David Makovsky / Obama and Netanyahu: Lessons of 2009
Netanyahu's declaration of a settlement freeze ends the first chapter of U.S.-Israel relations under Obama.
By David Makovsky Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu Barack Obama Israel news settlement buildingWASHINGTON - The announcement of a moratorium on building in the settlements ends the first chapter of U.S.-Israel relations during the Obama era. There are lessons for all.
The move by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is clearly a bid to improve U.S.-Israel relations as much as it is an effort to restart negotiations with the Palestinians. It may also be a counterbalance toward Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, against a potential prisoner swap with Hamas for Gilad Shalit.
Much of this year has been defined by the friction over settlements, which have cast a shadow. The Obama administration feels it does not always receive credit from Israel regarding close bilateral consultations on a range of issues including the Iranian nuclear threat, the Operation Juniper Cobra military exercise and the Goldstone report.
There were profound implications for the United States in setting the bar high on the settlement issue by calling for a construction freeze rather than merely no outward expansion of settlements. One lesson is that even if the Israeli opposition cannot say "yes" to Barack Obama, the United States has lost mainstream Israelis.
A second lesson is that caution is required in raising expectations. Abbas cannot be less Palestinian than the United States. So if the U.S. demands a freeze, Abbas is boxed in and not likely to agree to less. This pattern will likely repeat itself. With the United States calling for a freeze on Jewish construction in East Jerusalem, Abbas is not likely to accept less - such as no outward expansion of East Jerusalem Jewish neighborhoods.
There are also lessons for Israel. Trust at the top is indispensable. Obama and Netanyahu will both be around for some time. Israelis have bemoaned the lack of trust between the two. Israel believes it was ambushed on the issue of a settlement freeze. On the one hand, Israel is correct in claiming that the Obama administration erred by denying the verbal understanding between the U.S. and Israel in 2003 on defining the geographic expansion of settlements. This undermines the prospect of future verbal understandings with the United States.
On the other hand, trust goes both ways. Israel does not emphasize the fact that it never implemented the West Bank understanding of 2003 that it now declares to be key. Moreover, the Obama administration resented comments by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman after the United States agreed to compromise with Israel over settlements that Washington interpreted as gloating. Obama was surprised by the announcement of new construction in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo since it came just a week after a rare tete-a-tete with Netanyahu. Netanyahu insists that he is transparent but was also surprised by the Israeli bureaucratic move from below. However, the action provided fodder to Netanyahu's critics while undercutting those wishing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Aides of Netanyahu are correct that the United States was not as stringent with Olmert as with this government. While it is partially attributed to the change in the U.S. administration, one cannot rule out the possibility that the lack of U.S. internal debate in the past was due to the certainty of Olmert's direction. Netanyahu hopes his current move on settlements will put to rest the issue of intentions. He feels he has been unfairly singled out by this administration, given his support for a Palestinian state and for the dismantling of most West Bank checkpoints. Some in Washington may quietly say that Netanyahu's concessions are grudging and extended over many months and therefore can be discounted. Netanyahu's rejoinder will be that belated Israeli concessions are better than no concessions from the Arab side.
Indeed, there are lessons for Arabs, too. Despite Obama's speech in Cairo, which raised expectations, the long-standing Arab dream of the United States bending Israel to its will did not materialize.
Therefore, the Arabs need to act to avert radicalization. In their anger at not getting a 100 percent freeze from Israel, they want to give nothing for now. Yes, they will likely restart multilateral talks on issues such as water, but only after Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are underway. As in the past the Arab states believe in never making early moves that could provide political cover for the Palestinians to make progress, preferring instead, at best, to ride on the Palestinians' coattails. The Arab states need to contribute their share to ensure that Netanyahu's gesture is not lost. They need to provide Abbas with political cover and declare their unambiguous support for peace negotiations now between Israel and the Palestinians.
