Washington — The Obama administration now seems poised to ease its public pressure on Israel following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s acceptance of a two-state solution to his country’s conflict with the Palestinians.
Following Netanyahu’s much awaited June 14 speech addressing America’s concerns about the policies of his new government, Israeli diplomats said they sensed a new willingness within the administration to “find creative solutions” to the issue of Jewish settlement activity in the Israeli occupied West Bank that would allow some limited building to continue.
Former senator George Mitchell, the administration’s special envoy to the Middle East, seemed less confident than his Israeli counterparts that a solution to the dispute was imminent. Speaking at a Washington press conference June 16, Mitchell said he was not aware of an agreement that would allow Israeli building for “natural growth” in established West Bank Jewish settlements, a right upon which Netanyahu insisted in his speech.
But after a long period of public criticism of Israel by Washington, discussions over the settlement issue are now shifting to quiet working-level talks between American and Israeli officials. The main channel for these discussions is expected to be Mitchell’s newly established Israel office. The office will be headed by David Hale, a career diplomat with vast experience in the Arab-Israeli field. From his Jerusalem headquarters, Hale is expected to involve himself deeply in the detailed negotiations surrounding Israel’s demand to continue building in established settlement blocs.
“We intend to bring these discussions to a very early conclusion,” Mitchell said at his press conference, expressing hope that direct Israeli–Palestinian talks will be launched in the near future.
Administration officials have been adamant in demanding that Israel take down illegal settlement outposts, as it has long promised to do, and cease all settlement expansion, including what Israel calls “natural growth” in established settlements regarded as legal under Israeli law, but illegal by most of the rest of the world. The so-called Middle East road map to peace, forged by the Bush administration with international partners in 2002, also prohibits such growth. Israel accepted the road map, but not the section barring natural growth.
In his speech, given at Bar-Ilan University, a bastion of support for the settlements, Netanyahu once again rejected the demand to curb natural growth, even as he formally acceded to another Obama administration demand: the concept of a Palestinian state as a goal of negotiations, as agreed to by earlier Israeli governments.
“I’m sure Bibi’s speech helped,” said Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, in a June 16 interview with the Forward. “Now that we are united about the vision [of a two-state solution] we can focus on the practical issues and work quietly on how to resolve them.”
In his speech, Netanyahu defended his rejection of the American demand for a complete settlement freeze.
“There is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children, like families elsewhere,” Netanyahu said. “The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace.”
Speaking two days later with reporters at the White House, President Obama flatly rejected Netanyahu’s insistence on a right to “natural growth” in West Bank Jewish settlements. Obama warned that despite the “tendency to try to parse” the exact meaning of “cessation of settlements,” he believed that all parties understand that “if you have a continuation of settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal, that’s going to be an impediment to progress.”
Israeli sources who deal closely with the issue say that despite Washington’s unchanged public insistence on a “complete freeze” formula, in recent discussions American officials seemed open to a more nuanced approach. The Israelis argue that the administration understands now that private contracts for building new homes in the settlement blocs are hard to break and that in some cases there is room for leniency.
Israel has suggested the establishment of a “reporting mechanism” in which it would provide, for the first time, full information about all the building going on in the West Bank. This mechanism is expected to serve as a forum in which “extraordinary cases” would be discussed. Israeli officials said they believe that in some cases, such as when there is a need for a new classroom, the Americans will allow a certain amount of flexibility.
“I’m confident that we will be able to reach an agreement in the near future that will enable us to put the settlement issue aside,” Israel’s ambassador-designee to Washington, Michael Oren, said in a June 15 interview with Reuters news agency.
While agreeing to move the settlement debate to private negotiations from the public sphere, the administration was careful not to be seen as forgoing the issue.
Observers on the dovish side, such as former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah of the New America Foundation, believe that maintaining a tough stance on the settlement issue is crucial for success of the process. “The Obama administration needs to stick to its principle of a total freeze, whether in public or private conversation,” they wrote in an analysis of Netanyahu’s speech. “There can be only one place for a discussion of the future of settlements and that is delineating a permanent status border between Israel and Palestine.”
In its early reaction to Netanyahu’s speech, the American administration chose to focus on its positive aspects and showered praise on Netanyahu for what White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called “a big step forward,” referring to the Israelis’ acceptance of the concept of a Palestinian state.
But the administration pointedly declined to adopt two key conditions that Netanyahu attached to recognition of a Palestinian state, at least in advance of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In his speech, the Israeli leader demanded that Palestinians formally accept Israel as a Jewish state as part of any final peace agreement. Obama, like previous American presidents, made a point of mentioning the term “Jewish state” when talking about the two-state solution. But he did not adopt the demand that the Palestinians make this recognition.
Netanyahu’s second condition, that the Palestinian state be demilitarized, also has been accepted in principle by the past three administrations, but is viewed by Obama and his team as an issue that needs to be part of the direct negotiations between the sides, not a precondition.
