|
27 March 2010
By
Jonathan Cook
Benjamin Netanyahu
arrived in the United States this week armed with a
mandate from the Israeli parliament. A large majority
of legislators from all of Israel’s main parties had
supported a petition urging him to stand firm on the
building of Jewish settlements in occupied
East Jerusalem
-- the very issue that got him into hot water days
earlier with the White House.
Given the
Israeli consensus on Jerusalem, there was no way Mr
Netanyahu could have avoided rubbing that wound again
in his speech on Monday to the annual conference of
the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobby group.
He told the
thousands of delegates: “The Jewish people were
building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish
people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not
a settlement. It is our capital.”
Citing his
own policy as inseparable from all previous Israeli
governments, he added: “Everyone knows that these
neighbourhoods will be part of Israel in any peace
settlement. Therefore, building them in no way
precludes the possibility of a
two-state solution.”
Mr Netanyahu’s
speech appeared consistent with the new approach
agreed by both sides to end this particular debacle.
According to the US media, a policy of “Don’t ask and
don’t tell” has been adopted to avoid making East
Jerusalem an insurmountable obstacle to negotiations.
It will be
telling how the US administration responds to the
latest approval by Israeli planning authorities of a
housing project
at the Shepherd’s Hotel in East Jerusalem – this time
in the even more controversial area of Sheikh Jarrah,
a Palestinian community slowly being taken over by
Jewish settlers backed by the Israeli courts.
The White House
has eased its stance chiefly because Mr Netanyahu has
climbed down on two issues of even greater importance
to the administration.
First, he
has agreed to make a “significant gesture” to
Mahmoud Abbas,
the Palestinian president, probably in the form of a
prisoner release. That is the carrot needed to bring
Mr Abbas to the peace talks overseen by
George Mitchell,
the US special peace envoy.
And second,
Mr Netanyahu has conceded that Israel will discuss the
“core issues” of the conflict – borders, Jerusalem and
the
Palestinian refugees
– ensuring that the negotiations are substantive
rather than formal, as he had intended.
Those
concessions – if Mr Netanyahu delivers on them –
should be enough to break up his far-right coalition,
a prospect the White House craves. The US
administration wants
Tzipi Livni,
the leader of the centrist opposition, to join Mr
Netanyahu in a new, “peacemaking coalition”.
If Mr Netanyahu
could wriggle out of this bind, he would do so. But
his ace in the hole – harnessing the might of AIPAC
and its legions in Congress to back him against the
White House – looks to have been disarmed.
Comments
last week by
Gen David Petraeus,
the head of the US
Central Command,
linked Israel’s intransigence towards the Palestinians
to the spread of a hatred that endangers US troops in
the
Middle East.
That left the
AIPAC
hordes with little option but to swallow their and Mr
Netanyahu’s pride, lest they be accused of dual
loyalties.
In the words
of
Uri Avnery,
a former Israeli legislator: “This is only a shot
across the bow, a warning shot fired by a warship in
order to induce another vessel to follow its
instructions. The warning is clear.”
And the warning
is that Mr Netanyahu must come to the negotiating
table to help to establish a Palestinian state
whatever the consequences for his coalition.
But it would be
unwise to assume that the crisis over settlement
building in East Jerusalem indicates that the Obama
administration plans to get any tougher with Israel on
the form of such statehood than its predecessors.
Ms Livni, unlike
Mr Netanyahu, may wish to find a solution to the
conflict – or impose one – but her terms would be far
from generous. The White House knows that she, too, is
an ardent advocate of settlements in East Jerusalem.
When she broke her silence on the crisis last week, it
was to emphasise that, by “acting stupidly” in stoking
a row with the US, Mr Netanyahu had risked “weakening”
Israel’s hold on Jerusalem
Instead, the
signs are that
Barack Obama
could be just as ready to accommodate the Israeli
consensus on East Jerusalem as the previous
Bush administration
was in backing Israel’s position on keeping the
overwhelming majority of
West Bank settlers
in their homes on occupied Palestinian land.
Shimon Peres,
the Israeli president who is much favoured in
Washington, has outlined a “compromise” to placate the
Americans. It would involve a peace deal in which
Israel keeps the large swaths of East Jerusalem
already settled by Jews, while the Palestinians would
be entitled to the ghettos left behind after four
decades of illegal Israeli building.
In her own AIPAC
speech, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state,
hinted that such a solution might yet be acceptable to
the administration. The recent US condemnation of
settlement building, she said, was not “a judgment on
the final status of Jerusalem, which is an issue to be
settled at the negotiating table. This is about
getting to the table, creating and protecting an
atmosphere of trust around it -- and staying there
until the job is finally done.”
Having lost
patience with Mr Netanyahu’s lip service to
Palestinian statehood, the White House appears finally
to have decided its credibility in the Middle East
depends on dragging Israel -- kicking and screaming,
if needs be -- to the negotiating table.
Mr Obama may
hope that the outcome of such a process will make US
troops safer in Iraq and strengthen his hand in the
stand-off with
Iran.
But it remains doubtful that the US actually has the
stomach to extract from Israel the concessions needed
to create that elusive entity referred to as a viable
Palestinian state.
Jonathan
Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth,
Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of
Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the
Middle East” (Pluto
Press)
and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in
Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is
www.jkcook.net. |