In Friday's /roundup.asp?rid=&cid=6460 (link has expired) Legislative Round-Up I highlighted a new letter being circulated in the Senate by Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and James Risch (R-ID).  The letter,  which is the top item on the "Take Action" page on the AIPAC website, focuses exclusively on President Obama's call for Arab states to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, making no mention of the president's call for Israel to stop settlement activity (and implying that steps Israel has already taken - like removing some checkpoints and PM Netanyahu's belated support for the two-state solution - are sufficient demonstration of Israel's commitment to the peace process).

This morning, APN sent a message to every Senate office urging Senators to refrain from signing the letter unless and until it is amended to also reflect the real steps to achieve peace the President Obama has asked Israel to take.  Full text of the APN letter to the Senate:

For years, Israelis and opponents of Middle East peace efforts accused Yasser Arafat of speaking out of both sides of his mouth - saying one thing in English, when the whole world was listening, and saying something else in Arabic when addressing Palestinians and the Arab world.  They used this as evidence of Arafat's untrustworthiness as a "partner" for peace negotiations.

What do these same people make of the fact that today it is Israeli officials who are talking out of both sides of their mouths?  Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak (not to mention their loyal advocate in the US, Elliot Abrams) are arguing publicly that Israel wants only to continue settlement construction according to the alleged "understandings" achieved with President Bush - "natural growth" to permit "normal life" through construction only in settlement blocs, only on the Israeli side of the barrier, and only within the existing footprint of settlements.  But at exactly the same time. Israeli government officials are telling the Israel's High Court of Justice a very different story, and they are doing so in statements to the court.

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu argued passionately in the Israeli cabinet meeting that Israelis have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem.   In his enthusiasm to defend this latest Irving Moskowitz project (the same Irving Moskowitz who was a key player in Netanyahu's Hasmonean Tunnel debacle), Netanyahu gushed:

"This has been the policy of all Israeli governments and I would like to say that it is indeed being implemented because in recent years hundreds of apartments in Jewish neighborhoods and in the western part of the city have been purchased by - or rented to - Arab residents and we did not interfere. This says that there is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the western part of the city and there is no ban on Jews buying or building apartments in the eastern part of the city."

The problem with this argument is that it isn't true.  Israeli lawyer and Jerusalem expert Daniel Seidemann sets the record straight with the following points:

There is an important op-ed by Nahum Barnea on page 1 of today's Yedioth Ahronoth (translation by Israel News Today - INT).

Excerpt:  "Torn between the pressures from Washington and the pressures from the right wing branch of his party and his coalition, Netanyahu chose the easy solution: Jerusalem.  Like then, in the Western Wall tunnel affair, he thinks that the magic word "Jerusalem" will rally behind him not only the right wing in Israel, but also the political center in Israel, a majority of US Jewry and a majority of the members of Congress.  In other words: He wishes to divert the clash with the Obama administration from the question of construction in the settlements, where he does not enjoy real support, either here or there, to a more convenient playing field.  This could have been brilliant if it were not so transparent. [read on for full text]

The lead editorial in Haaretz today offers a great analysis into the current controversy over the Shepherd's Hotel.

Playing with fire

7/20/09

The controversy surrounding the plan to create a Jewish enclave in the heart of the Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem is not another routine expression of the U.S.-Israel dispute over the settlements. The timing of the decision to build dozens of housing units in the Shepherd Hotel complex, at the height of efforts to reach an agreement on limited construction in the settlements, casts doubt over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's willingness to enter serious negotiations on a final-status agreement. The support he granted the construction project yesterday, despite the vehement condemnations of America and Britain, show he is prepared to endanger Israel's most essential foreign relations for a provocative initiative led by Irving Moskowitz, the patron of right-wing organizations in East Jerusalem.

Today in Haartez, veteran military correspondent Amos Harel reports on the fact that the US is apparently no longer accepting the Roadmap formula regarding the number of outposts Israel has to remove.  Harel makes the case that this is further evidence of the Obama Administration's "unyielding" approach on the settlements issue.

Which may be true.  But Harel fails to note a simpler explanation for why, regardless of other aspects of the administration's policy on settlements, the Roadmap formula -- under which Israel is responsible for evacuating only those outposts established during Sharon's time as Prime Minister -- is no longer the exclusive measure of Israeli responsibility vis a vis outposts.

The reason?  Because the other outposts - the ones not established under Sharon's watch, were established during periods when two other men served as Prime Minister.  And those two men -- Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak -- are again running the show today. 

The US has officially denied an Israeli press report to the effect that the US has agreed that Israel can continue some settlement construction.  Reuters is reporting:

"Asked in Washington whether the report was true, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly replied: 'No, that report in the Israeli media outlet is incorrect. Our bottom line is -- is the same. It has not changed. And that's that all parties in the region have to honour their obligations. And you know what our position is regarding settlements. This activity has to stop,' Kelly said."

No doubt the last word on the subject has not yet been said.

Last week, and again today, the Government of Israel sent a very clear message about how seriously it is taking US demands to freeze settlement construction and remove illegal outposts.  The gist of that message:  Israel is not taking these demands seriously at all.