Israel can do whatever it damn pleases, and the Obama administration will never say no -- or so the common wisdom goes. But it ain't so. Obama has backed down far too often, but there's also a long history of Israel giving in to U.S. pressure in the last 18 months. Here are just some of the highlights:
On June 4, 2009, Obama went to Cairo and called on the Israelis to agree to an independent Palestinian state. That same day Netanyahu met with his cabinet. "Ministers split over Obama's Cairo speech," one Israeli headline declared.
Just ten days later, Netanyahu spoke words that he'd never said publicly before: "Two states for two people." Had Obama not made his own speech, it's doubtful anyone would ever have heard those words from Netanyahu.
Later that summer, "a senior source in Jerusalem" told an Israeli reporter that American envoy George Mitchell had asked Netanyahu to promise a one-year freeze on settlement construction. "Netanyahu and Barak did not reject the request"; they merely "disagreed over some of the details." The Israelis agreed to ten months, which "came about as a result of extensive bilateral discussions" between Israel and the U.S., according to the Washington Post.
By the end of the summer of '09, Netanyahu and Barak had stopped authorizing public money for any new settlement construction in the West Bank. Ha'aretz headlined that the ballyhooed "'New' settlement projects aren't really new." Most were bureaucratic re-approvals of projects already initiated.
Israeli political scientist Jonathan Rynhold explained that Netanyahu cut back construction because he did "not want to lose his credibility with the Americans," and he wanted U.S. backing for opposing Iran.
But on Iran, too, Israel was timid. A senior Israeli official said that Israel did not ask for U.S. permission to attack Iran because the Netanyahu government didn't want to risk being told "no," making it clear who holds the reins on that issue.
By late summer the Israelis had also stopped building the wall in the West Bank because "the Obama administration is trying to curb Israeli activity as a prelude to restarting peace talks," the Washington Post said.
In September '09 Obama forced Netanyahu to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in New York. Jonathan Freedland, writing in The Guardian, said "Obama deployed the one weapon no Israeli or Palestinian leader can resist: a direct invitation from the American president." "Obama's achievement was modest," as Freedland wrote, "but it was not nothing. In the end, both Netanyahu and Abbas had to bend to his will." Prominent Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea summed up a common view at the time: "Everyone depends on America, its money, its military aid, and its moves vis-à-vis Iran."
Meanwhile, the U.S. continued to oppose Jewish construction in East Jerusalem. The State Department summoned Israel's ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren, twice for reprimands on the issue.
In the spring of 2010, right-wingers in the Israeli government challenged the U.S. on that point by authorizing a big Jewish building project in East Jerusalem, just when Vice-President Joe Biden was visiting Israel. Biden condemned it and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Netanyahu a long tongue-lashing. The New York Times reported that "a crucial American demand is that Israel neither promote nor permit 'provocative' acts... That would include new building projects."
Netanyahu then demanded from his own bureaucrats a list of all plans for large projects in Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods. For the next seven months, there was what The Independent called "an undeclared freeze on Jewish construction in East Jerusalem... Netanyahu had restrained settlement building," with only a few exceptions.
No less a figure than Israel's President Peres bluntly explained why: "Israel must forge good relations with other countries, primarily the United States, so as to guarantee political support in a time of need." The popular Israeli columnist Eitan Haber wrote: "How many times this week did you hear and read that joke about the eight-ton elephant that can sit down anywhere it wishes? Well, Obama sat down on us this week."
As Glenn Kessler wrote in the Washington Post, "in Israel... what is controversial is doing things that affect the relationship with the United States. And [for] that Netanyahu is facing a lot of criticism." Israeli commentator Shmuel Rosner noted that if Obama "signaled that Israel could no longer take unconditional US support for granted, Mr. Netanyahu's domestic support would quickly evaporate."
Israelis now worry less about U.S. military support (which is always forthcoming) than U.S. diplomatic support for Israel's legitimacy; Israelis increasingly worry about "delegitimization" as the biggest danger they face. As if to signal that U.S. diplomatic support could not be taken for granted, Obama gave Netanyahu a rather rude welcome when he visited the White House a week later, bringing him in through a side door and denying him the customary photo ops.
In April the world learned that top U.S. military leaders were leaning on Obama to lean harder on Israel. And Obama seemed to be listening. When he told a press conference, "'It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts'... he effectively adopted the argument of Gen. David H. Petraeus, his Middle East commander, who recently warned that the region's troubles created a dangerous environment for American troops stationed in nearby Iraq and elsewhere in the area," the New York Times reported.
Perhaps with those words ringing in his ears, Netanyahu agreed in May to the so-called proximity talks with the Palestinians, rather than the direct face-to-face talks he kept saying he wanted. At about the same time, the U.S. gave the Israelis another shock by signing the final document the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, even though it urged Israel to sign the treaty -- wording that the U.S. had always blocked in the past.
