A reader sends me the following comment on my post of last week, 'Unsettling'. I post it with permission.
While the settlement 'project' has caused great problems for the Palestinians and Israelis, the criticism of President Obama is well-founded for several reasons. The problem is that many observers of the Mideast, including the President, appear to date history from Israel's latest error. Hence, there is no criticism from the White House - and criticism from few others for that matter - of the failure of the Palestinians to accept the Barak offer at Taba, or the Olmert offer in 2008, offers which contradict in large part the claim that Israel is expansionist. Nor is there any sympathy from Israel's critics about the murderous response to Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza.
The sad fact is that unlike the vast majority of Israelis, and even parts of the current government (who have reiterated their acceptance of a Palestinian State alongside a majority Jewish Israel), not a single Palestinian leader has stated that he or she accepts Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state; every Palestinian 'acceptance' of a two-state solution includes the demand for a full right of return. The West says, of course the Palestinians know that is silly; yet nonetheless, no Western leader has the courage to state publicly to the Palestinians that they must accept the existence of a Jewish state.
The President's approach has made absolutely no demands on the Palestinians. Abbas just promoted the leader of a terrorist cell, who is now in an Israeli prison, to the rank of Major General. More significantly, Fatah honored the terrorist who led the 1979 raid which killed 37 Israelis, including 13 children, and an American nature photographer - the 'Coastal Road' massacre. In her AIPAC speech, Hillary Clinton stated that the naming of the square was a Hamas event, too unwilling to blame the weak Abbas government for anything. Yet Israelis know that they have offered wide concessions and gotten no positive response from an entity which refuses to recognize Israel's existence as a Jewish state.
Israelis also know that Ramat Shlomo, the area where the 1,600 units were approved (the 4th of 7 needed approvals) are in an area of Northeast Jerusalem which all the maps, including that drawn by Dennis Ross and Bill Clinton, by Barak and by Olmert, show remaining within Israel as part of any deal that included the return of virtually 100 per cent of land, with some swaps, to the Palestinians. Moreover, Israelis also know that Hillary lavishly praised Netanyahu for the West Bank settlement freeze and understood there would be no freeze in East Jerusalem. Israelis also know that the President partially accepted the Palestinian-Iranian narrative that Israel is solely a creature of the Holocaust - his Cairo address said nothing about Jewish presence in Israel for millennia, a fact which Palestinian leaders refuse to acknowledge.
Unfortunately, last year's demand from the White House for a full freeze put Abbas in a box; settlements had never been a bar to direct negotiations, but he could look no weaker than the President.
Now, a real concern exists that the White House has freed the Palestinians from any requirement that they participate in the direct, unconditional talks which the Israelis support and which appear to be the President's aim. The Palestinians know that, given the current White House tilt, they will be absolved from making meaningful compromises. The President, as he prepares for Indonesia, will not want to look like he is being tough on the Palestinians. As a sports fan, you know that after the referee makes an incorrect call, the following call is deemed a 'make-up' by many fans. Obama's main goal in the Mideast has been to be the non-Bush, and rather than be a neutral arbiter, he thinks it is in America's interest to make up for Bush's blunders in the Israel-Palestine arena.
To all this we add Iran. While 1,600 housing units met the President's harsh continuous condemnation, the spinning of centrifuges and the crackdown on those opposed to the Iranian government have received far less criticism. An Iranian official would be foolish not to believe that the United States is preparing for a containment policy, will not help Israel take military action and will lead the world in only moderate sanctions. Iran understands that the US sees it as a modern day USSR – a major power which must be contained, that is all. Israelis know this as well. While the US will promise security protection, Iran must know that if it were to attack Israel, the US would not retaliate against Iran. Indeed, most American rabbis would decry such an American response.
Paranoia is dangerous, of course. But Israelis' fear of continued isolation is well-founded. The Goldstone Report robbed it of legitimate responses to terror. The US view that an Iranian nuclear weapon is 'unacceptable' rings all too hollow. Many, many American Jews feel Israel is the problem, not Iran. The President has apparently bought into the Roger Cohen/Andrew Sullivan analysis. I know that references to the Holocaust may be overblown and cloud reality. Yet, Israelis and others who lost families in the Holocaust see an Iranian leader intent on Israel's destruction and an Israel isolated by friend and foe alike. (On the other hand, Russia will take whatever action it desires against those responsible for the Metro atrocity and no one will say anything about disproportionality, etc.)
This comment may well be off-base. I agree that settlements outside the settlement blocks must eventually be dismantled and I believe, as do most Israelis, in a true two-state solution which will include a divided Jerusalem. Perhaps Israeli concessions, such as an East Jerusalem building freeze, will lead to direct talks and Palestinian concessions. I doubt that such concessions will come. All the best...
(Thanks: T.)