Obama Is Not Israel's Toy

[Makkonnen]

MJ Rosenberg has this today
http://israelpolicyforum.ngphost.co...enting-two-state-solution-no-ifs-ands-or-buts

Yedioth Achronoth, the largest circulation daily in Israel, reports today that President Obama intends to see the two-state solution signed, sealed and delivered during his first term.

Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; "In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn't matter to us at all who is prime minister."

He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place."Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory," the paper reports Emanuel as saying. In other words, US sympathy for Israel's position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel's willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Yedioth also reports that Obama is conveying his displeasure with the new Israeli government in several ways. "US administration officials informed Netanyahu that President Obama will not be able to meet with him in early May, while the AIPAC conference is held in Washington. The meeting between the new Israeli premier and the president of the United States is perceived in Israel as a sign that the formation process of the new government has been completed and as a salutation by Israel's close friend. Netanyahu had hoped to capitalize on the opportunity and to meet with Obama during the annual AIPAC conference, but the Americans informed the Israelis that Obama was not going to be 'in town.' That being the case, the inclination among Netanyahu's aides is to cancel his trip to attend the AIPAC conference and to try to secure a date for a meeting with Obama later in May.

"Sources in Washington also said that the Obama administration would not continue the tradition that developed during the Bush administration of hosting Israeli premiers many times during the year, sometimes with just a phone call's advance notice."

So far neither the White House or the Israeli government has commented on the report which, it should be noted, comes from Shimon Shiffer, one of Israel's most highly respected journalists.

--------

Don't say Obama isn't interesting.
I don't like everything he does, which is what he aims for with everyone, but he's my favorite president.

 

[Makkonnen]

I'm thinking that the US and Iran had some preliminary talks and that the US has told them they will solve the Palestinian problem and in return they would like Iran to hook up their nuclear cycle in a way that the US is more comfortable with. The US would also begin to normalize relations with Iran. This is the ultimate face saver for Iran. They can claim responsibility for resolving the Palestinian conflict and not look to be backing down on nukes. While everyone knows that once you have the expertise and facilities to make nukes its a wrap -it shows Iran is being a responsible member of the international community.

Or will being a known nuclear threat trump all of that?

Im thinking the former since Ahmadinejad came out with a proposal yesterday.

 

[QueEx]

Good stuff, thanks. Wish I had more time to read and respond. I will say this, I have been reading a lot of really interesting things in this regard. There is a thread or some post that I put up not very long ago that sort of set out a basis for whats talked about in the article above and there are some articles on the subject on DebkaFile that, when one reads between, over and around the lines (put into context), are very, very interesting.

QueEx

 

[Makkonnen]

any links or keywords that i can search for?

 

[Spectrum]

^^

i second that... any links?

 

[Costanza]

We'll see what happens... Everybody wants to cite the founders but this is one entagling alliance they absolutely love...

 

[Lamarr]

We'll see what happens... Everybody wants to cite the founders but this is one entagling alliance they absolutely love...

We need to leave those people alone!

 

[TheDynasty]

Hmm,

Good sign..

Netanyahu is as right wingish as they come..

However, I don't think Netanyahu and the Mossad will take kindly to such a rebuke.

 

[QueEx]

any links or keywords that i can search for?

^^

i second that... any links?

Nothing earth shattering and its hasn't been in one piece. One I thought was interesting appeared in the American Thinker in early March. Without question, the AT appears to be conservative with a pro-Israeli bent. Nevertheless, the commentary and tone of the article, Obama: Pro-Israel talk, anti-Israel walk, spoke volumes, to me. If nothing else, it speaks to the fear some Israelis/supporters have of Obama.

Obama has made clear that he sees a "two-state" solution to the Palestinian situation. Netanyahu has not bought into that idea and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Liberman, has taken the position that Israel is not obliged by the U.S.-led Annapolis peace process that maps the way to a two-state solution. Of course, a lot of this is just political bantering and posturing, but so far, it seems to me when Obama pushes, Israel pushes back, and Obama seems to remain insistent. In addition to making some other good points, an Israeli source, Haaretz, in an article entitled Obama saying Israel still bound to two-state solution, noted:

Dialogue between Jerusalem and Washington over the past week has been done via speech-making. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman swept aside the Annapolis process, and U.S. President Barack Obama swept it right back. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the two-state solution and Obama "clarified" that the United States not only "strongly" supports it, but he himself intends to advance it.​

One of the most interesting articles was one posted by Makk in the thread, Mideast Peace + Cheney Disparaged Obama To Israeli Leaders During Lameduck Session, which noted:

A major change in American policy toward Syria is clearly under way. “The return of the Golan Heights is part of a broader strategy for peace in the Middle East that includes countering Iran’s influence,” Martin Indyk, a former American Ambassador to Israel, who is now the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, said. “Syria is a strategic linchpin for dealing with Iran and the Palestinian issue. Don’t forget, everything in the Middle East is connected, as Obama once said.”​

Following that article, there were several in DEBKAFILE (as I now check I see they no longer appear) where Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman seemed to have resisted Washinton's view that Israel resolve issues with Syria and Obama's call for a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem.

One point I get out of Obama's Syrian push is that he seems to be attempting to tackle the Iranian problem on several fronts, BUT CERTAINLY NOT in ways the Israelis want. In fact, there are numerous articles out there where the Israelis keep going back and forth over whether the U.S. will attack Iran, whether the U.S. has the will to attack Iran and, if not, whether Israel will attack Iran.

I'm laughing while I read them because I don't think any of that is really about attacking Iran. I believe it is Israel trying to set a different tone (a hardline tone) against Iran as it becomes disenchanted with Obama's diplomatic track which seems to realize that we may have to resolve to live with some form of Nuked-up Iran (which the Israelis hate) and that attacking Iran might not be the best option. See, DEBKAfile, Gates totally opposes Israeli strike on Iran. And, see, U.S. May Drop Key Condition for Talks With Iran, reported in the New York Times, April 13, 2009.

BOTTOM LINE I haven't found the theme in a single-source, but I believe it is out there in the media "chatter". LOL

QueEx


P.S.

I'm not asking anyone to "believe" anything reported in Debkafile; some of it, however, I believe to be true and some of it designed to influence matters in Israel's favor, and some of it to rile up Israel's supporters against American positions. In otherwords, use it as a 'think' piece.

 

[Makkonnen]

Your observations seem on point Que. The facts pretty much layout that the most extreme government in the mideast right now is probably Israel's. Syria and Iran have sought better relations for years now. The only thing stopping them was Bush and his anti-diplomatic style, not really a style- it just wasnt in his neocon interests to be friendly with people he needed to demonize.
What Obama is doing is good for Israel. They have been creating a position for themselves that is just not sustainable. You ever have a friend that would mouth of and go nuts because he knew you were there to beat the crap out of anyone who challenged him?

 

[QueEx]

Hey, you knew me and my older brother when I was a kid

 

[ironfist88]

Saturday, 18 April 2009 BBC

US boycotts UN racism conference


Washington has confirmed it will boycott a UN forum on racism in Geneva next week because of differences over Israel and the right to free speech.

The state department said the proposed text of the conference's guiding document remained unacceptable despite having been amended significantly.

The US and Israel quit a similar forum in Durban in 2001 when its draft document likened Zionism to racism.

Current language about "incitement to religious hatred" also alarms the US.

EU diplomats were still consulting on Saturday on whether to attend the conference. Canada and Israel said earlier that they would not attend.


'Serious concerns'

The state department said it was "with regret" that the US had decided to boycott the conference.

"The text still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action [DDPA] from 2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to support," it said in a statement.

"Its inclusion in the review conference document has the same effect as inserting that original text into the current document and re-adopting it.

"The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

"The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding 'incitement', that run counter to the US commitment to unfettered free speech."

Internal debate has raged in the US for weeks on whether to attend, the Associated Press news agency reports from Washington.

Pro-Israel groups vehemently opposed participation while human rights advocates and organisations like TransAfrica and members of the Congressional Black Caucus thought it was important to attend.

Immediately after the announcement, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who heads the black caucus in Congress, said the group was "deeply dismayed" by the boycott.

"This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with..." she said.

"The US is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

 

[QueEx]

`


Plan for Palestinian state is 'dead end,' Israel tells U.S. In a direct challenge to President Barack Obama's commitment to rejuvenate moribund Mideast peace talks, Israel dismissed American-led efforts to establish a Palestinian state and laid out new conditions for renewed negotiations.

• "U.S. policy favors — with the respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a two-state solution, which would have a Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel," Mitchell said before meeting with Lieberman.

• Netanyahu has refused to embrace that formula and has instead floated the idea of offering Palestinians limited rights that would fall short of independence.

• Palestinian leaders have said they won't open peace talks with Netanyahu's government until it agrees in principle to the idea of a two-state solution and imposes a freeze on building Jewish housing in the West Bank.
  

 

[Makkonnen]

Israel Puts Iran Issue Ahead of Palestinians
Shift on One Tied to Progress on Other

By Howard Schneider and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 22, 2009

JERUSALEM -- The new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region, according to top government officials familiar with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's developing policy on the issue.

"It's a crucial condition if we want to move forward," said Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, a member of the Israeli parliament and former ambassador to the United States. "If we want to have a real political process with the Palestinians, then you can't have the Iranians undermining and sabotaging."

The emerging Israeli position, a significant change from that of previous governments, presents a challenge for President Obama, who has made quick progress on Palestinian statehood a key foreign policy goal. Obama is also trying to begin engagement with Iran as part of a broad effort to slow its nuclear program and curtail its growing strength in the Middle East.

U.S. officials are wary of linking the two issues and, if anything, would like to do the reverse of what Israel has proposed, by using progress in the Israeli-Palestinian talks to curb Iranian influence, which is wielded in the region through anti-Israeli organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

"We have to be pretty careful how you approach that kind of connection," said a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "We are dealing with Iran because there are behaviors out there that are deeply troubling. We would be doing that regardless of other issues. By the same token, the Palestinian issue is an issue that obviously evokes a great deal in the region."

The official argued that the Obama administration has already demonstrated it is committed to dealing with both issues at the same time by appointing high-profile officials -- former senator George J. Mitchell on the Palestinians, former peace negotiator Dennis Ross on Iran -- to craft and implement the administration's policies.

While Israeli officials have long expressed concern about Iran, Netanyahu views the threat from Tehran as so acute that he is shaping Israel's policy toward the Palestinians around that issue -- a shift in approach that effectively puts Palestinian statehood after resolution of a complicated regional and international issue.

Netanyahu has compared Iran's regional ambitions to Germany's in 1938 and has assembled a government that shares his view. Netanyahu's national security adviser, Uzi Arad, has publicly urged the United States to take stronger action against the Islamic state and has equated diplomatic engagement with Iran to "appeasement."

Obama and Netanyahu are expected to meet in Washington next month. In the intervening weeks, the Israeli prime minister, who took office late last month, is developing his proposals for how to proceed and appears to be bracing for a tough discussion with the president.

"Netanyahu is expecting that when he says, 'Iran, Iran, Iran,' Obama will say, 'Palestine, Palestine, Palestine' back," said Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and a former peace negotiator who keeps in close contact with U.S. and Israeli officials. "Netanyahu expects Obama to say that in order to be effective with Iran, we need to manage the Palestinian track as well."

With the Palestinian leadership split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and Netanyahu's right-leaning coalition generally opposed to negotiating a peace deal that would result in a Palestinian state, the Israeli government is expected to offer few, if any, concessions to the Palestinians. Meanwhile, Netanyahu's aides argue, Iran poses a much more immediate threat.

"Realistically, we need to keep Iran at bay," Ayalon said, and until that happens, the Israeli government will largely limit itself to matters such as trying to improve the Palestinian economy and strengthen its civil institutions. "The Iranian clock should be measured in months," he said in reference to Israel's view that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to make a nuclear weapon. By contrast, the timetable on Palestinian statehood "is open-ended."

Iran, which unlike Israel has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has insisted it has a right to peacefully develop nuclear power and is not developing nuclear weapons capability. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it does not publicly acknowledge having the capability.

In an unusual confluence of interests, Netanyahu's insistence on the importance of Iran -- and wariness of the American outreach to Tehran -- is also shared in many Arab capitals, according to U.S., Israeli and Arab officials. Mitchell has told Jewish groups he was surprised at how often Arab leaders brought up Iran during his initial trip to the region after being named special envoy.

In recent days, Egypt has arrested a cell of the Iranian-funded Shiite Muslim militia Hezbollah that was suspected of planning attacks on Egyptian soil and smuggling weapons and attackers into Israel. During the war between Israel and Hamas this year, Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah called for the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak after Egypt declined to open its border with Gaza to allow residents to flee the fighting. Egypt has recently bolstered anti-smuggling operations along that border, where networks of tunnels serve as a key conduit for the radical Islamist group Hamas, which is also supported by Iran.

Morocco has severed diplomatic ties with Iran, and Saudi Arabia has criticized Iran's efforts to influence the region -- signs of a long-standing enmity between the Arab world, which is predominantly Sunni Muslim, and the seat of the former Persian empire, which is majority-Shiite. The mistrust has been magnified by Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Arab nations "see a profound Iranian threat," the U.S. official said. "They see Iranian interventionism. They see the Iranian nuclear program. They want to be certain that what we are doing will affect the Iranians and will not come at their expense."

But, unlike the Netanyahu government, Arab nations are demanding that progress be made on the Palestinian front as well. Jordan's King Abdullah II met with Obama at the White House on Tuesday -- the first Arab leader to do so since Obama's inauguration -- to carry that message.

Afterward, Obama expressed hope that "over the next several months, that you start seeing gestures of good faith on all sides." He declined to offer details but added that "the parties in the region probably have a pretty good recognition of what intermediate steps could be taken as confidence-building measures."

Palestinian leaders are already concerned that the Israeli government will use any delay in statehood discussions to expand West Bank settlements and take other steps to undercut the makeup of a future Palestinian state, such as trying to diminish the Arab presence in East Jerusalem.

"Our issue is an issue on its own," said senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. "We expect nothing short of a clear-cut statement supporting the two-state solution and to stop settlement activity."

Israeli analysts and Netanyahu's advisers say that while his focus on Iran may limit the likelihood of any near-term progress toward Palestinian statehood, it opens the door for a broader and more profound step forward if Obama and the Arab states agree with his view of Iran.

Netanyahu's approach "completely recalibrates expectations and understandings about where we really are," said Dan Diker, a senior foreign policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a think tank that is close to the Netanyahu administration. "We can only address the region in the context of an ascendant Iran that is close to nuclear weapons and is destabilizing nearly every country in the Middle East."

Kessler reported from Washington.

-------------


Bebe is trying to play hardball. He's about to get shut the fuck down.

I pray Obama passes a law making it illegal for anyone to Lobby for another nation.

Obama wont like this bullshit at all. Israel is getting out of hand.

 

[Makkonnen]

Officials downplay military options against Iran


Gates: Military options against Iran would be only temporary fix

LOLITA C. BALDOR
AP News

Apr 30, 2009 15:06 EST

Using U.S. military might to coerce Iran to halt its nuclear program would yield only temporary results, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday, adding that sanctions make more sense.

The only way to eliminate Iran's determination to have nuclear weapons is for Tehran to make that decision itself, Gates told Senate appropriators.

"Even a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert," he said.

Instead, he said that the United States and its allies must convince Iran that its nuclear ambitions will spark an arms race that will leave the country less secure.

Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. should work with its allies on tougher international sanctions. Gates also said that the U.S. should pursue partnerships with Russia on missile defense programs in the region to further isolate Iran and to give Tehran economic and diplomatic reasons to voluntarily abandon its nuclear interests.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said that the U.S. should also close loopholes that subsidiaries of American companies exploit to do business with Iran.

Clinton said the U.S. continues to work with allies on increased international sanctions, and agreed that the U.S should insure that "we have our own house in order as to any of the sanctions that we should be implementing going forward."

Iran has repeatedly denied it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon and is only engaged in a civilian atomic energy program. The Obama administration has made overtures to the Iranians, appealing to Tehran to cooperate in talks over the country's feared nuclear buildup.

Congress is taking up a bipartisan proposal which would give the Obama administration more leverage over Iran by toughening economic sanctions on foreign oil and shipping firms that aid Tehran.

Experts believe that Iran is three to four years away, some think sooner, from having the capability to make nuclear weapons. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — as well as Germany have offered the country incentives to stop reprocessing uranium that could fuel a nuclear bomb.

Iran has thus far ignored the offer and continues to amass enriched uranium, sparking grave fears in Israel, which has not ruled out military strikes to deal with the threat, the broader Middle East and elsewhere.

Source: AP News

 

[Makkonnen]

Last update - 19:40 30/04/2009
Police grill Lieberman for fourth time in graft probe
By Jonathan Lis, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Lieberman, Corruption, Police

Police questioned Avigdor Lieberman on Thursday as part of a corruption probe against him for the fourth time since he took office as foreign minister.

The questioning, which lasted for about eight hours, took place at the National Fraud Investigation Unit.

The last time the Yisrael Beiteinu leader was quizzed in the probe was about a month ago. After that session, police estimated that he would need to be questioned once more before the fraud squad detectives could complete their work and hand over material from the investigation to the State Prosecutor's Office.

According to police estimates, material gathered in the probe thus far provides an evidential basis for charges of money laundering, fraud and breach of trust.

Investigators are also examining the possibility of adding bribery charges to the list.

Channel 2 reported shortly before Lieberman was last questioned that he has also been grilled over suspicions of obstructing the probe against him.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="3">

A series of recent stories posted on DebkaFile paint an interesting picture of the evolving relationship between President Obama and Israel:</font size>

• It is apparent that in DebkaFile's view, Israel is feeling pressured by the Obama Administration. In a headline, Israeli leaders face Washington crunch on Palestinians, Iran, Debkafile notes, "The Obama administration is preparing to welcome president Shimon Peres on May 5 and prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu May 18 in Washington with pressing demands to follow its new Middle East line with regard to Iran, the Palestinians and Syria. DEBKAfile's Washington sources report that <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Barack Obama is set to be the first US president in decades to risk colliding directly with the Israeli government and the bulk of US Jewry."</span>

• In what the website describes as "DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis", the website gives an more explicit view of the Obama-Israel relationship. In the article entitled Netanyahu heads for collision with Obama administration, Debkafile opines "Israeli president Shimon Peres' task in Washington on May 4-5 is to blunt the sharp edge the White House is honing to force Israel to toe the new Washington line on the Palestinians, Syria and Iran.
  
  <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu can expect the full force of a bludgeon to be wielded in his White House talks on May 18.</span>"

A lot of the Israeli angst has to do with the Obama Administrations approach to dealing with Iran and the possibility that the U.S. and Iran might forge some kind of relationship which might not revolve around Israel:

• In an article entitled, Talks on Iranian corridor for US troops, supplies to Afghanistan on fast track, Debkafile notes that "Barack Obama's plans 'to transform the Khomeinist Islamic Republic's clenched fist against America into a helping hand by formally asking Tehran to permit the passage to Afghanistan of fresh US troops, weapons and supplies across Iranian territory."
  
  "DEBKAfile's sources ask how much leverage against Iran's drive for a nuclear bomb will be left to Washington when the <u>US becomes dependent</u> on Tehran for its war supplies to Afghanistan."

• In an article entitled, Washington to cut Iran in on Nabucco pipeline, it seems clear that Debkafile, (if not Israeli leaders), are worried that <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"Iran is about to become a major fuel supplier to the West."</span>

​

Of course, Debkafile is not an official arm (or is it?) of the Israeli government and many times its articles end up being off-the-mark. But, even if you don't regard Debkafile as a good source for accurate information, its hard not to notice the "Tone" struck by the articles which paint an interesting picture of the mood of some Israelis towards the Obama Administration -- and that picture doesn't seem to be of Barack Obama being an Israeli Toy.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Barack Obama hints at tougher line on Israel</font size></center>



The Times (London)
By Tom Baldwin in Washington
May 5, 2009


The Obama Administration has signalled a tougher approach towards Israel ahead of fresh talks on the Middle East peace process by insisting it must endorse the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

“Israel has to work toward a two-state solution,” declared Vice-President Joe Biden today in a speech to the annual conference of a powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington.

“You’re not going to like my saying this,” he warned the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) before adding that the Jewish state should not build any more settlements on Palestinian territory, and should “dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement”.

President Obama later held a White House meeting with Shimon Peres, his Israeli counterpart, who holds a largely ceremonial position. But the US Administration’s message appeared to be addressed to the new right-wing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is due to visit the White House on May 18.

Mr Netanyahu has dismayed American, Arab and European officials by pointedly refusing to back Palestinian statehood since taking office on March 31. In his own speech to Aipac, sent via satellite link, he said: “We are prepared to resume peace negotiations without any delay and without any preconditions — the sooner the better.” Saeb Erekat, the senior Palestinian negotiator, however, criticised Mr Netanyahu’s speech for its “vagueness” on core issues such as the status of Jerusalem and refugees, as well as its failure to commit to a two-state solution.

Aipac has demonstrated that it — and Israel — still exercise considerable muscle in Washington by persuading the US Justice Department last week to abandon the prosecution of two former employees on charges that they spied on America for Israel.

Aipac’s 6,000 delegates are being urged to bombard Capitol Hill with demands that Congress support ever more draconian sanctions against Iran whose Government has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

Mr Biden used his speech to reiterate that the US would never abandon its commitment to Israel’s security and that “nothing is off the table” with Iran — a phrase often used to imply that military action against uranium enrichment facilities remains possible.

He added that Israel had the right “to make its own judgment about what it needs to do to defend itself”, which many members of the audience saw as a hint that the US might allow it to deliver an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear sites.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, was, however, reported to have linked efforts to thwart Iran’s nuclear programme — “the number one threat in the Middle East” — with progress in the peace process.

He told a private meeting of Aipac donors that the task of building an international coalition against Tehran will be made easier if Israel and the Palestinians hold a constructive dialogue.

Last month, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

General James Jones, Mr Obama’s National Security Adviser, is also said to have told a European foreign minister that — unlike the Bush Administration — the White House was now ready to be “forceful” with Israel.

“The new Administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question,” General Jones was reported to have written in a confidential telegramme. “We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush.” General Jones is due to travel to London next week for talks with British officials and Mr Netanyahu’s security adviser, Uzi Arad.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran was today meeting the heads of ten hard-line Palestinian groups — including Hamas — on a visit to Syria, sending what one of the leaders said would be a message to the new right-wing Israeli Government.

The Iranian leader arrived in the afternoon and went to the People’s Palace in Damascus, where he was given a red-carpet welcome by President Assad followed by a closed-door meeting.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6229180.ece

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><Center>
Obama to warn Israel's PM, Benjamin
Netanyahu: 'No more blank cheques' </font size><font size="4">

Barack Obama is to deliver a blunt warning to Israel's prime minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu, that the era of the blank US cheque is over</font size></center>

Mr Obama has already shocked Israeli officials by publicly declaring that a
two state solution was in America's national interest Photo: AP


The Telegraph (London)
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
17 May 2009


The President will use a meeting with Mr Netanyahu in Washington on Monday to tell him that from now on Israel must earn its privileged relationship with America.

Mr Obama will make clear that he will not allow his foreign policy objectives to be dictated by the Jewish state's interests, and that its leaders must resume working for peace with the Palestinians.

The President has already fired warning shots across the bows of the Israeli government to signal that he will not be pushed around by Mr Netanyahu's newly elected right-wing coalition. Many within Israel's government are openly hostile to two key aspects of American policy on the Middle East: statehood for the Palestinians and engagement with Iran.

Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, said: "Netanyahu is caught between a rock and a hard place, the rock being the president's determination to achieve a two-state solution and the hard place being his political base which opposes it. He's inching toward the Obama position but trying to avoid saying the words, 'two-state solution.'"

Mr Netanyahu's political survival may depend on him sticking to his position. Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister whose right-wing party is essential to the survival of the Likud-led coalition, is forthrightly opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.

But Mr Obama's hand in confronting Mr Netanyahu was strengthened last week by a new Zogby poll revealing that voters who backed him in the election overwhelmingly support a policy which amounts to "get tough with Israel" - ending illegal Israeli settlements within Palestinian territory and establishing a Palestinian state. Jewish voters, 78 per cent of whom voted for Mr Obama, are among the strongest supporters of the plan.

Mr Obama has already shocked Israeli officials by publicly declaring that a two state solution was in America's national interest - a clear sign that Washington will no longer automatically leap to support Israel regardless of the impact on the US.

The Obama administration has also broken a long-standing taboo against discussing Israel's nuclear weapons, by calling for Israel to declare and give up its weapons arsenal, said to number around 50 warheads. A senior State Department official said the US wants Israel to sign the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and commit to disarmament. What he has not done yet, is query the $3 billion in military aid which US taxpayers send Israel every year, although that could yet happen given the straitened times.

But Israel is meanwhile rattled by Mr Obama's willingness to attempt dialogue with Iran, seen by Mr Netanyahu and Mr Lieberman as the biggest threat to the Jewish state.

As he scans the Oval Office for friendly faces, Mr Netanyahu's eyes may light on two of Mr Obama's most trusted advisers, the White House chief of staff and former congressman Rahm Emanuel and the Presidents chief political adviser, David Axelrod. Both men are veterans of Chicago's rough and tumble politics, where Mr Obama cut his teeth - and both are also closely connected to Americas Jewish community.

Mr Emanuel's father was born in Israel, and during the 1991 Gulf war the future White House chief of staff served as a civilian volunteer helping the Israeli Defence Forces.

But alarm bells rang in Jerusalem earlier this month when it was reported that he had warned that efforts to stop Iran would depend on peace talks with the Palestinians.

Though protective towards Israel, both advisers are said to consider that for many years American policy has been skewed by hard-line allies of Israel who do not represent the majority Jewish American viewpoint. Both spent months during the presidential election campaign trail helping to brief Mr Obama on the intricacies of Israeli-Palestinian affairs, and both are convinced of the need for a two-state solution.

Mr Netanyahu, one of the most Americanised Israeli leaders in recent history who has many friends and supporters among the Republican Party, will do his best to smooth the relationship, despite the worrying developments for Jerusalem since Mr Obama took office. Mr Obama will deliver his own tougher line with characteristic charm and perhaps even an arm around the shoulder

But there was concern in Israel when Mr Obama moved to allow US aid to flow to members of the Palestinian unity government who were backed by Hamas - a sign that the Obama administration may be prepared to talk to enemies it considers terrorists, if circumstances change.

Mr Obama also sent his CIA chief, Leon Panetta, on a discreet mission to Israel two weeks ago to warn Mr Netanyahu not to lose patience over Iran's progress to nuclear weapons - and above all, not to launch preemptive air strikes against suspected nuclear enrichment facilities.

Mr Panetta's message to the Israeli prime minister was that Iran would not be a serious threat even if it develops a nuclear weapon. With the outcome of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq still in doubt, the US has neither the stomach nor the manpower to take on another major conflict which Israel will not be able to fight on its own.

On his way to Washington, Mr Netanyahu sought to convince Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah II of Jordan that the Iranian nuclear programme threatens them as much as Israel. He told them that the Iranian regime was attempting to use nuclear weapons to impose its agenda on Arabs as much as Israelis and that it could be stopped by working together.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Benjamin-Netanyahu-No-more-blank-cheques.html

 

[Costanza]

Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?

Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?

Several people have recently asked me if the Obama administration's tough line towards Israel's settlements and its insistence on a two-state solution invalidates the arguments that John Mearsheimer and I made about the political influence of the "Israel lobby." Not surprisingly, a few critics have made similar points in print. For what it's worth, I think Obama's approach is largely consistent with the views we set forth in the book, and certainly with our overall aim in writing it.

To review: in our book we argued that U.S. Middle East policy in recent decades has been strongly influenced by a loose coalition of individuals and groups which we termed the "Israel lobby." We pointed out that the lobby did not "control" U.S. Middle East policy (though it was a powerful influence), and we emphasized that the various groups that made up this loose coalition didn't agree on everything (such as the merits of a two-state solution). All of them have sought to encourage a "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel, however, and all to maintain nearly-unconditional U.S. support. Absent their influence, we argued, U.S. policy in the region would be substantially (though not entirely) different.

Like plenty of other interest groups in the United States, the Israel lobby worked in legitimate ways within the American political system and successfully acted to shape public discourse about Israel in ways they believed would reinforce the special relationship. As a result, the entire subject had become something of a taboo issue, especially for anyone seeking a prominent career in American politics or in the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Finally, we saw this situation as increasingly harmful to U.S. and Israeli interests alike, and argued that a more normal relationship would be better for both countries. In particular, we hoped that a more open discussion of these issues would lead to a revision in U.S. policy, and that more moderate and sensible groups within the "pro-Israel" community would become more influential. We even expressed the hope that the more hardline groups might reconsider their policy positions. In short, our main concern was not the existence of a powerful pro-Israel lobby; it was the fact that the most influential groups within that "loose coalition" were advocating policies that were harmful to the U.S. and Israel alike.

This basic portrait of the lobby's activities and influence fit the historical record up through the 2008 Presidential election. What has happened since? After pandering to the lobby during the campaign (just as all major candidates do) and remaining studiously silent during the Chas. Freeman debacle, President Obama has taken several recent steps that signal a different approach. He has appointed a Middle East envoy (George Mitchell) with a reputation for evenhandedness. Obama wasn't available to meet with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu during the AIPAC policy conference, so Netanyahu had to delay his trip. Obama has already spoken in one Muslim country (Turkey) and is about to give a major address to the Muslim world from Cairo, after first stopping off in Saudi Arabia, and isn't touching down in Israel on this tour.

Most importantly, he and other administration officials -- including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel -- have forcefully reiterated the Administration’s commitment to a genuine two-state solution and its opposition to Israel's settlements policy, including the fig leaf of "natural growth." That position was recently echoed by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, which suggests that Obama's team has been quietly lining up EU support for their position. Special envoy Mitchell reportedly drove that point home in his recent meeting with Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, and there’s no question that Israeli leaders are feeling the heat. And Obama himself has emphasized that "part of being a good friend is being honest," suggesting that he understands the pitfalls of unconditional U.S. support.

Do all these steps mean the lobby has lost all its power, and that our book was all wrong? Not hardly.

Let's start by recognizing that all Obama has done so far is lay down some rhetorical markers. That's not a trivial step, especially since he and his aides have used unusually direct language and haven’t waffled in the face of initial Israeli protests. If nothing else, these declarations make it harder for Obama to backtrack later on and mark a clear departure from Bush’s (failed) approach. But Obama has yet to put any real pressure on Israel, and he certainly hasn’t tried to make U.S. support (still over $3 billion/year) conditional on Israeli compliance. And the main bone of contention right now is simply whether Israel is willing to stop expanding settlements; we haven't even gotten to all the steps that will be necessary to make a viable Palestinian state possible.

Furthermore, we pointed out in our book that the lobby exerted more influence in Congress than on the Executive Branch, and we noted that several past Presidents (e.g., Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) had been able to put limited pressure on Israel in recent decades. So mild Presidential pressure on Israel is hardly unprecedented. In the meantime, the situation on the Hill hasn't changed very much: a recent AIPAC-sponsored "Dear Colleague" letter telling Obama to privately coordinate his Mideast diplomacy with Israel (and proposing various conditions on the Palestinians) garnered 76 signatures in the Senate and 329 in the House. And there are signs that Israel's supporters on the Hill are beginning to mobilize in more direct ways.

Nonetheless, there are also signs that AIPAC's control on the Hill may be diminishing too, Richard Silverstein has pointed out that two prominent progressive Democrats -- Barney Frank (D-MA) and Robert Filner (D-CA)--did not sign the AIPAC letter, and recent meetings between Netanyahu and several congressmen (including John Kerry of Massachusetts, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations committee) included sharp exchanges over Israel’s settlements policy. Most of the signatures on those two AIPAC letters were probably pro forma anyway, and they don’t seem to have had the chilling effect that AIPAC-sponsored missives had in previous eras. Thus far, Congressional pressure on Obama seems intended to moderate the Administration’s positions, but not derail its efforts entirely.

So where does this leave our arguments about the lobby's profound influence?

First, our main goal in writing our book was to encourage a more open discussion of this issue. We were describing the situation as it existed up through 2007 (when we finished the book), but we believed that if the taboo were challenged and a more open discourse emerged, more and more Americans would realize that the "status quo" lobby (e.g, AIPAC, the Christian Zionists, the neoconservatives, and groups like the Zionist Organization of America) were advocating policies that were bad for the United States and also bad for Israel itself. The good news is that a more open discussion has emerged in recent years, as illustrated by Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, by numerous commentators in the blogosphere like Ezra Klein, Phil Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, Richard Silverstein, Matt Yglesias, and others, and by clear-eyed columnists such as Roger Cohen. Jon Stewart's Daily Show has done its part too, with some pointed commentary on Gaza and at least one wickedly satirical look at AIPAC itself.

Second, partly because of this more open discourse, more and more people -- including Americans who care strongly about Israel's well-being -- have begun to realize that failure to achieve a two-state solution is jeopardizing Israel’s long-term future. As we wrote in our book and as I’ve blogged about before, the only alternatives to a two-state solution are the ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians, the creation of a binational democracy, or some form of apartheid. That is why Ehud Olmert eventually came around to the two-state solution, and people who used to reject the idea of pressure have begun to see the light. Even Martin Indyk is starting to sound a little bit like us. In other words, what it means to be "pro-Israel" is being redefined, thereby creating space for Obama to move toward a more sensible U.S. policy.

Third, events in the region have reinforced this growing sense that a different course of action is needed. The 2006 war in Lebanon and the recent carnage in Gaza have underscored the futility of trying to solve these problems by force alone and cast doubt in Israel's efforts to portray itself as the eternal victim. More and more people are aware of the long-term demographic trends, and they also know that the Arab League has offered to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel once the Palestinians have a viable state of their own. Some people also realize that settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would remove an arrow from Iran’s quiver and make it easier to mobilize a united front against Iran should that become necessary. Of course, the election of the most right-wing government in Israel's history (and the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister) hasn’t made it any easier for defenders of the status quo either.

Fourth, the behavior of some of Israel’s most fervent defenders may have helped open eyes and ears as well. In particular, the reflexive tendency to smear and marginalize critics of the "special relationship" by accusing them of being either anti-semites or "self-hating" Jews has become a self-discrediting enterprise, because the charge keeps getting directed at people for whom it is so obviously false. Condemning neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers is a worthy enterprise, but smearing respected individuals such as Carter, Desmond Tutu, Tony Kushner, Tony Judt, or others is transparently bogus and intended solely to stifle intelligent discourse on a vital subject. And when defenders of any cause have to stoop to such tactics, it reveals that they are defending an increasingly weak case.

Finally, we argued in the conclusion of our book, part of the solution here was the emergence of a different sort of pro-Israel lobby, one that might be equally influential but in the service of smarter policies. There are encouraging signs on this front, and the increased prominence of groups such as J Street, the Israel Policy Forum, or Brit Tzedek v'Shalom are encouraging developments. There is no reason why groups like AIPAC cannot evolve too, and begin to use their considerable political acumen in the service of a more far-sighted approach.

People who think that the Israel lobby is some sort of secret Jewish conspiracy probably also believe that its influence could never be countered and that the groups within it are irredeemable. That is the essence of conspiracy theories -- and especially anti-Semitic ones--they impute dark and magical powers to some secret organization or cabal and portray it as evil, all-powerful, unchanging, and unstoppable. By contrast, those of us who see the lobby as a typical interest group engaged in the normal rough-and-tumble of democratic politics have recognized that its considerable influence (which no one seriously denies) could be mitigated or modified over time, especially once it became clear that the policies promoted by its most powerful components were in fact harmful to U.S. and Israeli interests alike. We wrote our book to contribute to that process, and while realists should probably never be too optimistic -- and especially about the Middle East -- it's hard for me not to see the recent turn in U.S. policy as encouraging. Now let's see what Obama says in Cairo.

 

[Costanza]

Re: Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?

A few quick thoughts on President Obama's Cairo speech.

Overall, Obama once again demonstrated his willingness and ability to wrestle with complex and difficult ideas in public. One of his hallmark features as a leader is to show respect for his listeners by appealing to their sense of reason. As he did in the "race" speech during the campaign, and in his Notre Dame speech on abortion, Obama acknowledged room for disagreement and contestation and showed that he understands and respects alternative views even when he does not share them. Yet there are also clear limits to his tolerance: the speech included a forthright rejection of violence, a reminder to his audience that his "first duty is to protect the American people" and that "al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on [9/11]," and a clear statement of the American commitment to basic human rights. In seeking a "new beginning," he didn’t start with an act of appeasement.

I thought his handling of the Israel-Palestinian issue was clear and straightforward, He reaffirmed both the bedrock U.S. commitment to Israel's existence and security and the necessity of an independent Palestinian state. He understands -- even if others do not -- that "this is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest and the world's interest." He also rejected the poison of Holocaust denial and "vile stereotypes about Jews" in clear and direct language, and told his listeners that such beliefs helped prevent "the peace that the people of this region deserve." I wish he had offered a few more specifics, but overall he handled this issue well.

He did not avoid the tricky issue of democracy and human rights -- an especially delicate subject in Egypt -- but he left a lot of wiggle room by saying "there is no straight line to realize this promise." And while his focus on women's rights isn't likely to endear him to some Islamists, he was right to include it, for it is a fundamental issue that is bound to play a major role in the years to come.

His discussion of nuclear weapons acknowledged the current double standard "that some countries have [nuclear weapons] while others do not," and tried to square that circle by referring to "America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." This was less convincing -- at least to me -- but at least Obama acknowledged the contradictions in the U.S. position.

What was more significant was his statement but that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." The big question: does "the right to access" mean control of the full fuel cycle (under full NPT safeguards, including the Additional Protocol), or does it merely mean one of the various proposals that would deny Iran control of the full fuel cycle but provide nuclear fuel via some sort of international consortium? If it's the latter, there's no deal possible; if the former, it is at least conceivable that a deal that kept Iran from building a nuclear weapon might still be negotiated. We'll see.

The truest thing he said? "No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust." But he has committed himself to a set of principles and policies in front of the entire world. And if you think that "audience costs" (both domestic and foreign) matter, it will be hard for him to backtrack on the commitment to get out of Iraq on schedule, to leave Afghanistan as quickly as possible, to make significant changes in nuclear weapons policy, and to focus like a laser beam on the Middle East peace process. He's committed his administration in public, and that means he (and the country) will pay a bigger price if he doesn’t follow through.

Now he needs to follow up words with deeds. And so do his listeners.

 

[Costanza]

Re: Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?

There's been a blizzard of commentary on Obama's speech in Cairo, and a couple of pieces caught my eye. Daniel Levy at the New America Foundation has a thoughtful analysis up on his blog, and David Ignatius at the Washington Post hits the nail on the head regarding Obama's task going forward: Money quote:

"Obama has a rare gift for seeking the middle ground -- on race, on national security, even on abortion. But it will be hard to stay in the middle on this one. Obama will have to articulate U.S. policy more clearly and emphatically than have any of his predecessors, and he will have to demonstrate that he means what he says. To make peace, he will first have to make some enemies."​

We know who some of those enemies are: terrorists and other extremists whose political agendas are advanced by prolonging the conflict in the region, and whose visions are fueled by a dogmatic conviction that their particular God is on their side and that their opponents deserve nothing. It’s no surprise that Osama bin Laden issued a video message trying to pre-empt the speech, or that the Hamas spokesman said it was no different from George W. Bush. The good news is that this doesn’t seem to have been the reaction of most of his intended audience in the Muslim world (for a good rundown, see Juan Cole here). And I'm betting it played even better with broad populations than it did with various elite commentators.

Obama faces some real enemies on the other side too. Courtesy of Mondoweiss, check out this video by Max Blumenthal and Jason Dana from Jerusalem, documenting the hatred, contempt and yes, racism of a bunch of young, drunk and rowdy Israeli-Americans in Jerusalem. I don't think one should read too much into a single video, insofar as lots of people say stupid and hateful things when they are plastered. (Remember Mel Gibson?) But words can have consequences, and we've seen too often where such sentiments can lead. Obama is looking to unite moderates in search of just and workable solutions to the region's many problems, but as Ignatius notes, rejectionists on both sides aren't going to just fold their tents.

After a day's reflection, my biggest concern is that the Cairo speech has really raised the stakes. If Obama is unable or unwilling to move beyond speechifying and make some genuine shifts in U.S. policy, he will have unintentionally reinforced Arab and Muslim beliefs that the problem is intrinsic to the United States itself, and not just to a particular period in history (e.g., the Cold War, or the post-9/11 era), or a particular president (George W. Bush). If America's first black president -- a man with a Muslim name, a cosmopolitan background, and a remarkable capacity to express his awareness of the concerns of those with whom he disagrees--cannot get beyond rhetoric, then many of the people who applauded yesterday are going to be profoundly disillusioned. Some of them will conclude that the United States is in fact at war with Islam -- no matter what Obama might say -- and extremists on both sides will be quick to say "I told you so."

Obama quoted the Bible, the Talmud, and the Koran in his speech yesterday. I'm not religious, but I think the scriptural passage that applies now is James 2:24: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

 

[QueEx]

Re: Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?

Costanza,

Please provide the "Link/Source" for each the three posts.

QueEx

 

[Costanza]

Re: Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?

Costanza,

Please provide the "Link/Source" for each the three posts.

QueEx

My bad, meant to include it with the last one, all from the same page.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/category/one_time_tags/obama_and_the_israel_lobby

 

[QueEx]

Re: Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?

<font size="3">The editorial posted below is from an Alabama newspaper,
the Decatur Daily, located deep in Red-State territory:

</font size>

EDITORIAL


<font size="4"><center>A little U.S.-Israel tiff might help world peace</font size></center>

President Barack Obama is shrewd, and his recent dealings with Israel and its many Middle East enemies prove it.

Every U.S. president since 1948 has had as a goal the end of violence in the Middle East. Every one has failed.

The given — after the Holocaust and generations of oppression — was that the Jewish people needed a homeland, and Palestine was the obvious place for it. The process displaced Arabs and created tension that has escalated over the years to bloody hatred.

So in comes Obama with the same goal of his predecessors to calm violence in the Middle East, and hopefully make the United States a less appealing target to Muslim extremists in the process.

We have no closer ally than Israel. We depend on Israel, and it depends on us. If Obama set out with the goal of destroying relations between the countries, he would be unsuccessful.

With few exceptions, the U.S. has lousy relations with other Middle Eastern countries. They do not trust us, and that mistrust is based, in part, on our friendly relations with Israel.

Past presidents have been unwilling to distance the United States from Israel, in significant part due to political considerations. Through political action committees and pro-Israeli Americans who are wealthy and organized, the country has considerable clout in U.S. politics.

Obama is spurning the politics. He is talking nice to Muslims, he is insisting on an end to Israeli settlement and — in the latest amusing wrinkle — is showing the soles of his shoes while speaking on the phone to Israeli leaders.

Those determined not to like Obama — Israel proponents with limited vision — see this as a disastrous change in the historical alliance between Israel and the United States.

Not so. If Obama has any chance at brokering peace in the Middle East, he has to convince Israel’s Muslim neighbors that he is an honest broker. The only way he can accomplish that is by creating distance, even a touch of enmity, between Israel and the United States.

No president has ever been in a better position to end Middle East violence. His Muslim parentage, his understanding of Islamic culture, even his name make him a man that vitriolic extremists can view as trustworthy.

We need to give the president some slack as he works to convince Middle East leaders that peace is possible. The process will, necessarily, create some tension with Israel. The friendship between our nations is strong enough to survive that, and if Obama accomplishes his goal, the world will be a better place.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/detail/36742.html

 

[QueEx]

Re: Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?

I know, its DebkaFile


<font size="5"><center>Netanyahu folds under US pressure,
pulls out of West Bank towns
before peace talks</font size></center>


DEBKAfile Special Analysis
June 25, 2009

Despite his pledge to keep security considerations uppermost in his dealings with the Palestinians, Israeli prime minister Binyamin <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Netanyahu is buckling under pressure from the US administration</span> aimed at softening Israel up ahead of Middle East peace talks.

This pressure turned Netanyahu's first official visits to Rome and Paris sour.

He had hoped to outmaneuver the Obama administration's insistence on a total settlement freeze by winning the support of friendly Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy for a compromise formula, which would be presented as a European-Israel deal.

To achieve this, he promised the Italian and French leaders that Israeli forces would soon be pulled out of West Bank Palestinian towns. But he failed to anticipate that the Obama administration would outflank him and get there first. So his arrival in Rome and Paris was preceded by Italian and French officials parroting the Washington line on a settlement freeze, including East Jerusalem

When he met Berlusconi Monday, June 22, the Israeli prime minister saw that he had already talked to Obama on the phone and promised that the Italian boot would toe the American line.

In Paris, he found the same trap had been laid at the Elysee.

In these circumstances, Netanyahu should never have gone through with his visits to Italy and France. And defense minister Ehud Barak should call off his trip to Washington Monday for the interview with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell which the prime minister postponed. He has little hope of persuading the administration to change its tune or head off the impending clash between his administration and the Obama White House.

Netanyahu's promise to the Italian and French leaders to pull the IDF out of the West Bank cities of Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jericho and Qalqilya, has meanwhile gone on record, for no gain in Rome in Paris. But he can no longer capitalize on this major concession for a quid pro quo from the Palestinians. The IDF has also been ordered to reduce to the number of checkpoints on the West Bank to 10 active facilities to allow the Palestinians to travel from town to town free of holdups for searches – another concession to US demands.

These concessions are tantamount to the handover of the main West Bank towns to Palestinian security control.

It is the most sweeping redeployment of Israeli security forces since their unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria four years ago as part of Ariel Sharon's disengagement policy.

To make the gesture palatable to the Israeli public - who have not forgottenthat years of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks from the West Bank were finally stemmed by the IDF presence in terrorist city strongholds - Netanyahu told the army spokesman to announce Thursday, June 25, that the measures were being given a one-week trial run before being finalized.

However, once in place, these measures will be practically impossible to withdraw.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">The Obama administration has thus cornered the Netanyahu government into giving away valuable assets to the Palestinians before negotiations have even begun. This diplomatic dexterity has not been displayed in Washington's dealings with Iran.</span>


http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6152

 

[MCP]

Obama aide condemns 'destructive' Israeli homes plan

<IFRAME SRC="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8566992.stm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8566992.stm">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[QueEx]

Re: Obama aide condemns 'destructive' Israeli homes plan

<font size="5"><center>
Netanyahu affirms settlement project
that U.S. considers 'affront'</font size></center>

McClatchy Newspapers
By Sheera Frenkel
March 15, 2010


RAMAT SHLOMO, Israel — From the window of her home in East Jerusalem, Chana-Rivka Leviv can see the valley where the Israeli government says it will soon begin to build 1,600 new apartment units — one of which is destined for her family.

"We all just need to build. The rest of the world can scream and threaten as much as they want. Jerusalem is our home and we will continue to build here for our children's children," said Leviv, an ultra-orthodox Jew who's expecting her seventh child this summer.

Bunk beds fill the three bedrooms of her terraced apartment in this hilly settlement. To one side, the neighborhood abuts the Shuafat Refugee Camp, home to 35,000 Palestinians who complain of severe overcrowding and lack of basic facilities and planning.

Ramat Shlomo has become the most contentious building project in Jerusalem, and it's at the center of what Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren calls the "most severe crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations" in decades.

Israel's announcement of the project as Vice President Joe Biden began an official visit last week embarrassed the Obama administration, and the fallout could block U.S.-led efforts to revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Backed by the Arab League, Palestinians have demanded that Israel halt settlement projects such as Ramat Shlomo before talks begin.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under pressure from his largely conservative coalition to press on with the project, told his Likud Party Monday that settlement building would continue on land that Israel won from its Arab neighbors in the 1967 Six-Day War.

"Construction will continue in Jerusalem as this has been the case over the past 42 years," Netanyahu said. Israel Interior Minister Eli Yishai — whose ministry decided to announce the plan during Biden's visit — echoed Netanyahu, stating that "there is no construction freeze in Jerusalem, nor will there be one."

"We're sorry the Americans found the timing offending, but there is no freeze in Jerusalem," he said.

