Special to APN from Daniel Seidemann and Lara Friedman

Two "new" East Jerusalem settlement projects have hit the news in the wake of the Biden debacle - one for the Shepherd's Hotel and the other for the Shimon Ha-Tzaddik neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah (Click here for a larger map of the area). 

Shepherd's Hotel:  As is now being widely reported in the Israeli and international press, Israel has issued permits for new settler construction in East Jerusalem. 

The details are as follows:  on March 18, 2010 the final permits were issued for the construction of 20 units for settlers at the site of the Shepherd's Hotel (a pdf of the actual permit is available here).  According to the Municipality, the settlers applied for and paid the fees for the permits on March 15, 2010.  

It should be recalled that the Shepherd's Hotel project was approved (final approval) in July 2009.  Thus, barring intervention from the government of Israel, the project could have moved forward at any time since then - all that was needed was for the settlers to pay the fees and the issuance of the permits would be automatic. 

That said, it is clear that the timing of the settlers' decision to move on this project at this time was neither coincidental or nor innocent.  This is why we have been asserting for some months that the day after indirect talks were announced, there would be a provocation in Jerusalem, and it could well be bulldozers knocking down the Shepherd's Hotel. 

This morning APN sent the following message to every Hill office to help prepare them for tomorrow's AIPAC lobby day. 

Dear XXXXXX:

Tomorrow, thousands of "pro-Israel" activists will be on the Hill claiming to speak for all Americans, and especially American Jews, who care about Israel.  We want you to know: they do not speak for the entire Jewish community. 

Most American Jews want Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to succeed and understand that robust, sustained US leadership is needed.  We know that sometimes this must include pressure on Israel's government.  We also know that Iran poses a serious threat to Israel and US national security interests, and that addressing this threat requires a sober, rational approach, not a knee-jerk reaction that is more reflective of frustration than strategic thinking.

The AIPAC-backed sign-on letters regarding US-Israel relations and the peace process, as well as sign-on letters regarding Iran sanctions, are circulating in both the House and Senate and posted on AIPAC's website.  As expected, these are the two main "asks" that AIPAC will be bringing to Congress during its lobby day tomorrow.

US-Israel relations and the peace process:  APN's analysis/comments regarding the  http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMaterialsCongressionalAction/Boxer-Isakson_Letter_with_Dear_Colleague.pdf (link has expired) Senate letter, being circulated by Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Isakson (R-GA) are available here.   The http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMaterialsCongressionalAction/HoyerCantorLetterDC.pdf (link has expired) House letter, being circulated by Hoyer (D-MD), Cantor (R-VA), Berman (D-CA), Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ackerman (D-NY), and Burton (R-IN) is similar to the Senate version, but different in two key ways.  First, it omits the paragraph blaming the Palestinians for the failure to re-start peace talks (the Senate version asserts that it is Palestinian intransigence and preconditions, not Israeli actions, that are to blame).  Second, the House letter makes explicit the call for US-Israel disagreements to be handled "quietly" (something that is implied, but not explicitly stated, in the Senate version).

Iran sanctions:  Also circulating (and available on AIPAC's website) are AIPAC-backed House and Senate letters urging the President to impose "crippling" sanctions on Iran -- a somewhat odd ask, since the legislation that AIPAC is lobbying for would actually force the president to impose such sanctions, meaning "urging" unnecessary.  The letters also urge him to implement his "existing authority" on Iran - an implied criticism that he is not fully implementing the sanctions already imposed under US law.  The House version of the letter, being circulated by Reps. Jackson Jr. (D-IL) and Pence (R-IN) is available http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMaterialsCongressionalAction/Jackson-Pence_Letter_with_Dear_Colleague.pdf (link has expired) here.  The Senate version, being circulated by Sens. Schumer (D-NY) and Graham (R-SC), is available http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SourceMaterialsCongressionalAction/031910_DC_Iran_Sanctions_Letter.pdf (link has expired) here.

This morning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a much-anticipated speech at the AIPAC policy conference (full text after the break).  In her speech she emphasized the strength of the US-Israel bilateral relationship and made some crowd-pleasing comments about the US commitment to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons (though she pointedly did not endorse or even mention the "crippling" sanctions legislation that is AIPAC's top lobbying objective this week, instead focusing on the Administration's efforts to build support for multilateral sanctions). 

