iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Netanyahu Faces Choice: Peace Or Settlements

Netanyahu Israel Choice

STEVEN GUTKIN   03/25/10 09:56 AM ET   AP

JERUSALEM — Following a seemingly chilly reception at the White House, Benjamin Netanyahu is learning the hard way that he can't have it all.

The Israeli leader will not likely be able to settle east Jerusalem with Jews and maintain strong relations with the Obama administration. He will be hard pressed to please his far-right coalition partners and still negotiate credibly with the Palestinians. And he cannot alienate important allies and still expect decisive international action against archenemy Iran.

Israel infuriated Washington earlier this month when it announced plans to build 1,600 new Jewish homes in the disputed part of Jerusalem during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden.

A fresh announcement Wednesday of 20 new Jewish homes planned in the heart of an Arab neighborhood prompted a White House demand for clarification even as Netanyahu was in Washington trying to ease tensions.

With Israel's international standing in tatters and its relationship with Washington at a low point, Netanyahu's moment of truth appears close. Will he stick to his hawkish roots or conclude, as his two predecessors Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert did, that occupying captured lands and their large Arab populations imperils Israel's future as a Jewish state?

So far, Netanyahu is showing no signs of bending on east Jerusalem, despite the international uproar over the new Israeli housing projects.

An unusual decision to keep reporters away from a meeting between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama at the White House and some pointed criticism from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a pro-Israel conference indicated the latest U.S.-Israeli diplomatic row is not over.

Last-minute talks Wednesday between Netanyahu and U.S. Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell – held just before the Israeli leader ended his two-day visit to Washington – failed to heal the U.S.-Israeli row over east Jerusalem settlement building, U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity because the closed-door talks were confidential.

The Americans say the east Jerusalem housing projects – which were announced shortly after Israel and the Palestinians agreed to the first U.S.-mediated indirect peace talks in more than a year – are provocative and prejudge the outcome of negotiations.

But recent comments by Clinton and the head of the U.S. Central Command could have even more sweeping implications.

Both Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus said that lack of progress toward solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impedes other U.S. goals around the world and fuels extremism.

Pressure to compromise can only increase if that idea gains steam along with rising international impatience with Israel, most recently illustrated by Tuesday's extraordinary decision by Britain to expel an Israeli diplomat over the alleged use of forged British passports in a plot to slay a Hamas operative in Dubai in January.

In what seemed like a veiled reference to Petraeus' and Clinton's suggestion, Netanyahu told the same pro-Israel convention in Washington this week that anti-Semitism, in its most "pernicious" form, "argues that if only Israel did not exist, many of the world's problems would go away."

The Israeli leader's speech before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee highlighted the huge gulf between the way many Israelis and the rest of the world view east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as the capital of a future state.

"Jerusalem is not a settlement. It's our capital," Netanyahu said to wild applause.

Alon Liel, former director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry, described what he called an Israeli "bubble" where the prevailing view is "let's go on settling in Jerusalem, the world is against us, the Palestinians will always be our enemy." Netanyahu, he said, is "the leader of the bubble."

On the other side, Liel said, are Israelis "who realize that this story cannot go on, that there is an international community, there is a United States, there is a world public opinion and there is a U.N. – and we have to be part of it and not live under siege ... as a pariah state."

One of the ironies of Netanyahu's year-old premiership is he has done more to ease life for Palestinians than his immediate predecessors, boosting the economy by taking down dozens of roadblocks and significantly slowing settlement construction in the West Bank.

No Israeli prime minister has even considered halting Jewish construction in east Jerusalem since Israel captured that part of the city in 1967, and the Palestinians readily sat down with Olmert for intensive peace talks even as he pressed ahead with settlements – something they are now refusing to do with Netanyahu.

So what has changed?

Palestinians tend to feel that peace is simply not possible with Netanyahu. While he grudgingly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state early in his term, he has spent the subsequent months broadcasting his red lines: that Palestinians must recognize Israel's Jewish nature, that any future Palestinian state can't have an army, that Israel must maintain a security presence in the West Bank and, perhaps most critically, that Israel can never share Jerusalem.

"Netanyahu and his coalition will always give priority to the occupation and settlement expansion rather than the peace process," Palestinian government spokesman Ghassan Khatib said.