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Tracing the Jewish Origins of the Holy Ghost
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Forced Out by Nazis, Grandmother Returns With Family to Germany
Magen Tzedek, Ethical Kosher Seal, Stalled Amid Orthodox Opposition
Baby Boomers’ Rocky Road to Jewish Love
You've successfully signed up!
to be short; with economy of words: one state 'solution';called two state 'solution' by the christo-judean world.tnx
One thing about the Forward, it is consistantly spinning the Left Liberal approach to Israel as the American Jews opinion. Of course if you only listen to JStreet, and its affiliates, supported by George Soros, you come up with that answer.
The The Administration's decision to cool the hostile rhetoric, is the many signs that Obama can, and is being rolled by its enemies. Israel, who is a friend, gets the dirty end of the stick, with the US's enemies getting a warm reception. The Iran strategy is now up in the air as Obama does not know who to talk too. Even if Almadinigage(forgive the spelling)remains as President and spokesman for the Ayatollah, there is a large minority, or perhaps majority, that wish for a change of regime. His NK poilicy is to answer threat of War from a two bit rogue nation that threatens it with sanctions, that will be circumvented one way or another, by sending a super Radar to Hawaii to follow a balistic missel that may be aimed at Hawaii. Real tough stand.
Back to the Article. One reason the US is cooling the harsh rhetoric against it only true friend in the ME is that there is the beginning of resentment on the part of Congress and the Public that this Policy of kissing up the ME enimies is not the way to go. Most Americans have no idea of the History or Legitimicy of the Settlements. Thought this administration chooses to call them illigitimate, previous Administrations, excluding Carter, have indicated that they are legitimate. Belive Elliot Abrams or Hillary, I"ll choose Abrams every time. Hillary has proven to be a two faced Liar when it comes to Israel. On the campaign trail was all gung ho for Israel, and now she is demanding, nay giving orders, to how they should run their country. So far she has gotten a "Nyat" from them. I hope they stay the course.
As a Veteran of WW II she makes my blood boil at how two faced she is. It was a result of that War that Jews became First Class citizens of this great Country of ours. Prior to that Jews were overwhelmed with the Anti Semitism that was prevelent here. The rise of the "Shah" Jew was the byword of the American Jews. WW II changed that as many Jews spilled blood to give the Forward the right to speak out its trash. Even Majority Leader of the Senate has written an Open Letter to his own administration to cool the Hostile rhetoric, as Congress is finally speaking out against a failing Policy in the ME once again by the State Department. Israel will no longer jump at every US demand. They will begin to do what is good for Israel. Every Country should act in its own self Interest, as Israel should.
Regards to the Lefts Spin Meister, The Forward, keep up your failed Articles.Gives me some satisfaction to vent against the Self Hating, whimpy Jews of the left, who happens to be trying to make them something that they are not. Mainly self hating dhimmies.
As usual, the "Jewish" Forward, an extreme radical left-wing anti-Israel propagandist (along with J Street), urges American Jews to bash Israel and support Obama's attacks on the Jewish State of Israel, while giving a pass to the arabs. (They call this "even-handed".)
The following should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding why there has been no "peace" between the arabs and Israel, and why the arabs have been and are completely to blame:
....
"Interesting Times: THE GREAT ARAB REFUSAL"
There is something bizarre about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Everyone assumes, naturally, that it is about Israel giving something that Palestinians want - a state. But what it really is about is the Arab world giving the Jewish people what it wants - a state.
That makes no sense, you might say. After all, Israel exists, Palestine doesn't. How could the conflict be about people who don't have something giving it to people who do? The answer lies in a simple fact of history: The Arab war against a Jewish state not only predates Israeli control over the territories ostensibly in dispute but began before the founding of Israel itself.
"The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel's independence... and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the Six Day War," Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Sunday. "All this occurred during the 50 years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria."
That must have changed, you chime in. At some point Israel must have flipped from being the state deny-ee to being the state denier. Doesn't most of Netanyahu's own party still claim that a Palestinian state would be existential threat? If Israel is not the obstacle, why did Netanyahu have to be dragged into grudgingly supporting a two-state solution? Let's step back a bit and ask another question: What is meant by a "two-state solution"? In Western eyes, the idea is a simple one. The conflict comes from the lack of a Palestinian state. Create a state; end the conflict.
This would be a slam dunk except for one thing. What if the Palestinians see a state of their own not as the beginning of peace but the continuation of war? Quit being paranoid, the world responds. Israel is a regional superpower, and Netanyahu just said that a Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized.
The rub, however, lies not in demilitarization. Savvy Palestinian spokesmen say that's not a problem. The rub is Netanyahu's second "tough" (as media reports call them) condition: "a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people."
