Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu meets President Obama on July 6, 2010

Netanyahu was to meet Obama a month ago, but he curtailed his North American visit to return to Israel to deal with the crisis created by Israel commandeering the Gaza aid flotilla on May 31.

Expect little of substance from the meeting on the peace-seeking front, notwithstanding claims by Bibi-enablers that the Israeli leader "wants to be a peacemaker".  Netanyahu will try to gain credit for adjustments to the punitive blockade of Gaza, adjustments necessitated by the resounding condemnation that Israel confronts for its collective punishment of Gaza.  Key elements of the blockade continue, including prohibiting Gazan exports.

George Mitchell's laconic efforts to move Israel-PA proximity negotiations along have borne little fruit.  This is no surprise.  Netanyahu has no interest in a viable two-solution. He never has had such an interest.  Recall that in his earlier tenure as Prime Minister, he played much the same game with Bill Clinton that is playing with Obama today: prevaricate then negotiate over petty concessions while demanding recompense and approval from the U.S.

As I have noted here, he may be opportunistic and crass, but Netanyahu operates within an ideological vector that has no room for an independent Palestinian state, particularly one premised on the end of Israel's colonization of the West Bank.

As the expression goes: the fruit does not fall very far from the tree.  Here is a discussion with Netanyahu's father.  Benzion Netanyahu, now 100 years old, was secretary to Ze'ev Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism.  As you read his words, ponder the discussions around the Netanyahu kitchen table of Bibi's youth.

And here is the Prime Minister as a young man, in 1977.  He was then known as Ben Nitay.  He is questioned by a young Fouad Ajami.

Link. 

Netanyahu's National Security Adviser is a former Mossad man named Uzi Arad, who was previously barred from entering the US as a security risk.  Azad is a hardliner whose views are in synch with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.  Azad's bottom line on negotiations with the Palestinians?  Concessions by Israel encourage Palestinian rejectionists.  For Azad, Israel's strategic priority is confronting Iran.  Meantime, you kick the two-state can down the road, placating the Americans without making serious concessions or ceasing the dispossession of Palestinians from their land.  Do you think that Netanyahu chose a National Security Adviser who contradicts his own views?

What to expect from the July 6 meeting?  Very little that will lend even a modicum of vitality to Mitchell's mission and lots of talk about the need to confront Iran.

Prime Minister Netanyahu addresses AIPAC in 1997 (revised with additional links)

As you read this twelve year old speech in which then as now Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects the idea of a Palestinian state ponder how much he has grown or changed over the course of a dozen years. My guess is not very much, notwithstanding reassurances by none other than the President of Israel.

Addressing AIPAC Policy Conference today, May 4, 2009, in Washington, D.C., President Shimon Peres argues that Netanyahu "knows history and wants to make history. In our tradition, making history is making peace, and I am sure that peace is his priority." We'll see. Peres is seen by his admirers as a man of vision, but he has an established record for offering soft-hued assessments of hardline Israeli policies.

By my reading, it was notable that Peres reiterated (in contrast to Foreign Minister Lieberman) Israel's committment to honor agreements signed by previous governments, that he referred positively to the Arab League initiative, and that he referred to the 1947 Partition resolution and the vision of two states living side by side. What is not clear is that Peres' words accurately anticipate the stance that Netanyahu and his government will reveal in the coming days and weeks, except perhaps Peres' emphasis on the threat posed by Iran's "fanatic leaders".

In contrast, Lieberman's words are roughly hewn, but they are reminiscent of the first Netanyahu government with their emphasis on "concrete results," which are understood to mean that the Palestinians will be expected to meet a variety of pre-conditions before Israel adopts politically difficult concessions. In practice, this is a way to placate the U.S. while the colonization of the West Bank continues at a brisk pace. [The full extent of the settlement project is revealed in this previously secret Israeli government database, which was leaked in January 2009. The database details the extent of "illegal" or unauthorized settlements.]

