Obama’s Settlement Climbdown
Spencer Ackerman has a good post on the damage the Obama administration’s apparent climbdown on the settlement freeze issue is doing to moderate Palestinian leaders. From the perspective of Bibi Netanyahu, that’s great. He doesn’t want to freeze settlements, he doesn’t want to remove settlements, and he doesn’t want a comprehensive peace agreement. But he doesn’t want to come right out and say that he has no intention of negotiating a comprehensive peace. So his best hope is either that a humiliated Fatah leadership loses to Hamas, or else that Fatah leaders need to move so far to the right to forestall that from happening that there’s nothing to negotiate over.
Either way, a disaster for peace and ultimately for Israel.
It’s worth observing this is the dynamic that’s existed between Netanyahu and Hamas since back in the Oslo days with the actions of each re-enforcing the political position of their alleged enemies on the other side, hollowing out the middle ground and plunging the region into an ever-more-disastrous situation.
55 Responses to “Obama’s Settlement Climbdown”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon.
November 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Mr. Yglesias continues to pursue the quaint notion that the settlements are the factor blocking a final peace deal. What is blocking a final peace deal is the same thing that have blocked a final peace deal ever since the Oslo accords,l namely the Palestinian demand that Palestinians living in refugee camps be resettled in Israel. The Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip elected the Hamas terrorists to represent them. Elections have consequences. The Palestinians have made their bed and now they are whining that they are being forced to sleep in it.
November 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
You have no way of knowing that Netanyahu has “no intention of negotiating a comprehensive peace.” In any case the way to put this to the test is to try to negotiate a comprehensive peace.
The Obama administration made a huge mistake here which is going to cost them and everyone in the region. They made freezing settlement activity a precondition for negotiation when it hadn’t previously been. Now the Palestinians are angry because their hopes were raised that the US would force Israel to make a concession to them gratis. The administration seems to have thought they could get something from the Arabs in exchange for getting Israel to do this; as it turned out, they couldn’t.
I agree that this will hurt Abbas and Fatah. And actually I agree that because of that and because it has put additional roadblocks in place before negotiations can begin, it hurts the prospects for peace and so it hurts Israel as well. But the blame for this error lies with the Obama administration. They needed to have their ducks in a row before going public with anything. They didn’t.
November 1st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Wasn’t Tzipi Livni suppose to be the new Israeli leader with more support than Netanyahu, but out of power because of an inability to form a coalition government, which Netanyahu disingenuously did to regain power? I thought in fact more popular support was shown for Livni and peace than Netanyahu, but like right-wingers of any country, Netanyahu is now acting like he has the popular mandate and is doing things basically not reflected by popular sentiment of the election… why does everyone in the blogosphere write about Israel now as if its been proven the government is reflective of the electorate when I remember the reality was not so.
Where/what do all the Livni supporters believe in now? all we EVER hear about is the settlers and hawks, but what about the larger [fragmented] opposition in Israel to its government’s positions and posturing right now?
Matt, does any mention of Levni ever come up in your various lists and conferences? We were close to having a partner for the Obama administration until 2010 in Israel – one that most likely would have been warm-ish to J-Street – basically hijacked by a funny hawk coalition formed just to prevent that from happening. Is there no assumption that a peace partner in Israeli government will ever have any influence again?
I was led to believe that the Netanyahu government wouldn’t be as strong as it is because it didn’t even come in 1st, but the sheer deletion of this point from recent history has Netanyahu doing whatever he wants. Why isn’t his weakened position ever ever mentioned, supported, or reinforced by the new media? Didn’t we here in the US learn what can happen when the non-majority hawk governments are given a free mandate by the press for no real reason other than their governing attitudes? Or has too much time passed and the Israeli population forgotten all about the opposition’s strengths at the beginning of this year?
November 1st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Hamas is way too mild for the situation they are in. I predict that the next movement will be much more nihilistic, something along the lines of Inglourious Basterds. Perhaps that will work better.
November 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
The idea that the demand that settlements be frozen is somehow wrong is silly and disingenuous on the part of Israeli settlers, for several reasons:
1. A substantial removal of settlements is going to be a significant part of any two-state solution. If a Palestinian state with viable borders is to be formed, a very significant number of settlements are going to have be removed.
