“It is inconceivable in many ways that we would have to even argue and debate whether or not Israelis could live in Israel, not just in parts of Israel but anywhere in Israel they wished to live,” Huckabee added. “I cannot imagine as an American being told that I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English. I would be outraged if someone told me that in my country, I would be prohibited and forbidden to live in a part of that country, for any reason.” #

Israel Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz also spoke at the ceremony and asserted that construction in Jerusalem is “not an impediment to peace, it brings it closer,” adding that the more Israel builds “the more peace there will be.” #

As reported by Haaretz: #

“That is why this neighborhood is only the cornerstone. It will serve as a model for the resurgence of Jerusalem’s construction swing,” Hershkowitz said. #

Also addressing the crowd, Jerusalem’s Deputy Mayor David Harari said that the “housing units to be built here are only the beginning of the road,” adding that talks were underway “to turn it into a substantial neighborhood.” #

Earlier this month, Haaretz learned that the Jerusalem planning commission was expected to approve a new large-scale construction project beyond the Green Line. #

The plan, called Gilo: Southern Slopes, includes the construction of 1,400 housing units on an area between the neighborhood of Gilo toward the Cremisan Monastery, and the settlement of Har Gilo. It is expected to draw widespread international criticism. #

Huckabee, a Fox News personality and likely 2012 GOP presidential candidate, who in 2007 claimed “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian,” was joined by actor and tea party favorite Jon Voight in a three-day visit hosted by the Jerusalem Reclamation Project, a group whose focus is to promote Jewish settlements. Both Huckabee and Voight will be meeting with Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as touring existing housing units. #

In a meeting with reporters, the former evangelical minister dismissed the notion that Israel should relinquish land for peace, calling it an “unrealistic, unworkable and unreachable goal.” #

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports: #

Most of the international community — including President Barack Obama — considers Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem illegal because they are built on occupied land Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians claim both areas for a future state. #

Huckabee suggested that [if] a Palestinian state were to be established, it shouldn’t come at Israel’s expense. #

“There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs. Maybe the international community can come together and accommodate,” he said. #

Huckabee also claimed that any peace agreement has to recognize that “the Jewish people have indigenous rights to the land in which they occupy and live and it goes back not 60 years or 80 years but it goes back 3,500 years.” #

The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B’Tselem, states that international law clearly defines the Jewish settlements in the West Bank as illegal: #

The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law. #

The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population. #

The establishment of settlements results in the violation of the rights of Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement. #

#

Gaza, of course, is under an Israeli blockade and controlled by the rejectionist group Hamas, which the U.S. won’t talk to until it ceases rejecting the peace process and the existence of Israel. Within those parameters, any aid package has to depend on external and diplomatic circumstances to reach Gaza. The $400 million Obama announced will go through Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who don’t have sway over Gaza or its 1.5 million residents.  So the administration labeled them “a down payment on the United States’ commitment to Palestinians in Gaza, who deserve a better life and expanded opportunities, and the chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank.”

The White House called the siege of Gaza “unsustainable” in a press release, and says it demands “a significant change of strategy.” In what direction? The administration pledged to “work with our partners in the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, and the international community to put such a strategy in place.” In other words, the administration either has no idea or isn’t prepared to tell Israel to lift the siege.

But here are the “down payment” initiatives, as per a White House fact sheet:

A $240 million investment by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) in the AMAL mortgage finance program in the West Bank, which is designed to increase homeownership by offering long-term mortgages at fixed- and variable rates.

· $75 million in funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to support the Palestinian Authority’s work to improve infrastructure throughout the West Bank and Gaza.

· $10 million in USAID-funded activities aimed at enhancing the Palestinian private sector’s competitiveness.

· $40 million to support UNRWA’s Emergency Appeal for Gaza and the West Bank, which will help improve educational and health services, increase job creation, and repair shelters in Gaza, while also addressing core humanitarian needs in the West Bank.

· $14.5 million in USAID projects for school rehabilitation, small-scale agriculture, the repair of a hospital facility and other community infrastructure in Gaza.

· $10 million for the construction of five new UNRWA schools in Gaza.

· $5 million to start nine USAID-funded projects to repair water distribution and wastewater collection systems in Gaza.

“I disagree with the Obama administration on that,” Palin told Walters. “I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”

Uh, more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead? Does Palin think the end times, heralded by the ingathering of the Jews, is nigh? In reality, Jews are immigrating to Israel at a fairly historically low rate.

J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami had this reaction, issued in a statement from the pro-peace pro-Israel pro-Palestinian group:

J Street rejects Sarah Palin’s comments attacking President Obama’s sensible policy on Israeli settlements in the West Bank yesterday during an ABC News interview with Barbara Walters.

Palin’s pandering to her right-wing base comes at the expense of the security of the State of Israel, the lives of those actually living the conflict, and the fundamental American interest in achieving a two-state solution in the near term. Her words reveal a glaring ignorance of damaging facts and a callous disregard of past and present U.S. policy.

For decades, American presidents have held that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are an impediment to peace. They are joined by the majority of Israelis and pro-Israel Americans who view the growing settlement enterprise as a threat to Israel’s very future as a Jewish democracy.

President Obama’s administration continued along that path yesterday, rightly and sensibly expressing concern with unilateral actions on both sides that would preempt the negotiation of final status issues that are necessary to achieve a two-state solution to the conflict.

