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

AIPAC sees the Obama Adminstration's statements as a matter of "serious concern"

Here is AIPAC's recipe for dealing with Israel, "America's closest ally in the Middle East":

• U.S. should immediately defuse tensions with Israel.
• Make no public demands on Israel; work privately.
• Don't impose any deadlines on Israel.
• Don't criticize Israel.

The statement makes no attempt to reflect U.S. interests, which implies that U.S. interests must coincide with Israel's. Moreover, there is nary a mention of the recent actions of the Netanyahu government, including the rude welcome extended to the U.S. Vice President. Instead, all the onus is on the White House, which aIPAC condescends to lecture as though Barack Obama were an impetuous schoolboy.

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.

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.

Stephen Walt's dour assessment of the prospects for a two state solution in Israel-Palestine

Stephen M. Walt -- Will Obama Settle for Failure in the Middle East? - washingtonpost.com

Walt is no doubt correct that the Israeli Prime Minister is playing a familiar string-along game, while the colonization of the West Bank continues relentlessly. For all the hopeful predictions of Netanyahu's "pragmatism" there is no reason to doubt either his deep-seated committed to Zionist Revisionism or his hostility to the premise of an independent Palestine existing side-by-side with Israel.

Walt is also correct to suggest that President Obama is going to have to turn up the heat considerably to attain his stated goal of a two state solution. Will Obama be willing to pay the political price, and is the political price quite as high as Walt suggests? As for the former, we don't know yet. Obama has played his hand very coolly. As for the latter question, might it be that, notwithstanding the formidable AIPAC, the political price has come down a bit. Pro-peace supporters of Israel have supported Obama's firm stance on the settlements. There is evidence to suggest that Israel's image in the eyes of its liberal U.S. supporters has suffered over the past few years. People who freely support to Israel in the past, are now raising questions about Israel's commitment to peace and human rights. (This article in Forward is illustrative of a shift.)

Despite the predictable knee-jerk condemnations of the Goldstone commission's important report, Israel's credibility as a state ready to respect Palestinian rights is in question. Notwithstanding sharp official U.S. comments on the document, the hard-hitting report further diminishes Israel's claims to a morally superior vantage point (remember Barak: "the IDF is most moral army in the world.") The Gaza war report also underlines Israel's dependence on U.S. diplomatic protection, which Netanyahu might be well briefed to remember.

In terms of the dynamics of U.S.-Israeli relations, no Israeli government can afford to jeopardize its relationship with the United States. Although Obama may be unpopular in Israel, there is little doubt that his pressure on Israel has caused many Israelis to worry about the consequences of defying the U.S. president.

The explosive Nadav Tamir memo (updated with additional links, including the purported full text)

In a leaked confidential memo Israel's Boston Consul-General Nadav Tamir argues that Israeli obdurate commitment to the construction of illegal settlements is alienating U.S. supporters, especially the crucial American-Jewish community. Tamir argues that the dispute between the U.S. and Israel over settlements is causing strategic harm to Israel, and that Israel is unwise to link itself to domestic U.S. political enemies of Obama. The document, written in Hebrew, was apparently circulated among Israeli diplomats and addressed to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. The memo was dismissed by the Prime Minister's office as "not worthy of a response." Meanwhile, Avigdor Lieberman, has summoned Tamir to the woodshed.

President Obama's focus on finding a settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including his demand for a freeze to Israeli settlement construction and expansion, has been castigated by leading members of the pro-Israel PR squad as overambitious and naive. Perhaps the U.S. leader is not being given enough credit for appreciating the dynamics of U.S.-Israeli relations, including the the views of core Jewish supporters regarding Israeli colonization of the West Bank. Certainly, a strong majority of those Jewish Americans who follow developments in the Arab-Israeli zone expect that a two-state solution--if it is still possible--will necessitate a complete or nearly complete evacuation of the settlements.

Prior to his election, it was fairly common to hear the much distrusted Netanyahu described as sleazy but pragmatic (as the late Zeev Schiff once described him to me). Yet, after nearly half a year in office, one hears pragmatism ascribed to Bibi much less frequently. Perhaps Netanyahu is congenitally incapable of reaching a reasonable bargain with his Palestinian counterparts. Perhaps Bibi's dogmatism is more important than his vaunted pragmatism. Nadav Tamir's warning is not merely the considered perspective of a respected Israeli diplomat, but an echo chamber for the worries that I expect he has heard continuously for the past months from Israel's supporters.

As I have noted here before, an Israeli Prime Minister who jeopardizes the U.S.-Israeli relationship will not be treated kindly by the Israeli electorate, or at least that is the lesson from the history of the past few decades. Perhaps the occupant of the White House understands that lesson better than the self-assured Netanyahu. If Netanyahu is incapable of making a reasonable peace, which I believe to be the case, then a policy that exposes the core contradictions in the contending interests of the U.S. and Israel is very wise. There have been moments when the U.S. willingly subordinated its interests to Israel's; this is not one of those moments.

