Imagine the U.S. were to follow the EU lead

As reported by the Guardian:

"Future agreements between the European Union and Israel must include the explicit exclusion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, according to a new EU directive described by an Israeli official as an "earthquake".

"The EU guidelines, adopted on 30 June, will prohibit the issuing of grants, funding, prizes or scholarships unless a settlement exclusion clause is included. Israeli institutions and bodies situated across the pre-1967 Green Line will be automatically ineligible.

"The Israeli government will be required to state in any future agreements with the EU that settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are outside the state of Israel.

"The directive, part of the 2014-20 financial framework, covers all areas of co-operation between the EU and Israel, including economics, science, culture, sports and academia. It does not cover trade, such as produce and goods originating in settlements."

"Democratic" Israel mobilizes to exclude pro-Palestinian demonstrators: Imagine that Israel might spend as much energy confronting violent settlers who victimize Palestinian civilians

BDS Lite

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement began in 2005, and as the name suggests the movement calls for boycotting Israeli products, as well as Israeli cultural, sports and and academic institutions; divesting from firms that participate in or benefit from the occupation of Palestine and the repression of Palestinians; and sanctioning Israel for its continuing occupation of Palestinian territories. The BDS movement advocates keeping the measures in place until Israel stops the occupation, treats Arab citizens of Israel fairly; and allows Palestinians to exercise the right to return to their homes and properties.

Peter Beinart, in a March 18, 2012 OPED, is at pains to oppose the BDS agenda with respect to Israel within the green line (i.e., with pre-1967 boundaries).  However, what he does urge is a boycott of products made in the occupied territories and of companies based there.  He urges that the IRS be urged and pressured to disallow tax deductions to "settler charities".  He also argues that references to democratic Israel should clearly differentiate between Israel within the green line, as opposed to "nondemocratic Israel," namely the Israeli occupied and colonized West Bank.  It is easy to see problems with Beinart's proposal in terms of the likelihood that enterprises may hide "inside the green line" and yet maintain shell companies in major settlement clusters, such as Ariel.  The distinction between BDS Lite and full BDS may be easy to maintain in theory than in fact.  Even so, Beinart's essay is an important benchmark of the recognition that unless the moral, political and economic costs of Israel's illegal settlements are raised significantly, the creeping annexation of significant swathed of the occupied territories will continue unabated.

It is somewhat surprising to find Beinart's piece in the Times, and one has to assume its appearance there is the culmination of extensive discussions at the upper reaches of the paper.  In those locales Bibi Netanyahu has been not viewed favorably, as any of a number of recent editorials attest. Anyone who has ever written OPED columns for the New York Times understands how intensely conscious the editors are of the importance of the OPED page.  Editors often play a significant role in giving shape to a piece.  Note also that headlines are not written by the authors but by the editorial staff.  The headline is "To save Israel, Boycott the settlements."

While you are pondering the Beinart piece, take time to read this article by the intrepid Amira Hass about nondemocratic Israel.

Apologetics 1: Obama did it!

Charles Krauthammer strains credulity by claiming the Israeli "gaffe" was the work of a hapless mid-level bureaucratic. One must be willfully stupid to believe his claims.

In your face welcome by Israel is an opportunity for the U.S. to define a firm stance that reflects U.S. interests

Quartet weighs in:

"The "quartet" of Middle East peace mediators -- the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia -- on Friday issued its own condemnation of the settlement plan and said it would assess the situation at a previously scheduled meeting in Moscow next week.

""The Quartet has agreed to closely monitor developments in Jerusalem and to keep under consideration additional steps that may be required to address the situation on the ground," the group said in a statement, without providing further details."

[Former Ambassador Martin Indyk advises Netanyahu, recalling Albright, that he should pay more attention to the U.S. and less to his right wing. Indyk also recalls that the Prime Minister's mishandling mishandling of the U.S. contributed to his defeat by Ehud Barak in 1999. That is a generous reading of the former Clinton adminstration's stance. Recall that while Bill Clinton and Co. were regularly infuriated by Netanyahu, they never really got tough with him. Demonstrations of pique are not getting tough. If you want an example of an administration being tough, you need to go back to Bush/Baker, and there you did have an Israeli Prime Minister going toe-to-toe with the U.S. and losing, literally. Yitzhak Shamir is the case in point.]

[The question that the Obama administration should be asking right now, is not merely how to continue a firm line with a Prime Minister who has no interest in a reasonable two-state solution, but how to insure that his political career is understood by the Israeli public as jeopardizing the only bilateral relationship that really matters to Israel. Netanyahu is not a peacemaker, and to presume that he is only plays into his game.]

Contagion of apology continues: Interior Minister Eli Yishai apologizes for the distress he caused

"If I'd have known, I would have postponed the authorization by a week or two since we had no intention of provoking anyone," Yishai said. "It is definitely unpleasant that this happened during Biden's visit."

In other words, we should have waited two weeks before telling the White House to buzz off.

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Prime Minister was displeased at the timing of the announcement by Interior Minister Eli Yishai of Israel's intention to move forward with construction in East Jerusalem. Perhaps. Israeli politicians have grown accustomed to telling the U.S. to buzz off and getting away with it, so Netanyahu was unprepared for the tone of Biden's strong condemnation. Biden has also been intent to continue to drive the point home, and not just by letting the soup cool for 90 minutes: “As we move forward, the United States will hold both sides accountable for any statements or actions that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of talks, as this decision did”.

One needs to be very dubious of Netanyahu's commitment to a two-state solution, even if the U.S. continues to press. However, if the U.S. does not press, this venture is going nowhere.

