Rahm Offers Tough Talk on Two States
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was said to badly want Kadima chief Tzipi Livni to join his coalition, but the price she was asking—for Netanyahu to say he supports the idea of a two state solution—proved too high for the Likud leader. Instead, he formed a coalition with far-right leader Avigdor Lieberman who also opposes a two state solution, has disavowed the Annapolis process, and wants to entrench greater levels of discrimination against Israel’s Arab citizens. Given that Livni wasn’t even talking about any concrete concessions to the Palestinians, this makes the outlook for peace look quite bad. But according to this M.J. Rosenberg item, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emannuel is signaling that Barack Obama is very serious about pursuing a two state solution:
Yedioth Achronoth, the largest circulation daily in Israel, reports today that President Obama intends to see the two-state solution signed, sealed and delivered during his first term.
Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; “In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn’t matter to us at all who is prime minister.”
He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place.”Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory,” the paper reports Emanuel as saying. In other words, US sympathy for Israel’s position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel’s willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
That sounds like a good approach to me, though foreign press reports are often unreliable.
29 Responses to “Rahm Offers Tough Talk on Two States”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Instead, he formed a coalition with far-right leader Avigdor Lieberman who also opposes a two state solution
Mr. Yglesias is seriously in error here. Mr. Lieberman has explicitly endorsed the eventual creation of a Palestinian State. Isn’t it about time that Mr. Yglesias stop lying about Mr. Lieberman?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
The lack of profanity leads me to question whether that’s an actual Emanuel quote.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“I’m going to out of town for AIPAC” is cute.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Rahm Emmanuel: “it doesn’t matter to us at all who is prime minister.”
It would be way cool if he was wearing a red “Chairman Maobama”
T-shirt when he said it.
The purpose of terror is to terrorize.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
SLC–
Lieberman started mouthing his support for a two-state solution about five minutes ago, Bibi about 20 minutes ago. Basically once they took power they realized they had to start telling the international community what they want to hear. Both of them (especially Lieberman) have years and years of prior statements and actions explicitly opposing and undermining peace negotiations, settlement restrictions, and the two-state solution generally. On top of this there’s of course the problem that, based on past history, the “state” these guys would be willing to offer the Palestinians would likely be a bunch of disconnected blobs totally surrounded by Israel and cut off from each other. So forgive me if I’m going to see a little more before I declare Lieberman a supporter of the two-state solution.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I’m just saying “if”, but if Obama were to pass through some serious health care reform (especially if it had some public insurance option) and also actually usher in a permanent state settlement to the I/P conflict (just for a moment forget the real issues involved, just simply the two-state final state settlement itself), the Republicans would really, really, really, really hate him.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
The part about Iran is somewhat puzzling to me. What sort of “treatment of the nuclear problem” could they be talking about? The US has its own interests to pursue in its relationship with Iran, and only a portion of those interests have to do with the Israel-Iran relationship. I hope Emanuel doesn’t mean that the US will adopt the barking mad paranoid Israeli attitude toward Iran in exchange for good Israeli behavior in the West Bank.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
A propos of nothing, but interesting, and even decent; imperfect, but approaching decency nonetheless:
April 16th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
foreign press reports are often unreliable
As opposed to what kind of press reports?
Domestic news isn’t “often unreliable”?
Sheesh.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Re spokeytown
Mr. Lieberman has supported the concept of a Palestinian state for several years and has even stated that, if an agreement was reached that required him to vacate his house which currently is in a West Bank settlement, he would have not problem with doing so. His proposal for land swaps between the West Bank and Israel which he has been making for several years makes no sense without the creation of a Palestinian state. There is plenty of ammunition with which to attack Mr. Lieberman, particularly his alleged affiliation with the Russian mobs, but the Palestinian state issue is not one of them.
Re El Cid
Just for the information of Mr. El Cid, a former colleague of mine, Prof. G., who is a professor at U. Mass. Lowell, and was originally from Israel, several years ago had a graduate student who was from Saudi Arabia. After completing his PhD thesis but before defending his dissertation, the student accepted a position at, I believe, the Un. of Georgia. The Saudi Arabian Government flew my former colleague down to Atlanta in a private jet to take part in his dissertation defense which was conducted at U. G. According to Prof. G, the Saudi Arabian Government was well aware of his antecedents.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Perhaps Obama picked Emanuel in part because of Emanuel’s unique “only Nixon can go to China” moral capital to slap the Israelis around a bit.
(BTW why does everyone refer to Emanuel as “Rahm”? How has he attained a first-name basis like “LeBron”, “Tiger”, “Elvis”, “Madonna”, etc.?)
April 16th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Instead, he formed a coalition with far-right leader Avigdor Lieberman who also opposes a two state solution
Mr. Yglesias is seriously in error here. Mr. Lieberman has explicitly endorsed the eventual creation of a Palestinian State.
“Eventually” is a long, long time.
And “endorsed” and “opposes” aren’t contradictions.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Why are foreign press reports unreliable?
April 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I don’t see any way forward without some fair solution being imposed from the outside, so this is good news if true… although I fear that the upshot will be that no solution is in fact possible. (I also wonder how this will work given the current political fracture among the Palestinians.)
