Ira Glunts writes:
President Obama's popularity, though never high among Israelis, has tanked following the US administration's recent confrontation with Prime Minister Netanyahu over settlement expansion. According to a recent poll sponsored by the Jerusalem Post only 6% of Israelis view the US President as pro-Israeli. The poll shows 50% of Israelis now think that Obama is pro-Palestinian, and 36% thought that his policies were "neutral." Among Jewish-Israelis the term pro-Palestinian is usually used as being synonymous with traitor.
Another significant finding was that 69% supported building in what are known as "settlement blocs." These are areas near the '67 borders, that Israel assumes it will incorporate in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Israeli government claims that it should be allowed to expand these settlements since the Bush administration had previously given their consent. President Obama has called for a complete freeze and the US administration denies that such an agreement exists.
A compromise between the US and Israel on the settlement freeze could be in the works, though. The Washington Post reported that the United States is negotiating a deal with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which “building of Jewish settlements could go forward in certain cases.” The US government, which had previously called for a complete stop to settlement expansion, appears to be willing to modify its position, although it may not be willing to admit any change of policy.
In an indication that the US may be softening its demand for a complete freeze in construction, George Mitchell stumbled in trying to define what the US is demanding of Israel. At a press conference held on June 16, the Special Envoy declared that there is no change in US policy in regard to the settlements. However, Mitchell was unable to define what the US means by “natural growth,” despite the well-known American demand that the Israelis cease all settlement expansion including “natural growth.” In an awkward non-response to requests from the press to define the term, Mitchell said, “the most common definition is number of births.” In saying that "natural growth" is not an exception to the freeze, the US has been saying, no exceptions. It was noteworthy that Mitchell did not choose to make this clear at the press conference.
In what may be related news, Time claims that Dennis Ross will be getting a job upgrade by moving from State to the White House. This is contrary to earlier reports that he is being demoted. According to Time, Ross will have greater influence due to his closer proximity to the President. He will also have an expanded role, "advising the President on the Arab-Israeli peace process," according to the report.
I had assumed much of the wrangling over settlements would have been done privately, permitting the US and Israel to present a united front. The very public nature of the Obama/Netanyahu confrontation may be putting more political pressure on the US than on Israel, whose public seems to be squarely behind their PM. Could it be that Ross is being brought in to the White House to use his Israel contacts and pro-Israel credentials to ease the pressure on the administration?
Related posts:
{ 18 comments }
This whole situation smacks of mixed messages, and a fair amount of incoherence. I think what’s really going on is the Democrats are attempting to get their wealthy and powerful (mostly Zionist) Jewish constituency used to the idea that the Party is moving towards final status talks, and intends to force through a solution. No more playing footsy to buy time for the Israelis to grab more of the West Bank, which has been unofficial Democratic policy heretofore in order to keep their Jews happy. On the one hand, I think the Democrats realize the ideological incoherence of their support for institutionally racist Zionism, and see the Jewish Zionist faction (20% of Senate Dems, for example) and the Party’s support for Zionism as a glaring vulnerability down the line. On the other hand, they don’t want all that Jewish money and influence to go stampeding over to the GOP.
RE: Is Obama going wobbly on settlements? FROM J STREET: Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of a full settlement freeze, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said…that President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." This is exactly the sort of leadership we need from the President and Secretary of State if we are going to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the only way to truly secure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland. You can bet the Obama Administration is already hearing from hawkish voices on Israel – urging him to make exceptions, allow for more settlement growth, and to go slow. No way – a freeze means a freeze. We've got to make sure the President knows pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans support his strong line on settlements, for both Israel's and America's sake and security. Please send the President a message telling him you support his "Freeze means Freeze" approach to Israeli settlements. * TO SEND MESSAGE - http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3251/pet...
RE: Is Obama going wobbly on settlements? FROM 'Americans for Peace Now' (APN): Settlement freeze now. "No shticks. No tricks." We need you to send a message of encouragement to Secretary Clinton. Tell her that she and President Obama are right in calling for a settlement freeze and that they shouldn't take 'No' for an answer. Please print a letter and mail it to Secretary Clinton. TO PRINT LETTER – http://capwiz.com/peacenow/issues/alert/?alertid=...
Link breakage: The anchor "Washington Post reported that the United States" points not to the Washington Post but to Mitchell's press conference.
