Tough Love Is No Love at All

Why Obama's approach to Israel is collapsing. Rapidly.

BY STEVEN J. ROSEN | JULY 21, 2009

Razor wire surrounds the historic Shepherd Hotel, which has become a point of contention between Israel and the United States.

"Obama is not 100 percent right to confront Bibi on settlements," a Clinton advisor blew back at me after my July 1 ForeignPolicy.com piece "Cut Bibi Some Slack." "He is 200 percent right!" This from a guy who had argued for years that public confrontation is not the right way to deal with Israel because it undermines the confidence that is a prerequisite for progress in the peace process.

Barack Obama himself addressed the issue in a meeting with American Jewish leaders on July 13. Asked if it were a mistake to let "sunlight" show between the United States and Israel, the U.S. president demurred, "We had no sunlight for eight years, but no progress either."

Obama's conclusion that former U.S. President George W. Bush achieved nothing by working with Israel is amazing, considering that Bush brought the father of the Israeli settler movement, Ariel Sharon, to withdraw every soldier and every settler from every square inch of Gaza in August 2005 in the largest test of the "land for peace" concept in Israeli-Palestinian history. You would think the experience of the Bush years would have led the Obama team to an opposite conclusion: If settlements had been the obstacle to peace, why did Sharon's removal of 8,000 settlers from 21 settlements lead to the rise of Hamas, thousands of Qassam rockets fired at Israel, and war instead of peace?

And they might reflect on the testimony of Elliott Abrams, who negotiated the Bush administration's compromises on the natural growth of settlements that the Obama team now disavows. "There were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank," Abrams wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "The prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation ... the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza. ... There was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to ... confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the 'Greater Israel' position. ... He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze."

And they should heed the words of Sharon's negotiator in that bargain, Dov Weisglass: "Final-status peace treaties ... will require many American guarantees and obligations, especially in respect to long-term security arrangements. Without these, it is doubtful whether an agreement can be reached. Yet if decision-makers in Israel ... discover, heaven forbid, that an American pledge is only valid as long as the president in question is in office, nobody will want such pledges."

David Silverman/Getty Images

 

Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as foreign-policy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and was a defendant in the recently dismissed AIPAC case. He is now director of the Washington Project at the Middle East Forum and a consultant to the Council for World Jewry.

COMPASSIONFORBOTHSIDES

2:26 PM ET

July 21, 2009

Arabs can buy in W. Jerusalem only if Israeli citizens.(so far)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1101682.html

An examination by Haaretz, however, presented a rather different situation on the ground. According to Israel Lands Administration rules, residents of East Jerusalem cannot take ownership of the vast majority of Jerusalem homes.

When an Israeli citizen purchases an apartment or house, ownership of the land remains with the ILA, which leases it to the purchaser for a period of 49 years, enabling the registration of the home ("tabu"). Article 19 of the ILA lease specifies that a foreign national cannot lease - much less own - ILA land.

Attorney Yael Azoulay, of Zeev and Naomi Weil Lawyers and Notary Office, explains that if a foreign national purchases an apartment they must show the ILA proof of eligibility to immigrate to Israel in accordance with the Law of Return. Non-Jewish foreigners cannot purchase apartments. This group includes Palestinians from the east of the city, who have Israeli identity cards but are residents rather than citizens of Israel.

 

MASTERMIND25

3:57 PM ET

July 23, 2009

WOW what to say.

You talk about buying restrictions, can a Jew buy land in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen where Jewish towns and kingdoms existed continously from time immemorial? Can a Jew buy land in Jordan or even in Israel proper in cities like Lyd or Umm El Fahm? Can you tell me what JorDan even means? It means the possession of the tribe of Dan on the east bank of the river - aka Jewish land. The Arab invaders are the illegitimate occupiers and their claims to Judea are no more valid than claims to Andalusia in Spain, Malmo in Sweden, or Kirkuk in Kurdistan or the entire cult of Islamofaschism itself. All the snakes (Nazis, Black Racists, Communists, Islamists, Big Cross Gibsonites) feed on the same pool of filth and attack the Jew. If you think that buy throwing the small and weak people like Jews under the Islamist bus will somehow prolong the inevitable Jihad by winning favor with people who look at kafirs as tiger looks upon a piece of meat, you are dead wrong. And I assure you, even if the state of Israel doesn't survive the spirit of Jewish resistance will outlast your evil moral gymnastics, baseless lies and accusations, and rabid anti-Semitism dispersions just as it outlasted every evil empire but now at much higher costs to both the direct attackers and their behind-the-scenes-enblers, that is you.