The row over east Jerusalem settlements has been a public relations boon for the Palestinians. However, they relinquished some of the moral high ground in recent days through a decision to rename a major West Bank square after a female militant who killed dozens of civilians in a notorious 1978 bus hijacking.

In some ways Netanyahu, with his solid public support and his widely appreciated security credentials, is the politician best positioned to make peace with the Palestinians. But it would have to be Obama – not the U.S. lawmakers who lavished effusive praise on Netanyahu this week in Washington – to push to make that happen.

____

Steven Gutkin is the AP's bureau chief for Israel and the Palestinian territories. AP correspondent Mohammed Daraghmeh contributed to this report from Ramallah, West Bank.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

JERUSALEM — Following a seemingly chilly reception at the White House, Benjamin Netanyahu is learning the hard way that he can't have it all. The Israeli leader will not likely be able to settl...
JERUSALEM — Following a seemingly chilly reception at the White House, Benjamin Netanyahu is learning the hard way that he can't have it all. The Israeli leader will not likely be able to settl...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,266
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (18 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
leora kurtzer
06:50 AM on 03/28/2010
story time:
after the pogroms in israel that took place in 1936-1939 the brit. gov. said that they would have one last meeting regarding borders and solving the conflict. and if they couldnt all come to an agreement the brits. would just decide. part of the idea was that everyone (arabs, israelis, and brits) would sit together around a round table and together they would all make a decidion. however, when they all arrived at the meeting the arab reps. refused to sit next to the jewish reps. and what ended up happening was the jews sat in one room and the arabs in another and the brits went back and forth trying to come up with a decision. obviously it is impossible to come to an agreement this way and the brits ended up making the final decision- the 3rd white pages (v. pro arab and anti-zionists)
this same story can be applied in every situation and its time we learn from history.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
leora kurtzer
07:02 AM on 03/28/2010
by every situation i mean- every time there has been peace talks btn israelis and arabs
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:45 AM on 03/28/2010
At the worst very few demand that Israel not build more settlements, they just obviously do not agree to have them in " DISPUTED " area's. Area's disputed by most countries, including the US to large degree for decades, under Republican and Democratic Presidents.

Israel, go ahead and add some to the non-disputed coast line, but if you want peace do not announce any in Disputed Area's ! Can you not give this a try, if only for 2-3 years?

In Northern Ireland Catholic's and Protestant's agreed to stop the violence, then took some basic common sense steps, and finally built a strong peace. They also had decades of hatred and mistrust. But both sides had suffered and were determined not to let anything unessential block lasting peace.

It is essential for both sides not to say or do things that unnecessarily anger the other side. Settlements in disputed area's are simply not necessary, not if peace is sincerely desired. Does the far right wing govenment of Israel really want peace, or to drag things out, year after year, while they take over more disputed land ?

The Arab leader's, around Israel and beyond, can do more to help the situation. I think Pres. Obama's effort's and balanced approach may help weaken the extremist's on all sides. The US can only do so much to help, either those in the region, including Israel, respect that or we pull out, including all of our money.
04:58 PM on 03/27/2010
No Israeli administration since 1967 has ever seriously slowed down the illegal creation of "facts on the ground" designed to change the geography of Palestine to the advantage of Jewish Israelis [and I use the term advisedly, since no non-Jewish Israeli is eligible for housing in any of the settlements].
Netanyahu is continuing that trend with an additional touch of Chuzpah toward America.
Maybe not poking America's eye with a stick, but certainly ostentatiously spitting in its face.
11:13 PM on 03/25/2010
In my hometown, they were not allowed in the Country Club. Probably still not. Now I understand why: they would have taken over.
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
11:34 PM on 03/25/2010
I assume, azcowman, that the "they " you are referring to are Jews.

I am afraid your statement is deeply flawed. In this dispute, it is critical to keep in mind that we are talking about Israelis -- not Jews (not all Jews are Israelis) and not all Israelis, let alone all (or most) Jews think and act like PM Netanyahu, and the Likud, and the extremists among the settler movement. Many Israelis have been peacefully protesting alongside Palestinians against the injustice suffered by the Palestinians.

Your statement is as grievous as claiming that all Palestinians, or all Arabs are violent terrorists.