It’s interesting that the report links the creation of a Palestinian state with some “treatment” of the Iran nuclear “problem.” The causality seems reversed here (and that’s not a trivial distinction by any means) but I note that the Samuels article that Yglesias ridiculed a week or two ago posited such a linkage as well.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Why are you quoting Yediot Achronot? They have far less reliability than Fox News at their worst. Wishing Emanuel had expressed these ideas and knowing about it are two different things. If one is to monitor US policy in the Middle East, one must rely on reliable information and the only paper in Israel that remotely (rather remotely indeed) fits this category is Haaretz.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
The part about Iran is somewhat puzzling to me.
Looks too much like a quid pro quo to me.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
First of all, the bolded quote seems like Bushian bluster to me, albeit in the right direction. Since when Israeli leaders don’t matter and since when the US can impose by unadulterated diktat her desires on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Second of all, I think the wrong paragraph was bolded. If what Emmanuel said is true then he turned the logic of “the way to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad” on its head. Henceforth, the way to Tehran goes through Jerusalem and I think it’s a fantastic maneuver.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
SLC:
I… What am I missing? What? Okay, in once case, Saudi Arabia awards a high academic prize to a Jewish researcher, which I thought was interesting. Then you recite a time when the Saudi gov’t flew a non-Saudi professor to assist a Saudi grad student in his dissertation defense.
They seem like two very different incidents, though they do share the fact that they have something to do with Saudi Arabia and support of academics. Other than that, what’s the connection?
This one time, I’m actually not snarking. I just don’t get the analogy.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Hmm. The US will do the sane thing in the region, regardless of what Israel’s lunatic politicians want?
I’ll believe it when it happens and not a moment earlier.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
If I can be a bit off message here, I think Bibi, in the end, doesn’t object to a Palestinian state. He just wants to be a very tough negotiator.
Remember, he did negotiate the Wye River accords with Arafat and King Hussein.
Netanyahu is certainly a hawk, but he can be pragmatic if he thinks that it is in the best interests of Israel to take that line. If the Palestinians and the US offer him something that it is worth biting on, I suspect he will bite.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“Why are foreign press reports unreliable?”
Mistranslation, I’d guess.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Re El Cid
The issue is that the Saudi Government was well aware that Prof. G is originally from Israel (actually, he was born in Romania but his family was expelled from there and subsequently moved to Israel). This happened about 20 years ago when the Saudis were far more negative about the State of Israel and Jews then they are today. What Mr. El Cid is missing here is that Prof. G is more then just a non-Saudi professor at an American university.
Re GW
The Israeli newspaper, Yediot Achronot, is generally considered to be slightly left of center, somewhere between the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. It is at least as reliable as most US newspapers and far more reliable the Guardian or the BBC.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
“President Obama intends to see the two-state solution signed, sealed and delivered during his first term.”
Right – and his HOW is WHAT?
More Obama bullshit with zero PLAN.
“Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; “In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn’t matter to us at all who is prime minister.””
Right – Obama and Rahm “I Fought for the IDF” Emanuel are going to throw AIPAC, the settlers and the Israeli government under a bus.
Email me when this happens.
“He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place.”Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory,”
In other words, Obama will throw Iran under a bus – that appears to be his HOW. Give us a Palestinian “agreement” – that actually means nothing – and we’ll bomb Iran for Israel.
“In other words, US sympathy for Israel’s position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel’s willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.”
How the US can justify ANY “sympathy” for Israel’s paranoid, war mongering over Iran is beyond belief.
Once again:
1) Iran HAS NO nuclear weapons development and deployment program.
2) Iran very likely has NEVER HAD a nuclear weapons development and deployment program (as opposed to a nuclear weapons RESEARCH program which ANY military threatened by a nuclear opponent would have).
3) Israel has an estimate 250 nuclear weapons. Is Obama prepared to demand that they disarm that in support of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East? Iran would go for that in a heartbeat, and would ratify the NPT Additional Protocol in a heartbeat, and never develop nuclear weapons. And they could believe Obama was serious, unlike this BS about a Palestinian state.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Holy crap, Rahmbo is a tough guy!
Using the Iranian nuclear program to lean on Israel for a peace deal?
Holy sheep sh#t.
Go Chicago!
April 17th, 2009 at 8:06 am
BS story unless the US plans on shooting down Israeli jets that get anywhere near Iran
April 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
yes — by all means Israel needs another Hamasistan next door. this one conveniently located on the hills of the west bank — so as better to aim their rockets.
If this is strategic thinking from Obama, I shudder to think about the world in 4 years….
April 17th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Hmm. If only someone had pointed out to them the consequences of their actions in 1967…
Oh wait, the ENTIRE FSCKING WORLD did so. Now they reap the whirlwind they sowed. This is their problem, not America’s, not Europe’s, their’s.
By all means, ba, tell us your great solution to this problem. Is it, in fact, a “final” solution?
April 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Again, hate speech.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
[...] 2.Matthew Yglesias » Rahm Offers Tough Talk on Two States [...]