She also made some important, and probably less welcome, statements about the peace process, including:

On settlements and the settlement "moratorium":  "We also made clear that this was just a first step and, like every administration for decades, underscored that the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. As Israel's friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed."

On the imperative to achieve peace:  "The conflict with the Palestinians and with Israel's Arab neighbors is an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for Israelis, Palestinians, and people across the region. And it threatens Israel's long-term future as a secure and democratic Jewish state."

On the "demographic threat":  "As Defense Minister Barak and others have observed, the inexorable mathematics of demography are hastening the hour at which Israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy and staying true to the dream of a Jewish homeland. Given this reality, a two-state solution is the only viable path for Israel to remain both a democracy and a Jewish state."

On the linkage between the conflict and extremism:  "The status quo strengthens the rejectionists who claim peace is impossible and weakens those who would accept coexistence. That does not serve Israel's interests or our own. Those willing to negotiate need to be able to show results for their efforts. And those who preach violence must be proven wrong. All of our regional challenges -- confronting the threat posed by Iran, combating violent extremism, promoting democracy and economic opportunity - become harder if rejectionists grow in power and influence. Conversely, a two state solution would allow Israel's contributions to the world, and to our greater humanity, to get the recognition they deserve; would allow the Palestinians to realize their own legitimate aspirations; and would undermine the appeal of extremism across the region."

Reiterating US "principles" and policy on final status:  "...we believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the '67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel's goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel's security requirements."

Reiterating US "principles" and policy regarding Jerusalem:  "The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians, and for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem, and safeguards its status for people around the world.  For negotiations to be successful, they must be built on a foundation of mutual trust and confidence. That is why both Israelis and Palestinians must refrain from unilateral statements and actions that undermine the process or prejudice the outcome of talks."

Re-iterating US opposition to settlement construction in East Jerusalem:  "New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need. It exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit. And it undermines America's unique ability to play a role - an essential role, I might add -- in the peace process. Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don't agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally."

Why did Israel greet Vice President Biden with an announcement of more settlement activity in East Jerusalem?  Was it a deliberate insult?   A provocation?  A sign of colossal hubris?  

The more likely answer is less sinister but no less ominous: this was just business-as-usual - an Israeli government thumbing its nose at the US, assuming there will be no consequences.  

Most insiders agree that Netanyahu probably didn't know in advance about the settlement plan coming up for approval, and that the timing was more about one of Netanyahu's ministers trying to embarrass him than about trying to pick a fight with Washington.   But that absolves Netanyahu of nothing.  For him to not be keeping track of (and taking control of) Jerusalem settlement plans at this point is either gross negligence or willful ignorance.  

And that, too, is business-as-usual: an Israeli Prime Minister who believes it is politically easier and less costly to clash with the US than with his own cabinet or domestic constituencies.

(Special to APN by Daniel Seidemann and Lara Friedman)

Attention today is riveted on headlines in the Israeli press reporting Israeli plans for 50,000 residential units in East Jerusalem.  Coming on the heels of the Biden visit debacle, the interest in this report is unsurprising.  Here we offer some information and analysis about the facts behind the headlines and what they mean for the prospects of peace and the two-state solution.

(Special to APN by Daniel Seidemann and Lara Friedman)

On 3/9/10 - just in time for the visit to Israel of Vice President Biden and just a day after Special Envoy George Mitchell announced that Israel and the Palestinians had agreed to indirect talks - news broke in the Israeli press that Israel had approved the construction of 1600 new settlement units in East Jerusalem.  The decision was strongly condemned by the US, the Palestinians, and the members of the international community.  The Arab League, which the previous week had endorsed indirect talks, announced that it would meet March 10 to consider its reaction to the decision.

My brilliant colleague in Jerusalem Hagit Ofran has posted an excellent summary of the Bustan story (including maps) on her blog, Eyes on the Ground in East Jerusalem. 

As most people know by now, Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat has agreed to delay his plans to demolish tens of Palestinian homes in Silwan (and at the same time legalize a illegally-built settler high-rise apartment building in the area), following a carefully-worded intervention by Prime Minister Netanyahu (who pointedly did not say he disapproved of the mayor's plan, but rather urged the Mayor to try harder to convince the Palestinians to voluntarily agree to have their homes demolished and to be re-located to some site where the mayor thinks thinks their presence is more welcome/appropriate).  The US is reportedly pleased with the Prime Minister's action and the outcome.