 

DANCINGCAT

10:34 AM ET

July 22, 2009

Obama is doing the right thing

Rosen spent most of his career as a registered lobbyist for a foreign government. In 2005 he was indicted for passing secrets to Israel. The Obama Justice Department pulled
the case because pursuing it would have required revealing intelligence sources. Rosen went on to sue AIPAC, his (now former) employer, arguing that they approved what he was doing. Where do you think Rosen's loyalties lie? Certainly not with the United States.

Obama is doing the right thing, and he is not alone. The Europeans are also calling for a complete freeze on illegal construction across the Green Line, including in East Jerusalem. Israel is very successfully making itself an even more isolated pariah state. This is worth a 20-unit building in East Jerusalem?

The withdrawal from Gaza would have accomplished more for Israel if it had been
negotiated rather than unilateral. That way, it would have created some obligations for
the Palestinians.

 

STACYX

8:23 AM ET

July 23, 2009

Rosen is wrong

I agree with A Balanced View and Dancing Cat- the idea that allowing settlement to continue when all that has done is ensure there won't be any prospect for negotiations, is self-defeating- unless of course people like Bibi and Mr. Rosen don't really want any meaningful peace (which would necessarily include *compromise* on the part of both parties.

Obama is right to try a different tact with both parties- allowing Israel to define the terms of the US-Israel relationship, hasn't really worked and it's undermined our ability to be viewed as credible in the peace process. Given the US gives huge sums of money to Israel, why *can't* Obama condition it upon something that is ultimately in the US' best interest?

As Obama and Clinton hold firm to their previous statements regarding settlements, the hawk wing of pro-Israel special interests in the US and abroad are getting increasingly worried- I mean, my goodness, balance? How dare the US govt try to be more balanced in their/our approach! And expect more commentaries like Mr. Rosen's to start to appear with greater frequency in the media in an attempt to try to poison the peace efforts of *their own* President and paint the Obama admin. as anti-Israel.

If Obama backs down on settlements, then he will have no credibility and he knows that.

******************
Secretary Clinton Blog

 

CLOUSEAU

1:24 PM ET

July 22, 2009

Elliott Abrams?

Elliott Abrams? Elliott Abrams? That old crook? Convicted for lying to Congress about his role in the plot to subvert the US Constitution known as the Iran-Contra Affair. Coverer-up of massacres of civilians in El Salvador. Cheer leader for the Venezuelan coup d'etat... He's from the Dick Cheney school of foreign policy. Why on earth would anyone give a damn what the old reprobate has to say?

 

DOUBLEPLUSGOOD

1:51 PM ET

July 30, 2009

Bogus argument

I'm going to answer Mr. Rosen's following question becasue it keeps being asked by settler apologists:
"If settlements had been the obstacle to peace, why did Sharon's removal of 8,000 settlers from 21 settlements lead to the rise of Hamas, thousands of Qassam rockets fired at Israel, and war instead of peace?"
I'm sure you know the reasons Mr. Rosen, but you were hoping that the readers did not and thus this line of argument may be convincing. The reason the unilateral Gaza pullout did not bring peace was.
- Hamas won the Palestinian elections fairly but was thrown out of the government due to outside pressure. This resulted in tensions between Fatah and Hamas which culminated in the violence which lead to Hamas winning control of Gaza.
- After the pullout Gaza was besieged and only a small fraction of supplies were allowed into the impoverished territory.
- The rockets started when Israel refused to loosen its chokehold on Gaza. Hamas used the rockets as a bargaining chip to get the borders reopened. This lead to the ceasefire agreement last year where Hamas stopped the rockets in exchange for the borders being opened. Israel did not keep its end of the deal during the 6 month ceasefire.
- This led Hamas to not renew the agreement since nothing was gained by it. When the rockets started again Israel used them as the pretext to launch the Gaza war.
The whole war could have been avoided and 1000's of lives spared if Israel had lifted the siege.

 

DECONSTRUCTOR

11:59 PM ET

August 6, 2009

Reply to Rosen

It is no surprise that your 23 years as foreign-policy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the main reason for such a poor article and incapacitated thinking. In the first place, these settlements should not have been there neither in Gaza and the West Bank!!! Because such settlements are contrary to international humanitarian law!! You should bother yourself to read the Geneva Conventions and then write this article. Secondly, it is simply ridiculous to qualify the disengagement from Gaza as a sort of favor by Israel because these 8 settlements were moved to the West Bank and it was not economically sustainable for Israel to keep these settlements in Gaza.

I simply dont see how such sham "analysties" are allowed to write an article on this important journal.