by hilzoy
"Senior Israeli officials accused President Obama on Wednesday of failing to acknowledge what they called clear understandings with the Bush administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement "freeze." (…)
The Israeli officials said that repeated discussions with Bush officials starting in late 2002 resulted in agreement that housing could be built within the boundaries of certain settlement blocks as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built. (…)
But a former senior official in the Bush administration disagreed, calling the Israeli characterization "an overstatement."
"There was never an agreement to accept natural growth," the official said Tuesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. "There was an effort to explore what natural growth would mean, but we weren't able to reach agreement on that."
Even if there had been an agreement, so what? The Bush administration does not have the power to bind future administrations in perpetuity, especially not without writing anything down. In this particular case, any such agreement would have been incredibly unwise, not only for us but also for Israel.
There are a lot of things standing in the way of peace in the Middle East. But one is surely the fact that the Israeli government has never been serious about stopping settlement in the West Bank, and another is that while the United States has felt free to criticize the Palestinians for not living up to their commitments, it has never been serious about holding the Israeli government to its word. The fact that Obama seems to be in earnest about freezing the settlements is good for both parties.
I suspect that the relative lack of Congressional pushback against the Obama administration's willingness to get serious on this point is in part the result of the Israeli government's brutality in Gaza. The Israeli government has been acting as though it actually wanted to undermine American support for Israel, and cause people to ask: why, exactly, do we have to give Israel unconditional backing, no matter what it does? (Note: this is very different from wondering why we should support Israel at all.) It should not be surprised to find that its actions have consequences.
From the outset, Israel's settlement policy has been designed to create 'facts on the ground' that will be impossible to reverse. And 'natural growth' is not just a matter of
adding a room to an existing house, or new "
gardens and classrooms". Peace Now
claims that the government plans to build 73,000 new homes in West Bank settlements under the rubric of "natural growth", and has already approved 15,156. The government
disputes this figure: it says the real number that has been approved is "only" 11,530. That's still a lot of homes, for a lot of people, on land that virtually no one believes Israel is legally entitled to build on.
"The fact is, Israel has to do much more than freeze settlements: it needs to dismantle them, and open up the West Bank roads exclusively used by Jewish settlers to Palestinian use; and tear down the barrier wall in any locale that doesn't conform to the 1967 green line. It certainly needs to send a clear message to the extremists who are rioting on the West Bank today, in support of their illegal outposts–that this sort of behavior will no longer be tolerated. If Israel is going to demand–rightly–that the Palestinians control their terrorists, Israel is going to have to crack down on its own provocateurs."
There are a lot of things standing in the way of peace in the Middle East
A lot of things?
The United States military. Israel’s ethnic cleansing.
What else? Unless the Shiite tribesmen in Yemen are acting up again I can’t think of any other wars going on in the region.
I suspect that the relative lack of Congressional pushback against the Obama administration’s willingness to get serious on this point is in part the result of the Israeli government’s brutality in Gaza
I seriously doubt that. I doubt there exists a single member of Congress that sincerely gives a rat’s ass about the Israeli government’s brutality in Gaza. OK, maybe Kucinich.
The Israeli government has been acting as though it actually wanted to undermine American support for Israel
What, did they sink another US navy ship or something? Even that wouldn’t undermine American support for Israel. I have no idea what it would actually take.
The fact is, Israel has to do much more than freeze settlements: it needs to blah them, and blah blah blah and blah blah blah and also blah and they need to blah
If only he had somehow included the phrase “and a pony” it would be pitch perfect.
I think Israel will freeze settlements when it is part of some peace deal. The Israeli governments have shown willingness to yield, and yield territory, but in the current climate won’t give something for nothing.
The results of the Gaza pullback are considered a total failure.
The line about “Brutality” in Gaza is not credible; If Israel had wanted to kill a lot of people they could easily have killed a hundred times as many.
I think Israel will freeze settlements when…(hell freezes over). The Israeli governments have shown (absolutely no) willingness to yield, (certainly not) territory, but in the current climate won’t give something for (just about anything).
The line about “Brutality” in Gaza (is) credible; If Israel had wanted to kill a lot of people they could have dropped a nuclear bomb on Mecca…thus the fact that they haven’t proves their humanity.
Fixed that for you, Fred 🙂
The line about “Brutality” in Gaza is not credible; If Israel had wanted to kill a lot of people they could easily have killed a hundred times as many.