That approach worked in the late 1990s when Bill Clinton and company did not hide their annoyance at Netanyahu's impolitic obdurance but did little to obstruct his active efforts to undermine the Oslo process. Recall the crowning glory of that period, namely the 1997 Hebron protocol, which was supposed to mark the beginning of final status negotiations that were to be completed by May 1999.

Chilly reception for Netanyahu

Laura Rozen and Ben Smith offer notable reportage on the Netanyahu visit to Washington. (Compare to the Kessler piece in WaPo.)

Let's be clear-headed about the Israeli Prime Minister. His game, as I have noted here before, is to outlast Obama. He is not a peacemaker, and he never really has been. It is illusory to imagine that he can be a partner for peace. Much has been made of his opportunism and his so-called "pragmatism", but he operates within an ideological vector that rejects a two-state solution that will satisfy the Palestinians.

His visit to Capitol Hill is trademark behavior, namely in terms of his effort to buttress his obstructionist position with kneejerk Congressional support. Thankfully, particularly among Democrats, there is considerable skepticism about Netanyahu's bona fides as a peacemaker.

President Obama and his administration has extended a notably chilly reception to the Israeli leader. There will be political pressure on the President to embrace Netanyahu, but it will be a big mistake if Obama succumbs. The U.S. has ample means at its disposal to subtly but clearly express its continuing disapproval of Israel's illegal construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Informed Israelis, who are acutely aware of the importance of the US-Israeli relationship, will get the point.

Notwithstanding Netanyahu's embrace by some congresspeople, one of the promising developments since the Biden slap has been evidence of growing unease in Israel about Netanyahu's leadership [see Aluf Benn's essay]. A wise U.S. President will not do anything to reduce the doubts.

Letter From Tel Aviv: Netanyahu’s Iranian Dilemma

Letter From Tel Aviv: Netanyahu’s Iranian Dilemma: "And yet campaign promises, if repeated often enough, have a tendency to create their own momentum. Public pressure to act is considerable. Netanyahu knows that a successful Iranian nuclear test could destroy his political future. Moreover, the immediate political environment in which Netanyahu operates is conducive to authorizing a preemptive strike. His senior coalition partner, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, has made threats against Iran on numerous occasions. And, unlike many of the country's mid-level intelligence analysts and security officials, the current leaders of the Mossad and the Shin Bet believe in solving problems by force.

As Iran approaches nuclear weapons capability -- sometime in 2010, according to current Mossad estimates -- an increasing number of people in Netanyahu's circle will adopt the view that Israel needs to take action and that the United States will be understanding of Israel's needs. And if the Obama administration is not so understanding? Israel may decide that the existential danger posed by a potential second Holocaust warrants risking even a serious rift with the United States. Ultimately, the fear of a nuclear-armed state whose leader talks openly of destroying Israel may outweigh the views of the country's intelligence experts."

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.

Important reportage on Benyamin Netanyahu's divisive political game in the U.S.

The author is the journalist Max Blumenthal.

"The Bibi Connection"
Excerpt:

"Netanyahu’s shadow campaign is intended to be a factor in defeating Obama and electing a Republican in his place. He opposed Obama’s early demand to freeze settlements on the West Bank as a precondition for reviving the peace process, a process since the Oslo Accord that Netanyahu has attempted to stall or sabotage, despite his signing of the Wye Agreement under pressure from President Clinton. Since his adamant stand against the settlement freeze, Netanyahu has undermined every effort to engage the peace process. He appears dead set on consolidating Greater Israel, or what many Israelis call “Judea and Samaria,” and has signaled a strong desire to attack Iran."

