Trying to outsmart Obama
Even if Washington were to accept Netanyahu's compromise position on settlements, the confrontation will not have been avoided.
By Moshe Arens Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu Israel settlements Barack Obama Israel newsPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors are exerting their best efforts in the search for ways to avoid a confrontation with the president of the United States, who has publicly called for a cessation of construction in West Bank settlements and East Jerusalem. But there should be no doubt about it: The government of Israel and the U.S. president are on a collision course. That became clear when Barack Obama declared in his speech in Cairo that "this must stop," referring to Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.
There are surely ways of postponing the collision, but in the final analysis, it is unavoidable, unless either the Israeli government accepts this diktat from the U.S. president, or Obama and his advisors recognize that Jews have a right to live and settle in Judea and Samaria. No amount of "creative ambiguity" is going to resolve this problem.
So how is Netanyahu going to handle this conundrum? He had experience dealing with president Bill Clinton on the Palestinian issue during his previous term as prime minister, and it is unlikely that he looks back on that experience with nostalgia.
In January 1997, giving in to pressure from the Clinton administration, he signed the Hebron agreement - which called for removing the Israel Defense Forces from most of Hebron and introducing a small international force into the area - with Yasser Arafat. Since then, Hamas has been predominant in Hebron, and the city has remained a powder keg of tension between Jews and Arabs. And it was only years later, after the IDF was reintroduced into the area during the second intifada, that an end came to continuous acts of Palestinian terror.
The year after the Hebron agreement, he agreed to meet Arafat at Wye Plantation under Clinton's auspices. Nothing came of that conference except that the American president was drawn toward Arafat and subsequently visited Gaza, where he declared that the American people supported the Palestinian people's aspirations. So much for impartial arbitration.
So how is it going to be handled this time? From news reports, it seems that Netanyahu intends to keep Obama at bay for a limited period of time while he placates his own supporters with a permit to "complete buildings in Judea and Samaria that have already begun," and then declare a moratorium on further construction there for a period of nine months. On receiving this news in Washington, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, probably told the president the old joke about the Jew who asked for a year's stay of execution from the Polish count by promising him that during that time, he would teach the count's dog to talk.
Is this going to work? Obama has decided to take his position on Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria public, and though many things will surely happen during the next nine months, he is not likely to retract his position during that period. In other words, even if Washington were to accept Netanyahu's compromise position, the confrontation will not have been avoided.
That being the case, Netanyahu must consider whether it is not wiser to face Washington on a matter of principle - the right of Jews to live and settle in the Land of Israel - rather than engage in a war of attrition over a compromise formula. Anybody with experience representing Israel in the United States will tell him that there, you are better off fighting for a principle than trying to justify a compromise deal.
Over the years, Israeli governments have had differences of opinions with various administrations in Washington - though it is true that not since President Eisenhower demanded that the IDF retreat from Sinai and Gaza after the Suez Campaign, 50 years ago, have these differences been taken so public by the U.S. president. We obviously prefer to be in total agreement with our ally across the sea, but we know that is not always possible. We also prefer to handle the differences of opinion between us with discretion.
But in either case, we know that we can ride out the disagreements. Israel's alliance with the United States is based not only on common ideals and values, but also on mutual interests, and even a recognition of mutual benefits, despite the vast asymmetry in size between the two countries. When it comes to our most basic rights - the right of Jews to live in the Land of Israel - the United States will defer to Israel. That is, if we stand up for our rights.
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
I think that hoping that the President will back down on such a clear statement which is supported by the majority of US citizens and the rest of he world is pathetic self delusion. But then your God has promised you Palestine....
You will never get Zionists like Arens to tell you what "the State of Israel" encompasses. Why do you think Israel has never established formal borders or ratified a constitution? Doing these two things would prevent the Zionists from stealing land to enlarge the state. I'm surprised Arens doesn't quote from Genesis 15:18-21: "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."
