After GOP Victory, Emboldened Israel Declares New Building In East Jerusalem

[Purveyor]

Tel Aviv

Israel has published plans to build about 1,300 new housing units in East Jerusalem neighborhoods, a move that highlights US-Israeli differences just as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in the United States to huddle with Obama administration officials.

The Friday publication of the building plans, discovered today, was a surprise redux of Israel's approval of 1,600 new homes that torpedoed Vice President Joe Biden's March visit to Israel, angering the White House.

Then, as now, Israel played down its significance.

But coupled with Mr. Netanyahu's public call on Sunday for the US to create a "credible'' threat of military force against Iran, the publicized building plans are seen by some analysts as a sign that Israel has been emboldened by last week's Republican victory in the midterm elections.

"This gives them more room to maneuver," says Meir Javedanfar, a Middle East analyst in Tel Aviv. "Republicans back the Israeli government's stance on Iran and they are more accepting of Israel's West Bank strategy.''

MORE...

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/1108/After-GOP-victory-emboldened-Israel-declares-new-building-in-East-Jerusalem

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacebird]

2. clearly Israel doesn't want peace. Their actions over the past three years

have been disproportionate at best. It is time to cut the knot that ties us to Israel and let them stand on their own. They as a Nation have determined that the various "road maps" to peace brought forth by numerous parties are unacceptable, ok - let them work out their own deal with their neighbors. Without US $$$ or support.

[ProgressiveMajority]

46. Agreed. How much money have we sent to Israel, $200 Billion since 1950?

It's time to cut Israel off. Supporting Israel is one of the things that lead to 9/11. You want to stop terrorism against the US? Stop supporting Israel. It's just common sense. Why are we backing a country of a few million people when it angers hundreds of millions of Muslims? Supporting Israel makes no foreign policy sense. Ontop of that Israel obviously isn't interested in peace judging by their ongoing actions such as the wall, cast lead, settlements and so forth.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. I hadn't thought of how the mid-term Repug successes would affect Israel...

The extremely RW Israeli govt was already brazen enough in its insistance that it should be able to build in occupied East Jerusalem despite the illegality of it under international law, so is there something to what the article says about the Repug wins making Israel more bold?

[azurnoir]

5. the Republicans do not hold the Presidency

and foreign policy is in his arena

[Violet_Crumble]

8. So he doesn't have to bend to what Congress demands when it comes to foreign policy?

I'm not as well versed in how US politics works as I should be, but I have spotted criticisms aimed at Obama since he became President where I suspect it's a bit unfair because he has to work with the Congress and Senate and can't just announce he'll do something and do it....

If it is true there's nothing holding Obama back when it comes to foreign policy, then I'm incredibly disappointed with him as he's been very weak when it comes to Israel...

[azurnoir]

9. Obama makes policy but the Congress holds the purse strings

any limitations are due to that an example would be the funds to Lebanon that are currently being withheld by Nita Lowey who is a Democrat but who IMO along with a couple of others who seem play ME politics as a zero sum game if its good for Arabs its bad for Israel and vis versa , Obama has requested she release the funds as withholding these funds could push Lebanon closer to Iran, so far she has said I'll think about it .......sometime.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Thanks for the explanation, Az...

That means that while Obama can wave some small sticks and carrots at Israel, there's no point in him threatening to withhold 'aid' to Israel as Congress control that...

btw, there seems to be far too many Democrats who see things the way you described Nita Lowey. They're either individuals who aren't particulary intelligent and struggle to think in anything but very simple terms, or they're the sort of people who just don't like Arabs much...

[oberliner]

13. That explanation is not accurate

Obama could see to it that the funds are cut or limited without Congress taking any action.

[azurnoir]

23. Please enlighten us as to just how that could be done n/t

[oberliner]

26. In the United States, the President proposes the federal budget

Congress then passes appropriations bill that the president can sign or veto.

[azurnoir]

29. So all he can do is veto the entire budget over Israel or create an

executive order, in which case Congress can enact a law to countermand such as Cantor's proposal to add Israel to the US domestic defense budget, in any event both options are extreme

[oberliner]

31. Or he could submit a budget that doesn't include foreign aid

Of course, Congress could then react accordingly.