2. We’ve seen the difficulty Israel had with removing the settlements in Gaza, and the settlements that the Israeli government hasn’t authorized in places like Hebron. How difficult do you think it’s going to be to remove settlements in places like East Jerusalem?
Because of this, saying that Israel should stop construction as part of negotiations is practically a prerequisite to negotiations: from a big picture point of view, it costs nothing to suspend settlement construction, and once the settlements are built, they become very difficult to remove. As a result, the refusal to suspend settlement construction is really an act of bad faith on the part of Netanyahu, as they make any realistic two state solution more difficult.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
How much less viable would the new Palestinian state be if it included 80% of the West Bank rather than 90%? Of course something is either viable or not; it can’t be 80% viable. What is the minimum required for viability and how is that obtained?
November 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
The PR strategy from the white house is already emerging from Hillary’s lips: blame Palestinian intransigence knowing that the American public already believes that the Palestinians are wrong.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end only when a senior Israeli politician is found guilty of war crimes. And it will happen sooner rather than later.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Re ndm
How about finding Ismail Haniyeh guilty of war crimes for not stopping the firing of Qassems across the fence into Israel.
Re abb1
I think that Mr. abb1s’ proposal is a great idea. Even weaklings like Bibi will then have not option but to apply Hama Rules.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
After Hamas won the election they were in favour of forming a national unity government so that Fatah could negotiate with Israel. I think it is worth at least bearing in mind that they are capable of being pragmatic. Look at the Northern Ireland peace process. It wasn’t until the ‘wreckers’ were allowed to sit down and hammer out a deal that the whole thing settled down.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
The two sides have made their choice. What I’m waiting for is for someone in American public life to raise the simplest question of all regarding U.S. policy towards Israel “What’s in it for us.” What national interest of the United States does pious mealy-mouthed platitudes about working for peace followed by absolute support for whatever the Israeli government of the moment wants get us?
A policy that cannot be justified in terms of self-interest is no policy at all.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
What is the minimum required for viability and how is that obtained?
The recent discussion over water access in the West Bank might be worth a read. Eyal Weizman’s series of pieces on the “politics of verticality” in the occupied territories is also useful to demonstrate that discussion of percentages of acreage on a map is a distraction.
Settlement building has been done with nod to military strategy, with supply lines and infrastructure that breaks up contiguous Palestinian communities, restricts mobility and separates farmers from their land.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
A policy that cannot be justified in terms of self-interest is no policy at all.
Well, it could be in your self-interest to nuke a couple of continents. Boom goes London, boom Paris. More room for you and more room for me.
Self-interest is not the only criterion.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
So I’m wondering SLC, do believe anyone has the right to defend themselves against Israel? You obviously don’t believe any Arab group has that right, but what if Israel invaded Oklahoma and started forcing people from their homes? Would the people of Oklahoma have any right to self-defense? And would the US have any right to defend Oklahoma from the invasion? Personally, I wouldn’t mind if Oklahoma weren’t part of the US, but I’d be wary of having a dangerous neighbor like Israel.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Re fostert
The trouble with Mr. fosterts’ reasoning here is that he makes the assumption that the Government of Israel just goes around invading its neighbors for the heck of it, apparently having nothing better to do. The fact is that every war and invasion in which the State of Israel has been engaged has been the result of aggressive acts by its neighbors. In particular, the most recent invasion, Operation Cast Lead, was in response to the firing of Qassems from the Gaza Strip. I would suggest that Mr. fostert consider what would be the reaction of the Government of the US if a terrorists organization in Mexico started firing rockets across the border into US towns bordering Mexico. Let’s not forget that the US currently occupies land that used to be part of Mexico (e.g. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, etc.) so the Government of Mexico would have the same beef with the US as the Palestinians have with Israel.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I would suggest that Mr. fostert consider what would be the reaction of the Government of the US if a terrorists organization in Mexico started firing rockets across the border into US towns bordering Mexico.
Does that apply to shooting sprees, or does it have to be rockets?
