Netanyahu Today: First Hell Freezes, Then the Settlements

In an interview in Sunday's Washington Post, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may go further than any of his predecessors in rejecting a settlement freeze -- this after President Obama went further than any of his predecessors in demanding one.

In the fifteen years since Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasir Arafat signed the Oslo agreement, Israel has never, in principle, ruled out a settlement freeze. On occasion, it has, in fact, implemented a freeze while on several others, Israeli prime ministers said "yes" but with conditions.

There has been one constant. Israeli prime ministers tended to go along with the US and Palestinian view that freezing settlements was not a final status issue (i.e, one that would only be resolved in the context of comprehensive negotiations) but a precondition for negotiations like the PLO's cessation of violence, which has been in effect for years.

Israeli prime ministers understood that Palestinians viewed the expansion of settlements as something unacceptable during negotiations. As one Palestinian put it, "You can't discuss how you will divide the pizza while one guy is gobbling it up."

This all changed today with the interview in Sunday's Washington Post.

WP: What do you think should happen with the Palestinians?

Netanyahu: We just wasted six months because of the Palestinian effort to place preconditions on the negotiations -- preconditions that weren't there for the last 16 years.

WP: Is that freezing the settlements?

Netanyahu: It's freezing the settlements, it's committing in advance to the negotiations.

WP: It's committing to the outcome basically?

Netanyahu: Yes, it's the old technique. Let's agree what the results of the negotiations will be before the negotiations begin.

And then Netanyahu flatout misrepresents the Obama administration's position by saying it agrees with him.

Netanyahu: I think the Palestinians have to recognize that Washington says there should be no negotiations without preconditions.

Of course, President Obama said the opposite and so did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (In Clinton's words, President Obama wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.") They have both demanded a settlement freeze as a means of getting negotiations started, i.e., as a precondition.

And as far as pretending that a settlement freeze is a "final status" issue and always was, Netanyahu is rejecting the positions of every one of his predecessors since 1993. They all accepted the idea that a freeze was a preliminary step. Bibi has broken new ground (maybe to build a settlement on it).

To put it bluntly, President Obama is being royally dissed.

But all is not lost. The President should say: "Okay, Bibi, we agree. A settlement freeze is a final status issue. I want you and Abbas to come to Camp David now to begin and finish negotiations on the final status of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. We will, as you prefer, discuss the settlement freeze in the context of setting final borders for Israel and the Palestinian state."

One thing is certain. The President cannot accept this type of rebuff lying down. Congressman Joe Wilson only yelled out "liar." Netanyahu's response to Obama is worse. It reminds me of that old New York Daily News headline after President Ford rejected an aid package for a bankrupt New York City, "Ford to City: Drop Dead."

This is not how an ally -- especially one who receives more aid, by far, than any other country in the world -- should be permitted to address an American President.

Crossposted Media Matters Action Network

 

Comments

[Fireslayer]

Freezing further settlements is the sine qua non of negotiations. There is a large minority in Israel that accepts this. A push from Obama could tilt this back to top center. The boycott of Brand Israel could also push this over the top. But....

But what is the deal with Amnesty International (member since 1973) pulling out of the Leonard Cohen benefit concert in Tel Aviv? In public relations vulgar speak, it would seem AI shat and fell back on it on this one.

Not buying Caterpillar (have not bought a lot of bulldozers of late me own self) or Motorola makes sense. But the academic boycott? For those of us progressives who have firmly entrenched in the notion of academic freedom, this is also a self defeating proposition.

The point is there is a potentially potent progressive strain in Israel that must be tapped and nurtured if we are to win the day for justice for Palestinians and security for all.

[WBMD]

"Freezing further settlements is the sine qua non of negotiations." Nice statement, as statements go.

Why?

Why is this a pre-condition, rather than a matter for negotiation?

[Tony Andrews]

Because they are ILLEGAL.

[petera63]

First Hell Freezes, Then the Settlements

Well said, Bibi!

[Justtellthetruth]

We must help Israel help itself; we must force change by doing what we have never done before. We need to make all aid, both foreign and military, as well as diplomatic, conditional upon the complete cessation and removal of the vast majority of the settlements and the occupation that they solely necessitate.

They cause nothing but suffering and loss for Israel, Palestine, and the US, and are utterly morally indefensible.

[GZLives]

Ridiculous and baseless ... before there was a single settlement the Palestinians were still attacking israel. Settlements are a red herring.

