Posted By Dov Zakheim Share

The to-ing and fro-ing between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government continues unabated, with each new verbal clash further dimming any chances for an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. On Friday the Israeli government moved another step closer to lifting its construction freeze by publishing in the Israeli press its plans to build 1,345 new housing units in mostly Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Two days later Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Vice President Joe Biden in New Orleans, where the impasse between Jerusalem and Washington remained as firm as ever. 

Two days after that, President Obama, responding to a question at his Jakarta news conference about Israeli construction, first stated that he had not received "a full briefing on Israel's intentions," but then went on to say that such activity was "unhelpful." Naturally, the world press focused on the latter part of Obama's remarks, with breathless headlines proclaiming, in tabloid fashion, "Obama Rips Israel." Not to be outdone, Netanyahu responded to Obama's remarks by pointing out that Jerusalem was "not a settlement," and that the new housing units would not affect the outcome of peace talks. In effect the Israeli Prime Minister dismissed the entire flap as much ado about nothing (his actual term was "overblown"). At which point the State Department issued its own retort, arguing that there was indeed a linkage between construction and the peace process.

President Obama has clearly determined that construction in East Jerusalem is a "red line" that the Israeli government should not cross. The problem is that "East Jerusalem" does not merely consist of Arab neighborhoods in the Old City or even outside its walls. Many districts of what is East Jerusalem have been home to tens of thousands of Israelis for years, even decades. Construction in these neighborhoods never was an obstacle to peace talks until the Obama administration put the Palestinians in an impossible position by insisting that construction should stop. 

Given Washington's position, the Palestinian Authority has had no alternative but to focus on the construction issue. It clearly cannot not take a softer line on construction than Obama has done. Meanwhile, Israelis of all political stripes, including many who otherwise have no truck with Netanyahu, are puzzled and angered by Washington's stance. Many suspect that he is simply trying to curry favor with the Muslim world at Israel's expense. His performance at the Jakarta press conference does nothing to allay that suspicion. After all, having said he needed to study the issue, he need not have gone any further. But he did, and Netanyahu responded in turn and in kind.

Why does the president continue to harp on settlements in East Jerusalem, as opposed to expansion of West Bank settlements that would be dismantled under the terms of any peace agreement between the parties? Obama may feel that he has crossed a Rubicon and must push forward. Or he may feel that he must put Netanyahu in his place; there is no love lost between the two men, and the Israeli reportedly feels that the recent Congressional elections have strengthened his position. Obama may want to show the Israeli that his grasp of the balance of power in Washington is not as strong as he thinks it is. (Which of the two men is right is another matter, and in any event will not be determined for some time.)

There is, however, another possibility: the president may simply not realize that while Israel might give up parts of Jerusalem, as both Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were willing to do, even they were not ready to cede major Jewish neighborhoods in what every prime minister since 1967, of whatever party, considers to be Israel's capital.

Whatever the reason, Obama's behavior in Indonesia, and his constant harping on the construction issue, has complicated his avowed search for an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel will not give in to his demands, and the Palestinians will not proceed unless the Israelis do so. The peace process is stalemated, and it is up to the president, who has, perhaps unwittingly, brought on this latest dead end on the long-standing saga of Israeli-Palestinian misery, to come up with a way that lets both sides move forward, even if it means that he personally has to take several steps back in order to do so.

Getty Images

 

BUDAHH

7:09 PM ET

November 10, 2010

one correction, there was never a freeze in east jerusalem

and there will never be it is the jewish capital and the building is being done in jewish neighborhoods, so why do the idiots in washington make a big deal out of something that they cannot control or change is a mystery to me.

They should focus on the real issues such as terror the other settlements, peace process security and boarders, so far they have only made things stall instead of move forward, great job odumbo.

 

ZATHRAS

7:16 PM ET

November 10, 2010

The View of the Israeli Government

Not untypically for a former Bush administration official, Zakheim here states as the preferred American position the position of the Israeli government.

The question is not whether neighborhoods in disputed areas of Jerusalem are "mostly" (a noteworthy qualifier) Jewish or not. It is whether expanding them is something for which Israel should have to pay any price in negotiations. The Netanyahu government, plainly, doesn't think it should; therefore, the Israeli government's supporters among former Bush administration officials don't think it should. This is pretty much the way things worked when former President Bush was in office.

Having become accustomed to an American administration that gave Israel everything it asked for and then some, some Israelis may well find President Obama less than sympathetic. Officials in the Netanyahu government may well and in sincerity believe that the Obama administration is imposing on the Palestinians as much as on the Israelis; therefore, its supporters among former Bush administration officials may think so as well. To the extent Obama persists in the idea that his job is to advance American foreign policy interests in the Middle East rather than outsourcing that job to Tel Aviv, he will continue to have trouble with these people.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

7:28 PM ET

November 10, 2010

So the sovereign rights of East Jerusalemites don't matter?

Basically, you're setting a double standard. The Palestinian government doesn't have a right to go into Israeli national territory and start building houses for Arabs, regardless of whether or not that land is an "Arab majority" area. In fact, Israel even went so far as to block the right of the Palestinian PM to visit East Jerusalem. In other words, the sovereign rights of Palestinian Arabs are viewed as less important than that of Israelis.

Could Israel keep some of that land? Sure, why not, but they should agree to WHAT those final borders are BEFORE they keep building houses there. It's basic logic. If me and my neighbor are having a property dispute, I probably shouldn't go build a new house on the disputed area. I should try to negotiate a final agreement BEFOREHAND, either as two individuals or in the court system.

 

WOLFBOY

8:27 PM ET

November 10, 2010

The Shadow Government is Likud, evidently

The status of Jerusalem is an issue that must be resolved in any peace deal. The Israelis are, through construction, trying to increase their claims to territory in Jerusalem in any peace deal. Please don't insult us by pretending otherwise.

In the meantime, the chances of a peace deal decline. How is this in the interest of the United States?

While you're at it, please drop the absurd notion that Obama cares more about settlements than the Palestinians - that they express concern only because they can't take a softer line than Obama. This is an outrageous insult to Palestinians who are subject to expulsion from their homes.

 

UWONTKNOWMOE

8:28 PM ET

November 10, 2010

seriously dov?

I expected you to channel the israeli perspective as usual, but this is seriously getting too obvious, I mean you might want to maintain some credibility..
You know that giving up on jerusalem and allowing israelis to continue their ethnic cleansing and stealing of the remaining tiny arab part of the city would simply mean an end to the peace process. This would be disastrous for US interests, standing, and credibility in the middle east. But why would you care about US interests especially if they contradict israeli interests? I wonder if youd give up ur US citizenship and run to israel if they decided to appoint u an ambassador (like michael oren)? Just wondering?

 

AR

10:44 AM ET

November 18, 2010

So long as the israel lobby

So long as the israel lobby runs the show in DC there will be no peace in Palestine/Israel

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More