262 Obama threatens Netanyahu: "US will withhold veto at UN Security Council"

Obama threatens Netanyahu: "US will withhold veto at UN Security Council"

(1) "Israel is the World's superpower, not America"
(2) Silence that speaks volumes: blackout as Israel's leader leaves White House
(3) Obama threatens Netanyahu: "US will withhold veto at UN Security Council"
(4) US 'may not veto UN resolution on Jerusalem'
(5) Report: U.S. will 'consider abstaining' if UN votes on East Jerusalem
(6) Adherents of Judaism did not found Jerusalem. It existed for 2700 years before Judaism
(7) Palestinian officials warn: 20,000 palestinian homes could soon face demolition orders
(8) "Dennis Ross more sensitive to Netanyahu than US interests"
(9) Dennis Ross opposed a tenet of the new Obama Middle East policy

(1) "Israel is the World's superpower, not America"
From: Andrew <ama18870@bigpond.net.au> Date: 28.03.2010 06:40 PM

> Not only Biden: Israel humiliated Presidents from Carter on - Jeffrey
> Blankfort

What this demonstrates is that America is now simply a  'Deputy Dawg' to the State of Israel.  Furthermore, when one examines the  various treatments handed out by Israel to the rest of the world, then  Israel is the World's superpower, not America, and we shall all suffer  because of this.

Andrew S. MacGregor

(2) Silence that speaks volumes: blackout as Israel's leader leaves White House

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 26.03.2010 10:45 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7074832.ece

From The Times

March 25, 2010

{photo} An ultra-Orthodox boy looks at a poster showing President Obama receiving a medal from an Arab leader. The Hebrew on the poster reads: 'Warning! PLO agent in the White House!'
(Gili Yaari/EPA) {end}

Giles Whittell, Washington, Times Online - UK, March 25, 2010

Two separate meetings between President Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, failed to produce so much as an official photograph as a chill settled over US-Israeli relations and secrecy shrouded any efforts to repair them.

The Israeli Prime Minister was due to fly home from Washington after three days marked by Israeli defiance on the issue of settlements and an extraordinary silence maintained by both sides after his three-and-a-half-hour visit to the White House.

The meeting was overshadowed by Israeli approval for 20 homes built for Jews in Arab east Jerusalem — a move denounced by one senior US official as "exactly what we expect Prime Minister Netanyahu to get control of".

White House staff denied Mr Netanyahu the usual photo opportunities afforded to a visiting leader, issued only the vaguest summary of their talks — let alone a joint statement — and reversed a decision to release an official photo of their meetings.

It was speculated that the talks may have moved beyond the quarrel over Israeli construction in east Jerusalem to final status issues such as the borders of a Palestinian state, as well as Iran and its nuclear programme. However, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, would say only that Mr Obama had asked Mr Netanyahu for confidence-building gestures and clarification of his position on settlements. He described the talks as "honest and straightforward".

Mr Obama also held telephone talks yesterday with Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and President Sarkozy on Iran, the Middle East peace process and global economic issues, Mr Gibbs said. ...

(3) Obama threatens Netanyahu: "US will withhold veto at UN Security Council"

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=271241

Israeli media claim leader bowed to US pressure

Published Wednesday 24/03/2010 (updated) 25/03/2010 22:03

Bethlehem - Ma'an - Israeli news sources said the country's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ceded to American demands to halt settlement construction and ease the siege on Gaza in Tuesday's closed-door meeting in Washington.

According to the Hebrew-language daily Inyan Merkazi on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama was explicit in his directives to Israel. "The US will not use its veto at the UN Security Council if you do not agree to American demands. We will let you face the international outcry alone."

The daily further reported that Netanyahu swore to meet the following list of demands to:

- Noticably ease the siege on Gaza
- Remove several military checkpoints in the West Bank
- Release hundreds of Fatah-affiliated prisoners
- Allow construction material into Gaza
- Freeze settlement construction in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, for an indefinite period.

The sources noted there were several other American demands that were also met.

(4) US 'may not veto UN resolution on Jerusalem'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8591714.stm

Page last updated at 14:56 GMT, Sunday, 28 March 2010 15:56 UK

The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC.

The possibility surfaced at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar's foreign minister.

The official said the US would "seriously consider abstaining" if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote, a diplomat told the BBC.

US officials in Washington have not confirmed the report.

There are no concrete plans at present to table such a resolution at the UN.

But it is likely that the US is considering how to maintain pressure, and a UN resolution would be one way, says BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas.

The US usually blocks Security Council resolutions criticising Israel.