[phute]

gzilives - a great, big fat, non inclusive, visible, ever expanding, thug inhabited, subsidised illegal red herring.

[jwcmass]

Fine. If Settlements are not important, than I'm sure that Israel will have no problem allowing the Refugees of 1948 building settlements of their own (since their villages have been destroyed) in Israel proper --near where they used to live.

[WBMD]

What makes you believe YOU know what is best for Israel? What if you are wrong? Will you be willing to move to Tel Aviv, and take the consequences for YOUR decision? If not, let the Israeli electorate, and government make the decisions that will affect their very survival.

[jwcmass]

That's all well and good.

But since my country is heavily subsidizing Israel, then If Israel wants to take actions that will harm her AND the prospects for peace, then let her do it on her own.

Sorry, but when you accept the aid, you must take the advice that comes with it.

[WBMD]

I repeatedly posed a question, to which no one has yet responded.

If Israel were to accede to all the demand made of it, and Hamas, true to its stated goal of wiping out the Jewish state continued launching rockets against civilian centers, what would Israel's moral, legal, ethical response be?

[Justtellthetruth]

There needs to be, as part of any successfully negotiated peace, a VERY strong and robust UN peace keeping force installed in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the the Gaza. This will ensure minimal or no Rocket fire from and holdouts, and will also keep the IDF and settlers from ever attempting to return or harass Palestine.This would persist until a stable state and internal security mechanism could be established.

Once the brutal siege is lifted and the settlements and occupation are gone, the impetus for the vast majority of Palestinians to cause trouble for Israel becomes nil. They will GREATLY resent and act quickly against those who would endanger their new found state, chance for prosperity and peace.

[WBMD]

This would be a peace keeping force from the same U.N. that has a built-in anti Israel majority; that is currently making sure that Hezbollah and Syria abide by U.N, Resolution 1701; the same U.N. forces that were filmed actually assisting Hezbollah in kidnapping Israeli soldiers. And what are Israelis to do as the "minimal" rocket fire continues, and the robust U.N. force does...nothing, as Ben Gurion Airport is forced to close down?

Why have the "vast majority" of gazans not resented and acted against those who sank any hope of a new state being started in Gaza, when the Israelis left?

All these "suggestions" leave the Israelis hanging on to survival by the thread of reliance on the U.N. (see Rwanda, the Balkans, Congo).

Does anyone really beileve that is realistic?

[StCuthbert]

Look up what the UN expeditionary force in the Suez Canal did in 1967 and think about how effective the UN is at maintaining the peace.

There was no peace in 1948-1967, and there was no settlements, no occupation and no siege. Explain, then, why you think the removal of these things will cause peace.

[Manchurian]

It's almost a non-issue. The crude, homemade "rocket" Hamas lobs over the prison walls injure or kill far, far fewer people than, say, automobile accidents in Israel. The rockets are more an symbol of Gazan frustration at being inside the world's largest open-air prison than they are a military weapon.

As you know, only 11 people were killed by these homemade devices over the past several years. In contrast, over a thousand Gazans were slaughtered by Israel in just a couple of weeks during Cast Lead. In a nut shell, Hamas doesn't have the weapons with which to constitute a serious threat.

So, to answer - if Israel acceded to the legitimate conditions being demanded by the Palestinians, there is a good chance there would be no volley of homemade rockets from Hamas. And if there were, Israel could respond in kind - with appropriate force (not Cast Lead-style force with White Phosphorous, etc.).

[TheLonelyGod]

How many people does it take, Admiral, *before* it becomes wrong?

Hmm?

A thousand, fifty thousand...

a million?

HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES IT TAKE, ADMIRAL?

-Captain Picard

[WBMD]

So, you would have no objection to Israel lobbing shells blindly at an unarmed civilian population, sort of rocket for rocket, right?

[petera63]

Israel's moral, legal, and ethical response is to kill the enemies who kill her citizens.
Pure and simple.

[MalleusMaleficarum]

Netanyahu's conduct has been outrageous - and so has the conduct of many members of Congress including Steny Hoyer who urged the president to back away from talking about the settlements. Obama should take M. J. Rosenberg's advice and issue invitations to a command performance at Camp David to iron out the final details on a peace settlement. What a good idea!

[WBMD]

Well, the last command performance at Camp David, in 2000 certainly was a "good idea". It ended with a bang.

And what part of Netanyahu's conduct would be considered "outrageous"?

