Netanyahu Believes Obama Has Already Blinked on Settlements

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu believes that President Obama has already blinked on the issue of settlements. The way he sees it, Obama made his demand to stop settlements in Cairo. He, Netanyahu, responded with a firm "no" -- but by uttering the phrase "two states" changed the subject sufficiently to get Obama off his back. He also thinks the Iran crisis has diverted Obama's focus away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and saved him from further pressure.

There is no other way to interpret Netanyahu's dismissal of the settlement issue in his interview with RAI TV in Italy. Settlements? "I think that the more we spend time arguing about this, the more we waste time instead of moving towards peace," he said.

He added that his conditional endorsement of a Palestinian state is all that matters. "A demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish State of Israel I think is the winning formula of peace," he said. "I can not understand why anybody who wants peace should reject it."

And, of course, no one does reject it, certainly not the Palestinians who accepted the two-state formula fifteen years ago and remain committed to it. It is just that unless Israel stops settlements, there will be no place for that state to go. And just yesterday the Israeli government authorized another 500 housing units in Har Homa, a West Bank settlement -- a gigantic slap in Obama's face. The US response: silence.

Former Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Arens, from Netanyahu's Likud party told us exactly what the government is thinking in a wonderfully frank Ha'aretz column on Tuesday. "There was a time before the State of Israel was established when the Jewish people had no choice but to take orders from others...We will gladly accept advice, but not orders."

Netanyahu believes that President Obama has gone as far as he intends to go and that he need only dig in to win. Is he right? The longer we have to wait for an answer, the more likely that he is.

Israel-Palestine is the test. It is the one issue all Arabs and Muslims (and most of the world) is in substantial agreement i.e., that the occupation must end and the two state solution must be implemented.

As Obama said about Iran, the whole world is watching. If the administration flinches, it will be noticed. And our credibility in the Middle East will go back to where it was before Jan. 20. That will be despite all the progress this President has already made in repairing our tattered reputation.

President Obama cannot allow that to happen.

Comments

[myopinion2]

The columnist is not just disengenuous, but in fact dishonest. He says 'certainly not the Palestinians' in response to Netanyahu's question concerning who could be against a demilitarized Palestinian state. In fact, while the PA has accepted the "2-state solution", its spokesman squealed like stuck pigs (a terrible metaphor certain to insult both orthodox jews and muslims) against Netanyahu's condition for demilitarization.

[myopinion2]

The purported right of return is as much a peace obstacle as is the settlements. Allowing 3 million Palestinians to move from the Palestinian state to the Jewish state will compromise the Jewish character of Israel, and within 2 generations will subsume it. The right to return is correctly seen by all Israelis, including Peace Now advocates, as unacceptable and non-negotiable. With regard to the settlements, Barak in 2000 and Olmert this past year have offered to give up Israeli soveregnty and control of all settlements except for four urban areas on 5% of the West Bank close to the Green Line. In contrast, the Palestinians have never given any indication of flexibility on this issue. Settlements are not the only, and in fact is not the largest, obstacle to peace.

[S1m0n]

Not only is this the issue, settlements are the dealbreaker on the issue. That's what they have been for the past 42 years, and that's what they still are.

The Israeli government needs to take on the thought that unconditional support for the stupid things it wants to do is no longer in the US interest. They cost too much money, and even more importantly, they've cost too many american lives. Why should americans die so that Israel can steal another acre of desert?

[shotei]

So, why wasn't there a Palestinian State before the "dealbreaker of the issue" even existed? From 1948 to 1967, Gaza and West Bank were under Arab control and there was no demonstration of will towards a Palestinian State.
Besides, what American lives were lost on behalf of Israel? And don't say Iraq and Afghanistan, that's all on Bush's bill. Please don't answer this with conspirational theories.

[S1m0n]

For a nation which claims it's legitimacy comes from a claim that lay dormant for 2000 years, this is both a silly and a hypocritical argument.

[Macready]

great blog Simon . . . I suspect the israelis will say they don't care about American lives . . . . not that bluntly but nevertheless that will be the gist of it . . .israel wants American money, EU money, it wants to umbrella the US have given it, it wants to continue to expand its illegal settlements, it is counting on our craven Congress to keep the $6billion coming in and the arms . . . israel will never sign up to the Geneva Convention, nor to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. . the only avenues that will deter israel are: trade embargoes, UN sanctions, the US pulling the plug on arms and money . . . . it must happen . . . or there will not be peace in the Middle East . . . israel has never been an honest broker for peace and they are not about to start unless serious force is applied

[Macready]

Obama mustn't blink . . . I continue to be optimistic . . . the US has to back UN sanctions against israel, and trade embargoes against israel and pull the plug on all aid to israel -- israel is a rogue state . . . the US and the EU have to stop providing it with an umbrella . . . don't forget our Congress is a big obstacle to that . . . Americans are going to have to get on the streets and protest just like the Iranians . . . we have our mullahs too in the form of the AIPAC and their supporters . . . we cannot give into them . . . we voted for change . . not more of the same . . .