But relations between the allies have been severely strained by the announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement during a recent visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden.

The move prompted the Palestinians to pull out of the US-brokered indirect "proximity talks" that had only just been agreed in a bid to revive the peace process, which has been stalled for more than a year.

Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Guarantee sought

The reported exchange between the US official and Qatar's foreign minister came to light during a meeting at an Arab League summit in the Libyan town of Sirte.

A diplomatic source told the BBC that Qatar's Foreign Minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasim Al Thani - who is also the prime minister - had recently met an official high up in the Obama administration during a visit to France.

During their talks, Sheikh Hamad asked the US official whether Washington would guarantee not to veto a UN Security Council resolution that was critical of Israel's ongoing settlement construction in East Jerusalem.

The diplomat said the US official had replied that the current feeling in Washington was that they would "seriously consider abstention".

An Egyptian official is said to have confirmed his knowledge of the US position during a meeting at the Arab League summit, which was held behind closed doors.

The US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, was in Paris last week to hold talks with Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas.

The US is one of five permanent members of the Security Council with veto power and has a history of blocking any resolution condemning Israel.

The BBC's Rana Jawad, in Sirte, says that many people will see the comments as yet another sign of Washington's recent dispute with Israel.

In November, Israel announced a 10-month suspension of new building in the West Bank. But it considers areas within the Jerusalem municipality as its territory and thus not subject to the restrictions.

(5) Report: U.S. will 'consider abstaining' if UN votes on East Jerusalem
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159718.html

Last update - 21:44 28/03/2010

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service

The United States would "seriously consider abstaining" should the United Nations Security Council pass a resolution condemning Israel's housing construction in East Jerusalem, the BBC reported on Sunday.

That message was passed during a meeting between a senior U.S. official and Qatari Foreign Minister Hamad Bin Jasim Al Thani, a diplomatic source told the BBC.

Sheikh Hamad reportedly asked a senior official from the Obama administration whether the U.S. would promise not to veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's settlement activity in East Jerusalem.

The U.S. official reportedly told Hamad in response that the current U.S. position was that it would "seriously consider abstention", according to the BBC.

The White House has not yet responded to Haaretz's request for clarification.

Tensions between Israel and the U.S. flared earlier this month when Jerusalem announced its approval of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's visit to the region.

The U.S. termed the timing of the announcement an "insult," and both sides have declared that the incident would not harm the close relations.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year declared a temporary 10-month settlement halt in the West Bank, but would not include East Jerusalem in that freeze. Netanyahu and members of his coalition have repeatedly declared that construction in Jerusalem would continue.

(6) Adherents of Judaism did not found Jerusalem. It existed for 2700 years before Judaism

Top Ten Reasons East Jerusalem Does Not Belong To Jewish-Israelis

By Juan Cole

24 March, 2010
Juancole.com

http://www.countercurrents.org/cole240310A.htm

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the American Israel Public Affairs Council on Monday that "Jerusalem is not a settlement." He continued that the historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel cannot be denied. He added that neither could the historical connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem. He insisted, "The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today." He said, "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital." He told his applauding audience of 7500 that he was simply following the policies of all Israeli governments since the 1967 conquest of Jerusalem in the Six Day War.

Netanyahu mixed together Romantic-nationalist cliches with a series of historically false assertions. But even more important was everything he left out of the history, and his citation of his warped and inaccurate history instead of considering laws, rights or common human decency toward others not of his ethnic group.

So here are the reasons that Netanyahu is profoundly wrong, and East Jerusalem does not belong to him.

1. In international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, as are the parts of the West Bank that Israel unilaterally annexed to its district of Jerusalem. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 forbid occupying powers to alter the lifeways of civilians who are occupied, and forbid the settling of people from the occupiers' country in the occupied territory. Israel's expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem, its usurpation of Palestinian property there, and its settling of Israelis on Palestinian land are all gross violations of international law. Israeli claims that they are not occupying Palestinians because the Palestinians have no state are cruel and tautological. Israeli claims that they are building on empty territory are laughable. My back yard is empty, but that does not give Netanyahu the right to put up an apartment complex on it.

2. Israeli governments have not in fact been united or consistent about what to do with East Jerusalem and the West Bank, contrary to what Netanyahu says. The Galili Plan for settlements in the West Bank was adopted only in 1973. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave undertakings as part of the Oslo Peace Process to withdraw from Palestinian territory and grant Palestinians a state, promises for which he was assassinated by the Israeli far right (elements of which are now supporting Netanyahu's government). As late as 2000, then Prime Minister Ehud Barak claims that he gave oral assurances that Palestinians could have almost all of the West Bank and could have some arrangement by which East Jerusalem could be its capital. Netanyahu tried to give the impression that far rightwing Likud policy on East Jerusalem and the West Bank has been shared by all previous Israeli governments, but this is simply not true.

