Even as the Washington Post reports that President Obama, meeting with Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, is optimistic about peace in the Middle East, it runs a parallel story Netanyahu’s Defiance of U.S. Resonates at Home:
For five months, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been fending off U.S. pressure to halt the expansion of West Bank settlements. Now he is reaping dividends for his defiance.
Although Israeli leaders have historically been reluctant to publicly break with the United States for fear of paying a price in domestic support, polls show that Netanyahu’s strategy is working. And that means that after months of diplomacy, the quick breakthrough that President Obama had hoped would restart peace talks has instead turned into a familiar stalemate.
Arab states largely have rebuffed Obama’s request for an overture to Israel until the settlement issue is resolved — a stand that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak emphasized in a meeting with Obama on Tuesday — and the Palestinians have said a settlement freeze is a precondition for resuming negotiations. Meanwhile, the Israeli public seems to have rallied around Netanyahu’s refusal to halt all settlement construction, a backlash that intensified when the Obama administration made clear that it wanted Israel to stop building Jewish homes in some parts of Jerusalem as well as in the occupied West Bank.
In Israel, the dynamic seems to have shifted further from any dramatic concessions. Netanyahu “scored points” for standing up to Obama, said Yoel Hasson, a member of parliament from the opposition Kadima party. In contrast to the United States’ public demands for a settlement freeze, signaled early in the relationship between the two new governments, “I think the U.S. understands that it is better for them to do everything with Netanyahu more quietly,” Hasson said.
Note a few things. First of all despite their differences, Netanyahu has been working with the Obama administration. Now you can quibble whether Netanyahu caved or made a strategic retreat, but it doesn’t appear that Netanyahu is “defying” the administration. (via memeorandum)
(This would indicate strategic retreat.)
By coupling an article that highlights Israeli “defiance” with an article about President Obama being hopeful about peace, the Post effectively identifies Israel as the obstacle to peace. Yes, the reporter, Howard Schneider, acknowledges that no Arab country has acceded to President Obama’s request for confidence building measures for Israel, but he presents it as a reaction to Israel’s refusal to freeze “settlements.”
Israel’s political situation is also being misrepresented. Yes, Israelis apparently approve of Netanyahu’s handling of the diplomacy with the United States. But the approval isn’t simply a matter of Netanyahu’s defiance; he represents a large portion of the Israeli electorate. This isn’t 1996 anymore, Israel has conceded a lot and received nothing in return. At some point any country will get tired of giving away concrete assets in return for unfulfilled promises.
Lastly, Howard Schneider, the Post’s reporter, of course, ignored the hardline resolutions passed by the recently concluded Fatah convention. (See here or here.) For him to frame the issue as Israeli “defiance” is misleading, when, no matter moderate the Israeli government were, it would have no one to deal with on the other side.
The New York Times was somewhat more responsible and accurate in the way it presented the situation:
The leaders’ cautiously optimistic comments coincided with a sign that the Israeli government was trying to lower tensions with the United States on the settlement issue. That signal was in the form of an announcement by Israel’s housing minister that his government had not given final approval for any new housing projects in the West Bank since it took office in late March.
While the gesture from Jerusalem does not affect settlement housing units under construction, it at least allowed the American and Egyptian presidents to say they were hopeful about getting peace talks started again.
The Obama administration has demanded a freeze on all settlement construction, saying that such a move would create momentum for a peace agreement in the Middle East. The conservative-leaning Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has balked at the demand, resulting in an unusually public dispute between Israel and the United States.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
I unilateral and complete withdrawal from Gaza, without any comcessions from the Arabs, did not create momentum for a peace agreement (and it did not) then I don’t see what any other Israel concessions will create such “momentum”. Past time for the Arabs to make some concessins, to meet Israel partway in the search for a peace agreement. But they are going in the opposite direction, hardening their genocidal goals.
Israel should make no concessions, take no inititatives until there has been movement from theother side towards a compromise peace with Israel. If the Obama Administration does not like that, they ought to put pressure on Israel’s enemies to make peace. There is nothing Israel can do to bring about peace, except commit suicide, which is not an acceptable option (although it may be to the Arabist Obamabots now dominating policy making in the Obama Administration).