[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: So in return for a noncommittal "hint" that Obama
can simply explain later was not understood by Israel, PM Netanyahu is going
to freeze construction beyond the settlement blocs. Actually "large"
settlement blocs - not all "settlement blocs". So perhaps the definition of
"large" could be another source for dispute, but that's not the point.

Two possibilities:

#1 Someone is in dire need of a chiropractor. When Netanyahu bent over and
agreed to a freeze under pressure it only invited more pressure. And here
we are, with President Obama facing the pressure of the mid-term elections
that should make it possible for Israel to weather the storm, and it appears
the Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to bend again. And this will, that's
right, lead only to more pressure.

Count to 10.

#2. The freeze outside the large settlement blocs is not unilateral. It
depends on the negotiations starting. And the offer is only on the table
until the current freeze ends. Mahmoud Abbas climbed too high on the tree
for this to be enough for him to use the limited freeze to justify direct
talks. Netanyahu gets credit for the offer and earns an amorphous
commitment by President Obama to the Bush letter and the freeze ends in
September.

Problem with #2: We Israelis love to move the pieces on the board as if the
other players are static. Talk with Ehud Barak for example, and he can go
on at length as to how he will do a whole string of things maneuvering and
manipulating the situation - all based on the assumption that the Arabs
stand still. And in this case it is even more complicated. Here is an
alternative scenario to consider:

(1) PM Netanyahu offers the limited freeze and has his Kodak moment at the
White House and his staff briefs reporters later that the move was a
fantastic success. :
(2) Abbas rejects the offer as insufficient with the vocal support of the
Saudis.
(3) Egypt flatly denies that they endorsed Netanyahu's offer - suggesting
that Netanyahu's representatives didn't understand what they were told in
Cairo.
(4) At the same time, it is clear that the move has not threatened the
underlying stability of Netanyahu's ruling coalition.
(5) Obama's message to Netanyahu: your offer has been rejected. You can do
a lot more and still remain in office. Make another offer.]

PM may offer freeze extension
By BY HERB KEINON AND GIL HOFFMAN The Jerusalem Post 07/05/2010 01:46
www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=180435

Offer: Obama would accept Israeli control of large settlements.

President Barack Obama would hint at US acceptance of ultimate Israeli
control over the major settlement blocs and Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu would indicate he would extend the settlement construction freeze
in the West Bank in all areas outside of those blocs, according to ideas
raised in Jerusalem as a way to move the diplomatic process forward, on the
eve of the prime minister’s visit to Washington.

The Jerusalem Post has learned that, according to this proposal, Obama would
publicly hint at acceptance of then-US president George W. Bush’s 2004
letter to then prime minister Ariel Sharon, and Netanyahu would say that
while settlement construction would continue inside the large settlement
blocks, it would not be restarted outside of those areas.

Bush’s letter, which was instrumental in enabling Sharon to get 2005’s
disengagement from the Gaza Strip through the cabinet, stated: “It is
unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be
a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous
efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.

It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be
achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these
realities.”

Israel has widely interpreted this to mean that the US backed its position
that the major settlement blocks would remain inside Israel in any future
agreement. The Obama administration had never endorsed this letter, with
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying last year that there were no
“informal or oral enforceable agreements” regarding the settlements with the
Bush administration.

A formal endorsement of that letter by the Obama administration would be
considered significant in Jerusalem, and a Netanyahu willingness to extend
the moratorium freeze in the majority of the West Bank would likely be seen
as somewhat of a concession in Washington.

This formula, according to officials, would be one way to finesse what is
looming as a major issue of contention with the US: whether the 10-month-old
settlement moratorium set to expire at the end of September will be
extended.

Committee rejects bill requiring Knesset moratorium approval

Netanyahu, meanwhile, won an important battle in the Ministerial Committee
for Legislative on Sunday, when it rejected a bill that would have forced
him to get Knesset approval before any further moratorium on construction in
the settlements.

The settlement-moratorium issue, as well as other issues such as the
situation in Gaza; Turkey; Iran; and the Obama’s administration’s backing of
an Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty document at the UN that singled out
Israel are expected to be the focus of talks Netanyahu is scheduled to hold
with Obama on Tuesday in Washington.

Netanyahu is scheduled to leave for Washington late on Monday.

