Israel's Shield NO MORE?

[Segami]

Officials say they are revisiting the U.S. stance in light of Netanyahu rolling back his support of a Palestinian state.

In the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisive re-election, the Obama administration is revisiting longtime assumptions about America’s role as a shield for Israel against international pressure. Angered by Netanyahu’s hard-line platform towards the Palestinians, top Obama officials would not rule out the possibility of a change in American posture at the United Nations, where the U.S. has historically fended off resolutions hostile to Israel. And despite signals from Israel suggesting that Netanyahu might walk back his rejection, late in the campaign, of a Palestinian state under his watch, Obama officials say they are taking him at his word. “The positions taken by the prime minister in the last days of the campaign have raised very significant substantive questions that go far beyond just optics,” said a senior administration official, adding that recent Israeli government actions were in keeping with Netanyahu’s rhetoric.



While saying it was “premature” to discuss Washington’s policy response, the official wouldn’t rule out a modified American posture at the United Nations, where the U.S. has long fended off resolutions critical of Israeli settlement activity and demanding its withdrawal from Palestinian territories. “We are signaling that if the Israeli government’s position is no longer to pursue a Palestinian state, we’re going to have to broaden the spectrum of options we pursue going forward,” the official said. There is no virtually no chance that the U.S. will trim its financial or military support for Israel. But some analysts believe that going forward, Netanyahu may be vulnerable in international forums where the U.S. has long been a bulwark against criticism of Israel and its presence in Palestinian territories. “I do think the administration is going to look very closely at the possibility of either joining, or at least not blocking an internationally backed move at the U.N. to restate the parameters for ending the conflict,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the left-leaning pro-Israel group J Street.



Netanyahu’s campaign statements “make it a lot easier for the administration to justify going down a more international route,” Ben-Ami added. The chief Palestinian negotiator with Israel, Saeb Erakat, told Agence France-Press that the Palestinians will “accelerate, continue and intensify” their diplomatic efforts to pressure Israel.
The U.S. has run critical interference for Israel on such measures in the past. Last November, the U.N. Security Council considered a draft resolution, pushed by the Palestinians and Arab countries, demanding an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank within three years. The U.S. quietly quashed the effort. In February 2011, Obama exercised his first Security Council veto to strike down a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in Palestinian territory. Every other one of the Security Council’s 15 members supported the resolution.



Obama officials must now decide whether more international pressure on Israel can help bring a conservative Netanyahu-led government back to the negotiating table with the Palestinians — or whether such pressure would simply provoke a defiant reaction, as some fear. Obama has other diplomatic options. He could expend less political capital to oppose growing momentum within the European Union to impose sanctions on Israel for its settlement activity. More provocative to Israel, Obama could soften his opposition to recent Palestinian efforts to join the International Criminal Court and press for war crimes charges against Israeli leaders and generals at the Hague.





cont'


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/israels-america-united-116203.html

[geek tragedy]

1. the gloves are OFF. damn. see these quotes:

“The positions taken by the prime minister in the last days of the campaign have raised very significant substantive questions that go far beyond just optics,” said a senior administration official, adding that recent Israeli government actions were in keeping with Netanyahu’s rhetoric.

...

On Monday, Danny Ayalon, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., said he expected Netanyahu to “retract” a campaign statement he made ruling out the possibility of a Palestinian state during his tenure as prime minister. But the senior Obama official said that the administration believes the prime minister meant what he said because Netanyahu made multiple comments during the closing days of his campaign as he appealed to conservative voters.

The official noted that Netanyahu also admitted that, during his first term as prime minister in the mid-1990s, he had approved construction at the Israeli settlement of Har Homa to cut off any possible linkage between Palestinian-majority areas. “It was a way of stopping Bethlehem from moving toward Jerusalem,” Netanyahu said.

“To actually come out and say that this construction is actually driven by efforts to undermine a future Palestinian state is fairly dramatic,” said the official. He added that the Obama administration is focused not just on Netanuyahu’s comments but on his “several-year record of action on this issue” casting doubt on his desire for a peace agreement.

A former senior Obama official was more direct, saying of the Israeli leader: “He’s shown his true colors.”

They'll stay together for the kids, but the marriage is over.

[Segami]

2. Dupe post.

[geek tragedy]

3. nice excerpt! great minds think alike . . .

thanks for posting this article.

[Segami]

6. LOL!

Yup and thanks for posting it.

[geek tragedy]

5. No, don't cry!!!! nt

[madokie]

4. President Obama lets do it

they've been bullying the people, murdering them, destroying their cities and claiming their land for far too long if you ask me

[backscatter712]

7. The Judean People's Front Suicide Squad hails Israel's leader!

Hail, Netanyahu!

[Scootaloo]

8. I'll believe it when I see it

I expect politics will keep driving America's complicity in the destruction of Palestine. And Americans - including more DU'ers than we should be comfortable with - will keep rallying and cheering for it.

[2naSalit]

9. +10000000000000000000

[customerserviceguy]

10. Oh, the Repukes would love that

If they were the only ones to be able to claim support of Israel, it could shift Jewish votes in many places, not the least of which is Florida.

[Ken Burch]

12. You're assuming that the American Jewish community is still in lockstep on the issue.

That may not be the case.

I think glasnost may be beginning there.

[customerserviceguy]

18. No, I'm assuming

that enough Jewish votes could be peeled away to make a difference. That happened with Cuban-American votes in Florida in 2000.

Every barrage of Palestinian rocket fire towards Israel between truces (reloading periods) does severe damage to this glasnost that you're hoping for, no matter how much more damage Israel can inflict back.

[hopemountain]

13. possibly yes ~ possibly no

based upon the israeli and jewish response to the last attack on palestinians. the world was out raged as well and the un was investigating war crime charges at netanyahu.

[customerserviceguy]

19. The average American swing voter

probably doesn't care much (or even know much) about world opinion. Up until recently, there wasn't much difference between Democratic support of Israel, and GOP support for the Jewish state. Who knows what will happen if someday, that's no longer perceived to be the case?

[Martin Eden]

11. How is a soverign Palestinian State possible, regardless of whether Netanyahu is PM?

Have you ever seen a map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank?
http://archive.peacenow.org/map.php

The roads connecting these settlements are off limits to Palestinians. How can there possibly be a truly sovereign Palestinian State when it is sliced and diced by settlements & roads controlled by Israel?

It's obvious to me that one of two things would have to happen:
1) Israelis abandon their multitude of settlements, many of which are multi-generational.
2) Israelis living within the borders of Palestine submit to rule by the Palestinian authority, with no Israeli forces to protect them.

Seriously, under what circumstances will either of those two things come to pass?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to a Palestinian State. I just can't see how it will come to pass without a seismic shift in the balance of power or some other unforeseen development.

[Ken Burch]

14. Obviously, you'd have to remove the settlements.

If necessary, send the IDF in to get them out.

Israeli security could legitimately be cited as a justification...after all, the settlements were never anything but an ideological "want"-they are not a "need". Israel, as a nation, would lose nothing it has to have if the settlements were removed from the West Bank.

[Martin Eden]

17. I don't see that happening

I remember several years ago the uproar in Israeli politics when a handful of settlers were forcibly removed from an "illegal outpost."

Removing the settlements would mean removing upwards of 350,000 Israeli citizens from their homes. That's about as likely as the US government abandoning its worldwide military bases and cutting 90% from the defense budget.

[840high]

16. ...^ that