Benjamin Netanyahu is basically a fascist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Either that or he's just really good at impersonating one, but the implications are pretty much the same regardless. And with his electoral career on the verge of coming to a screeching halt, with voters possibly about to turf him out of office, he's proving it once more, in extremis:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that if he were to be reelected, a Palestinian state would not be created, in a definite disavowal of his 2009 speech, in which he had voiced support for the principle of two states for two peoples.

Netanyahu's remarks in an interview with the NRG website -- which is owned by casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and tied with the settler newspaper Makor Rishon -- were a last-minute attempt to pull right-wing voters away from Habayit Hayehudi.

"I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel," Netanyahu said. "The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand." 

Oh, what a pile of horseshit. Creating a Palestinian state would basically mean caving in to ISIS or al Qaeda or whatever? Seriously. Nonsense. I would say the reverse is true. Creating a Palestinian state would encourage the rapid development of more moderate forms of political Islam. It would show the Muslim world that Israel, the United States, and others are serious about solving the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be the ultimate expression of respect, the ultimate olive branch.

I have said this many times before and I'll say it again now: I'm pro-Israel. But what that means for me is that I'm also pro-Palestine. Indeed, it's because I'm pro-Israel that I'm anti-Netanyahu, anti the Israeli right generally (and anti Israel's right-wing supporters in the U.S., like Adelson, the neocons, and the #47Traitors). The fact is, for the sake of Israel's present and future security and prosperity, it is essential that there be peace, that there be an accord between Israel and moderate elements in the Muslim Middle East. That can't and won't happen with Netanyahu and the right in control in Israel.

I realize that Netanyahu is desperate, and that he's doing what he thinks he needs to do to hold onto power. Faced with such desperation, politicians do and say stupid things. But this isn't just that. This isn't just desperation. This is the real Netanyahu, a man who doesn't want peace because he doesn't believe in peace, a man who doesn't want what is ultimately in Israel's own best interests, a man who is actually a threat to Israel's present and future security and prosperity.

And it's time to kick him to the electoral curb for good. Hopefully the people of Israel have had their fill of him.

Occam's Razor

By Carl 

The simplest solution that covers all foreseeable contingencies is usually correct. 

Right? 

The two-state solution is supported by all the major international players, including the US, the UN, the EU, and the 22 countries of the Arab League. It's also, officially at least, the stated policy of the current Israeli government and the internationally recognised Palestinian leadership. 

What's more, it's repeatedly been backed in principle by majorities of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians.

When the sides last sat down to try and reach a deal – at Annapolis in 2007 – their respective proposals turned out to be surprisingly close (take a look here and here). In fact on the issue of borders they were able to agree on how to divide all but around 250 square kilometres of land – or 1 per cent of the total area of Israel-Palestine.

These facts need pointing out because Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists the conflict is "insoluble", and that aiming for two states is unrealistic. 

250 square kilometres. Say, you know what might work there? How about calling it, ohhhhh, I don't know... a de-militarized zone? An international city-state? You know, a solution nobody likes and therefore is perfect in keeping everyone honest. We can freeze populations in those regions at some agreed-upon point in time and be done with it. Throw some UN peacekeeping forces in there just to keep a presence.

So why is this so difficult, apart from Netanyahu's intransigence? Granted, the division of Palestine into two non-contiguous states is a bit of a hang up, but it's not like we don't have nations made up of physical islands, so how hard is it to have one made up of political ones?

Read more »

Romney campaign distorts Obama's Israel comments, says Romney would let Israel dictate U.S. policy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here we go. Another day, another example of Romney trying to score political points, an increasingly desperate effort at this point, by taking something President Obama said out of context and distorting its meaning.

Here's Obama on 60 Minutes, in response to a question about whether he feels any pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to change American policy towards Iran:

When it comes to our national security decisions any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people, and I am going to block out any noise that's out there.

The Romney campaign pounced, perhaps hoping to scare up some votes in Florida, issuing the following statement:

Tonight on 60 Minutes, President Obama called Israel's legitimate concern about the impact of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons "noise" and referred to Israel as merely "one of our closest allies in the region."

