Israel May Accept 3-6 Month Settlement Freeze! Huzzah!
The New York Times is reporting that the Netanyahu-Barak government may do us a big favor and accept a 3-6 month ceasefire.
Basically that offer means nothing. The status quo will be frozen for a few months (except where "construction is underway" and in East Jerusalem). And then, when the heat is off, there will, as always, be a huge explosion in settlement building. By the end of the year there will be more settlers and more land expropriated for settlements than now.
The Jerusalem and "construction underway" exemptions are typical. With these exemptions, the Israelis are rejecting Obama's demand. He said no exceptions and Clinton reiterated it. But here they "accept" with gigantic holes. Jerusalem, come on! Only a credulous press will call this acceptance. Rest assured it will.
Nonetheless, this offer -- if it pans out -- is good news. It means that the pressure is working. The administration should just pocket this offer and keep the heat on. Our goal must remain, in Secretary Clinton's words, "stopping the settlements."
Three to six months is a nice start to forever. But you can be sure that Netanyahu and Barak do not intend it that way. It's up to the President to ensure that is how it plays out.
It is completely phony non-freeze, since the "offer" exempts stuff already under construction and even that which is already somewhere in planning. So essentially, everything that already can be done in next 3-6 months is exempted. Complete non-sense and non-freeze.
June 29, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
3 months? Isn't that the length of summer vacation?
June 29, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama was really serious about stopping the settlements, he would have stuck to his demand of an unconditional halt to all settlements, and he'd be talking about appropriate sanctions right now.
As would you...
June 29, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may be, unusually, naive, today, but I still retain faith that the Obama administration will not allow itself to be made a mug out of by the duplicitous duo, Netanyahu and Barak.
If America would actually allow itself to be manipulated by a Fascist-like, right-wing regime that embraces militarism and nationalism - then I would give up all hope that my children and grandchildren will ever be able to live without fear that the world will implode upon itself and that no person has any long term future.
I do not believe that. I retain faith and hope in Barack Obama and pray it is not misplaced.
June 29, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bibi blinked. He's painted into a corner. Obama needs to close his trap.
June 29, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to tell whether any particular event on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict constitutes progress of not, since Obama hasn't even told us what he is trying to accomplish yet. When is he going to roll out the peace plan?
June 29, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The view from Israel:
A senior Israeli government official said that Israel is “fed up” with American statements against Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, the Hebrew-language Yisrael HaYom (Israel Today) newspaper reported Monday.
As Defense Minister Ehud Barak flies to Washington for meetings with U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, the unnamed senior official stated, “Israel will demand that any compromise be part of a wider program of regional peace, and only after agreement on the basic principles outlines by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his [recent] speech at Bar-Ilan University.”
The Prime Minister declared for the first time that he would accept the creation of a new Arab state on part of the land of Judea and Samaria on condition that it be de-militarized and that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has categorically rejected both conditions after having been encouraged by American and European support for the Arab-world demands that Israel surrender all of the land restored to the Jewish state in the Six-Day War in 1967, including the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Government sources told Yisrael HaYom that during Defense Minister Barak’s visit, “The Americans will hear decisive statements regarding the possibility of freezing construction for Jews in Judea and Samaria. Israel will be prepared to listen to a freeze only if it is temporary and if the Americans will explicitly state” that it will later approve building in communities with a high concentration of Jewish residents.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132105
I thought Abbas had accepted the notion of a demilitarized state?
June 29, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or Israel will do what? Reject our aid?
What a pathetic bunch of blowhards. If the hand of the USA is so heavy, they can stop mooching off us at anytime.
They won't. So why do we care what these clowns want?
June 29, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just the Israelis who are "fed up" with the Obama administration.