On the contrary, Cipora, Obama has ALL of the leverage he needs or wants. Israel is a banana republic, really. Now, the question is: Will Obama use that leverage? And that's the 64 dollar question.
The Palestinians have made clear that Jews living in the west bank may stay-- as citizens of a Palestinian state. So what's the problem Mr Arens?
when the US attacked Iraq.
Well, the only gains are for fundamentalist wahabist Islam. US did Not gain a cent! The Israel Palestine conflict has always been beneficial to the radical elements and majorly contributed to wahabist terrorism in the world. Moreover, US have been bearing the consequences of Israel adventure for a long time: Embassy bombings, 9/11, USS Cole to name a few, and hundreds of isolated incidents against Americans. Plus the burden of 2 wars : Iraq and Afganistan. Also, what it lost is the goodwill of more than 1 billion people around the world just to please 6 million Jews! I wonder why we have ?unconditional? support, unless US is run by the people whose interest are skewed more towards Israel rather than the US.
maybe Arens is right. Netanyahu looks like he is having trouble containing a smirk, Mitchell looks like someone who fought hard and lost. Hopefully I'm not interpreting the photo and the situation correctly.
Obama compromised on his health program because of lots of poltical opposition in Congrees and from a large section of the American public...that opposition willnot force him to back down on Israel because that opposition doesn't care about Israel-if anything it wants peace to save money from military aid to Israel and the costs of Arab Oil money anger...Obama will play the majority card: 1.5 billion Muslims vs. 30 million JEws in the world...Who you gonna piss-off? He's playing the odds...
Why should Obama yield on something so inherently wrong? It is not just the USA that views the settlements as a violation of human rights under the Geneva Convention. Much of the developed nations have voice their objections. Netanyahu-Lieberman and their settlement supporters are delusional if they think continued building will change world opinion. Economic pressures such sanctions and boycotts could be the next steps in trying to capture the attention of Israelis that are committed to peace with justice.
Obama made it clear that Iran would not get nukes. If he stands by this pledge, then he is a man of his word, and Israel can trust him enough to give into a temporary freeze. During the freeze, the Pals will maintain their intractable position, and Israel can go back to biz as usual thereafter.
"Peace cannot be imposed on anyone." (Gavriela) Very true. What can (easily) be imposed, is the end of the settlement enterprise, and the end of the occupation of a stateless population. "The Palestinians deserve to live under better conditions than they are subjected to, and be free of the humiliation of occupation, in a state of their own." Then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The Associated Press, Haaretz Oct 12, 2006. www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/773549.html
"Peace cannot be imposed on anyone. Any "peace" that is imposed is no peace." Serbia had peace imposed on it and had Kosovo taken away from it. Now there's no killing in the Balkans. The same will happen with Israel and the West Bank eventially if Israel doesn't get the international community's increasingly unsubtle hints that, after an occupation of over 40 years, it's time to leave.
This has long been a mystery to me - exactly how does the US benefit from its unconditional support of Israel? What are the specific tangible gains that US derives from this support?
You have certainly done a lot of detailed research, sir, and while I am not at all informed about those events--but assuming you are 100% correct--I still have to wonder if the current political and religious cross-currents (both inside and outside of Israel) will not end up being equally as influential on the ultimate outcome of things.
British mandatory gov tried to suspend new settlements construction and worse, suspend all Jewish emigration into the Mandate. Even as the Holocaust raged in WW2 Europe. It did not work. It produced the 1936-38 Arab revolt in Palestine, and open warfare in 1947, after the UN partion resolution. This was before the Arabs adopted the "palestinian" and "Palestine" for themselves only. Today the aims and the goal are the same. Replace one UN established country by another usurper.
When it comes to "rights" in the land of Palestine, Palestinians win hands down: it's their land, and their patrimony. Jewish presence end in Palestine for all practical purposes with Hadrian's response to Bar Kochba. Ancient history has no rights other than those continuously maintained throughout history. On that score, the Palestinians have won the modern debate. And with it, the issue of principle, which Obama is obliged to honour.
