Ira Glunts writes:
The flap over the settlement freeze is an indication of the difficulty the U.S. will continue to encounter in any effort to obtain Israeli cooperation with Obama’s two-state solution plans. The Netanyahu government is not interested in restarting the substantive peace negotiations over final status issues that ceased nine years ago. The Israeli plan is publicly to agree to the talks, participate in them if necessary, but be as intransigent as the Americans will allow--since in Jerusalem’s view the status quo is a comfortable situation. And Israel is surely not likely willingly to stop settlement expansion that it believes will, in the end, strengthen its bargaining position through “creating facts on the ground.” Currently there are almost 500,000 facts parked illegally in the territories, and a vast majority of them are conceded by most to be living on land that will eventually be incorporated into Israel.
Helena Cobban, on her blog, rightly praises the Obama administration for sticking to its position on the freeze which she claims created an awareness among members of Congress about Netanyahu’s “lack of good faith.”
He [Obama] and his officials have all remained quite firm on verbally requesting a complete settlement freeze, and on justifying that request in the public arena; but they have as yet undertaken no actual policy actions to hold Israel accountable for following through on that demand. My sense is that they are holding their political "big guns" for a confrontation with Netanyahu's government that may well lie shortly ahead-- over the big issue of the final-status peace.
Meanwhile, by rhetorically holding firm on the settlement-building issue they have been able to educate many key members of the US Congress about the importance of the territorial issues underlying it, and about Netanyahu's lack of good faith in this negotiating arena. They have also quietly but steadily been building the domestic constituency inside the US for forthright action on securing the final peace.
I agree that the flare-up over the freeze highlights Netanyahu’s lack of enthusiasm for the peace process and his lack of good faith, although I question how many in Congress are being educated by the debate.
It should be pointed out that the idea of instituting a freeze as a precondition for negotiations originally appeared in the Mitchell Report of 2001, which presented suggestions for restarting the failed Oslo negotiations. I am guessing that Mitchell is taking the lead with the Israelis. M.J Rosenberg, who claims, in the comments section, to have spoken to someone who attended the last Barak-Mitchell meeting, says that Mitchell did not give any ground on the complete freeze demand. However, the Israelis and Americans have agreed to continue the debate privately, so no official indication has been given as to the status of the issue.
I share the Israeli surprise at the aggressiveness of team Obama at this early stage. It has not been the President’s style to employ such a confrontational approach, which suggests that this is Mitchell’s doing. If Mitchell is indeed taking the lead, he is proving that we were correct to rejoice when he was appointed Special Envoy, at a time many feared Dennis Ross would be given that post. However, the recent appointment of Ross to the NSC where he will be reporting directly to the President may set up a situation where Mitchell and Ross compete for the lead role in shaping U.S-Israel policy.
Nathan Guttman, writing in the Forward about Dennis Ross’ new position at NSC, claims that bringing Ross in to the White House at this juncture will assist Obama in mending the damaged relations with Israel that have resulted from the freeze flap. He writes:
Based on their previous work and statements, Ross and Mitchell represent different approaches to the conflict: Mitchell has a strong belief that an agreement is possible, based on his successful experience in Northern Ireland, while Ross brings a more skeptical approach based on three decades of fruitless negotiations in the Middle East.
The translation of the above paragraph is that Mitchell wants to work to achieve a two-state solution. Ross would rather follow the lead of Netanyahu and Barak, avoid pressuring Israel and work to preserve the status quo. I have to praise Guttman for his honesty.
My advice to those who are trying to predict what will happen is, Do not underestimate how difficult Netanyahu will be. The freeze flap is only the beginning. The current Israeli leaders are less interested in a peace treaty with the Palestinians than they were in the 90s. The same is true of the Israeli Jewish population. In the end, it will be the Americans who will decide if and what type of peace will be achieved. American success will come as a result of a willingness to use all diplomatic means necessary to move the Israelis away from their present inflexible position. In this effort, former Senator George Mitchell could be the man.
Because Israel has rejected an illegal violation of the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights by not discriminating against Jews you jump to the cynical conclusion that Israel does not want peace. Great analysis.
I don't suppose you would care to explain to your readers why the Jewish communities are illegal? They are not. Jews have every right to live on that disputed land as the Arabs do.
The settlements are the key link to peace. If the settlements expand, peace is impossible. If they remain the same, then there is a path resolve other issues. The balance of powers in the Arab world will move towards reconciliation. The balance of Jewish sentiment will move towards reconciliation.
I disagree. I think removing the settlements is a necessary but not sufficient action for peace. Unfortunately, there is no sufficient action for peace. I think Israel should do a 6 month suspension of all settlement building outside of Jerusalem. With building to resume if the Palestinians don't stop attacking. This would serve two purposes. First, it would make president Obama happy. Second, it would demonstrate that the Palestinians are not interested in peace. Because settlement freeze or not, the Palestinians will keep attacking. Frankly, we have been here before. Back when the Israelis pulled out of Gaza, that was supposed to help with the peace negotiations. Except that it didn't. Instead, more terrorism. Any concession by Israel is taken as a sign of weakness by the Palestinians. They then demand more. If they get it, they demand still more, until their demands become too much and the process collapses again. That has been their pattern throughout the history of Israel. Any concession leads to more violence.
I disagree with both of you.Occupation and settelments are illigal.what part of this you want to keep ignoring.one country for all its citizens,otherwise ,body can you spare a nuke?
