During a Jerusalem press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyau, Joe Klein asked Secretary Clinton if the Obama administration still insists on an Israeli settlement freeze as a confidence-building measure ahead of resumed negotiations with the Palestinians. Netanyahu filibustered and disputed Klein about his question’s characterization of Israeli intransigence, saying, among other things, that no previous U.S. administration insisted on a settlement freeze. Then Clinton responded:
Well, I would add just for context that what the prime minister is saying is historically accurate. There has never been a precondition. It’s always been an issue within the negotiations. What the prime minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described – no new starts, for example – is unprecedented in the context of the prior two negotiations. It’s also the fact that for 40 years, presidents of both parties have questioned the legitimacy of settlements.
But I think that where we are right now is to try to get into the negotiations. The prime minister will be able to present his government’s proposal about what they are doing regarding settlements, which I think when fully explained will be seen as being not only unprecedented but in response to many of the concerns that have been expressed. There are always demands made in any negotiation that are not going to be fully realized. I mean, negotiation, by its very definition, is a process of trying to meet the other’s needs while protecting your core interests. And on settlements, there’s never been a precondition, there’s never been such an offer from any Israeli government. And we hope that we’ll be able to move in to the negotiations where all the issues that President Obama mentioned in his speech at the United Nations will be on the table for the parties to begin to resolve.
I can’t figure out if that’s an actual climb-down from the settlement freeze, but it certainly sounds like Clinton (and, through her, Obama) doesn’t have the heart to keep to the precondition. After all, the administration says Israel/Palestine is the conflict it wants to resolve more than any other, and the negotiations have remained stalled.
But does the Obama administration get how precarious a moment this is for the Palestinian leadership? Gaza remains a humanitarian disaster, with 1.5 million people living under a blockade that contributes to a lack of economic activity so severe that they’re turning to drug abuse to cope. President Abbas bowed to Obama’s pressure to slow-walk the Goldstone report; he got an onslaught of popular anger so furious he probably won’t run in next year’s election for fear of humiliation. Here’s what that Goldstone deferral, pushed by Obama, means for the election, according to a recent poll:
When asked whom would they elect as President of the PNA if elections take place in 2010, the poll showed that there would be serious competition as a ratio of 16.8% said they would vote again for President Abbas and a similar ratio said they would vote for Marwan al-Barghouthi while a ratio of 16% said they would vote for Ismaeel Hanieh.
Ismaeel Hanieh is a Hamas politician. Marwan Barghouti is in jail. If Netanyahu won’t go along with a settlement freeze, does anyone seriously believe he’s going to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority controlled or even influenced by Hamas? And does anyone believe that Obama will force him to, if he won’t enforce the settlement freeze?
Some very smart and very moderate Palestinians — people who want peace, two states and nonviolence — recently explained to me that they get their legs cut out under them if they negotiate while Israel expands the settlements. Abbas said he wouldn’t do it. Now he’s expected to, thanks to Obama, from a position of greater popular weakness? What’s the U.S. giving to Abbas? Netanyahu knows what he’s doing. He’s pressuring an Obama administration that, as Gideon Levy writes in Ha’aretz, coddles Israeli intransigence in the naive hope of getting to negotiations, to create the conditions where negotiations are a non-starter; to say nothing of the nightmare that will befall the Palestinian people caught in between the occupation and the looming fanatical horror of Hamas government in the West Bank.
Netanyahu knows what he’s doing. Does Obama?
I think he’s too busy looking forward to get anything done in the present.
“…looming fanatical horror”?
Really? Seriously?
Wow….
mikey
Clinton ” Well, I would add just for context that what the prime minister is saying is historically accurate. There has never been a precondition. It’s always been an issue within the negotiations. What the prime minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described – no new starts, for example – is unprecedented in the context of the prior two negotiations. It’s also the fact that for 40 years, presidents of both parties have questioned the legitimacy of settlements.
