(July 24, 2009) Why is Netanyahu courting Christian fundamentalists? (MJ Rosenberg, Foreign Policy)

[StacyinBoston]

An article over at Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/24/playing_the_jesus_card) notes that PM Netanyahu of Israel is turning to right wing Evangelicals for help to criticize the US administration's Mid-East peace plans. MJ Rosenberg (the author of the article) concludes that this has been tried before without much success:

Benjamin Netanyahu has a problem. The Obama administration is insisting on a settlements freeze, and the Israeli prime minister, who is resisting such demands, is not getting the support he might have expected from the U.S. pro-Israel community. Usually, when an American President makes any sort of demand on Jerusalem, pro-Israel (primarily Jewish) organizations compel Congress to pressure the president to cease and desist. It usually works. But not this time.

So what's an Israeli leader to do? Netanyahu is resurrecting a tried and true strategy: Call on Christian fundamentalists -- who see maintaining Israel's occupation as paramount -- to galvanize popular pressure against Obama. But just like the last time he played this trick, the tactic is unlikely to work magic for Bibi anytime soon.

[snip]

There are numerous reasons why the Jewish community is not rushing to Netanyahu's defense. First, there has never been much support in the United States for West Bank settlements. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, has never taken a stand favoring settlements nor have most of the other mainstream pro-Israel organizations. The up-and-coming pro-Israel, pro-peace organizations like J Street and my employer, the Israel Policy Forum, oppose settlements and fully support the president's position.

On top of that, Netanyahu has never been a popular figure in the American Jewish community. His last tenure as prime minister was a failure; he was turned out of office in near-record time. Yet even in this brief stint, he managed to antagonize the United States. Remember, he came to office less than a year after the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and moved quickly to undo the peace process. Not surprisingly, that led to a swift deterioration in relations between Netanyahu and then President Bill Clinton, who had cherished his relationship both with Rabin and the Oslo peace process.

Sensing the frost, and knowing that getting in Clinton's good graces would require endorsing Oslo, Netanyahu turned to the Republicans and to the Christian Zionists for support. There was nothing subtle about Netanyahu's embrace of the right. In fact, during the Monica Lewinsky crisis -- when he clearly believed Clinton was done for -- the media carried reports about Netanyahu joking with House Speaker Newt Gingrich over some of the more salacious details of the affair.

[snip]

So, sure enough, Netanyahu was the man of the hour at this week's Christians United For Israel (CUFI) conference in Washington. The organization's founder, Pastor John Hagee, addressed Netanyahu -- who was in Israel -- by satellite, telling him that 50 million Christians support "Israel's sovereign right to grow and develop the settlements of Israel as you see fit and not yield to the pressure of the United States government."[emphasis added]

Politics makes strange bedfellows!:rolleyes:

[Ikasu]

It's ironic because many of these Christian fundamentalists are anti-Semitic, wanting to convert Jews to Christianity. "Perfect them" as Ann Coulter put it. Netanyahu lacks principles, he will accept support from anti-Semites as long as they support his plans for Israel.

[Brooke]

It's ironic because many of these Christian fundamentalists are anti-Semitic, wanting to convert Jews to Christianity. "Perfect them" as Ann Coulter put it. Netanyahu lacks principles, he will accept support from anti-Semites as long as they support his plans for Israel.

Hmm..I never thought of it like that. I thought Christians were very supportive of Israel because of the whole Holy Land and Chosen People thing. I guess the fundamentalists are but I've had a lot of Christian friends who aren't anti Semitic.

I'll admit that Netanyahu does have principles. They just tend to be pretty distorted.

Sensing the frost, and knowing that getting in Clinton's good graces would require endorsing Oslo, Netanyahu turned to the Republicans and to the Christian Zionists for support. There was nothing subtle about Netanyahu's embrace of the right. In fact, during the Monica Lewinsky crisis -- when he clearly believed Clinton was done for -- the media carried reports about Netanyahu joking with House Speaker Newt Gingrich over some of the more salacious details of the affair.

This is true. He did get close to the Right wing radicals who were after Bill, but I honestly don't think that had anything to do with politics. I think it was because Netanyahu and Clinton hated each other and Bibi was trying to get back at him for endorsing Peres over him in the 1996 elections. Not to mention, Bill was BFFs with Rabin and Netanyahu hated Rabin as well. I mean, Bill would at times refuse to meet with Netanyahu and then he'd be seen at an event with Shimon Peres and Leah Rabin, two of his close allies and friends, much to Netanyahu's disappointment. So it kinda worked both ways.

And for the record, Benjamin Netanyahu has NEVER been popular with American Jews. Ever. I know very few American Jews, including among my family and friends, who have anything nice to say about him. But I think that has to do with the fact that he's really radical and conservative and they're all liberals. But that part of the article is very true.

First, there has never been much support in the United States for West Bank settlements. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, has never taken a stand favoring settlements nor have most of the other mainstream pro-Israel organizations.

