Cruisin’ for a bruisin’

In his year end assessment of the changes in the Middle East over 2007, “The year of acting dangerously” Barry Rubin observes (among other things)

U.S. policy returns to traditional stance. Whatever innovations, for better or worse, President George Bush introduced into American regional policy have vanished in 2007. He is largely back to the traditional approach as carried out by both his father and predecessor. The administration has given up on reform or backing democracy. In 2008, a new president will be chosen but real policy shifts will take until the following year of course.

 

One of the symptoms of that change was the Annapolis conference, about which Daniel Pipes writes:

Before the Annapolis meeting took place in late November, I warned of the danger that a joint U.S.-Palestinian position might emerge that the Israelis would resist, thereby leading to “a possible crisis in U.S.-Israel relations of unprecedented proportions.” Here is the first installment to follow up on that worry

 

Pipes quotes from an article in Ha’aretz

Another senior government official involved in the talks also warned of expected crises with the Palestinians and the Americans. “Israel has created a series of far-reaching expectations in the international arena,” this official said, referring to the implementation of the first part of the road map, “but this is not going to happen.” “There is no political capability either to evacuate settlements or freeze construction in the settlements,” the second official added. According to this official, the problem will be even greater when negotiations begin on the core issues. “There are detailed files that include Israel’s position on the day negotiations came to a halt in 2001,” he said. “What will happen when they open the Jerusalem file, for example? They’ll find that Israel’s final position at Taba is light-years away from Israel’s opening position today.”

 

In the meantime the New York Times reports that Israel is about to budge on another “red line”

Also Monday, a committee of Israeli ministers led by Vice Premier Haim Ramon began examining the government’s criteria for early release of Palestinian prisoners, Israeli officials said. 

Loosening those rules could facilitate the return of captured Israeli soldiers who are believed to be held by the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah; it could also open up the possibility of larger prisoner releases to bolster Mr. Abbas, the officials said, speaking anonymously because the issue is still being debated.

The current government policy, set in July 2003, bars the release of prisoners with “blood on their hands,” defined as those who participated in attacks in which Israeli or foreign nationals were killed or wounded; their dispatchers; and would-be suicide bombers who were captured before carrying out an attack. Rafi Eitan, a cabinet minister, told Israel Radio on Monday that the current restrictions made it nearly impossible to negotiate for the release of captured soldiers.

 

Given all the conditionals in the Times report it’s little wonder that Daled Amos is skeptical that changing the definition will help.

And while they are at it, they will continue to bend over backwards to make sure to release as many terrorists as possible without gaining the release of Gilad Shalit.

 

The problem isn’t just the ineffectiveness of the concessions, but once Israel concedes ground in one area, it makes it that much harder to hold the line in others.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.