3. Romantic nationalism imagines a "people" as eternal and as having an eternal connection with a specific piece of land. This way of thinking is fantastic and mythological. Peoples are formed and change and sometimes cease to be, though they might have descendants who abandoned that religion or ethnicity or language. Human beings have moved all around and are not directly tied to any territory in an exclusive way, since many groups have lived on most pieces of land. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews, i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese, many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not exist.

4. Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem."

5. The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 12 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine.

6. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not 'the city of David,' since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens, don't know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine.

7. Since archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander's descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander's other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= 'Common Era' or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.

The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 and ruled it until 1099 when the Crusaders conquered it. The Crusaders killed or expelled Jews and Muslims from the city. The Muslims under Saladin took it back in 1187 CE and allowed Jews to return, and Muslims ruled it until the end of World War I, or altogether for about 1192 years.

Adherents of Judaism did not found Jerusalem. It existed for perhaps 2700 years before anything we might recognize as Judaism arose. Jewish rule may have been no longer than 170 years or so, i.e., the kingdom of the Hasmoneans.

8. Therefore if historical building of Jerusalem and historical connection with Jerusalem establishes sovereignty over it as Netanyahu claims, here are the groups that have the greatest claim to the city:

A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.

B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.

C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.

D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids.

E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.

F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.

G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin's dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.

9. Of course, Jews are historically connected to Jerusalem by the Temple, whenever that connection is dated to. But that link mostly was pursued when Jews were not in political control of the city, under Iranian, Greek and Roman rule. It cannot therefore be deployed to make a demand for political control of the whole city.

10. The Jews of Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine did not for the most part leave after the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt against the Romans in 136 CE. They continued to live there and to farm in Palestine under Roman rule and then Byzantine. They gradually converted to Christianity. After 638 CE all but 10 percent gradually converted to Islam. The present-day Palestinians are the descendants of the ancient Jews and have every right to live where their ancestors have lived for centuries. ---

PS: The sources are in the hyperlinks, especially the Thompson edited volume. See also Shlomo Sands recent book.

(7) Palestinian officials warn: 20,000 palestinian homes could soon face demolition orders

From: Dr. Gunther Kümel <sapere--aude@web.de> Date: 29.03.2010 01:38 PM

20,000 Palestinian homes under demolition threat

Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:09:30 GMT

http://www.muslims.net/news/newsfull.php?newid=349434

Palestinian officials warn that more than 20,000 Palestinian homes in Jerusalem al-Quds could soon face demolition orders from Israeli municipal authorities.

Ahmad Ruweidi, the Palestinian Authority's legal advisor on al-Quds affairs, said Israeli courts will soon hand demolition orders to Palestinian homeowners over what Tel Aviv calls violation of construction rules over the past 10 years and the requirement of renewable licenses.

The figure does not include homes whose owners have already received final demolition orders from Israeli courts or the Israeli municipality in al-Quds, Ruweidi noted.

This means that all owners will live in a state of fear that at any moment their homes could be demolished or a family member may be found homeless on the street, he cautioned.

Ruweidi said Israel's policy was intended to force Palestinians in al-Quds to pay large sums to engineers and lawyers in addition to significant fines for the so-called 'violations of construction restrictions.'

Major differences between the Palestinians and Israelis are growing deepe over Tel Aviv's continued demolition of Palestinian houses in al-Quds and its efforts to create a demographic wedge in the region.

On Saturday, acting Palestinian Authority Chief Mahmoud Abbas told delegates at the Arab League summit in Libya that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in annexed East al-Quds in particular, remained the main obstacle to the resumption of the 'peace' talks.

Abbas described al-Quds, which Palestinians have long been demanding as the capital of their future Palestinian state, as "the jewel in the crown as well as the door and the key to peace."

"We emphasize that we hold onto every grain of soil and stone in Jerusalem (al-Quds). We are determined to defend Palestine's capital," he stressed.

MRS/MB

(8) "Dennis Ross more sensitive to Netanyahu than US interests"

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com>  Date: 29.03.2010 03:40 PM

‘Dennis Ross more sensitive to Netanyahu than US interests' (Surprised?) 