Because last time I checked, Ciudad Juarez hadn’t been blown to bits by the USAF.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
and he doesn’t want a comprehensive peace agreement
This is silly. Of course he wants a comprehensive peace settlement. He just wants one on terms he considers acceptable. Unfortunately, those terms are not acceptable to the Palestinians. Which is not any different than every other Israeli leader (and, on the flip side, every deal that the Palestinian leaders would consider acceptable are unacceptable to the Israelis).
November 1st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
SLC, I think you’ll find that the problem with your reasoning is your complete lack of sanity or anything like a consistent belief system beyond “Israel is the most important country on the earth and it should be allowed to do whatever it likes.
If you want people to stop treating you like a cartoon character, stop acting like one.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
SLC, I think you’ll find that the problem with your reasoning is your complete lack of sanity or anything like a consistent belief system beyond “Israel is the most important country on the earth and it should be allowed to do whatever it likes.
If you want people to stop treating you like a cartoon character, stop acting like one.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
There is a limit to how much you can avert someone else’s rush to self-destruction.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:21 pm
What’s your point, Al? Stalin, Hitler, and Attila the Hun wanted a comprehensive peace plan on their terms. Everyone is in favor of “peace”, it’s the terms that are important.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:25 pm
“The fact is that every war and invasion in which the State of Israel has been engaged has been the result of aggressive acts by its neighbors.”
That’s hardly true. Israel’s invasion of Egypt in 1953 was a blatant act of aggression to steal the Suez Canal from Egypt. But the plain fact is that Israel continues to gobble up Palestinian territory regardless of whether they are provoked or not. When’s the last time a rocket came from the West Bank? It’s been a while, yet any peaceful behavior on the part of West Bank Palestinians is met with Israel taking more territory. No matter how well the Palestinians behave, the Israelis will continue to strangle them. So what incentives do the Palestinians have to behave peacefully? Israel offers them two choices: submit to Israeli control, or die. Or, in the case of Gaza, submit to an eternal blockade or die. In the past few years, Gaza has twice stopped firing rockets into Israel, yet the blockade continues. And it will continue for all of eternity. Meanwhile, Israel will continue to occupy the West Bank for all of eternity.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Bottomfish,
The minimum is a territorially contiguous Palestinian state that isn’t enclosed by Israel, and has access to its own water. The problem is that Israel’s settlement plans (if allowed to continue) effectively split the Palestinian population centers into Bantustans, which aren’t adjacent to each other in any way. That’s why a significant portion of the settlements absolutely has to go in any final agreement – this is why settlement construction is so toxic to the peace process.
More importantly, settlement construction is a WAR CRIME. I wish someone would have the nerve to say this loudly and clearly.
Al/Ed,
You guys are wrong – Bibi doesn’t want peace. Bibi wants to get re-elected, and the hard right Likud platform is built around being scared of the Palestinians. Eliminating this threat takes away a significant piece of the Likud campaign platform. I think this fits with the maxim “All politics is local.”
November 1st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
If the Palestinians all became ardent Zionists and relocated themselves to Jordan and everyone else on the planet thought that made tons of sense that would be an acceptable “peace” for Netanyahu.
It’s obviously not going to happen, but that’s my point.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
So what do defenders of Israel say about other countries these days? Do they have thoughts about Sudan, or Chechnya, or Tibet, or earlier, the Soviet empire, or Yugoslavia or the Falklands or South Africa or the English in India or in America, or the Spanish, French, or Dutch empires? Do they just side with the more powerful party in all these cases because, after all, the other guys did fight back and kill innocent civilians? And because, after all, these territories were essential parts of their respective empires, and to give them up would have been to damage the very existence of the empire in question? Or do they have separate arguments for how Israel is different from each of these other occupying entities, and its justifications based on the meager revolts of the occupied are different from all those previous empires (maybe because it’s a spatially smaller area?). Or do they just behave like the Republican right wing does, and instead of argument they distract with insults, invective, and obfuscation?