The statement continued:

This is just the latest evidence of his chronic disregard for the security of our closest ally in the Middle East. Governor Romney's views stand in sharp contrast to the President's. Governor Romney strongly believes that Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East and that support for Israel is essential to extending freedom, peace and democracy throughout the region. As president, Governor Romney will restore and protect the close alliance between our nation and the state of Israel.

But did Obama actually disrespect Israel? Hardly. Here's what he said:

Now I feel an obligation -- not pressure but obligation -- to make sure that we're in close consultation with the Israelis on these issues because it affects them deeply. They're one of our closest allies in the region and we've got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel's existence.

So it all hinges on the "one of our closest allies in the region" line. The Romney campaign is riffing off that to suggest that Obama disrespects Israel and disregards its concerns. Which is ridiculous.

There are certainly other U.S. allies in the region, like Jordan and Turkey, and the president was right to say what he said.

But of course it is de rigueur throughout American politics, but particularly among conservatives, not just to express one's support for Israel but essentially to acquiesce to its demands, to kowtow before it, to shape U.S. policy according to Israeli policy (at least if Israeli policy is Likudnik).

Obama is nothing if not pro-Israel, but of course he's not pro-Israel enough for the hardliners on the right, including in Romney's campaign, including Romney himself.

Romney wants to try to twist Obama's words around for his own benefit, but let's look at it another way:

Where the president wants to make decisions that are in America's best interests, free from outside influence or pressure, Romney wants to sell out American policy to a foreign country -- and if that means going to war with Iran because that country wants it, so be it.

Which is to say, President Obama understands that Israel is a close ally that needs U.S. support but that the U.S. must come first. Romney, meanwhile, seems to think that what matters is what Israel, and specifically the right-wing Israeli government, wants, and that the U.S. must not come before it.

And this was hardly the first time. Last October, for example, he said he would let Israel dictate U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Why does Mitt Romney continue to insist on making America a pitiful sidekick on the world stage?

Why does he not believe in America, and in American leadership?

Nicholas Kristof on Romney, foreign policy "empty shell"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In over his head. Way, way, way over his head.

From yesterday's Times:

DIPLOMACY is a minefield, and Mitt Romney spent the last week blowing up his foreign policy credentials to be president. He raised doubts about his capacity to deal with global crises, and we were left hoping that if that 3 a.m. call ever went to him, he'd have set up call forwarding.

A great line. But of course this is serious:

The essential problem is that every time Romney touches foreign policy, he breaks things.

And not just by embarrassing himself in England:

The Republican Party is caught in a civil war on foreign policy, and Romney refuses to pick sides. In contrast to his approach on the economy, he just doesn’t seem to have thought much about global issues. My hunch is that for secretary of state he would pick a steady hand, like Robert Zoellick, but Romney has also surrounded himself with volatile neocons.

With China, Romney seems intent on a trade war. In the Middle East, it appears he’d like to subcontract foreign policy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

And it gets worse:

Most dangerous of all is Romney's policy on Iran, which can't be dismissed as an offhand misstatement. As my colleagues David E. Sanger and Ashley Parker note, Romney muddles his own position on his nuclear red line for Iran. Plenty of candidates don't write their own foreign policy position papers, but Romney is unusual in that he seems not to have even read his.

According to clarifications from Romney's campaign, he apparently would order a military strike before Iran even acquired a bomb, simply when it was getting close. For anyone who has actually seen a battlefield, that's a blithe, too-light embrace of a path to yet another war. It's emblematic of a candidate who, on foreign policy, appears an empty shell.

I repeat the narrative that has emerged regarding Romney's quest for the presidency:

UNQUALIFIED.

UNPREPARED.

UNFIT.

October surprise, anyone?

By Carl 

I don't think this is what Obama had planned to lay in front of Mitt Romney, but I'm thinking he'll accept the gift graciously.

Two items: 

1) Chris Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya, killed in Benghazi attack 

The US ambassador in Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack after the diplomat's car was targeted in the eastern city of Benghazi, it was confirmed on Wednesday. 

A statement from President Obama "condemned the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including ambassador Chris Stevens"... 

The assault followed a protest in neighbouring Egypt where demonstrates scaled the walls of the US embassy, tore down the US flag, and burned it during a protest over the same film which they said insulted the prophet Muhammad.

