This is probably too good to be true, but what if it is not? Shimon Shiffer, who I am told is one of Israel’s most highly respected journalists, reported in Israel’s largest daily paper Yedioth Achronoth that Obama is laying down the law with the Israelis. And he’s using Rahm Emanuel to do it.
Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; “In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn’t matter to us at all who is prime minister.”
He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place. “Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory,” the paper reports Emanuel as saying. In other words, US sympathy for Israel’s position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel’s willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
Mr. Shiffer goes on to report that the Obama administration has informed Israel that the president will be ‘out of town’ during next month’s AIPAC meeting in Washington and unavailable to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Shiffer also reports that Netanyahu may cancel his trip to the AIPAC conference and seek a one-on-one meeting with Obama later in the month. But…
“Sources in Washington also said that the Obama administration would not continue the tradition that developed during the Bush administration of hosting Israeli premiers many times during the year, sometimes with just a phone call’s advance notice.”
I hadn’t thought of turning the tables on the Israelis and making our active interest in Iran’s nuclear ambitions contingent on Israel getting out of the occupied territories. This could be nothing more than the overheated imagination of some paranoid Israeli official. But, what if it is true?
This would go beyond my highest expectations. And Rahm’s selection as chief of staff would suddenly start looking a whole lot better. No?
If this is true, it would be a sea change in US-Israel relations, and in a good way.
But it seems to me that this story could be designed to rally the AIPAC lobby to come down on Rahmbo and Obama like a ton of bricks. There’s going to be massive resistance to this.
If indeed Rahmbo is going to take on AIPAC, then my hat is off to him. It’s long overdue.
My fear is that AIPAC just painted a huge bullseye on his back, however. We’ll see how hard the backlash on this is. My guess is that we may even see calls for Obama to get rid of him, or something equally quasi-ridiculous like that.
Obama Derangement Syndrome isn’t just an American disease.
Well, this is indeed interesting, and I think it is true. Of course there’s going to be a dustup, Zandar. But can anyone possibly believe that Obama and Rahm don’t know that? What this is, is the government hereby switching over from longstanding Republican policy, “Jewish” flavor, to a position in line with what most American JewJews actually want — and of course, the real interests of America. I’d love to see AIPAC call for Obama to get rid of Rahm… because Obama and Rahm will call their bluff. And Rahm will call the Israeli right’s bluff in his own inimitable style — and in Hebrew, too.
I don’t know what happened with Freeman and Dennis Blair. You have to pick your fights, and it may be that Blair in some way blindsided the administration with Freeman so that they were off balance when the attacks came. I don’t know, that’s just a guess, because similar things have happened.
“the government hereby switching over from longstanding Republican policy“
Longstanding REPUBLICAN policy? Not really. Some of the strongest and most consistent “support” (read pandering) to Israel comes from Democrats, including both Clintons. With rare exceptions Democrats in Congress dance while Israel calls the tune (and those who do not, usually pay the price). Al Gore used to get tears in hiw eyes when he got to the standard part of his annual AIPAC speech where he talked about his great love for Israel. George H.W. Bush, on the other hand, actually tried seriously to lay down the law to Israel about the colonies, and lost a second term, many believe partly as a result of that. Much earlier on, Eisenhower stood up to Israel (though admittedly there is a world of difference between today’s Republican and the Republicans of the ’50’s).
It’s a very big mistake to think that unquestioning support for Israel, and vilification of the Palestinians is or ever has been a Republican thing. On the contrary, it is and has always been the American way, Republican or Democrat.
People make the same mistake about Israeli political parties, as if Labour and the other “left” parties who have been in power have not done more than their share of colonization, and committed their share of atrocities. Back in the day, the real peace camp – Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs, American Jews and gentiles – had a saying that Likud mostly talks about building colonies, while Labour actually builds them. And there was considerable truth to it.
You are right that most American Jews want a resolution to the conflict, and will be very satisfied with a two-state solution. It also appears that since the Gaza atrocity many American Jews have finally seen Israel’s ever-darkening underbelly and are rethinking whether they can continue to support a Jewish state that so severely violates what they were raised to believe are Jewish values. I think this phenomenon is very promising, because Israel depends enormously on the devotion, support, (and generous donations) from the U.S. Jewish community. If enough of that community turns away from Israel, it will ultimately affect U.S. policy, and Israel might be forced for survival to begin behaving as a civilized state. We shall see.
