Still surprising:
Last night, shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists that the Obama administration “wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a confidante. Referring to Clinton’s call for a settlement freeze, Netanyahu groused, “What the hell do they want from me?” according to his associate, who added, “I gathered that he heard some bad vibes in his meetings with [U.S.] congressional delegations this week.”
In the 10 days since Netanyahu and President Barack Obama held a meeting at the White House, the Obama administration has made clear in public and private meetings with Israeli officials that it intends to hold a firm line on Obama’s call to stop Israeli settlements. According to many observers in Washington and Israel, the Israeli prime minister, looking for loopholes and hidden agreements that have often existed in the past with Washington, has been flummoxed by an unusually united line that has come not just from Obama White House and the secretary of state, but also from pro-Israel congressmen and women who have come through Israel for meetings with him over Memorial Day recess. To Netanyahu’s dismay, Obama doesn’t appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.
“This is a sea change for Netanyahu,” a former senior Clinton administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The official said that the basis of the Obama White House’s resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States’ as well as Israel’s interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “We have significant, existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict, and to begin to build new regional alliances.”
Netanyahu needed to engage Obama directly, the former official said. “Now that he has done so, and also sent a team of advisors to meet [special envoy to the Middle East George] Mitchell, he has very clearly received a message: ‘I meant what I said on settlements. No natural growth. No elasticity. There will be a clear settlement freeze.'” …
… “Over the past 15 years, settlements have gone from being seen in Washington as an irritant, to the dominant issue,” says Georgetown Univeristy Middle East expert Daniel Byman. He pointed out that key figures in the Obama administration — Mitchell, who headed the Mitchell Commission, which recommended a halt to settlements; national security advisor Gen. Jim Jones — see the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, home to some 290,000 people, as a key obstacle to getting a peace settlement. “I don’t think the logic is hidden,” Byman said.
It’s not just the administration that’s delivering Netanyahu that message, however. Whereas in the past Israeli leaders have sometimes eased pressure from Washington on the settlements issue by going to members of Congress, this time, observers in Washington and Israel say, key pro-Israel allies in Congress have been largely reinforcing the Obama team’s message to Netanyahu. What changed? “Members of Congress have more willing to follow the leadership of the administration … because [they] believe it is in our national security interest to move toward ending the conflict and that it is not a zero sum for Israel,” the former senior Clinton administration official said.
“Netanyahu and [Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman are probing, looking for areas they can get space gratis from the United States,” says Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force for Palestine. “And they are not finding it.”
“We’ve been watching the move in Congress, especially among certain high profile Jewish American members — people like Representative Gary Ackerman, Representative Robert Wexler, and Representative Howard Berman,” Ibish said. “What has occurred — and this has been greatly intensified by the election of Obama: There has been a growing sense of members of Congress who are well-informed on foreign policy … that peace is essential to the American national interest and the Israeli national interest. And there’s been a growing sense that the possibility of a two-state agreement is time-limited and that things like the settlements are incompatible with the goal of creating two states.”
That’s some Hopey McChange. I hope it leads somewhere.
What all this tells me is that Obama has chosen this issue to lay a lot out on the line. It is obvious because you don’t hear Congresscritters squealing at all. If Obama can keep it up, it means Bibi better shape up or else he’ll be in a world of hurt.
it’s definitely not what I expected.
Agreed. And for once, it’s better than what I expected, not worse.
The influence of the internet can not be discounted. No longer can the Israeli government operate in secrecy.
Bibi knows very well who got him back into the PM’s seat, and those folks want him to tell the USA to Eff Off, and start razing Gaza into a parking lot.
Israel’s Jewish (non-Arab) political scene is riding the edge of a knife: The liberals and moderates are the more pragmatic here–they want a 2-state solution, and can see ways to make it work….ways that involve compromise. The Conservatives and the Hard Right see the ‘Solution’ in Godwinian/Hitlerian terms: Kill them, drive them out, take their homes from them.
In the past, the USA was willing to look the other way, or deal under the table, or openly assist the Israeli Right, seeing them either as allies against the SCARY ARAB MUSLIMS, or as the Enablers of the coming Armageddon/Rapture. Obama’s Administration appears to be taking a more pragmatic stance, as indicated in the Article. Keep the game simple, easy to understand, nothing hidden, nothing held back. Make Bibi and his backers understand the options are exactly what we said, nothing more or less, and that there is a time limit on them.
Either they will buckle under and rejoin the Peace process in good (or better) faith, or they’ll shift into high gear and speed up the killing, to try to force an Arab response and precipitate a new MidEast War, and use that as a lever to force continued USA support of the Right-controlled government.