Wait so you're telling me that an American President might cave re: Israel?? STOP THE PRESSES!
Poor Dennis, seems to be always getting demoted by the "progressive" media. I would think his job would be cleaning toilets by now, with all the "demotions" he gets.
I'll give you a poll:
Why oh why do we have grovel to Israel? We should be boycotting, cutting the welfare money — that 'we' fund. This really is getting beyond a joke. Pretty soon people won't be laughing when conspiracy nuts say Israel runs this country.
How absurd that the US and Israel are deciding the fate of Palestinians, and making decisions about a land that doesn't belong to them. Sometimes I wonder what I would do if I were a Palestinian. I would rather die of old age, stateless, but I would never give the Israelis and the US the satisfcation of accepting their terms. To me that is dignity. Palestinians have given way too many concessions. It's time for them to dig their heels in and say enough, no more conessions, end the settlements, period.
I don't have much faith in Obama, either. It's a sad state of affairs when Obama's words in Egypt are taken as a stand for American taxpayers and victims of Israel, or against Israel and Zionist subversion. Barack Obama is no Krisztina Morvai! http://www.politics.hu/20090605/outrage-over-obsc... http://www.politics.hu/20090605/outrage-over-obsc...
Here is the correct link. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
You seem in a v. positive mood this morning. You think the Jewish Caucus were giving Lieberman a head smack then?
> "settlement blocs" … are areas near the '67 borders, that Israel assumes it will incorporate > in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians. In Israeli usage, the settlement blocs include both Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel, neither of which is near the 1967 borders (except in the sense that all of the occupied Palestinian territories are more or less near the Green Line). In fact, both Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel, with their surrounding "buffer zones," roads, walls, and such, cut deeply into the West Bank, about halfway to the Jordan. Considering that the Israelis also want to keep their Jordan Valley settlements and military zones, they're talking about breaking up the West Bank into bantustans even if they pull out of the non-"bloc" settlements (and there's no indication they're prepared even to do that). None of this is to say that Israel has any right to the settlements that are closer to the border, either…
Tell the president you support the dismantling of the settlements and the prosecution of the Americans who inhabit them. Tell the president to suspend all aid to Israel until the dismantling of the settlements is complete.
In general, I think the Jewish Zionist caucus is comprised of phonies, liars and hypocrites who will massage, finesse and spin whatever situation or course of events with which they are confronted in order to hold onto the maximum amount of power possible while simultaneously giving up as little ground as possible, just like their Jewish Zionist “peeps” in Israel. I don't think what is "right" or "best" for the American collective vis-à-vis Israel ever even enters in to their calculations any more than what is "right" or "best" for Palestinians enters into the calculations of staunch Jewish Zionists in Israel. The question is, "How much can more can we get away with?" [con't]
Of course, I recognize that not all Jews in America and Israel are so wickedly self-serving, but the ones who are not certainly aren't members of any staunch Jewish Zionist caucus that routinely votes Israel billions and has historically granted it free rein to rape, plunder and murder at will. If Obama weren't taking the lead, for example, I doubt any of the Jewish Zionist caucus in Congress would ever have changed their blank check policies to Israel of their own conscience or volition. Like most successful US politicians at the national level, I think they are all conspicuously lacking in conscience.
Time will tell won't it? If Obama does back down on the settlements he will totally blow all his creds with everyone…the Arabs and the Europeans who backed him on this as well. I think Ross was moved because Iran objected to him…won't talk to him….so BO moved him to where he's not likely to be talking directly to any one the WH doesn't give him leave to and he won't be making statements in contridiction to the WH and State Dept.. I don't view it as a promotion, more like give him a title to not entirely slap the zios in the face and putting him in a better padded play pen.
I hope everyone considers joining the boycott on The Washington Post in protest of their firing of Froomkin, including citing to it, clicking through to it or linking to it. The particular article in this piece was from Reuters anyway. And I would bet any amount of money that they fired Froomkin for writing things about Israel and the Middle East that were not acceptable to the neocons running the Post. This is probably why we see their new hire Ezra Klein getting a little neocon-like in his writing about Iran.
I once visited Ariel's website, in particular its pages aimed at prospective American olim… Just sickening. It left me with very little sympathy for any of the arguments made in favour of the settlers, to put it mildly.
Comments on this entry are closed.