NETANYAHU SPEAKS: The Israel-Palestine Ball Remains in Obama's Court

Details

Written by Phyllis Bennis Phyllis Bennis

Published: 16 June 2009 16 June 2009

Hits: 4515 4515

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu threw a rhetorical bone to President Obama in his much anticipated speech on June 14, when he used the term "Palestinian state." But he conceded nothing of substance, reiterating Israel's continuing rejection of real Palestinian statehood, independence, sovereignty, and self-determination. He demanded that the Palestinians recognize and accept Israel as the "national homeland of the Jewish People," not a state of all its citizens, thus requiring Palestinians to accept the legitimacy of Israel's discriminatory practices. And his speech continued Israel's escalation of threats against Iran.

Now the Israeli-Palestinian ball remains squarely in President Obama's court - and the results will be determined largely by his administration's decision on whether or not to use real (i.e., financial or diplomatic) pressure, rather than relying solely on public or private urging, for Israel to comply with U.S. wishes. Without concrete consequences for Tel Aviv's noncompliance -such as withholding all or part of the $3 billion annual U.S. military aid to Israel, or withdrawing the U.S. diplomatic protection that keeps Israel from being held accountable in the UN Security Council - Obama's demands for a settlement freeze or anything else will have little impact.

"Palestinian State"

It was no surprise that Netanyahu acceded to Obama's demand that he utter the words "Palestinian state." Despite outrage among his far-right backers, words are relatively cheap: he never even said the word "Palestine," nor did he refer to a "two-state solution" or two states in any form. Instead, Netanyahu described "two free peoples," each with a flag and an anthem. What's missing is anything remotely resembling equality or justice.

Netanyahu described "a demilitarized Palestinian state side-by-side with the Jewish state." He described a non-sovereign, non-independent, non-contiguous "Palestinian state" that would be forcibly demilitarized by international guarantee rather than any internal choice; a "Palestinian state" with no control of its own airspace; a "Palestinian state" with no control of its own borders; a "Palestinian state" with no right to sign treaties; and a "Palestinian state" without Jerusalem. His putative "Palestinian state" has no known borders, since territory would be determined only in later negotiations. Israeli settlements, as well as the Apartheid Wall, the closed military zones, the checkpoints, the settlers-only roads, bridges, tunnels built on stolen Palestinian land, and continue to divide the West Bank into tiny non-contiguous cantons or Bantustans, all remain in place.

Settlements

Netanyahu completely rejected Obama's call for a settlement freeze. "We have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements," Netanyahu said. So all expansion of existing settlements - not only for the so-called "natural growth" which Netanyahu and President Obama openly tussled over - will continue. Palestinian land, therefore, will continue to be "set aside" - a polite euphemism for "stolen" - to expand any or all of the existing Jewish settlements as far as any nationalist or religious extremists (or, for that matter, any of the yuppie settlers who make up the majority of the settler population) may wish to build them.

The fundamental problem of the settlements, of course, is not just the creeping expansion - it's their very existence. All Israeli settlements in the West Bank or Arab East Jerusalem - not only the tiny propaganda-driven "outposts" but the huge city settlements like Ariel or Ma'ale Adumim or the oldest settlements long described as "neighborhoods" of Jerusalem - are illegal. The 4th  Geneva Convention Article 49(6) prohibits the occupying power from transferring any of its own population into the occupied territory - settlers don't become legal just because they live in giant cities of 35,000 or 40,000 people or because they stay for more than 40 years. The existence of the settlements represents a continuing violation - and even if Obama managed to impose a full freeze on all settlement activity, there is no indication yet of what (if anything) he intends to do about the 480,000 illegal Israeli settlers continuing to occupy those (however frozen) Jews-only settlements across the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel as the "State of the Jewish people"

This formulation, a version of which Obama used in his Cairo speech, is very dangerous. Netanyahu demanded that the Palestinians not only recognize Israel (a diplomatic action Palestinians have long expressed willingness to do in return for Israeli recognition of an independent sovereign Palestinian state), but that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state. That means recognizing as legitimate Israel's official discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens. Such recognition would also accept Israel's violation of the international laws guaranteeing Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes on the grounds that a large number of returning refugees would change the demographic balance. It might indeed end Israel's permanent Jewish majority, but no government has a "right" to ensure a preferred racial or religious or ethnic majority by expelling, transferring, denying rights, or discriminating against those outside the chosen parameters.

