Obama-Netanyahu-Abbas Trilateral: Beyond strained smiles for the cameras

President Qaddafi of Libya has aspirations to bigger pan-African and pan-Arab roles, so should he be drafted to bring the Palestinians and Israelis together? I think Libya may have had a big role in supporting Palestinian radical groups in the past and that gives them credibility with the Palestinians, and Qaddafi's criticism of Arabs may be what Israelis want to hear, so is this a viable opportunity with him in New York City too? Can you give a brief history of Libya under Qaddaffi, his relationship with the Palestinians, Libyan-US relations since Qaddafi took over? Do you think President Obama should reach out to Qaddafi and ask for his help?

Dear Dr. Lynch, I have been thinking about what you said about the thinkers who wrote General McCrystal's report on Afghanistan, and how none of them know much about Afghanistan. I was wondering if you could give up a list to tick off about what should constitute regional expert knowledge about Afghanistan and elsewhere. Perhaps the thinkers believe that they know enough about Afghanistan to give an opinion? What should 'enough' be? They may take your harsh criticism and throw it back at you asking who are you to judge what constitutes expertise on Afghanistan? Is this like the pot calling the kettle black?
Do you really think that President Obama can do anything but follow General McCrystal's recommendations? Does he not risk being called soft and defeatist if he doesn't? Is this a Catch-22 for Obama after calling Afghanistan the war of necessity?

Thank you Mr./Ms. Alex Tr. One feels so rare to the extent of being extinguished. As far as one's humble opinion on this subject, one would say that, Abu Mazen is a spent force, and no one better than Hamas knows that, because the only way they would have been discredited, is by Mr. Abbas making great strides towards the creation of a Palestinian state. President Obama said that, the trilateral meeting has made some progress but without elaborating. Actually today, a Hamas official repeated what the movement has always said, and that is, they will not oppose the creation of a Palestinian state on pre-1967 west bank. Mind you this is not the same as accepting such a state, rather, it means that they will not oppose Abu Mazen's efforts in negotiations with the Israelis, because in any case he will fail to materialise this Palestinian state, and in due course he will inevitably be discredited.
If we look at the issue from the various angles of the actors involved, President Obama has given his name as a credit for the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. So, unless he has no problem with losing credibility with the both sides he is trying to put together; including the wider Arab world, he will have to exert more pressures. But in which direction?. If I was in President Obama's shoes God forbid, which side I am likely to pressurise without having congress and the important lobbies on my Back?. Well, I would pressurise Abu Mazen to accept Mr. Netanyahu's offer, and pressurise the Arab world to make normalisation moves towards Israel, while presenting at the same time, Mr. Netanyahu's 9 months settlements freeze as a real concession and good-will gesture towards the Palestinians and the Arab world.
What about Mr. Netanyahu?. Anything beyond the 9 months settlements freeze, will jeoperdise the existence of his coalition government and his position as a Prime Minister. I don't see him capable of making any further concessions under the circumstances. Unless of course he can divine the future, and wouldn't mind going to early general elections, being sure that he can become a Prime Minister again without his "right of the centre" partners. Alternatively, there is one slight possibility also, if the wider Arab world starts a normalising process with Israel, perhaps he could present that to the Israeli public as a reason to give more cocnessions to the Palestinians. What would be the nature of those concessions?. They remain unpredictable.
When it comes to Mr. Abbas, I think he is in a lose-lose scenario. The best he can do currently, is to figure out the least bad move to take. If he doesn't talk to the Israelis, then what would be the point of him staying in power?. I mean his only asset is that, the Israelis find him an acceptable face to talk to. Alternatively, he can assume the role of Don Quixote and reject the talks, offering thus Mr. Netanyahu the chance of gobbling up more territories, and reducing the already reduced Arab presence of 12% in Jerusalem even more. But if he talks, what would be the result?. I believe the same as not talking really, but at least he can pretend in the long-run, that he had managed to save all can be saved for the Israelis, hoping that, the Palestinians by then, would have forgotten that, what he had saved supposedly, was already on offer by Israel even if he had not negotiated.
With Hamas, one would say that, they share more in common with Mr. Netanyahu's government than they share with Abu Mazen and the PNA. They feel Abu Mazen is doomed in any case,whether he negotiates or not. Therefore, they will sit tight awaiting Abu Mazen's political demise, then go for general elections on the reck of an already discredited PNA. One thing which can throw a spanner in their workings, and that is, if the Gazans undertake an "Intifada" against Hamas' heavy handed rule, and their inability to improve the economic and social conditions of the Gazans. A long shot though.
Regarding the wider Arab world, the current feeling is that, if normalisation moves are undertaken currently towards Israel in order to help the peace talks proceed forward in exchange of, Mr. Netanyahu's 9 months settlements freeze, then what would they be expected to offer, when the questions of refugees, borders, water rights and Jerusalem come up in the negotiations. They feel that, normalisation is nothing but a free gift to Israel under the circumstances, for doing nothing at
all.
All in all, one feels that prospects for the peace process are bleak in my humble opinion, nevertheless, as far as my own penny's worth of wisdom, one would have wished that, the United Arab Kingdom Plan of 1972 could be revived, between the two banks of the Jordan under the leadership of HM King Abdullah IInd, and have Mr. Obama's, international community's, and Arab countries' support. Interestingly, Hamas was the only Palestinian organisation which had protested the severing of ties between Jordan and the west bank. Cancelling Jordan's debts, and an international community financial support for the project, would have been really a very minor expense to put up with, in comparison to the prospects of more wars and destruction. In any case, this is an idea worth being austracised by all, for upholding.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Marc -