[azurnoir]

39. Thank for pointing the extreme lengths to which Obama

would need go to even begin to take any real palpable action concerning Israel, other wise all that can be done is talk

[oberliner]

50. Nothing extreme needs to be done - the president proposes a budget every year

He can decide what will be in that budget and what won't be.

[azurnoir]

55. yes he proposes a budget however that does not mean it is accepted

Obama is not the Emperor he is the President

[oberliner]

56. Right - but he initiates the process

Your earlier post made it seem like his role was much more minimal than it actually is.

[TomClash]

18. Actually they are none of those

They are simply politicians in New York and elsewhere who get significant campaign contributions from constituencies entirely beholden to the State of Israel. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. So it's the constituencies that are either or both those things, not the politicians?

It'd be nice to think that politicians on our 'side' wouldn't want to take money from people with ugly views like those constituencies must have, but I guess spinelessness and a love of money no matter where it comes from is something politicians on the Left and Right have in common...

[TomClash]

33. Money is how they stay in power

Without money, it is difficult, though not impossible, to get elected, so otherwise progressive people are in lockstep with Israeli policies no matter what they are. With some, Israel is really a policy afterthought and not an area they are really interested in so why rock the boat? In most of the Untied States, having a balanced view does not get you money, but headaches because unless your seat is very safe, you can be sure your opponents will receive a bundle of money if you stray from correct view.

[oberliner]

34. Election finance reform is the way to go

Interesting how we don't seem to hear much about that anymore.

Wasn't that a pet cause of John McCain's at one point?

[oberliner]

25. Constituencies entirely beholden to the State of Israel?

What do you mean by that?

[arcticken]

4. Good! Jews should be able to build

where ever they want. Any less is bigotry.

[azurnoir]

6. so your glad the Republicans won the House

as long as it's good for Israel

[Violet_Crumble]

7. The OP is about Israel's illegal construction in Occupied East Jerusalem...

Not about Jews not being able to build wherever they like. As far as I'm aware, Jews, just like all other people, can build where they like in whatever country they're a citizen of, or in other countries if they get the same permissions as everyone else has to.

Also, there's nothing good about the GOP doing well at all...

btw, as yr only new to DU, you should read the guidelines of this forum. What you've done in conflating 'Jew' with 'Israeli' is against the forum rules...

[oberliner]

14. Didn't Obama say that Jerusalem would be unified?

I'll have to find that quote.

[azurnoir]

24. yes he did say that on June 8 2008 however on July 14 2008

Barack Obama backtracks on 'unified Jerusalem' speech

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said yesterday he used "poor phrasing" in a speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.

"You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given," he said in an interview aired yesterday on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria - GPS."

"The point we were simply making was, is that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent," Obama said.

Obama's campaign has issued similar clarifications since the candidate's speech to a pro-Israel lobby group after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination early last month.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/barack-obama-backtracks-on-unified-jerusalem-speech-1.249706

[oberliner]

27. Are there any more recent comments from him on Jerusalem?

I feel like he has made some not that long ago, but I can't find them.

[azurnoir]

28. all I can find is the very recent "not helpful"

comment about plans for building

[oberliner]

30. "The status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue"

I've seen that statement also from the White House - not sure what that means about the US position though exactly.

[azurnoir]

32. I cut and pasted your title line to Google

dot lots of stuff but nothing from the WH however the statement is correct IMO, the permanent status of Jerusalem is quite definitely an issue

[oberliner]

35. Statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Construction in East Jerusalem

"The United States opposes new Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. The status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved by the parties through negotiations and supported by the international community. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. Rather, both parties should return to negotiations without preconditions as soon as possible. The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians, and for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem, and safeguards its status for people around the world."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-construction-east-jerusalem

[azurnoir]

36. thanks I am glad you could find it , but Obama has long backed away from his statement to AIPAC

I went only 3 pages out this was on the 4th

[oberliner]

37. I still don't fully understand what that statement means

It seems extremely (and perhaps deliberately) vague.