This kind of thinking that lumps all people into a group and assuming they all act and think alike needs to go.
07:08 AM on 03/26/2010
He was probably the janitor at the club.....
photo
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
09:59 PM on 03/25/2010
There seems to be some misunderstanding here and intentional distortions of fact (not unusual for the pro-Israel-at-any-cost- crowd, that makes up some whoppers) on what International Law says about acquiring territory by force of arms; it is not allowed. Any claims, or arguments to the contrary by extremist pro-Israeli expansionist apologists is pure sophistry and jive.

It is illegal to acquire territory by force of arms; it is specifically forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, to which Israel is a party.
The specious claim that since Jews lived in this area 3000 years ago and thus have title to the land, and can do whatever they want is arrogance on a cosmic scale. The racism and contempt for others by Israeli "religious" extremists is out of all bounds, and IMO the religious mythology and "historical" claims are just so many excuses for common theft at the point of a gun. Its time the world community said ENOUGH! to Israeli crimes against humanity!

http://www.robincmiller.com/pales1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest
11:05 PM on 03/25/2010
It was taken by force of arms 3000 years ago. Recorded in detail in their Book.
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
11:48 PM on 03/25/2010
Ironically, that is not quite true.

If you look at the Books of Joshua and Judges, you will find two very different versions of the ancient Israelites migration into Canaan. Joshua depicts it as a blitzkrieg, with the destruction of Canaanite cities (the most famous being Jericho) and an ethnic cleansing of the various Canaanite peoples.

But the Book of Judges tells a very different story: it tells of a gradual migration and integration of the Israelites (not always peaceful, but also not war and genocide) into and among the Canaanites.

The archeological evidence we have, by and large confirms the latter scenario (for example, we now know there was no wall to fall around Jericho at the time most scholars estimate the Israelites began to migrate into the land of Canaan.
photo
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
08:48 PM on 03/25/2010
Netanyahu says "anti-Semitism argues that if only Israel did not exist, many of the world's problems would go away." This charge has long been used by Israelis to answer criticism of their acts & doesn’t work any longer.

Israeli extremism ignores the fact that most who find fault with abusive, pre-meditated & brutal acts by Israel are not "anti-Semites", but people who are rightly filled with anger at continuous despicable efforts at ethnic cleansing & illegal colonization under the Occupation that victimizes & treats Palestinians as less than human, worthy of nothing else from Israelis/Jews. Angry reaction to how Israel (& its Jews) treat Palestinian & Lebanese men, women & children, world opinion, international law & their American "ally" is not the canard of “anti-Semitism”, but genuine frustration/anger at unrivaled self-important arrogance & racism that shows contempt for all others except Jews & the mythology of Israel. The defense of Israeli wars of expansionism at the expense of the lives of others, indeed contempt for those lives, is anathema to people who do not share Israeli goals or views; they condemn Israeli brutality/racism, not because they are “anti-Semites", but because they genuinely are revolted by Israeli actions & inhumanity.

The charge of “anti-Semitism” when Israeli policies/acts are challenged, has lost its resonance in light of Israeli contempt for all others, & use of the Holocaust as rational for their own inhumanity toward others & of religion as rationale for theft. Netanyahu and his right-wing extremist coalition are no exception.
01:02 AM on 03/26/2010
Well reasoned and accurate. Thank you!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freenation
07:56 PM on 03/25/2010
The story should be peace or middle finger to Likud from US
photo
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
08:51 PM on 03/25/2010
The choice should be Jerusalem as International World Heritage city and a two-state end to Israeli arrogant extremist racism, or international peace keepers brought in to force an end to the violence.
photo
excellent chef
Food for Thought
06:35 PM on 03/25/2010
For a country like the USA that pledges its total unwavering support for Israel, I am extremely surprised by the overwhelming views that are hostile to the Jewish state. It feels like 95% against judging by the posts here. Maybe the tide is turning against the most inhuman injustice in the last 30 years shown by Israel.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:56 PM on 03/25/2010
The US government does not represent the people, they represent the wealthy business interests. There's virtually no difference between the two parties, especially when it comes to international policy and Israel.
photo
excellent chef
Food for Thought
07:04 PM on 03/25/2010
So what happened to "government for the people, by the people...." blah, blah. Thanks Amanda, that was a revelation.
07:09 AM on 03/26/2010
Doesn't say much for Obama....
11:24 PM on 03/25/2010
Just because the higher order of leadership is pro-Israeli doesn't meant that it reflects the view of the general public.