The writer, senior fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute, is co-author with Dennis Ross of the new book "Myths, Illusions and Peace" (Viking/Penguin, 2009).
|
U.S. President Obama with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House in September. |
| Photo by: (Reuters) |
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
M: "I am amazed at the throwing around of the term 'illegal' regarding the rights of Jews to purchase, own, and build on land anywhere on Earth." The illegality involves the "acquisition of territory", not "the ownership of land", and with that in mind we shall now witness a quite stunning sleight-of-hand from Moshe.... M: "Israel was attacked by Jordan in 1967 and in a defensive war, won these territories from King Hussein.".... Note how Moshe used the word "territory". M: "The land on which the settlements are built belonged to the Jordanian government,"... Ooops, where'd "territory" go, and why has it now been replaced with "land"? M: "When Israel captured the territory,".... Viola! The word "territory" has now reappeared! Marvelous, isn't it? Moshe had to do his little "Abracadabra" trick and hope that nobody noticed he switched "land" for "territory" in the middle, because the moment you notice it then the trick becomes blindingly obvious.
vh: "i have told you for years jb that no israeli government has the legal power to interfere in jewish settlement !" And repeating untruths often enough will make then true, heh, Victor. The Israel High Court of Justice has already ruled that the GoI can interfere in any way that it deems fit with regard to ISRAELI settlements, and the only consequence of that interference is that the Govt has to pay monetary compensation to those who are inconvenienced. The court did so when the issue was the ISRAELI settlements in the Sinai Desert. It did so again when the issue was the ISRAELI settlements in the Gaza Strip. So as far as the highest court in Israel is concerned, Victor, you have spent several years blowing smoke out of your nether regions.
Why should the Palestinians agree to sit down and negotiate with the Israelis who had just told them that after 10 mnths 'freeze' the building frenzy in the territories will be resumed with renewed vigor? The whole concept of freeze is asenine. israel must stop all settlement activity until a final agreement is reached. If some of the territories are exchnged israel can resume activity within its own territory. It must not be more complicated than that.
if any body can tel mi if army of egipt jordan and siria vos takink hlf of land of israel the UN or EU demandg from arabs returne the land to israel,
"I am amazed at the throwing around of the term 'illegal' regarding the rights of Jews to purchase, own, and build on land anywhere on Earth." (Moshe) Here is why settlements are all illegal. Jews and non-Jews alike have no right whatsoever "to purchase, own, and build" other than given by the legitimate authority, anywhere on Earth, including the West Bank. As much as it may chagrin you there is still not one single state on this planet that regards the state of Israel as the legitimate authority in any place that was not under Israeli sovereignty prior to June 1967. It may very well be that such state of things is not within your grasp. Then ask any (clear-minded) grown-up.
Obama had no right to throw Judge Goldstone under the bus - from his non-existing view of the Gaza events in the Oval Office - to curry favour with the duplicitous "Bibi". A cowardly gesture which won him zero ! Too bad. David
I am amazed at the throwing around of the term "illegal" regarding the rights of Jews to purchase, own, and build on land anywhere on Earth. Israel was attacked by Jordan in 1967 and in a defensive war, won these territories from King Hussein. The land on which the settlements are built belonged to the Jordanian government, not the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria. When Israel captured the territory, ownership rightfully reverted to the Israeli government. To expect a country that has been attacked to give up what it won defending itself is an affront to morality. If this is illegal in anyone's twisted code, I am proud to be on the moral side of the law.
I don't understand why all Israelis see their prime minister as the equal of the American President on the world sateg
Ms. Kohn - Everyone, including Obama, understand that Gilo will be part of Israel when all is said and done. But the concern is whether Gilo at it's present 40,000 populace is included or whether it is allowed to continue to expand outword to fill it's full municipal boundries and include 100,000 or more people. Currently, Gilo's portion of the Jerusalem borders is 2/3 empty and the empty space goes right up to Bethlehem's built up space. This in effect prevents Bethlehem from expanding to meet it's populations needs on land that has traditionally belonged to the arabs. That is the concern about the 900 Gilo units that will be expanding the actual built up area of Gilo. Another example is Ma'ale Adumim whose municipal boundries are larger than all of Tel Aviv. So the important issue is how much land is Israel going to keep in the close in settlements to provide for future Jewish growth?
