• Ahmadinejad Sets Nuclear Red Lines for January Talks - Ramin Mostafavi
  A day after the conclusion of a two-day meeting with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1), Iranian President Ahmadinejad told those countries to drop any idea of curbing Iran's quest for nuclear technology and instead invited them to help build the 20 nuclear power stations it plans.
      Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili told reporters after Tuesday's meeting in Geneva that: "Iran will not discuss a uranium enrichment halt in the next meeting in Istanbul." Ahmadinejad reiterated that point and specified three red lines that Iran would not cross. "Our nuclear rights, including the continuation of enrichment, making 20% uranium, and building nuclear plants are not negotiable." Iran says it is not involved in "nuclear talks" and insists the negotiations are aimed more generally at discussing global problems. (Reuters)
• U.S. Opposes South American Moves to Recognize Palestinian State
  The U.S. on Tuesday opposed moves by Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay to recognize an independent Palestinian state, saying such recognition is "counter-productive" to achieving Middle East peace. "We don't think that we should be distracted from the fact that the only way to resolve the core issues within the process is through direct negotiations," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said. "That remains our focus. And we do not favor that course of action. As we've said many, many times...any unilateral action, we believe, is counterproductive."  (AFP)
      See also France Not Recognizing Palestine - Laura Rozen (Politico)
      See also below Commentary: Recognition of a Palestinian State - Premature, Legally Invalid - Alan Baker (ICA-Jerusalem Center)
• Why the U.S. Ended Push for Israeli Building Freeze - Ethan Bronner
  After American and Israeli officials began negotiating a partial, one-time, 90-day Israeli settlement construction freeze in exchange for American military hardware and diplomatic guarantees, it became clear that every element of the deal posed profound difficulties, and that the wisest course was to step back and start over. Now the administration wants to plunge forward - without direct talks and without a freeze - and demand substantive engagement from each side right away through American officials.
      The Palestinians are unhappy with this turn of events. Still, Palestinian leaders indicated that they were not closing off American-brokered talks; they know that all the recognition in the world will not, on its own, create the reality of a sovereign state.
      Administration officials came to the realization that the issue of settlements was one among a clutch of difficult ones: Jerusalem, borders, security, and Palestinian refugees. Any one of them placed ahead of the others would become a roadblock to progress. Israeli officials indicated that with a settlement freeze off the table, they could be more forthcoming on other issues, including changes on the ground in the West Bank. (New York Times)
      See also Obama's Double-or-Nothing Moment in the Middle East - Jackson Diehl
  The latest collapse of the Middle East peace process has left President Obama with a tough choice: quietly shift one of his prized foreign policy priorities to a back burner - or launch a risky redoubling of U.S. efforts. Netanyahu agreed in principle to a three-month partial freeze of building in the West Bank, but the Palestinians preemptively announced that the deal wouldn't be good enough for them to end their walkout from the talks, because it didn't include Jerusalem. (Washington Post)

• Israel Expects U.S. to Block UN Recognition of Palestinian State - Herb Keinon and Hilary Leila Krieger
  Israel is confident the U.S. will block Palestinian moves to get the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state, government officials said Wednesday. Israeli officials said the U.S. was making clear to the Palestinians, Europeans and Arab government that trying to bypass the negotiations and going for a solution imposed by the outside would not be effective. Israeli officials said it was critical that the Palestinians realized all "exit doors" out of the negotiations were closed, and that there were no alternative routes to sitting down and talking directly. (Jerusalem Post)
      See also Israel Building New Peace Path Together with U.S. - Interview with Ron Dermer
  Discussing what seems to be a wave of states in Latin America upgrading their diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority, Ron Dermer, political advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu, told Israel Radio on Wednesday: "The real key is the American position, and the unequivocal American position opposes any Palestinian attempt to circumvent the direct talks....What is extremely important here is that we are in sync with the Americans. If the Americans will not be a party to such a process, in the end, it will not happen."
      "The old path we were on during the entire political process was a path led by the Americans. Now we are moving to a new path that we will build together with the Americans." "Ultimately, I think the Americans understand, they are far less skeptical, let's say, about the prime minister's willingness to reach an agreement, and perhaps a bit more skeptical now about whether the Palestinians really intend to reach an agreement." "Don't forget, the ones who walked out on the direct talks were the Palestinians, not us."  (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 8Dec10)
• Israeli Wounded in Gaza Mortar Attack - Yaniv Kubovich
  The head of security at a kibbutz near Gaza was hit in the neck by a piece of shrapnel from a mortar shell fired by Palestinian terrorists on Wednesday. The attack included the firing of four mortar shells at Israel. (Ha'aretz)
      See also Israeli Local Councils: "We're Being Shelled from Gaza Daily" - Yaakov Lappin (Jerusalem Post)

