The Obama administration's attempts at seducing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are getting embarrassing. Netanyahu has made it very clear he is not interested.
According to Haaretz, the latest (and most cringeworthy) moment in the saga came this week when Dennis Ross, the president's top adviser on Israel-Palestinian issues, convinced Obama that Israel would only agree to an extension of the settlements freeze if Obama would "come off as friendlier" to Bibi.
So Ross and his aides (working with the Israelis) drafted a letter to Netanyahu in which the United States would give Israel everything it could possibly want in exchange for a two-month freeze.
The details of the letter (which the White House is denying) were revealed by researcher David Makovsky on the website of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Haaretz reports:
According to the report, the letter included incentives crucial to Israel's security that Netanyahu has been demanding for years. For example, the United States pledged to support Israel's position on stationing Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley after the establishment of a Palestinian state, in order to prevent weapons smuggling.The United States also would not ask Israel to further extend the building moratorium and would pledge that the issue of settlements would be dealt with only as part of final-status talks with the Palestinians, the letter reportedly said.
The United States also reportedly would veto any UN Security Council resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this year, would upgrade Israel's defense capabilities after the peace agreement, and would increase security assistance.
This reportedly would include providing Israel with advanced fighter jets and early warning systems, including satellites. The U.S. also would start talks with Arab countries toward a regional agreement vis-a-vis Iran.
It is hard to imagine anything Ross left out. For Bibi, the Ross offer was a dream come true. All that for a 60-day freeze.
But Bibi said "no."
And why?
"Netanyahu said he appreciated the letter but could not accept the American proposal because it included a two-month extension of the construction moratorium, which he said would damage his public credibility," Haaretz reported.
But the "moratorium" was the whole point of the offer. Bibi seems not to believe that his dealings with America have to be two-way streets. He will only consider deals where the United States gives and he gets. (But then, that is the way it always is.)
Ross and the other administration figures are now "incensed," having been played yet again.
They even went up to Capitol Hill to discuss the situation with Bibi's pals up there. No dice.
So it's back to the drawing board. Maybe Ross can give Bibi one of the 50 states (Alaska!).
But that won't work. The word from Israel is that Netanyahu is counting on a huge GOP landslide to save him from Obama. And then in 2012, there will be a Republican president who is more likely than Obama to let him bomb Iran.
Netanyahu has done this before. During the Lewinsky affair, he came to Washington, ignored President Clinton, and went up to the Hill to smoke cigars with Speaker Newt Gingrich and exchange Monica jokes. To understand Bibi, you need to realize that as much as he is Likud, he is a right-wing Republican.
Here's what we should do. Tell Netanyahu that either he agrees to the freeze or the United States slows down the delivery of aid. After all, Israel is the #1 recipient of U.S. aid in the world. Surely, there are ways the Pentagon can indicate displeasure.
Or maybe we can refuse to veto one of those Security Council resolutions that rightly condemn Israel's actions in occupied areas. We don't always have to be the one country in the world that stands alone at Israel's side when the U.N. attempts to pass a resolution we know is right.
I mean, we are the United States. We are also Israel's only real ally on the planet. We do not have to take this kind of dissing lying down.
And Dennis Ross, who came to the White House from the AIPAC-created Washington Institute for Near East Peace, should devote his attention to some other region of the world, one in which his penchant for wishful thinking would be relevant.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Here is the rating according to Reporters without borders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
(they rate 93rd).
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2010/scor/
Our course of action at this point is to renounce Israel's requirement, and through the United Nations we should procure a Palestinian Statement - Declaration of Statehood, within the '67 lines, including all of the OT with East Jerusalem and Gaza, with due provision for right of return compensation and WATER rights, destruction of the Wall where it is within '67 boundaries. Solemn notice should be given immediately by the United States of recognition of Palestinian Statehood, and sanctions should be readied for Israel for non-compliance in leaving any of the territories. The settlers should be forced to leave by United Nations troops, principal of which would be United States troops under the command of General Petraeus. Israel can be brought to its knees for any non-compliance, and we American Gentiles can indicate to Congress that we'll not stand for any more pandering to the American Jewish Community. AIPAC should be required to register as a foreign lobbying agency.
Then they appointed a whole load of Jewish ambassadors and 'envoys' to the Arab world who couldn't even speak Arabic, lol.
Then the same gang of democrats who had their security clearances questioned for loyalty to Israel got to lay the policy groundwork for our failed invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and to destabilise the Middle East for the benefit of Israel.
Cool.
Barely any of those left. But the Europeans still have them. Travel through most major Mideast countries and you can still meet plenty of Western diplomats who are at least conversant in the local language. Though that is usually inversely proportional to how actively a pro-Israel lobby operates in their home capitols.
I think that President Obama should make a public statement that Israel is wrong, admonish their leaders, tell them in no uncertain terms to stop the settlements, take their ships off of blockade duty, and tear down that wall. Let Gaza be a free and independent country. They voted for who they wanted and the Israelis got their panties in a twist. Well, too bad.
Time to rethink and redo the whole Israel-United Stated relationship.
And Obama must also tell Israel the lost funds will not be made up for.
Obama has to give Israel an Offer that Israel can't refuse.
Here is what we should do.
•Tell N e t a n y a h u that either he agrees to the freeze or the US stops the delivery of all A i d.
• Refuse to V e t o any more of those Security Council resolutions that rightly condemn I s r a e l's actions in o c c u p i e d areas.
Assign Dennis Ross, (A I P A C created Washington Institute for Near East Peace), to devote his attention to some other region of the world, like Alaska, where his penchant for wishful thinking would be relevant.
Couple of links to interesting reading
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092907110.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/01/flotilla/index.html
Why don't you at HP just close all on this topic to all comments, for you don't seems to care what we think.
C'mon, do provide an intelligent argument for once.
I dislike prevaricating. If you read the column, or are even remotely familiar with this issue, then you are aware that this was reported on by not only el Haaretz but also by David Makovsky on the official website of Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Ignoring that fact by implying Rosenberg is some Bush-style lone ranger making up a wild tale fools no one on this board - probably not even the people whose political preferences you share.
"But of course Haaretz is credible, but that only happens when it suites your bias :) "
Once again, prevaricating and dissembling. Either you consider Haaretz credible or you don't- if you don't find them credible then say so. Don't throw out vague comments that amount to nothing so you can have some meaningless "last word" on an Internet board.