But I think that where we are right now is to try to get into the negotiations. The prime minister will be able to present his government’s proposal about what they are doing regarding settlements, which I think when fully explained will be seen as being not only unprecedented but in response to many of the concerns that have been expressed. There are always demands made in any negotiation that are not going to be fully realized. I mean, negotiation, by its very definition, is a process of trying to meet the other’s needs while protecting your core interests. And on settlements, there’s never been a precondition, there’s never been such an offer from any Israeli government. And we hope that we’ll be able to move in to the negotiations where all the issues that President Obama mentioned in his speech at the United Nations will be on the table for the parties to begin to resolve.”
Clinton “no new starts”
All thewhile Israel expands under the spin “natural growth”
—————————————–
Clinton “It’s also the fact that for 40 years, presidents of both parties have questioned the legitimacy of settlements.”
“questioned” The Israeli government gives a rats ass about our President’s “questioning the legitimacy of settlements”
Spencer “Netanyahu knows what he’s doing. Does Obama?” Sure does not look like it
——————————————————————-
Hell according to Phillip Weiss over at Mondoweiss. The Goldstone report was not even whispered about over at the J Street conference. Real big changes. Not happening!
J Street throws Gaza under the bus
by Philip Weiss on October 31, 2009 · 35 comments
J Street’s leaders repeatedly said they are part of a “movement.” The funny thing is that movement within leftwing Jewish life was galvanized by the Gaza slaughter. But J Street says not a word about Gaza. In fact, in reaching for the Jewish center, it threw the Goldstone report, and the human rights of a persecuted people, under the bus.
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/why-j-street-doesnt-say-the-g-word.html
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/rabbi-yoffie-returns-all-j-streets-favors-by-praising-aipac.html
Not under the bus, Hamas belongs inside a bus. One that’s blasted and burning.
The Israeli government belongs underneath
i woke, read clinton’s statement and have been saddened the balance of the day. i’m afraid it’s more if the same for the middle east with no leadership from the US.
I’m a big Hillary fan- I have a whole blog dedicated to her foreign policy as Secy of State and when I saw her news conference with Bibi, I almost fell out of my chair. I couldn’t believe how effusive she was and how it seemed like the Obama admin. was hanging Abbas out to dry. What I cannot figure out is why? You can’t tell me that no one in the WH or State Dept. understands that Bibi wants to create a situation where Hamas is the only one left standing so that he can then turn around and blame the Palestinians for creating the roadblocks to negotiations. This is so obvious. And in the past when Bibi has agreed to halt *some* settlement construction, he doesn’t, plain and simple. Avigdor Lieberman has made clear that a) the US will do whatever Israel wants it to do and b) they really have no interest in a two state solution. Does the Obama administration really not “get” this?
The US could have at least given public props to Abbas for his willingness to set aside Goldstone for now particularly given that his willingness to do so may mean the end of his political career and the strengthening of Hamas.
I’m just baffled by all of this.
There is some confusion on what the “Freeze” would mean, and what it would mean to “Expand” the settlements. Is anything that’s not a freeze considered an expansion? I really don’t get what they are talking about here. Can somebody explain?
I also don’t see what difference it could make if construction or modification goes on in the middle of cities like Ariel or Maale Adumin (both of which are in the West Bank). Why would that effect negotiations? I can see an issue if they borders of one of these towns is being pushed outward, but that’s different.
No, I don’t think Netanyahu would negotiate with Hamas. Why would anybody care? The two sides in such talks would never agree.
Are there any confidence-building measures coming from Hamas? From the PA? From anybody? And whose confidence in what event is supposed to be built?
that sounds rather violent
Very disappointing.
Clinton/Obama position here is the same as the Obama position on health care: give away the farm, then start negotiating.
Maybe I missed something, but I don’t recall the Obama administration saying that they were insisting on a settlement freeze as a pre-condition to negotiations. I know that is the Palestinian position, but I don’t recall that the US endorsed it. I also understand that the US has consistently favored a settlement freeze, but that still does not imply that we are insisting on that as a pre-condition to negotiations. There is a difference.
You’re correct. A settlement freeze is good in itself and needn’t be linked to negotiations.