• Recognition of a Palestinian State - Premature, Legally Invalid, and Undermining any Bona Fide Negotiation Process - Alan Baker
  The acts of recognition of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders by Brazil, Argentina, and possibly other Latin American states have no significance other than as a political expression of opinion. These acts run counter to statements by Brazil and Argentina in the UN Security Council in 1967 in favor of freely negotiated borders between the parties and an internationally sponsored peace negotiation process as set out in Resolution 242.
      The unceasing efforts among states by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority to attain recognition of unilateral statehood within the 1967 borders, and thereby bypass the accepted negotiation process, runs counter to their commitments in their agreements with Israel, as witnessed and guaranteed by members of the international community. The hostile actions and statements of the Palestinian leadership lack bona fides and prejudice any reasonable negotiating ambiance between parties that seek to establish peaceful relations between them, and are indicative of an utter lack of a genuine will to reach a peaceful settlement. The writer is a former Legal Adviser to Israel's Foreign Ministry and former Ambassador of Israel to Canada. (Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)
      See also WJC, ADL Slam South American Recognition of "Palestine"
  The World Jewish Congress (WJC) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have expressed concern over recent announcements made by Latin American countries that they recognize a Palestinian state. Ronald S. Lauder, President of the WJC stated: "We find these announcements made by Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American countries to be troubling. Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking is a delicate process and is meant to be directly negotiated between the parties as mandated by UN resolutions." Abraham H. Foxman, the ADL's National Director, said: "The actions taken by Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay to recognize an independent Palestinian state at this time undermine bridge-building."  (Jerusalem Post)
• Empty Nuclear Talks with Iran - Editorial
  The talks with Iran in Geneva this week appear to have produced little. Iran did not respond substantively to the concerns raised about its nuclear program. The only agreement reached - to meet again in Istanbul in late January - benefited Tehran in two ways: It advanced its aim of introducing Turkey, which opposed the last round of UN sanctions, into the negotiations, and it provided a means to postpone further international pressure. According to reports by international inspectors, Iran has the capacity to enrich another 150 kilograms of uranium - a quarter bomb's worth when fully processed - between now and the next meeting.
      The Obama administration's assessment is that Iran's very participation in the talks shows that its policy is working. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the BBC: "I think Iran comes to the table with a much more sober assessment of what isolation means, what the impact on their economy has been, and we hope that will cause them to have the kind of serious negotiation we are seeking." There was no evidence of that in Geneva. Instead, Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili declared that "halting uranium enrichment" - the West's principal objective - "will not be discussed at the Istanbul meeting." And on the eve of the talks, Iran announced that it had begun producing its own processed uranium ore, or yellowcake - another step toward creating an autonomous production line for bombs. (Washington Post)

Grim Prospects for a Palestinian State - Benny Morris (Tablet)

• Starting with the Israeli handover of West Bank cities and Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in the mid-1990s, the Palestinians, ever-so-slowly and inefficiently, have built pre-state institutions of governance - most recently and competently under the leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. During the past few years Western observers have noted substantial improvements in Palestinian taxation, infrastructure, and economic development, and in the functioning of the (American- and European-trained) security services. Indeed, under Fayyad, the West Bank is a largely peaceful place, with residents even paying traffic tickets, and militants of Hamas and other organizations largely inactive.
• However, "negotiations" are unlikely to lead to a peace treaty or even a "framework" agreement for a future peace accord due to a set of obstacles that I see as insurmountable, given current political-ideological mindsets. The first is that Palestinian political elites are dead set against partitioning the Land of Israel/Palestine with the Jews. They regard all of Palestine as their patrimony and believe that it will eventually be theirs. They do not want a permanent two-state solution.
• Hamas, which may represent the majority of the Palestinian people, openly repudiates a two-state solution. The secular Palestinian leadership is more flexible on the tactics. They express a readiness for a two-state solution but envision such an outcome as intermediate and temporary. This is why Fatah's leaders, led by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, flatly reject the Clintonian formula of "two states for two peoples" and refuse to recognize the "other" state, Israel, as a "Jewish state." They hope that this "other" state will also, in time, be "Arabized," thus setting the stage for the eventual merger of the two states into one Palestinian Arab-majority state.
• It is hard to envision any circumstances under which the current Obama-initiated direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks can succeed. Politically, the two contending leaders have little room for maneuver and, at least on the Arab side, little will to concede anything. Abbas might sign off on "an end to the conflict" - and most likely be assassinated by Arab extremists in consequence - but a majority of Palestinians, and certainly a large minority of them, would continue the struggle, rendering the agreement no more than a wind-blown piece of paper.

  The writer is a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University.