How could a Bedouin be a refugee?
Silly me, I thought that Bedouins were
nomads. If that's the case, how could they ever have had homes from which they could be 'refugees'?
But UNRWA is threatening Israel over a
plan to move Bedouin from the area of E1 - between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim - to the Jericho area, which is further east.
"If such a plan were implemented this would ... give rise to concerns
that it amounts to a 'forcible transfer' in contravention of the Fourth
Geneva Convention" banning involuntary population relocation in
occupied territory, UNRWA Commissioner General Pierre Krahenbuhl said.
"It might also make way for further Israeli illegal settlement
expansion, further compromising the viability of a two-state solution,"
he said in a statement. "I urge the Israeli authorities not to
proceed with the transfer...and I also urge the donor and state
community to take a firm stand against it."
...
UNRWA added that most of those slated for resettlement to Jericho, in
the east of the Palestinian Authority territory, were registered
Palestinian refugees.
The IDF Civil Administration said there were various plans to rehouse Bedouin and they were being conducted in consultation with community leaders. "As part of the effort to draft master plans for the benefit of the area's Bedouin population, whose purpose is to enable the Bedouin to live in places with suitable infrastructure, dozens of meetings were held with Bedouin leaders," the Administration said in a written response to AFP. "Several plans to prepare such places have been advanced, partly through such meetings."
Why don't I hear any Bedouin protesting this plan? Hmmm.Labels: Bedouin, E-1, IDF, Jerusalem, Maaleh Adumim, Palestinian refugees, UNRWA
It's about time: Israel responds to Hamas-Fatah pact
This could be the start of something big. Israel is finally responding in an effective way to the Hamas-Fatah unity government: It has announced
3,000 housing starts in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
The units, which were originally to be approved with release of a
fourth batch of Palestinian prisoners at the end of March that was
never carried out, will include 400 units in Ramat Shlomo in Jerusalem,
and another 1,100 to be divided between the settlements of Efrat,
Beitar Ilit, Adam and Givat Ze’ev. In addition, another 1,500 will be
approved for construction in other settlements throughout the West
Bank.
...
The announcement of further construction comes amid a serious policy
disagreement with the US over its approach to the new Palestinian
unity government. US Secretary of State John Kerry pledged continued
allegiance on Wednesday to strong security ties with Israel, even as he
reiterated the US would engage the new government backed by Hamas.
Speaking
at a press conference in Beirut, Kerry – asked why the US felt it had
to “recognize the unity Palestinian government immediately” – stressed
that Washington does not recognize a “government with respect to
Palestine, because that would recognize a state, and there is not a
state.”
Kerry said he has had daily conversations with Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on this matter as “a friend, as well as the
prime minister of the country.” He stressed that Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas assured him “this new technocratic government
is committed to the principles of nonviolence, negotiations,
recognizing the State of Israel, acceptance of the previous agreements
and the Quartet principles, and that they will continue their
previously agreed upon security cooperation with Israel.”
...
The secretary of state reiterated the US position that Hamas is a
terrorist organization, which has not accepted the Quartet principles
and continues to call for the destruction of Israel, “even as it moves
into this new posture.”
“Israel is our friend, our strong ally”
Kerry said, adding that the US-Israeli security relationship has never
been as strong as it is now under President Barack Obama.
“We are
deeply committed. We’ve said again and again the bonds of our
relationship extend way beyond security,” he said. “They are
time-honored and as close, I think, as any country in the world. We
will stand by Israel, as we have in the past. There is nothing that is
changing our security relationship. That is ironclad.”
Be that as
it may, Israel did nothing to hide its deep disappointment with the US
policy, with Netanyahu saying Tuesday he was “deeply troubled by the
announcement that Washington will work with the Palestinian government
backed by Hamas.
Meanwhile, 'Palestinian' chief
negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat is threatening to take Israel to court. .
Let's go to the videotape.
Here's
more:
“We urge the Israeli government to refrain from any punitive
actions,” Erekat told a small group of journalists and diplomats who
traveled with him Tuesday to the outskirts of a small Beduin encampment
in Area C of the West Bank, just outside of Jerusalem.
“If they [Israelis] go ahead in the line of escalation, we will react,” Erekat said.
...
“We want to give them [Israelis] a heads-up that we are planning to pursue our case internationally.”
He
explained the Palestinians would write letters to the member states of
the four Geneva Conventions, which among other topics, deal with the
issue of war crimes.
“We’ll ask them [member states] to shoulder
their responsibility vis-a-vis the occupying power [Israel], vis-a-vis
the atrocities and the crimes that are being committed against the
Palestinian population in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza,”
Erekat said. “We think Israelis and their legal [experts] know what
this means.”