[azurnoir]

38. it seems IMO a long winded talk now - do later type of thing n/t

[whosinpower]

40. It is perfectly clear

The status of Jerusalem is one that must be negotiated by both parties - and that Israel should not be building in it until those negotiations are complete and something is agreed upon - hence the permanent status description.

[oberliner]

41. It does not say anything about the position of the US with respect to Jerusalem

Is the US not part of the negotiations? Does the US government not have any position on what kind of deal it would like to see?

Former President Clinton, according to his autobiography, had actually mapped out almost on a street by street basis what his proposal for dividing Jerusalem would look like.

Does Obama have any similar vision?

[azurnoir]

42. are you saying that Obama should dictate terms to Israel and the Palestinians?

the WH was quite clear that the parties should be allowed to negotiate the terms themselves

[oberliner]

44. I am saying the US should have a position on the matter

Something a little more helpful than - "whatever you guys decide is cool"

[azurnoir]

47. IMO no matter how flippantly put the US really can take no other position

to do so would deleigitimize the US in it's current role which seems to be mediator

[oberliner]

49. The US can and has under former President Clinton

The Clinton Bridging Proposals for Final Settlement

Jerusalem

The general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well. I urge the two sides to work on maps to create maximum contiguity for both sides.

Regarding the Haram\Temple Mount, I believe that the gaps are not related to practical administration but to symbolic issues of sovereignty and to finding a way to accord respect to the religious beliefs of both sides.

I know you have been discussing a number of formulations.... I add to these two additional formulations guaranteeing Palestinian effective control over the Haram while respecting the conviction of the Jewish People. Regarding either one of those two formulations will be international monitoring to provide mutual confidence.

1. Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over

a) the Western Wall and the space sacred to Judaism of which it is a part or

b) the Western Wall and the Holy of Holies of which it is a part.

There will be a firm commitment by both not to excavate beneath the Haram or behind the Wall.

2. Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall and shared functional sovereignty over the issue of excavation under the Haram and behind the Wall such that mutual consent would be requested before any excavation can take place.

[azurnoir]

48. but wait there's more

Clinton warns Palestinians and Israelis against 'unilateral' Mideast steps
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that the United States was working "every day, indeed every hour" to revive stalled Middle East peace negotiations, and warned both sides against making unilateral moves that could compromise the outcome of these talks.
"We do not support unilateral steps by either party that could prejudge the outcome of such negotiations," Clinton said.
Her remark came after Israel's recent announcement of new construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and amid increased Palestinian Authority pressure on the international community to formally recognize a Palestinian state.
"Each party has a very strong set of opinions about the way forward. There can be no progress until they actually come together and explore where areas of agreement are and how to narrow areas of disagreement," Clinton said after a meeting with visiting Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/clinton-warns-palestinians-and-israelis-against-unilateral-mideast-steps-1.324038

[whosinpower]

43. The official position is that Israel and Palestine must agree

That is their position. Why is that hard to understand?

Former President Clinton may have mapped out what he would suggest is equitable - but the final status is up to Israel AND the PA authority, or Palestine. Actually, if I recall correctly - it was at this juncture in the negotiations - the issue of Jerusalem - that talks began to break down. That is why they kicked it down the road, so to speak.

No - the US is not part of the negotiations, except in the role of helping both parties find common ground with which to negotiate peace. It must be neutral. In my opinion, it was a big mistake of the americans to offer Israel all kinds of concessions - increased defense aid, etc to stop building. In my opinion, it is abhorrent that some within the Israeli power politic, suggest that Pollard must be released so that Israel may find within itself the courage to stop building.

These are all excuses to not talk and negotiate. Abbas also makes excuses. But the negotiations, the ideas, the concepts must come from him and Netanyahu. Any solution that comes from outside will immediately be shot down - and you are well aware of this. Or, as was the case of the Arab Initiative - ignored.

You should not need to even ask what Obama's vision is.

[oberliner]

45. That is not a position

Everyone would love for both sides to agree.

Both sides don't agree.

Now what happens?

The US says "oh well"?

