The US has effectively been prevented from serving as an honest broker for decades by The Lobby and its sympathizers. Moreover, Obama's brokering position has been weakened by the mid-term election. An "honest broker" would insist that international law be upheld and that the territories be evacuated. This is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. The US government has been bought and paid for and is in no position to honestly broker a middle east settlement. The downside of pressuring Israel is too great from a US political standpoint.

The way the package is structured is not the way that Netanyahu is depicting it (and it should be stressed that so far we are only getting his side of the story).

The structure is this:
For freezing the settlements for 90 days Israel will get (a) a continuation of the veto and (b) a continuation of the hold on the Goldstone report going to the ICC and (c) a continuation of American efforts to fight Israel's "delegitimization".

Or, in short: what Israel gets for the FREEZE is a continuation of existing US diplomatic efforts that Israel has hitherto taken for granted anyway.

So how does Israel get its hands on those F-35 fighters and that comprehensive bilateral security arrangement with the USA?

It only gets *those* goodies for signing a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians.

That's the important point that the Israelis themselves are deliberately misrepresenting i.e. the real goodies - the stuff that is shiney and new - doesn't come Israel's way for sitting on its hands for 90 days.

Or, put another way: sitting on its hands for 90 days does nothing but create a very real danger that on Day 91 Obama will declare something that we all know i.e. he will announce that, sadly, he is flogging a dead horse, and so the "US mediated peace process" is no more.

And at that point this "incentive package" will be withdrawn, precisely because the USA will take its ball and go home.

That's the stick that goes with the carrot that is dangling in front of Netanyahu.

I think a better idea is to have the negotiations televised. Then we will know who shows obdurancy, who is unreasonable, who violates the international law, who is two-faced, etc. Just like the proceedings in our house of representative and senate, American public will be educated in the process. This will also help the negotiations to be more balanced .Israeli lawyer (read US) with help of client Arab states will gang up on Palestinians to give up their rights to return among other surrenders. Why keep everything under the table? Why shouldn't Palestinians whose fate will be sealed by these negotiations , not know what is going on behind the scene? They will be asked to vote on it in a referendum, right? Put everythin on TV and Internet.

Making the West Bank split from Gaza with Israel in-between will only provoke more Palestinian infighting and is doomed to fail.

Does anyone know why the original 1947 UN Partition plan was drawn the way it was, with a divided Palestine? Was it drawn with the intent to make those boundaries easy to erode over time?

He is now demanding that the package be detailed in a letter before he will say yes or no.

Shas is insisting that they will abstain from a vote ONLY if the Americans agree in writing that once the 90 days are up the Israelis are free to build whereever they like.

Obama, naturally, can not possibly put that in a letter, because that would give an OFFICIAL American seal of approval to a blatant violation of international law.

Bibi is planning to reject this package, and so he is positioning himself to lay the blame on someone else e.g. Obama for refusing to supply a letter, or Shas for rejecting the letter that is supplied, or by the simple expedient of looking at the letter and thundering "THIS isn't what Hillary offered me!!!!!!"

Does any of this really matter? Israel has always made it clear that there will never be a real Palestinian state with real sovereignty. They have also made it abundantly clear that they will never give up any of what they now call Jerusalem. They have also made it clear that all of the major settlements and Jews only roads will remain in place along with the Wall and the Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley. Oh, and by the way, the Palestinian refugees are not their problem, not to be the subject of any negotiations, and if the US wants to pay them off to go away, that is also no concern of Israel's. With those red lines, lines in the sand, or whatever you want to call them, what is left for negotiation? The only purpose of the "negotiations is to pass the time while apartheid greater Israel becomes more of a reality each day and keep the US and the EU mollified. Peace, who needs it? It is process we want!

Hello,
This is my first post do I will make it brief and a question. Is Barack Obama Netanyahu's battered spouse?
It would appear that no matter how many times Netanyahu abuses him he is unable to assert any independent will and is impelled to make pathetic concessions to his abuser. Whenever he is abused, usually relatively publicly, and the public sees his black eye and assumes it might have come from his spouse, Obama downplays the incident. Usually he does this with impotent language. Moreover, when in court (read: the UN, IAEA etc.) he always defends his abuser to the death, even while informed observers look on with resentment and, perhaps, even some pity given his institutional limitations. Unfortunately, it appears he's doomed to stay in this vicious cycle. The one exception to this might be that often the abusive spouse will give gifts as a form of penance. In this instance it is the opposite way around.
I would be very interested to hear what you guys think about this silly analogy.

Until I log on next I will be wearing my white ribbon in support of the president.

Let's see.
You're Netanyahu, and you're willing (for the sake of argument) to discuss East Jerusalem (which, let's face it, isn't really a part of Jerusalem, but rather some Arab villages piled together).
And the U.S. has just informed you that they will disclose what you're saying behind closed doors as they see fit.
Do you say anything of any importance? No, it becomes a publicity stunt where everybody actually talks for the benefit of their public.
By the way, Prof. Walt, just because I'm not a regular follower of your blog: do you ever also criticize the Palestinians for their part in wasting the 1-year partial building moratorium? Politically, how can Netanyahu declare another moratorium when, for a year, there was a (partial!!!) moratorium, and no progress?

Israel was able to create facts on the ground that prevent creating any viable Palestinian State. Based on the following facts (1) Jordan Valley is already controlled by scattered Jewish settlements. (2)Israel also re-identified Jerusalem to include most of Bethlehem area. (3) the Israeli Wall already created at least 83 statelets.

The Israeli approach show that peace agreement with palestinians will not support Israel development. Israel was able to achieve a robust economic growth, membership in OECD, strategic security agreement with USA, and F-35 aircraft.

The question is; what is the price that Israel may pay after failing the negotiation?

It appears that the Democratic Administration's basic strategy is to have its Leader as international salesman to secure contracts to secure earnings for U.S. exporters where he can find them - India, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Israel - whever; U.S. Federal assistance to allies - admittedly funded by Federal borrowing from China and Germany et all, is used to purchase goods and services that job-creating U.S.-based firms can supply - arms and military-related mayhem industries are plentiful in the U.S., just as they are in the U.K.

The PR stuff about a partial, part "freeze" excluding the key point of dispute in law - i.e. the 1967-occupied Arab Jerusalem - well that is just for the headlines, the real story surely is that this is about doing whatever can be done, no matter how piecemeal, to support a few jobs where U.S. industry can supply demand.

RE: "die-hard defenders like Representative Eric Cantor (R-Va) will make it impossible for Obama to use the leverage that is potentially at his disposal" - Walt
SEE: “Eric Cantor And The Logan Act” ~ By Adam Serwer, There will be blog, American Prospect, 11/12/10
(excerpt)…Based on Cantor’s own standard, he’s just committed a felony. Lucky for him, no one’s ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act…
ENTIRE POST –http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=11&year=2010&base_name=eric_cantor_and_the_logan_act#122474
MY COMMENT: I wish someone would file a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics before the Republicans are able to kill (or “neuter”*) it.
* only allow consideration of complaints filed by Congresspersons
The Office of Congressional Ethics – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Congressional_Ethics

Again, a very good proposition. (Anybody in the White House reading it?)

Prof. Walt writes: "Moreover, many Israelis are growing worried about what they see as a growing international campaign to "delegitimize" their country. The best way to counter that alleged campaign is to end the occupation and establish internationally recognized borders."

Well, not the best way. The ONLY way. And, Bibi & Co, please observe, by now, you don´t have any supporters left, except the U.S.A.

We all have to hope for the best, like Professor Walt does, but there are limits to wishful thinking--especially if one is a realist.

(a) Has Obama really "been backtracking ever since his Cairo speech"? The mistake here is to have taken Obama's Cairo speech seriously to begin with. It was an exercise in public relations, a bunch of empty words. This is something in which Obama excels. He has no power, but he thinks he can talk a good talk and everything will be fine. Then he continues down the same path as others have before him. He is no better than they are. In some respects, he is worse. At least with a Dick Cheney, for example, you knew you are dealing with a determined, misguided individual with a closed mind, beyond all hope. So you don't hope.

(b) What does this mean "...in the event that anybody starts making ridiculous demands, indulging in delaying tactics, or refusing to make reasonable concessions..."? Does anybody out there think that Tel Aviv did not start long ago to make ridiculous demands, to indulge in delaying tactics, and to refuse to make reasonable concessions? One could argue that this is all that Tel Aviv has done. What's more, this tactic has obviously paid off in spades. So it will continue.

(c) The suggestion is made that the United States tell "everyone we are going to act like an honest broker for a change...." Who is going to do that? Hillary Clinton? Really? How can she or Obama say that, when they know it is not true and will never be true, and has never been true? American domestic politics make such an honest broker option impossible.

(d) "The goal here is a viable Palestinian state, not a bunch of disarmed and disconnected Bantustans." That is Dr. Walt's goal of course, but it is certainly not the goal of Tel Aviv, which is anything but. As for Washington, its politicians and unelected policy officials, really could not care less one way or the other. All they are interested in is putting the powerless Palestinians inside the same room with the all-powerful Zionists, and see what happens. If the Palestinians see the light, and can be brought around to agreeing to the intolerable, that will be just fine. If not, then we all just have to keep at it a bit longer, dishing out more bribes and empty words.