2) Obama Calls Netanyahu on Iran Nuclear Threat Amid Tensions

The two leaders spoke by phone last night for an hour, the White House said. While providing no further details, the White House said in a statement that Obama and Netanyahu "reaffirmed that they are united in their determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Netanyahu declared earlier yesterday that the Obama administration has no "moral right" to keep Israel from attacking as long as the U.S. doesn't set its own "red lines" for Iran. His remarks reflect differences within his government about an Israeli attack on Iran and a bid to pressure Obama less than two months before the U.S. election. The call came after Israeli media reports, denied by the White House, that Netanyahu's request to meet Obama later this month was snubbed.

(How is that last one a gift? We were reminded yesterday of Netanyahu's initial reaction to 9/11: "It's very good." Then he edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.")

The Islamic world is in flames, the Israelis are acting like douchebags again, and Obama, just ahead of his re-election, gets the opportunity to make a real-world demonstration of the differences between him and Mitt Romney's foreign policy shortfalls. And he gets to raise the spectre of a nuclear Iran for free. That's a three-bagger.

Romney, by the way, had this to say about the Egyptian protest: "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

It's disgraceful that the Romney campaign's first response was not to support the administration in finding a peaceful solution to a mostly preaceful protest.

That this all happened on September 11 is no coincidence, I'm sure. Egyptians rallied around us, just as nearly every other nation on the planet did, including Libya. There's a deliberate syncopatic response in yesterday's actions in Egypt and today's in Libya.

So while Romney is left flailing about for a response and allowing Reince Priebus to cheerlead the death of Americans and failure of the current administration, President Obama gets to appear presidential and oh, by the way, behave precisely the way an administration should behave in the face of aggression by nebulous and angry mobs.

Unlike, say, eleven years ago... 

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Unfit for the White House: Mitt Romney insults the Palestinians, kowtows to Netanyahu, reveals astonishing ignorance of Israel and Palestine, and continues his disastrous foreign tour

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What a great photo-op. Too bad all these Jews will miss out on exaltation, though.

Mitt Romney clearly wasn't prepared for his foreign tour, and clearly isn't prepared for the international stage (not to mention for the presidency), and it's been one gaffe

There was everything that happened in the U.K., of course, and then he went to Israel, where it's been mroe of the same, but worse. Let's recap:

1) Yesterday, one of his advisors, Dan Senor, said Romney would support a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran. Until his campaign pulled that back a bit, sort of, saying he prefers "diplomatic and economic measures," which he then followed up on Face the Nation, using his "own words," by saying he hopes the U.S. and Israel "come together in peace that want to see Iran be dissuaded from its nuclear folly." (Later, in a much-ballyhooed speech, he stressed Israel's "right to defend itself," a view shared by all across the political spectrum back home, notably by President Obama. Oh, and on Face the Nation he also said there are "other options, and we don't take those other options off the table," a reference to military action and, again, very much in line with what the president has said repeatedly.

2) In that speech, Romney said that Jerusalem was, in fact, the capital of Israel. He also said it in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, though he seemed to want to have it both ways by refusing to commit to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Consider the cortortions here: "The decision to actually make the move is one, if I were president, I would want to take in consultation with the leadership of the government which exists at that time. So I would follow the same policy we have in the past. Our embassy would be in the capital.  But that said, the timing of that is something I'd want to work out with the government." So typically Romney, a man evidently without principle other than self-aggrandizing plutocracy. Basically, the view that Jerusalem is the unqualified capital of Israel violates decades of U.S. policy, including from Reagan through Obama, the common position being, as White House spokesman Josh Earnest put it, "the capital is something that should be determined in final status negotiations between the parties." If nothing else, Romney's remark was unnecessarily divisive. Sure, he was trying to pander to the right-wing Israeli lobby (and Jewish voters generally) back home, but his remark exposed him as either an ignoramus or an extremist -- or perhaps both.

