Netanyahu, Liberman deepening Israel's isolation

[Israeli]

SUMMARY

The Israeli government has to understand that its barbs at European and American allies critical of settlement construction are ineffective, because settlement expansion will continue to isolate Israel internationally.

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers order the advancement of new construction plans across the Green Line, the question that immediately comes to mind is whether Israel’s leaders understand that their policy is contributing to the country's isolation from the West, which sees the settlements in the occupied territories as a red flag. One wonders what actually went through Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman's mind when he arrogantly reprimanded the Swedish government for daring to recognize a Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967, borders, and on Oct. 3 said, “Sweden must understand that relations in the Middle East are much more complicated than self-assembly furniture at Ikea.”

There are two possible answers to these questions. One, the provocative construction and verbal bravado are designed to cover up the gaping holes that have opened in the government’s flagship enterprise — stopping the Iranian nuclear program while removing the conflict with the Palestinians from the international agenda. The second possible answer is that Israeli officials believe the settlements only serve as an excuse for anti-Semitic leaders or parties with vested interests in the Arab world to attack the Jewish state. That means Israel’s actions or misdeeds do not and will not influence hostile attitudes by the US administration or the Swedish government.

Sweden is not the first European Union member state to get a tongue-lashing from Liberman. Three years ago, in response to a joint statement issued by the United Kingdom, France and Germany condemning construction in the settlements and acts of Jewish terrorism dubbed “price tag” attacks, Liberman declared that the three leading European states were bound to lose their credibility and relevance. Then-opposition chair Tzipi Livni said in response, “Without the world’s legitimization, Israel will be unable to act against terrorism.” She also said, “Today, there is no trust in the prime minister. … The way our friends in the world perceive Israel could also eventually be damaged.”

Continued at http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/israel-netanyahu-liberman-settlement-construction-isolation.html

[Jefferson23]

1. Israel's ties with Jordan put to test in face of Jerusalem crisis

The sword is dangling not just over the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, but over the interlocking relationship between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians.

By Zvi Bar'el | Nov. 6, 2014 |

Twenty years after the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, the warmest, most stable agreement Israel has ever reached with an Arab country is facing one of its most daunting tests.

Jordan’s recall of its ambassador for “consultations” on Wednesday as an act of protest is liable to be only the first crack in the vital relations between the two states. The hints dropped by the Jordanian information minister about reviewing the clauses of the agreement, a possible prelude to a freeze in relations, ought to raise great concern because the sword is dangling not just over this agreement, but over the interlocking relationship between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians. Any deterioration in relations with Jordan could have an impact on the ties between Israel and Egypt.

Both countries have an interest in maintaining good relations. There is close security cooperation between Jordan and Israel and trade between the two countries also enables trade with other Arab countries. It is also the diplomatic and economic path that allows the Palestinians to export and import goods, offering some relief for the Palestinians’ economic hardship and extra quiet and security for Israel.

Although Jordan in 1988 declared it was disengaging from the West Bank, the crisis in relations brought about by the struggles over the Temple Mount in particular and East Jerusalem in general show the degree to which this disengagement was merely theoretical, and how events in the territories can have an immediate, dangerous impact on bilateral relations.

Jordan’s ambassador was not recalled on a whim. The move was coordinated with the United States, in talks held in Paris between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, and follows a long list of what Jordan says are Israeli efforts to Judaize all of Jerusalem and seize control of the holy sites on the Temple Mount. The formal explanation for Jordan’s move is derived from Israel’s obligation to consider Jordan’s preferred status with regard to the holy places, and coordinate any steps taken there with Amman.