Now we have finally drilled down to the essence of the conflict, and it's not Israel but the Arab world that is out of step. Look at the official White House reaction to the Netanyahu speech: "The president is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples." This is what Palestinians are for, right? Actually, no, this is what even Abbas and other "pro-peace" Arab leaders vehemently reject.
"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?" Mahmoud Abbas asked in an April 27 speech in Ramallah. "You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly." Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said that calls for recognition of a Jewish state are attempts to "abort" the peace process. "Netanyahu Threatens Peace" was the headline in the Saudi-owned Al Hayat, while Lebanon's Assafir claimed that the speech was "like a declaration of war."
The Arab world has never accepted either part of President Barack Obama's straightforward statement: that Israel is a Jewish state and that it is there not by chance or even because of the Holocaust but because it is the Jewish people's "historic homeland."
WE SEE that the great Arab refusal that began almost a century ago continues today. While the West takes it for granted that "mutual recognition," as the road map and Oslo agreements put it, is the bedrock of peace, the Arab side seeks a Palestinian state without accepting the existence of a Jewish people, let alone a Jewish connection to its historic homeland.
If further evidence of this refusal were needed, the claim of a "right of return" embodies the Arab attempt at obtaining a 22nd state without accepting the single Jewish one. If Palestinians have a permanent "right" to move to Israel, in what sense have they accepted Israeli sovereignty? How can they claim a right to move to Israel while not only denying the right of Jews to move to Palestine, but assuming that it must be ethnically cleansed of all Jews?
Obama is right that the Arab-Israeli conflict is in dire need of truth telling. And every time he uses the words "Jewish state" and "Jewish homeland" he is chipping away at the essence of the conflict. But there is an even more basic, underlying truth to be told: that the Arab world can end the conflict any time it wants.
This is what Obama should have said to the Arab world in Cairo: "End the conflict. Who is stopping you? If you truly accept Israelis, talk to their leaders, stop denying their history and connection to the land, you will have a Palestinian state faster than you can shake a stick." I understand that Obama thinks that the harder he pressures Israel on settlements the more likely the Arabs are to cooperate. But this is exactly backward. Direct pressure on Israel is always taken by the Arabs as an excuse to do nothing
The smart way to pressure Israel is to put the onus on the Arab side. Why? Because the slightest Arab movement toward peace turns any Israeli government into putty. "Looking back, I confess that well-formulated peace plans are not enough," President Shimon Peres admitted in a recent op-ed. "What brought about the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, signed in 1979, was a journey of less than an hour - the time it took Anwar Sadat to fly from Cairo to Jerusalem. This hour changed... creat[ing] a turning point far more powerful than outside pressure."
The Arab-Israeli conflict is just not symmetrical, no matter how often assorted peacemakers adopt an "evenhanded" approach. After 1967, the Arab states realized they could no longer openly call for Israel's destruction, so they hit on the idea of demanding a Palestinian state - without mentioning that they weren't willing to accept a Jewish state in return.
Now Netanyahu, grudgingly, and Obama, dilutedly, have called the Arab bluff. This has been obscured by Netanyahu's foot-dragging and Obama's fight-picking (with Israel), but the fact remains that it is now the Arab world that has been cast in the role of odd man out.
Preventing Iran - the enemy-di-tutti-enemy of peace - from going nuclear remains the single greatest prerequisite for peace. The much easier yet no less important step is to systematically expose the great Arab refusal, thereby placing asymmetrical responsibility for the conflict on the Arab side. Pressure on the Arab side is a two-fer, because Arab gestures "deliver" Israel; pressure on Israel is a no-fer, because it reduces pressure on the Arab side.
saul@jpost.com
Frank: Thanks for the well summed up article. It explains things that even the Forward Editorial staff should understand.
Unfortunately, the Leftist, Liberal, Progresive Jew of today has had it too good for two many years and consequently salve their guilt of the good life by supporting punishment to the rest of the Jews of the world by proclaiming the need of need to destroy Israel, which they will deny doing.Unknowingly, these "Capos" of America do not realize that Israel will be the source of their salvation in case of another Holacaust.
Shame on these deniers.
the people who don't want to give 'jews' a state of their own on their soil are christo-judaists and every other land or empire.
even 70% of [and most prosperous] 'jews' don't, or seem not to, want to live in any kind of a state for 'jews'only.
and least of all in a region that is totally alien to euros with the judaic faith/cult.
the 'jewish' state is reserved largely for the untermenschen or the people with tainted skin. These are the people, along some rabid cultist, who will be sacrificed.
'jews' need to reckon with the fact that time and/or change never ceases. Hatred of a 'jewish' state most likely will grow and will not go away in centuries to come if ever.
thus, 'jewish' state wld not be viable while its pop might comprise 0000001 of world pop.
win-win result, by necessary truth, is available. Unfortunately, US/present israel wants a win-lose effect. tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver
*All* the settlements are illegal under international law.
The Israeli foreign ministry's own legal counsel, Theodore Meron, said so in a memo in 1967. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html