Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Real Reason Obama Will Never Hit It Off With Netanyahu

From the National Review feature: Krauthammer's Take:
On Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week:
We have already had a year delay in talks because of Obama interjecting the settlement issue in the first place.

Remember, for 17 years the Palestinians and Israelis negotiated, ever since Oslo, directly in the absence of a freeze in settlements. Palestinians never demanded it as a precondition.

In comes Obama, and he demands a freeze of settlements.
The Israelis say, why should we make preemptive concessions in advance? Palestinians haven't made any. And the Palestinians answer and say, "Well, if the Americans are demanding a settlement freeze, we are going to demand it as well. And in fact, we won't even speak with the Israelis until there is a settlement freeze."

This is absurd. That's why we have had a year of the Palestinians essentially in a boycott of these negotiations.

So, then, Netanyahu works out a fig leaf, a compromise in which he agrees to a ten-month moratorium outside of Jerusalem for a freeze. And then all of a sudden Obama re-imposes a new condition now of a freeze in Jerusalem, which no Israeli government will ever accept.

Jerusalem is the Israeli capital. Everybody understands that in a [final peace] settlement, these neighborhoods of east Jerusalem -- the ones that we are speaking about and where the construction is occurring, as well as the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem -- are going to be in the Jewish state under any understanding or settlement.

For example, in the Clinton parameters of the negotiations a decade ago [at Camp David], they would be incorporated into Israel.

So, no Israeli is going to accept a preemptive concession that Jews can't live in this area of east Jerusalem. So unless Obama changes position, talks again are at a standstill because of a blunder on the part of this administration.

Everybody wants negotiations. This inadvertently undermines them.
On how Israel was treated by President Obama during the Netanyahu visit:
There's a striking oddity here. This is a president who bows deeply to the king of Saudi Arabia, who's in a photo-op with the dictator of Venezuela, and will not allow the press in when he has a meeting with the prime minister of the only democracy in the Middle East and the strongest American ally in the Middle East.

It is odd, indeed.
On that latter point--on Obama's inability to get along with Netanyahu--Legal Insurrection nails it:
If Only Netanyahu Were An Unsavory Third World Dictator 
Jackson Diehl in The Washington Post:
Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator,needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length.
Wrong. Unsavory Third World dictators are not treated this poorly by Obama:

Technorati Tag: and .

8 comments:

Dave said...

Interesting post.

The thing with Diehl? He never had much of a pro-Israel slant in his reporting over the years, so this column comes as a surprise for me.

But my biggest concern about Diehl's column? The utter toxic dump of talkbackers festering below (and in many, many other nominally "normative" political comment sites).

I tell myself over and over, "Well, this stuff always draws the loonies," but these days, the shrill 'f**k the Jews, Israel & supporters,' meme is really gone mainstream, and I am worried. In fact, it's also the first time I have ever written publicly (as I just posted on FB about this issue): "US Jews: keep a bag packed."

Esmail said...

I think this is a pretty one-sided conversation. I don't agree at all that Israel is the victim here. The Palestinian lead by Abbas have wanted to see a freeze to a settlements, this was NOT an arbitrary demand of the US. Israel has no intention to freeze them in light of how these were announced, one when Biden was visiting and when Netanyahu was visiting. Two black eyes delivered on separate occasions. And the US has been a staunch supporter for Israel for many years. Blocking all sorts of votes in the UN against Israel and providing military and financial aid. I think we Americans deserve a better friend in the region, not a one sided relationship. If Israel wants to be a member of the global community it most understand that it too needs to make concessions and compromises. And there are loonies no matter the venue, but the disagreements that Obama and Net are having not going to send Jews packing. Sheesh! This is sort of the drama queen comments loonies make.

Daled Amos said...

The Palestinian lead by Abbas have wanted to see a freeze to a settlements

2 separate issues here--

Do the Palestinian Arabs want a freeze? Yes.

Has the issue of a freeze ever been an issue that peace talks have been contingent on? No

That is what makes Obama's demands new--and have prevented Abbas from coming back to the table: if the US can make this new demand, why not him too?