Netanyahu actually admitted he does not believe Israel is bound by international law or treaties. Israel, he said, needs only to "take into account" international considerations. "We have to recognize international agreements," he said, but pay equal attention to "principles important to the State of Israel." Under that theory, agreements Israel had already accepted, such as the 2003 "road map" which required Israel to freeze all settlements including "natural growth," or UN Resolution 273 of 1949 which welcomed Israel into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Palestinians' right of return, are irrelevant and can be violated with impunity if they don't match "principles important to the State of Israel."

Israel, the Arab world and Iran

Netanyahu echoed Obama's call for normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab states. Netanyahu's vision of that "reconciliation" is clearly tied to his effort to establish, with U.S. backing, an Israeli-Arab alliance against Iran, describing his effort "to forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." The recent Iranian elections certainly helped Netanyahu. He will use a confirmed victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the disputed elections, or even continued uncertainty, protests, and instability in Iran, as evidence for his claim that Iran remains a direct and immediate threat to Israel. Netanyahu described the Iranian election itself as demonstrating that threat and said the "greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world, and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons." His audience at that moment was not only hard-line voters at home, but Israel's supporters in Congress and elsewhere in the United States, using the "Iranian threat" to counter any U.S. unease regarding his rejection of Palestinian self-determination.

It remains uncertain how far Obama is prepared to go in building such a regional anti-Iran alliance. In his speech in Cairo two weeks ago, Obama urged Arab governments to implement only those parts of the 2002 Arab peace initiative calling for normalization with Israel, while ignoring the critical Israeli actions the plan recognizes are needed before such normalization could take place. The Arab plan, endorsed by the 22 nations of the Arab League, did offer normalization with Israel, but only in exchange for complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, sharing of Jerusalem, a just solution to the Palestinian refugee crisis based on international law, and more. Netanyahu followed Obama's lead in ignoring the Israeli obligations, and in demanding that Arab governments immediately establish peace treaties, full diplomatic relations, trade, tourism - in essence, full normal relations - with Israel, getting nothing in return.

The danger is that such state-to-state normalization between Israel and any or all Arab governments, if carried out with Israel's occupation and apartheid policies intact, undermines Palestinian claims, weakens the Palestinian position in the region and internationally, and legitimizes Israeli violations of international law. The call for such one-sided normalization may also be linked to an effort by the Obama administration to push Israel towards new negotiations with Syria - separating that process from the Palestinian track. Such negotiations could lead to some important movement towards ending the Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights. But such a move could simultaneously endanger the central component of Israel's occupation of Palestine. Israel would try to convince the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress that any withdrawal from the Golan would be so traumatic for Israel that the United States cannot press for any motion on ending occupation in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, let alone for ending Israel's lethal siege of Gaza. Just such an impact occurred after Israel withdrew from the Egyptian Sinai in the context of the 1979 Camp David Accord. Israel won support for its position that the return of the sparsely populated Sinai peninsula to Egypt was sufficient to fulfill any requirement in UN Resolution 242 (or anywhere else) that Israel withdraw from the territories it had occupied in the 1967 war.

The outcome of the disputed Iranian elections remains uncertain. Civil engagement, protest, and mobilization is occurring at a level not seen at least since the student uprisings of 1999; some observers say not since the Islamic revolution of 1979. But the results remain unclear. It's important that Obama has remained careful and respectful in his response, raising concerns about government suppression and the street violence but making clear that "it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be, that we respect Iranian sovereignty." Crucially, he said the United States "will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries." Public pressure must be maintained to insure that Israeli threats of military force against Iran are not backed up by the United States.

Now, in Obama's court...

Questions remain.

