What Next If Netanyahu Continues To Diss Obama?
The Netanyahu government continues to resist the administration's call for a settlement freeze. And there is no reason to think that is going to change. His government and the settlers are in panic mode -- terrified of a battle with Obama which they would lose -- but don't know what to do.
Accepting a settlements freeze would bring down Netanyahu's government which is a fearful prospect for Israel's right. But it wouldn't change much for us. Either new elections would bring in the far far right (no big change). Or Tzipi Livni would come in (marginally better on policy than Bibi and infinitely better at PR).
It's hard to see much gain in those contingencies. And to achieve what: a settlements freeze i.e a freeze in place with the Israelis in control of the West Bank and Gaza's borders, seaways, airspace, etc. Smart rightwingers would take that deal in a heartbeat. But he Likudniks aren't smart so they will probably instigate a gigantic clash with the United States instead.
My friend, Daniel Levy, is among those who say a freeze is not worth the price and that, if the Israelis continue to balk, we should present a full blown peace plan and push the two sides to go immediately to final status negotiations on it. Within those negotiations, the Israelis can demand their "natural growth" exceptions, etc. The Palestinians can demand "return." Whatever. All in the context of negotiations -- not in advance of them.
Yes the Israelis would fight against going to "final status" now but they are fighting us on a settlement freeze anyway. A fight on final status is worth waging and winning.
This is not a call on Obama to ease up on the pressure on settlements Not at all, he is doing just what he should be doing. It is rather a call to move quickly to a fallback if Bibi continues to say "no." In this case, the fallback is better than the original demand. Obama can announce the new US plan during his June 4th Cairo speech. Why not?
Read a terrific discussion on all this right here. Brilliant stuff.
Why is the US Congress, even with a big Democratic majority, interfering with US/Middle East foreign policy? It can only cause more and more serious problems when Congress votes overwhelmingly that the US should not put pressure on Israel.
One would think that Congress was elected by Israel to further Israel's policies. It is, in my opinion, treasonous for Congress to put more emphasis on Israeli concerns than on US concerns. And ending Moslem antimosity towards the US is certainly one of our concerns.
May 31, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share the outrage, but "treasonous" is a strong word to use for toothless resolutions. Applying it to the entire U.S. Congress is counterproductively extreme. Blind opposition to blind support for whatever AIPAC says is not a farsighted approach, to say the least.
Names, statements, voting records please. THEN decide on your descriptives:
"contrary to American interests"
"lacking common sense"
"serving the West Bank settlers and their Palestinian terrorist co-torpedoers of peace attempts"
OR, in the rare cases where it may be justified:
"treasonous"
May 31, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Congress, as an institution, which it is, places a higher priority on protecting North Korea's right to possess nuclear warhead armed long range guided missiles, than on equipping the US military with adequate resources to counter that threat, I call that treason. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but it is treason.
I know we were talking about a different country, but the principle is exactly the same. When the US Congress places a higher priority on protecting Israel's interests than on protecting the interests of our country, I call that treason too.
June 1, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Netanyahu wants the status quo to be the final status?
The Israeli government seems content with their security, their settlements, their wall, their exclusive West Bank settlement highways, along with their control of West Bank airspace, water and borders.
May 31, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then he'll fight Obama, and stand up like a man! No one can dictate to Bibi or to Israel! Ta-dah!
And he'll thus create a crisis and there will be a no confidence vote in the Knesset and he'll lose badly. Ta-dah! And that means no Nobel for Bibi!!
May 31, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a lot of brave and vague talk here about, "pushing", "clashing", "battling" and "fighting". But as usual it is all just idle gas, MJ. Neither you nor Levy ever seem willing to put any material muscle into this rhetorical shadow boxing and impotent posturing.
Israel is a country, not a child. And collectively, Israelis don't seem to stand quaking in awe, as you do, over the ineffable and irresistible magic mojo of The Great Obama. So if you and Levy are serious about getting Israel to bend to the US will, you will need to support the application of some carrots, sticks or both. What carrots or sticks are you proposing to apply, MJ? Do you think Obama is just going to talk millions of fanatical Israelis into reversing four decades of national policy, a policy that seems to reflect the broad national will in Israel and that Israel seems utterly disinclined to change on its own?
When Saddam occupied Kuwait, the United States and much of the rest of the international community organized a large international force, sailed and flew it into the neighborhood, gave Iraq a time limit and an "or else", and then marched into Iraq and Kuwait and kicked the Iraqis back to Baghdad. The whole thing took just a little more than a year, as I recall.