"[Gilo,] that the Administration has decided in its infinite wisdom to be a so-called 'settlement'." (CJK) Let us please benefit from your own wisdom, and learn how should the Administration call a neighborhood built in that part of Jerusalem Israel has annexed to its territory, in blatant violation of international law. "the obama administration simply decided unilaterally to impose its own will on israel." (CJK) Exactly what the Israeli leadership has been trying to do for 42 years: To impose its own will on a foreign occupied stateless population, as if we were the last of colonial powers, with the results we all know, of having now to confront an Islamist organization nobody, up to the first Intifada, had ever heard of, which we cannot now live with nor defeat. We who 42 years ago knew how to crush three Arab armies in six days.
The author completely misses the point because he accepts the Israeli position that this is about WB settlements. It is about agitation. The sides cannot talk peace when one or both of them are aggravating the situation. The settlements are the main agitation that exist, including the policy of only allowing new housing for (Jewish) Israelis around Jerusalem. The main lesson is that any attempt by Israel to circumvent this is not going to allow the Palestinians to join negotiations and so will not meet the US's expectations.
No wonder Obama and the EU were surprised and distinctly displeased over Gilo. Netanyahu had just assured them that Israel would freeze settlement building. The next thing, there's 900 new units going up in a settlement. 'it makes no difference that gilo has been part of jerusalem for decades, or that it is in the south, not in what is referred to as "east jerusalem." You are in error there Cipora. Gilo is over the Green Line in Bethlehem Governorate. Whatever Israeli maps show, an occupying army has no legal right to annex or settle territory. So Israel's unilateral redrawing of the city boundary in 1967 to take in Gilo and other places it had its expansionist eye on was plain illegal and is not recognised by ANY nation. Gilo is a settlement, plain and simple. The message from the first year of Obama and Netanyahu is that the former does not appreciate trickery and shallow excuses and the latter is now treated with a double dose of suspicion
Bibi is just tryin to make the time pass with as little trouble as possible during Obama. Obvious. What is temporary freeze to the settlements ? It means this: "I am determined to continue building settlements, I just make a pause now". It means NOTHING from the point of view of peace.
i have told you for years jb that no israeli government has the legal power to interfere in jewish settlement !
therefore the four years of his presidency is a challenge for us.he plainly does not like us.so there is nothing we can do to win him over. our best tactic is delay.we will wait for the next elections to give us a republican president.he is not america.look at his poll ratings.they have collapsed. the true thinking of obama is his pastor with whom he spent 20 years of his life.read what the man said.
i seriously doubt that anyone was surprised. the obama administration simply decided unilaterally to impose its own will on israel. that means that they have decided unilaterally to forbid israel from building anywhere that the administration has decided in its infinite wisdom to be a so-called "settlement." it makes no difference that gilo has been part of jerusalem for decades, or that it is in the south, not in what is referred to as "east jerusalem." this particular administration has a real ideological zeal which is embodied in groups like "peace now" and j-street. both groups are funded by foreigners.
Some things need to be made very clear. The settlements are ALL ILLEGAL. This is clearly stated in binding UNSC resolutions (465 as one example)and the 49th article of the 4th Geneva Convention. Israel also agreed to freeze settlements in the so-called road map. Netanyahu's declaration of a freeze has many holes in it where it is largely useless. Why in the world should Israel be allowed to violate the law and break previous agreements? Lastly, this so-called verbal agreement with the Bush Administration in 2003 is illegal in itself. George Bush has no right to overrule international law and binding UNSC resolutions. This verbal under standing has no legal basis whatsoever and should be discarded.
He should have checked diplomatically with Israel before demaniding from Israel via the media what he could have done with the diplomatic skills he said he would use from the moment he took power. "Obama was surprised by the announcement of new construction in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo" is his own fault.
I think it is true that the Obama administration was more than gentle with Israel in denying the validity of the Oh so valid Goldstone Report and Israel failed to acknowledge the debt it owed to the US for this gifted breach of US integrity. I also think the Obama did exactly right in not honoring what Israel claimed were "oral agreements" about settlement growth--but which Israel couldn't quite prove. Even if they were made (and they likely were, much to US embarrassment), they should have been ignored by the Obama administration. All agreements with Israel have to be in writing and all translations should be agreed to as well. We have seen what the likes of Shamir and Begin have done with Hebrew translations. It ain't good, needless to say.