Take note of this WP OpEd by Jackson Diehl, Deputy Editorial Page Editor who is backing them up and including Hillary Clinton and the State dept in his ignorant diatribe:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=44155
June 29, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thamks for the link Lally. This excerpt from Diehl's screed is highly enlightening:
"This absolutist position is a loser for three reasons. First, it has allowed
Palestinian and Arab leaders to withhold the steps they were asked for; they
claim to be waiting for the settlement "freeze" even as they quietly savor a
rare public battle between Israel and the United States. Second, the
administration's objective -- whatever its merits -- is unobtainable. No
Israeli government has ever agreed to an unconditional freeze, and no
coalition could be assembled from the current parliament to impose one."
Logic anyone? So we shouldn't press Israel because Israel's refusal allows the Arabs to subsequently refuse? And since no Israeli government can politically agree to stop settlement activity, we shouldn't ask?
Kool-Aid drunk. Seconds requested.
His third argument should be labeled, "Hey, we screwed you before and got away with it, why can't we screw you forever?"
"Finally, the extraction of a freeze from Netanyahu is, as a practical
matter, unnecessary. While further settlement expansion needs to be curbed,
both the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments have gone along with
previous U.S.-Israeli deals by which construction was to be limited to
inside the periphery of settlements near Israel -- since everyone knows
those areas will be annexed to Israel in a final settlement. Before the 2007
Annapolis peace conference organized by the Bush administration, Saudi
Arabia and other Arab participants agreed to what one former senior official
called "the Google Earth test"; if the settlements did not visibly expand,
that was good enough.
Kool-Aid drunk. Thirds requested.
The only argument Diehl forgot to add was: "Stop pressuring Israel. It might make God angry."
June 29, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally - The de-militarization was part of the Clinton Parameters as well as Geneva and Taba. I assume Abbas was aware of this and at least tacitly approved, Saeb Erekat definitely did. From questions I've posed to Sari Nusseilbeh in the past, I don't believe demilitarization is a hurdle for the Palestinians, especially as it relates to heavy weapons.
There are two REAL issues that have to be negotiated. East Jerusalem and control of the borders. Israel has to yield on these two issues and the Palestinians have to yield on the right of return. As soon as Israel and Palestinians come to grips with these two issues, the whole agreement should be wrapped up in 3 months. Then Israel can proceed with expanding those settlements beyond the green line that Israel is bound to keep. Abbas has already stated settlers can stay as long as they submit to Palestinian jurisdiction.
These peace negotiations have dragged on far, far, far, too long because both sides are trying to be too clever by a factor of 100.
June 29, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so. Border control is contentious, to be sure, but the placement of the border itself is probably even more so. Most analysts expect that if there is eventually a deal, the major settlement blocs, including Ma'ale Adumim, aren't going anywhere. The border will have to snake around them, with some possible compensation in the form of Israeli territory. Working out the details of that is where things will get really hairy, and that's assuming that the Palestinian leadership can agree to abandoning the right of return without getting bumped off.
This is why the emphasis on a settlement freeze as the be-all and end-all of the peace process is to my mind misguided. The time is better spent figuring out the border. If that is agreed, and it is clear the border is permanent, then the settlements that are on the "wrong" side of the border will freeze their construction. Those on the "right" side of the border will not - and it won't matter. The border is also something that lends itself more to third party involvement. The time is past when decolonization borders were drawn by Whitehall mandarins in London over port and cigars - now it will likely be earnest Scandinavian diplomats under the auspices of the UN. In any case, a border can be "presented" to both sides and a process for adjustments put in place. The current course is leading nowhere. Once the border is settled, all sorts of negotiation on border control, water rights, security cooperation, demilitarization, right of return - all that will come fairly rapidly, I believe. All of this is on hold while we go on endlessly about a few houses here and there on land that almost certainly would end of being annexed to Israel anyway.
June 29, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This makes sense if the "adjustments" are for equivalent land. Having been to Palestine, I can tell you that giving Palestinians crappy land in the Negev is not compensation for the great farmland being confiscated near the green line.
The Devil, as always, is in the details.
