Dilemma

PM Netanyahu is on the horns of a dilemma, on the one hand he must keep America as Israel's ally, especially in case the Arabs try to use the UN to bring sanctions against Israel and we would depend on the US veto in the Security Council, and on the other hand he must maintain his own credibility and that of his coalition by not yielding on Jerusalem. Is there a way to square this circle?

I submit that there is. The definition of what constitutes East Jerusalem is ambiguous. Actually there are two possible interpretations, the first is the wider one that consider everything over the former ceasefire line (the green line) that defined the boundary of west (Israeli) Jerusalem as being east. The second narrower definition is that East Jerusalem constitutes the smaller area of Arab-inhabited Jerusalem. Now suppose Netanyahu gives a commitment to Obama that Israel will not build at all in Arab-inhabited parts of eastern Jerusalem, but will only continue to build in established Jewish-inhabited suburbs of Jerusalem that are technically over the green line. This formula would enable both sides (Israel and the US) to be satisfied. The only people in Israel who would be unhappy are the far right who want to continue building everywhere, including near the Temple Mount. But, this arrangement would be time-limited, and would last not for a specific time period, but only for the duration of any talks between Israel and the PA. If there are no talks or if they are brokern off then the arrangement would be cancelled and Israel could continue building wherever it pleases in East Jerusalem.

Further, Obama does not like the ten month limit that Netanyahu imposed on building in the West Bank. I believe Netanyahu could extend this period but only if talks are actually proceeding. Again, if there are no talks when September comes around or if the talks start but are broken off, then Israel would continue building in the West Bank. In other words a freeze only if there are talks. That might be a carrot to get the PA to start talking. If they don't only a small amount of time will be lost.

The point here is not to please the Palestinians, but unfortunately to appease the Americans who have become more "Arab" than the Palestinians. This can only be attributed to Obama's desire to appease the Muslim world and also his own liberal constituency in the US. If we compare Obama's policy on Iran, it is also unacceptably appeasing. How can any reasonable western leader believe that Iran can be stopped from developing nuclear weapons by "engagement." His policy is schizophrenic, at the same time as engagement he talks about "biting sanctions." Similarly he says that US support for Israel is "total commitment" but at the same time he pushes Netanyahu's back to the wall. There is something terribly wrong here. And now taking a lead from the US, the Arab League meeting in Libya have declared that they don't think Israel really wants peace so they are preparing for the alternative, and we all know what that means! Obama is bringing us to war!