Rosner's Domain: The "natural growth" game of chicken

Just to make sure, I double checked Nathan Guttman,s story, and it seems not just accurate but also fair and balanced:

[W]hen Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu came to Capitol Hill for a May 18 meeting after being pressed by President Obama to freeze the expansion of West Bank settlements, he was "stunned," Netanyahu aides said, to hear what seemed like a well-coordinated attack against his stand on settlements. The criticism came from congressional leaders, key lawmakers dealing with foreign relations and even from a group of Jewish members. They included Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee; California Democrat Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, and California Rep. Henry Waxman, a senior Democrat.

Note that all the mentioned above are Democrats - and that Republicans, or some of them, might have a different view (they do). But as far as the majority party is concerned, I think this game is over and Congress will support the administration: no "natural growth", no "reciprocity" for settlement freeze:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said, "He [Obama] wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions." Talking to reporters after a meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, she said: "That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly."

Indeed, clearly. The only two arguments Netanyahu can still make are:

A.     Settlement blocks should be treated somewhat differently (It is not at all clear if this can work).

B.     Jerusalem is no settlement (he will find a receptive audience).

However, what's clear is this: in all settlements that aren’t part of the blocks, no formula other than complete freeze will be acceptable to this administration. As Herb writes (here), the freeze will hardly help Palestinians to better prepare for future statehood. Nevertheless, the Obama team believes it will help the administration convince the Arab world of Obama's sincere intentions.

The game everybody's playing here is very delicate game of chicken. I do not believe that the Obama White House have already concluded that it wanted Netanyahu to fall. Obama's aids understand that if the Israeli government crumbles, the peace process will have to wait, again. So they are trying to test how far they can go, knowing that Netanyhau will invite internal political pressure by way of showing them what he can and can’t do, but also realizing that at some point they might lose control over this game.

Netanyahu is already under immense pressure from settlers with very little sense of humor, and not much respect for the Obama phenomenon:

Religious leaders headed by the head of the Judea and Samaria Rabbis' Committee, Rabbi Dov Lior, gathered Wednesday at an unauthorized outpost slated for removal, urging IDF soldiers to refuse evacuation orders.

One needs to remember this: Netanyahu doesn't have the political power of Ariel Sharon. He can't be expected to be as bold and as daring as Sharon once was - not because he is a coward, but rather because he is smart. Being bold and losing the coalition will be plain stupid. What can Netanyahu do? He can evacuate outposts, and he can also resist some of Obama's demands. He will have to make sure, though, to pick his fights selectively. Obama doesn't enjoy the trust of Israelis the way George W. Bush did, and this can help Netanyahu convince them that the President is overreaching.

Essentially, the issues that can for Netanyahu in Israel are quite similar to those he can still use in Congress:

A.     Settlement blocks.

B.     Jerusalem.

As for "natural growth", I don't think Israelis are ready to have a big fight with the US over "new kindergartens for settler's children" (but beware, I was wrong in the past when I was making such predictions).