I can’t deny there’s a lot of truth to what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s that cut and dried — I think it’s pretty clear there’s a difference between the parties on Israel. Or at least, let’s say between Obama and his predecessor, McCain. The Neocons are not nearly so influential on this administration, either. Things hit absolutely rock bottom under W, and remember the role of the “Republican Jewish Coalition” (one of whose chief moneybags was Sheldon Adelson, who’s recently lost most of his money) in the vicious attacks on Obama during the campaign. With the Democrats there is hope, with the Republicans, there is none. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but maybe you’re too pessimistic. Let’s see how it develops.
Oops, I meant to write “Obama and his predecessor, OR McCain.”
if true I’ll be excited.
still waiting for those torture memos to come out.
Ah, and A. Lieberman will probably argue “Bomb Iran now! Before it’s too late! GO GO GO GO GO! Shoot down the Americans if they try to stop us as we fly over Iraq!”
Will they do that? Who knows. If you want to take on the influence wielded by Rightist Pro-Israel folks both here and in Israel, you can’t do it by halves.
I’m skeptical.
I can believe that the Obama administration is inclined to take the stance described, but I doubt it would be publicized in such a manner; for “laying down the law” publicly like this would only seem counter-productive, and contrary to Obama’s style.
that assumes, of course, that the Obama administration can have talks with the Israeli government and control what the Israeli government leaks to their own press about the conversations.
I wouldn’t trust the leaks, but that’s why I made everything conditional.
.
(Haaretz) – Obama seems to have completely adopted the report by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, compiled under the Bush administration, according to which Iran would be included in the region’s diplomatic developments.
Such involvement was also proposed to Iran in the incentive package the UN Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany offered last summer. Iran is increasingly being perceived not only as the ultimate threat, but also as a “land of diplomatic opportunities.” Iran is seen as a country that – more than Saudi Arabia and Egypt – can influence Hamas, certainly Hezbollah, and also Syria in negotiations with Israel, and as a country that can stabilize Iraq and contribute to the international effort in Afghanistan.
Unlike countries such as North Korea, or even nuclear Pakistan, U.S. policy toward Iran is based on more than preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons. The United States wants Iran by its side on volatile battlegrounds, not against it. Washington’s willingness to talk with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran, and not wait for the results of the June elections, suggests a new, realistic and refreshing approach.
Israel will have to get used to this situation. Netanyahu’s bureau may continue to issue whatever statements it likes, pleased by plans to attack, and may later believe it is dictating the dialogue. But on the dance floor, the really important tango is going on, and it would be best if Netanyahu’s bureau takes its place among the spectators.
Acceptance of a two-state solution is a prequisite for peace talks
≈ Cross-posted from shergald’s diary — Israel’s Racist in Chief ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Sully is right when he says Persia is a natural ally, though calling it Persia is pretty tasteless and probably a little offensive of him.
Actually, most of the Iranians I know prefer to call the country Persia, themselves Persians, and their language Persian, not Farsi.
Oh yeah? I have never met a Persian. Plenty of people from Pakistan though (okay, not plenty, but like 20).
I know quite a few of both. There are lots of Iranians – Persians – in my area as well as Pakistanis, and I have spent time in both countries. :o}
I noticed a number of years ago that Iranians in the west were referring to themselves more and more as Persians. I suspected then and suspect now that it was because they wanted to disassociate themselves with the revolution and the regimes that resulted, but I never asked about it, so don’t know for sure.
All the people from Iran I`ve met here in LA, in an area some people call Terhangeles, always call themselves Persian.
I`ve worked with many of these people & for quite a few of them also.
I found out at onetime that even though they told outrageously funny jokes with camels & deserts being central to them, & that they centered on arabs, that they weren`t & were really telling “Polish” , “Wap”, “Newfie” etc. jokes. They were still well constructed jokes, but I realized they were about ‘others’, with them not included. At the time I figured they didn`t want to be associated with Arabs, as a people, because of the anti Iranian atmosphere here in the US, thinking that people would not get the connection that Iran is what used to be called Persia, but then realized that they were only differentiating themselves from “arabs.
But what do I know.
Oh yes, they have a lot to say about Arabs, some of it good natured, some of it not so much. Really, when Americans conflate Arabs and Iranians/Persians they are insulting both. The are two distinct ethno-linguistic groups from two very distinct migrations, and there are definite historical and cultural differences. However, there are Arab Iranians, and there are Persians who live in and have family history in Arab countries.
My new hair cutter is Iranian. He tells me his parents are very racist, and really don’t like anyone who is not Persian, and even then they have to be from certain families to be really worthwhile. That family thing is very middle eastern. If you come from a “good family” it opens a lot of doors. And “good family” is not really about how much money the family has. It is more about other qualities. A family can have lots and lots of money and still not qualify as “good”.
