Israel Matzav

Netanyahu left hanging high and dry

In an op-ed in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren reveals some of what's going on in Israel over the 'settlement freeze' and calls for the 'Palestinians' to issue a positive response to Netanyahu's politically damaging initiative. Along the way, Oren praises the Obama administration for its response to the freeze.

The Obama administration praised the decision and recognized its significance. Special Envoy George Mitchell hailed the decision as "substantial," and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it "unprecedented."

...

What Mr. Mitchell and Mrs. Clinton understand, but what the Palestinians miss, is that Mr. Netanyahu has shown more flexibility on this issue than any previous head of his Likud Party, which is staunchly pro-settlement. Indeed, he has gone further than any prime minister in limiting a right that many Israelis consider incontestable and a vital component of their national security.

Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu has gone further than any previous head of the Likud, and further than any previous Prime Minister as well (Olmert and Barak both tried to go further but failed). I would argue that Netanyahu was wrong to do so. But has the American response really been as supportive as Oren makes it out to be? In an editorial appropriately titled "All pain no gain," the JPost argued that the American response has been tepid at best.

Since the freeze was announced, US Special Envoy George Mitchell has managed to contain his enthusiasm. While acknowledging that Netanyahu has gone further than any previous Israeli leader, Mitchell could bring himself to say only that he wants to see permanent status negotiations resume "as soon as possible."

To which Mahmoud Abbas essentially responded: "I don't think so."

In an interview with a Washington-based think tank, Mitchell did at least reiterate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent statement that negotiations should be "based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps."

...

Since the freeze was announced, US Special Envoy George Mitchell has managed to contain his enthusiasm. While acknowledging that Netanyahu has gone further than any previous Israeli leader, Mitchell could bring himself to say only that he wants to see permanent status negotiations resume "as soon as possible."

To which Mahmoud Abbas essentially responded: "I don't think so."

In an interview with a Washington-based think tank, Mitchell did at least reiterate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent statement that negotiations should be "based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps."

...

So Netanyahu's US-pressed freeze has pitted settlers against soldiers. It hasn't swayed Abbas or the Arab League. Hamas is bemused. Europe is little impressed.

The Obama administration, which so far has merely offered parsimonious praise, needs to do better.

Could this be an American payback to the 'Palestinians' for leaving Abu Mazen hanging high and dry over the 'settlement freeze' that should never have even been proposed in Jerusalem? In return, now they're going to leave Netanyahu high and dry for having gone along with the 'freeze' everyplace else?

Our response ought to be that we are folding up shop until there's a new administration or a new attitude. Obama would likely do no less to us.

By the way, the Post points out correctly that Netanyahu made a huge tactical error by including the 'settlement blocs' in the freeze. From the standpoint of the revenants, that was a great move, because it united residents of Maaleh Adumim (which is just east of Jerusalem and within the 'security fence') with residents of Maaleh Levona (which is outside the 'security fence'). But from Netanyahu's perspective of wanting to show that he's not giving up everything, it's a horrible move. Did Obama insist on it?

The country's in good hands. What could go wrong?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:23 PM