Policy review in Israel

Israel's new Prime Minister "Bibi" Netanyahu faces an interesting dilemma. As the visit of Hillary Clinton has illustrated, the Bush days of Israel-right-or-wrong may be ending. The U.S. is pushing for a two-state solution, which is anthema to Netanyahu and his government. Some informed people talk about Netanyahu being more flexible than he seems, being pragmatic, being opportunistic, but beneath all the manuevering his ideological orientation is Zionist Revisionism, a committment to the ideal of a greater Israel. Yet, if he does not accept the principle of a two-state solution he jeopardizes his relationship with the U.S. If he does, he may lose support of his majority. So, not suprisingly, the government is reviewing policy. This is a legitimate thing to do, but it is also a way to postpone making a decision.

The Prime Minister will meet the President in May. Expect to see the two-state solution wrapped in so many conditions that it will be impossible to unwrap. At that point, the contradictions in the U.S. and Israel's position will be manifest, and at that point Obama will face the choice of equivocating or speaking frankly. If he chooses the second route, which U.S. interests demand, then it is hard to imagine Netanyahu's government being very tenable.

FT.com / Middle East - Israel tries to reclaim initiative as international pressure builds

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.”

Worries in Bibi-land

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082144.html

Advocates a more assertive role in U.S. peacemaking role in the Arab-Israeli zone have sometimes confused pressure with persuasion, particularly in bi-lateral U.S.-Israeli relations. Overt pressure on Israel is politically risky for U.S. Presidents and it often evokes spurious claims of bias, even anti-Semitism. Instead, the key is to persuade the Israeli leaders that it is in their interest to change course

President commands a pulpit to which the informed Israeli public is obsessively attentive. This is why when Bibi Netanyahu comes to town Barack Obama will have considerable leverage to legitimate or undermine Netanyahu.

I do not expect Netanyahu to arrive with a parcel of palatable ideas for moving toward a two-state solution. A Syria-first program will be high on the list of the Israeli delegation. So he will come with ideas to be sure, but on examination they will be constructed to protect Israel's colonization of the West Bank. If so, then a bit of cold shoulder and firmness will be just the parting gift for the Israeli leader.

My view remains that compelling U.S. interests dictate movement promptly toward a two-state solution. I do not see Netanyahu as capable of making that journey. I would love to be proved wrong. We'll see.

Obviously, there are other pieces of the puzzle still scattered, not least the disunited and confused Palestinian leadership, as well as the construction of a system of guarantees that will satisfy the belligerents on both sides.

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.

FT: Israel's Dwindling Circle of Supporters

"Benjamin Netanyahu has not had a good year. Israel’s prime minister was blamed by the US administration for wrecking its latest attempt to reassemble a peace process. In truth, there were obstinacies and obstacles on both sides, but publicly and privately, US officials identified Israel’s land grabs in East Jerusalem and the West Bank as the principal cause of the breakdown." "Only this month Philip Hammond, Britain’s foreign secretary, said he “deplored” plans for more than 2,000 additional homes for Israeli settlers in Palestinian East Jerusalem. France’s foreign minister Laurent Fabius said it put in question Israel’s oft-stated commitment to a negotiated peace. Europeans have come to see settlement expansion as a strategy calculated to destroy fast-fading hopes for a two-state agreement." .......... "European governments had backed Mr Abbas’s initiative to forge a joint administration with Hamas as a prelude to serious peace talks. Now they speculate that the Gaza operation was Mr Netanyahu’s attempt to wreck any accommodation." "These episodes have not undercut the fundamental commitment of allies to Israel’s right to live in peace and security. They have drained patience and trust and led many to believe Mr Netanyahu prefers a permanent state of war to a difficult peace."

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.

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.]

