Next Year in Jerusalem
Published in Der Tagesspiegel
(Germany) on 29 March 2010
by Christoph von Marschall (link to original)
Obama won’t back down in his argument with Netanyahu over settlement expansion in East Jerusalem. The outcome remains undecided.
Barack Obama changed America’s Middle East policy. That affects just one detail in the conflict, but it happens to be the emotional core: Jerusalem, which Israelis and Palestinians alike consider their capital city.
Many outsiders say they can see no change in what Obama is doing. They feel the controversy with Netanyahu is somehow about Israeli settlement policy. That’s only partly right. Every American president since 1967 has criticized Israel’s policy of building settlements on occupied territory in the West Bank and, until the Israeli withdrawal, in Gaza as well. In terms of international law, the United States considers East Jerusalem as occupied territory but has thus far refrained from criticizing Israel’s expansion of settlements there. The prevailing opinion is that any peace treaty will involve an exchange of territory.
Right from the beginning, Obama has called for a halt to settlement building in East Jerusalem. Experts originally put that down to his inexperience and lack of knowledge of the issues. And that’s probably what Netanyahu thought as well. He agreed to a halt in the West Bank and kept his word, at least insofar as the Israelis define a halt. But he rejected it for East Jerusalem. At first, it looked like he would do so successfully because Obama dropped the issue of a construction stop as a pre-condition for the resumption of peace talks. Many put that down as an example of Obama’s inexperience.
But in retrospect, it looks quite different. Obama only backed down on the Jerusalem issue, first because he couldn’t achieve an immediate halt to expansion there, and second because he saw that he was handing opponents of the peace talks a way to scuttle them: They only had to expand in East Jerusalem. He didn’t drop his demand for a halt to expansion there. Now, he’s making it a central point in his disagreement with Netanyahu and is making his displeasure evident. He received Netanyahu at the White House, but prohibited any pictures of the meeting. Netanyahu responded with several concessions designed to further the resumption of the peace negotiations so desired by Obama: a reduction of military operations in Gaza; the release of Palestinian prisoners; the opening of Gaza’s borders for developmental and other aid. Obama acknowledged that all that was welcome news, but also made it clear he wanted a halt to settlement construction in East Jerusalem.
Who will emerge victorious? That’s still open. Netanyahu risks losing his coalition, and thus his power, if he caves in. It’s common knowledge that Obama only publicly fights those battles he’s reasonably assured of winning. Netanyahu will now play for time in the hope that the coming congressional elections will take up most of Obama’s time or perhaps even reduce his power. But many believe his recent victories in healthcare reform and nuclear disarmament will convince him that he does have the power to bring change, even in the Middle East.
Barack Obama changed America’s Middle East policy. That affects just one detail in the conflict, but it happens to be the emotional core: Jerusalem, which Israelis and Palestinians alike consider their capital city.
Many outsiders say they can see no change in what Obama is doing. They feel the controversy with Netanyahu is somehow about Israeli settlement policy. That’s only partly right. Every American president since 1967 has criticized Israel’s policy of building settlements on occupied territory in the West Bank and, until the Israeli withdrawal, in Gaza as well. In terms of international law, the United States considers East Jerusalem as occupied territory but has thus far refrained from criticizing Israel’s expansion of settlements there. The prevailing opinion is that any peace treaty will involve an exchange of territory.
Right from the beginning, Obama has called for a halt to settlement building in East Jerusalem. Experts originally put that down to his inexperience and lack of knowledge of the issues. And that’s probably what Netanyahu thought as well. He agreed to a halt in the West Bank and kept his word, at least insofar as the Israelis define a halt. But he rejected it for East Jerusalem. At first, it looked like he would do so successfully because Obama dropped the issue of a construction stop as a pre-condition for the resumption of peace talks. Many put that down as an example of Obama’s inexperience.
But in retrospect, it looks quite different. Obama only backed down on the Jerusalem issue, first because he couldn’t achieve an immediate halt to expansion there, and second because he saw that he was handing opponents of the peace talks a way to scuttle them: They only had to expand in East Jerusalem. He didn’t drop his demand for a halt to expansion there. Now, he’s making it a central point in his disagreement with Netanyahu and is making his displeasure evident. He received Netanyahu at the White House, but prohibited any pictures of the meeting. Netanyahu responded with several concessions designed to further the resumption of the peace negotiations so desired by Obama: a reduction of military operations in Gaza; the release of Palestinian prisoners; the opening of Gaza’s borders for developmental and other aid. Obama acknowledged that all that was welcome news, but also made it clear he wanted a halt to settlement construction in East Jerusalem.
Who will emerge victorious? That’s still open. Netanyahu risks losing his coalition, and thus his power, if he caves in. It’s common knowledge that Obama only publicly fights those battles he’s reasonably assured of winning. Netanyahu will now play for time in the hope that the coming congressional elections will take up most of Obama’s time or perhaps even reduce his power. But many believe his recent victories in healthcare reform and nuclear disarmament will convince him that he does have the power to bring change, even in the Middle East.