[CarlyHope]

Can you clarify your AIPAC as Mullahs comments..­..........­....seems pretty offensive to Muslims and Jews, Macready

[spyguy68]

Obama has lost, so tomorrow he should walk into the briefing room and say:

"There is no possibility of two-states, because most Israelis do not want it. No one in Israel has both the political will and the military power to force the settlers to leave the West Bank, so there can't be a Palestinian state. Since congress is owned 100% by Israel, there is nothing I can do to force Israelis to see the mistake they are making. The only solution left, short of massive war, which would be devastating to the US, is a one-state solution where every person between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea is an equal citizens of one country. This is what I will champion to the rest of the world."

I think Obama should not have even tried to bring peace to the ME because Israel thinks it can ethnically cleanse the area with no repercussions. Israelis still think they can defeat the Arab/Muslim armies. They are oblivious to how much the the world has changed since 1948. I don't care if Israel ceases to exist, but I care very much about all the Americans that will be sacrificed in the coming war because we get roped into backing Israel. I realize the censor goes crazy when people talk about massive death in Israel, but just what do people think is going to happen if this is not resolved by honest and real negotiation?

[Jezreel]

PTA: "Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu believes that President Obama has already blinked on the issue of settlements. The way he sees it, Obama made his demand to stop settlements in Cairo. He, Netanyahu, responded with a firm "no" -- but by uttering the phrase "two states" changed the subject sufficiently to get Obama off his back. He also thinks the Iran crisis has diverted Obama's focus away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and saved him from further pressure."

Thanks MJ for your excellent reporting on this very important issue. I read the Haaretz article and came away with the same conclusions. Bibi and Lieberman both believe that President Obama will stop pressuring them on the settlements because he blinked on the some aspects of that issue. They also believe and hope the Iranian crisis has sufficiently distracted Mr. Obama and confirmed the need for less diplomacy and more sanctions with the possibility of military action.

I share your sentiments on this too:

"As Obama said about Iran, the whole world is watching. If the administration flinches, it will be noticed. And our credibility in the Middle East will go back to where it was before Jan. 20. That will be despite all the progress this President has already made in repairing our tattered reputation.

President Obama cannot allow that to happen"

[whoa20]

"And, of course, no one does reject it, certainly not the Palestinians who accepted the two-state formula fifteen years ago and remain committed to it."

Uhh, remember when they turned down Camp David and Taba in 2000/2001, and when Abbas turned down Olmert last year? Uhhh Palestine is in the way of Palestine.

[mommamia526]

If one looks at the *roadmap* it will become immediately clear that if established there would not be two separate states living side by side. The states will be intertwined by geography, and not be side by side. Then there is the already existing economic interdependence, with especially Palestinians, be they in Gaza or the PA area being dependent on Israeli supplies, water, etc. They can not now support themselves, and they will not be able to do so in the near future. Mr. Obama, much as I adore him, will not be able to achieve Peace with Palestinians who have a trained army to use against Israel, with Palestinians in Lebanon in tenements, with Palestinians in Jordan and Jordan's refugee crisis, a.o. with other Palestinians recently chased out of Iraq, and the current problems between Hamas and the PLO (PA). The U.S. now pays Israel, which then pays the PA and the PA pass on funds to Hamas in Gaza. Gaza is also intertwined with Egypt, as many *Palestinians there, and elsewhere, are from Egypt. Then there is a substantial group which is essentially nomadic, Palestinians, Beduin, etc. They will not settle for one geographic area to remain in permanently.

[mommamia526]

As cited in the blog from a Haaretz article, Israel is happy to take advice, but will not take orders. I do not know any other country that takes orders. Even very small outfits no longer take orders. We are way past colonial times. There are a number of problems *on the ground* with dismanteling *settlements*. As was seen in Gaza, it leads to no improvement for *Palestinians*, thriving businesses are destroyed, and Palestinians working in those establishments are now out of work. Many families forced out of Gaza still have not resettled. To increase this displacement into a much larger displacement would cause numerous problems, and not only for Israelis. The demands of *Palestinians* which include the *return of Palestinians* to what will be left of Israel, would cause yet more displacement and problems for Palestinians, for Israelis and let us not forget for those areas they have been established now for at least three generations. It is just practically impossible.