Phil Weiss wrote: " American success will come as a result of a willingness to use all diplomatic means necessary to move the Israelis away from their present inflexible position…." You know, in a weird and admittedly unintended way, this really is nothing more than the standard trope that the U.S. ought to be in the business of insuring Israel's survival, health and etc. After all what happens if the U.S. *does* "move the Israelis away from their present inflexible position" to one you like and it *still* doesn't work and Israel winds up in some grave war due to same? Here's your choices: A.) Be an equivocating schmuck and start saying "oh gee this has nothing to do with what *we* got Israel to do! It was because of X, Y and Z and sunspots that caused this." or B.) Be a standup person and say "well at the very least what we got Israel to do may well have contributed to its situation and therefore now we have to go and secure its security and health and etc." Why chose either? Why not the far wiser alternative of us simply withdrawing ourselves from the situation, including our non-humanitarian money, express heartfelt sorrow for the suffering on both sides and wish 'em all well in the future? Not to mention … where the hell is even a molecule of U.S. interest in all this?
Thom, you should tell the whole truth and not just a superficial account of what happened. Israel withdrew from Gaza – yes. But it controlled the borders. Gaza had no autonomy. Israel still carried out military operations in Gaza. It still regularly KIDNAPPED people from Gaza. This is a very popular Zionist line. It gives the impression that this was a major concession from Israel. Poor Israel left Gaza and wanted peace, but those Arabs, they just want to kill Jews. Shut the hell up.
Oh and the blockade. Yea, they 'withdrew' alright. Fucking liar. People here have probably read it, but check out Sara Roy's articles and presentations on Gaza before/after the 'withdrawal'.
Thom, "I think Israel should do a 6 month suspension of all settlement building outside of Jerusalem. With building to resume if the Palestinians don't stop attacking." So what do you have to lose? The Palestinians are attacking Israel? Concrete examples of current events would be appreciated , if you intend to go anywhere with that.
Who said "remove"?
Israel should stop ALL settlement construction, immediately and for six months unequivocally would be a good start. It is necessary for the Arab world, including Palestinians, to respond in some substantive manner, for it to bear fruit, to call Israel's bluff. Lots of people don't want any peace progress. Today in Haaretz the PA declared that they arrested Hamas operatives (ordered from the top?) intending to assassinate Abbas, in order to dissemble any peace efforts. Not a new strategy. They have historically timed most of their terror immediately before peace talks. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097504.html
Have you looked at a map of the West Bank recently? It's absolutely, totally and definitely impossible to build a working Palestinean state with the settlements "remaining the same". "[...]and a vast majority of them are conceded by most to be living on land that will eventually be incorporated into Israel." I keep reading this. Anybody ever care to show me what land they mean, and how many settlers live outside of these borders?
That woudl be the same Abbas whi's term as leader ended in January and who accepted money from Israel and Washington to renege of the unity talks he was to have with Hamas in 2006 and instead launch a coup to overthrow them? As for your theory about peace efforts, the last ceassefire was broekn after 4 months by Israel, becasue as Tzipi Livni told the world, it is not in Israel's strategic interests to have a long ceasefire. In other words, if Israel were to have a freeze on settlements, they would look for a way to provoke the Palestinians into a response that they could claim was proof that the Palestinians are no serious about peace. How long have we heard the same old mantra about how Israel didn't have a partner for peace? The game is up. Everyone is onto Israel.
Margaret, When Thom says Palestinians are attacking Israel, he deliberately ignores that the Palestinains were reposnding to an Isreli atatck. Peopel like Thom would have you believe that a man who rapes a woman is acting in self defense is she tries to fight back.
The Palestinian Think Tank argues that neither does President Obama have an interest in justly resolving the conflict: Shmuel Amir – Two Speeches: Obama in Conflict with Netanyahu? http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/06/30/smuel-am...
Successive Israeli governments have had a settlements policy for the occupied territories for more than 40 years. The primary goal of the policy has never varied (except briefly with Rabin). That goal was, and is, to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. The 1967 war was launched by Israel with that goal in mind. The shared objective of preventing creation of a Palestinian state is what unites Israelis of many political stripes in support of the settlements policy – even many who are not enthusiastic about a Greater Israel. Everyone understands the goal. Ha'aretz recently reported on a poll of 500 Israelis, in which 46 per cent (a plurality) wanted a continuation of settlement construction in the West Bank even if that resulted in damage to the "special relation" with the U.S. The central problem Obama faces in his Middle Eastern policy is the hard fact that most Israelis simply do not want a State of Palestine to come into being, and will vote out of power any government that tries honestly to make that happen. In the end, since he has put his personal creditability and the prestige of the Presidency on the line, Obama must realize that he has to bring meaningful sanctions against Israel to achieve a viable two-state solution. Wisely, I think, he is proceeding slowly and allowing time for American popular opinion to build behind him. If Obama plays his cards wisely, he can allow Netanyahu, Lieberman, et al, to hang themselves with their own indiscretions. So far, he seems to be playing this well. But sooner or later the Obama team, led by Emanuel and Axelrod and Obama himself, will need to start using American mainstream media to dramatize the policy differences with Israel, and to explain why this matters to American interests. The case for sanctions must be made publicly. A general public airing of the issues is what Israel and its American likudnik lobby fear the most. The threat of an Obama prime-time address to the nation on problems and solutions in the Middle East is his all-too-visible nuclear option. But he must proceed with his usual care and caution.
Leaving the State of Israel intact in a two state solution only guarantees that Israel will go on some racist, murderous, genocidal ramapage. The Zionist leadership has had 60 years to perfect the Zionist (ethnic Ashkenazi Nazi) conscience among the Zionist interlopers in the ME and among Jews throughout Europe and N. America. All Americans should read The Nazi Conscience by Koonz — I mention it in Drone Attacks, Buenos Aires JCC — in order to understand the mentality of far too many wealthy and powerful American Jews. The problems that we experience in Boston from the Jewish power elite are only a small taste of the future for the US and all of the Western world as long as the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland remains intact: Patterns of Boston Jewish Power.
Yes