Messianic visionaries do not make US foreign policy. Neither the US, EU or any other nation in the world recognises an entity called "Land of Israel" It recognises the illegality of Israel's occupation of the WB and its annexation of East Jerusalem and Golan. That is the international posiition and for Israel to be in continuing violation of that position is a major, if not the main destabilising factor in the ME conflict. That is something Israel needs to come to terms with. It's present position is no longer sustainable. The US must stand firm in respect of international law and long term stability in the ME. This is not merely a difference of opinion.
histor.Inuntil WWI they land wt Israel to Jordan River nd East of Jordan river were populated by 95?98% of Jordan's population are Arabs(60?80% of the population is Syro-Palestinian),the remaining non-Arabs of the population are mainly Circassians, Chechens, Armenians(13th largest Armenian diaspora in the world),Kurds,but have integrated into the Jordanian and Arab cultures.The winners of WWI mainly G.Brittain and France with some input from US and Italy devied the Eastern Europe along historicl borders and slised up ME without due diligens to historical track records.So Jordn rive to Med Sea was designted as Jewish Homeland to follow historical facts.Most Syru-Palestinian Arabs lived and live until now East of Jordan R.Pariss Conf. created Transjordan nowJordan)and brought the Hashemite clan from S.Arabia to rule over Syro-Plasetinians.The famous historian Margaret MacMillan UofT and Oxford stated that in 1919 Paris Peace Conf.Arabs did't ask for Palestinian State.Its Jordan,80% Pals
Peace cannot be imposed on anyone. Any "peace" that is imposed is no peace.
Firstly what 'borders' are you referring too? Israel does 'not' have defined borders ie: the illegal settlements/occupation in the WB/Golan/Shebba/etc. Secondly you seem to forget about when Israel attacked Iraq, or Suez etc so don't pretend that you only 'defend the nation on our borders'. Thirdly, to answer your question: Both Israel and America are guilty of war crimes against people near and far. There is 'who is worse?' in this situation - both countries are just as bad in different ways.
Time and money is running out on this conflict between Palastinians and the Israelis. One person or country does not have to "out-smart" some one else (in this case Obama.) One has to "out smart" the Resources of the entire Federal Government and that will not be done. If Bibi "blows' it by not freezing settlements, look for the first signs of "not blocking" UN resolutions for Israel and then the USA could call back the gaurentees on international loans and Israel's governemnt might have trouble scrambling to finance day-to-day operations. Bottom Line. Freeze settlements..make peace. Japan's Adm Yamamoto said about the Pearl Harbor Attack : "I am afraid we have awaken the sleeping giant." When main street Americans learn about our Israeli policy, changes will come from the sleeping giant.
there are three parties involved here israel,the us and the palestinians not ust two........so the question is not only how to make life easy for nethanyahu but also to give abbas enough to go with justifying in the eyes of his own people the potential concessions he may be asked to make.....settlements may be regarded as a right by the israeli government but it is provocative for the palestinians.......so call it by any other name but in fact suspend construction unless that is one is not interested in the peace conference and looks for an alibi to prevent it
It seem that outsmarting Obama is the wish of everybody,i wonder why?maybe because he is all talk.The Arabs,and Iran.NK,and Chavez.Bibi,and Karazai.Republicans,and Democrats.
"When it comes to our most basic rights - the right of Jews to live in the Land of Israel" Can we expect another article from Arens where he outlines the basic rights of Palestinians? Provided he concedes that they have any, that is.
Mr. Arens, would it not make Mr. Netanyahu's case for the right of Jews to live and settle in the Land of Israel more coherent and convincing if he first (a) stated precisely what geography that land encompasses, and (b) outlined precisely the procedures his government advocates for "living and settling?"
I of course affirm our historic connection to Judea and Samaria but I completely and utterly disagree with Moshe Arens that Jews have a RIGHT to settle in these lands, in the 21st Century. We have NO RIGHT under any modern principle to unilaterally take these lands as part of Israel and I will not support it with my vote, my conscience, my blood, the blood of my children or my neighbors children.