November 1st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Re fostert
Mr. fosterts’ discussion of the causes of the 1956 war is seriously in error. It is quite correct to say that the motives of Britain and France were to get back control of the Suez Canal and get rid of dictator Nasser. However, the Government of Israel couldn’t have cared less about who controlled the Suez Canal. The motive of that government was to stop the infiltration of fedayeen terrorists who were crossing the border from Egypt and carrying out terrorist acts in Israel. Allowing fedayeen terrorists sancuary in
Egypt was an act of war on the latters’ part and the Government of Israel was entirely justified in doing something about it, just as the US was entirely justified in invading Mexico in 1912 to hunt down Pancho Villa who was conducting terrorist attacks in Texas as the Government of Mexico was unable to stop him.
Re SS
Mr. SS, in his zeal to lay the blame for the failure to obtain a peace settlement on the Government of Israel, neglects to mention that former President Clinton offered the late PA President Arafat a deal in which the Palestinians would have, when land swaps are taken into consideration, been given 100% of the Gaza Strip and 95% of the West Bank for a Palestinian State. This was turned down by the late and unlamented Mr. Arafat because he would have had to give up the Palestinian demand for resettlement of refugees in Israel. The consistent position of the Palestinians, regardless of who their leader is, is that the resettlement of refugees in Israel is non-negotiable.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Israel storms into holiest place on earth:
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/israeli-police-storm-jerusalems-holiest.html
November 1st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
“Allowing fedayeen terrorists sancuary in
Egypt was an act of war on the latters’ part”
Hardly. No country has successfully eliminated criminal activity in their country. And no country has a right to jail people that haven’t committed a crime in their country unless there is a specific extradition agreement. Remember, all of the 911 attackers were given sanctuary in the US before they attacked us. Should we bomb ourselves for doing that?
November 1st, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Re fostert
Excuse me, the Government of Egypt actively encouraged the fedayeen terrorists who were crossing the border. They were, for all intents and purposes, agents of that government.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
For all his pedantic claptrap, the trouble with Mr. SLC’s reasoning is encapsulated in the slogan with which he began:
“Settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon.”
Do you really think this is the position of someone who is prepared to accept a peaceful solution, short of a total victory for his side? You can’t negotiate with a person like this; and frankly the international community should stop wasting its time trying to negotiate with a country whose only response is to give it the finger and simply enforce international law whether the Israelis like it or not. You know, like was done in Kosovo.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
SS,
This is addressing your comment number 6; admittedly your subsequent posts make it clear that this comment was a bit, let’s say, coy. Still I’ll take the comment at face value.
There’s lots I disagree with in the comment both substantively and logically but I’ll confine myself to the claim that it would cost Israel “nothing” to suspend settlement activity. Israel has a number of things it needs from the Palestinians in negotiating a peace agreement. Obviously in order to get these things, it will have to give the Palestinians things that they want in return. So to give the Palestinians something that they want, without getting something in return, doesn’t in fact cost nothing. It costs whatever else has to be substituted for that in getting something that the Israelis want.
So, for example, if the Palestinians were to agree that in exchange for Israel freezing further settlements, they would make a public statement that they understand — without making any specific territorial concession — that any final settlement will require East Jerusalem and in particular the Old City to be divided — well, that would be something the Israelis might be interested in.
Anyway the point is asking Israel to give up something for nothing is simply to take a position favoring the Palestinians in the negotiations that might, someday, get underway. Which is, of course, your right. But it’s just silly to pretend that what they would be giving up wouldn’t cost them anything, or that this stance isn’t, objectively, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Larry,
You’re completely missing my point: the settlements are a huge barrier to peace, because it’s very difficult for Israel to remove settlements.
My point, therefore, is that since the logistical difficulty of removing the settlements is a very significant barrier to the actual implementation of a two-state solution, further construction of settlements (which would need to be removed when a two-state solution is implemented) is an act of bad faith on Israel’s part – i.e. Netanyahu isn’t interested in peace.
That isn’t coy in any way shape or form, nor is saying that its in Bibi’s political interests to not reach a settlement.