[whosinpower]

51. I know what I wish the entire world would say

But, this is only my opinion. I wish they would say that ALL aid would be put on hold until final satus negotiations were completed. That goes for the military help that Israel enjoys. That goes for all the aid that Iran and the Arab nations supply. The whole lot. Even UNWRA.

I wish the game would end. I wish the Israeli's would finally understand that they have a responsibility towards people it displaced. I wish the palistinians would finally understand that the Israeli's/jews are not leaving ever. I wish both parties would finally realize that their only option is to work together - and not hope, wish, pray that someone would take in these people - they are not leaving.

For far too long, the world has poured aid into this conflict. For far too long, one side has blamed the other of its own failings towards its people. For far too long, a game has been going on that uses Israel and the palistinian people as proxies to a conflict that should be settled face to face.

I know it will never happen. Iran/Saudi Arabia/ the arab states use the palistinian issue as a bludgeon to give the west a black eye with - and the west uses Israel as a proxy to fight back, and ensure that oil continues to trade in US dollars.

It is entirely unfair to both.

[oberliner]

52. Thanks for sharing your analysis

I think your position makes a lot of sense.

It does seem that there are numerous parties who benefit from the maintaining of the status quo - to the detriment of those who are adversely affected by it.

I believe that some more creative out-of-the-box thinking may be in order at this point.

[oberliner]

53. Thank you for sharing your analysis

I think your position makes a lot of sense.

It does seem that there are numerous parties who benefit from the maintaining of the status quo - to the detriment of those who are adversely affected by it.

I believe that some more creative out-of-the-box thinking may be in order at this point.

[parkia00]

11. FAIL Troll

is FAIL

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. I'm Jewish. I think I'll come and kick you out of your house and build something there.

Jews should not be prevented from building anywhere on account of their race. That's completely different to "Jews should be able to build whereever they want".

*Israelis* should be able to build inside Israel's borders, not outside them.

[howaboutme]

20. Which borders - the legal ones as defined by the UN or those defined by Israel

As long as Israel can continue to hold on to its 1967 land grab, and not be held accountable, or ostracized or face economic isolation because of UN international pressure, they will never act in the real interest of peace.

The mission has always been about more land and more power. The peace carrot was always a diversion to gain time for the construction of more walls and settlements.

America is foolish to have allowed itself to become the dog wagged by the tail, and become the sugar daddy for billions of aid for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria (that we don't have) and without much resulting clout, all while US citizens are being forced to sacrifice. This entire scenario in the Middle East is costing us enormously but providing no strategic benefit.

[oberliner]

54. East Jerusalem is part of what country?

Is any of it part of Israel? The Jewish Quarter for instance?

[Crunchy Frog]

22. Yes exactly! I couldn't agree with you more.

The entirety of Israel and the West Bank needs to be open to all the people living there to live and build wherever they choose. Citizenship for all, and the freedom for all to live where they wish. An end to bigotry indeed!

[whosinpower]

12. I think the title is very misleading

When the democrats were the majority - and Vice President Joe Biden went to visit - they had announced plans to build 1600 new buildings....

They never trully stopped building as per Obama's request....they slowed it down - and this is when the democrats held both the house and the senate. The slow down, instead of a total moratorium is the reason Abbas did not come to the table for 10 months.

I don't think the republican victory had ANYTHING to do with this. The Israeli government will do what it wants regardless of who is in Washington, in my humble opinion.

[oberliner]

15. Netanyahu on building plans: 'Jerusalem isn't a settlement'

"Jerusalem is not a settlement, it is the capitol of Israel," the office of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday in a sharp response to international criticism to advance plans for 1,345 homes in Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem.

The government never agreed to place any restrictions on construction in Jerusalem, which has 800,000 residents, the prime minister's office said in a statement it issued while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was in New York.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=194631

[whosinpower]

16. Spare me the false outrage

Netanyahu "responded" to outrage of these 1345 homes being built in East Jerusalem....by....

announcing another 800 units to be built in Ariel. So - spare me the false outrage. Unless....somehow, magically - Ariel is actually East Jerusalem?

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Israel is going to embolden itself right into a single state.

With the Repukes cheering it on all the way.