Tomorrow night at this time I will be on my way to Damascus via Dubai. I have a long stop in Dubai, and I suppose out of curiosity I should go have a look around instead of hanging out at the airport, but I have no use for it. It is like Las Vegas to the 100th power. The only Gulf country that is really worth spending time in is `Oman.
Have a safe trip.
I do hope you receivd. the email I sent regarding panoramas.
If you did, but have ?`s, just shoot them like I outlined in the email, & we can work out the details later.
Interesting about the “good” families.
Reading some articles on the economy in Dubai, it looks like it is suffering quite a bit from the downturn, much more than other emirates, because of the absence of oil there.
The sad thing is that we lost eight precious years in our diplomatic relations with Iran. The country was largely with us right after 9/11. They have no love for the Taliban, and instability in Afghanistan is a great concern for them. Of course, after Bush threw them into his “Axis of Evil” stew and ramped up the vilification, any hopes of any kind of reconciliation were dashed. I think we will all be watching the presidential election there on June 12 with a great deal of interest.
Let’s wait to see if Haaretz publishes on this story. It sounds so unlikely that Obama would start laying the law to Israel, in spite of the fact that AIPAC is becoming an insignificant factor in presidential elections. I could understand it if Obama has made the judgment that all he needs for reelection is blogosphere money, but it is really kind of early in his first term for him to make such a call.
The story nonetheless give optimism about changing Middle East politics, and a politician who can see that Israel’s occupation and colonialism has been dragging the US down the tubes with many other nations, like Turkey recently. It was good to see the Turkish PM give Peres, the hypocritical Israeli President, his comeuppance recently on the matter of the Gaza massacres.
More.
This also appeared in Haaretz, but I’m not yet seeing the Rahm story published there.
As for the Wapo blurb:
The Palestinian reps are calling it what it is: a stall tactic, which apparently constitutes Netanyahu’s next move. As the Palestinians are not giving ground on the point, Mitchell’s move is next. How about a mutual recognition of statehood, even though the “Jewish state” aspect does not recognize the right of Israeli Arabs (Palestinians with Israeli citizenship) to full citizenship.
And more . . .
http://israelpolicyforum.ngphost.com/blog/obama-loosens-conditions-palestinian-aid
One more reason I’m somewhat skeptical: it just occurred to me that there is little logic here behind the reported threat.
How can Obama really condition its treatment of Iran upon Israeli willingness to negotiate? Don’t we have the same interest in dealing with Iran’s nuclear capabilities that Israel does? While the problem may not be “existential” for us, surely it is still in our self-interest to do whatever we can to prevent Iran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.
Suppose Israel reacts by saying, “too bad, we’re not accepting the two-state solution: is Obama really going to wash his hands of the Iran problem?
Best case scenario:
It’s all true. Obama puts pressure on the Israelis via Rahm Emanuel. The Israelis say, with a conciliatory smile, “OK, OK, since you put it that way, we’ll negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians”. The Israelis make the Palestinians a “generous offer” in which the the Palestinians get to declare “statehood” in what is left of the West Bank and Gaza with Abu Dis as their “capital”. In the meantime, Israel escalates land confiscations for the wall, frantically expands existing colonies, filling them with hastily converted “Jews” it discovered living in some remote Brazilian village along the Amazon.
The Israelis then make a “generous offer” in which Israel keeps all its established colonies, with a large “buffer zone” around each, the Jordan Valley, all its colonists-only “bypass” roads. The Palestinians get to “declare statehood” in whatever bits and pieces and nooks and crannies are left over, and maintains control over Palestine’s borders, Palestine’s airspace, Palestine’s seacoast, Palestine’s water resources, and thereby, of course, Palestine’s economy. Palestine is not permitted to have a military, which would pose an existential threat to Israel, and its police forces are only allowed to carry small calibre pistols and billy clubs. The Palestinians are required to declare that this satisfies all their demands and grievances, and the matter is closed forver.
The Palestinians say “what part of that do you think looks anything like what we have been struggling and suffering for for the last 60 + years? What part of that looks to you like something anyone in their right mind would accept? Please come back and talk to us when you are sober”.
Everyone shakes their heads and blames Palestinian intransigence for the “breakdown of the negotiations. Israelis say “See? We make painful concessions, and they spit on us for it. Those Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. Obama shrugs and says “we did our best, but the Palestinians are obviously still not ready for peace”. Nice liberal Americans say “What is wrong with those Palestinians? They will never get an offer that good again! Obviously, all they care about is destroying Israel and annihilating the Jews.”
And the Arab League continues to re-offer what Israel claims it has always wanted – peace, recognition, and full, normal diplomatic and economic relations, while the Israelis continues to point their middle finger in response.
