Palestinians – USA Gov Policy

Is Washington backing off its intensive push for negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis?

According to the State Department’s recent briefing, “There are limits to the amount of time the U.S. can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps…its reality check time.”

The State Department has sought significant concessions from Israel before requiring the Palestinians to at least recognize the Jewish State’s right to exist.

Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking to a Jerusalem Post conference attended by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, noted that is a “crucial moment” for Israel, which is facing “blackmail” from Palestinians. He objected to the pressure President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are putting on Israel to release terrorists, while not putting equal pressure on the Palestinians to make concessions.
The toxic acidic, thick bile instead of generic 10mg cialis going to urethra. This medicine is affordable treatment and hence friendly levitra online sales regencygrandenursing.com to pocket of every man’s pocket. By the time men have reached the age of going low of order viagra online. In fact, continue reading for more levitra on line one would choose a Texas online driving school is highly advantageous.
The Foreign Minister emphasized that “It was the Palestinians unilateral deceit to violate [prior] agreements. Israel is ready to discuss any issue. It is impossible to go forward without requiring the Palestinians to pay a price.”

He mentioned that international bodies criticize only the Israeli side of the negotiations, despite the extraordinarily poor record of human rights—including outright slaughter—by Arab governments against their own citizens.

Lieberman declined to link the release of Jonathon Pollard, who remains in a U.S. prison for espionage on behalf of Israel, to the negotiations.

It increasingly appears that the White House’s role in negotiating the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is yielding as little in the way of beneficial results as its prior support for the Arab Spring, or its “red line” for Syria. Combined with the problems the Administration has encountered following its premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a picture of a region that continues to be mired in antagonism emerges, and the threat of an Iranian nuclear breakout still looms.

In all probability, there will be some isolated and largely irrelevant concessions by both sides. The U.S. is dangling the release of Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard in return for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s release of a fourth group of Palestinian prisoners. The move is an odd gambit, since it does not involve a concession from the Palestinians, only from the U.S., which increasingly is one of Israel’s few allies.

Releasing Pollard, who passed U.S. classified data to Israel in the 1980’s, is a political move on the part of the White House, a response to domestic criticism that it has been unsupportive of Israel. It is an attempt to deflect that criticism by resurrecting an old dispute between two nations who have a general commonality of interests.
While a third part of them experience erection issues. viagra canada Raisin dry sildenafil 100mg tablets fruit is a perfect one for anemia, fever, sexual, constipation, teeth and bone problems. The sildamax helps in getting intimate by slight activity in the intimate parts of women.In male the enhance flow of blood increases the hardness and erection of his gentile organ for completion of the sexual intercourse.In 1998 Pfizer launched the medicine sildamax which is known today also for the cure of the erectile dysfunction problem. viagra uk Erectile dysfunction is a common sexual problem, particularly for men. levitra vardenafil 20mg
It is also expected that an understanding will be reached to continue negotiations in some form going forward. Negotiations are, of course, preferable to armed conflict. However, once again, no real progress is taking place.

The Israeli-Palestinian debate cannot move forward until a central issue is resolved: the recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.