The entrance of Israeli security forces on the Temple Mount, the frequent approval of new plans to build in East Jerusalem, Construction and Housing Minister Uri Ariel’s announced plan to move to Silwan, and the closing of the Temple Mount to worshippers twice in the past few days provoked public outrage in Jordan and sharp protests in the Jordanian parliament. Jordan, which feels threatened by the advance of the Islamic State, which is also resonating among Jordanian Islamist groups, is trying to walk between the lines of fire – between the increasingly strong Islamic groups and its national interest to maintain good relations with Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.624939

[Jefferson23]

2. WATCH / Barak Ravid: Netanyahu now has big cannons in Congress to 'bomb' the White House

* Talk about a game of chicken, more to come, especially if Netanyahu or any Likud gets re-elected and
Obama is not likely to allow AIPAC to screw up his Iran negotiations, either.


Following the midterm elections, Jerusalem is concerned the U.S. may not veto Palestinian statehood resolution in the UN, says Haaretz diplomatic correspondent.


By Aimee Amiga | Nov. 6, 2014 | 3:13 PM |

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strategy, following the Republican gains in the midterm congressional elections this week, is likely to be an attempt to "rally Congress against the White House" in order to prevent actions that are inimical to Israel's interests, according to Haaretz Diplomatic Correspondent Barak Ravid.

Jerusalem is concerned that the Obama administration will refrain from vetoing the pending Palestinian statehood resolution in the United Nations Security Council, Ravid told Haaretz's Aimee Amiga.

"They don't say 'we won't veto,'" Ravid explained. "They say 'we'll read the text and then we'll decide.' That is a signal that is received loud and clear in Jerusalem."

Ravid believes that Netanyahu will first try to get Congress to pass more sanctions legislation against Iran, in order to "scuttle a deal" with that country. Following that, his goal will be to use Congress to prevent any unilateral Palestinian moves in the UN.

Netanyahu "now has quite a lot of big cannons in Congress in order to bomb the White House," Ravid said.

Watch the full interview below.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/video/.premium-1.625016

[bemildred]

3. Netanyahu Is a National Security Risk—And Washington Knows It

Last month, an anonymous U.S. official stirred a tempest in a teapot when he called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a chickenshit” in comments to the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. The insinuation was that while Netanyahu will happily rile up his right-wing base on issues related to Palestine or Iran, he lacks the political courage to take meaningful steps to resolve either conflict.

State Department officials scurried to disavow themselves of the remark. But the incident revealed an increasingly common conclusion in Washington: Netanyahu’s foot-dragging on Middle East peace is not only frustrating for the United States—it’s dangerous.

Once a taboo subject in Washington, the value of the U.S.-Israeli alliance has increasingly come under scrutiny among even leading members of the foreign policy establishment.

As Anthony Cordesman—a Mideast expert at the center-right Center for Strategic and International Studies—observed, “It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews.”

http://fpif.org/netanyahu-national-security-risk-washington-knows/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=netanyahu-national-security-risk-washington-knows

[Jefferson23]

4. Scholar, criminal appellate attorney, Alan Dershowitz, weighs in:

*Bibi and company seems to be his favorite client



Why is the Obama Administration provoking Israel?

If the senior Obama officials who spoke to Jeffrey Goldberg were not authorized to make statements and took it upon themselves to do so, they should be fired.

A senior Obama administration official recently went on the record with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in calling Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “chickenshit.” A second senior official also went on the record calling Netanyahu a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat.

If these reports are accurate, the following question must be asked: did the Obama administration—indeed perhaps President Obama himself—authorize two senior officials to issue these highly provocative and challenging statements? The White House has now tried to distance itself from the views expressed by these individuals, but it seems unlikely that two senior administration officials would go on the record using such explosive words without White House approval.

The author of the report, Jeffrey Goldberg, tells us that this is the way American and Israeli officials now talk about each other “behind closed doors.” But these statements were not made behind closed doors. They were made to a prominent journalist, with the intention of having them published and read not only by American and Israeli officials, but also by Iranian officials.

That question becomes particularly important in light of another quotation attributed to one of the senior officials:

“It’s too late for him to do anything [regarding a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities]. Two three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Why-is-the-Obama-Administration-provoking-Israel-381038