AAM DISPATCH

Israeli envoys are in Washington for talks with US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell on restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and steps to move forward. Palestinians will meet separately with Mitchell on Friday and have lowered any expectations for the latest US attempt to restart peace talks. Abbas has repeatedly said he would not return to talks without a freeze in Israeli settlements, which is mandated by a US-backed peace plan. Israel refuses to comply, offering at best to slow construction for a limited period.

Last week at the United Nations General Assembly, Obama made clear the imperative of a sustainable Middle East peace, including a two-state solution, not only to Israelis, Palestinians, and their Arab neighbors, but to the international community as well. Obama urged the sides to move beyond the two main sticking points — continued Israeli settlement construction and the framework for resuming talks. From the BBC:

Last week’s three-way talks appeared to make little headway on the obstacles between the two sides – Israel’s rejection of US and Palestinian demands that it put a total stop to settlements. Disagreements over the settlements issue have blocked all attempts to restart peace talks since they were suspended last December.

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) is a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, a Member of the Middle East Subcommittee and a leading congressional voice on Middle East issues. He recently spoke at the Center for American Progress and suggested that the best way forward might be to lead with the issue of borders. The continued emphasis on Israeli settlements, Wexler argues, has stymied talks so far. He suggests that a new focus on the definition of Palestinian borders would open the door for negotiation by providing a concrete – albeit contentious – issue for both sides to debate.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The US has been in some way involved in helping to resolve the conflicts between Israel and Palestine since the creation and recognition of the Jewish state in the hopes that it would help stabilize the region. Listen to a history of America’s role in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Javier Barrera Israel, Middle East

Lebanese voters went to the polls on Sunday in an election that will determine if the country maintains its pro-Western government or votes for an alliance backed by the militant group Hezbollah. A win by Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, could bring added conflict with Israel and set back US Mideast policy since the US considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization. At stake are 128 seats in the parliament which will determine the majority. From Al Jazeera:

Lebanon’s interior ministry said turnout was more than 52 per cent, exceeding the 45 per cent total recorded in the 2005 election. “Since 1990, and possibly even before, we have not seen such turnout,” Ziad Baroud, Lebanon’s interior minister, said. “The election was a challenge that many doubted would take place. But Lebanon’s political factions and the Lebanese met the challenge.”

Listen to a breakdown of the electoral process from Battleground Lebanon with Hilal Khasan, Professor of Political Studies at the American University of Beirut and Paul Salem, Director of the Carnegie Middle East Center:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Javier Barrera Lebanon, Middle East

I will admit that I am endlessly fascinated Lebanese politics. The confessionally-based “democracy” there frequently teeters on the brink of implosion (often quite literally), yet manages to endure one way or another. As we explored in our “Battleground Lebanon” program last summer, the political system is a compromise forged at the time of independence, and while it made sense then, the country has chaffed against the rigid constraints of the system.

I bring this up because of Robert Worth’s article in today’s New York Times exploring the scramble to influence Lebanon’s parliamentary elections this June. Because Lebanon is a weak state, it is subject to external influence, and again as we explored in our program, it is a sandbox for regional disputes. So, various conflicts and tensions play out in Lebanon, and currently, a host of nations are trying to influence the elections.

Lebanon has long been seen as a battleground for regional influence, and now, with no more foreign armies on the ground, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region are arming their allies here with campaign money in place of weapons. The result is a race that is widely seen as the freest and most competitive to be held here in decades, with a record number of candidates taking part. But it may also be the most corrupt.

…“We are putting a lot into this,” said one adviser to the Saudi government, who added that the Saudi contribution was likely to reach hundreds of millions of dollars in a country of only four million people. “We’re supporting candidates running against Hezbollah, and we’re going to make Iran feel the pressure.”

To be clear, all of this foreign investment in Lebanon’s elections, and the payments by candidates to voters – it’s all illegal, but goes on nonetheless. I remember people in Lebanon telling me last summer that they vote for people who pave their roads and provide services – or cash. And ultimately, the politics are essentially parochial and “tribal” with no real unifying national political interests or candidates. Hence, a perpetually unstable country subject to the power politics of the region.

Sean Carberry International Politics, Middle East