The reliably Zionist editorial page of the Washington Post does not like Obama's "absolutist" settlement policy

Why not return to the so very successful policies of the Clinton or recent Bush adminstration? After all, Netanyahu is a man of his word and alien to subterfuge or fabrication.

As I have noted here before, the key for President Obama is patience. Any Israeli government that is out of synch with its U.S. protector is a cause of great discomfort in Israel's political class.

Debra DeLee: Obama means what he says about Israel's illegal settlements. Get used to it.

Israeli settler-hooligans burn olive groves in ‘price tag’ retaliation attack

Israeli settlers burn olive groves in ‘price tag’ retaliation attack - Times Online

One settler was arrested.

Added information from Israel Policy Forum.

Israeli governments have gone to lengths to distinguish Jerusalem from the West Bank and "illegal" from "authorized" settlements.

See earlier post on Jerusalem.

U.S. "sources" have purported reminded the Israeli government that its obfuscations and posturing won't deter U.S. policy.

"The United States views East Jerusalem as no different than an illegal West Bank outpost with regard to its demand for a freeze on settlement construction, American sources have informed both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
"Later Sunday, Netanyahu met with his advisors to discuss Israel's response to Washington's demand."

............................................................

Netanyahu on Sunday, July 19, 2009

""I was surprised by the American demand," a source present at the meeting quoted him as saying. "In my conversation with [U.S. President Barack] Obama in Washington, I told him I could not accept any restrictions on our sovereignty in Jerusalem. I told him Jerusalem is not a settlement, and there is nothing to discuss about a freeze there."

"In my previous term [as premier], I built thousands of apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem, defying the entire world," Netanyahu added. "Therefore, it is clear that I will not capitulate in this case - especially when we are talking about a mere 20 apartments.""

Added: An example (citing the reliably pliant WaPo) of how Israel's territorial distinctions about the land that it occupied in 1967 are exploited to validate its claims about East Jerusalem being distinct from the West Bank.

Prior posts on settlements.

Netanyahu blows off U.S. demand that construction be stopped on a site in occupied East Jerusalem

One of the hotwire issues in U.S.-Israel relations has been the status of Jerusalem. As originally conceived in the 1947 Partition resolution, the holy city was to have the "character of an international city." Until 1967, East Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan. In the 1967 war Israel captured the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and quickly declared that the city was now re-unified and that it was the eternal capital of Israel. Almost off of the world's governments reject Israel's unilateral declaration on the city, which is why there are no foreign embassies there. U.S. diplomacy has proceeded on the principle that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would require that the city be shared, and that idea is explicitly part of the Clinton parameters, announced in December 2000.

Although the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 states that the U.S. should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, all U.S. presidents have understood the folly of doing so.

It is going to be hard for the Obama admission to respond to the categorical Netanyahu response without addressing the status of the eastern section of city, which, of course, includes the Old City, where sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims are found. Israel's approach has often been, as it was in Netanyahu's statement of today, to declare that Jerusalem is not negotiable and Israel build what it pleases. If the Obama administration is silent on Jerusalem, it will be making a major mistake in terms of resuscitating U.S. credibility as an honest broker.

Added: American Jewish leaders share Obama's perspective on the Israel's settlements. As a result, outside of fringe groups such as the ZOA, Netanyahu has limited options for mobilizing counter-pressure on the Obama administration.

“There’s a message here for Israel,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of the dovish group J Street and one of the White House meeting participants. “The message is that there is no court of appeals, that the American Jewish community and the president share the same interest.”

Truth telling will go a long way in exposing the contradictions between U.S. goals vs. Netanyahu and co. channeling Jabotinsky

"'I don’t think the peace process will be advanced by hiding natural disagreements, disagreements within the family,' [Obama] said, adding that he does not believe the past eight years of the Bush administration did much to promote peace."

The statement is from the July 13, 2009, White House meeting between Obama and leaders of major Jewish organizations and lobby groups.  See Laura Rozen for attendees.

Imagine a little editing

Israel's Barak, U.S. Envoy Mitchell Discuss Expansion of West Bank Settlements: Mitchell apparently stands firm, unlike the softer rendering of the settlement issue by Glenn Kessler or the Wapo editor .

As published"
"There are more than 120 settlements in the occupied West Bank that are legal under Israeli law but not internationally. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel ratified in 1951, forbids an occupying power to transfer 'parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies,' but Israel disputes that this provision applies to settlements. Israel seized the West Bank and other territories in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war."

A less equivocal editing:
There are more than 120 settlements in the occupied West Bank that are illegal under international law notwithstanding Israeli claims to the contrary. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel ratified in 1951, forbids an occupying power to transfer 'parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' Israel disputes that this provision of the Convention applies to settlements, but no major government shares Israel's view. Israel seized the West Bank and other territories in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Leading Likudnik urges boycott of the 4th of July celebration

Added: Similar tune.

Former Defense Minister Moshe Arens: Don't give in on settlements

Arens argues that the Israeli right to live in Judea and Samaria is a principle. He argues that giving up this right will put Israel on a slippery slope dealing with the U.S. He urges Netanyahu to forswear compromise and, in the end, he is confident that Israel's "staunch supporters" in the U.S. will stand by the Zionist state. He sees this as a test for the American Jewish leadership, and for the people of Israel as well.