While tihs is true, AIPAC has always been pretty right leaning, which was why I gave up on my aspirations to work for them years ago. I've had a lot of experience with them through their policy conferences and different Middle East workshops I've been to and I've never liked their stances on things. Unfortunately, they're the biggest Pro Israel lobby in the country so anytime I would get involved in Pro Israel things, they were always either speaking or sponsering. I remember when I was high on them back in high school after I'd come back from a policy conference, my high school mentor and 11th grade history teacher said to me "Brooke, you're very Pro Labor, why would you want to work for them?" He was also a huge Middle East buff and we were always on the same side, politically. The Monday after Rabin was killed, I walked into class and he just gave me a big hug and we cried. We both loved him. And neither one of us was ever a Netanyahu fan. I emailed him in April when he got back into office and said "Look whose back!" LOL. And he's Christian.

Stacy, thank you for posting this. I'm going to post it to my blog with my own thoughts.

[Alex01]

Sensing the frost, and knowing that getting in Clinton's good graces would require endorsing Oslo, Netanyahu turned to the Republicans and to the Christian Zionists for support. There was nothing subtle about Netanyahu's embrace of the right. In fact, during the Monica Lewinsky crisis -- when he clearly believed Clinton was done for -- the media carried reports about Netanyahu joking with House Speaker Newt Gingrich over some of the more salacious details of the affair.


While nitwit Newt was having an affair of his own...:eek:

[Ikasu]

Hmm..I never thought of it like that. I thought Christians were very supportive of Israel because of the whole Holy Land and Chosen People thing. I guess the fundamentalists are but I've had a lot of Christian friends who aren't anti Semitic.


I'm not talking about normal Christians. I'm talking specifically about Christian fundamentalists/religious colonialists. Many of these people's ultimate goal is to convert the world to Christianity, including Jews. Some of the strongest backers of Israel come from this crowd and they are by definition anti-Semitic. If you want to convert Jews to another religion, how is that not anti-Semitic? You want to deny them their identity. It's wrong to seek their support.

[Brooke]

While nitwit Newt was having an affair of his own...:eek:

LOL..true. Well I mean, Bibi was in good company because they all hated Clinton and he was like the new kid being all "I can't stand him either, can I hang out with you guys?" :rotfl:

I'm not talking about normal Christians. I'm talking specifically about Christian fundamentalists/religious colonialists. Many of these people's ultimate goal is to convert the world to Christianity, including Jews. Some of the strongest backers of Israel come from this crowd and they are by definition anti-Semitic. If you want to convert Jews to another religion, how is that not anti-Semitic? You want to deny them their identity. It's wrong to seek their support.

Yeah, that's true. I had a friend who was Christian conservative. She wasn't trying to convert me but would suggest me watch The Passion of the Christ (which I didn't, anti semitic film) or read the New Testament. Stuff like that. Which was fine, but I could see how people could get put off.

And I've been reading a lot of these articles and it's the same exact bullcrap that went on his first term. So why people are shocked by all of this, is beyond me. Yet Israelis put him back into office again. The expression goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" I don't feel sorry for people in Israel complaining about him because they should have known what they were getting and they put him back into office and the same crap is starting all over again. I'm sorry, it's just lost on me.

[StacyinBoston]

These Evangelicals are far, far far to the Right in terms of political and religious ideology and they certainly don't represent mainstream conservatives or more mainstream fundamentalists- they tend to believe that supporting right wing Israeli interests will bring about the Armageddon - unfortunately, their support of Israel has little to do with tolerance or support of another religious/spiritual belief, but everything to do with their own personal agenda and that is where they get labeled anti-semitic. They also tend to be VERY anti-Muslim, Anti-Palestinian.

Here's an excerpt from an article (http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund140.html) that explains it a bit:

Prominent Israeli rabbis are for the first time speaking out against Israel's profitable alliance with evangelical Christians in the United States who have funneled tens of millions of dollars to the Jewish state.

The rabbis fear the Christians' real intent is to convert Jews, their aides said Monday. Others are concerned about the evangelicals' support for Israel's extreme right-wing, opposing any compromise with the Palestinians.

The dispute touches on an increasingly sensitive issue in Israel: the country's dependence, both economically and politically, on conservative American Christians.

Besides contributing tidy sums to projects in Israel, some evangelical Christians have lobbied in support of the Israeli government in Washington.

Troubling to Israelis is the fact that one influential group of evangelicals believes in a final, apocalyptic battle between good and evil in which Jesus returns and Jews either accept him or perish -- a vision that causes obvious discomfort among Jews...


It would seem that for the short-term at least, the political right in Israel (and even in this country) are ok with that so long as they both benefit politically, which is ironically, a bit morally suspect.

Remember the controversy with John McCain being publicly supported by Dr. John Hagee during the election? Hagee is one of those described above who sees Israel as the stage for the final showdown between good and evil, yadda yadda yadda.

[Artists4Hillary]

, AIPAC has always been pretty right leaning

True, AIPAC has always been pretty conservative, which is why I was very surprised when they cozied up to O.

[foxyladi]

that surprised me too.

[Brooke]

True, AIPAC has always been pretty conservative, which is why I was very surprised when they cozied up to O.