In early September 2010, the beginning of direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians saw a tragic but expected outbreak of violence on the West Bank, apparently with the aim of derailing the talks. What was unexpected was Netanyahu's tepid response: "I will not let the terrorists block our path to peace." That "sounded nothing like the Bibi of old" who would have broken off the talks, the prominent Israeli pundit Aluf Benn wrote. But Netanyahu, like other Israeli leaders before him, had "succumbed to American pressure."
The negotiations broke down when the ten-month moratorium on settlement expansion expired. A "senior political source" told Ha'aretz that the Obama administration was putting "heavy pressure" on Netanyahu, as well as making generous offers, to find a compromise so talks could continue. Netanyahu soon agreed to the two-month moratorium, with a condition that he surely thought the Palestinians would reject: recognition of Israel as "the state of the Jewish people." But they surprised him by giving clear hints that they might agree to that condition, if they got a map with definite borders in return.
To stave off compromise, Netanyahu broke the de facto moratorium on new Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. But Yedioth Aharanoth confirmed that Netanyahu "was apparently forced to give up plans to market another 600 apartments [in East Jerusalem] after the US Administration made it clear that this would put an immediate end to peace talks with the Palestinians." "Construction of thousands of planned homes" including some 1,300 in Jerusalem, "are frozen in practice," the paper added.
As for the U.S. promise to let Israeli soldiers remain on Palestine's eastern edge, Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev soon said that Israel's insistence on it "could be reviewed over time." Apparently pressure from the White House succeeded on that point, too.
Though the U.S.-Israel relationship, like all tense diplomatic relationships, is bound to be a matter of give and take, when the U.S. truly insists on anything, Israel as the weaker partner is likely to yield. Obama's early insistence on a total freeze on settlement expansion, his many statements that angered the Israelis, and his administration's steady efforts to push the Israelis to compromise all suggest that the president and his advisers would like to do more -- if they felt politically safe. If "the question of how much the United States is offering, and what it is asking for in return, is being fiercely debated within the White House and the State Department," as the New York Times reported, that's due mainly to the domestic politics of the issue.
Soon the administration may face a new dilemma: How to respond to Palestinian moves to gain legitimacy as an independent nation in the U.N. and other international institutions. The administration's response, like every aspect of its Middle East policy, will not be decided by Israelis. It will be decided by Americans who shape the political climate here at home. The White House is full of weathermen, waiting to see which way the wind blows.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Read more of his writing on Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. on his blog.
What Americans? Most all Americans are woefully ill-informed, ignorant, pulled by fear mongering. How can the ignorant, badgered and fearful make decisions?
"Islamic Jihad leader: Israel must be wiped out of existence
Organizers say up to 100,000 people attend largest Islamic Jihad rally in Gaza in several years; Hamas leader calls for unity against Israel.
By Reuters
Tens of thousands of supporters of the militant Islamic Jihad movement rallied in the streets of Gaza on Friday, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." "
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/islamic-jihad-leader-israel-must-be-wiped-out-of-existence-1.321874?localLinksEnabled=false
John Mearsheimer and Charles Freeman are absolutley right - it’s time to kick America out of the Middle East 'peace process' – Americans now in power are so intimately involved and in cahoots with Israel they must be thrown out of the process altogether. The Israel Lobby has essentially made sure that Israel and Israel is us
Unfortunately America will be have to be forced into the ‘One State Solution’ ending Apartheid in Israel. The Israel Lobby will ensure - guaranteed - that America will be the last holdout - fighting to the end to stop Israel from being forced to abandon it's Apartheid regime.America will be last holdout – will not lead or contribute postively, but to the last do everything it can to try to prevent ending Apartheid in Isarel.
The Israel Lobby is taking America down along with Israel in this fiasco– it's all part of their scam - their own little 'price tag policy' in the US
America will never again lead towards a positive ME future - time to kick America out and end this corrupt little Israeli Lobby game of America protecting rightwing Israeli international criminal behaviour
We have 24/7 military budget reality TV shows, some spanning decades. Back-to-back thrillers are woven into a brilliant, sometimes confusing plot - Desert Storm, Shock & Awe, War on Terror, and many more. Themes evolve, realities change, new shows spring up when old ones expire. Truths become lies. Lies become the truth. All over the world, beamed up into space, we watch - the spectacle is live, visceral. This is our news. It helps sell pizza
rest of article: http://www.zcommunications.org/the-most-dangerous-game-by-steven-jm-jones-1
Abbas also said that the Palestinians would ask the US and United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if the peace process failed.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s3051242.htm
In 2005, President George W. Bush personally recruited him as special enjoy to the Middle East for the quartet of America, Russia, the European community and the UN.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/adl-lists-top-10-anti-israel-groups-in-u-s-1.319155
Will it make you feel any better if I say that both sides make "horrible, negative comments" with no factual basis whatsoever?
