The Jerusalem Compromise

Started by Moscow1 pages

The Jerusalem Compromise

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook03252010.html

The Jerusalem "Compromise"

By JONATHAN COOK

Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in the United States this week armed with a mandate from the Israeli parliament. A large majority of legislators from all of Israel’s main parties had supported a petition urging him to stand firm on the building of Jewish settlements in occupied East Jerusalem -- the very issue that got him into hot water days earlier with the White House.

Given the Israeli consensus on Jerusalem, there was no way Mr Netanyahu could have avoided rubbing that wound again in his speech on Monday to the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobby group.

He told the thousands of delegates: “The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.”

Citing his own policy as inseparable from all previous Israeli governments, he added: “Everyone knows that these neighbourhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement. Therefore, building them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution.”

Mr Netanyahu’s speech appeared consistent with the new approach agreed byboth sides to end this particular debacle. According to the US media, a policy of “Don’t ask and don’t tell” has been adopted to avoid making East Jerusalem an insurmountable obstacle to negotiations.

It will be telling how the US administration responds to the latest approval by Israeli planning authorities of a housing project at the Shepherd’s Hotel in East Jerusalem – this time in the even more controversial area of Sheikh Jarrah, a Palestinian community slowly being taken over by Jewish settlers backed by the Israeli courts.

The White House has eased its stance chiefly because Mr Netanyahu has climbed down on two issues of even greater importance to the administration.

First, he has agreed to make a “significant gesture” to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, probably in the form of a prisoner release. That is the carrot needed to bring Mr Abbas to the peace talks overseen by George Mitchell, the US special peace envoy.

And second, Mr Netanyahu has conceded that Israel will discuss the “core issues” of the conflict – borders, Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees – ensuring that the negotiations are substantive rather than formal, as he had intended.

Those concessions – if Mr Netanyahu delivers on them – should be enough to break up his far-right coalition, a prospect the White House craves. The US administration wants Tzipi Livni, the leader of the centrist opposition, to join Mr Netanyahu in a new, “peacemaking coalition”.

If Mr Netanyahu could wriggle out of this bind, he would do so. But his ace in the hole – harnessing the might of AIPAC and its legions in Congress to back him against the White House – looks to have been disarmed.

Comments last week by Gen David Petraeus, the head of the US Central Command, linked Israel’s intransigence towards the Palestinians to the spread of a hatred that endangers US troops in the Middle East. That left the AIPAC hordes with little option but to swallow their and Mr Netanyahu’s pride, lest they be accused of dual loyalties.

In the words of Uri Avnery, a former Israeli legislator: “This is only a shot across the bow, a warning shot fired by a warship in order to induce another vessel to follow its instructions. The warning is clear.”

And the warning is that Mr Netanyahu must come to the negotiating table to help to establish a Palestinian state whatever the consequences for his coalition.

But it would be unwise to assume that the crisis over settlement building in East Jerusalem indicates that the Obama administration plans to get any tougher with Israel on the form of such statehood than its predecessors.

Ms Livni, unlike Mr Netanyahu, may wish to find a solution to the conflict – or impose one – but her terms would be far from generous. The White House knows that she, too, is an ardent advocate of settlements in East Jerusalem. When she broke her silence on the crisis last week, it was to emphasise that, by “acting stupidly” in stoking a row with the US, Mr Netanyahu had risked “weakening” Israel’s hold on Jerusalem

Instead, the signs are that Barack Obama could be just as ready to accommodate the Israeli consensus on East Jerusalem as the previous Bush administration was in backing Israel’s position on keeping the overwhelming majority of West Bank settlers in their homes on occupied Palestinian land.

Shimon Peres, the Israeli president who is much favoured in Washington, has outlined a “compromise” to placate the Americans. It would involve a peace deal in which Israel keeps the large swaths of East Jerusalem already settled by Jews, while the Palestinians would be entitled to the ghettos left behind after four decades of illegal Israeli building.

In her own AIPAC speech, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, hinted that such a solution might yet be acceptable to the administration. The recent US condemnation of settlement building, she said, was not “a judgment on the final status of Jerusalem, which is an issue to be settled at the negotiating table. This is about getting to the table, creating and protecting an atmosphere of trust around it -- and staying there until the job is finally done.”

Having lost patience with Mr Netanyahu’s lip service to Palestinian statehood, the White House appears finally to have decided its credibility in the Middle East depends on dragging Israel -- kicking and screaming, if needs be -- to the negotiating table.

Mr Obama may hope that the outcome of such a process will make US troops safer in Iraq and strengthen his hand in the stand-off with Iran. But it remains doubtful that the US actually has the stomach to extract from Israel the concessions needed to create that elusive entity referred to as a viable Palestinian state.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net. A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.

The situation heats up.....

So basically Israel does what it wants, the USA acts like it isn't happy but give it what it wants afterwards.

The UK kick out one diplomat because Israel stole British ID' s and used them in a Mossad attack, a token kicking out he was probably glad to be home and was due to be replaced soon anyway, so Israel gets away with it again.

If any Arab country acted like Israel does they would have been invaded by US led UN by now.

Not the case. Its not shocking that leftists are perpetually unhappy with US-Isreali relations.

Counterpunch this:

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington to smooth things over with President Obama after provoking the administration's ire with announcements it will move ahead with new housing construction in disputed East Jerusalem. Instead, he leaves with the gulf between the two even wider. Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. After refusing to offer concessions to Obama on the issue of settlements in their White House meeting and offering a presentation on why the timing of their announcement was not his fault, Obama reportedly walked out on Netanyahu to go to a private dinner and left him to deal with his staff, a congressman told the London Times. “The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote. According to Haaretz, Netanyahu is currently working with his cabinet on a response to American demands for new concessions to help put peace talks with Palestinians back on track."

"In their meeting Mr Obama set out expectations that Israel was to satisfy if it wanted to end the crisis, Israeli sources said. These included an extension of the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the ten-month deadline next September, an end to building projects in east Jerusalem and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions held before the second intifada in September 2000."

Read the full story: Times Online

ya, I'm as cynical of Isreal and the West as anyone, but this tiff is sort of unprescidented in US-Israeli relations. I don't think anything will change, but the sort of "meta" geopolitical order already has to some degree

If US support ever ceases, which can happen if the financial knot tightens, then Israel will be a very lonely cat in the corner and I wouldn´t like to be in the middle east when the dogs smell the hunt.

omg, wouldn't it be so retarded if Egypt or Iran tried to capitalize?

I don't think they would (maybe its more that I pray they wouldn't) but it would be so disastrous...

Originally posted by Bicnarok
If US support ever ceases, which can happen if the financial knot tightens, then Israel will be a very lonely cat in the corner and I wouldn´t like to be in the middle east when the dogs smell the hunt.

The problem as I see it, a cornered cat with a nuclear bomb can be dangerous.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem as I see it, a cornered cat with a nuclear bomb can be dangerous.

That is very true. A prime fact that the Israelis are scared s**tless if the Iranians ever get a nuke (although that can be debated, since so far they haven't enriched uranium past 20% yet)

Originally posted by Bicnarok
So basically Israel does what it wants, the USA acts like it isn't happy but give it what it wants afterwards.

The UK kick out one diplomat because Israel stole British ID' s and used them in a Mossad attack, a token kicking out he was probably glad to be home and was due to be replaced soon anyway, so Israel gets away with it again.

If any Arab country acted like Israel does they would have been invaded by US led UN by now.

Yeah, and I always assumed it was silly western dogma before I opened up a copy of the Koran...