Well I've noticed they do that to almost every President regardless of party. Mostly because they want money.

[StacyinBoston]

that surprised me too.

They don't have much of a choice- all of the powerful lobbying groups in DC essentially have to play both sides for fear of totally getting left out, it's a marriage of convenience at this point given Obama is much more moderate on this issue than AIPAC would like!

[Ron4Hill]

Rosenberg is wrong and Obama has had to backtrack on his settlement freeze demand. Bibi stood up to Obama and won. Obama's longtime Chicago friend, Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, has turned on him over the settlement issue. You can read all about it in the articles I posted here:

http://www.partizane.com/node/1341

[sojourner]

I'm not talking about normal Christians. I'm talking specifically about Christian fundamentalists/religious colonialists. Many of these people's ultimate goal is to convert the world to Christianity, including Jews. Some of the strongest backers of Israel come from this crowd and they are by definition anti-Semitic. If you want to convert Jews to another religion, how is that not anti-Semitic? You want to deny them their identity. It's wrong to seek their support.

Isn't anti-Semitism against Jews as a race and again the religion. If that is the case one could still try to convert them without being anti-Semitic.

[Ikasu]

Isn't anti-Semitism against Jews as a race and again the religion. If that is the case one could still try to convert them without being anti-Semitic.

No, it's still anti-Semitic. Religion is part of their identity. And their views on what happened to Jesus and what will happen in the future with the Second Coming in relation to the Jews is very anti-Semitic.

[Izzzatso]

Here's why the American Talibornagain supports Israel no matter what. :eek:

The Rapture Factor
Why conservative Christians' love of Israel is intertwined with the Battle of Armageddon
Jerry Falwell told 60 Minutes this weekend that the American Bible belt is Israel's "safety belt." What follows is an article Beliefnet ran earlier this year explaining why many evangelical Christians are so committed to Israel.
Evangelical Christians have overwhelmed the White House switchboard in recent weeks with phone calls urging President Bush to continue supporting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In early May, more than 250 Christian leaders attended a prayer breakfast at the Israeli embassy. Last week, former Christian Coalition chairman Ralph Reed announced the formation of a Christian "Stand for Israel" campaign.

There have been many recent media reports of this "strange bedfellows" relationship between Jews--here and in Israel--and the conservative Christians who love them, especially since the relationship seems to be influencing government policy. Some have explained it as a result of the declining dependence on Arab oil, which meant leaders here needn't be as allied with Arab countries. Others suggest that after Sept. 11, Americans felt an immediate, gut-wrenching identification with Israelis, who have lived with the Muslim militant threat for decades.

But the least understood, and probably most important, reason has been missed by most secular analysts. Evangelicals support Israel because of Biblical prophecy, including passages that tie the survival of Israel to the Second Coming of Jesus.

According to their reading of the Bible, God established a covenant with Abraham in the Book of Genesis. Essentially, says Beliefnet columnist Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the Bush Administration, evangelicals support Israel because they believe "God blesses those that bless the Jews and curses those who curse the Jews. Consequently, we believe America needs to bless the Jews and Israel, because if we bless the Jews and support Israel, God blesses us. And if we don't, God curses us." http://www.beliefnet.com/story/106/story_10687_1.html

[Brooke]

Rosenberg is wrong and Obama has had to backtrack on his settlement freeze demand. Bibi stood up to Obama and won. Obama's longtime Chicago friend, Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, has turned on him over the settlement issue. You can read all about it in the articles I posted here:

http://www.partizane.com/node/1341

You make it sound like Bibi scored a huge victory here over Obama. Other Israeli PMs have stood up to American Presidents on the settlement issue and won. Netanyahu would have stood up to any American President on this issue, and he has in the past. It has nothing to do with Obama. He just happens to be President.

[Ron4Hill]

You make it sound like Bibi scored a huge victory here over Obama. Other Israeli PMs have stood up to American Presidents on the settlement issue and won. Netanyahu would have stood up to any American President on this issue, and he has in the past. It has nothing to do with Obama. He just happens to be President.

There's an all important difference that needs to be pointed out. Obama is the first president in US history to so confront the Israeli leader in such a manner as to draw the ire of the majority of Congress and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. Never before have Israelis been so upset with a new US president who threatens the longstanding relationship between the US and Israel. Never before has there been such pressure against Israel, including the threat of ending that special relationship and the cessation of aid.

Obama doesn't know what they hell he's doing. Some Jews knew Obama would be trouble but unfortunately, most voted for him. Some are now having buyer's remorse.

During Ehud Olmert's term, he totally caved in to US demands for a 2-state solution and offered the PA practically everything they wanted and yet they refused. Ariel Sharon ordered the evacuation of Gaza in 2005, displacing 10,000 Jewish residents, many of whom have yet to be resettled. Hamas then seized control of Gaza and shelled Israel with mortars and rockets. Obviously, land for peace doesn't work. Bibi Netanyahu knows better so he's ignoring Obama's demands for the cessation of building in East Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria. As a result, Obama has had to "re-calibrate" his approach to ME peace. Fact is, there can simply be no peace unless and until both the PA and Hamas recognize the Jewish state of Israel. No sense in making any further demands of Israel until they do that and they've sworn that'll never happen. They just want Israel eliminated.

