Crisis in US-Israeli relations: Barack Obama must not back down

[Scurrilous]

Mr Netanyahu's coalition went too far even for a pliant US president. And Mr Obama is not that

<snip>

"He blinked once and he can not afford to blink again. The most serious crisis in US-Israeli relations in 35 years was not of President Obama's making. He had already climbed down a fair way from his original demand for a total halt on settlement construction. And leading administration officials had already talked up a counter-offer from Binyamin Netanyahu that would impose a 10-month moratorium but would allow the construction of nearly 3,000 housing units (which is the number that would have been completed in that period). The folly of backing down on the first US demand is only illustrated by what happened next: the Israeli government approved another 1,600 homes on occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem during the visit in which vice-president Joe Biden announced the resumption of indirect talks with the Palestinians.

Mr Netanyahu's coalition went too far even for a pliant US president. And Mr Obama is not that. Giving public vent to his anger, he let it be known that he now demands they reverse the approval for the construction of Ramat Shlomo, make "a substantial gesture" towards the Palestinians and declare that the status of Jerusalem is itself up for negotiation. To make fresh demands and back down again would spell the end of the talks and, possibly, the two-state solution itself. Meanwhile, the streets of East Jerusalem are far from quiet, with confrontations between rioters and police. The focus yesterday was restoration work on a synagogue destroyed by Jordan in the 1948 war. But the spark could come anywhere and the prospect of a popular uprising, a third intifada, is not as fanciful as it seemed only a month ago. The stakes could not be higher.

Nor should we be distracted by the flurry of words that Israeli politicians throw up like chaff whenever they come under attack. For instance, Mr Netanyahu's protestations, sincere or otherwise, that he was unaware of the announcement; that it was the work of a lone interior minister, who himself is vying for dominance within his party, Shas, to deliver Jewish housing. It is a perennial mistake to judge Israel solely as it presents itself – a liberal democracy, and a constantly shifting mass of political alliances. On the core issues of occupation and settlement, it also has unfinished territorial claims. On Jerusalem, it displays a remarkable coherency of purpose: to thwart, as the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem puts it, any attempt to challenge its sovereignty over the city. Hence the house demolitions - 1,655 Palestinians made homeless from 449 demolitions between 2004 and 2009. Last year alone 4,577 Palestinians in Jerusalem were stripped of their residency rights – more than any year between 1967 and 2007. Then there is land expropriation; the reform of the Israel Lands Administration, which means that confiscated land can be sold; the spreading tentacles of "greater Jerusalem" which now stretch to the heart of Bethlehem and Ramallah; the settlements which cut Arab East Jerusalem off from the West Bank. Are we to see all these as random acts of different administrations, or do they reveal a nationalist, rather than democratic endeavour to change the demographic balance of Jerusalem?

srael – not just its prime minister - should now be faced with a simple choice: either continue chewing off lumps of Palestinian land, and imperil the recognition of the very borders it is trying to create; or to stop, and say enough already. This requires a collective decision and likely another election. In other conflicts, construction follows war; here construction is the conflict. Without so much as hinting at the spare parts the US provides for Israel's air force, or the $2.4bn given annually in foreign aid, Mr Obama has the power to ram the point home. And if it means Mr Netanyahu's coalition falls apart, so be it. Only when the whole of Israel gets the message will real negotiations start."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/17/crisis-us-israeli-relations-barack-obama


J Street launches campaign in support of tough U.S. stand on Israel

<snip>

"J Street has launched a campaign in support of Washington's firm stance on Israel's latest approved building plan in East Jerusalem, the dovish U.S. pro-Israel lobby announced on Tuesday.

Israel's announcement of plans to build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem strained ties with the U.S., which has said it regarded last week's decision - made public while U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel - as an insult.

Recent U.S.-Israel tensions were used by "hawkish pro-Israel activists," according to the announcement posted on J Street's website, "to attack the Obama Administration over Israel, urging the Administration to slow down and back off."

In response to this, the left-leaning lobby said, "the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement is stepping up strong."

"Earlier this week, J Street leadership delivered over 18,000 signatures to White House officials demonstrating that large numbers of pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans agree with the Vice President when he says 'sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth,' and urging the Administration to turn this crisis into an opportunity for progress on two states," the group's announcement said.

The statement added that "the Obama Administration can turn this crisis into an opportunity to tackle a core issue at the heart of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - the need to establish a border between Israel and the future Palestinian state."

"Too much time has already been lost in getting the two sides into negotiations," J Street said, adding: "We cannot let any single provocative Israeli announcement of construction in East Jerusalem, no matter how infuriating, delay progress towards a two-state solution. Bold American leadership is needed now to turn this crisis into a real opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

more