Which are different from the state of Israel’s interests – its most definitely in Israel’s interests to reach a two state solution prior to settlement construction reaching a point where it becomes effectively impossible to implement a two-state solution. At that point, Israel has three choices:
1. Explusion of the Palestinians
2. Apartheid
3. Giving the Palestinians citizenship
Option 1 will most definitely lead to divestment from Israel and justly deserved sanctions, and so should option 2 (which would certainly take longer). Option 3 (which I, for a variety of reasons, do not support) is obviously the so-called one-state solution, which no one in Israel wants.
I thank you for the civilized response (which is much more than I can say for some of the other pro-Israel commentors here) – I’m certainly interested in seeing what your response is.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 am
Re: Let’s not forget that the US currently occupies land that used to be part of Mexico (e.g. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, etc.) so the Government of Mexico would have the same beef with the US as the Palestinians have with Israel.
SLC,
I think the American conquest of the Southwest was utterly immoral. And if the conquest had happened in living memory and those areas were currently populated by a majority Mexican population who wanted to secede and join Mexico, I would enthusiastically support their right to do so. That isn’t the case in the Southwest. But it is the case in the Palestinian territories. In the case of Chechnya the conquest wasn’t recent but it _is_ inhabited by a non-Russian, non-Christian people who hate Russia, and I think that’s enough cause to grant them independence too.
Re: “Settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon.”
Nonsense. Just what moral right does Israel have to that land? It belongs to the Palestinians. Don’t you see that the presence of settlements makes the prospect of a one state ‘Isratine’ ever more likely? Because once Palestine is full of settlements it won’t be possible to hang on to the settlements and not hang on to the rest of Palestine. Sooner or later they will get political power, by hook or by crook, and when that happens it’s good night for the State of Israel.
I think ‘Isratine’ would be a disaster, which is precisely why I want the settlements to be shut down and forcibly evacuated by the Israeli army.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:40 am
SS,
I think I understand the risks of the current situation. More to the point I think the Israelis understand them.
I don’t live there so my thoughts may be off-base. However my assessment from this distance is that a key impediment to forward progress is that the Arabs believe that time is on their side, which in the context of negotiations means they think they could get a better deal tomorrow than they could today. This isn’t necessarily an irrational belief although it obviously entails risk.
The problem for the Israelis is that it’s very difficult to negotiate with someone who thinks time is on his side, because his inclination will be to drag things out. So what they are doing is raising the risks, i.e., making it plain that there is a cost to delay, that the Palestinians will not necessarily get a better deal tomorrow than today — in fact they may well get a worse deal.
So a settlement freeze puts in place a dynamic in which the Palestinians think there is no cost to delaying, and there may be benefits. Building settlements puts in place the opposited dynamic, in which there is an explicit cost to delaying that may outweigh those potential benefits.
There is a risk as you say that ultimately this strategy will lead to a situation in which the Palestinians won’t take a deal that Israel can realistically offer. However my guess is the Israelis think this risk is manageable and in any case that this is the least bad strategy since the current situation bites anyway and there doesn’t seem to be anything to do about it.
Thanks for your nice words about my comportment. I wouldn’t be so hard on the Zionists here. We come in for a lot of abuse on this site.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:23 am
Building settlements puts in place the opposited dynamic, in which there is an explicit cost to delaying that may outweigh those potential benefits.
Ah, the wonders of abstraction.
The problem with that imagining that dynamic at work is that it flips very quickly: once the settlement infrastructure is sufficiently embedded to make any two-state proposal a bantustan travesty — and this isn’t just scribbling numbers at the car dealership, but the appropriation of land and water and the consequential disruption of one set of communities in order to establish another — there’s no reason to take that deal.
larry birnbaum hasn’t yet said if he considers the gradual institutionalization of apartheid to be ideologically compatible with Zionism.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:22 am
Irony to all of the this is that Israel is probably it’s biggest threat to it’s own existence. In a 100 years historians will look back at this and be amazed by the shear hubris in all parties involved in Israel’s policy making.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 am
Zionism is incompatible with peace: where there’s peace most people won’t give a damn whether they are Jews or Eskimo. Zionism needs war (and, of course, antisemitism), or it’ll die.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:18 am
In place of the right of return, were the Palestinians offered any type of reparation? After all, I see that people still have the right to pursue reparations for property lost to the Nazis, which was, statute of limitations-wise, earlier than the Palestinians that lost residences, businesses, etc. Why is property lost in one war so sacrosanct, and in another not at all?
