Ramat Shlomo: A Gratuitous Escalation,Editorial Board

We thought the lesson of the Obama administration's unfortunate early attempts to impose a total settlement construction freeze on Israel was that there were certain red lines Israel simply could not cross and that to insist it do so only forces Israelis to dig in, encourages Palestinian recalcitrance and serves to put off any movement on the peace process.

So, frankly, the imbroglio over future building in East Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo area should be a matter of great concern. It reflects either a deeply rooted anti-Israel animus on the part of the Obama team or a sophomoric attempt to squeeze more concessions out of Israel - or perhaps a combination of the two.

This concern is heightened by the simple fact that the U.S. and Israel are natural partners respecting the Iranian nuclear threat. For that reason alone, allowing a peripheral spat to threaten cooperation should really get people thinking about why the administration seems willing to jeopardize the close relationship needed to address an overarching problem in the name of some contrived, penny-ante squabble.

It should be noted at the outset that the current controversy cannot have very much to do with anger over a possibly calculated upstaging of an American vice president. Joe Biden was in Israel to ceremonially salute the upcoming "proximity talks" and put the Obama administration's imprimatur on what was seen as a step forward in peace negotiations.

To be sure, his various remarks tried to wipe away the residual stains stemming from President Obama's unfortunate statement in Cairo that Jewish ties to the Middle East were rooted in international revulsion to the Holocaust. He also was there to reaffirm America's commitment to the security of Israel, and he repeated many well-worn statements in that regard. But at base the visit was tailor-made for photo-ops and fuzzy platitudes.

So there is no doubt there were grounds for the vice president's being upset that someone had rained on his parade. Yet Mr. Biden, after sharply condemning the new construction - a sharp departure from diplomatic talk in itself - accepted Prime Minister Netanyahu's insistence that the announcement's timing was inadvertent and seemed to want to get past it and return to the purpose of his mission.

As has been widely reported, the prime minister explained the announcement was a low-level bureaucratic decision to publicize building activity still several years in the future. Nor, he said, did the announcement break any new substantive ground. Although the Obama Administration continued to favor a total end to settlement control in the West Bank and Jerusalem pending the outcome of negotiations, Israel agreed only to a temporary restriction in the West Bank and no restriction at all in East Jerusalem. And the U.S. seemed to have embraced this compromise, which was hailed at the time by Secretary of State Clinton as "unprecedented."

At first, the construction controversy seemed to recede into the background as a misunderstanding between friends. The vice president on his way home had some kind words to say about Mr. Netanyahu and that seemed to be that. Then, as they say, everything hit the fan.

Secretary of State Clinton reportedly called Prime Minister Netanyahu subsequent to Mr. Biden's departure and rebuked him over the episode. According to State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, Secretary Clinton called Mr. Netanyahu "to make clear the United States considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel's approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice-president's trip." Crowley said Clinton emphasized in the call that "this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America's interests [sic]."

Top Obama adviser David Axelrod, referring to the Ramat Shlomo issue, said on Sunday, "What happened there was an affront. It was an insult . [The announcement] seemed calculated to undermine" the proximity talks.

What was quickly becoming clear was that the Obama administration had made the political judgment - they could not know what was in Mr. Netanyahu's mind - not to accept the prime minister's protestation of innocence and ran with the notion that he had staged some purposeful insult aimed at influencing U.S. policy in the Middle East.

The Washington Post reported that President Obama himself sat with Secretary Clinton to determine the language she would use in her call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Quoting deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes: "The secretary and the president worked through together the specific points she would be making to Prime Minister Netanyahu."

The question is, why all this escalation? The Washington Post story refers to some analysts who applauded the administration's tough stance saying it may jar the Israeli government into making gestures to the Palestinians. There is also a quote from an unidentified "senior U.S. official" who said, "We think the burden is on the Israelis to do something that could restore public confidence in the process and to restore confidence in the relationship with the United States." And still another quote from P.J. Crowley's account of Secretary Clinton's conversation with Mr. Netanyahu: "She made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate, not just through words but with specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."

Plainly, the Obama administration seems bent on changing Israeli policy. Although there is no definitive word as to specifics, a perusal of various reports points to the following:

First and foremost, the administration wants Israel to formally declare that there will a total suspension of settlement construction, "no ifs ands or buts," to reprise Secretary Clinton's settlement formulation at the outset of the Obama administration. In particular, the Ramat Shlomo plans should be scrapped.

Second, Washington wants Israel to agree that the "proximity talks" will involve negotiations on core, substantive issues, as the Palestinians want, and not be limited to considering how to move to face-to-face negotiations, as Israel wants. This is highly significant since the Palestinian approach is a regression to the old days when the Arab world did not recognize the legitimacy of Israel as reflected by their insistence on indirect talks.

Third, there is talk that Washington wants Israel to release a large number of Palestinian prisoners as a means of strengthening Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The gross distortion of the significance of the Ramat Shlomo matter has already prompted a backlash in Congress. First out of the gate was Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.): "The administration's strong implication that the enduring alliance between the U.S. and Israel has been weakened, and that America's ability to broker talks between Israel and Palestinian authorities has been undermined, is an irresponsible overreaction."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Monday, "It might be well if our friends in the administration and other places in the United States could start refocusing our efforts on the peace process . Now we've had our spat. We've had our family fight, and it's time for us now to stop and get our eye back on the goal, which is the commencement of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks."

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) weighed in with, "Let's cut the family fighting, the family feud. It's unnecessary; it's destructive of our shared national interest. It's time to lower voices, to get over the family feud between the U.S. and Israel. It just doesn't serve anybody's interests but our enemies."

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said: "It's hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step towards peace." He complained that the administration was attacking a "staunch ally and friend" when it should be focusing on the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and several other members of Congress expressed similar sentiments. Still to be heard from are New York's two Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Great nations typically pursue policies designed to further their national interests. Anger and pique rarely play a constructive role. We should ponder long and hard the whys and wherefores of this glaring and extraordinary exception.

Read Comments (1)

Ramat Shlomo: A Gratuitous Escalation , Editorial Board

Give me a Break
Date 03:03, 03-17, 10

Lets face Joe Biden lost it. He is known to get hot. He should be familiar with Israeli diplomacy. He just simply did not do his homework. We know the Europeans tell Jews where they can live & not leave. Can you imagine telling one ethnic group in the United States you can not live
on this side of town only that side of town, doesn't that remind many of us of Warsaw, Krakow & Lodz. Biden sits at a table demanding Israel release prisoners to Abass, & not a
hint how he can help free Gilad Shalit or Jonathan Pollard.
He asked Israel to take in refugees. Can Jews from Syria and Iran return to declare an independennt Jewish state of their own there? General David Petraeus testified that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan can not be won unless the Israeli Palestinian crises can be solved. If that his assessment tell him to hand in his 4 stars for a senate seat.