Why not a freeze extension?
I want to point out a couple of things from this article about the debate among the Likud ministers over the 'settlement freeze.' "What is at stake," argued Shalom at the start of the cabinet meeting, "is not a three-month building freeze, but in fact the beginning of negotiations over the borders of a Palestinian state."It's worse than that. It's negotiations over the borders of a 'Palestinian state' in isolation from anything else. It's taking the one area in which all Israel can do is give - and receive nothing in return - and making it the sole focus. (Yes, it says here "and other core issues," but don't believe that - nothing else will be discussed in those three months) And it takes upon itself the impossible task of deciding borders within three months, because if they're not decided within three months, you can bet there will be American pressure for another extension.
Shalom also criticized Netanyahu, noting, "It is a strategic error to condition an American veto [in the United Nations Security Council] and diplomatic support from Washington upon the continuation of a building freeze."Yes, it should. But what's worse is that many of the texts I have seen of the proposal promise that veto and diplomatic support for only one year. What happens when the year is up? Obama screws us by not vetoing a Security Council resolution for a 'Palestinian state'?
"It is something that should go without saying, based on the special relationship between our countries," he added.
"If we freeze [construction] for three months, the pressure on us to decide our permanent borders will be unbearable," Shalom told Israel Radio after the meeting. "Unfortunately, if that happens, it will be a huge mistake."Yes, it will be, especially in isolation from all other factors.
Despite the apparent widespread opposition to the deal, Shas chairman Eli Yishai told the cabinet that under certain circumstances, his party would not reject an extension of the settlement moratorium.I've seen two other versions of Shas' demand. One just says unlimited building in Jerusalem. The other says that when the 90 days are up, Israel can build in the 'settlement blocs.' That last sentence is even more outrageous than the freeze extension itself.
"If arrived a letter from the president of the United States stating that there could be immediate construction in Jerusalem, and that after 90 days there could be unlimited construction anywhere, we would think about abstaining," he said.
And in any event, do we really want to trust a letter from Obama who could then deny its existence or binding effect like he did with the Bush letter?
Labels: Bush letter, Eli Yishai, settlement freeze, Sylvan Shalom
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:14 AM
2 Comments:
Yup.
There is no need for a freeze. Its immoral to punish innocent Jews for something that will never happen.
Only in the Jewish state could an entire community of people be deliberately deprived of their basic human rights for self-serving political reasons.
What could go wrong indeed
"What happens when the year is up? Obama screws us by not vetoing a Security Council resolution for a 'Palestinian state'?"
You win first prize Carl for hitting the nail on the head. And the resolution will be based on the latest proposal put before Israel, who having agreed to discuss borders before anything else, will be assumed to have tacitly agreed that other matters are less important.
Post a Comment
<< Home