[Ron4Hill]

This article seems appropriate to this thread:

'50 million US Christians back Israel' (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277886711&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

If some left-wing American Jews don't support Israel, it's nice that some Christians do, whatever the reason. Besides, there less than 6m Jews in the US so having the support of 50m Christians is a good thing.

[CGP]

Besides, there less than 6m Jews in the US so having the support of 50m Christians is a good thing.

Information about the Jewish population worldwide:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm

[foxyladi]

Information about the Jewish population worldwide:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm

makes sense..

[StacyinBoston]

If some left-wing American Jews don't support Israel, it's nice that some Christians do, whatever the reason. Besides, there less than 6m Jews in the US so having the support of 50m Christians is a good thing.

Oh, so if one is Jewish and left-wing one isn't "pro-Israel"? Because to question anything Israel does is to be "anti-Israel"? I didn't realize love of country or love of one's cultural/religious history, is dependent on blind allegiance to any govt.

One of the things I love about Israel is that there is much more of a tolerance for debates about this issue IN ISRAEL without people immediately claiming the other side is pro or anti Israel. Sure, you'll always have ignorant people tossing personal attacks around, but that's everywhere. Look at Ha'aretz, which is obviously from a more left perspective but you see articles and commentary there that you would never see in the MSM here.

And maybe, just maybe, some people think that the current course of the Israeli govt is neither in their best security interest or the security interest of the US. Is that being anti-Israel?

[Brooke]

There's an all important difference that needs to be pointed out. Obama is the first president in US history to so confront the Israeli leader in such a manner as to draw the ire of the majority of Congress and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. Never before have Israelis been so upset with a new US president who threatens the longstanding relationship between the US and Israel. Never before has there been such pressure against Israel, including the threat of ending that special relationship and the cessation of aid.


That is COMPLETELY FALSE and the article above (which I'm assuming you didn't read) proves it so. The very first time Benjamin Netanyahu was PM the same exact thing happened with that Congress and that administration. I pointed out above that all of this is very very similar to what happened in the 90's with Bibi. It's the same exact show, different year and different characters. Bibi had NO friends in the US when he was Prime Minister in the 90's and his relationship with President Clinton was virtuatlly non existant. They hated each other. Netanyahu and Obama don't hate each other.

Anybody who tries to convince me that US-Israel relations have never been as tense as they are now wasn't either alive or paying attention between the years 1996-1999.

Oh and by the way, Bill Clinton threatened to withold aid to Israel more than once during Netanyahu's tenure, mostly because he couldn't deal with him. He threw a FIT in the Oval Office one day in front of his advisors because he was sick of dealing with him, yelling at the top of his lungs "That's it! I've had it with his bullcrap. I cannot deal with this man anymore" Have we seen Obama do that? No.

So no, things are not worse now than they were back then. If you read Dennis Ross' book "The Missing Peace" you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

[Laura Cereta]

It's ironic because many of these Christian fundamentalists are anti-Semitic, wanting to convert Jews to Christianity. "Perfect them" as Ann Coulter put it. Netanyahu lacks principles, he will accept support from anti-Semites as long as they support his plans for Israel.

This is an interesting point... It is true that fundamentalist Christians are hugely supportive of Israel; it is also true that they would prefer to "convert" those of the Jewish faith. Does this mean that by accepting their help Bibi is showing a lack of integrity? I don't know...

[Laura Cereta]

So no, things are not worse now than they were back then. If you read Dennis Ross' book "The Missing Peace" you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

Thanks for the tip. I'm always looking for good books to check out. :)

[Brooke]

Thanks for the tip. I'm always looking for good books to check out. :)

Oh gosh, I've got more where that came from. :laughing: But it's a great read, very tough though, it took me a while.

[StacyinBoston]

That is COMPLETELY FALSE and the article above (which I'm assuming you didn't read) proves it so. The very first time Benjamin Netanyahu was PM the same exact thing happened with that Congress and that administration. I pointed out above that all of this is very very similar to what happened in the 90's with Bibi. It's the same exact show, different year and different characters. Bibi had NO friends in the US when he was Prime Minister in the 90's and his relationship with President Clinton was virtuatlly non existant. They hated each other. Netanyahu and Obama don't hate each other.

Anybody who tries to convince me that US-Israel relations have never been as tense as they are now wasn't either alive or paying attention between the years 1996-1999.

Oh and by the way, Bill Clinton threatened to withold aid to Israel more than once during Netanyahu's tenure, mostly because he couldn't deal with him. He threw a FIT in the Oval Office one day in front of his advisors because he was sick of dealing with him, yelling at the top of his lungs "That's it! I've had it with his bullcrap. I cannot deal with this man anymore" Have we seen Obama do that? No.

So no, things are not worse now than they were back then. If you read Dennis Ross' book "The Missing Peace" you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.