3) While cozying up to his buddy Netanyahu, Romney was scheduled to have a meeting with Labor Party leader (and former opposition leader) Shelly Yacimovich. (Just as Candidate Obama met with then-opposition leader Netanyahu on his trip to Israel in '08.) Yacimovich's people talked to Romney's people about cancelling the meeting after Shaul Mofaz of Kadima replaced her as opposition leader, but Romney's people objected, saying Mitt would meet with both Yacimovich and Mofaz. But then, suddenly, the meeting with Yacimovich was cancelled. Why? As Haaretz reports, "[Labor Knesset faction head Yitzhak] Herzog and Yacimovich have no doubts: Netanyahu, or his people, didn't approve of the Yacimovich meeting and pressured Romney to cancel it – and succeeded." Which is to say, Romney likely caved in to pressure from the Israeli prime minister, backing out of a meeting with someone of whom he disapproves (and despises). Put another way, Romney allowed Netanyahu to call the shots, proving, it would seem, that he lacks the fortitude, at least when it comes to Israel, to stand up for himself (and his country?).

4) Violating its own rules, the Romney campaign said the press was barred from his fundraiser with bigwigs like former Newt-lover Sheldon Adelson at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on Monday, perhaps to keep his self-inflicted embarrassment out of the media, until, under pressure (and getting bad press), it relented, agreeing to allow a single pool reporter into the event.

5) Romney praised Israel's health-care system. Now, in and of itself there's nothing wrong with this, as Israel does indeed have excellent health care. But...

Romney's point about Israel's success in controlling health care costs is spot on: Its health care system has seen health care costs grow much slower than other industrialized nations.

How it has gotten there, however, may not be to the Republican candidate's liking: Israel regulates its health care system aggressively, requiring all residents to carry insurance and capping revenue for various parts of the country's health care system.

Israel created a national health care system in 1995, largely funded through payroll and general tax revenue. The government provides all citizens with health insurance: They get to pick from one of four competing, nonprofit plans. Those insurance plans have to accept all customers -- including people with pre-existing conditions -- and provide residents with a broad set of government-mandated benefits.

And yet he still insists on opposing Obamacare and calling for its repeal, even though it's based largely on what he implemented in Massachusetts and includes an individual mandate akin to what Israel has. Hypocrisy? Opportunism? Shameless pandering? Unprincipled nonsense? You betcha.

6) Finally, as his fundraiser yesterday, he insulted the entire Palestinian people with this remarkably insensitive, and just plain ignorant, statement:

"And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the "hand of providence." He said similar disparity exists between neighboring countries, like Mexico and the United States.

At New York, Dan Amira notes that he likely won't take a political hit for insulting the Palestinians, and, again, his goal was to appeal to certain voters back home, not to provide "an accurate and thorough analysis," but his comments were nonetheless revealing. As Saeb Erekat, senior aide to the Palestinian prime minister said, "[i]t seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people." Yes, absolutely. Amira adds: "As for the substance of Romney's remarks, the World Bank, for one, seems to agree with Erekat, at least on the question of Israel's role in depressing the Palestinian economy. In a recent report on the economies of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it concludes that the "major constraints to private sector activity are the tight Israeli restrictions, and growth will not be sustainable until Palestinians have access to resources and are allowed to move freely." And what about this "hand of providence"? How bigoted is that?

And all that's just from a brief trip to Israel. Imagine what serious damage he'd do if he were actually president.

Israel is not alone: Thomas Friedman and The Israel Lobby

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Rarely, these days, do I bother with the NYT's Tom Friedman. (While he occupies a lofty perch in the punditocratic universe, he is essentially the master of myopic, self-absorbed ignorance masquerading as sophisticated internationalism. And I say that as someone who occasionally agrees with him.)

But let's take a look at his column from Saturday, a piece on the current state of Israel:

I've never been more worried about Israel's future. The crumbling of key pillars of Israel's security — the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan — coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel's history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.

This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel's leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America's.

*****

I have great sympathy for Israel's strategic dilemma and no illusions about its enemies. But Israel today is giving its friends — and President Obama's one of them — nothing to defend it with. Israel can fight with everyone or it can choose not to surrender but to blunt these trends with a peace overture that fair-minded people would recognize as serious, and thereby reduce its isolation.

Unfortunately, Israel today does not have a leader or a cabinet for such subtle diplomacy. One can only hope that the Israeli people will recognize this before this government plunges Israel into deeper global isolation and drags America along with it.

