Friday-Lunch-Club
"Don't ask; don't tell" is surely NOT the best outcome POTUS had in mind. Is it? Politico/ Haaretz & WaPo/ here
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren channeled Netanyahu's anticipated response to U.S. demands to the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl earlier Thursday. It would involve Netanyahu assuring Obama that the 1,600 new houses in the East Jerusalem neighborhood will not be constructed any time soon, what one Israeli journalist described as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Diehl:..... The Israeli hope is that rather than continue to press this self-defeating demand, Obama will accept Israeli assurances that the new neighborhood will not be constructed anytime soon; it is, in fact, two or three years from groundbreaking. Coupled to that would be an Israeli pledge to avoid publicizing further construction decisions in Jerusalem. The result would not be a freeze, but something like a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for settlements.
It’s not clear whether Obama will accept such a fudge. But Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who has been deeply engaged in back channel talks between the two governments, told me Thursday morning that “the goal of both sides at this point is to put this behind us, and go forward with the proximity talks as quickly as possible.”So, good enough?"Only if Obama doesn't care about his street cred," veteran U.S. Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller told me this afternoon. "Look, he used the toughest language on Israel in 16 years; and it produces 'don't ask, don't tell.' The question is whether ....Obama feels empowered and wants to escalate." Netanyahu may be thinking Obama is looking for a way to calm the situation down. But Miller suggested that may or may not be the case. Obama may feel emboldened, he said, especially after Sunday. Or maybe just mistrustful that he can rely on Netanyahu's assurances that he will avoid provocations given that past assurances have not proved very reliable..."
No comments:
Post a Comment