Israel Matzav

'Settlement freeze' to continue de facto

Based on 'Palestinian' sources, Haaretz reports that Israel will continue the 'settlement freeze' in Judea and Samaria after September 30 despite insisting that it has been ended. The method for doing so will be the Defense Ministry's refusal to approve any new construction.

Defense Ministry approval is required for all construction in Judea and Samaria. The agreement beginning to take shape on the settlement construction freeze is based on an "unspoken understanding" that security authorities will not sign new building permits, but the government will not issue a formal resolution extending the freeze. Furthermore, a review found that the building moratorium is due to expire on September 30, not September 26, as previously thought.

A source close to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Haaretz on Tuesday that from the PA's perspective, what mattered was not Israel's declarations but the moratorium's implementation on the ground.

The same source told Haaretz that the PA intends to make clear in the direct negotiations with Israel that it will not agree to complete demilitarization of the territories, as this was a condition no sovereign state could accept. However, the Palestinians would agree to have international forces positioned in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with a wider mandate than that of the UNIFIL peacekeeping force in South Lebanon.

The truth is that the government would vote down a resolution extending the 'settlement freeze' and that's why no such resolution is being presented. The real question is whether any minister will be willing to defy Netanyahu by bringing a resolution to end the freeze before the cabinet and forcing a vote on it, or whether we are faced with a situation where Netanyahu is so afraid of international opprobrium (and Labor dropping out of his coalition) that he is willing to do anything to maintain the appearance of a 'peace process.'

As to the demilitarization question, if Netanyahu means what he says about bringing any deal to a referendum, I cannot see such a referendum passing without demilitarization, unless it's an election in which case all bets - and clear answers to questions - are off.

JPost reports that the IDF and Defense Minister Barak are opposed to the idea of an 'international force.' They insist that the 'Palestinians' have to be ready, willing and able to do the job themselves. On the other hand, US National Security Adviser James Jones is pushing the 'international force' idea.

Ahead of the peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, which opened last week in Washington, the IDF’s Planning Branch drafted a paper outlining Israel’s security needs regarding the West Bank. It was approved by Barak and Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi.

The outline refers to three main commitments required of the Palestinians prior to any IDF withdrawal: that there be no rockets smuggled into the West Bank, no resumption of terrorist attacks like those that occurred during the second intifada, and no deployment in the West Bank by foreign military forces, for example by Iraqi troops, should that country one day pose a new military threat to Israel.

“Experience shows us that we cannot trust multi-national forces to do the job like in Lebanon,” one senior defense official said recently. “If the Palestinians are not capable of preventing the rise of terrorism independently, they are not yet ready to receive control of the territory.”

I think we have seen more than enough of how ineffective international forces are: In Lebanon since 2006 and from 1982 - 2006, in Gaza from 2005-07, and along the Suez Canal from 1956-67. Again, if there's a straight referendum on a 'peace deal,' this is an element that is likely to cause Israelis to say no, but if there's an election, all bets are off.

I wish that Netanyahu would hit Iran already. Then there would be no reason to try to maintain the charade of the 'peace process' with the 'Palestinians.'

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:26 PM