Why do you think Abbas is refusing to negotiate?

-Because he thinks nothing will get done anyway and it will undermine him at home?

-Because he thinks by waiting things out he can get some freebie concessions via American pressure before negotiating, thereby making Israel come up with additional concessions to match anything the Palestinians put up in the opening rounds?

-Something else?

Janbekster - interesting analysis. Right or wrong, who can tell, but good stuff.

Dr. Lynch, does the new message from Al-Qaeda today uncut your theory that Bin Laden is ready to negotiate with President Obama? Does this mean that Al-Qaeda had retaken a hostile stand towards Obama? Or do you think that Al-Qaeda is now divided into hawks and doves on the issue of negotiating with Obama?

Al-Qa'ida Central's leadership greeted Obama's election with immediate cold water, issuing a video in November 2008 saying that there was no difference between W. & Obama. Ayman al-Zawahiri called him a "house slave," using Malcolm X's famous term. Before Obama gave his June speech in Cairo, a release from al-Sahab highlighted the president's wooing of AIPAC, again pointing out that the new president is the same as the old (in their view).

Where's Tony Soprano (and his 2x4 wielding henchman, Fabio) when you need him, cause he's the only "interlocutor" who can shake down Netanyahu for a deal.

Apparently, President Obama has acquiesced to no pre-conditional settlement freeze prior to starting negotiations. And Bibi is only warming up...

It is known that, during the era of Abu Ammar (late Mr. Arafat), Mr. Abbas often presentd his resignation from his Prime Ministerial post and from the PNA, and sat brooding in his house, to come back again after Arab, and at times, international mediation between himself and late Mr. Arafat. Since he became a President of the PNA, he never uttered once the word resignation. If he doesn't eventually intends to drop the pre-condition of settlements freeze, in order to re-start the peace negotiations, I wonder why Mr. Abbas does not offer to resign from his post?. I mean he has every reason to do so. The government of Mr. Fayyad in the west bank is a caretaker government. The government of Mr. Hanniyeh in Gaza is a dismissed government. The Arab world is impotent in doing anything for him politically; save for financial support to the PNA, which is intermittent and on ad hoc basis. The international community; including the USA seem unable to either uphold their reponsibilities, or their promises and committments. Will he personally starve if he leaves?. No, not really, for he can join the family prosperous business in Qatar. If he resigns, he will effectively through the cat among the pigeons; so to speak, and as a consequence there will be a Palestinian general elections, with the likelihood of Hamas gaining the majority and coming to power even on a presidential level this time. Judging from the declared positions of the Arab world, international community, and Israel, dealing with Hamas is not the prefered option. So, why doesn't Abu Mazen drop this trump card of resignation on the table?.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Why would one send Mitchell, an elderly man (76), as one's jousting champion to Jerusalem? Younger men such as Wolfensohn or Blair got bloodied up pretty bad. Sure Mitchell's got a reputation but Belfast was then and Jerusalem is now. Someone like that indefatigable bulldog, Feltman, is the right type, with a deep well of tenacity! Geez, that guy never gives up. His coming and going between US Embassy and Babdaa while in Lebanon left behind a 3-ft trench. Damascus is the wrong place for him.

Well, President Obama has informed the world, not to expect the US to fix it all. Unfortunately, it was him whom had given the impression initially, that the US will be doing that.

khairi janbek.paris/france

I used to be very sympathetic to Israel but after seeing decades of aggression and mistreatment of Arab's I've changed. Yes they are in a difficult situation but they have only made it worse with many brutal actions, killing and tearing legs or arms from thousands of children over the years with their jets or cannons.

They make life very difficult for those living around them, and then ask, as a joke almost, why so many hate Israel. The US media shields us from seeing most of this, with only CNN, McClatchy, and a few other's showing a balanced view occasionally. From the Republican Fox Channel you'd think killing about 1,000 civilians in Gaza was nothing.

I hope the best for Israel and surrounding countries. But it will take compromise and a serious effort to battle the extremist's, Arab and Jewish [and the nutty Christian supporter's in the US like Huckabee].