Me? I’m not confident Bibi will deal with the Obama administration in good faith. I foresee stepped up attacks (not reported in the media) against the Arabs/Palestinians, along with other provocative statement and actions against other Arab states, in hopes of igniting another War. The Citizenry of Israel may see the USA as ally, but not the Israeli government. keep that in mind (and remember the USS Liberty…it’s not the exception…..)
This was predicted by Rahm Emmanuel’s statement:
Which I took to mean that the US has no preference in domestic Israeli politics, and meant to pursue our own interests, regardless. As we saw after the second intifada, Israel’s strength in the US has always been with its ability to mobilize pro-Israeli Americans, and this is another community Obama needs to manage.
You may be right … but Bibi’s Gov’t was brought down last time by the fact that he couldn’t get along with the Americans .. so I think Obama is playing on that
it seems to me that after the debacle in lebanon in 06, the recent actions in gaza, etc, and the subsequent outrage by most of the civilized world, that the unilateral and unwavering support israel has enjoyed from the u.s. had to come to an end.
whether this effort will bear fruit or is just another political feint remains to be seen.
This is an unpopular reality, but my guess as to how it works out is that dismantling of the settlements is the price for the forgoing of the right of return.
Until that happens, nothing moves.
More than that, I suspect it’s a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders, specifically including the partition of Jerusalem. I don’t think the Palestinians will — or should, for that matter — accept less.
The sad part is that in denying the right of return and maintaining segregation, misunderstanding and distrust will be maintained far into the future.
Now if they can put the helter skelter assassinations by the IDF on the table, too.
No way this holds up.
If Netanyahu makes any effort at all in ‘freezing’ settlement expansion, his government falls.
And any effort AT ALL towards dismantling established settlements and Israel has a civil war on its hands. A civil war that ends in mass killings of Arabs.
When Netanyahu says ‘What the hell do they want from me?’. That is what he means. He is acknowledging that Israel has past the point of no return with the settlers. He has them on one side, and world disapproval on the other. The settlers are armed to the teeth (and has shown they will kill their own). Obama is asking Netanyahu to commit national suicide.
Obama will give it up. He will find one of his accommodations that allow the status quo to stay in place (like his accommodations always do) so he can’t be blamed when the burning starts. In this one case, I don’t blame him.
The settlers holding a gun to Israel’s head is also why Israel NEEDS a war. Why they NEED to attack Iran. Bad times are coming for Israel, and they can’t have mischief from neighbors.
No way the Israeli ‘problem’ ends well.
nalbar
Over the last few days the IDF has escalated their aggression toward Arabs. They want to provoke an incident. Just like they did when Hamas won and wanted a ten year ceasefire.
The IDF massacred the family on a Gaza beach with a missile from a gun boat. Then denied it.
(but there is no open thread) the Obama administration filed its brief today on the Uighar case.
.
“They may have concluded that they can’t get to a real two state solution with this prime minister [Netanyahu]. Maybe they want a new one? And the best way to raise the odds of that is to demonstrate that he can’t manage Israel’s most important relationship: with the U.S.”
Miller identified several key factors that have impelled the Obama administration to take an active role in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. They include the appointment of Special Envoy George Mitchell; Obama’s genuine conviction in his ability to effect significant change; Obama’s reversal of Bush-era policies (i.e. transformational diplomacy) in favor of a “transactional diplomacy” – making deals, not changing regimes; the sheer urgency of reaching a two-state solution; de-linking the peace talks from discussions on Iran; and the fact that, from Washington’s perspective, Arab-Israeli peace is the least hopeless of all diplomatic endeavors because the conflict is “discreet,” “familiar,” “prone to diplomacy” and “ongoing.” Engagement with Israeli and Arab leadership in the upcoming round of talks, according to Miller, needs to be “tough, smart, and fair.”
If Netanyahu can’t handle the US-Israel reletionship and stay in power, he will be forced to renogotiate a new coalition and get rid of some extreme right-wing obstacles in his administration.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Important to keep in mind that the settlements thing is just a red herring used by the Palestinians to keep the war going. If Israel withdraws from the settlements it won’t change anything; the Palestinians will just come up with new demands. There were no settlements in 1948 when the Palestinians began the war. The PLO and Hamas charters still state that their goal is the complete elimination of Israel and the theft of their land. That’s always what this war has been about and that’s what has to change to end it. If Obama and Clinton were serious about ending the war they’d be pressuring the Palestinians, not the Israelis. And they know that. Obama is trying to reduce the hatred of the US caused by Iraq, since the US desperately needs Arab oil. But it’s just PR. Everyone in the mideast knows it. And so does Obama.
He’s going to pressure the Palestinians .. don’t you worry .. and basically what he is doing .. I believe is to say that the Israelis are now bargaining in good faith .. provided they do what Obama asks .. and then put the onus on the Arab states .. Is Bibi up to the task?