THANK YOU BROOKE. There is so much nonsense flying around in an attempt to paint this administration as anti-Israel when in fact, they are trying, like some that came before them (ie. Bill Clinton) to help come up with a solution that will protect Israel, the US and the entire region.

[Brooke]

THANK YOU BROOKE. There is so much nonsense flying around in an attempt to paint this administration as anti-Israel when in fact, they are trying, like some that came before them (ie. Bill Clinton) to help come up with a solution that will protect Israel, the US and the entire region.

You're welcome. If it's one thing I know about all of this, it's Netanyahu's history and especially how things were when he was PM. There's never been a worse time in US-Israel relations. I've done research and actually have been encouraged to write a book about it from friends who hear me in discussions. It's just something I've always been interested in and known about.

[StacyinBoston]

I saw this in Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102815.html), one of Israel's two major papers [online] and thought it was timely given it discusses the attempts by some Israelis to paint the US administration as suddenly anti-Israel, despite the facts:

...
The tension already prodded U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton into making a hasty declaration that the United States is placing similar pressure on the Arabs. Washington, too, it would seem, has been infected by the terror of the Israeli right, which seeks to portray it as a pro-Arab, Muslim-loving, aggressive intruder jeopardizing the Zionist enterprise in the territories. And how can we continue to believe the American promise to guarantee Israel's security when every day new headlines trumpet yet another dispute between the White House and Jerusalem?

To back up its claims, the right points to a long list of U.S. foreign-policy failures: the desire to open a channel of dialogue with Iran; the lifting of the boycott on Syria; the willingness to permit Hamas to take part in the peace process, albeit with restrictions; and, of course, the pressure on Israel regarding the settlements and Jerusalem. The right is using this distorted balance sheet, in which Israel is purportedly being asked to give "everything" and the Arabs "nothing," to present the Israeli public with a paradigm in which being "for Obama" means being anti-Zionist, and being against the settlements means being for Obama. A vicious circle in which images replace facts and slogans stand in for policy.

...

The remedy lies in reviewing the facts. Obama did not invent a new American policy. The United States has long held that the settlements are illegal; the same is true for the status of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The Americans are sticking to the same road map drawn up seven years ago, it's just that Israel apparently didn't notice that the Palestinians have fulfilled the first article in the document almost completely. Military action against Israel has stopped, even from the Gaza Strip, and an increasingly effective Palestinian force in the West Bank is taking action against terror organizations. Israel, in contrast, has not met its road map obligations and continues to argue over the terms of the agreement - as if it never adopted it. Nor can Israel rely on its demand that the Arab states normalize relations with Jerusalem: The obligation of normalization is conditioned on Israel's withdrawal from all occupied territory.


At the very least, it's worth considering instead of simply falling for the everything-is-black-and-white, good vs. evil representation that people fall back on because it is so much easier when dealing with complicated, long-term issues.

[Laura Cereta]

Nor can Israel rely on its demand that the Arab states normalize relations with Jerusalem: The obligation of normalization is conditioned on Israel's withdrawal from all occupied territory.


I just don't see this happening. Maybe I'm being too cynical...

[StacyinBoston]

I just don't see this happening. Maybe I'm being too cynical...

Well, I think they mention that because when talking about each side meeting obligations, people tend to historically focus on what the Palestinians haven't done- don't get me wrong, they still have a lot to do, but as the article pointed out, framing this administration as 'anti-Israel' because it's trying to get both sides back on track towards negotiations, is a bit disingenuous. Also, just as many rightly believe there should be consequences when the Palestinians don't act according to the road map or international norms, shouldn't Israel also have to move in that direction also? Israel has continued settlement activity in areas[parts of the occupied territories] where the US has said for a long time, it should not continue to build- but instead of curbing settlement activity, Israel ratcheted it up as fast at it has been able to and now the US is saying "Ok this can't continue this way because it's making the problem worse..."

[Brooke]

Stacy, while that is true, and I agree with you, I've also seen too much of Israel giving and not getting anything in return.

Look at Camp David 2000. Israel put on the table 95% of the West Bank, a capitol in East Jerusalem, among other things. Barak gave everything but the kitchen sink and the Palestinians turned it down, and according to Ross' book, didn't have anything to counter offer. There's an expression "The Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity" They could have had a state and they passed it up. Bill told Arafat and everyone else that it would be years before they got an agreement. Well here we are in 2009 and there hasn't even been a peace summit since 2000. I'm not counting Annapolis because that was a joke and wouldn't qualify as a "summit" under the smallest of definitions.

I am very very anti settlement. I always have been. I have for years felt they threaten the peace process. But what I don't understand is why lots of people are acting like this is a new issue when it isn't. That's the point I've been trying to hammer home to some posters here who seem to keep ignoring it.

Oh and by the way, the "Road Map" wasn't a new peace proposal. It was the Clinton Proposal of 2001. Bush took it and gave it a new name but it's the exact same thing.