June 29, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - When I used the term border control, I was not referring to Palestine's border with Israel but with Israel's insistence on keeping control of Plestines border with Jordan, as well as all sea and air access to the "state". That is one of the things that killed Camp David was Israel controlling the Jordan Valley as well as all egress and ingress to Palestine.
I am of two minds about the settlement freeze. I agree with you that the division of the land so everyone knows with absolute clarity what is "ours" and what is "theirs" is Job #1. However, I don't trust Bibi to negotiate in good faith if he can continue to build and expand settlements.
June 29, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
jdledell.
I think that there are vast differences between the two parties as to what "demilitarized" means. If Lebanon is a model, even helicopters in Palestinian hands could be a problem. "Heavy weapons" isn't a useful descriptor when it comes to what should or should not be allowed. My impression is that Israel wants to forbid Palestinians from being equipped at the levels enjoyed by US SWAT teams.
General Jim Jones' report (to Condi Rice) on Palestinian/Israeli security needs was shelved due to Israeli pressures so we can assume that there isn't an agreement on the details.
June 29, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A senior Israeli government official said that Israel is “fed up” with American statements against Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, the Hebrew-language Yisrael HaYom (Israel Today) newspaper reported Monday.
If they are really fed up over this, then that shows how far apart are Israel and the international community, including the United States. Israel is in some sort of weird national denial. They are never going to have the internal discussion they need to have until a US president makes it very clear that the whole world now has some fairly definite expectations about where the envisioned Palestinian state is supposed to be. Obama should spell it out for them.
But so far, Obama isn't really articulating any conception of Israeli responsibilities that is different from what earlier US presidents have articulated. I wonder why Israelis have a harder time taking this message from him.
June 29, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israelis thought the winks & nods that prevailed during the Clinton and Bush II years would still be SOP for the Obama administration.
Given that the internal dynamics of the Obama FP/security infrastructure are still in flux, the SoS may yet come to pass given the new role of Dennis Ross.
As per Michael Crowley @ The Plank:
You have internal disputes within the administration about how tough to be with Iran and, in a different sense, Israel. Dennis Ross is at the crossroads of virtually all those tensions. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/26/again-with-ross.aspx
Peter Feaver, bushie apparatchik, has been following this story from a former NSC insider's perspective:
I was wrong (and lots of people are adding, "again"). It turns out that Dennis Ross will not be taking up the strategic planning portfolio, as I had previously thought, but will instead take up the broader Middle East portfolio. The wiring diagram is not clear from afar (and may not even be clear from close up) but it looks like he will have a position more like a combination of the roles filled by Elliott Abrams, who covered everywhere the "Near East and North Africa" from Morocco to Iran (but not Iraq), plus Meghan O'Sullivan, who had Iraq and Afghanistan. He also has Pakistan, and so that gives him a remarkably broad regional portfolio that encompasses the two hot war military conflicts plus arguably the most urgent national security problem (Iran). It encompasses the portfolios of two formidable Special Envoys housed at State -- George Mitchell (Israel-Palestine) and Richard Holbrooke (Af-Pak).
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/29/dennis_rosss_broad_portfolio
Both articles are well worth reading in full.
June 29, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A RELATED POST: "ISRAEL’S FREEZE FRAUD" by Richard Silverstein, 06/29/09
(EXCERPT) ...The problem? It isn’t complete. Not by a long-shot. Just note this sentence from Bronner’s second paragraph:
"The freeze would not affect construction that was already under way, nor include East Jerusalem."
Well, that’s a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through. A settlement freeze that omits East Jerusalem is like Peter Stuyvesant purchasing Manhattan from the Indians, excluding Central Park...
ENTIRE POST - http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/06/29/israels-freeze-fraud/
June 29, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bibi was in an awkward place, wasn't he. He had the EU, Russia, the U.S. and the U.N. telling them to stop the building. I thought this was a shrewd move on Obama's part.
June 29, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink