Should anyone doubt that the new Netanyhau government is on a collison course with the Obama administration, note bene:
Clinton was critical on Tuesday of the “economic peace” plan of Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu and said that an economic initiative without a political solution had no chance to succeed.
But it should also be noted that the Clinton-Obama approach is still wanting in important respects. Instead of pushing for a full opening of Gaza border crossings, Clinton is satisfied begging for half-measures:
During a meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak the Secretary of State said that Israel must do more to open the border crossings into the Gaza Strip to larger amounts of humanitarian assistance so that civilians there could get some relief. She also appealed for a broadening of the list of items that it considers “humanitarian aid,” and called the humanitarian situation there problematic.
…The secretary of state told Barak that it is important to be sensitive to the needs of the Palestinian civilians.
During her meeting with Netanyahu, Clinton said that it is important for Israel to consider whether the closing of the crossings may be more harmful than it is useful.
Nothing short of a complete end of the siege will bring about a stable, long-term ceasefire. Asking Barak to consider adding pasta to the category of foodstuffs permissible to import, as Clinton does here, simply won’t do.
I also wonder whether this statement heard from her in one of her press conferences was intentional or misspeaking:
As good friends, which we are, we might not always have opinions which we express…
If it was intentional, it would mean we’re back to “same old-same old” American beating around the bush (so to speak) when it comes to telling Israel when it crosses red lines. This is the Hillary I’d grown so sick of, toeing the Aipac line so slavishly. One can only hope it was a mistake made after long plane flights and long series of meetings.
In a separate matter, Haaretz also brings chilling news that Lieberman, who seems to be counting his chickens before they’re named foreign minister, has settled on who would be his number 2 should Netanyahu appoint him to the post. His choice is none other than Dov “Formaldehyde” Weisglass. He was the Israeli Machiavelli who back in 2004 had the chutzpah to announce in a public interview that Israel’s evacuation of Gaza was meant as ‘formaldehyde’ to put the peace process into a deep freeze. Here are some of his memorably brazen words which I hope he will yet have to eat (though certainly not regret):
“The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process,” Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.
“And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”
“The disengagement is actually formaldehyde,” he said. “It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”
There is only one reason to appoint Weisglass to this position: so he can work his embalming magic again. This time though, instead of having a willing patient in George Bush, he will have an unwilling one. I think the embalmer will not have nearly as much success this time.
I didn’t listen to her speech so I can’t say this is first-hand, but according to commentators, she did NOT mention the 1967 borders, nor did she use the word ‘contiguous’ to refer to the sup’d Palestinian “state”.
Nor did she speak to Israel doubling the number of settlements.
If this is correct then to see anything positive about her visit, is whistling in the dark.
Ahh…if wishing could make it so…
That should read ‘double the number of settlers’, not settlements.
How does the “disengagement” from Gaza freeze the political process with the Palestinians?
I’m not at all denying that it does, I’m just curious how that is supposed to work.
Hugh “Newcomer to These Debates” Slaman
It allows Israel to say that it has gone the extra mile for peace. It relieves pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank because they can tell the west that they have withdrawn from Palestinian territory (in Gaza). And that’s precisely the role the withdrawal HAS played. Very few people are calling for Israel to withdraw fr. the West Bank because Israel notes that it has already done so in Gaza and look what havoc this wrought.
Thanks Richard.
It seems that if the Gaza Palestinians were left alone and began to flourish economically, they would cease their attacks on Israel altogether, and this would increase the pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank as well (for the world would tell Israel “withdrawing from Gaza had good results for terrorism, so withdraw from the West Bank as well”.)
Therefore, Israel has a strong motivation to provoke Hamas into firing those rockets, because then it can cite this to avoid having to withdraw from the West Bank.
Just spelling things out for my own benefit…
Hugh
I think that’s right.
Why am I still on the ‘moderation’ waiting list, Richard? Let my posts show up please. You can ban me if I break the rules and I won’t come back (you could easily check the IP).
I’ve removed you from the moderation list & your comments will publish immediately. I would never ban someone for using foul language, that’s why I added you to the moderation list. I just wanted to be sure you understood that cursing was not appropriate here no matter how outraged we might feel.
According to this morning’s papers she did protest against the demolition of some houses in East Jerusalem. The Israelis claimed that these were built ‘illegally’. Since they have systematically withheld building permits to Palestinians they can claim that of just any of their houses built in the last few decades.
They have played the same game with land.
Excellent post.
My feeling is that Hamas elected Netanyahu.
The US is on a collision course with Netanyahu Israel because of sincere long-term policy differences (settlements, establishment of viable West Bank Palestinian state).
Also, although Hamas is now isolated from the PA, and as such the US and all Israeli parties are in concert, that could change at some point in the future (especially if Hamas wins 2010 Palestinian elections).
If Hamas were in ANY Palestinian government, Netanyahu would put them in the DEEP FREEZE. There would be no prospect of relaxation of borders. If Hamas were not included, there would be a prospect of expanded PA range of sovereignty, but also likely expansion of settlements.
You can’t imagine how disappointing it was to all concerned that Hamas decided to resume shelling Israeli civilians, instead of waiting a couple weeks or months to determine IF the cease-fire bore any fruit.
There was the prospect of “peace of the brave” with a Livni led coalition, even with Hamas.
No more, collision course with US or not.
Since Israel didn’t relax border controls during the cease-fire, (and didn’t observe the cease-fire) its hard to see why Hamas should have thought waiting another couple of weeks or months would have “bore any fruit.”
This is a really strange time for anyone to start any political strategy based on economic development.
Well said.
Witty it has been pointed out to you over and over, also on other websites, that it was Israel that broke the ceasefire. The fact that you keep ignoring this and now come up with this mealy mouthed phrase “‘it was disappointing to all concerned …” etc. about Hamas’ resumption of the shelling is to me a sign of bad faith.
Also, for your information, the Israelis elected Netanyahu. To make Hamas responsible for this is ludicrous.
“Witty it has been pointed out to you over and over, also on other websites, that it was Israel that broke the ceasefire. ”
A thorough read of the facts, don’t support that conclusion.
Your “thorough” read of the “facts”.
Although HRC may say she rejects Netanyahu’s Palestinian economic plan, “progressive” Meron Benveniste says it should not be rejected out of hand. But more so, the fact that the US and EU are now lavishing billions of dollars on the Palestinians (the largest per-capita recipients of foreign aid in the world) shows to me that they have in effect adopted Netanyahu’s idea. If we look back at Sadat’s peace overture to Israel back in 1977 we note that it occurred after major bread riots broke out in Egypt. The Americans told Sadat that they would be willing to give major financial aid to Egypt IF he would make a peace agreement with Israel. Now, with the Palestinians, everything is backwards. They are given the money unconditionally, so the the US and EU now have no leverage over them to make the concessions needed to reach a peace agreement with Israel (and yes, in spite of the fact that supposedly “everyone knows the outlines of an agreement”, the Palestinians are still going to have to give up the “right of return” and other things that Arafat told Clinton he would be assassinated if he ever compromised on these things). Thus, I interpret this as meaning that the US HAS given up on the idea of Israel and the Palestinians reaching a contractual peace agreement and are, instead, looking to improve the situation on the ground and hope the evolves a situation that make a more peaceful environment for future peace talks than exists now (particularly the attempt to discredit HAMAS in the eyes of the Palestinian public).
So nice to see Bar Kochba shilling for Netanyahu and showing his true partisan stripes.
Even without reading what Benvenisti has said (you’ve conveniently not provided a link so we can check), I know that the claim he has anything good to say about anything Netanyahu proposes is ridiculous.
Ah now, isn’t that interesting. You apparently haven’t stopped to think that if Israel dropped its siege and allowed Gaza to become a normal place with trade, jobs, medical care, free flow of goods, people & ideas, etc. that it would not need most of this aid. This is a circumstance that is solely Israel’s doing. Therefore, neither you nor Israel has any right to complain about the basket case you’ve made of the place.
My tush they have. They’ve accepted only the notion that Israel has turned Gaza into an international basket case. Humanitarian aid or economic development isn’t the primary long-term need here. Ending the siege and Occupation is what is needed. Political freedom and an independent state is what is needed. Everything else is secondary. And everyone but Bibi, you and the Israeli far right know this to be true.
I always enjoy someone on the Israeli far right attempting to parse what the Palestinians will have to accept in a future peace agreement which the far right denies can ever happen. No one who really wants peace would ever articulate the issue the way you have. They will have to give up a literal physical right of return, but not a moral or symbolic right of return that has monetary value.
This is why the Israeli far-right is so hopelessly devoid of contact with reality. You just continue believing this narischkeit. But I’ve got news for you. Barack Obama is going to disabuse you of this notion big time. And then you’re going to be screaming bloody murder.
He also based it with no conclusive evidence.
I’ve got a bad memory for names but Richard Witty is scarred into my mind in the same way that Keith Olbermann is scarred into the mind of Sarah Palin. It provokes an involuntary shriek!