[StacyinBoston]

From Laura Rozen over at Foreign Policy's The Cable (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/26/in_letters_obama_asks_arab_states_for_confidence_b uilding_measures_towards_israel):

As U.S. Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell arrives in Israel Sunday for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, after visiting Abu Dhabi and Damascus and before heading on to Bahrain and Egypt, Foreign Policy has confirmed that President Barack Obama has sent letters to at least seven Arab and Gulf states seeking confidence-building measures toward Israel, which Washington has been pushing to agree to a freeze of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

One former senior U.S. official who was aware of the letters said they had been sent "recently" to seven Arab states, including the leaders of Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The letters reinforce "the Mitchell message re: the need for CBMs [confidence-building measures] in exchange for [settlement] freeze and to [get] peace talks restarted," the former senior official said by e-mail.

[snip]

Israeli daily Ha'aretz previously reported that Obama had written Morocco's King Mohammed VI "expressing his hope and expectation the Arab states will take steps to end Israel's 'isolation' in the Middle East, and ... in bridging gaps between Israel and the Arab world."

Last week, a "Dear Colleague" letter supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was circulated by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. James Risch (R-ID) Thursday urging Obama to encourage Arab states to "normalize relations with Israel" and recognizing "the key role that Arab states can play in furthering the peace process." A House version circulated by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) had received 85 signatures as of Friday, a representative of AIPAC said.

Last Sunday, Bahrain's Crown Prince Shaikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa called in the Washington Post for Arabs to talk to Israelis. "Our biggest mistake has been to assume that you can simply switch peace on like a light bulb," al-Khalifa wrote. "The reality is that peace is a process, contingent on a good idea but also requiring a great deal of campaigning -- patiently and repeatedly targeting all relevant parties. This is where we as Arabs have not done enough to communicate directly with the people of Israel. [...] We must stop the small-minded waiting game in which each side refuses to budge until the other side makes the first move. We've got to be bigger than that. All sides need to take simultaneous, good-faith action if peace is to have a chance."

[snip]

"One of the main [reasons] Arabs are saying they can't go very far" in showing possible reciprocal gestures to Israel, said Daniel Levy of the New America Foundation, "is, [they say], ‘what worries us most, will you guarantee that the Israelis won't embarrass us.'" Levy explained that Arab governments are afraid they will show reciprocal gestures only to have Al Jazeera showing pictures of new Jewish settlement building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

When Israel's new ambassador to Washington Michael Oren was at the State Department July 17 for a "getting to know you" session, State Department officials raised with him among other topics Washington's opposition to Israel having recently granted permission for a twenty-year old plan for construction of twenty Jewish apartments at the site of the old Shepherds Hotel in a Palestinian neighborhood of East Jerusalem, JTA's Ron Kampeas reported.

The Saudis could point to the planned Israeli construction at the site of the old Shepherds Hotel as an example of the reason Arab states feel they could be publicly embarrassed if Washington doesn't get Israel to agree to a settlement freeze first, a Washington Middle East activist who asked to speak anonymously said.

[Brooke]

This is something that started during the Bush Administration as well.

[StacyinBoston]

Stacy, while that is true, and I agree with you, I've also seen too much of Israel giving and not getting anything in return.

Look at Camp David 2000. Israel put on the table 95% of the West Bank, a capitol in East Jerusalem, among other things. Barak gave everything but the kitchen sink and the Palestinians turned it down, and according to Ross' book, didn't have anything to counter offer. There's an expression "The Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity" They could have had a state and they passed it up. Bill told Arafat and everyone else that it would be years before they got an agreement. Well here we are in 2009 and there hasn't even been a peace summit since 2000. I'm not counting Annapolis because that was a joke and wouldn't qualify as a "summit" under the smallest of definitions.

I am very very anti settlement. I always have been. I have for years felt they threaten the peace process. But what I don't understand is why lots of people are acting like this is a new issue when it isn't. That's the point I've been trying to hammer home to some posters here who seem to keep ignoring it.

Oh and by the way, the "Road Map" wasn't a new peace proposal. It was the Clinton Proposal of 2001. Bush took it and gave it a new name but it's the exact same thing.

I understand that Brooke and I agree- I was just trying to point out that over the years, both sides have been difficult at times and yes, unreasonable.

And I agree with you about the Palestinians not having at times met their obligations and in fact, having outright f***ed things up for themselves in any number of ways- I'm not so much defending one side as pointing out that there are two sides and it's not always 'four legs good, two legs bad' but rather a bit more nuanced than the American media, in particular, like to portray.

[Brooke]

I understand that Brooke and I agree- I was just trying to point out that over the years, both sides have been difficult at times and yes, unreasonable.

And I agree with you about the Palestinians not having at times met their obligations and in fact, having outright f***ed things up for themselves in any number of ways- I'm not so much defending one side as pointing out that there are two sides and it's not always 'four legs good, two legs bad' but rather a bit more nuanced than the American media, in particular, like to portray.

Oh I know. And you're right. See, it's nice to have an open discussion about this. You're really up on the Middle East. I get so annoyed when I can't even have a decent respectful debate about this and it's mostly because the people I discuss it with don't have their facts right and are sticking by their uneducated statements.

