Netanyahu Abandoned by His People
Published in Le Soleil
(Canada) on 18 April 2010
by Rene Beaudin (link to original)
(Canada) on 18 April 2010
by Rene Beaudin (link to original)
Translated from
by Anh-Thu Luu.
Edited by Laura Berlinsky-Schine.
QUEBEC — It’s not easy for Benjamin Netanyahu to stand up to Barack Obama, as even Israeli public opinion gives serious indications of change regarding the notorious question of settlements in the West Bank.
A poll by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem shows that 60 percent of Israelis support the dismantling of most of these settlements, if such is the price to pay for peace with the Palestinians. It is 11 percent higher than in December. This is also the highest percentage since 2005. How far will it go?
The survey does not specify whether these figures also apply to East Jerusalem, the Arab part of the Israeli capital and the Gordian knot of the rivalry with the Palestinian Authority. But that does not matter much.
In the context of the crisis between the Jewish State and the U.S., these figures are significant, since the Obama administration has been reassessing its relations with Israel since the end of last year. The White House has once again made the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the hub of the Middle East crisis, which includes the Iranian nuclear program and from which stems the pressure from Washington for Jerusalem to resolve the issue of the settlements.
Do they stem from an "Obama Effect"?
It is said that Netanyahu's government is afraid of being forced into a costly peace by Obama’s administration. This peace would not only be with the Palestinians, but also with Syria in regard to the Golan issue, to "break" the alliance between the Damascus regime and Tehran, as evidenced by the resumption of diplomatic relations between Washington and Bachard Al-Assad’s government.
At any rate, regarding the conflict with Palestine, public opinion and power are not in tune. The key is the alliance between the United States with the "vital interests" of Israel. Next to it, the ideological motivations or the so-called "security" mentioned by the Likud leader, with varying degrees of conviction to justify the settlement policy, carry little weight.
It is said jokingly that Israel is the 51st U.S. state, since relations between Israel and the United States are exceptional. It is difficult to see amongst the U.S. pressures any intrusions in the internal affairs of Israel by its older brother, but the United States weighs heavily on public opinion in Israel. Even Netanyahu makes no mistake in recognizing this fact, choosing his language carefully to describe the crisis.
He has met three times with his security cabinet this week in order to decide what kind of response to give to the demands Obama made last month, namely the cancellation of a large residential construction project for Jews in East Jerusalem and the opening of negotiations on essential issues with the Palestinian Authority. It was all in vain.
Maybe over time, the Obama administration will soften its tone, but meanwhile the "cause" of the settlers may also lose more ground. Until the IDF's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and because of their radicalism and their hard line position, Israeli settlers were at the bottom of the approval (ratings) of their countrymen since the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinians. Their relatively peaceful departure from the region, and the wars in Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008, have somewhat improved their image.
War or peace with the Palestinians depends on the fate of the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlers, who will increasingly appear as agitators. People get tired of war, even in Israel.
A poll by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem shows that 60 percent of Israelis support the dismantling of most of these settlements, if such is the price to pay for peace with the Palestinians. It is 11 percent higher than in December. This is also the highest percentage since 2005. How far will it go?
The survey does not specify whether these figures also apply to East Jerusalem, the Arab part of the Israeli capital and the Gordian knot of the rivalry with the Palestinian Authority. But that does not matter much.
In the context of the crisis between the Jewish State and the U.S., these figures are significant, since the Obama administration has been reassessing its relations with Israel since the end of last year. The White House has once again made the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the hub of the Middle East crisis, which includes the Iranian nuclear program and from which stems the pressure from Washington for Jerusalem to resolve the issue of the settlements.
Do they stem from an "Obama Effect"?
It is said that Netanyahu's government is afraid of being forced into a costly peace by Obama’s administration. This peace would not only be with the Palestinians, but also with Syria in regard to the Golan issue, to "break" the alliance between the Damascus regime and Tehran, as evidenced by the resumption of diplomatic relations between Washington and Bachard Al-Assad’s government.
At any rate, regarding the conflict with Palestine, public opinion and power are not in tune. The key is the alliance between the United States with the "vital interests" of Israel. Next to it, the ideological motivations or the so-called "security" mentioned by the Likud leader, with varying degrees of conviction to justify the settlement policy, carry little weight.
It is said jokingly that Israel is the 51st U.S. state, since relations between Israel and the United States are exceptional. It is difficult to see amongst the U.S. pressures any intrusions in the internal affairs of Israel by its older brother, but the United States weighs heavily on public opinion in Israel. Even Netanyahu makes no mistake in recognizing this fact, choosing his language carefully to describe the crisis.
He has met three times with his security cabinet this week in order to decide what kind of response to give to the demands Obama made last month, namely the cancellation of a large residential construction project for Jews in East Jerusalem and the opening of negotiations on essential issues with the Palestinian Authority. It was all in vain.
Maybe over time, the Obama administration will soften its tone, but meanwhile the "cause" of the settlers may also lose more ground. Until the IDF's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and because of their radicalism and their hard line position, Israeli settlers were at the bottom of the approval (ratings) of their countrymen since the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinians. Their relatively peaceful departure from the region, and the wars in Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008, have somewhat improved their image.
War or peace with the Palestinians depends on the fate of the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlers, who will increasingly appear as agitators. People get tired of war, even in Israel.