Also, the issue of settlements in general and Jerusalem in particular are again 2 separate issues.

As far as being an ally, among other things Israel pulled thousands out of Gaza--which has never been under Palestinian Arab rule, and it immediately turned into a launching pad for thousands of rockets since.

They released thousands of Palestinian terrorists as a good will gesture--many with blood on their hands, and many of them returned to terrorism.

Israel also destroyed the Iraqi reactor, which if they had not done so would have changed the whole picture for getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Israel has also helped the US in terms of technology and other issues of strategic importance in the region.

The problem is that the facts are not known--least of all by those with power and access to the media.

Hillary says that Hamas controls Ramallah--actually it is controlled by the Fatah. Gaffe? Or cover up for the alleged peace partners who continue to honor terrorists--including those who killed Americans.

About Arlen Spector

The newly Democratic Arlen Specter tried his best in a floor speech. He got off to a very poor start, misrepresenting that “there are 1,600 new settlements in East Jerusalem in violation of Israeli commitments.” To the contrary, the apartment complex is not a “settlement,” nor is this part of an Israeli commitment. The Israeli government never pledged to forgo building in its eternal and undivided capital.

Obama on 2 occasions claims that Israel is just a home for Jews who fled the Holocaust--effectively ignoring 3,000 years of Jewish history.

There is plenty to argue about and discuss, but the fact is that between the media and the US government there is precious little accurate information going around.

NormanF said...

Israel is not going to give in on Jerusalem. That means forget about proximity talks getting restarted in the future. And without goodwill concessions from the Palestinians in exchange, nothing is going to establish trust between the two sides. There cannot be situation where Israel gives and gives and the other side pockets the gains without giving anything back.

This Administration, through inexperience, arrogance and ineptness has all but ensured there will be no negotiations this year and probably for the remainder of its term in office.

APRPEH APRPEH said...

this all goes back to Obama's vision of Israel's existence. Israel is the only country in the world which must justify her existence. In Obama's liberal mind, Israel is merely the refuge of the survivors of the Shoah. he doesn't seem to acknowledge any inherent Jewish rights to the land though. Thus, any attempt by Israel to exercise authority on any "disputed" territory, in Obama's mind is merely tactical posturing.

Anonymous said...

Obama doesn't like Natanyahu and is not friendly to Jews who don't pray at the troth of socialism. Has he ever had a Jewish friend that was pro Israel, he certainly has had many friends who are Israel haters.
What he has done to Israel could only make sense to those who supported the Wansee agreement. Pressuring the good guys is not what America is about, but obama doesn't have a clue what America is about.

Anonymous said...

Has the issue of a freeze ever been an issue that peace talks have been contingent on? No

Why? Simple. The US leans on Abbas to make concessions. And if you are a Palestinian Leader you don't support a ban on releasing the GoldStone report, which he did. He has no credibility.

I know the US did ask and demanded that Israel stop settlements during Senior Bush's reign. Why? Ask yourself that same question now. However, Israel did continue and continued.

My dissenting view is not hatred towards Israel its that I don't think that the US's interest is completely aligned with Israel. Settlements is in our eyes obstacles since we are now more then ever embedded in the region. Frankly, our troops lives are more important...then Israel. I would not hold contempt for Israel to think the same for its troops.

Daled Amos said...

The US leans on Abbas to make concessions. And if you are a Palestinian Leader you don't support a ban on releasing the GoldStone report, which he did. He has no credibility.

Not sure what your point is.
In terms of Israel-Palestinian negotiations, Abbas has made no concessions.

Israel has--from releasing terrorists, including those with blood on their hands, to leaving Gaza.

Those concessions earned Israel nothing but the death of more Israelis.

As far as Abbas and the Goldstone Report--that is not something Israel demanded, especially since Abbas carries no weight and no one--except maybe Obama--could think any good would come from that.

That the US has asked from a cessation of settlements before is a fact--no debate.

The fact is that there are also arguments that settlements are legal according to international law. So what is your point?

Frankly, our troops lives are more important...then Israel.

Obviously--but it is Arab/Muslim violence that is putting US troops in danger, not Israel.