J Street supports President Obama and Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell as they press the parties to begin the hard work of achieving a two-state solution, the only way to secure Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic homeland.

To tell Jewish people they can’t live in certain neighborhoods is really to deny them not just their neighborhood, it’s to deny them their basic sense of liberty.

That’s not far from the line of The Israel Project, an extremely conservative Zionist group that’s compared the Obama administration’s policy here to “racism.”

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

I’ll be in Israel this week and touring the highly disputed settlements that Obama and Hillary are trying to stop.

“Highly disputed” is one way of putting it. “Illegal” is another, and “contrary to Israeli obligations under the Annapolis accord” is a third. The timing of Huckabee’s visit is also significant. While Huckabee’s in Israel and the occupied West Bank — granted, it’s a 140-character tweet, but he implies that the settlements are in Israel, which they’re not; they’re in the Israeli-occupied West Bank — Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is in Washington meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton today and President Obama tomorrow. Mubarak’s message:

In White House meetings beginning Monday, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is expected to tell the Obama administration that Arab nations want peace, but are unwilling to abide Mr. Obama’s call to make good-faith concessions to Israel until Israel takes tangible steps like freezing settlements, an Egyptian official said.

In other words, Huckabee will be in Israel at just the moment when Israel’s ostensible friends on the American right want to hear that the United States will support settlement construction and other obstructionist Israeli behavior and face no U.S. reprisals — regardless of the actual consequences for Israel of turning away from a two-state solution. And there’s a lot of room in the GOP field for precisely the politician to do that.

“Obama’s ascendance represents a turning point in America’s approach to the region, especially to Israel,” he wrote in the letter. “The new administration believes that in order to fight terror, guarantee stability and withdraw from Iraq, a new diplomatic slant is needed involving drastic steps to pacify the Muslim world and the adoption of a more balanced approach to Israel, including intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state.”

This, for instance, won’t go over well:

Peled recommends intervening in American congressional races to weaken Obama and asking American Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates. He predicted that this would result in Democratic candidates pressuring Obama to become more pro-Israel.

Peled called for the formation of a new body intended to influence American public opinion. The groups he suggests courting include Hispanic Americans and Labor unions in industries that benefit from Israeli military acquisitions.

Now, people who don’t obsessively follow Israeli politics will probably read Peled’s description of Obama’s positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict and ask what’s so controversial about asking Israel to “stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state,” all of which are either longstanding international obligations or principles that previous Israeli governments have accepted in writing. And they’ll probably really not like to read that a foreign government and ally believes it should intervene in U.S. elections in order to weaken the popular president so he won’t compel that ally to act on such longstanding international obligations. As for American Jews, about 77 percent of us voted for Obama. And when a Politico story suggested that Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) might face a conservative-Jewish-sponsored primary challenger because of her outspoken views on peace, the progressive Jewish lobby group J Street raised $15,000 for her in four hours.

Farley, in patient terms, outlines why Israel has so much more to lose from this than the United States does, which is so obvious that it means Peled is shouting into the wind here. Netanyahu isn’t foolish enough to act on this memo, since his longtime closeness with the America means he understands that Israel’s indispensable diplomatic asset is its U.S. ally.

So there’s only the slimmest mathematical possibility that anything Peled suggests here going to become reality. The question is why he would allow a letter so damaging to U.S.-Israeli relations to become public. If Netanyahu’s trying to play an inside-outside game, he may want to think twice about the consequences for Israel of causing needless U.S. acrimony.

In an interview Tuesday, Ambassador Gabriela Shalev said Israel’s main goal is to “destroy completely” what she called a “terrorist gang.”

I truly truly hope this is empty rhetoric. Because the evidence is accumulating that Israel is determined to escalate its bombardment of Gaza in the most astrategic ways. Hamas is not the sort of thing that Israel can “destroy completely,” no more than it could wipe out the PLO in 1982 or Hezbollah in 2006. How’d those turn out again?

What Israel can easily do instead is drive Palestinians into Hamas’ hands through collective punishment. These sorts of civilian-casualty heavy overreactions are precisely what jihadist organizations feed on. Israel feels like its deterrent was shaken by its 2006 blunder in Lebanon. Escalating in Gaza will just make that worse.

This is the unforgiving reality of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. We have seen this movie spool out again and again and again, in Israel, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, in Iraq and now in Gaza. Via Laura Rozen, Zvi Barel has no patience for its ending:

According to the government, Israel has full legitimacy to take action against those who threaten its citizens. That is the reason the state was created and no other country would tolerate such attacks on its towns. It’s a nice slogan, identical to that of Hamas: Why should Gazan citizens tolerate such a long and severe siege for so long? Can its leadership tolerate a succession of targeted killing against its leaders? And what of the killing of innocent civilians in air strikes? Hamas agreed to a cease-fire to end the violent dialogue.

It should be remembered that Israel chanted the same slogans when the Second Lebanon War began, from which it came back badly bruised. The optimistic scenario did not materialize then and it is hard to believe it will now in Gaza. The legitimacy of the Lebanon war triumphed just as the war was lost.

Israel needs to step back from the brink. There is no chance, as long as George W. Bush has almost a month left in office, that the United States will compel it to do so.