Well at least articles like this let Obama know where he stands. If he wants Middle East peace, he's going to have to impose it. Israel's government isn't going to help him one little bit. Quite a gamble on Bibi's part really. He's effectively gambling that Obama will be an unpopular president tied down with domestic crises who will then lose to a Likud-friendly Republican. If, on the other hand, Obams becomes a strong president and wins a second term, he's not going to forgive Bibi or Israel. Then Israel's screwed.
matty groves your behaviour is far worse then ours.we defend the nation on our borders whereas you travel thousands of miles to kill hapless afghans iraqis somalis yemenites and other assorted ethnics.who is worse matty groves?
towards obama.he appears to us to be a bully who wants to gain for the arabs what they were not able to gain on the battle field. if the president thinks he can ooze charm onto us then he would quickly find that we are immune to his brand of charisma.
conversation and goodwill.obama's brutal force will simply not work.
"When it comes to our most basic rights - the right of Jews to live in the Land of Israel" What is your concept of the basic rights of Palestinians, Mr. Arens? Provided you concede that they have any ...
that depends on which side you support.
i suggest you read lord alanbrook on eisenhower. he repeatedly wrote in his diaries that your hero was militarily inept. as for obama the less said the better.van jones defines him.
Make no mistake where Netanyahu's current stand is taking Israel. You all seem to think that if Bibi stands firm then the Americans will simply say "Well, gosh, I never knew you felt so strongly. Sorry we upset you." No, they won't. If Netanyahu continues on this path then the Americans will eventually take him at his word i.e. that Israel has no intention of creating the conditions where the fate of these settlements can ever be negotiated "in good faith". At that point the Americans will declare that as far as they are concerned ALL the settlements are illegal (not just "illegitimate", but "illegal") under international law. That will be a foreign policy disaster for Israel, but unless Bibi folds on the issue of a construction freeze that declaration *will* come. Bet. On. It.
Basically it was that with the extra time the either the Jew would teach the dog to talk or the count would eventually die and the Jew would be let off this impossible task. Ie: given enough time fortune may smile upon the Jew.
Can Obama get Israel out of in a rut? It must be hard devoting all that manpower and resources (not to mention American Taxpayers money) to keep the Palestinians in check. After all the worst possible scenario for Israel would be if the people of Palestine were to attain statehood. Imagine the culture shock for Israel, no longer able to systematically colonize the Palestinian WB and subjugate a hapless people? Gone will be the halcyon days where illegal settlers can idly cut down or burn Palestinian olive groves. Brutal belligerency can, over the decades, become ingrained; is Israel capable of making such a radical change for its own betterment?
Its "the Westbank" not Judea and Samaria, nor the terriories. It will have to be the Palestinian State eventually. The settlers can live there-as Palestinian citizen with the same rights Israeli Arabs have in Israel proper. I hope Israel sees the light that it cannot hold on to the westbank and be sole "owner" of Jerusalem - it is losing the good will of many.
by the men they appoint to high office.i see a terrible weakness in obama in the czars he has appointed.van jones was a total disaster with the most unbelievable views.yet obama gave him a white house job.check out wikipedia on the sort of stuff van jones believed in. obama is a one termer.we have only to wait for hime to leave office.
Here is an alternative opinion. Worthy of consideration: http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=15789
"When it comes to our most basic rights - the right of Jews to live in the Land of Israel - the United States will defer to Israel." (Moshe Arens) I am flabbergasted to hear an intelligent man believing the above, proposing to gamble the existence of Israel on such fantasy, while utterly disregarding the interests of America, Europe, the ENTIRE WORLD in fact, in appeasing the huge Moslem community.
The right of conquest should be dead. Too many died to end that questionable right. Israel had no right to Suez. Neither does it have a right to take land from Palestinians or their heritage without AGREED upon compensation 1:1 of equal value and resources. Arens shows he has no understanding of either Eisenhower or Obama or of the principles and values that are shared by the two American Presidents.