The first thing we can do, is make our government recognize AIPAC as a foreign agent, which it is.
"Even the best informed of us can be just real dumb on Friday mornings. I never knew that AIPAC was NOT compelled to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Apparently, the criminal investigation of two AIPAC employees, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, has many in the US-Israel policy community worried that a conviction would compel FARA registration for the organization. I had not seen this debate previously.
One would think that it was obvious that AIPAC was an agent for Israel's interests and thus would have to register as such. "
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002021.php
Two states as proposed is a joke that seeks to redefine sovereignty.
This point is demagogic. First, it involves actions outside of Israel's sovereign territory. Secondly, Bush-W turned Israeli down on this same request. So for sure Obama wasn't having it.
Mr. Obama has been less friendly to Israel then past presidents back to Bush, Sr. and even that is a borderline question. There will come a point where the US public will begin resenting Mr. Obama, if he presses Israel too hard. The Israelis have flexed to the extent that their internal politics permits. Can Mr. Obama get more concessions? Not without risking his own political standing. Of course, if his popularity drops too much further, he may give up on pleasing anyone and do some unorthodox things, on a variety of fronts, not just M.E. politics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/29/israeli-military-settlers-idf
This patently racist and derogatory comment was in response to the claim that a bill that his committee passed, which gives local communities the right to reject potential residents if they "are not suitable to the communities fundamental outlook" giving these communities the right to reject Palestinians from living in these communities.
How can America influence a nation that refuses to acknowledge its own fascism? How can America influence Israel, when our two nations are fundamentally different in every aspect of our governments?
--if this bill were passed, let alone deliberated in American communities, the 14th Amendment would be there to preclude such a facially discriminatory law. It says a lot about Israel, and the inability of our government to exert any influence--Israel is firmly set in its ways of ethnically cleansing all Palestinians from Eretz Israel, and our tax dollars are directly funding this crime against humanity.
--we have as much power at influencing Israel, as Palestinians have at preventing the continued theft of their land and the humiliataion, deaths and violence they suffer at the hands of the Israeli pogromists.
Political correctness has a place, but in my opinion this is not one of those places.
Or to be more precise, is there *acceptable* humour in it? After all, blackface is funny too, but I doubt African-Americans will be amused by it much.
Israel is not our friend.
"In 1980, Israel instituted the Lehi ribbon, red, black, grey, pale blue and white, which is awarded to former members of the Lehi underground who wished to carry it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_decorations#Service_ribbons
I think that was incompetance rather than execution though(actually if i could see a motive i could believe an execution)
Linda Norgrove was an aid worker(ACTIVIST ?) , non-political and not a threat to any govt
Two courageous people , both RIP.
I can almost guarantee that Israeli acceptance of a democracy, where the rights of all citizens are guaranteed and protected by the government--regardless of religion, race or ethnicity, and an end to their illegal, demoralizing, dehumanization, humiliating colonization--influence by the United States will be more suitable at ending the conflict, cuz frankly ending the colonization and occupation are 2 of the root causes for this conflict.
This has little to do with Palestinians: they are the occupied, the oppressed, the colonized the 'beasts walking on 2 legs', the disenfranchised, the imprisoned and the forgotten. Placing blame on them would be placing blame on a woman who was senselessly raped by a stranger, or on a wife who was beaten by her husband because he didn't like her food. The Israeli's know what's needed to end the conflict, however, it is ending this conflict that would harm the Israeli's the most...they are the occupier, the colonizer, the warden, the rapist, and the domestic abuser.
How this is still a point of contention is beyond absurd: we as Americans are willing to toss our value and morals out the window merely to support Israel
BUT, we still have a constitution, and a constitutional court. And, hate crimes are not "sport" for settlers. They are federal. And, we don't have a theocracy.
Not only can women sit at the front of the bus, they may DRIVE the bus.
Israel has a higher standard of living than the U.S. and in any case, deserves contempt not our tax$$$.
When the entire world, fearful of a middle east w/nuclear weapons, including the US pressed that there should be a nuclear-free middle east, the President had to back-track and prevent any mention of Israel as part of that agreement. Surely the US can force Israel to at least sign the NPT? If Iran can sign it, why is it so difficult for Israel to do so?
When Israel attacked and killed an American citizen in International waters, there was no congressional investigation about the incident, which is standard for any American killed by a foreign entity. Wouldn't all Americans care to know what happened to their brother or sister killed by another government? So, then why can't congress inquire into the death of this American--because the bullets used were paid for American tax dollars?