ISRAELI PRIME minister Binyamin Netanyahu was due to meet US President Barack Obama at the White House last night, as tension continued between Israel and the US over Israel’s confiscation of Palestinian land.
It was a sign of Mr Netanyahu’s disfavour that journalists and photographers were not allowed to cover the meeting.
Both sides have attempted to smooth over the row that broke out during US Vice-president Joe Biden’s visit on March 9th, when Israel announced it was building 1,600 more housing units in Arab East Jerusalem. But the dispute remains intact.
Mr Netanyahu is in the US for the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the strongest pro-Israel lobby group.
In her speech to the committee on Monday, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton delivered the diplomatic equivalent of “tough love”, combining declarations of undying loyalty with warnings that Israel’s settlement policy harmed its self-interest.
“Let me assure you,” Mrs Clinton said, “for President Obama and for me, and for this entire administration, our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is rock solid, unwavering, enduring, and forever.”
Mrs Clinton was at pains to establish her own and Mr Obama’s credentials as “friends of Israel”.
If she “underscored the longstanding American policy that does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlements”, it was because it was her “responsibility . . . to tell the truth when it is needed”.
Two factors – demography and technology – drove home the urgency of Israel making peace with the Palestinians, Mrs Clinton said. If there were not two states soon, Israel would end up ruling over Palestinians more numerous than themselves – the end of a democratic Jewish state. The sophistication of Hamas and Hizbullah rockets meant that much of Israel was vulnerable to attack, another incentive to make peace.
In the key passage of her speech, Mrs Clinton said: “New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines . . . mutual trust . . . [and] exposes daylight between Israel and the US that others in the region hope to exploit. It undermines America’s unique ability to play a role – an essential role – in the peace process.”
Mrs Clinton’s professions of friendship and arguments for peace left her audience indifferent, but her condemnation of settlements provoked hostility.
The Israeli government and Aipac have tried to distract attention from the settlements by portraying the Iranian nuclear programme – not the continuing colonisation of the West Bank – as the main threat to peace.
When Mrs Clinton said, “let me be very clear: the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons”, she was applauded.
But even on Iran, she disappointed. A year ago, after Mrs Clinton spoke of “crippling sanctions” against the Islamic republic, Israeli officials made “crippling sanctions” a key demand. This week, she spoke of “sanctions that will bite”.
On Monday evening, Mr Netanyahu delivered what sounded like a rebuttal to Mrs Clinton.
“The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago, and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today,” he said. “Jerusalem is not a settlement. It’s our capital.”
Mrs Clinton had asked only that the fate of East Jerusalem – which under international law is occupied territory – be settled at the negotiating table.
“Everyone knows that these neighbourhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement,” Mr Netanyahu said.
“Therefore, building them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution.”