By Philip Weiss on March 28, 2010

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/dennis-ross-more-sensitive-to-netanyahu-than-us-interests-surprised.html

My post last night on Dennis Ross was right on time. Laura Rozen at politico reports that Ross is at the center of a battle within the Obama administration about how nice to be to Israel. The piece includes a frank statement of confused loyalty:

"He [Ross] seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests," one U.S. official told POLITICO Saturday. "And he doesn't seem to understand that this has become bigger than Jerusalem but is rather about the credibility of this Administration." <http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0310/Fierce_debate_on_Israel_underway_inside_Obama_administration.html>

Let me repeat myself. This guy is the living embodiment of the Israel lobby. He was till recently chairman of the Jerusalem-based Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, which opposes intermarriage, among other charming and important campaigns. Aaron David Miller said that the U.S. too often acted as "Israel's lawyer" at Camp David; and that meant Ross. Dan Kurtzer's book, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, said that the US team lacked diversity and cross-cultural expertise– again, ethnocentric Ross. Kurtzer and co-author Scott Lasensky write: "'The perception always was that Dennis [Ross] started from the Israeli bottom line,' said a prominent Arab negotiator, ‘that he listened to what Israel wanted and then tried to sell it to the Arabs.'" No wonder Kurtzer lamented "the deference that some policymakers pay to Israeli domestic political concerns. Israel plays an outsized role in U.S. politics and diplomacy…"

The lobby; and Ross denied the existence of the lobby when it was under attack, because it was his own power base.

Netanyahu's AIPAC speech last week was so shocking that it has rung in a new era for the lobby. Basically: the F.U. period, overplaying its hand in plain sight of the American people. The (in)ability of an American administration to free itself of Ross is a real test of the perseverance of the lobby in our politics.

More on Ross: this was in the original RSS feed on the Politico piece but is not in the published version:

Ross, the U.S. official continued, "starts from the premise that U.S. and Israeli interests overlap by something close to 100 percent. And if we diverge, then, he says, the Arabs increase their demands unreasonably. Since we can't have demanding Arabs, therefore we must rush to close gaps with the Israelis, no matter what the cost to our broader credibility."

This is the old neocon delusion, in order to support their loyalty to Israel's interests: there is no difference between our interests and Israel's. A preposterous assertion, for any two states.

(9) Dennis Ross opposed a tenet of the new Obama Middle East policy

By Philip Weiss on March 27, 2010

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/dennis-ross-opposed-a-tenet-of-the-new-obama-middle-east-policy.html

Dennis Ross personifies the Israel lobby. That gives him his power, that's why Obama has him in his administration. Putting Ross in a policy job–the Iran portfolio–makes the lobby happy. And Obama has to keep the lobby happy.

It would be a sign of real independence if Obama could lose this guy whom Bush I and Clinton couldn't lose either. Here Matt Berkman reminds us that Dennis Ross wrote a book with David Makovsky just a year or so back in which he argued vehemently against an idea that is becoming a tenet of the Obama doctrine in the Middle East: linkage, the (plain as the nose on your face) idea that the Israel/Palestine conflict is linked to America's fortunes in the Middle East.

So Ross is against a key principle of the Obama administration! And he works for him… Go figure! Berkman:

"Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East" devoted a chapter to debunking the "myth" that Israel's violent occupation of Palestinian land foments challenges for U.S. foreign policy in the region.

"Of all the policy myths that have kept us from making real progress in the Middle East, one stands out for its impact and longevity: the idea that if only the Palestinian conflict were solved, all other Middle East conflicts would melt away," Ross and Makovsky wrote. "This is the argument of ‘linkage.'"

Makovsky, a frequent commentator on U.S.-Israel relations who never fails to recapitulate this argument, launched into it earlier this month during testimony for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "There are no strict linkages between the Palestinian and Iranian issues," he said. "Regardless of progress on peace, Iran will seek a nuclear weapon. Moreover, senior Arab security officials say privately that they do not see progress on peace as decisive in influencing Arab efforts to halt Iran in any way."

Of course, formulated in this way, the "linkage" thesis is an easily refutable straw man. No reasonable observer of the Middle East believes that "all other Middle East conflicts" will "melt away" if the U.S. succeeds in brokering a peace agreement. Nor has anyone ever contended that resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict would "decisively" impact U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran, or that Iran would immediately abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons should the long-suffering Palestinians achieve national self-determination.

But by concocting and then launching an assault on spurious iterations of the "linkage" idea, hawkish Zionists like Ross and Makovsky are attempting to inoculate Israel's settlement and occupation policies from any criticism that might implicate them in the degeneration of regional security dynamics.

So Ross was against settlement evacuation too? Maybe Obama should blow him off for dinner, or can him.