I’ve just been catching up with Helene Cooper’s piece in the NYT yesterday on Obama and the Israeli settlement freeze.
She concludes:
- When asked on Thursday what he would do if Mr. Netanyahu continued to balk at a settlement freeze, Mr. Obama said he was not yet ready to offer an “or else.”
My view, for what it’s worth, is that the president should keep up the strongly worded requests that Israel cease its ongoing settlement-building activity but should focus primarily on winning the final Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement, under the terms of which the final status of all settlements will be determined.
The (hopefully successful!) demand for a settlement freeze should be seen as a helpful entry-point into these negotiations rather than an end in itself.
If, as some unconfirmed reports have said, Obama wants to achieve the final peace agreement within two years, that’s what he needs to focus on.
Obama needs to force the Israeli hand on two issues:
1) Before Israel makes any demand regarding any other country’s nuclear status, Israel must come clean about its own nuclear status, i.e., how many warheads it possesses, when it will reduce that number, allow international inspectors in, discuss the Asher Karni affair, etc. Until then, Israel forfeits it’s voice.
2) State clearly whether the occupied territories are Israel or not. If not, Israel must withdraw. If territory, Israel must grant full voting rights. No other option can be allowed.
Israel exploits duplicity.
Instead of choosing a one-state solution or a two-state solution, Israel picks and chooses which benefit from either it prefers. There is a third solution Israel is seeking to achieve, the zero-state solution. Israel is seeking to eliminate the Palestinian people.
The (hopefully successful!) demand for a settlement freeze should be seen as a helpful entry-point into these negotiations rather than an end in itself.
If, as some unconfirmed reports have said, Obama wants to achieve the final peace agreement within two years, that’s what he needs to focus on.
The (hopefully unsuccessful!) demand for a settlement freeze should be seen as Israel’s exit point from negotiations : as an end in itself.
If, as some unconfirmed reports have said, Obama wants to allow the final dissolution of Palestine within two years while simultaneously appearing not to be working for same, then that’s what he needs to focus on.
Helena – I think you are deluding yourself. If Bibi wins the settlement freeze argument then he will know that Obama is toothless on final status negotiations. While Bibi might be willing to negotiate, you can be assured that his positions will be unacceptable to the Palestinians.
Instead of just giving up the fight on a settlement freeze, Obama must take the matter to the UN Security Council (Congress cannot stop this avenue under AIPAC pressure). Building and moving civilians into occupied territory rightly belongs to UN supervision. Only by passing a UNSC resolution that imposes even mild sanctions against Israel if it continues to expand settlements will Obama get the attention of the Israeli public and government.
The most successful tactic to force the settlement freeze would be a boycott of Israeli products, starting with any product produced in whole or in part in the occupied territories. An official White House approval of such a boycott (very unlikely) or a UN resolution approving such a boycott which the US allows to be passed, even if only by the General Assembly , would send shivers up the Israeli spine like no other action. It would end the speculation over Obama’s spine. An interesting opinion piece on the settlement issue in Haaretz this am:
What will happen if Israel ‘defeats’ Obama?
And also this piece:
AG: Lieberman would not be FM in a normal country
The most successful tactic to force the settlement freeze would be a boycott of Israeli products,
Why you rush to ban or boycott of Israeli products?
Why not using more affective real power against country have a history of not obeying international laws for 60yeras?
On what ground this state immune of punishment from other countries around the world?
when its comes to Israel breaking international low neither US or Europeans been firm and loud voices here?
The recent N. Korea testes, UN rushed for unguent meeting issued condemnation so as US/Obama and Europeanise!!
Iran another case where sanctions, threats on her to leave her rights and all of that.
Mozambique another country have isolated/punished by UN and international community.
So Israeli have had in many case of freeze settlement did really they freeze?
The practice very vague and broken many times. the world /UN did noting despite its against UN regulations and International laws.
One thing important here Israeli needs new Immigrant to expand either by war or peace this is fact if this continue then new homes and new land to settles new immigrants needed.
In any case this issue agreed as the carrot by the international community and UN that Israel have for her condition in any peace plane.
This well used before and they know how to fake it. Although its clear violations of international laws and UN charter sadly they price Israel instead of the victims for it.
Its very sad twisting ideas in the world we living here..
After the Gaza war
Peace now?