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:38 am
Re Arun
1. The Palestinians have, up to now, indicated that they are not interested in reparations. Their non-negotiable demand is that refugees living in refugee camps be resettled in Israel. The idiotic comments supplied by Mr. abb1, I think, encapsulate their demands quite nicely. If the Palestinians would agree to accept reparations in lieu of resettlement, this conflict could be solved overnight. Compared to the refugee problem, the issues of settlements and East Jerusalem are piffle.
2. In speaking of reparations, how about reparations for the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries, particularly Iraq, after the 1948 war? In fairness, it would seem that they are just as entitled to reparations as are the Palestinians.
Re Pseudonymous in NC
Although it is rather tiresome to keep repeating this, the Palestinians were offered the best deal they were ever going to get by former President Clinton. Not only did they turn it down, they, declined to negotiate further. Thus, they made their bed and now they refuse to lie in it. Tough noogies.
Re Hector
Mr. Hector should realize by this time that I make comments like that for the purpose of getting a rise out of the Israel bashers.
Re Larry Birnbaum
I would agree with Mr. Birnbaum that the Arabs think that time is on their side. Unfortunately for them, the history of the last 61 years since the founding of the State of Israel does not support their optimistic view. The discrepancy in military power between 1948 and now between the Arabs and Israel has been increasing in the latters’ favor continuously. Meanwhile, the position of the Palestinians has also been deteriorating continuously since that time. As the Western world moves away from an oil based economy, the Arab position will only worsen, as oil is the only reason that the rest of the world cares a fig about events in the Middle East.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 am
The discrepancy in military power between 1948 and now between the Arabs and Israel has been increasing in the latters’ favor continuously.
Same could be said in regards to Nazis’ military power in 1941. And yet in the end they had those “Hama Rules”, you’re so enthusiastic about, applied to them. Which is what most likely is going to happen in Palestine as well.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 am
Misanthropy now. Misanthropy tomorrow. Misanthropy to the far horizon.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:05 am
Re: Mr. Hector should realize by this time that I make comments like that for the purpose of getting a rise out of the Israel bashers.
And I use terms like “p*ssified” to get a rise out of the third wave feminists, and terms like ‘barbarians’ in part to get a rise out of the professional anti-racists. But you know what, I’ve started to realise that that’s juvenile and immature, and I’m trying to stop doing it. Better to say what you mean and mean what you say.
Do you agree with me, then, that the settlements should be demolished by the Israeli Army and the @$$hole settlers forcibly evacuated?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
Re Hector
The question is, which settlements will be evacuated and which will be retained. Until negotiations proceed far enough so that there is some indication of where the border will be drawn between the PA and Israel, it would seem to be premature and counterproductive for the Government of Israel to make such a decision now. Clearly, the settlements are a bargaining chip that the Government of Israel should be expected to play in response to bargaining chips held by the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. The difficulty with the demand proposed by the administration of President Osama is that the Government of Israel Israel would be required to concede one of its bargaining chips without the PA or the wider Arab World being required to concede any of its.
Re abb1
Let’s see here, according to Mr. abb1, Israel is Nazi Germany and Bibi (or any of the previous Israeli prime ministers) is Hitler. Bibi and his predecessors aren’t even Hafaz Assad as their unwillingness to apply Hama Rules demonstrates. I have a flash for Mr. abb1. If Hitler were the Prime Minister of Israel, the Palestinians would have been exterminated long ago.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Re: The question is, which settlements will be evacuated and which will be retained.
All of them must be evacuated, and none of them retained. Israel’s border was set in 1948, for good.
Re: The difficulty with the demand proposed by the administration of President Osama is that the Government of Israel Israel would be required to concede one of its bargaining chips without the PA or the wider Arab World being required to concede any of its.