The right of conquest should be dead. Too many died to end that questionable right. Israel had no right to Suez. Neither does it have a right to take land from Palestinians or their heritage without AGREED upon compensation 1:1 of equal value and resources. Arens shows he has no understanding of either Eisenhower or Obama or of the principles and values that are shared by the two American Presidents.
Eisenhower, again following consistently bad advice of the Dulles brothers in 1956, allowed Nasser and USSR to snatch victory from the jaws of Suez defeat after Moscow's "missile" bluff, set the stage for Russia's Czechoslovakia rampage, Soviet arming of the Mideast for 50 years and the '67 and '73 wars. World would have been a better place with Nasser and Russia utterly humiliated in 1956 (except that Old Jerusalem and "W. Bank" would still be Jordanian today!). The lesson here is to resist Obama's buffoonish foreign policy and pursue both principle (NO to ethnic cleansing of Jews and their collective punishment by his "freeze") AND vital Israeli interests even clashing with minor US interests 10,000 miles from its shores (colonialism today just as it was in 1956); it wasn't even smart colonialism. US has Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers to thank for a Cold War that didn't have to happen, had they been smarter poker players with bigger balls. Russia had no working ICBMs until 1963.
Mr Arens article highlights the continuing impasse between the Jewish and Palestian peoples. I cannot be the only one who discerns a terrible irony in this situation, an abuse of power to manipulate both peoples and land to achieve a 'rightful solution'-last time around it was the Jews who were on the receiving end. The really sad aspect of this situation is that one day, probably not too far away, negotiators will have to sit around a table and negotiate, not dictate, a solution - sure, you have the right to survival but, that applies to the other side as well.
The uprooting of people should stop; and that includes the Jewish settlers. They should definitely have the right to live wherever they want in the region. They should then pay their property taxes to the relevant governmental authority, in this case the Palestinian government after the boundaries are fixed. The Palestinians could engage in a long-term contract with Israel to provide security for these areas.
the netanyahu government has been pushed into a corner with the demand of a building freeze. furthermore, the lack of any progress on iran will israel with no incentive to fold before obama's dictat. obama has little levarage over israel despite the far left's delusions to the contrary.
Anyone who follows the news from the States knows how Obama has been compromising on his plans for his National Health system. And, in spite of the call for "single payer", he may likely find a way to satisfy the opponents of the plan. Obama thinks if Clinton could persuade the Serbs to cave in on Kossovo, he can get the Israelis to give Judea and Samaria over to the Palestinian Arabs. For the record, most Serbs still oppose the arrangement, refusing to accept that "two-state" solution. It's not working either, and neither is Cyprus. It didn't bring peace to Kossovo, or Nicosia, why does Obama imagine it will bring peace in Jerusalem?
The only right a Jew, like any other person, has to choose where to live, is the right the government of the (democratic) country he is citizen of, has given him. As from 41 years ago, Israeli governments have foolishly granted the right for some Israeli citizens, provided they are of the 'right' faith, to settle amidst an occupied stateless and hostile population. THAT right, a democratically elected Israeli government has all legitimacy to revoke - the more so when the entire world, including our only ally, says that this right is inconsistent with international law. It is high time for you, Mr. Arens and your like-minded radical friends, to put that in your heads: No one has any more rights than any other person just because he is a Jew.
What is the joke he's referring to?
The good professor still remains a politician and an ideologue with little vision. It is absurd to think that Bill Clinton, who was one of the most pro-Israel Presidents in History, was impartial in the dispute because he supported Palestinan aspirations. This is nonsense! Would his opposition to Palestinian aspirations have made him impartial? With all respect for Moshe Arens's dedication to the state and the Jewish people, his worldview is one of an old paradigm which will bring the region nothing but continued turmoil. Regrettably there are still many of this nature on both sides.