So here we have it: Israel should continue to colonize the West Bank and East Jerusalem even if doing so leads to a reduction of U.S. support, or even a severe crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations. In the end, Israel's friends in the U.S. will smooth it all over.

As Arens himself notes, unease is growing in Israel about relations with the U.S. One suspects that many Israelis will receive the Arens' perspective with skepticism and alarm. Moreover, one senses that both Barak and Netanyahu will work to salve difference not to highlight them, as Arens proposes. Nonetheless, Arens' points are important because he reveals precisely the sort of categorical claims that no doubt inhabit cabinet debates in Israel.

Still a con--Barak may offer 3 month "freeze"

3 month freeze would exempt 2,000 buildings: "Yediot Acharonot correspondent Shimon Schiffer reports, in the name of government sources, that the proposed freeze would not include the approximately 2,000 construction projects currently underway." Similar gestures also need to be seen for what they are, namely cons to string along gullible U.S. politicians.

Such gestures fit in with the favored tunes of the last 16 years, such as the idea that the occupied territories are "disputed territories", whereas what Obama's demand for a settlement freeze is implicitly premised on the judgement that Israel's colonization of the occupied territories is "illegitimate" (the word he evoked in Cairo). It is easy to condone the actions of a friend when the status of land is disputed, but it is hard to condone it when it is a question of right and wrong, licit vs. illicit.

Meantime, the contradictions between the position of the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration are proving hard to paper over. A previously planned meeting between Bibi and George Mitchell has been postponed. No doubt, the last thing Netanyahu wants right now is to remind Israeli voters how out of step he is with Israel's superpower benefactor and protector.

A smart U.S. policy will continue to avoid extended discussion of the yawning gap between the two governments. Instead, quiet as a whisper cues loudly signal U.S. displeasure to finely tuned ears.

Added: And 50 more homes approved for former residents of "illegal" illegal settlements.

Meantime, Wapo's Jackson Diehl believes Obama has painted himself into a corner and that he should "end the spat" with Israel. After all, he concludes, its only over a "handful of apartments". This is the sort willful distortion of reality that has helped to rationalize tacit U.S. support for Israel's colonization of the West Bank. .

Israeli Settlements: U.S. Department of State press conference, May 27, 2009

Question: Does the Administration consider itself bound by the contents of the letter former President Bush sent to then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon in 2004? Additionally, does the Obama administration consider itself bound by the unwritten verbal understandings of 2005 between the Israeli government and the Bush administration regarding settlements?

Answer: As Secretary Clinton said, “With respect to settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here: He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point.”

Israel's riposte.

How serious is Obama about freezing Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank?

As the linked article explains, freezing settlement growth will require much more than identifying violations of Israeli commitments or gaps in Israeli reporting. It remains to be seen if the U.S. president is ready for the tough political battle he will have to wage in order to impede Israel's colonization of the West Bank.

What is obvious is that the present Israeli government will not cooperate with the U.S. to stop settlement growth. The article suggests that initial steps to remove unauthorized illegal settlements (as opposed to illegal settlements) would likely bring down the present government and thereby permit the formation of a coalition centrist government under Netanyahu. That scenario presumes that Netanyahu will resolve to move against unauthorized settlements, which is most unlikely.

As I have noted here before, the trope of Netanyahu's pragmatism and opportunism may be true in the general realm of Israeli politics, but the idea that he is willing to cooperate in the long term freezing and even reduction of settlements in order to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel is illusory. Therefore, an appropriate if unstated goal for U.S. policy should be to look forward to Netanyahu's exit from the Prime Minister's office not the prolongation of his stay.

See this related article about Netanyahu pressing on with settlements. And this one about archeology in the service of colonization in East Jerusalem.

Lieberman to become Foreign Minister (updated)

Bibi still has negotiations ahead of him, but Avigdor Lieberman is certainly at the front to the train. (Lieberman is secular and his avowal of civil marriage offends the Jewish fundamentalists, so Netanyahu still has some tough bargaining to do with the so-called religious parties.)

For comparably preposterous appointment in the U.S. context, imagine David Duke as Attorney General or Rush Limbaugh as Secretary of State. The new Netanyahu government should help to drive a stake through the claim that the U.S. and Israeli are linked by a robust affinity of interests.

Lieberman, often described in Israel as a racist, resides in Noqedim, a West Bank settlement. Recall that one of President Envoy George Mitchell's objectives is to see a halt in the continuing colonization of the West Bank by Israeli settlers. Fat chance!

Some European reaction.

And this from Ken Silverstein: Uzi Arad, who is expected to serve as national security adviser in the next Israeli government, has been barred from entering the United States for nearly two years on the grounds that he is an intelligence risk. Mr. Arad, a former member and director of intelligence for the Mossad, Israel’s spy service, is mentioned in the indictment of Lawrence Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst who pleaded guilty in 2005 to providing classified information about Iran in a conversation with two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).