[Ikasu]

Stacy, while that is true, and I agree with you, I've also seen too much of Israel giving and not getting anything in return.

Look at Camp David 2000. Israel put on the table 95% of the West Bank, a capitol in East Jerusalem, among other things. Barak gave everything but the kitchen sink and the Palestinians turned it down, and according to Ross' book, didn't have anything to counter offer. There's an expression "The Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity" They could have had a state and they passed it up. Bill told Arafat and everyone else that it would be years before they got an agreement. Well here we are in 2009 and there hasn't even been a peace summit since 2000. I'm not counting Annapolis because that was a joke and wouldn't qualify as a "summit" under the smallest of definitions.

I am very very anti settlement. I always have been. I have for years felt they threaten the peace process. But what I don't understand is why lots of people are acting like this is a new issue when it isn't. That's the point I've been trying to hammer home to some posters here who seem to keep ignoring it.

Oh and by the way, the "Road Map" wasn't a new peace proposal. It was the Clinton Proposal of 2001. Bush took it and gave it a new name but it's the exact same thing.

I like the fact that Clinton was engaged in the peace process and was at least able to bring all sides to the table. But let's not romanticize about Camp David. It was poorly organized. There was never a final deal with all definitions ready for the Palestinians to accept. From Ross's deputy, Aaron Miller (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=sf.profile&person_id=166535):


There was not a formalized, written proposal that covered the four core issues. There was no deal on the table. None of the issues were explained enough in detail to make an agreement, though the Israelis made an interesting argument on Jerusalem.

Ross's book is a must read if you want to study Camp David, but it does not cover everything. The negotiations went on afterwards with Taba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit), but were ended because of the Israeli elections and Clinton leaving office. They were never started back up again with the Bush and Sharon administrations in power.

[Brooke]

I like the fact that Clinton was engaged in the peace process and was at least able to bring all sides to the table. But let's not romanticize about Camp David. It was poorly organized. There was never a final deal with all definitions ready for the Palestinians to accept. From Ross's deputy, Aaron Miller (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=sf.profile&person_id=166535):



Ross's book is a must read if you want to study Camp David, but it does not cover everything. The negotiations went on afterwards with Taba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit), but were ended because of the Israeli elections and Clinton leaving office. They were never started back up again with the Bush and Sharon administrations in power.

I didn't think I was romanticizing Camp David. It was very poorly organized and there's a scene beforehand where Bill is getting in a golf cart and he asks Dennis and Albright if it's the right thing to do. They both reassure him but as he drives away they both know the risks he was taking. He would have gone to the ends of the earth for a peace deal, and it was never something he wanted for his legacy. He poured his heard and soul into the peace process for 8 years.

Dennis talks about Taba.

Has anyone else actually read all of Dennis' book? I'm curious.

[Ikasu]

I didn't think I was romanticizing Camp David. It was very poorly organized and there's a scene beforehand where Bill is getting in a golf cart and he asks Dennis and Albright if it's the right thing to do. They both reassure him but as he drives away they both know the risks he was taking. He would have gone to the ends of the earth for a peace deal, and it was never something he wanted for his legacy. He poured his heard and soul into the peace process for 8 years.

Dennis talks about Taba.

Has anyone else actually read all of Dennis' book? I'm curious.

I agree. But only results matter.

[Brooke]

I agree. But only results matter.

But it wasn't his fault. Arafat screwed him. He trusted Arafat. Rabin trusted Arafat. And he screwed them both.

When Arafat called him to say goodbye before Bill left office, he said "Bill, you're a great man" Clinton responded "No I'm not. I'm a colossal failure and it's all your fault" and hung up the phone.

[Ikasu]

But it wasn't his fault. Arafat screwed him. He trusted Arafat. Rabin trusted Arafat. And he screwed them both.

When Arafat called him to say goodbye before Bill left office, he said "Bill, you're a great man" Clinton responded "No I'm not. I'm a colossal failure and it's all your fault" and hung up the phone.

Arafat was unprincipled, close minded, ill tempered, deceptive, etc. I can run out of adjectives. He was a terrible leader. But it wasn't all his fault. Clinton was a major player and deserves a lot of blame. I don't mean to insult WJC, I like the guy, but that's how I see it.

[Brooke]

Arafat was unprincipled, close minded, ill tempered, deceptive, etc. I can run out of adjectives. He was a terrible leader. But it wasn't all his fault. Clinton was a major player and deserves a lot of blame. I don't mean to insult WJC, I like the guy, but that's how I see it.

The only things I blame him for in regards to the Middle East are: 1) He should never have given too much leeway to Barak 2) He shouldn't have trusted Arafat and 3) He let Asad humiliate him on the world stage in '99 when he went to Damascus. It was embarrassing and should never have happened. He shouldn't have put himself out there for Asad like he did.

Bill Clinton is one of the greatest peacemakers of my lifetime. There will never be another American President who will work as hard and as passionately for Middle East peace as he did. He knew the situation better than anyone. It wasn't like he just handed the job off to his advisors, he was there. He made mistakes but he doesn't deserve anymore blame than Arafat does.