Well, sure. As Greenwald notes, here's an influential pro-Israel commentator (if not not on the right), "one of Israel's most stalwart American supporters," basically advancing the controversial view, most notably advanced by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, that "that there is a very powerful lobby in the U.S." -- The Israel Lobby, to take the title of their book -- "which is principally devoted to Israel and causes U.S. political leaders to act to advance the interests of this foreign nation over their own." While I do not accept this view in its entirety, I find it refreshing that a commentator of Friedman's stature and reputation is more or less making it his own. Greenwald:

Walt and Mearshiemer merely voiced a truth which has long been known and obvious but was not allowed to be spoken. That's precisely why the demonization campaign against them was so vicious and concerted: those who voice prohibited truths are always more hated than those who spout obvious lies. That the foreign affairs columnist most admired in Washington circles just expressed the same point demonstrates that recognition of this previously prohibited fact has now become mainstream. 

Indeed. And you don't have to be in any way anti-Israel to accept that truth and, like Friedman, to note how this powerful lobby is polluting American political life and preventing the U.S. from taking a more balanced approach to Israel (an approach Obama has certainly been taking, meeting strong resistance at every turn, including in Congress).

But does any of this mean that Israel is somehow in grave existential danger, as Friedman suggests? I would say not. The Netanyahu government is certainly "inept" and "incompetent," and its extremism is certainly a major obstacle not just to peace with the Palestinians but to Israeli security generally, and it is extremely difficult for Israel's more sensible defenders, including Obama (and I'd put myself in there too), to defend it, but when push comes to shove, as they say, Israel's friends, and particularly the U.S., no matter who occupies the White House, will protect it. And that's partly because the Israel Lobby is so powerful, and will remain so even with the likes of Friedman criticizing it.

In other words, nothing is about to change anytime soon.

Major Democratic donor criticizes (and will not contribute to) Obama over Israel

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the neocon Commentary (or is it Dysentery?) is (gleefully) reporting, Haim Saban, a major Democratic donor, "has indicated that he will not contribute to President Obama's reelection campaign in 2012, because of the administration's stance on Israel":

"President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much money through the Internet, more than anybody before him. And he frankly doesn't, I believe, need any of my donations," said Saban.

"I'm very perplexed as to why the president, who's been to Cairo, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, has not made a stop in Israel and spoken to the Israeli people," he continued. "I believe that the president can clarify to the Israeli people what his positions are on Israel and calm them down. Because they are not calm right now."

He's probably right that Obama doesn't need his financial support, but what does he object to, that Obama hasn't visited Israel? Okay, fine, he should go to Israel sometime, but the real issue is that Obama refuses to play along with the right-wing pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., that is, to kowtow before Netanyahu and Likud, and their American allies, who seek "peace" only on terms that penalize the Palestinians and otherwise keep them in a state of submission before an enlarged Israeli state that keeps the land it has come to occupy.

Again, all the president said in his speech last week was that Israel's pre-1967 borders should be taken as a starting point for negotiations. That's it, but it was enough to enrage Netanyahu and others on the right and to turn Congress into a bunch of shameless weaklings applauding Israel's, and the Israeli lobby's, demands.

Obama deserves criticism, perhaps, for not doing enough to work for a settled peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but his position is clearly aimed at securing such a peace by acknowledging that concessions are required on both sides. Of course, Netanyahu and his allies, both in Israel and the U.S., refuse to make any concessions, or at least the sort of concessions that could actually bring about peace, which is why they are obstacles to peace regardless of whatever dishonest rhetoric they may spew.

If there is to be any progress in the region, and any long-term security for Israel, it is essential that extremist ideology of all kind be rejected in favour of a more realistic understanding of what it may take to reach a compromise that, while not necessarily perfect, will be acceptable for the most part to both sides. It's too bad Saban doesn't seem to get that.

Measuring politics by standing ovation: Netanyahu addresses Congress and pushes the same old right-wing agenda

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Honestly, how does it matter that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu got 29 standing ovations, four more than President Obama got during his 2011 SOTU address?

Are we measuring political popularity by standing ovation?