There is some cynicism that is well deserved, and if I have ever read any, this is it. One has to agree that the next generous offer has so little land to offer that one would have to argue with the Israelis that 10% is better than none. And so the new state of Palestine happens to look like swiss cheese: got something against the Swiss? And it doesn’t have a border outside of Israel. So what? Think of the savings of not having to mount your own armed forces. That’s all taken care of. And we need to remember that checkpoints work both ways. No one will be allowed into Palestine unless they get through the checkpoints, manned freely by big brother next door.
Well, I don’t like to pile cynicism on cyncism, but I guess that’s just what I’ve done. Sorry. It was not my intent to do so.
Agreed. There’s a two-state solution, and then there is a two-state solution that is workable. I doubt the Israelis will offer the latter.
If the US position is Bush II’s statement on the parameters of a Palestinian state just prior to the Annapolis Conference, and it is accepted by Israel, I will become a believer.
But you are likely correct. Israel will never concede to an independent, sovereign, and contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, plus Gaza.
Netanyahu: we will never give up the Jordan Valley. And that does it.
Frankly, IP stories were getting same-old about the occupation and colonialism until Obama was elected. Now we have a real fight.
.
True, Iran wants regime change in Israel and wipe Zionist regime off the ME map. With Lieberman as FM in Netanyahu’s cabinet of opportunity, seems like Iran could get other ME nations on it’s side: Lieberman not welcome in Egypt.
(Haaretz) – Senior U.S. officials in Washington and New York are leaning in favor of participating in the “Durban 2” UN-sponsored anti-racism conference scheduled to take place on April 20 in Geneva.
Leading figures in the organized American Jewish community have been lobbying Western ambassadors and European diplomats in the UN to dissuade their governments from participating in the Geneva summit.
Dozens of human rights groups and activists in the United States have petitioned President Barack Obama to rethink his decision to boycott the conference, expected by many countries to be used as a forum for criticizing Israel.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."This is it.
If Obama decides to send his representatives to Durban II, I will believe that real change is coming. Likewise, if it is really true that Obama will not meet with Netanyahu on the expected date, then just maybe real change is coming.
And likewise, I will believe that this story is real.
.
(Haaretz) Feb. 11, 2009 – If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has forgotten Bibi’s tricks then Dennis Ross, who was the coordinator of the peace process in the Clinton administration and is an advisor to Obama, can refer her to his book “The Missing Peace.”
There he quotes president Clinton’s reaction to Bibi’s retreat from a commitment.
“At times he was tough,” writes Ross, “yelling at Bibi when he retracted an earlier pledge on Palestinian prisoners. ‘This is just chicken shit. I’m not going to put up with this kind of bullshit.'”
Aaron David Miller, who was Ross’ deputy, also documented the days of Bibi and Bill. In his book “The Much Too Promised Land,” Miller relates that during their first meeting in the summer of 1996, Bibi lectured the president about the Arab-Israeli issue, prompting Clinton to expostulate when it was over, “Who the fuck does he think he is? Who’s the fucking superpower here?”
Most definite of all is Joe Lockhart, who was the White House spokesman at the time. In a recorded interview to Clayton Swisher, author of the book “The Truth About Camp David,” he described Netanyahu as “one of the most obnoxious individuals you’re going to come into – just a liar and a cheat. He could open his mouth and you could have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I think Clinton learned just who was the fucking superpower here. During the 90s and the supposed Oslo period, the rate of settlements and the number of settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem DOUBLED. Did Clinton at any time squawk about how it would impede the peace process. I don’t think so, at least I never heard of a public complaint.
Now we have Palestinian intellectuals claiming that Clinton was the must destructive president ever concerning Israeli-Palestinian peace. Put that together with the phoney Camp David/Taba peace negotiations and pretty much one can agree wholeheartedly: Clinton suckered Arafat.
I thought Obama had already signaled his administration would not be there at Durban II due to anti-Israel views or something like that.
I thought he did also. Then articles appeared indicating that the decision was still up in the air.
Same old crap: Netanyahu pulls out the Olmert dodge and stall ploy and lays it on Mitchell.
Netanyahu demands Palestinians recognize ‘Jewish state’
By Akiva Eldar, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, and Reuters Today.
Here’s another part of the story …
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/04/14/steve-walt-obamas-options-with-a-recalcitran
t-israel/#comments
I’m not sure I ended up where you intended us to get to with the link, but I did get to a great blog. Thanks. This post in particular:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/04/16/obamas-tough-love-to-bibi/
I checked the link, and maybe what confused you — and me — is that it takes you straight to the top of the comments. But if you just scroll up you’ll find the post directly above, and that is the post I meant to link to. Of course the comments are also interesting.
However, your link is equally if not more interesting. And yes, it is a great blog, isn’t it?