Obama's in-formation Middle East team

With Hillary heading State, will Obama reinforce her hardline views or will he balance his Secretary of State with a Middle East envoy who be more pleasing to J-Street than AIPAC? At the front of the line in the latter category is the affable Dennis Ross who, despite his mediocre successes and spectacular failures as presidential envoy, emerged as a "key advisor" to the president-elect during the campaign. Were he to be chosen for a lead role, you will hear a collective groan from the Middle East. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer, who is an impressive advocate for a realistic and urgent approach to Middle East peacemaking, is being touted as the alternative to Ross. Kurtzer would certainly be the wiser choice if the new president expects prompt movement in Arab-Israeli peacemaking to lead to solutions that both sides find palatable.
Much can change between now and February, but Israel pols are predicting that Bibi Netanyahu will win the coming election. Netanyahu spent much of his tenure as prime minister (1996-1999) trashing the peace process, while Ross and his boss Bill Clinton were nonplussed by the canny Bibi. Indeed, Clinton's ineffectual rejoinder to Netanyahu spelled the failure of the so-called "peace process". Ross had his test of fire during that period, when he might have urged Clinton to act more assertively vis-a-vis Israel, and he failed the test.

Obama team's warring Middle East views - Ben Smith - Politico.com

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.

Jordan's 'Abdullah--The Times: Israel has the opportunity to make peace

In a piece that fills much of the front page of The Times, 'Abdullah argues for a series of bilateral negotiations that would culminate in a comprehensive peace. Israel would not be only be making peace with Arab enemies, but it would be gaining acceptance by the Muslim world (one-third of humanity by his inflated count). The alternative, as he sees it, is another war as soon as a year or eighteen months from now.

The monarch claims that he has been giving shape to the bargain on offer in hand with President Obama. Whether or not 'Abdullah is exaggerating his own role, he certainly speaks accurately in noting the widespread hopes associated now with U.S. diplomacy. Obama will have to tamp down expectations, but he will need to also show evidence of progress during the upcoming meeting with Prime Minister Netanyau.

Meanwhile, on Sunday Netanyahu declared that he would not relinquish control of the Golan Heights. This is no surprise, but it is consistent with his earlier pledges, for instance in 1997, that the Golan belongs to Israel "forever". This is not simply posturing before Netanyahu meets Obama next week, but a position from which Netanyahu has wavered a bit but never deserted.

King Abdullah of Jordan's ultimatum: peace now or it’s war next year - Times Online

What goes around, comes around.

Anyone who has spent time in Chicago knows the saying, which means that there is always pay back time.  Alan Berger, the astute Boston Globe emeritus editorial page guru, argues in a commentary that Obama should spend some time in Israel prior to this month's election.  Bibi Netanyahu, betting ill-advisedly on a Romney victory, mucked around in U.S. electoral politics.  Now is the time, Berger argues, for returning the favor and in the process changing the formula for a new political coalition in Israel.  Berger realistically assumes that Netanyahu, who is not facing an opponent likely to garner anywhere close to comparable votes, would be faced with a somewhat different cast of potential coalition partners if Obama were to intervene thought a pre-election visit to Israel during which the U.S. President would talk up the two-state solution.  My guess is the Obama intervention would be too late to have much political impact, but it would be satisfying to watch the self-serving Netanyahu squirm.

Berger:

Obama would not have to say anything very original. He could offer an American endorsement for the sage counsel of Israel’s President Shimon Peres, who told a conclave of Israeli ambassadors the other day that “there is no alternative’’ to a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is a genuine peace partner. Obama would be acting in accord with US and Israeli interests if he told Israeli voters to heed the Peres criticism of Israeli rightists who act as if they could overcome reality by denying it. “If someone rejects the idea of a two-state solution, he should say what he has in its place,’’ Peres told the Israeli diplomats. “Even if you do not have another option . . . reality will bring the alternative. I tell you categorically that the idea of a bi-national state endangers the Jewish, Zionist, and democratic nature of Israel.’’

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."]

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. .

Another finding by Amnesty concerning the Israeli Army's "wanton destruction" in the Gaza war

Amnesty argued that the IDF systematically destroyed homes and other structures that did not pose a proximate military threat.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Gaza homes destruction 'wanton': "Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres Netanyahu to form Israel"

In response to Amnesty's earlier call for an arms embargo on Israel and Hamas, see this argument that Amnesty's position implies a significant change in the laws of warfare.