For excellent reportage on recent developments see this from the Economist. The report includes the following:

"...Mr Netanyahu apparently wrung an assurance from the Americans (before Mr Biden’s embarrassment) that concessions offered by his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, to the Palestinians’ president, Mahmoud Abbas, would not mark the point of departure for new negotiations. Instead, the parties will go back to the long-dormant “road map” laid out by George Bush seven years ago. Israel, then led by Ariel Sharon, broadly accepted it but with a long list of reservations."

If true, then Biden's words are only bravado.

Perhaps Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon directed protocol

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu welcome #1 to Joe Biden (who pledged America's undying commitment to Israel):

"I also appreciate the Administration’s effort to advance peace in the region. I know that this has been difficult and has required a great deal of patience, but I’m pleased that these efforts are beginning to bear fruit and we have to be persistent and purposeful in making sure that we get to those direct negotiations that will enable us to resolve this conflict.

"I look forward to working with President Obama, and with you and your entire Administration to forge an historic peace agreement in which the permanence and legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel is recognized by our Palestinian neighbors and in which Israel’s security is guaranteed for generations to come.

"Again, Vice President, my friend Joe, it’s a pleasure to welcome you to Jerusalem. Welcome."

Welcome #2:

As Biden arrives in Israel, the government that Netanyahu heads announces 1,600 new apartments will be built in occupied East Jerusalem, notwithstanding the declared ten-month suspension of new settlement construction. Of course, there is plenty of weasel room because the suspension only deals with "new permits and new construction", whereas anything that was discussed, debated, considered, mooted, considered, delayed, contemplated is not considered new construction.

Still wiping the diplomatic spittle from his face, Vice President Joe Biden showed some appropriate backbone. Let's hope that the White House does not, once again, go all weak at the knees when the predictable circles declare that the U.S. denunciation unfairly criticizes "our only democratic ally...." The intial White House statement anticipated Biden's remarks.

Biden's apt March 9, 2010, statement:

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I've had here in Israel. We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them. This announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve all the outstanding issues of the conflict.The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians and for Jews, Muslims and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem and safeguards its status for people around the world. Unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations on permanent status issues. As George Mitchell said in announcing the proximity talks, "we encourage the parties and all concerned to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks."

[More info in follow-on Wapo coverage, in contrast to the limp coverage by NYT. Also see Biden interview.]

[Danny Ayalon: It is all about timing.

"The criticism was mainly about the timing of the announcement, and I told (U.S. officials during his visit to Washington) that it was poor timing, but it was not planned and it was a serious mistake which is currently being probed in Israel."]

A timely debate: Should the U.S. Step Back from its Relationship with Israel?

A spirited debate between Roger Cohen and Rashid Khalidi, arguing "yes", with Stuart Eizentat and Itamar Rabinovitch, arguing "no".

The audience shifted dramatically in support of stepping back. The "ayes" have it.

The transcript.

Illegal Israeli settlements: Important secret report leaked to Haaretz

Introduction:

"Just four years ago, the defense establishment decided to carry out a seemingly elementary task: establish a comprehensive database on the settlements. Brigadier General (res.) Baruch Spiegel, aide to then defense minister Shaul Mofaz, was put in charge of the project. For over two years, Spiegel and his staff, who all signed a special confidentiality agreement, went about systematically collecting data, primarily from the Civil Administration.

"One of the main reasons for this effort was the need to have credible and accessible information at the ready to contend with legal actions brought by Palestinian residents, human rights organizations and leftist movements challenging the legality of construction in the settlements and the use of private lands to establish or expand them. The painstakingly amassed data was labeled political dynamite.

"The defense establishment, led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, steadfastly refused to publicize the figures, arguing, for one thing, that publication could endanger state security or harm Israel's foreign relations. Someone who is liable to be particularly interested in the data collected by Spiegel is George Mitchell, President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, who came to Israel this week for his first visit since his appointment. It was Mitchell who authored the 2001 report that led to the formulation of the road map, which established a parallel between halting terror and halting construction in the settlements.

"The official database, the most comprehensive one of its kind ever compiled in Israel about the territories, was recently obtained by Haaretz. Here, for the first time, information the state has been hiding for years is revealed. An analysis of the data reveals that, in the vast majority of the settlements - about 75 percent - construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued. The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police
stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents."

Exploiting the Holocaust

Haaretz:

"In a renewed comparison of the Gaza pullout to the Holocaust, residents of the Gaza settlement bloc of Gush Katif are writing their identity card numbers on their arms to protest the closure of the Strip to non-resident Israelis.

"Security forces are requiring Gaza settlers to display their ID cards before allowing them into the settlements.The trend began during a Wednesday night protest against the closure, when a woman who lives in Gush Katif refused to show her ID card to security forces at Kissufim crossing. Instead, she showed him her arm, on which she had written her identity number, in a simulation of the Nazi practice of branding numbers on the arms of concentration camp inmates. Security forces checked her identity and let her through the checkpoint.

"Since then, several other Gaza settlers have tried the same tactic, although previous comparisons to the Holocaust - including the use of orange Star of David badges - have provoked controversy."

This is a disgraceful example of exploiting the Holocaust. In one instance, Jews, Gypsies and others were killed and tormented simply because of who they were. In contrast, we now we have settlers, illegal colonists really, who are living in a occupied territory (Gaza and the West Bank) in violation of international law. They are claiming to be victims, whereas their colonization of Gaza victimized others. It is sacrilege for them even to presume that their situation is comparable those who suffered under the Nazis. Yes, it is sad that they are leaving homes to which they have become accustomed, but their right to live in those homes has no standing.