Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
22 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Oh. My. God.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration is examining taking action against the construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, rather than making do with issuing denunciatory statements.
Senior Israeli officials said that White House officials held a classified discussion a few weeks ago about the possibility of taking active measures against the settlements.
A few senior American officials approached by Haaretz did not deny this, but refused to disclose more details. National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan refused to comment.
A discussion on such a sensitive and politically-loaded issue in the White House is extremely irregular and shows to what extent relations between the Obama administration and Netanyahu government have deteriorated. In recent years European states have imposed increasing sanctions against the construction in the settlements, while the United States has made do with denunciations.
more...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.629876
Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 02:00 PM - Edit history (2)
This is a much better article and it does lay out the WH dilemma well. It may also explain the strange Netanyahu Face the Nation comment that the US was being "anti American" in its calls to end the settlement building.
From the end of the Haartez article , there are 2 paragraphs that speak of the tricky impacts on American and Israeli politics are fascinating.
The White House has not yet decided on steps against the settlements and when, if at all, to carry them out. Significant steps against the settlements may exact a heavy political price from Obama, while symbolic steps would be meaningless and have no effect.
In addition, it isn't yet clear how the decision to hold early elections will affect the White House's decisions regarding the settlements. One of the aspects of this that is being looked into by the U.S. government is whether American action against the settlements at this point would weaken Netanyahu in Israeli public opinion, or do just the opposite, by portraying him as one who doesn’t cave in to international pressure.
What is interesting is that, in fact, Obama has the luxury of not having an election in front of him. Both Obama and Kerry have every right to consider that Netanyahu has never been an honest partner in any negotiations. Add to the fact that he deliberately mischaracterized Obama's and Kerry's positions when they were trying to stop the killing of Palestinians, there is reason to think that they really have been exasperated by Netanyahu forgetting the US is the powerful important ally to Israel - not the other way around.
The second quoted paragraph really does suggest that we might be better not acting before the election. It could cause some to rally around Netanyahu. Though, on the other side, they are seeing Europe, which they have more trade with, talking boycott. It is interesting that they ignored that people like Blair had said that Europe had refrained from doing that when the peace talks started to give them a chance to work - partly at Kerry's request. I wonder if just having articles like this - with no action - might be something that makes them see where this is going - without giving Netanyahu something to make people rally around him.
There is another article that explains Israel's election process, the impact (if any) of GHWB fighting with the Likud Shamir, and argues that the US is better doing nothing - as Netanyahu will use it.
This would be true of any U.S. administration, but is doubly valid in the case of Barack Obama. Rightly or wrongly – the latter in my opinion – most Israelis don’t trust Barack Obama and don’t appreciate the wide-ranging military and diplomatic assistance that his administration has provided Israel during his six years in office. The fact that Netanyahu is personally responsible for creating the public’s distrust of Obama does not detract from the dividends he could reap if Washington is perceived as ganging up him now or cuddling his replacements instead.
As the recent poll published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies proves, despite their lack of enthusiasm for Obama, Israelis hold relations with the United States in high regard. When the wavering voters who are going to decide these elections will weigh the alternatives, they might bear in mind that Netanyahu is more than likely to clash with Obama for another two years at least. This consideration could influence them, provided the administration does not go out of its way to prove the point. Then, the gut Israeli instinct of “no one will tell us what to do” will set in, and the short-term reaction will be to go the opposite way, in Netanyahu’s direction.
So the best advice for the administration in the 100 or so days left before the elections is: Hands off, do nothing. Don’t rock the boat. If Israel tries to provoke you by announcing new building in settlements, for example, don’t play dead, of course, but don’t go overboard either. This is not the time to consider sanctions or any other punitive steps, unless, of course, you’re rooting for Bibi.
The same is true of the American vote at the Security Council on the Palestinian proposal to establish a “date certain” for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. The best option would be if Washington could persuade the Palestinians to postpone, but failing that Washington should veto the proposal even if it had previously planned otherwise. An abstention in the weeks before Israelis go to the polls would allow Netanyahu to whip up enough public hysteria over perfidious Obama that could potentially prove decisive. He will already be milking the administration’s efforts to dissuade the newly-Republican Senate from imposing new sanctions on Iran for all their worth; a Security Council decision in favor of the Palestinians would be the frothing, an added bonus for Bibi.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.630240
Up to the last paragraph, I get what he is saying. In the last paragraph, I seriously disagree. The fact that he is already using AIPAC and the Senate to try to derail US policy on Iran (and really the ME as a whole), there has to be a point where we say "no". I wonder if rather than postponing, we try to get the Palestinians to write something that is as moderate as it can be and still call for a Palestinian state -- and have the US point out that it is in agreement with Israel's PUBLIC position - a two state solution and either vote for it (preferably) or abstain.
I don't know what this writer's positions are - and Haaretz has a wonderful range of journalists writing for it. I do think that, in general, as happens in many countries, they over rate Israel's position in the world - and especially vis a vis the US. (ie I don't recall many cautionary articles that perhaps their President should NOT have been so obviously on Romney's side.) One writer recently even argued that Obama measures himself against Netanyahu - (implicitly the view was that he did not measure up.)
From the Onion, I presume? 
