Obama: halt to new Israeli settlements is in America's security interests

[IndianaGreen]

Obama: halt to new Israeli settlements is in America's security interests

Chris McGreal in Washington and Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem

The Guardian, Friday 29 May 2009

Increasingly fractious relations between the US and Israel hit a low unseen in nearly two decades yesterday after the Jewish state rejected President Obama's demand for an end to settlement construction in the West Bank, and the president responded by suggesting that Israeli intransigence endangers America's security.

The dispute, which blew in during the open hours before Obama met the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, reflects the depth of the shift in US policy away from accommodating Israel, and towards pressuring it to end years of stalling negotiations over the creation of a Palestinian state as it continues to grab land in the occupied territories.

Obama put down a marker at a difficult meeting with the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in Washington last week when he demanded a halt to the expansion of settlements, which now house close to 500,000 in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem, as they are a major obstacle to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Yesterday the Israeli government spokesman, Mark Regev, said Netanyahu will defy the White House call by continuing construction in existing settlements.

"Israel … will abide by its commitments not to build new settlements and to dismantle unauthorised outposts," he said. "As to existing settlements, their fate will be determined in final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. In the interim period, normal life must be allowed to continue in these communities."

Obama responded with a sharp rebuff a few hours later by pointedly reiterating his demand for an immediate settlement freeze after meeting Abbas yesterday. The president said that "stopping settlements and making sure that there is a viable Palestinian state" is in the long term security interests of Israel as well as the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/28/barack-obama-jewish-settlements-israel-palestine-relations

So much for AIPAC gathering signatures from its bought-for lapdogs in Congress.

[Shaktimaan]

1. So what happened?

Robert Malley, former special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to Clinton, said: "The surprise in this is not the Israeli position. The surprise the forcefulness of the American one. Rarely have we seen it at this pace and with this intensity and unambiguity. The US has taken a position that doesn't give much wriggle room at all to the Israeli government."

I thought that AIPAC was an unstoppable force in Washington with such influence that their policies were unopposable? WTF?

[Vegasaurus]

3. So Jews don't control American foreign policy?

So they don't control the media and the banks?

Really?

When did this change occur?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. I think you need to look slightly more closely.

America has not said "unless you honour your commitments and remove some or all of the settlements, we will sanction you"

America has not said "you must honour your commitments and remove some or all of the settlements, pretty please".

America has not said "unless you stop expanding the settlements - not remove them, just stop expanding them - we will sanction you"

All America has said is "stop expanding the settlements - not remove them, just stop expanding them - pretty please".

Israel has completely ignored that incredibly minimal request, and there is not as yet any evidence that the US will do anything about it - Obama will probably have a fight on his hands in the Senate if he tries to.

So this is hardly a *resounding* defeat for the pro-Israeli lobby in the US...

[Shaktimaan]

9. My point was facecious.

It was merely meant to be a rebuttal to those who believe that AIPAC dictates policy to our politicians. It does not have to represent a resounding defeat but just a lack of total control. But then if you're the kind of person who really thinks that AIPAC controls the president then nothing I say will change your mind. (Not that I think that about you.)

Besides, the Israel lobby has been opposed and defeated on settlement issues before. Most prominently under Bush (the first one obviously.) This isn't a REAL issue for anyone but conspiracy theorists.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. And pointless...

Where in the article did it say any of that nonsense that you were saying like being an unstoppable force etc? It didn't.

What do you mean by REAL issue? I hope yr not trying to make out that the Obama administration's very clear message to the Israeli govt on settlements isn't something that's worth people being in support of?

[Shaktimaan]

13. No, my dear, there WAS a point to my comment...

There's a difference between missing the point and there not being one to begin with. But I appreciate your interest in my thoughts.

Nowhere did the article mention the anti-Zionist conspiracy theory that pro-Israel lobby groups dictate policy to American politicians. It merely happens to be a belief that I've encountered many times on this board. While this idea, that AIPAC is not merely influential but all-powerful, seems to be a widely accepted truth among certain people it is nonetheless absurd. Since the OP demonstrated the absurdity of this theory I used it as an opportunity to make a joke to that effect. I am sorry if you did not get it. I'll try and be funnier in the future.

The issue I referred to as not REAL was the aforementioned conspiracy theory, not the settlement issue. All I meant was that Bush I's previous clashes (and victories) over AIPAC regarding settlement issues has already proven the limitations of AIPAC's true influence. They are not the illuminati and anyone who still believes so can rightly be called a conspiracy theorist.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. A 'point' that had zero to do with the OP....

And knock off the patronising crap, Shakli. It doesn't suit you. Nor does pretending that you make jokes and are humourous....

Well, seeing no-one in this thread was talking about this crap that yr going on about, maybe you should write this one off as a bit of a premature ejaculation and wait till someone does pop up saying stuff like that?

[Shaktimaan]

17. I take great offense at that...

I happen to be very humorous. In fact I make my living accordingly. Well, half of my living anyway.

Nor do I agree with what you said about my being patronizing. You see, humor may be my business but being obnoxious is my true passion. On a good day I get the opportunity to combine the two, but so far I haven't found anyone willing to pay me for just being obnoxious. Hence, deserving people such as yourself get to enjoy it for free.

As far as my comment goes, Violet, you've managed to turn a two second post into an entire thread by belaboring whether or not it was on topic enough to meet your standards, what exactly I meant, whether it had a point and if it qualified as a joke or not. Now, you're entitled to disagree with my thoughts or ignore them if you wish but to spend so much time questioning me about their exact meaning only to turn it into an argument over whether or not my point was relevant enough to warrant posting in the first place seems somewhat fatuous itself.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

20. This isn't "proof" that the lobby isn't powerful, it's merely a first step in exposing the reality.

that the lobby isn't as powerful as it has led elected officials to believe it is. That's because lobby groups like AIPAC, with their support for an illegal and immoral occupation, and drumbeat for unnecessary war represent the narrow interests of a very few.

BOTTOM LINE: Obama's constituency won't turn on him for exericising fair and sensible policy in the ME. This is probably the first time since the early 90s that a US administration has had the balls to oppose the lobby. I'm sure there are some soiled tighty-whities in the AIPAC board room today.

Regular American citizens -- such as my middle class suburban neighbors -- support a US position that is in OUR best interests. There will be no widespread backlash from the American electorate for opposing AIPAC. It's a chimera. Once the Washington politicians realize they can defy the lobby without the awful consequences they imagine, maybe we'll have more sensible policies.


Your attempt at humor is transparent: every regular poster here knows your goal.

What's more, calling other posters "my dear" is obnoxious and patronizing.

[shaayecanaan]

16. Here's a first...

"Besides, the Israel lobby has been opposed and defeated on settlement issues before."

I'm not actually detecting any irony or sarcasm there. Hmm...this actually appears to be admission that the Israel Lobby actually exists.

There's hope for you yet.

[Shaktimaan]

18. Well of course it exists.

AIPAC's tagline is "America's pro-Israel lobby."

Is the existence of AIPAC a debate that I'm unaware of?

[lefthandedlefty]

2. Finally

[Howardx]

5. since obama and the administration are against the settlements

wouldnt that mean that supporting them here would be undermining the president? i would take a dim view of that.

[bemildred]

6. Obama is merely stating the obvious.

Settling the I/P issue is the single most useful thing that can be done to improve the US' military and diplomatic position in the Middle East. Even a "peace process" like in the 1990s, would be a big help. I am sure all of our loyal, patriotic Congresspersons will respect the President's authority in the conduct of foreign affairs.

[shira]

7. so let's see how interested the Arab league is in the 57-state solution to the I/P problem

If this is any indication of what to expect, we won't see "peace" in Obama's time.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=18851

Arabs pour cold water on Obama's peace drive

The Arab League on Saturday threw cold water on US President Barack Obama’s yet-to-be-announced regional peace initiative when its chairman noted Israel was never promised full peace in return for the surrender of Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and the eastern half of Jerusalem.

Speaking to reporters in Damascus, Arab League head Amr Mussa said that the “57-state solution” that is being so touted by the media ahead of Obama’s visit to the region “is not on the table” as far as the nations he represents are concerned.

Obama has been trying to make a pan-Arab peace proposal first put forward by Saudi Arabia in 2002 more palatable to Israelis by offering the Jewish state firm promises of peace, security and normalized relations.

But such statements by Mussa and other Arab leaders have left many Israelis with the feeling that it is all a ruse, and that even if they comply with all Arab demands, the conflict will rage on.

[bemildred]

8. Spurred by Iran, Arab World Witnesses Nuclear Renaissance

The most volatile region in the world is going nuclear.

As North Korea restarts its main nuclear plant and Iran continues to flex its nuclear muscles, a less publicized nuclear renaissance is underway in the Middle East.

Putting the Chernobyls and Hiroshimas aside, in the Arab world, at least thirteen nations - both oil-rich and oil-thirsty - are collaborating with world powers to build nuclear energy programs with unprecedented determination.

As energy and water needs grow, they are confronting the inevitable depletion of oil and natural gas and the nuclear option has trumped renewables (both in terms of feasibilty and economics) as a means to generate electricity while guaranteeing long-term security.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-shihabeldin/spurred-by-iran-arab-worl_b_208145.html

Cheer up, things could get worse. Maybe this is "as good as it gets."

[Sezu]

19. Of course it will rage on. It keeps the peons distracted. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Obama is really starting to impress me.

:)

[bemildred]

11. Well, it's clearly not the status quo ante. nt

[Kurska]

15. I'm very pro Israel, but America and Israel need to knock heads once in awile.

I just wonder whose going to get the first headache... /popcorn.