk.

The handfull of controversial speakers surely won’t outweigh the remarks of the afformentioned three statesmen. However, J Streets decision to even include some speakers easily labeled as “anti-Israel” should raise concerns about the organization’s agenda, especially if it labels itself “pro-Israel.”

The list of speakers at the J Street conference includes:

• Ami Ayalon, Former Member of Knesset; Former Head of the Shin Bet
• Jonathan Chait, Senior Editor, The New Republic
• Rep. Donna Edwards, Congresswoman from Maryland
• Rep. Bob Filner, Congressman from California
• Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Editor, The Nation
• Ambassador Martin Indyk, Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel
• Senator John Kerry, Massachusetts *
• Ezra Klein, The Washington Post
• Eli Pariser, Former Director, MoveOn.org
• His Royal Highness Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein, Ambassador of Jordan
• Amnon Shahak, Former Chief of Staff, Israel Defense Forces
• Daniel Sokatch, CEO, Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the
• Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
• Yuli Tamir, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset (Labor) and Former Minister of Immigrant Absorption
• Matt Yglesias, Center for American Progress
• Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President, Union for Reform Judaism
• Rep. Robert Wexler, Congressman from Florida

Today’s State Department press briefing included a light quip at the expense of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict following questions regarding the recent political instability in Honduras. After a few minutes of back-and-forth, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly and reporters had the following exchange:

QUESTION: Well, but by declaring it a military coup and, you know, taking other measures –
MR. KELLY: You’ve given up on me?
QUESTION: That’s fine.
QUESTION: — isn’t that convincing – isn’t that trying to get them to follow the way that you think is the best way forward? What is –
MR. KELLY: It’s not just what we think. It’s what the Organization of American States thinks.
QUESTION: Yeah, but a minute ago – I’m sorry, a minute ago, you said that you’re not going to determine what the best way forward is for them. I mean, it’s for them to decide.
MR. KELLY: Well, it is ultimately, but we still have our own opinion. And it’s not just our opinion. It’s the opinion of the region.
QUESTION: Can we move to an easier subject?
MR. KELLY: Is there an easier subject, Charlie?
QUESTION: Sure, the Israeli-Palestinian – how about the – (laughter) –
MR. KELLY: I’m going to say something that I’ve heard many spokesmen say –
QUESTION: How about the talks next week?
MR. KELLY: — in the past: I have nothing new for you on that.

Aside from the joke, the State Department did not release any details on upcoming meetings between Amb. George Mitchell and Israeli officials attempting to iron-out plans for peace negotiations.

Shabbat Shalom.

The mediating role of the United States in the Israel-Palestine peace plan seems to -slowly- be picking up steam.

President Obama met with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Following the latter meeting, Obama called Jordanian King Abdullah and now sent the U.S. regional envoy George Mitchell to meet with Netanyahu in London on Wednesday. The commotion around negotiations could represent a prelude to the unveiling in September at the United Nations of a comprehensive U.S. peace proposal. At Wednesday’s meeting, Mitchell could be ironing out the final details of the plan with the Israeli leader. Rumors of the peace plan’s release emerged following Mubarak’s visit in Washington. Notably, some reports indicate that the Israeli government agreed to a temporary settlement freeze that would exclude East Jerusalem construction. In another step indicating progress, Netanyahu seems willing to begin negotiations with Abbas as early as next month, the Israeli leader said in remarks at the weekly cabinet meeting.

State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said the following about the Mitchell-Netanyahu meeting:

“Well, I think – you know that we have placed a very high priority on getting a comprehensive peace – comprehensive in the sense that we want a regional solution to the problem. And we wouldn’t want this solution to be based on a two-state solution. What we’re trying to do right now is we are trying to lay the foundation – or what George Mitchell is trying to do is lay the foundation that will lead to the resumption of meaningful negotiations. And this is part of that whole process. There have been some reports that we’re close to a breakthrough. I think I would say that – I would characterize it as that we’re getting closer to an agreement. But any reports that we’ve come to an agreement, or that we expect one on Wednesday necessarily, I would have to call premature.”

Moreover, the Palestinian leadership appears more invested in the current peace process than in previous negotiations. Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad intends to release a 65-page document tomorrow that outlines a strategy to develop the West Bank into a sovereign nation. His plans, largely unrealistic, include the establishment of both an airport and railways that run between countries. In the past, Palestinian leadership focused on Israel, including a peace plan, the right of return, and the status of Jerusalem. The focus on Palestinian institutions indicates that Fayyad, while still urging negotiations with Israel, believes that it is about time for Palestinians to take responsibility for their own state. Fayyad maintains strong support from the West but faces increasing internal opposition, particularly from Hamas. Notably, Fayyad’s document states:

“The government will work on encouraging investment in Palestine through offering tax cuts to local and foreign investors (and) will review investment regulations and remove obstacles that hinder investment… Our national duty stipulates that we should do whatever we can to get our economy out of the cycle of dependency and alienation.”

Regardless of all the overtures from the United States, Israel, and the Arab world, significant hurdles in the peace process remain intact. Any agreement could quickly be torpedoed by extremist groups throughout the Middle East. Even with determination, compromise, and understanding by the region’s leaders, many other factors will influence the final outcome of negotiations that will lead towards an independent Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel or lead to total failure like previous peace processes.

Netanyahu and Mitchell photo from the Israeli government website.

Fayyad photo taken from Wikipedia.