And yet Israel has been occupying the West Bank for over 40 years, without so much as a mobilized paper airplane or spitball straw from the international community. It's amazing what options one can get taken "off the table" when one has friends in high places.
You and Levy have already folded on the relatively small matter of a settlement freeze. All Netanyahu had to do was stamp his feet a bit to convince you it wasn't "worth the price". What price? Where? There is never a price.
Now you say the US should "push" Israel into final status negotiations. Push how? Using what mechanisms? You say we should be prepared to have a fight with Israel on this issue. What kind of fight? What exactly are you talking about? Are you suggesting that when our congress has its next voice vote on Israeli atrocities, it shouldn't vote 99-0 in favor of letting Israel do whatever the hell it wants, but maybe only 98-1 or 97-2?
And if we have to "push" them even to go to the negotiation table, what sort of outcome could we expect from these "negotiations", when the nuclear weapons-packing Israelis sit down to negotiate with the rock-throwing, lilliputian Palestinian Arabs who live on the land the Israelis covet? I wonder what Israel foot-dragging won't be worth the price to you and Levy then?
Oh yeah. Those nuclear weapons. Maybe that's one reason Americans are so damn scared of the Israelis and afraid to do any pushing beyond warnings that failure to reply with our timid requests might amount to some very serious hemming and hawing in the future. But so profound is the Israeli-induced pussification of the US national government that not only are we are afraid of Israeli nukes, we are afraid to mention Israeli nukes, and have adopted a serious national policy of pretending they do not exist and resolving not to talk about them.
May 31, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fallback plan in terms of negotiations?
How about this scenatio:
a) Israel nogotiates
b) and expands settlements
c) Palestinians are grumpy, Israel generous
d) Palestinians mull a particularly generous proposal
e) some provocation incited a barrage of bloody clashes and negotiations are delayed for another 10 years, while
f) Israel expands settlements
May 31, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have aptly captured the essential components of the business-as-usual strategy for US Mideast policy. It has one clear beneficiary: West Bank settlers.
This basic dynamic explains, at least in part, why Sharon didn't freeze settlements in Gaza; he forced them all to close. Apply that formula to all the non-border-hugging West Bank settlements, add a new but this time ironclad damn-the-terrorists-full-speed-ahead peace process, and we may see some progress towards something better than more settlements for fanatics.
The slightest hint that a US-veto-free UN condemnation and full embargo is being "drafted" would likely be a sufficient stick, with or without any Iranian carrot accompanying.
May 31, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Dan K is correct to a degree. If Obama backs off his insistence on a settlement freeze, then he's got no chance to push Israel to meaningful final status talks.
A settlment freeze would be subject to UN jusidiction and that is where Obama has to take this fight. If he fights Israel directly the US Congress will get involved and probably buckle under pressure from AIPAC.
If Bibi says no to a settlement freeze then the US should introduce a UN Security Coucil resolution to implement a series of sanctions against Israel - mild at first but automatically increasing over time. I'm sure the EU (and a vast majority of other nations)would agree and hopefully we can bribe or somehow induce Russia and China to go along. When Israel complies then he can insist on another UN resolution demanding final status talks.
May 31, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thought occurs to me: would Congress impeach Obama if he puts too much pressure on Israel? I'm not joking. Congress obviously believes they are there to serve Israel, so they would obviously do so by impeaching a president who dares to put pressure on Israel.
June 1, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a sane world, we would treat them the same as any other rogue state. We would cut off all aid and impose sanctions, just like we have done with Iran and North Korea. For what it is worth, Iran has provided far less justification for these actions than Israel has.
Unfortunately we do not live in a sane world and AIPAC and the rest of Likud-America would go batshit if we did what needs to be done. I do think that we need to cut back, even if we cannot cut off entirely, aid to Israel. I think increased funding to the Palestinians to aleciate their ongoing suffering would also be a good gesture.
May 31, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. Well-said. I still can't figure out what Israel has ever done for us?
June 1, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "...But [t]he Likudniks aren't smart..."
A RELATED ARTICLE: "BIBI AND YVET’S ARAB-HATRED: BRING IT ON!" by Richard Silverstein, 05/31/09
(EXCERPT)...So I say let them vote to ban Nakba. Let them vote to compel a loyalty oath. Let them ban Palestinian students from studying in Israel. Let them rant about Iran being Amalek and toppling the mad mullahs. Let them do their worst. I say: “Knock yourself out.” Give it your wingnut all...
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/05/31/bibi-and-yvets-anti-arabism-bring-it-on/
May 31, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The final status of Palestine is likely to be a land laid waste by radiation from the nuclear conflict to come.