And does this really indicate anything other than that the generally right-wing pro-Israeli lobby is immensely influential and that weak-kneed Sens. and Reps. will kowtow to Likudnik demands for fear of appearing to oppose that lobby?

And that Netanyahu is a powerful orator?

(As Think Progress notes, he got a standing ovation for saying that Israel doesn't occupy the West Bank. In other words, he got a standing ovation for telling a massive lie. And all those standing and applauding didn't seem to have a clue. Indeed, they only brought shame on themselves for doing so.)

**********

Because, otherwise, all Netanyahu espoused was the same old hard-line position -- a domineering Israel that refuses to make concessions -- that has done nothing to secure anything even resembling a lasting, sustainable peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Sure, Israel will be "generous on the size of the Palestinian state," but the devil, as they say, is in the details -- and it's all about "where we put the border." And Netanyahu stressed that Israel will not, if he has his way, go back to its pre-1967 borders, even though Obama, breaking somewhat from previous U.S. policy, stated in his Middle East speech other day that those borders would only be a starting point for negotiations.

That isn't nearly good enough for Netanyahu and the Likud and their mostly right-wing American allies, of course, even though that would certainly be a good starting point that could ultimately lead to an acceptable compromise.

Because, of course, they only want peace on their terms.

Now, I'm generally pro-Israel myself, but I'm not certainly not pro-Netanyahu's Israel, and certainly not for the sort of peace they want. I used to think that it might just take a conservative like Netanyahu to make the necessary concessions to secure peace, but it's been clear for a long time that Israeli conservatives want no such thing and that there will never be a genuine peace agreement as long as they're in power.

It doesn't matter how many standing ovations Netanyahu gets. He's a bully, not to mention a liar, and Israel under his leadership is itself a bully -- a bully with a military that seeks to advance its interests through force.

President Obama knows better. Obviously, Congress does not.

Palin, Netanyahu, and Israel's West Bank settlements

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sarah Palin recently suggested that "the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon." (I blogged about her comments, from an interview with Barbara Walters, here.) Evidently, this extremist position puts her to the right even of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has called for a 10-month freeze on settlement construction in order to show, so he says, Israel's commitment to peace.

The freeze will only go so far:

Netanyahu said the "far-reaching and painful" move would not be implemented in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem, which is viewed by Israel as a separate issue to be discussed in a final status agreement with the Palestinians.

"We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital," the premier said.

The freeze applies only to new construction, meaning housing already underway will continue. Also, Netanyahu said, only new homes are included.

"We will not halt existing construction and we will continue to build synagogues, schools, kindergartens and public buildings essential for normal life in the settlements," he said.

As for any sort of "normal life" for Palestinians, and specifically for those whose land has been taken or those who otherwise are being impacted by the settlements and, until now, the expansion thereof, well, no matter. It seems that Netanyahu cares about as much the Palestinians as Palin does.

No, that's not fair. Netanyahu at least seems to be genuine about his efforts to achieve a lasting peace:

Now is the time to begin negotiations, now is the time to move forward towards peace. Israel today has taken a far-reaching step toward peace, it is time for the Palestinians to do the same.

This isn't entirely fair either, given that Israel will continue to colonize an occupied territory -- construction will continue, after all -- and it is rather disingenuous of Netanyahu to suggest that Israeli is now fully committed to peace and that the Palestinians must now, backed into a corner, prove themselves similarly committed. All this means is that, should negotiations fail, he'll be able to blame the Palestinians for not stepping up in response to this "far-reaching and painful" move. In giving up so little while claiming to give up so much, Netanyahu proves to be nothing if not a Machiavellian manipulator. (Too bad for him that this is all so transparent.)

Still, compared to Palin, Netanyahu deserves the Nobel Peace Prize (which I once thought he would win one day as a co-architect of peace, as it will probably take a conservative to make the necessary concessions and to persuade the Israeli people of the need for compromise). At least this is something, after all, and something, even this, is better than nothing, and certainly much better than dismissing the Palestinians entirely and pushing for even more Israeli expansion, as Palin and many on the American right are doing.

She really is clueless and really is dangerous and should never be allowed anywhere near U.S. foreign policy, or anything having to do with the Middle East in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. While it is easy to laugh at her ignorance, though, her views are hardly uncommon among American conservatives. What Netanyahu's move shows is not just Israel's supposed commitment to peace, if we take him at his word, but just how extreme people like Sarah Palin really are.

Endgame?

By Carl

Not that there's a formal clock for this sort of thing...world events tend to lie in the mud until they explode like an IED... but the sense I get from the news is that we're heading for a big, big conflict.

1) Iran protests: Regime cracks down on opposition as further unrest looms -- In itself, this would not be troubling me, beyond my concern about Iran in general, both as a harbor for terrorism as well as a genuine hope for democracy at some point. Iranians are highly intelligent and educated people. But add to this...

2) Carter challenges Gaza blockade as he meets Hamas leaders -- ...and you have the makings of a regional crisis. See, Bibi Netanyahu, the troubled and troubling Israeli prime minister, is on a two-pronged dilemma. On the one hand, he has to assure his supporters with respect to the Palestinians. On the other, he has a credible threat to Israel's very existence with Iran's budding nuclear development program.

It is likely that Netanyahu will compromise on the Jewish settlements question at Obama's behest, in exchange for the very real possibilty of an airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Which would then get the attention of...

3) Russia, China urge talks on North Korea -- ...which now brings Putin and Hu into the fray, since both have expressed support in the past for Iran for different reasons, and neither of whom is particularly friendly to either Israel nor its existence. By forcing them to divide their attentions between Iran and North Korea, we have a very real threat from...

4) North Korea threatens merciless attack if it is provoked -- ...which is responding to the Obama statement about their nuclear program being very troubling. Now, North Korea has been sharing technology and resources with...

5) EU to pledge humanitarian aid for Pakistan -- ...which is fighting on three separate fronts, all in or near its borders: the Swat valley, the Indian border and of course, against...

6) Several dead in Pakistan bombing -- ...internal terrorism, the same scourge that killed Benazhir Bhutto. These attacks grow out of the panic and fear of radical Islamists that...

7) Skirmishing ahead of new Pakistan offensive -- ...Pakistan is getting serious about assisting in rooting out the Taliban and short-circuiting their attempts to not only reclaim Afghanistan but to annex the territories of northwest Pakistan, all while...

8) Pakistan sought time to act against militants: India -- ...trying to coax yet another nuclear power, India, into a regional conflict.

Talk about your basic clusterfuck! You have all the elements of a world war right there: radicalism, armaments, regionalism, and three superpowers who seem to be eyeing each other with a mixture of contempt and confusion. And that's before we consider the residual effects of American involvement in Iraq (weakened fighting forces, exhausted materiel, resentment on the part of Iraqis) and the world economic crisis, which is only now filtering down to the very poorest of nations.

And then there's Africa, my pick for the single biggest story this year... hell, even Europe and America are not immune from the vagaries of hate!

All this occurs against the backdrop of the single biggest crisis to confront man in millenia.

And man does not handle crises well.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

What we want from Netanyahu

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In response to Hillary Clinton's statement that the Obama Administration "wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly asked this of a "confidante":

What the hell do they want from me?

I realize that an Israeli hardliner like Netanyahu might be somewhat confused over America's often confusing -- and often contradictory -- policies towards Israel, and it's not always clear what "they" want, but the answer to the question is pretty clear to me:

Your resignation and retirement from public life.

I still think that a hardliner like Netanyahu would be in a better position to sell a peace settlement to Israelis than, say, a Labourite reformer, insofar as a hardliner would be able to appease the religious and militaristic far right, as well as convince it of the efficacy and justice of retreating behind its original borders and accepting the creation of an independent Palestinian states, and I once thought that Netanyahu himself would eventually win the Nobel Peace Prize for being the architect of such a peace settlement, but it's just not clear to me, as an outsider, that Netanyahu is the right statesman at the right time.

No, it is clear. He's not.

What is currently troubling him is Obama's hard line against Israeli settlements. What is clear is that Netanyahu and those who share his hard-line views are, whatever their confusion, out of step with Obama and the new line in Washington, with the firm determination to establish peace at long last.

That Netanyahu doesn't get it is an indication that, in the Age of Obama, the world has passed him by. He might as well just step aside and let those who do get it guide their country towards a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.