The truth is, America has not been a "government for the people, by the people" in a long time and we are JUST beginning to reclaim it with the election of President Obama. President Obama has more of a view that reflects the general public than any other predecessor. He basically said that we should not really be supporting one side over another, but rather support both sides and that he expects BOTH side to act responsibly... that is, he effectively meant that playing favoritism with Israel should end although he is NOT advocating for becoming enemies. He just wants both sides to be fair.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zbowling
software engineer, geek
07:12 AM on 03/26/2010
Nothing has changed under Obama. The imperial presidency is being codified into law by this president. Step away from the koolaid. We were punked.
05:20 PM on 03/25/2010
This is the third time I have posted this and received only crickets......
I am going to ask these question continuously till I get an answer.
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978, at 1993 Oslo peace accords and at the 2000 Camp David talks. All rejected.
What peace initiative have the Palestinians ever proposed? When have they even pledged to peacefully coexist with Israel? Answer those questions and then we can start to have a discussion. If you can't, please stop your bigotry and hate mongering.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:28 PM on 03/25/2010
The Arab Peace initiative since 2002. It has been ignored by Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=135051

“It's very distressing to see Jews engage in the kind of silencing tactics and political violence against fellow Jews that we've seen used so many times by others, in our history, against Jews.... [+] I doubt that anyone who ever sat down and tried to envision a Jewish homeland, at any time in the modern history of the Jewish people, imagined a place that tolerates, let alone embraces, an implicit or explicit policy of intimidation and violence against Jews. Read More ...”

Michael Chabon, Author

“It's very distressing to see Jews engage in the kind of silencing tactics and political violence against fellow Jews that we've seen used so many times by others, in our history, against Jews.... [+] I doubt that anyone who ever sat down and tried to envision a Jewish homeland, at any time in the modern history of the Jewish people, imagined a place that tolerates, let alone embraces, an implicit or explicit policy of intimidation and violence against Jews. Read More ...”