AIPAC cares nothing about a third world war using nuclear weapons because the US is unlikely to be affected. That, of course, is wishful thinking.
The entire world will be impacted and nothing will be the same ever again.
That will be the final status.
May 31, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI&feature=related
May 31, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just returned from a refreshing vacation in which the Middle East was scarcely mentioned.
During this respite, I had the opportunity to read Robert Malley and Hussein Agha's piece in the New York Review of Books. I heartily recommend it to all participants here. Surprisingly, it is available for free on the web. Here is the link. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22731
I've often found these two a bit harsh on Israel for my taste, but here, they seem to hit the nail on the head. It's not a question of tweaking this or that aspect of an agreement, the contours of which are familiar to us all. It's more about changing the approach to the negotiation to recognize each side's aspirations and goals. Read it. I command you. :)
May 31, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link, Armchair. The analysis, as I expected, is excellent: A "two-state solution" is a misnomer -- creation of two states is simply a nuts-and-bolts part of the solution. Agreed.
But the authors lose me after "There may be a better way." Bring the settlers into the dialogue?
Haven't they, with the complicity of the government, essentially dictated the terms of the so-called "dialogue" for decades?
Isn't that the crux of the problem?
Malley and Agha don't even try to sketch out exactly how this "new approach" might play out. Hey, I'm all for new approaches -- I'm just not in favor of rolling the dice in hopes that something positive happens.
I'm curious to see what new ideas Obama brings to the table. Telling Bibi the free ride is over is a good start.
June 1, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that there's no regional negotiating framework you can currently hang a comprehensive solution on. Israel's in full revanchist mode; Egypt doesn't have the diplomatic muscle the Obama team hopes it does; Iraq is irrelevant; the Gulf monarchies are playing every team against each other; Syria's as opaque as always; the spy scandal is going to dominate the Israeli-Lebanese calculus for a good long while; and the Palestinians are busy killing each other to establish factional dominance. We're a long way from being able to convene a Madrid-style conference, let alone force a comprehensive solution.
The Washington meeting last week with Aboul Gheit seems to reinforce that: Egypt is holding the line that Israel has to make material concessions before any regional state will deal with them, and that any kind of coordinated normalization is off the table at this point.
Worse yet, the status of Israeli Arabs is shaping up to be the next big issue, risking making a mockery out of Israel's claims to tolerance and (domestic) decency. The fact that the legal system will almost certainly shut down these legislative excesses is immaterial: Mazuz's cri de coeur that Israeli political life is inconsistent with that of a "normal country" is likely to be repeated elsewhere.
I'm more pessimistic than ever about the development of a negotiated framework. Even if Israel were to politically reverse course and then start targeting hasbara efforts towards Arab countries instead of just the West, I don't think it would give Arab regimes enough room for diplomatic maneuver. And I don't think that there's enough stability in the current (or any projected) Israeli government to allow for big gestures. Israeli panic, and Arab intransigence, are probably the only things we can expect to see for the next several years. Placing the IL-PAL issue in the cooler for a while and focusing on the rest of the Arab world may be the only option for US diplomats.
June 1, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli panic, and Arab intransigence, are probably the only things we can expect to see for the next several years.
To be realistic, I expect that we will see a mushroom cloud and panic in every country around the world. The time for talk has gone. Intransigence has been the prime factor that has led to this coming tragedy.
June 1, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This weekend administration officials" answered your title question by telling the New York Times that the measures under discussion are all largely symbolic and that going as far as Bush I did by placing conditions on loan guarantees is not under discussion. The last paragraphs of the article remind that Obama himself said on Thursday that he is not ready to offer an "or else.."
That article is also interesting in how it stresses that the administration is expecting a lot of help from Saudi Arabia regarding not only IP but also Pakistan.
Meanwhile, someone is obviously pressuring Abbas to do something about Hamas, ...The violence erupted days after the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, assured President Obama in Washington that his troops were imposing order in the area...
June 1, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, someone is obviously pressuring Abbas to do something about Hamas.
Awesome. Maybe Obama can provoke a civil war and massive refugee crisis in Palestine, just like he did in Pakistan.
June 1, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with this? Bibi announces that he will accept a settlement freeze and a short term on natural growth pending blah blah, as a courageous Israeli move toward a regional settlement etc. Lieberman leaves the coalition. Kadima comes in stating agreement in principal for Palestinian state blah blah and agrees not to demand rotating PMship.
June 1, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of windows hyper v, openfiler iscsi windows
March 29, 2011 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability solution
April 28, 2011 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink