Netanyahu Buckles On Settlements?

Bibi Netanyahu rebuffing the Obama Administration on a settlement freeze has sure won him plaudits at home, according to members of his cabinet and center-right parties. Except, um, he hasn't rebuffed the President at all.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has exploited such sentiment to depict Washington's opposition to settlement growth as unreasonable. But Israeli officials say he is also seeking a compromise that would limit the growth and facilitate Obama's goal of restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Several officials said Tuesday that Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Housing Minister Ariel Atias had quietly agreed to suspend all government tenders to build new Jewish housing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem at least until the start of next year.

The government and its critics acknowledge that there has been no green light for construction bids since November and that Netanyahu, after taking office on March 31, allowed the de facto suspension to continue.

One official said the recent decision, which was not announced, makes the suspension explicit in advance of a new round of talks set for next week between Netanyahu and U.S. envoy George J. Mitchell.

Netanyahu's trying to thread a delicate needle. Obviously he needs US support for Israel's economic survival. At the same time, his right-wing base wants him to hold firm on settlements, particularly the settlers. This is the big obstacle to Middle East peace - the thorough intransigence among all sides of the debate. But the US does have power in the region, as evidenced by getting a right-wing Prime Minister of Israel to essentially agree to demands that could eventually hurt him politically.

What Do You Know About That

The most unyieldingly racist member of Israel's right-wing government is also facing a potential indictment:

Israeli police Sunday recommended that the state indict Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on charges of bribery, fraud, money laundering, witness harassment and obstruction of justice.

A spokesman for the Justice Ministry said the file now moves to the state prosecutor's office and then to attorney General Menachem Mazuz who must approve the recommendation before Lieberman is formally indicted. That process could take weeks or even months. If the foreign minister is indicted he will have to resign, according to Israeli law.

Lieberman released a combative statement after the police announcement.

"For 13 years the police have conducted a campaign of persecution against me," he said. "As much as my political strength and the strength of (my party) Yisrael Beitenu rise, the campaign of persecution also intensifies."

He said he was innocent of all charges and called the investigation "judicial torture."

I didn't see the persecution complex coming.

Benjamin Netanyahu's government will still probably orient themselves against peace and toward kicking Palestinians out of their homes in East Jerusalem and building settlements on occupied land, as they have been doing, most recently today. But getting a racist like Lieberman out of government would have an undeniably positive effect.

Two States Require Two Partners

The White House met with a lot of Jewish leaders last week to outline his plans in the Middle East peace process. I imagine they take into account this CAP paper, suggesting that Obama's timeline for success has travelled ahead of "the abilities or the political conditions of either the Israeli or the Palestinian side." We can certainly see that today, with the announcement by Israel that they will continue to build a housing project in East Jerusalem.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday defended plans for a new Jewish housing development in East Jerusalem, rebuffing the Obama administration's opposition to Israeli construction in the mostly Palestinian area.

"United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and the state of Israel. Our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged," Netanyahu said in response to questions that U.S. officials raised last week with Israeli Ambassador Michael B. Oren about a 20-apartment project approved this month. "We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem."

The Palestinians expect East Jerusalem to form the capital of a future Palestinian state, and the Obama administration has included the area in its demand that Israel stop building beyond the line that divided the sides before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Given that Netanyahu's win is still fresh, this is probably a fairly popular proposal in Israel. Which is why Obama's team must engage with Israelis to improve the position of peace and partnership in public opinion polls. Palestine doesn't really have a solid negotiating partner either - Hamas and Fatah's infighting could lead to stormy elections in the next year. While Palestine's problems, particularly the lack of a civil society and governmental institutions, are large, the block of hardliner Israelis at the head of the government may be a bigger obstacle to peace, however. I don't see either side truly interested in the concessions necessary to reach an agreement.

Abe Foxman said last week that "the Administration is putting too much weight on solving the conflict." As ridiculous as this sounds, it's probably the view inside much of Israel as well.

Define "Complete Settlement Freeze"

That's not what this looks like to me:

Israel would be open to a complete freeze of settlement building in the West Bank for three to six months as part of a broad Middle East peace endeavor that included a Palestinian agreement to negotiate an end to the conflict and confidence-building steps by major Arab nations, senior Israeli officials said Sunday [...]

The freeze would not affect construction that was already under way, nor include East Jerusalem. But it would mean that during the specified time no construction of any kind could start even in the close-in settlement blocks that Israel expects to keep in any future two-state agreement with the Palestinians.

A settlement "freeze" that doesn't affect current construction, has a three-to-six month end date, imposes multiple conditions on the Palestinians and doesn't include one of the settlement areas?

That's not even a thaw, let alone a freeze. The senior ministers, by the way, don't even agree on these decidedly uninspiring terms.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Middle East envoy George Mitchell met in New York yesterday and reached some agreement, and Israel appeared to be knuckling under slightly in the face of US pressure. But if this is the end result, I don't suspect that the Palestinians will perceive it as some grand concession. US officials adamantly asserted that they have not moved back on their position of a full settlement freeze including "natural growth." We'll see soon enough.

Space On The Left For Two-State Solutions

It was clear when Bibi Netanyahu made his speech with its alleged concession to a Palestinian state that he was not fully endorsing anything approaching a framework for that state. What sovereign entity agrees to unilaterally disarm and not defend its borders? Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the US, basically confirmed this the other day:

In an interview with Reuters yesterday, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren said: "When the prime minister and the government uses the word 'state' now, it has to attach a number of caveats to it, so it'll be understood that what we're talking about here is not a state in the classical sense, as is widely understood, but a state that will have some -- some -- substantive restrictions on its powers."

That's just not going to be good enough, or at least it shouldn't be for policymakers in this country. Harold Meyerson points out that Americans, in particular American Jews, understand that a two state solution, and only a two state solution, can bring about peace in the region and ensure the security of everyone, including the Israelis.

What underpins the resolve of both the administration and Congress to push the Israelis, no less than the Palestinians, toward a settlement is the clear approval this approach commands among American Jews. A poll taken in March for J Street, an organization of American Jews that favors a territorial accord, showed 72 percent support among Jewish Americans for U.S. pressure on Israel and its Arab neighbors to reach an accord, and, remarkably, 57 percent support for U.S. pressure just on Israel. The poll also found 60 percent opposition to the expansion of settlements.

These numbers reflect changes in American Jewish life and thought that have been building for decades. At a broad level, the intense identification of American Jews with Israel has been waning for many years. More narrowly, the past couple of decades have brought the rise of American Jewish groups that try to pressure the U.S. government to push for a two-state solution -- a clear counterweight to more established organizations such as AIPAC that generally try to pressure the U.S. government to do whatever the Israeli government would like it to do. The J Street PAC, an organization that's just three years old, raises funds for members of Congress who back policies leading to a two-state solution, much as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) encourages its backers to donate to candidates who toe a more hawkish line.

I wouldn't go so far to say that AIPAC has been completely sidelined, but clearly Jewish groups have created space on the left to allow Obama to take a hard line on the settlements issue. It's good that Hillary Clinton refused to yield to racist Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on this count.

Obviously, Netanyahu isn't being realistic or even serious about a Palestinian state. But for the first time in a while, the forces of peace are dictating strategy in the White House, at least as it concerns the Middle East.

Netanyahu Sort-Of Relents

Looks like Eli Lake was right:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed an independent Palestinian state beside Israel for the first time on Sunday, dramatically reversing himself in the face of U.S. pressure but attaching conditions the Palestinians swiftly rejected.

A week after President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world, Netanyahu said the Palestinian state would have to be unarmed and recognize Israel as the Jewish state — a condition amounting to Palestinian refugees giving up the goal of returning to Israel.

Netanyahu, in an address seen as his reponse to Obama, refused to heed the U.S. call for an immediate freeze of construction on lands Palestinians claim for their future state. He also said the holy city of Jerusalem must remain under Israeli sovereignty.

Senior Palestinian officials Saeb Erekat said the plan "closed the door" to negotiations [...]

Erekat said Netanyahu's plan was unacceptable since it effectively imposes a solution on the core issues of the conflict.

"Netanyahu's speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations," he said. "We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it. He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain."

Is this a step forward for Netanyahu? Yes. Does it move the ball forward? Apparently not, as the last paragraph makes clear.

Just the fact that Netanyahu had to give a speech like this to combat the Obama speech in Cairo moves the ball forward in some sense, pushing the discussion toward the peace process. But each side is trying to outflank the other on who is more inclined toward peace and what must remain in and out of a deal that the going will be extremely slow. I would say it's better that he did this than nothing at all. But we're still light years away from a solution, and more engagement is needed from the Administration.

Unnatural Growth And Congressional Spine Stiffening

Not surprisingly, the Israeli hard-right government won't give an inch on settlement expansion, at least not for now. They've backed down to the "natural growth" dodge, which is a small victory because "natural growth" is such a transparently stupid concept - as if it's natural to build a new house for your son on someone else's land when he gets married. Gershom Gorenberg knocks this down pretty easily.

Barack Obama has not demanded that women in settlements stop having babies. Rather, he has insisted that Israel stop construction in settlements, in line with its commitments under the 2003 road map for peace -- in line, in fact, with American opposition to settlement building since 1967. Consistent with the road map, and with the 2001 report written by George Mitchell, now Obama's Middle East envoy, the president has rejected Israeli insistence that construction continue to allow for "natural growth" of the settler population.

The deliberate twisting of Obama's stance is aimed at both a domestic and American audience. And it has confused some otherwise astute observers. Rep. Gary Ackerman, a Democrat from New York and chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East, said in press statement on Tuesday that he supported a settlement freeze but not one that "calls on Israeli families not to grow [or] get married. Telling people not to have children is unthinkable and inhumane."

Don't worry, Mr. Ackerman: The president is not talking about universal contraception for Israeli settlers. If there's any logic behind the rhetoric of Schneller, Hershkowitz, et al., it's a claim that people have the natural right to have a larger home in the same community if they expand their families, and to have their grown children live down the street. Why should that be true? West Bank settlements aren't ancient communities in isolated valleys hundreds of miles from the nearest town. They are recently established bedroom communities, within commuting distance of Israeli cities -- where many settlers in fact work.

The settlement housing is heavily subsidized by the state, too.

It's just a way to keep growing the settlements while claiming not to grow them. And fortunately, Ackerman clarified himself today, affirming that settlement construction must stop.

In fact, even those Jewish Democrats previously offering unstinting support for Israel have felt more free to criticize on this particular issue, mindful that settlement growth represents a threat to peace in the region.

For the first time in America's decades of jousting with Israel over West Bank settlements, an American president seems to have succeeded in isolating the settlements issue and disconnecting it from other elements of support for Israel.

It is a disentanglement now seen most clearly in Congress, which in the past served as Israel's stronghold against administration pressure on the issue. But when Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu came to Capitol Hill for a May 18 meeting after being pressed by President Obama to freeze the expansion of West Bank settlements, he was "stunned," Netanyahu aides said, to hear what seemed like a well-coordinated attack against his stand on settlements. The criticism came from congressional leaders, key lawmakers dealing with foreign relations and even from a group of Jewish members.

They included Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee; California Democrat Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, and California Rep. Henry Waxman, a senior Democrat.

The Jewish lawmakers among them believed "it was their responsibility to make him [Netanyahu] very, very aware of the concerns of the administration and Congress," said a congressional aide briefed on the meeting. The aide, who declined to be identified, stressed that despite the argument on settlement issues, members of Congress remained fully supportive of Israel on all other issues, including the need to deal with Iran and the concern over Hamas and Hezbollah's activity.

In their meetings, according to the congressional aide, lawmakers rejected Netanyahu's call for Palestinian reciprocity on terrorism as a precondition and kept pressing him on the need to stop building in settlements.

Good. More than anything, this represents the follow-through on Obama's speech to the Muslim world - a real change in US policy and pressing from a legitimate stance of an honest broker.

None of this means that Israel will budge, of course. Look at the ice to cut through.



I think at some point, not yet but at some point, the purse strings need to come into play.

Like Father Like Daughter

Liz Cheney must have learned the fine art of lying your tail off from dear old dad.

MITCHELL: Can you clarify at all a dispute some or among former Bush administration middle east experts and officials as to whether there was a secret promise or an agreement with Israel that Israel could proceed with settlement expansion to accommodate population growth?

CHENEY: It is a very complicated issue and the Road Map does talk about settlements. … But there’s the issue of, in existing settlements, if a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house? … I think there’s no question that this White House has gone much further in saying to the Israelis, “you must absolutely stop all of it.” And without, in my view, being as demanding of the Palestinians in terms of the security side of this equation.

Sadly, no.



Given that she was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs in the Bush Administration, put there, many feel, to report back on the State Department to the Vice President, you'd think she'd know that.

However, Cheney did part ways with her father on the issue of the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. She still thinks it exists, whereas Fourthbranch pretty much disavowed it earlier this week.

LIZ CHENEY: The issue is whether there's a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, which as he mentioned in that speech, George Tenet himself testified to, there's much evidence between the connection of Saddam and al Qaeda and Saddam and other terrorist organizations.

MITCHELL: Well, al Qaeda in Iraq, which was an offshoot, but didn't exist before the start of the war.

LIZ CHENEY: That's actually not true.

Right, well, um, you're wrong again.

If the best politicians are the best liars, Cheney's got quite a future.

In The Words Of Fred Armisen's Impression Of Joy Behar...

Who cares?

Senior Israeli officials accused President Obama on Wednesday of failing to acknowledge what they called clear understandings with the Bush administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement “freeze.”

The complaint was the latest in a growing rift between the Obama administration and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to move forward to achieve peace in the Middle East. Mr. Obama was in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and is scheduled to address the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday.

The Israeli officials said that repeated discussions with Bush officials starting in late 2002 resulted in agreement that housing could be built within the boundaries of certain settlement blocks as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built.

Certainly an interesting proposition, that Bush lied to the world while making secret agreements. But no President is bound by the secret agreements of his predecessor. In context, it makes sense that Netanyahu was so confused, wondering if Obama really meant it when he said that he wanted construction to stop. But it makes no difference today what Bush and the Israelis conspired to create. The settlements violate international law and the obligations of the Israelis in the Middle East peace process. They need to be dismantled. But as a first step, the building needs to stop.

Obama's Boldness On The Settlements Issue

It's clear that, while the President has been less willing to stake out a bold and uncompromising position on many issues, with respect to settlement growth in the West Bank, he has definitely done so. This has played out very publicly, surprisingly so, with Obama and his Administration calling for a freeze, while the Netanyahu government in Israel seeks expansion, which they call "natural growth," an insidious euphemism. President Obama has signaled more bluntness on the issue in the weeks to come.

The United States will be more blunt in raising objections to Israel's settlement policies in the Palestinian territories than previous administrations, President Barack Obama told a U.S. radio network in an interview on Monday.

"Part of being a good friend is being honest," Obama told National Public Radio. "And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests.

"We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace," he added. "I've said that a freeze on settlements is part of that."

When asked about Israel's refusal to commit to a complete settlement freeze, the president told NPR it was still too early to determine what measures the administration could take to pressure Jerusalem.

"It's still early in the process," Obama said. "They've [Israel] formed a government, what, a month ago?"

"We're going to have a series of conversations," the president told NPR. "I believe that strategically, the status quo is unsustainable when it comes to Israel's security," Obama said. "Over time, in the absence of peace with Palestinians, Israel will continue to be threatened militarily and will have enormous problems on its borders."

Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister, met with US officials yesterday and received the same message - that settlement expansion is intolerable, and a freeze represents the first step on the path to peace. Barak's compromise proposals were not accepted, and Obama himself popped in at one point to discuss the situation. While aides downplayed the tensions, clearly the US and Israel differ on this crucial issue.

Clearly the settlements issue will not be settled overnight, but just as clearly, the forces supporting the status quo and an expansion of the settlements in the West Bank are marshaling their forces, trying to whip up Congressional opinion against Obama's stance. This was a matter of time - the Israel lobby has many friends on Capitol Hill, and seeing their hardline position threatened, they at some point were going to use those allies to try and head it off.

“My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.). “I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements.”

“When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me,” she said.

Presidents from Jimmy Carter to George H.W. Bush saw attempts to pressure Israel draw furious objections from Congress, but members of Congress and observers say Obama will most likely prevail as long as he shows that he’s putting effective pressure on Israel’s Arab foes as well.

But even a key defender of Obama’s Mideast policy, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), is seeking to narrow the administration’s definition of “settlement” to take pressure off Obama. And the unusual criticism by congressional Democrats of the popular president is a sign that it may take more than a transformative presidential election to change the domestic politics of Israel [...]

“There’s a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who said he’d heard complaints from constituents during the congressional recess. “I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism.”

“I don’t think anybody wants to dictate to an ally what they have to do in their own national security interests,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), who said he thinks there’s “room for compromise.”

Lining up one by one.

The ruling Likudniks in Israel have matched this rhetoric, accusing Obama of interfering in their domestic politics. This is ridiculous. The greatest interference by the United States in Israeli domestic politics concerns the billions in foreign aid we lavish on them every year. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that, as a condition of that support, Israel does not pursue policies that inflame hatred in the Muslim world, particularly hatred toward the United States. Settlement growth is a national security issue for this country.

And Obama has proceeded with determination not to allow such destructive policies to rebound on the United States. As Juan Cole says, Israel's settlement policy is the "Amy Winehouse of foreign affairs," hurting both itself and others. Cole has some ideas about where Obama can go next, but I think he's on the right track. And the Middle East issue sits at the forefront of all of our problems with the Muslim world, so he certainly has the pressure and mindset to move forward in a forthright manner.

The Settlements Issue Goes Public

If the President can be criticized in the first several months of his Administration, it would be for his reticence to step out on controversial issues. In fact, perhaps the first example of his White House being bold and forthright on something bound to win him enemies as well as friends is his very public stand against Israeli settlement building.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama Thursday ratcheted up what might be America's toughest bargaining position with Israel in a generation, demanding anew that Israel stop expanding its settlements in the disputed West Bank as a key step toward making peace with its Arab neighbors.

Obama made the demand after a White House meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, building on unusually blunt language the day before from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Each party has obligations," Obama said of the so-called Road Map to Peace, to which Israel is a party. "On the Israeli side, those obligations include stopping settlements."

He said he made that point to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when they met earlier this month, noting that the conversation "only took place last week" and that Netanyahu must work through domestic politics, but added: "We don't have a moment to lose."

You can read Obama's statement after meeting with Abbas here. It's astounding to see an American President pick a public fight with Israel. But ultimately, stopping the settlement expansion is in the best interest of the Israelis and eventual peace.

Isn't likely to happen so fast, however:

Mr. Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev said Thursday that the prime minister won't change his long-held position that building should be allowed to continue in existing settlements as part of "natural growth."

Mr. Regev said any complete freeze in settlement activity could be discussed only in final-status peace negotiations with the Palestinians. But Palestinian leaders have refused to resume negotiations until Mr. Netanyahu acknowledges the commitments of past Israeli governments to a Palestinian state.

Laura Rozen has more from Netanyahu's perspective. He appears to have been really blindsided by an Administration who refuses to bend their principles to fit the dictates of the Israel lobby.

"This is a sea change for Netanyahu," a former senior Clinton administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The official said that the basis of the Obama White House's resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States' as well as Israel's interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "We have significant, existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict, and to begin to build new regional alliances."

Netanyahu needed to engage Obama directly, the former official said. "Now that he has done so, and also sent a team of advisors to meet [special envoy to the Middle East George] Mitchell, he has very clearly received a message: ‘I meant what I said on settlements. No natural growth. No elasticity. There will be a clear settlement freeze.'" (Netanyahu sent a team of advisors including minister for intelligence Dan Meridor for meetings with Mitchell in London Monday.)

"Over the past 15 years, settlements have gone from being seen in Washington as an irritant, to the dominant issue," says Georgetown Univeristy Middle East expert Daniel Byman. He pointed out that key figures in the Obama administration -- Mitchell, who headed the Mitchell Commission, which recommended a halt to settlements; national security advisor Gen. Jim Jones -- see the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, home to some 290,000 people, as a key obstacle to getting a peace settlement. "I don't think the logic is hidden," Byman said.

It's really fascinating, and I honestly don't know how it'll play out. The wingnuts are preoccupied with calling a circuit court judge a racist right now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Wurlitzer ramp up on this before too long. Expect some stories about the Black Muslim in the White House siding with the Palestinians, when in actuality, Obama is siding with the Israelis by insisting on the only avenue for progress. Bully for him.

Strong Words

I'm very gratified that the Obama Administration, and the Democratic leadership generally, are going to the mats with Israel over settlement construction.

Rebuffing Israel on a key Mideast negotiating issue, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that the Obama administration wants a complete halt in the growth of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, with no exceptions.

President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions," Clinton said.

Growth in settlements built in the West Bank has become a key point of disagreement between the United States and Israel as the administration assembles its plan to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

U.S. officials believe that a complete Israeli halt to settlement growth could lead to early concessions from moderate Arab nations and put new momentum behind the peace effort.

That's an extremely strong statement, and much further that I would guess anyone would have suspected that Democrats were willing to go. And not only that, but Martin Indyk, of all people, is telling the truth:

On Netanyahu: "Bibi suffers from the fact that many people in the administration know him too well."

On Israel's taking risks to achieve peace: "All these years, the US has been strengthening you precisely for this purpose -- so that you can take the risk of making peace. How exactly can the Palestinians destroy you? The real existential danger is that you will not succeed in parting from them."

The settlements violate international law. A fanatical far-right minority uses them to stand in the way of peace. And Bibi Netanyahu has simply been caught out. He can pretend that his survival isn't dependent on a strong ally in the United States, or he can lose his Prime Minister position. Period.

Wait And See In The Middle East

Yesterday's meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yielded little in public. Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a two-state solution, and pressed Israel to close settlements, while Netanyahu was obscure in his rhetoric, talking about a commitment to restart "peace talks" but more focused on the perceived threat from Iran. And he certainly didn't commit to stopping the settlement expansion, which disappointed Palestinian observers.

After meeting with President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said he was ready to begin peace negotiations with the Palestinians "immediately." But he also reiterated positions that seem to restrict the scope of those talks -- namely that he would accept only a limited form of Palestinian self-government and that any talks would have to include Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a "Jewish state."

Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the conditions seemed to undermine any negotiations before they even started.

"There is a difference between being a tough negotiator and a non-negotiator. What I heard today was a non-negotiator," said Erekat, who added that Palestinians had been looking for Monday's meeting to produce some sense of progress -- whether a statement from Netanyahu about the restriction of settlements or on the establishment of a Palestinian state.

"He says that he wants me to govern myself by myself. I have one simple question: How can I do that when roadblocks are suffocating us in towns and refugee camps? When the army makes incursions wherever they want? When the demolition of homes continues?" Erekat said.

At the same time, in one of the more promising developments, Hamas has made overtures toward peace for the first time in its history.

Leaders of Hamas have begun reaching out to the West with conciliatory words, saying the Islamic militant group wants to be part of a Mideast solution and raising the possibility they would someday accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

In the most significant statement so far, Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal told British lawmakers recently that the group is open to "real peace." In Gaza, the Hamas government said last week it is ready to discuss "any approaches and proposals that can lead the region out of its current situation."

In a recent interview, Hamas lawmaker Yehiye Moussa said the group is "not demanding to destroy Israel." West Bank legislator Mahmoud Ramahi added that Hamas is ready to talk to the West — stressing the group has nothing in common with the virulently anti-Western al-Qaida.

Quite a reversal, when the partner for peace is in Palestine and not Israel. If Hamas can change its tone, surely Netanyahu can. But we don't know the extent of his commitment to peace, and what Obama has extracted from him.

Key Moment For The Future Of The Middle East

The President and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are meeting at this hour about a series of issues pertaining to Israel, Palestine and the Greater Middle East. Conflicting reports have stated that Netanyahu either will or will not support the two-state solution that Western leaders, including President Obama, have backed. We'll know soon enough. But we can follow the actions taken by the Likud government and know where Netanyahu really stands.

Israel has moved ahead with a plan to build a new settlement in the northern West Bank for the first time in 26 years, pursuing a project the United States has already condemned as an obstacle to peace efforts. The move comes on the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, despite Western calls for Israel to halt its settlement activity. [...]

The initiative began three years ago, under the auspices of then-defense minister Amir Peretz, who promised to transform a former army outpost into a permanent settlement for evacuees from the Gaza Strip. The move was then frozen due to American insistence.

You can do the math for yourself and realize that this was a plan George Bush's Administration protested. Now Netanyahu has clearly planned to revive it. The timing here is obvious.

Juan Cole talked about today's meeting as akin to a Kennedy-Khrushchev summit, with just as many repercussions. Obama and Netanyahu have serious differences and different political needs. We won't know the answer to this today. But if Obama can insist on his vision of Middle East policies (and he has the bargaining power, in the form of billions in foreign aid, to do just that), we actually have a chance to salvage the intractable challenges there and even progress toward peace. If Obama accommodates, we'll see more suffering and more war. It's as simple as that.

Game Of Chicken In The Middle East

At the AIPAC conference, both the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Vice President called for a settlement freeze in the West Bank as a step toward peace in the region. Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have responded by saying "Um, no."

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is beginning to implement, on the ground, what he talked about in the course of the election campaign. A high-ranking source close to Netanyahu said that the prime minister planned to unfreeze land for construction in the existing settlements for the purpose of natural growth.

He also said that as for the clash that could arise on this subject between him and US President Barack Obama, Netanyahu will tell the president that he does not intend to break promises made by the previous government and does not intend to build new settlements. "We are going to open the tap so that people can live," he said, only one day after the UN issued a report saying that there were contingency plans in Israel for building 30,000 housing units in the Etzion Bloc.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman yesterday expressed a similar position during his visit to Berlin. He said that it was premature to talk about an arrangement with the Palestinians that is based on "two states for two peoples."

Netanyahu's making a distinction without a difference. Settlement construction is settlement construction, and it deeply damages the peace process. Of course, the right-wing government in Israel wants no part of peace, so that follows logically.

Obama does, however, and this sets up an interesting showdown between the two leaders. Obama would be expected to hold the cards, but peace requires a partner. MJ Rosenberg has an interesting take:

The new president is committed to the two-state solution and intends to insist that the Israeli government not take actions that thwart that goal. That means moving against ever-expanding settlements (which the Israeli press today reports are about to be expanded even more by Netanyahu), easing the flow of goods in and out of Gaza, and removing checkpoints and other obstacles to Palestinian freedom of movement. The administration is also moving away from Israel's ironclad opposition to dealing with Hamas [...]

So is a clash inevitable?

In my opinion, no. That is because I believe that no Israeli government can successfully oppose a popular American president who sets out to pursue Arab-Israeli peace [...]

And not only because it is the United States that is the super power. It is also because President Obama will not be asking Israel to sacrifice any vital interest. On the contrary, in leading an effort to achieve peace, Obama will be advancing Israel's security, along with our own.

That is also why American Jews will rally behind him. It is not because they are indifferent to Israel's security but because they understand that maintaining the occupation undermines Israel's long-term survival.

Most people I know understand this, that from the basis of demographic reality, a two state solution is the only way to have a functioning Jewish Israeli state without apartheid, although on the extremes there are a few holdouts (with increasingly ugly views). But given this argument, and I urge you to read the whole thing, the issue of whether Obama will get a peace deal rests with Obama.

He is scheduled to meet with Netanyahu later this month. What will he decide?

...A key component of all of this is what to do about the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Though everyone knows that Israel has nukes, they are not signatories, and this makes it very hard in the Muslim world for the United States to demand Iran's cooperation on their nuclear programs. Over time, I find it crucial to bring Israel and all the other states with weapons into the framework of the NPT, but obviously this will only bring more resistance from the Israeli government. In a typical Solomonic compromise, I could see Obama bargaining this away in exchange for progress on a two state solution.

World Report

Happy that I appear to have dodged the Blogger problems going around the Internets today, why don't I throw down with a world report?

• Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe's wickedness is finally starting to catch up with him. He is in serious trouble because of both a crippling cholera epidemic and a threatened revolt of the internal security forces. Mugabe has run the country into the ground, and sooner or later the runaway inflation and searing poverty was going to impact how Zimbabweans viewed their country. You can only push people so far, even ones who are frightened.

In a clear sign that President Mugabe's hold on his state security machinery is starting to crumble, his once-loyal soldiers ran amok across the capital on Monday after they failed to access their paltry wages in the cash-strapped banks. The unarmed soldiers fought with heavily-armed police and several were arrested.

It was the third outbreak of such violence since last Thursday. The sight of rampaging soldiers was then unprecedented. Army sources said an inquiry had already begun, with dozens facing courts martial. Unconfirmed reports say three of the 12 soldiers who took part in Thursday's riot have been killed.

This is a time when Morgan Tsvangirai should live up to the name of his political party and lead a movement for democratic change.

• Thailand: Everyone was wondering what the Thai king would say in reaction to mass protests and the removal of the country's leading political party by the judiciary. Turns out he called in sick. And the caretaker government has cancelled a Parliamentary session to select a new Prime Minister. That would be what you'd call "paralysis."

• Israel: This is a hopeful sign that Israelis are finally starting to deal with the irrational right-wing element in their midst:

Israeli soldiers and police stormed a disputed building in the biblical city of Hebron on Thursday, dragging out 250 young settlers in a raid meant to send a warning to Jewish extremists fighting to keep what they see as God-promised land.

But activists responded with a wave of attacks on Israeli forces and Palestinians in the West Bank, even as Israeli politicians and some settler leaders denounced them.

The attacks are troubling, but the united front from the government and law enforcement is great. Sooner or later, Israel is going to have to give Palestinians their own state to live without fear in exchange for peace. It's the only solution, and ridding these extremists is a big step forward.

• Iraq: The Iraqi Presidency Council has now approved the security pact calling for withdrawal within three years, which means that there's nobody else in the Iraqi government that needs to approve it. Conservatives can scream all they want that this means they "won the war," which in the face of continued bombings and deaths is laughable (400 civilians still die every month in Iraq, at a minimum), but the need to reconcile and work together toward stability without the crutch of a US presence is going to have to be the long-term goal now. At this point, we owe it to the Iraqi people to leave.

• Canada: Everybody get to know the word "prorogue." That's what Stephen Harper did today in a desperate attempt to save his Prime Ministerial position.

Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean has granted a request from Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament until late next month, a move that avoids a confidence vote set for Monday that could have toppled his minority government.

"Following my advice, the Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament," Harper said outside Rideau Hall after a 2½-hour meeting with Jean.

Harper would not reveal the content of the discussion, citing constitutional traditions, but he said the first order of business when Parliament resumes on Jan. 26 will be the presentation of the federal budget, to be delivered the following day.

"The economy is the priority now, and the public is very frustrated with the situation in Parliament. We're all responsible for that," Harper said in French.

Monday's no-confidence vote could have precipitated the rise of a proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Québécois, or could have resulted in another election, depending on the Governor General's response.

So there's no government in Canada until January, buying Harper time to wage a PR campaign to keep his job. There isn't much of a precedent for this since the 1600s. Jeffrey Feldman has a pretty good explainer. The upside for the center-left coalition is that Harper's spending cuts, anti-union measures and elimination of public financing will be shelved along with the government.