Yes, I'm biased. But I also know enough about this issue and have done enough reading and researching over the past two decades to feel confident in what I'm saying. I will go to my grave defending Bill's work on the peace process. It's something I'm proud of every day. I've dedicated my life to his and Rabin's legacies.

[StacyinBoston]

Oh I know. And you're right. See, it's nice to have an open discussion about this. You're really up on the Middle East. I get so annoyed when I can't even have a decent respectful debate about this and it's mostly because the people I discuss it with don't have their facts right and are sticking by their uneducated statements.

Well, you've convinced me to read Ross' book, which I really should do because maybe it will make me feel better about him carrying the part of the administration's portfolio which includes Iran. Also, I need to round things out a bit in terms of reading material- I probably need something to balance out my N. Finkelstein collection :D (I'm kinda kidding)

[Brooke]

Well, you've convinced me to read Ross' new book, which I really should do because maybe it will make me feel better about him carrying the part of the administration's portfolio which includes Iran. Also, I need to round things out a bit in terms of reading material- I probably need something to balance out my N. Finkelstein collection :D (I'm kinda kidding)

Dennis is a personal hero of mine, ever since Oslo started. I had the honor of meeting him about 7 years ago and I gave him my business card and told him I wanted his job. George Mitchell is another one. And I am dying to meet him. He's been a favorite of mine since he was Senate Majority Leader. I've always been a fan. Imagine how happy I was when I learned years ago that we had the same birthday. :)

[StacyinBoston]

Dennis is a personal hero of mine, ever since Oslo started. I had the honor of meeting him about 7 years ago and I gave him my business card and told him I wanted his job. George Mitchell is another one. And I am dying to meet him. He's been a favorite of mine since he was Senate Majority Leader. I've always been a fan. Imagine how happy I was when I learned years ago that we had the same birthday. :)

I assume you've read his new book, Myths, Illusions and Peace? I started reading it (but didn't finish it)once I heard he was going to be joining Hillary at State and I was a bit perplexed by his move to the White House/NSC.

[StacyinBoston]

Dennis is a personal hero of mine, ever since Oslo started. I had the honor of meeting him about 7 years ago and I gave him my business card and told him I wanted his job. George Mitchell is another one. And I am dying to meet him. He's been a favorite of mine since he was Senate Majority Leader. I've always been a fan. Imagine how happy I was when I learned years ago that we had the same birthday. :)

Oops, I mixed up Ross' books- above you were talking about a different book, the Missing Peace- I got that confused with his new one. I never read the Missing Peace, but I should, obviously. I haven't finished his new one because well, I start six books at the same time and it only came out in June.

Sorry if I confused you. I confused myself. :rolleyes:

[Brooke]

Yes, I was talking about "The Misisng Peace".

[StacyinBoston]

It looks like there is a sort of temporary compromise on the settlements. From Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102806.html):


Israel will agree to temporarily freeze construction in settlements in the framework of new understandings that Jerusalem will reach with Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told European foreign ministers last week.

Commenting on Clinton's statements, Israeli and American sources confirmed that the parties were close to reaching an agreement. But they said the deal was not expected to be mentioned publicly in the visit by U.S. President Barack Obama's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell.

Mitchell is due to arrive in Israel on Sunday. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is scheduled to meet with Mitchell on Tuesday, reportedly said over the weekend that he thinks an agreement would require another round of talks with Mitchell.

[snip]

Commenting on Clinton's statement, a senior Israeli official said Clinton had told European foreign ministers that she is "optimistic" about the prospect of reaching an understanding on a construction moratorium in the West Bank.

Clinton reportedly told the Europeans that if the understanding is reached, it would be the first time an Israeli government agrees to halt construction in settlements. She also said, according to sources familiar with the situation, that she expected the European Union to show support and appreciation for the move by Israel.

Senior Israeli officials said Defense Minister Ehud Barak had supplied the Americans with a detailed list of all projects in the West Bank currently under construction and which Israel believes cannot be halted. The list contains 2,500 housing units, the number of units in each project, and the projects' location and construction stage.

The Americans are willing to allow most of the projects currently under construction to continue. A source close to Barak said that "if a moratorium is decided on, it will be in the framework of a more inclusive and wider deal."

But last Sunday, the cabinet decided that more than a third of the budget of the World Zionist Organization's Settlement Division for 2009 will go to assist agriculture in Jewish communities over the Green Line. NIS 20 million was included in the overall budget report presented to the cabinet.

Naturally, some are spinning this both ways- saying it will lead to Israel adopting the US position totally while others say this is a set-back to Obama in that he has shown with accepting only a 'temporary' settlement freeze, he has essentially 'blinked' in this game of diplomatic chicken. For my part, I'm willing to wait and see because I have a lot of faith in George Mitchell.:thumbsup:

[Brooke]

Ahh yes. That always happens. I could have predicted that with my eyes closed. :laughing:

I posted the article at the top on my blog along with a very long, detailed introduction, in case anyone's interested.