The Economist Jan 22nd 2009
If you are saying that the freeze should not be fetishized as an end in itself, you are right. But a freeze is an absolute prerequisite to any serious talks. If Obama caves on this, he is already a lame duck.
If you are saying that the freeze should not be fetishized as an end in itself, you are right. But a freeze is an absolute prerequisite to any serious talks. If Obama caves on this, he is already a lame duck.
jdledell – Yesterdat on Channel 10 News, political corresponent Nadav Peri had an interesting story. While Netanyahu is talking tough, he is not moving forward with settlement construction. Peri indicated that this is most apparent with settlement expansion (i.e. for “natural growth”) that was frozen at the end of Olmert’s term, and which Bibi has not rushed to unfreeze.
I think that one possible explanation is that during their meeting in Washington, Obama and Netanyahu agreed that Bibi would talk tough for his home audience, while openly dismantly outposts and quietly freezing settlements. This will also help Obama gain concessions from the Arab League.
The settlements would be right at the bottom of Bibi’s priority list. He’s staked out his price for Washington — Israel will insist on demilitarisation of the Palestinian state and recognition of Israel as a jewish state and the US will go along this. A settlement freeze is a low card of a minor suit to give up when the Palestinian state is an eventual given, as Bibi has known well since his previous days as PM.
JES – I will be leaving for Israel at the end of this month. Since I will be spending all my time visiting relatives beyond the Green Line, I’ll report back on how much new settlement building is going on. My guess is I will find several hundred houses in the process of being built. Frankly, I don’t believe that settlement construction, quiet or otherwise, has ceased. Have you seen the pictures of the new buildings in Maoz Esther? It sure did not take them long to rebuild for the 4th time.
jdledell,
Do you speak Hebrew? If so, check out this site and play the news broadcast for June 1. You’ll have to wait until about 15 minutes into the broadcast for Nadav Peri’s report. Listen to what he says.
BB, I don’t follow your line of reasoning.
The settlement freeze is a “low card of a minor suit” for whom? And how has Bibi known this since he was last PM?
That “…Israel will insist on demilitarisation of the Palestinian state and recognition of Israel as a jewish state….” makes sense. This is where Camp David and Taba broke down. And that the US should accept this also goes without saying. But without these two conditions, a Palestinian state will not be a given.
Why a freeze? Why not demand the dismantling of the settlements, which are illegal, as seems to be forgotten? Why not demand the lifting of the siege of Gaza? Why not demand the dismantling of Israel’s illegal “separation” wall? Is that too much to ask? Doesn’t legality count?
Of course legality doesn’t count.
I woudn’t be surprised if the pressure on Israel to “freeze” it’s settlement will not be pushed too hard any longer after Obama’s PR exercise to “improve” relations with the Muslim world, which is actually more a campaign to show solidarity with Arab tyrannies like Egypt and Jordan (who are on the payroll of the USA), and with the most oppressive Islamic theocracy in the world (were women are forbidden to drive cars), Saudi Arabia, which is America’s best friend.
One thing is certain; Obama will be accompanied by his own best friends, his battery of teleprompters, which he takes everywhere with him and without which he would have to reveal that he is not only not a great speaker, but can’t deliver a speech at all:
“Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.
After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck.
His use of the teleprompter makes work tricky for the television crews and photographers trying to capture an image of the president announcing a new Cabinet secretary or housing plan without a pane of glass blocking his face. And it is a startling sight to see such sleek, modern technology set against the mahogany doors and Bohemian crystal chandeliers in the East Room or the marble columns of the Grand Foyer.
“It’s just something presidents haven’t done,” said Martha Joint Kumar, a presidential historian who has held court in the White House since December 1975. “Its jarring to the eye. In a way, it stands in the middle between the audience and the president because his eye is on the teleprompter.”
(…)
“He uses them to death,” a television crewmember who also covered the White House under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said of the teleprompter. “The problem is, he never looks at you. He’s looking left, right, left, right — not at the camera. Its almost like he’s not making eye contact with the American people.”
source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html
Bibi was an Oslo rejectionist, but after he came to power in ’96 he pulled the IDF out of Hebron and he completed negotiations for a further pull out from the WBank under the Wye accord. He permitted the opening of the international airport in Gaza. He continued negotiations with
Syria for a return of the Golan. And he allowed the construction of what was widely assumed to be the future national Palestinian parliament in Abu Dhis on the outskirts of East Jerusalem.