Michael Chabon, Author
photo
excellent chef
Food for Thought
06:39 PM on 03/25/2010
You are right DC. For hundreds of years Jews were living side by side with Arabs until Zionism took hold. Its a Russian, East European conspiracy that was born out of economic miseries of the early 20th century and has no bearing on Judaism.
08:45 AM on 03/26/2010
Oh, the offer of "Peace" in 2002. The one that was proceeded by the "Passover Massacre" of 30 Israel citizens by Hamas? I'm sorry, I forgot. The Massacre came out right before the "Peace" initiative. Maybe Hamas was just trying to get all the killing out of their system first before offering "Peace". My fault for not putting the word "credible" in my post. But then again, I'm not sure if you know what "credible" means DC.
06:31 PM on 03/25/2010
The Palestinians are wanting to begin peace negotiations right now but a little 1600 housing development in Jerusalem is causing a problem. Israel's history of presenting peace offers forces some of us to question why they would begin such a project knowing that they would jeopardize the upcoming peaceful negotiations.
05:18 PM on 03/25/2010
Endanger your country even more, swell idea.
photo
Whinger
I'm Just Me!
05:17 PM on 03/25/2010
Settlements!
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
05:13 PM on 03/25/2010
A number of folks posting here are making the claim that Israel has stolen land. The claim is the West Bank and Jerusalem are stolen from the "Palestinian" people. Both claims are false.
When Israel took East Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1967 both were a part of Jordan, not some non-existaent "Palestinian" homeland. Prior to 1967 Jews had not been able to worshp at our holiest sites, the Jordanians would not allow it. But now we are able to pray at the Kotel, to visit all of Jerusalem, our historic capital. The land was not stolen, but taken and held during the defense of my nation in 1967. Any claim of theft is historically and factual wrong.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:30 PM on 03/25/2010
Seized from Jordan and illegally occupied by a civilian population. This is against international laws, to which Israel is a signatory.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
06:42 PM on 03/25/2010
As usual you claim the holding of land by Israel is illegal. You are completely wrong. In fact, Israel has every right to hold the land as long as it wnats and to annex it at our convenience. The method is called extinctive prescription and if you read Brierly on the topic you'll see how Israel is within our rights.
photo
gymmy
Your generic alternative counter-psyops choice!
06:35 PM on 03/25/2010
........OK, fine, just remind all of us just what kind of UN International Law 'validity', appeals to you? The ones that decree that Israel is a LEGAL "Nation" .......or the ones that stipulate the settlements in occupied territories of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem are ILLEGAL?
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
06:44 PM on 03/25/2010
THe UN and its resolutions are not international law. Israel is a legal entity because we accepted the UN partition, the Arabs rejected the same partition. By rejected the plan the Arabs gave up future claims or demands on property inside the mandated territory.
photo
John Mainstream
I'm a Clinton Democrat that is now an independent.
05:01 PM on 03/25/2010
Should President Obama's fail to take action against Iran, and should Israel suffer a nuclear attack from Iran, President Obama would become the first American President to be removed from office by Congress.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Louis Leo IV
Louis is a trial lawyer, blogger & activist
05:11 PM on 03/25/2010
Oh really? On what grounds would he be impeached? Enlighten me...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarcEdward
likes all cats more than most people
05:30 PM on 03/25/2010
Iranians have been in Iran far longer than Israelis have been in Israel. They have survived for thousands of years. They wouldn't toss away their lives to launch a nuke at Israel and be wiped out with the retaliation strike. You fears are illogical, unfounded, hysterical, and I have to wonder if you really are serious or just into spreading bad propaganda.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
06:16 PM on 03/25/2010
I can not remember who asked for this video, maybe you? anyway for everybody posting should see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly2I5AzfnrY&NR=1&feature=fvwp
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
08:08 PM on 03/25/2010
First of all, your posting is historically incorrect. Iran does not predate Israel.
Second, there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is a rational actor or a state that can be trusted.
photo
John Mainstream
I'm a Clinton Democrat that is now an independent.
04:56 PM on 03/25/2010
President Obama needs to focus on replacing the leadership in Iran. That is the quickest path to peace in the Middle East.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Louis Leo IV
Louis is a trial lawyer, blogger & activist
05:16 PM on 03/25/2010
Yeah, that's the answer more US imperalism. We've funded and organized enough imperalistic coups, it's time to find alternative solutions to our problems and helping the people of the world with theirs. Don't be fooled by propaganda, changing Iran's government is not going to promote "peace in the Middle East." The problem is rooted much deeper than one single nation's oppressive government.

If there's ever to be peace in the Middle East there must be religious tolerance and removal of religion from government. The only way any of that can happen is through educating not just the people of the Middle East, but the people in this country who still believe violence is the answer.

Disagree? See Perfect Examples of Why Separation of Church and State is Necessary:
http://iv-time.blogspot.com/2010/03/perfect-examples-of-why-separation-of.html

http://iv-time.blogspot.com/2010/03/perfect-examples-of-why-separation-of.html
05:42 PM on 03/25/2010
Wow, what an idea, Mr. Mainstream. We should replace the leadership in Iran, just as "W" attempted to do so in Iraq. The Iraqi war was a great idea too, and we've got "mission accomplished." Right? And, our economy can handle a war in Iran too. Right? We don't need your kind of "mainstream" thinking.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DutchMic
04:23 PM on 03/25/2010
. The world stands up to denounce apartment building; but where is the world whenever a neighboring country lobs rockets into Israel. The UN and US threaten action when Israel builds apartments; what action do they threaten those who target Israeli civilians. They say "stop it, we mean it." Then do nothing. Talk is cheap and Israel has long recognized this fact. WHenever they sit down to peace talks, they are forced to give up more land, then rockets are fired from previously mentioned ceded land. When at least a year or two can pass without an Israeli civilian's death by rocket, maybe they will sit down to serious peace talks. Why on earth would they until then. You dont believe a hiccuping alcoholic do you?
04:27 PM on 03/25/2010
Yes! The US should totally impose sanctions on Hamas and put their leaders into a terrorist watch list of some sort.

.. wait a minute...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
05:58 PM on 03/25/2010
You cite Palestinian violence but completely ignore that they are the victims of Israeli aggression which has been many times worse than anything the Palestinians can do to Israel. It is Palestinians who are having their land stolen not Israel.