I Thought Long And Hard…

…About whether or not to even comment on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s latest announcement of a “temporary halt” or show of “restraint” with respect to settlements because a) it’s really not a temporary settlement freeze due to the numerous exceptions and the flurry of activity in approving settlement expansion prior to the announcement; b) I’m sick of Netanyahu’s disingenuous claims of wanting to negotiate after spending the last year playing Fatah against Hamas and the U.S. Congress against our POTUS and Secretary of State and finally, c) I don’t like the way he treats our Secretary of State- I think he’s disrespectful.

Netanyahu essentially made an “offer” last week that Abbas has had to already reject but that didn’t stop Bibi from going ahead and announcing it anyway hoping to make it seem like the Palestinians are the only ones holding the whole peace “thing” up. In other words, I feel like this is yet another one of Bibi’s infamous Kabuki acts. That said, all these headlines keep popping up all over the place about Netanyahu’s latest supposedly magnanimous offer and so I finally decided to post something about it here.

Over at the Washington Note, Daniel Levy wrote a guest-post about the latest Netanyahu smokescreen and Levy, who served as the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative, knows of what he speaks. Here is an excerpt but definitely go check out the whole post:

Netanyahu’s cabinet clarified its so-called “settlement restraint” policy with today’s decision (some have called it a “moratorium” or a “freeze” but as you will see shortly, it is nothing of the sort, and those words are an inappropriate description).

The only apparent restraint in the Israeli cabinet decision was to suspend issuing of new permits or beginning new construction in the West Bank for ten months. The less restrained side of the equation is this: 3000 units already under construction will continue; all public buildings and security infrastructure will continue to be built; no restrictions would apply to occupied East Jerusalem; and construction would resume after ten months.

George Mitchell 2009.jpgNetanyahu also repeated the totally (meaningless) commitment of no new settlements or land confiscations (meaningless because since 1993, the official policy is no new settlements yet via expansion, new neighborhoods and outposts, the West Bank settler population has grown from 111,000 then to over 300,000 today, and because although the built-up area of settlements constitutes only 2% of West Bank land, double that amount is slated for growth, and a total of 40% comes under the Settlement Regional Councils, therefore land confiscation issue is a red herring).

While it is technically true that this “restraint” is a new Israeli commitment, its practical relevance is of very limited significance – building 3000 units in ten months neatly dovetails the regular annual settlement construction rates. Moreover, Netanyahu made sure to assertively mention all these caveats in today’s announcement – in effect, poking the Obama administration, the international community, and the Palestinians in the eye.

While some claim this was a politically courageous act by Netanyahu, the real litmus test is easy to apply: Has this led to any shakiness, any crisis, any resignations in the most right wing coalition ever in Israel’s history? The answer: absolutely not, and resignations in Israeli politics are about as rare as Turkeys on Thanksgiving.

Netanyahu’s so-called “restraint package” was so minimalist that it kept his coalition happy while doing nothing to advance a genuine peace effort (Yes, there is some criticism from the far-right, and Netanyahu’s supporters will point to it as proof of his bravery, but as I say, the real test is in his coalition – and there: not so much as a wobble).

The interesting development today, indeed the unprecedented development, was in the US response. Yes, Senator Mitchell did pro-forma explain why this is new, why this was progress from the Israeli government.

But the real American response came elsewhere, in Secretary Clinton and Envoy Mitchell’s statements. They did not bless the Israeli non-freeze, explaining it fell short and that they expected more, and that “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”. (Admittedly they could have explicitly said that after ten months and the 3000 units, their expectation was for not a single new home to be built, they didn’t).

The new language came in Secretary Clinton’s description of what American expects the outcome of negotiations to be – for an “independent and viable [Palestinian] state based on the 1967 lines”. Senator Mitchell quoted Clinton in repeating the call for a Palestinian state “based on the 67 lines.”

Every conflict and every situation has its own lingua franca. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, a state based on the 67 lines is the dog-whistle for what constitutes a real, no-B.S. two-state outcome. It is also language that the US has conspicuously avoided using – avoided that is until today.

Previous administrations would speak of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (but those are interpreted differently by the Israelis and Palestinians); the Clinton Parameters of December 2000 suggested percentages on territory, but never mentioned the 67 lines; in June 2002, President Bush used the phrase, ending the “occupation that began in 1967.”

That language was adopted in the 2003 Road Map and used verbatim by President Obama in his September United Nations General Assembly speech. It is language very much open to interpretation. The “1967 lines” language add a far greater degree of clarity – and, as such, is an anathema to the Greater Land of Israel, anti-peace forces (many of whom are represented in today’s Israeli government).

Interestingly, Secretary Clinton had begun to play with this language during her recent Middle East trip but had never been so explicit – until today. It is true that this adoption of new language comes late (perhaps too late) in the process and will need to be backed up by more concrete steps. It is though progress.

So the subtext of what went on today – the Obama administration is beginning to up the ante, at least declaratively, in the signals it is sending in response to Netanyahu’s stubbornness on settlements, and in setting the table for the next phase of its peace efforts.

…[emphasis added]

Good for the administration and for Secretary Clinton. Pretending Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Lieberman want anything resembling an actual two-state solution isn’t going to get us any closer to the goal. Nor is the U.S. screaming “how high” every time Israel screams “jump!” Sometimes a bit of tough love is necessary and the fact of the matter is, Israel and the US are allies and will always be allies – all of the claims by the neocons in both the Republican and Democratic Parties about the administration being “anti-Israel” by trying to bring some balance to the peace process is nothing but dumbed-down propaganda aimed at ensuring that the unacceptable status quo is maintained in the Middle East- to the detriment of everyone involved. Putting pressure on BOTH Israel and the Palestinians is necessary for the future security of both parties AND the U.S.

Advertisement