[Manchurian]

Hmmm. Perhaps the part where he refuses to stop illegal settlement growth when the President of the United States asks that he do so? Or maybe the part where he said Obama was in accord with not halting settlement growth after Obama (and Hillary Clinton) said he must stop settlement growth?

[Thelonius]

Heads up!!

Eminent Palestinian, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, and American Jewish peace activist Anna Baltzer
( http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/ ) will be on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - Wednesday, October 28th, 11:00 pm EDT. The program is usually repeated the following day. Check local listing.

[Benton]

America is a friend of Israel. Israel is no friend of America. In fact Israel's policies are the number one source of conflict for America in the world.

[DustinTime]

To say the least, yes--thank you.

[Jezreel]

PTA:

"To put it bluntly, President Obama is being royally dissed."

M. J. you have always treated the potential for a positive outcome of the peace negotiations with optimism. I admit that I started out that way. But Netanyahu & Lieberman have been dissing Mr. Obama since week one of the call to freeze settlement expansion.

On October 9, Haaretz published an article entitled; 'U.S. furious over Israeli incitement against Obama" In that piece Netanyahu was personally cited for instigating anti-Obama sentiment in Israel and the U.S.

In September, 3 days after the Obama Admin. criticized the Netanyahu government for authorizing new settlement housing, the Israel Lands Administration authorized the construction of 486 new apartments in the neighborhood of Pisgat Ze’ev in East Jerusalem. The Pisgat Ze'ev apartmentw are a slap in the face to the Obama Admin.

In October, Mr. Obama humiliated Mr. Abbas and denigrated the Palestinian people by forcing Abbas to withdraw his support for the Godlstone report which seeks to hold Israel and Hamas accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Now, Israel is refusing to allow Palestinians to enter Islam's 3rd holiest Mosque in Jerusalem while simultaneously allowing Jewish settlers to hold "religious ceremonies" outside the building.

I feel certain that Netanyahu's antagonism at the Mosque is a prelude to more oppression and violence against the Palestinians. I feel equally certain that when the next round of violence begins, Mr. Obama will be impotent to stop it.

[WBMD]

What Jewish religious ceremonies are being held on the Temple Mount?

[Jezreel]

Jewish extremists belonging to several organizations, most notably; the Organization for Human Rights on the Temple Mount (OHRTM) have called for Jews to visit the east Jerusalem compound, which houses the Mosque.

Israeli security forces have blocked Arabs from entering the compound and the Mosque while simutaneously admitting entrance to Jewish extremists through the Old City's Mugrabi Gate closed.

Once inside, Jewish extremists hold what some have described as "religious ceremonies" outside the al-Aqsa Mosque. This act is seen by everyone, including Jordan which has oversight responsibilities for the area as an act of provocation.

Consequently, Jordan has asked the Israeli government to prevent Jewish extremists and security personnel from entering the area.

See: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3795235,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1120486.html

The reason Jewish extremists are entering the compound, according to Kiryat Arba Chief Rabbi Dov Lior, an extremist Rabbi, is to reclaim Jewish sovereignty over (the Temple Mount) which he believes will bring redemption closer,
See:
http://mystical-politics.blogspot.com/2009/10/our-extremists-on-temple-mount.html

[Macready]

great blog . . thank you . . . the only alternative Obama has is to cut funding . . .all financial and military funding for israel . . . then UN sanctions and trade embargoes .. . another must the US must recognise the Goldstone Report . . . israel keeps showing the world that it does not want peace . . it just wants what it wants when it wants how it wants . . . and then cries victim

[TryToBeFlexible]

Israel is a failure.

[WBMD]

Yet its people form the most vibrant democracy in the Middle East. Its scientists have greened the desert; have given the world technologies that you use every day; have produced more Nobel Prize winners than all the Arab countries combined.

Some failure.

[Grasse7]

You're right; those achievements justify all the atrocities.

[Benton]

There also very good at spying on America. Probably better then anybody.

[phute]

wbmd - vibrant democracy.
Hasbara.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

I voted for Obama. That said, I'm disappointed, as he is showing every sign of being a weak president. I seriously doubt that he has what it takes to face up to Netanyahu and/or bring down the government. Look for a big silence to come out of Washington.

[wallyone]

I wish our government would put our interests ahead of Israel's. Any reduction in our enormous aid to Israel would be a huge propaganda success in the Muslim world. We would be on the road to independence from Israel, and they would be on the road to independence from us.