• Will Obama accept Netanyahu's rhetorical use of the words "Palestinian state" as a major concession, sufficient to demand new concessions from the Palestinians?
• If Netanyahu moves one step further and calls for some kind of settlement freeze (whether or not it is actually imposed on the ground), will that be greeted as an important new concession with no response to the continuing illegality of the existing settlements?
• Will the Obama administration's regional strategy focus on building an Israeli-Arab alliance against Iran despite Obama's stated commitment to new negotiations with Iran "without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect"?
• How will Obama respond if there are a few more rhetorical concessions from Netanyahu, even if there is no actual motion on the ground on Palestinian rights?

Or, looking forward…

• Will Obama send his envoy, former Senator George Mitchell, to inform the Israeli government that Washington's next step will be the withholding of this year's $3 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel until there is evidence on the ground, not only in words, of a complete halt in building, selling, recruiting residents, or any other activity in any of the settlements?
• Will Obama announce that continuing to sponsor bilateral Palestinian-Israeli talks is futile when the disparity of power remains so profound, and that instead the new U.S. policy will be to support regional negotiations based solely on international law and all relevant UN resolutions as the basis for ending occupation and establishing a just and comprehensive peace in the region?

Okay. Maybe that last one is still a ways down the line. But stay tuned.

Phyllis Bennis is the author of Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer. She is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and works with the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation.  Join the Campaign's challenge to U.S. military aid to Israel.

Carter decries destruction in Gaza

Details

Written by CNN's Shira Medding contributed to this report. CNN's Shira Medding contributed to this report.

Published: 16 June 2009 16 June 2009

Hits: 4163 4163

Carter decries destruction in Gaza

    * Story Highlights
    * Former President Jimmy Carter views destruction in Gaza from Israeli campaign
    * Carter says he had to "hold back tears" when he saw the destruction
    * Carter stresses it's important that Palestinians stop attacking each other
    * He was finishing trip during which he met Arab and Israeli representatives

(CNN) -- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on a visit to Gaza that he had to "hold back tears" when he saw the destruction caused by the deadly campaign Israel waged against Gaza militants in January.

Carter was wrapping up a visit to the region during which he met representatives of all sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Among the sites he visited was the American school that was destroyed by the bombings Israel initiated in response to rocket attacks launched from Gaza into southern Israel.

"It is very distressing to me. I have to hold back tears when I see the deliberate destruction that has been raked against your people.

"I come to the American school which was educating your children, supported by my own country. I see it's been deliberately destroyed by bombs from F16s made in my country and delivered to the Israelis. I feel partially responsible for this -- as must all Americans and all Israelis," Carter said at a news conference.

"The only way to avoid this tragedy happening again is to have genuine peace," he added, pointing out that many Palestinians are now fighting each other in the West Bank and Gaza because of their affiliations with Hamas or Fatah.

"It's very important that Palestinians agree with each other, to cooperate and stop attacking each other and to build a common approach to an election that I hope to witness and observe next January the 25th."

After the briefing, Carter headed to a graduation ceremony for students who completed a human rights curriculum provided by UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

"The human rights curriculum is teaching children about their rights and also about their responsibilities," Carter said in his speech to graduates.

In his speech to graduates, Carter said bombings, tanks and a continuing economic siege have brought death, destruction, pain and suffering to Gaza. "Tragically, the international community largely ignores the cries for help, while the citizens of Gaza are treated more like animals than human beings."

"The responsibility for this terrible human rights crime lies in Jerusalem, Cairo, Washington, and throughout the international community," Carter said.

At a news conference later in Tel Aviv, reporters asked the former president about media reports early Tuesday that said Hamas had thwarted a possible assassination plot against him.

The Israeli daily Maariv, quoting a Palestinian source, said explosives had been placed on a road Carter was due to travel on. Citing the source, the newspaper said it was a plot by an al Qaeda-affiliated group based in Gaza.

"I don't believe it's true," Carter said. "I don't know anything about it.

"None of our people were aware of being rerouted. I asked our driver and I asked the others in charge of making the arrangements, (and) they didn't know anything about it."

Carter said some of his staff asked Gaza's minister of interior, who is in charge of security, and he also was unfamiliar with the report.

Also in Gaza, Carter met with Hamas leaders, who he said "want peace and they want to have reconciliation not only with their Fatah brothers but also, eventually, with the Israelis to live side by side.

CNN's Shira Medding contributed to this report.

All AboutIsrael • Jimmy Carter • Gaza
 
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/gaza.carter.visit/index.html

Jimmy Carter to meet Hamas leaders after criticising Israeli PM

Details

Written by Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem

Published: 15 June 2009 15 June 2009

Hits: 4227 4227

Jimmy Carter to meet Hamas leaders after criticising Israeli PM

• Former US president to travel to Gaza
• Netanyahu raised new obstacles to peace, Carter says

The former US president Jimmy Carter will visit Gaza for a rare meeting with senior Hamas officials following his criticism of a key speech by Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, on Sunday night.

Carter, who has been in Israel and the occupied West Bank over the past week, will be one of the most senior western figures to meet the Hamas leadership in Gaza in recent years. He is expected to meet, among other Hamas officials, Ismail Haniyeh, the former Palestinian prime minister.

Last month in Damascus he met Khaled Meshal, the head of the Hamas political bureau and the group's effective leader. Carter has been meeting Israeli officials and travelled to a Jewish settlement on the West Bank at the weekend as part of his private diplomatic efforts. His visits are not always welcomed by the Israeli government, which has been angered by his meetings in recent years with Hamas.

On Sunday Carter criticised a policy speech given by Netanyahu, in which the Israeli prime minister, responding to weeks of pressure from ­Washington, gave carefully worded approval for a future Palestinian state under strict ­conditions, but insisted "normal lives" should continue in Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

"My opinion is he raised many new obstacles to peace that had not existed under previous prime ministers," Carter said during a visit to the Knesset in ­Jerusalem.

"He still apparently insists on expansion of existing settlements, he demands that the Palestinians and the Arabs recognise Israel as a Jewish state, although 20% of its citizens here are not Jews. This is a new demand."

But Carter said he had encountered even greater differences with the former Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, and had still managed to broker a peace deal between Israel and Egypt.

Read more: Jimmy Carter to meet Hamas leaders after criticising Israeli PM

Netanyahu convinced Obama seeks clash with Israel to appease Arabs

Details

Written by Aluf Benn Aluf Benn

Published: 09 June 2009 09 June 2009

Hits: 4223 4223

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that U.S. President Barack Obama wants a confrontation with Israel, based on Obama's speech in Cairo last week, Netanyahu's confidants say.

In Netanyahu's opinion, the Americans believe an open controversy with Israel would serve the Obama administration's main objective of improving U.S. relations with the Arab world, the aides say.

In his speech, Obama called for a "new beginning" in relations between America and Islam, and spoke at length about the Israeli-Arab conflict.

He demanded that Israel recognize the Palestinians' right to a state and freeze construction in the West Bank settlements.

Netanyahu objects to a complete suspension of construction beyond the Green Line. This is Netanyahu's main bone of contention with the Obama administration.

Netanyahu expects Obama to present his plan for peace in the Middle East next month. He fears that the president will present positions that will not be easy for Israel to accept, such as a demand to withdraw to the lines of June 4, 1967. These lines, before the Six-Day War, are at the basis of both the Arab peace initiative and previous American presidents' peace forays.

By telephone yesterday, Netanyahu told Obama of his intention to give a key policy speech on Sunday, in which he would outline his policy to achieve peace and security. Obama promised to listen to the address closely, and the two "agreed to maintain open and continuous contact," the Prime Minister's Bureau said.

Today Netanyahu is to meet the special U.S. envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell.

Political sources close to Netanyahu say that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama's senior political consultant David Axelrod are behind the clash between the administration and Israel.

Israel historically has depended on the White House to balance the consensus of officials in the state and defense departments; this consensus usually leans toward the Arab side.

Israeli officials say that under Obama, the White House has become the main problem in relations.

Israel is also having difficulty mustering the support of Congress and the American Jewish community for its demand to continue expanding the settlements.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who visited Washington last week, says the Obama administration has no personal problem with Netanyahu and that the Americans do not not seek to undermine the Israeli coalition and topple the government.

Barak says Obama's positions are guided by strategic considerations - he has undertaken to withdraw from Iraq and is striving to end the war in Afghanistan and needs the moderate Arab states' support. This, rather than "political persecution," is behind the administration's attitude toward Israel, he says.