That’s why I say Bibi has “known” that the Palestinian state was an eventual given since his first stint as PM – but correct me if I’m wrong on all of the above?
The settlements are a low card of a minor suit because they pale into insignificance alongside a nuclear Iran and its promotion of Hamas. Ensuring that Palestine is fully demilitarised and the jewish state is recognised is far more crucial to Israel’s interests than indulging the settlement movement which is only of interest to the narrow right wing. If most of the settlements are going end up being annexed by Israel in the final agreement then “natural growth” can be resumed then.
Like all politicians, you have to look at what Bibi DOES, not what he says. The only problem the settlement freeze issue poses for Bibi is a domestic political one – the possibility the right wing will force his government to disintegrate as it did after the Wye Acord.
My bet is that he will make a song and dance on the issue while using it to drive a hard bargain with Obama admin on the issues that he sees as crucial to Israel’s security and acceptance as a jewish state.
Obama will be accompanied by his own best friends, his battery of teleprompters,
Has he back ups for his back ups in regards to his teleprompter?
Arab tyrannies like Egypt and Jordan (who are on the payroll of the USA), and with the most oppressive Islamic theocracy in the world (were women are forbidden to drive cars), Saudi Arabia, which is America’s best friend.
Ohhh there are more Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain,…….?
If US today stop her Aid to Mubarrak and the Startric Actor Abdullah, I beat you to last for few months in power as a tyrannies regimes.
“The settlements are a low card of a minor suit because they pale into insignificance alongside a nuclear Iran and its promotion of Hamas.”
In the real world Iran is not nuclear, in the sense of being armed with nuclear weapons, or making preparations to become a nuclear armed country. We, in the real world, know these things because Iran’s nuclear power programme is tightly monitored by the IAEA.
As to “Iran’s promotion of Hamas” what does that mean. For those who don’t speak weasel it really means very little more than that Iran’s government gives the government of Gaza moral and probably financial support. Nothing to compare with the millions that the US and Israel etc pour into the Abbas tyranny on the West Bank, no police forces trained to kill Hamas members, no open shipments of small arms and other materiel to be used in suppressing dissent.
But please tell bb what is it that Hamas receives from Iran that is so threatening to Israel? Is it the moral support that makes exercises in terror like the Gazan massacres a dangerous and expensive waste of the last dregs of international sympathy?
BB, Bibi was an Oslo rejectionist. However, he became an Oslo adherent prior to the elections by stating that he would abide by all previous agreements that Israel had signed with the Palestinians. Before this declaration, Bibi had trailed in the polls way behind Peres. Immediately following the declaration, Bibi closed the gap. (Hamas also helped to get him elected by helping Bibi achieve parity with a wave of bus bombings.)
Although I agree with you that one must judge a politician by what he does rather than what he says (and that’s why it’s important now to see that Bibi is quietly freezing the settlements – presumably so both he and Obama can be perceived as having “cojones”), Bibi did not agree to implement Oslo in Hebron willingly. I distinctly remember Bibi and Arafat sitting on the stage in the US while Bill Clinton made the announcement looking like a couple of kids who’d just had the riot act read to them after being cought fighting in the schoolyard.
I do understand what you meant now about an “eventual given”. Hopefully Bibi understands this now, and not at some point in the future as was unclear from your previous post.
I fully agree with your statement that ensuring that Palestine is fully demilitarized and recognition that Israel is a Jewish State (i.e. and end to the conflict) are paramount.
One point of correction. Bibi’s government did not fall last time around because of the settlement movement. There were two issues: The faltering economy and, primarily the impact of his programs on the poor, and a number of corruption scandals. The linchpins in the Likud government were the ultra-orthadox (United Torah Judaism and Shas) parties for whom “Greater Israel” is a relatively minor issue.
“Greater Israel” ?
So JES could you give us more details of your statement above?
[BHO] uses [teleprompters] to death. The problem is, he never looks at you. He’s looking left, right, left, right — not at the camera. Its almost like he’s not making eye contact with the American people.”
As one who as good as never looks at television, I feel a tad left out of that little parlor game.
Back in the Early Stone Age, I decided that people who think they can have (almost) a personal relationship with their politicans through the MacLuhan Apparatus are seriously self-deceived.
Has anything changed since the Watergate hearings that ought to make me reconsider?
Happy days.