Despite the weighty issues on the agenda, this meeting – a make up of a
meeting postponed from last month that was designed to improve the tone of
the US-Israel ties – is expected to be very cordial, with the atmosphere
much improved over the previous four meetings the two leaders have held in
their current positions.

A change in tone was apparent last week, when Dan Shapiro, the National
Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East and North Africa,
held a video conference in advance of Netanyahu’s trip and said, “This is a
very close relationship, a special relationship, a strategic alliance with
one of our closest partners in not just the Middle East but the entire
world.”

This is already a far cry from March, when – shortly after the dust-up
following the announcement of new construction in northeast Jerusalem’s
Ramat Shlomo neighborhood during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit here –
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley hinted that the US-Israel
relationship would be dependent on the peace process with the Palestinians,
and when administration officials hinted that Israel’s policies were
endangering the lives of US soldiers.

Netanyahu was supposed to meet with Obama in early June, following a visit
to Ottawa to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but that
meeting was postponed because Netanyahu had to rush back to deal with the
fallout from the IDF raid on the Turkish ship trying to break the Gaza
blockade.

The June meeting, called in the midst of the Obama administration’s “charm
offensive” meant to repair damage caused by the widely perceived surly
manner in which Obama received Netanyahu at the White House during their
last meeting in March, was expected to be an opportunity to show publicly
that Netanyahu and Obama had “pushed the reset button” in their
relationship.

The invitation for the June meeting came after Obama was publicly taken to
task by key Democratic politicians, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer,
for the tone of his relationship with Israel, and after Obama met Jewish
politicians, and his top aides met on two occasions with a group of key US
rabbis.

Tuesday's meeting to be accompanied by press conference

Since the June meeting was postponed, Tuesday’s meeting is widely expected
to have at least the public trappings of a change of tone. Unlike Netanyahu’s
previous two meeting in the White House – in November and again in March
when there was no press availability – Tuesday’s meeting will be accompanied
by a photo-opportunity and brief press conference.

Both Shapiro and Netanyahu said the talks would focus on how to move from
indirect to direct talks with the Palestinians.

“A major focus of the discussion will be around the progress that’s been
made so far in the proximity talks and the opportunity to make the
transition into direct talks,” Shapiro said.

“And we’ve always viewed the proximity talks as a mechanism to get to direct
talks, which is where the real negotiations toward agreements and ultimately
an agreement that will produce a two-state solution can be achieved.”

Netanyahu, at Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting, said, “The main goal of the
talks with President Obama will be to advance direct talks in the peace
process between us and the Palestinians.”

Netanyahu said there was no substitute for direct negotiations.

“One cannot raise ideas in either the media or by other means, and avoid
that direct contact, that is the only possible way to bring about a solution
to the conflict between us and the Palestinians,” Netanyahu said, in
reference to recent interviews granted by Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas.

“We are 10 minutes apart.

Ramallah almost touches Jerusalem. I have been ready to meet with Abu Mazen
[Abbas] since this government’s first day in office,” Netanyahu said.

“Whoever desires peace will hold direct peace talks. I hope that this will
be one of the results of my trip to Washington.”

Diplomatic sources said that although it was clear the US would like to see
a freeze on settlement construction throughout the West Bank and Jerusalem,
Obama – whose eyes are already on November 2’s midterm election – is
unlikely because of domestic political considerations to do anything that
would make him appear as if he was placing public pressure on Israel, at at
time when he was not seen as placing equivalent public pressure on the
Palestinians or the Arab world.

One diplomatic official said that “crunch time” for the Netanyahu government
in terms of its relationship with Obama was not likely to come until after
the November election, and before the beginning of the 2012 presidential
race that will start heating up already in the fall of 2011.

PA negotiator Saeb Erekat, meanwhile, put the onus on Netanyahu to pave the
way for direct negotiations.

“If he wants direct talks, he knows he has the key – by stopping settlement
activities and resuming negotiations where they left off in December 2008,”
Erekat said. “If he does this, we will go immediately to direct
negotiations.”

Erekat said the Palestinians have not heard any specific proposals from
Netanyahu concerning security arrangements and the borders of a future
Palestinian state. “Mitchell brought us nothing,” Erekat said.

AP contributed to this report.