[whoa20]

Its amazing how Gaza is forgotten so quick. You cannot take down settlements until an agreement! When is Obama and his anti-Israel followers going to get that? The occupation, as Gaza showed, was clearly not the reason Hamas and Fatah kept killing each other, Hamas winning, and shooting at Israel. Bibi is not gonna allow another Hamastan in Tel-Aviv's backyard. Obama really messed up on Israel from the get go. He should have tried to make an actual relationship with Bibi, not try to boss him around. Now Obama has an approval of 6% in Israel. Why is Bibi gonna take orders from him, the most unpopular US president among Israelis since God knows when? Bibi agreed to a two-state deal. This has potential. Both wings are actually for it this time, unlike in the past. Bibi, ironically, is the best hope for peace Israel has seen in years with his broad pro-two state solution. An ironic twist from the Bibi of yesteryear, but a good development.

Obama has to finally get on the Palestinians, and stop trying to please the Muslim world at the expense of our ally Israel, and American leverage.

[Jezreel]

The fact that there are so many settlers who still have not settled after displacement from Gaza is not for the Palestinians to worry about. Nearly all of the Gazan settlers were relocated to so-called "greater Israel" at the behest of Israel's government and in collaboration with right-wing Christians, Christian Zionists and American neo-cons.

It was a deliberate effort to offset a diminishing birth rate among Israelis in the face of a burgeoning birth rate among Palestinians.

[CarlyHope]

What about Kiryat Gat? Sorry as someone who spent time with those refugees, the vast majority of them were put in trailers in fields outside Askelon

[JackWhistle]

I still say the best course of action is completely severing ties with Israel until they comply. They have the ability to defend themselves if attacked as threatening to assault Iran (the other military power in the region) and their attack on Gaza have demonstrated. They will survive without our assistance long enough to come to their senses. If they don't, well we wouldn't be allies anymore and can simply enter Palestinian territory as a peace-keeper and push them out. If they fight us? Well then, we will know their true feeling for us then won't we?

[-0013]

"That will be despite all the progress this President has already made in repairing our tattered reputation."

What progress might that be?

[Veeve]

This sick double dealing has got to end. Netanyahu is dishonest and he doesn't care if his policies kill the goose (US Foreign Aid) that laid the golden egg. We will never build any credibility with the Arab states until they see that we can demand sincerity out of our friends in Israel. Continuing settlement expansion is a glaring example of double dealing/insincerity and I can't blame Muslims for hating us while we enable an ally that continues to steal land from Muslims.

[joebaggadonuts]

I think introducing a resolution to cut off aid into congress if the settlements proceed would be a good response. Thanks for bringing up an easy solution. Saves money when we need it and puts Bibi on notice.

[RickyJ]

Does Obama have to wait for Congressional authorization before putting any constraints on Israel? Perhaps the only way of getting Congressional action is for some gutsy Jewish representative or senator to lead the charge.

[zaz33]

joebaggadonuts

The Obama administration has aready pledged to continue the aid and to provide cover at the UN.

He's given up the two most important trump cards over AIPAC and congress.

[FullChat]

The result is that Obama knows that he has a dishonest negotiating partner in Israel - they make a commitment and immediately break it (and brag about it). Of course, that's par for the middle east...

[joebaggadonuts]

The other side/s do/es the same thing, as you sort of pointed out. Par.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"they make a commitment and immediately break it "

I wonder where we've seen that here.

[BillZBubb]

Of course Obama has blinked. That's what he usually does. His approach is to take a position and then "evolve" it as facts (ie pressure, opposition) show up. Still, you have to give Obama credit for at least trying to rein in the Israeli right.

[joebaggadonuts]

Hating to agree with you but as I see it, Obama is still transitioning from being a community organizer and manager of the practical from the grass roots to giving orders to implement policy he was elected to implement.

I think he will catch on soon. I hope it's soon enough.

[mommamia526]

It is not up to Mr. Obama, or you, BillZBubb, to rein in the Israeli right, left, or even those who do not care, just as it would not be accepted here if China, Russia, or any other nation would decide to rein in the U.S. right, left or uncommitted. Israel is an independent nation and not a U.S. State. It appears to me that Mr. Obama states a position and tries to get everyone else's input to try to come to a consensus which will work. He is doing that on healthcare here. And in other efforts. It is not the usual U.S. adversarial position where one needs to come out on top as the winner takes all, and the other ends up defeated. Appears to me that he is aiming for a win/win consensus. But, I have never met Mr. Ombama, and I could be wrong. It is EXACTLY that attitude, which hails from colonial times, to put one's stamp on situations abroad, which got the colonial nations in trouble around the 1948-1950 era and a little beyond. We would not want the mass displacements of peoples which resulted from that time in Eruope to be repeated elsewhere. Leads to a lot of problems.

[S1m0n]

Indeed it isn't. It's also not up the the US to fund, arm, and protect Israel. If Israel opts against these services, it is entirely free to ignore the President's wishes.