[GZLives]

Its unfortunate there's so much misinformation ... just for your own knowledge here's what all that "enormous aid" you believe is given to Israel really means

Israeli GDP is over 200 billion USD, 2-3 billion of american aid is about 1-1.5% of the GDP, and perhaps 5% of the defense budget (13.3 billion in 2009). Israel can do without it. Actually, Israel could easily make it up if they started selling weapons to China which current agreements with the US do not allow.

http://www.ourchangingglobe.com/how-much-does-israel-depend-on-american-aid/

[alysheba 3]

If Israel sells weapons to China then I'm sure that China would impose some restrictions on Israel regarding the current attempted incitement of Israel towards Iran. After all, Iran supplies China with oil.

[JanetBW]

Well both you and you site aren't very good at math are they. 3/13.3 is 22.6% not 5%. Additionally while the US gives Israel 3 billion in direct military aid and they also give an additional 3 billion in forgivable loan guarantees. Which mean the percentage of the of the military budget is 45.2%. IE 6/13.3

[S1m0n]

In the occupied territories, settlement creation is an act of naked aggression.

For all the Israel screams about Hamas or Hezbollah using human shields, their own policy of moving civillians into a war zone to cement Israeli control is identical in all significant respects.

So, if Israel wants to see an end, or even a pause in rocketfire, they will have to commit to a freeze.

After all, on a number of occasions the Palestinians have made, and kept, ceasefires of varying durations, but at no time has Israel ever stopped creating settlements.

[TheLonelyGod]

"their own policy of moving civillians into a war zone"
-Except that no one gets killed. You seem have missed that part. BTW, Israel doesn't "move the civilians." They choose of their own free will to go. Unlike most of Hamas' human shields.

"...but at no time has Israel ever stopped creating settlements."
-Not true. Leaving aside 48-67, Israel froze settlements for three months under Begin, as they agreed to do during Camp David.

[jwcmass]

Uhm, I wouldn't be boasting about a 3 month freeze during a 42 YEAR occupation.

Perhaps you would prefer say that EVERY ISRAELI GOVERNMENT since 1967 has built settlements?

More accurate?

[WBMD]

A scenario: Israel gives in on everything. It pulls back behind the grren line. Elections are held in Palestine, and Hamas wins. The Palestinian government renews its pledge to reclaim "all of Palestine". Rockets are now launched against Tel Aviv, and Palestinian troops and tanks are massed on the dividing line between East and West Jerusalem.

What happens now?

[S1m0n]

Nothing happens.

The Israeli nuclear program took conventional warfare against Israel off the table in 1973. No nuclear power can lose a defensive conventional war, because any nation in that position will go nuclear before they'll let themselves be defeated. This means that the only achieveable results for an invader are a) lose, or b) lose-lose. And that's it. When these are the only possible outcomes, you don't invade.

This, incidentally, is why 1973 was the last arab-Israeli war, and why this conflict now plays out in the form of terrorism. Terrorism is the only remaining violent tactic left to them.

[WBMD]

I don't understand "nothing happens". In this very plausible scenario, thousands of rockets are falling on Tel Aviv, as they were falling on Sderot. The government buildings in western Jerusalem are about to fall. Are you suggesting that Israel would use a nuclear weapon to stop the rockets?

[Jezreel]

Well said, S1mon. You've articulated what has been obvious to many of us for a very long time. Neither Hamas, Hizbolah, Iran or the PLO or the Palestinian people in general represent an existential threat to Israel's existence.

Israel has the 3rd most powerful military in the world. Intelligence reports produced by Israel's Mossad are utilized by every Western democracy. Israel's Security Forces are notorious for torturing and abusing Arab and other none-Israeli prisoners. Facility 1391: Israel's secret prison -which has been removed from maps and airbrushed from aerial photographs is also notorious for the torture and murder of Palestinians and Lebanese prisoners.

And Israel's nuclear arsensal serves as a deterrent against attacks by any country, including Iran.

[myopinion2]

You are in denial. hamas wouldn't launch a conventional war -- it would lose. Instead, there will be a rocket attack today, two next week. Each time attributed to an "extremist faction, " over whom hamas will deny control, but whom Hamas will not seek to control. A message from the faction will be issued, accusing assorted Zionist crimes for provoking the bonbings. When Israel retaliates by bombing hamas to end the continuing rocket attacks on Tel Aviv, the world will condemn Israel and accuse it of war crimes.

Wait -- that would be Gaza all over again. Nuclear weapons may dissuade a conventional attack from a similarly armed nation state. It is virtually useless against terrorist attacks.