Germanicus
=========

US Official: "If the moratorium deal goes through, we will continue to press for quiet throughout East Jerusalem during the 90 days, regardless of what Bibi is telling Shas now."

Wow. That is diplomatic talk for "Bibi is lying sack o' s**t, and we've had enough of having to listen to it".

They also cannot prevent the Chief Executive from exercising his constitutional prerogatives. One of those is the power to recognize other entities, like Palestine, as a "state" and to withhold recognition of sovereignty over territory acquired in violation of the UN Charter.

That's just not working. The US traded it's position of "honest broker" when it cuddled up to Israel before the actual negotiations. Israel gets all the carrots for a 90 day suspension of international laws (expanding on foreign territory), while the Palestinians get nothing but sticks (ignoring the Gaza blockade, withholding the Goldstone report, gifts of arms to its adversary, etc.). No wonder it won't work.

Imagine the situation: you are at a court-room, the judge is about to open the hearing of mediation between you and the opposing party. But before even starting the trial, the judge gets to the other guy, they're exchanging kisses, hugs, gifts and warm words, while looking suspiciously at your direction. Would you ever trust the honest, impartial judgment of that guy?

Obama (and Walt for that matter) tries to pull off the same as in 2008: "Change is when I say so". No. Change is when the people feel it, no earlier. Nobody will trust Obama to be an honest broker until he really starts to act as one.

!, The fighters only become available if Israel agrees to a peace treaty. And the Israelis have to buy them, not get them free. Given Palestinian intransigence, this is not going to happen. Further, many other US "promises" are settled policy for many years that Obama is seeking to make conditional, i.e. go back on settled, written agreements of the United States.

2. There is no such thing as "Palestinian lands". Jews have been in the region for thousands of years, and had a continuous majority in many cities. There never wes a Palestinian state, culture, flag or national anthem. They were all invented by the Egyptian Arafat. In fact, most usage of "Palestine": under the British and Turks referred to the Jews; for example the "Palestine Post", the major English language paper prior to Independence.

Most "Palestinians" are descendants of immigrants from Egypt and Syria in the 19th century, attracted by Jewish economic development. Before that, when Mark Twain visited, he described much of it as a barren wasteland (which the Jews later reclaimed by draining the swamps, etc.)

Arabs have been killing Jews long before the State of Israel. As the Torah (which Islam accepts) says of Ismael, "His hand will be turned against every man." And Arabs hate each other as much as (if not more) than they hate Jews. In the words of the old Arab proverb, "Me against my brother; me and my brother against my father; me, my brother and my father against my tribe; me and my tribe against the world."

Al Aksa is a political fiction It was a rude wooden structure until the Umiyyad Caliphate had a falling out with Mecca They then elevated it as a counterbalance to Mecca. When they patched up their quarrel they abandoned Al Aksa and let the roof fall in. This from the official Waqf history in the days when they were honest. In fact Moslems rely about Al Aksa on the Quranic description of the Prophet's "night journey" which in the Quran is described in Arabic as "to the furthest Mosque." The Prophet knew geography and "the furthest Mosque" had to be somewhere in the Maghreb, not Jerusalem.

Now it is part of a campaign to poke the jews in the eye. I visited the Temple Mount many years ago, with an official Arab guide who told the entire history of the Jews there before Islam (though he didn't know I was Jewish). He gave me a brochure from the Waqf which repeated the entire Jewish history. Now the fabulists are trying to deny and destroy the Jewish history they once boasted of to tourists, even to the point of destroying historical evidence during excavations and throwing it in the town dump.

The problem is not the Israelis; it is the Palestinians, who have "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." They have dishonored most of their Oslo and road map pledges; refusing to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, making up new demands almost daily, which would destroy the Jewish State (so defined by the UN at its inception).

Wiser heads than mine have suggested that there won't be peace until the Palestinians internalize that they are a defeated people. No more fantasies about the descendants of the original refugeers being refugees. No other people in history have tried THAT confidence trick.

What can the US do?

1. Get the responsibility for Gaza shifted in the UN from the UNRWA (a perpetual handout organization) to the UNHCR (a refugee resettlement organization).

2. Stop pressuring the Israelis just because like the drunk who lost his keys on his doorstep and went looking for them under the lamppost because "the light is better here" they aren't the problem; they are the winners of repeated wars seeking to destroy them.

3. Move the US embassy to Jerusalem. The shock value of that alone might clear some Palestinian and Arab minds.

4. Cut off aid to the Palestinians if they don't abandon non-starter demands and negotiate in good faith with what is a fact; Israel as the jewish State that intends to remain viable and defensible.