The total population of the Gaza Strip was estimated by the CIA Factbook website as 1.55M in July 2009.
No doubt you are right that Israel could easily have killed a hundred thousand people on the crowded Gaza Strip: but the notion that because they “only” killed upwards of a thousand, including hundreds of children, this was not brutal, should be set aside.
why, exactly, do we have to give Israel unconditional backing, no matter what it does?
Because they’re the 51st state lacking only formal representation in Congress (though not far behind Minnesota at the moment)?
Who says the “brutality” in Gaza is limited to the death by bombing and phosporus? What about the daily brutality that the embargo (including foodstuffs)on Gaza presents?
And what Jesurgislac said.
I suspect that when the wells run dry in that part of the world, ‘supporting’ Israel will figure a lot less in the concerns of subsequent administrations. It could have been different, I suppose. But the ruling governments of Israel have been very effective in making sure that this will not be the case.
Israel, by any “real-politik” standard, cannot accommodate an independent, sovereign Palestinian State within its borders.
That is why the ‘two-state’ solution is a non-starter. Granting the Palestinians a wholly independent, sovereign State would then require Israel to negotiate in good faith to justly and fairly allocate the resources of the region which Israel has spent the last 42 years (since attacking and trying to sink the USS Liberty) stealing from individual Palestinians.
Can you see Bibi announcing to Avigdor Lieberman and the Knesset that he was reducing the amount of water available to the kibbutzim to supply more water to Arab farmers?
Neither can I…
Oh, yeah… I have a post on the matter at my own lil bloggy enterprise.
Talking about abortion: if you disagree, you’re a misogynist; if you disagree, you’re a baby murderer; debate is snarky
Talking about Israel: if you disagree, you’re an anti-arab racist; if you disagree, you’re an anti-semite; debate is insane*
*at least in the first one, you can choose whether you’re a sociopath or a dick; it kind of sucks to have to be a racist in a debate
The results of the Gaza pullback are considered a total failure.
It looks to me as if the Gaza pullback perfectly achieved its goals.
Dov Weissblas, a close adviser to Ariel Sharon, the PM who was the architect of the pullback, was quite open about its purpose:
The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.
The Gaza pullout was designed to derail the peace process and make the establishment of a functional Palestinian state much more difficult.
From that perspective it was a wonderful success.
Probably something that ought to have its own post/comments thread, but a link here to President Obama’s Cairo speech .
As usual, the sterling example of speechmaking we’ve come to expect from BHO: what its effects might be…?
As usual, the sterling example of speechmaking we’ve come to expect from BHO: what its effects might be…?
yup, he’s quite an orator. there’ll be some nice quotes.
But you know what forP yksmohC says: The best thing about a “peace process” is that it means you don’t actually have to have peace, and may continue doing whatever you want to instead of having peace…
I also hope that standing firm here will help prevent the really irritating practice of trying to undermine the American administration by going through backdoor congressional efforts.
You can watch Obama’s Cairo speech here.
Things have gotten too mellow around here. How about a post on religious belief vs. atheism? Or interpreting the Second Amendment? Stop dodging controversial topics.*
I also hope that standing firm here will help prevent the really irritating practice of trying to undermine the American administration by going through backdoor congressional efforts.
Well, Rep. Weiner has gotten a little weak in the knees (“B-b-but Palestinians have done bad things too!”), but so far he seems to be an outlier.
Anyway, I hope that this smidgen of new backbone holds long enough to convince the Israelis that we’re serious about demanding good behavior from both sides. And yes, the parliamentary democracy that we provide billions of dollars in aid to annually should be held to a high standard of behavior. They do not face an imminent existential threat, Amalek notwithstanding. Unless failing at the whole mitzvah thing could be considered a spiritual existential threat.
*My apologies to Dr. Science, but I just can’t help myself when it comes to sarcasm. It’s a medical condition.**
**Great, now I have to furnish Holsclaw and Bellmore with my medical records so that they can personally verify this claim.***
***See? Can’t help it.
part of the trouble in israel is that the right-wing religious extremists have shown that they are unwilling to use peaceful political means, and will resort to assassination when they don’t get their way.
huh. kinda like here, i guess.
, and will resort to assassination when they don’t get their way.
clearly the solution is to give them what they want.
“I also hope that standing firm here will help prevent the really irritating practice of trying to undermine the American administration by going through backdoor congressional efforts.”