The Arabs would say the same thing: that they’ve already suffered one military and territorial reverse after another, that every year the demographic situation (b/c of settlements) gets worse, and that their ONE bargaining chip, which they cannot afford to give up, is diplomatic recognition of Israel. It’s a stalemate, and someone needs to be the bigger and better man and make the first concession. I think it should be Israel.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Re Hector
1. The line between the West Bank and Israel, the so-called Green Line, is not now a border and has never been a border. It is a cease fire line negotiated in 1949 to end the 1st Arab/Israeli war. At no time has the UN or any other international body declared that it is an official border. Let’s not forget that, in 1949, it was a cease fire line between Israel and Jordan. The PA did not exist nor was their any agitation for an independent Palestinian Arab state as the West Bank was officially part of Jordan. The question as to where the border between Israel and the proposed Palestinian Arab State will lie is a matter for negotiations. Compared to the issue of the Palestinian refugees currently living in refugee camps, the border issue is minuscule.
2. Mr. Hector is totally incorrect in his assertion that all the settlements will be evacuated. The major settlement blocs adjacent to the old Green Line will be retained. The only issue is what land Israel will cede to the proposed Palestinian State in compensation.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Thus, they made their bed and now they refuse to lie in it. Tough noogies.
I wasn’t talking to SLC, who is a nasty piece of shit who will be dead before he is proved wrong. Tough titties.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:34 am
SLC,
By what right does Israel construct and maintain those settlement on land that doesn’t belong to them?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:58 am
Re Hector
Might makes right. As Voltaire said, God marches with the big battalions.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Re pseudonymous in NC
Mr. pseudonymous doesn’t know his fucking ass from a fucking hole in the fucking ground.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
From the wikipedia, regarding the legal status of the 1949 Armistice lines as borders (emphasis added):
The armistice agreements, except for the one with Lebanon, were clear (AT ARAB INSISTENCE) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders. The Egyptian-Israeli agreement stated “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” [11]
The Jordanian-Israeli agreement stated: “… no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations” (Art. II.2), “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” (Art. VI.9)
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Re: As Voltaire said, God marches with the big battalion
That isn’t what Isaiah and Ezekiel said. I wonder who’s really more of a Fake Jew- the ones who eat pork chops, or the ones who would happily throw 3,000 years of admirable Jewish moral teaching out the window and embrace the morals of Machiavelli instead of the morals of Isaiah.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Re Hector
Just for clarity, the quote of Voltaires’ is often incorrectly attributed to Napoleon.
Re Larry Birnbaum
Subsequent to the 1949 Armistice agreements, Egypt and Israel have agreed to the border between the two countries. The border between Lebanon and Israel has also been agreed to, with the exception of Sheba Farms which Israel claims belongs to Syria and Lebanon claims belongs to Lebanon. The border between Jordan and Israel, namely the Jordan River, has also been agreed to by the two countries. Thus, the only border still unresolved is the one between the West Bank and Israel (the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel is also accepted by the international community, although not by the current authority in the strip which insists that all of what is now Israel belongs to the Palestinians).
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
If in fact Obama is climbing down from a settlement freeze, I wonder: why? Politically, he doesn’t need to please the current Israeli government.
By and large, with any policy short of bombing Israel, Jewish Americans are going to vote Obama anyway. By and large, Evangelical American Zionists aren’t going to vote for Obama, even if he places the first stone of the new Temple with his own hands.
He has to know that he can’t believe a word Bibi says, until the PM actually acts to freeze settlements.
Ms. Clinton was factually correct, but as far as the peace process goes, she might as well dropped trow and dumped on the dais. What she *needed* to say was that the PM was factually correct, AND that the Obama Administration wasn’t going to stand for the status quo anymore.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
It’s gone unmentioned that at Oslo, the agreement reached by Israel and the PA was that there would be no NEW settlements and no geographical expansion of existing ones. It was made clear and accepted by the Palestinians that there would be continued activity and growth within the boundaries of existing ones. This was an understanding between the two sides until this year, when Obama insisted on NO settlement activity, something not even the Palestinians had ever insisted.
Regardless of whether you think there should be no settlement activity, the manner in which the Administration has gone about declaring policies for the conflict has had adverse effects on getting the two sides toward negotiations.