In the face of harsh U.S. criticism and demands that the project be scrapped, Netanyahu has tried to lower the visibility of the issue.

Neither the Jerusalem Municipality nor the prime minister's office would give a schedule for when building in Ramat Shlomo could begin. The municipality has quietly removed all planning meetings for east Jerusalem projects from its schedule and hasn't publicized any further movement on Ramat Shlomo.

Netanyahu is also reportedly working to placate the Americans by promising a delay in construction to give time for U.S.-led peace talks to commence, although it's not clear whether that would satisfy Palestinians' demands for a freeze on settlement construction.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Israel's behavior "insulting" on CNN Sunday, and President Obama's chief advisor, David Axelrod, told ABC News that the move was "an affront, it was an insult, but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region."

Republican members of Congress, however, joined the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main pro-Israel lobbying organization, in condemning the administration's stance.

"To say that I am deeply concerned with the irresponsible comments that the White House, vice president and the secretary of state have made against Israel is an understatement," said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. He added that the crisis with Israel "jeopardizes America's national security."

Netanyahu is convening an inner forum of his cabinet to review a list of demands that Clinton made over the weekend, according to the Hebrew-language press.

Israeli officials refused to discuss the existence of such a list, but Hebrew-language papers said the U.S. expects Netanyahu to revoke the Ramat Shlomo decision and make significant gestures towards the Palestinians to restart peace talks.

The U.S. also is asking Israel to establish a committee to investigate whether the timing of the announcement was truly a mistake or meant to embarrass the US.

Meanwhile, residents in Ramat Shlomo are pressing the government to ignore the international criticism and break ground on the new units.

"I don't see why the rest of the world thinks they can tell us what to do. We don't want their politics, their peace process, or their instructions," Leviv told McClatchy.

She said she doesn't mind if the Palestinians build as well — though the Jerusalem municipality hasn't approved any housing developments for Palestinians, and most such construction is illegal and subject to demolition.

Despite a possible delay in the Ramat Shlomo housing project, she said her family wouldn't consider living outside the settlement.

"They said that we would never live here, surrounded by Arabs. But we have and we continue to grow. Soon all of Jerusalem will be ours, built as the new shining capital to welcome home Jews from across the world, God willing," said Leviv.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/15/90414/netanyahu-affirms-settlement-project.html

 

[QueEx]

Re: Obama aide condemns 'destructive' Israeli homes plan

<font size="5"><center>
Is the Israeli-American Alliance Fraying?</font size></center>


The Atlantic
By Max Fisher
March 16, 2010


Vice President Joe Biden's "reassurance mission" to Israel spiraled into disaster when Israel announced it would allow the growth of settlements in East Jerusalem against U.S. wishes. Some high-profile American pundits had previously urged President Obama to disengage from the Israel-Palestine conflict or even to distance himself from Israel. Now relations are as strained as they've been "in two decades." President Obama is reportedly "outraged" and has put sharp demands on Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. CENTCOM chief General David Petraeus has expressed concern that America's ties to Israel are undermining its broader Middle East missions.

<font size="3">Is the U.S.-Israel relationship, one of the world's strongest East-West partnerships, falling apart? What can be done to salvage it?</font size>

• 'Watershed' For U.S.-Israel The New York Times' Roger Cohen calls this a "watershed moment" because it has made the settlements not just an Israel-Palestine issue but an Israel-U.S. issue. Continuing settlements is "an affront" to America and Israel must cease settlement growth if it wants to maintain the favor of its most important partner and patron. (Cohen points out the U.S. has been "pouring $28.9 billion into Israel" this past decade.)

• U.S. Must Call for Israeli Official Replacements Foreign Policy's David Makovsky says the alliance is far too important to both sides to let fray. But by shifting the blame to a single official, Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai (who does bear significant responsibility), both save face while making real progress on the settlements. "Replacing Yishai would send a message in the Israeli political world that U.S.-Israel relations are more important than domestic politics." It would also improve Israeli policy on the settlements.

• Don't Blow Up Alliance Over This RealClearWorld's Robert Satloff urges Obama to look at the big pictures and not make demands that Israel can't meet. "The key for a great power is to know the difference between thinking big and thinking small. The vice president's mission to Israel was an expression of the former. Even accounting for the Israelis' grievous blunder that marred Biden's visit, it is important for the administration not to let itself be diverted from this path."

• MidEast Concerns Trump Settlements National Review's Joel Rosenberg downplays the incident, insisting Israel has every right to grow settlements and that Obama is "dramatically overreacting" and "making an enormous and dangerous mistake" that "will lead to another major war, not to peace." The mutual reliance between the U.S. and Israel over Middle East security concerns should trump the settlement issue, anyway. "This is not how a superpower should treat its most faithful ally in a dangerous region."

• Actually, Settlements Are MidEast Problem Spencer Ackerman argues that Israel's settlements actually undermine the U.S. in the Middle East because we are blamed for not standing up to Israel. He cites General Petraeus' request to put Israel under CENTCOM (instead of EUCOM) authority as evidence that Petraeus sees Israel's settlements as part of the broader Middle East picture.

​

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Is-the-Israeli-American-Alliance-Fraying-2849

 

[African Herbsman]

Re: Obama aide condemns 'destructive' Israeli homes plan

Wake me up when he cuts their aid. Until then, it's business as usual.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?

<font size="6"><center>
Stop the Presses !</font size></center>

<font size="3">In an article in Foreign Policy released this past Saturday General Petraeus boldly states that the brewing controversy between the United States and Israel arising out of Benjamin Netanyahu's snub of Vice President Biden and President Obama, (see these threads: Obama aide condemns 'destructive' Israeli homes plan and Israeli PM Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will), is not the whole story.

I agree, its not the "Whole Story" because the "Beginning of the Story" was actually captured in this thread which dates back to April 16, 2009 (last year). General Petraeus' comments are in the next post.

QueEx

</font size>
`

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
The Petraeus briefing:
Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story</font size></center>

By Mark Perry
Saturday, March 13, 2010

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region</span>, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."


The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding."</span> But Petraeus wasn't finished: <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command -- or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations. Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict. </span>

The Mullen briefing and Petraeus's request hit the White House like a bombshell. While Petraeus's request that CENTCOM be expanded to include the Palestinians was denied ("it was dead on arrival," a Pentagon officer confirms), <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">the Obama administration decided it would re</span>double its efforts -- pressing Israel once again on the settlements issue, sending Mitchell on a visit to a number of Arab capitals and dispatching Mullen for a carefully arranged meeting with the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused on Iran, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" -- as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message.

Israel didn't. When Vice President Joe Biden was embarrassed by an Israeli announcement that the Netanyahu government was building 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem</span>[/b], the administration reacted. But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace."</span>

Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism."</span> The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military</span>

While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now.



http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/po..._biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch Says Criticism Of Israel Is Being Orchestrated By Obama…

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/f87_1271324487"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/f87_1271324487" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

All during the 2008 Presidential campaign, we told the liberal-Democrat Koch mentality what Obama was all about. They refused to listen. Now, they’re waking up to the nightmare they’ve helped to create…