Yesterday, I read about some 350+ members of congress signing a letter urging BHO to work closely and privately with Israel.
Was that just some sort of CYA posturing or did I just get it all wrong?
Even if there had been an agreement, so what? The Bush administration does not have the power to bind future administrations in perpetuity, especially not without writing anything down. In this particular case, any such agreement would have been incredibly unwise, not only for us but also for Israel.
Netanyahu is himself walking back from promises made by his predecessor regarding a Palestinian state, so his administration’s complaint is a bit rich.
I agree with the Administration’s policy, here, which appears to be a continuance of the Bush Administration’s policy (at least if one believes the anonymous quote).
This text may be the best summary of the crisis I’ve read in a while:
“For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”
PeorgieT points to the Congressional pushback that’s happened so far — not entirely incompatible with Hilzoy’s phrasing of relative lack of Congressional pushback (my emphasis). Dutifully and ritually, 329+ members signed a letter written by AIPAC.
But Glenn Greenwald’s post today points to Israeli public grumbling about “interference”, which will probably lead to more stoogery in the House and Senate.
…the Israeli government’s brutality in Gaza. The Israeli government has been acting as though it actually wanted to undermine American support for Israel … It should not be surprised to find that its actions have consequences.
The idea that the assault on Gaza this past winter was all down to Israel fails to spread the responsibility where it belongs: the U.S. government green-lighted the attack, funded it, shipped unscheduled extra arms to the Israelis in order to supply it, and the U.S. Congress backed it by the usual huge majority.
The president-elect said exactly zip to criticize the assault, unless expressing regret about civilian casualties (with no reference to the fact that one side’s civilians were penned in and outnumbered the others’ a hundred-fold) is to be taken as some kind of a harsh condemnation of Israel.
I welcome Obama’s unusual firmness on the settlements, but given how small a step this is, it’s only possible to see it as brave and daring because of the contrast provided by the disgraceful pandering of the last sixteen years. (I know, the history of reflexive support for Israeli govt policy goes back further, but the Clinton and Bush 2 eras set new lows.)
I find this business of the Likudniks complaining “b-but we had a secret nod-and-wink from the Bushies on settlements” to be really unseemly in a bunch of ways. It’s not just that the Bushies cannot bind their successors (except by entering into a treaty, and even that can be withdrawn from), it’s that any secret deal on settlements that existed clearly demonstrates that the “Road Map” was a fraud. Nobody seems to be pointing that out.
The last president let us eat ice cream and stay up until 11!
I don’t really care what the Likud claims. Israel knows that the settlements were intentionally made in a way that was almost certain to stop any peace from happening. The Likud can commit to continuing war, or it can commit to peace. If they refuse to dismantle the settlements, they are telling us they want more war.
The United States has been a good ally of Israel, but we would be absolute fools to let the Israeli government tell us what we need to do. If Israel refuses to dismantle the settlements, if it commits to permanent war, there is no reason at all for the United States to continue to support them.
Frankly, Israel has more than once acted like the pampered rich kid who figures it can get away with doing whatever it wants because it’s daddy is so rich and powerful. The sad part is that Israel hasn’t been treated fairly in many cases, but that should not be justification for the US to roll over for every stupid decision the Israeli government makes.
Talk about deja vu:
I don’t want to go into the whole story, which is well covered in many books, but the “final” chapter of the US war in Vietnam, 1973-1975, was complicated and marred by various secret deals President Nixon had made with the Vietnamese, deals his successor (Ford) was in no position to carry out once Congress got wind of them.
The Republic of Vietnam (= South Vietnamese government) first became extraordinarily pugnacious because of the extreme help they thought the US had promised, then extraordinarily fragile when they realized this kind of help was not forthcoming. It made for a volatile and very public collapse of the regime, scarcely providing the “decent interval” between US withdrawal and Communist takeover Nixon and Kissinger were hoping for.
One would have hoped US presidents would have learned better. One would be wrong.
One might also have hoped foreign leaders would learn how little such secret promises from US presidents would be trusted. Wrong again.
Which is why everyone should be forced to study history, especially Asian history.
[This has been a special Product Placement Announcement by Dr. Ngo]
“Which is why everyone should be forced to study history”
Amendation: this is why everyone should want to study history. (It makes you much much smarter. And wiser.)
Of course it should be ‘forced to want to study’ (and love spinach*) 😉
*I do, if properly prepared