The Palestinians also plan to pursue Israel through
the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, which deals with acts of Apartheid, he said.
In 2014, the international community should “not stomach” the use of an apartheid system, Erekat said.
“Instead of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state we should recognize Israel as the apartheid state.”
He
explained he had chosen to visit the Jabal Al-Baba Beduin camp because
it is located in an area called E1, where Israel plans to build 3,500
new homes, for the Ma’aleh Adumim settlement.
Under that plan,
this particular hilltop would have a commercial center and an army
post. While plans for E1 are frozen, Erekat and members of the PLO
Negotiations Affairs Department that led the tour, believe they will be
carried out.
They said Israel would forcibly relocate the Beduin from the hilltop to make way for Jewish building.
Forced
displacement is a war crime, Erekat said, as is the Israeli demolition
of Beduin structures that has already taken place in the encampment.
“We
are preparing ourselves for the defense of our people including the
option of signing the Rome Statute,” Erekat said. While the
Palestinians are prepared to turn to the international court, they are
first focused on using the legal instruments afforded them under the 15
conventions they have already signed, he said.
Israel, in turn,
has warned the Palestinians that their signatures on these conventions
means they are liable for acts of violence against Israel by Hamas,
especially rockets launched from Gaza to Israel’s southern cities.
Read the whole thing. I wonder whether this would be brought up with the court at the same time....
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, E-1, East Jerusalem, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, human shields, Jerusalem construction, Judea and Samaria construction, Middle East peace process, Saeb Erekat
Outrageous: EU demanding compensation for illegal 'Palestinian' structures in E1
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone once again. This is the first live post of the evening. Mrs. Carl and I and most of our children spent the Sabbath in Beit El, which is in Samaria as a pre-Pesach treat from Mrs. Carl's parents. By my count, this is bli ayin hara the 12th year that they have taken us away for the Sabbath before Pesach (two Sabbaths before in the years when Pesach starts on Saturday night).
If the Europeans want to know why they have ZERO influence in this country, this story might be a place to start looking. The European Union has demanded compensation for the destruction by Israel earlier this week of eighteen tin huts that were housing 'Palestinians' on land that is not zoned for 'Palestinian' building (in a word, squatters). The land in question is in E-1, the strip between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim upon which Israel has talked time and time again of building, each time being stopped by the Americans. According to the Europeans, they 'partially funded' those 18 tin huts, and they have
demanded compensation from Israel for their destruction.
EU officials demanded financial compensation from Israel to Brussels
in response to the demolition of three of the structures, Belgian news
service EurActiv reported.
“We should ask for compensation from
Israel whenever EU-funded humanitarian aid projects are destroyed,”
EurActiv quoted an anonymous EU diplomat as saying.
“We will raise
this issue with the relevant Israeli authorities,” Maja Kocijancic, a
spokesperson for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, told
EurActiv.
We ought to give one of two responses. Either we should simply tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine, or we should tell them that we are setting it off against the damages from European-financed 'Palestinian' terror and they still have a long way to go. I favor the first solution - I don't want to acknowledge that they have any kind of claim.
Labels: E-1, European anti-Semitism, European foreign aid, European hypocrisy, European Union, financing terror, Palestinian terrorism
Over 15,000 rally for E1 building east of Jerusalem
Over
15,000 people rallied for construction in E1 between Maaleh Adumim and Jerusalem on Thursday (Hat Tip for photo:
Jack W).
Speaking at the event, Housing Minister Uri Ariel said that Israel
would not surrender to pressure “no matter what its source” on halting
Jewish settlement efforts in Judea and Samaria.
“The Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people,” he said, adding
that “there are people who believe that if they follow the dictates of
the rest of the world in these matters we will have peace and quiet.”
Israel already succumbed to pressure and withdrew from Gaza, throwing
10,000 Jews out of their homes, Ariel said, and the results speak for
themselves. “Look at the missiles being fired at Beersheva, Sderot,
Ashkelon, and many other cities,” he said. “We cannot surrender. The
more we back down, the more they pressure us. As Housing Minister, I am
declaring before the Prime Minister that we are here to ensure that you
fulfill your promise to build here,” Ariel added.
Ariel invited leaders and members of the hareidi community to join
the efforts. “Together with the hareidi community we will strengthen the
world of Torah,” he said. “I call on them to settle Judea and Samaria
and strengthen the entire Land of Israel.”
Also speaking at the event was Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin,
who said that “the people have decided – we want building, not building
freezes, in the Land of Israel. We must remain determined, because
justice is with us.
“They are threatening us now with boycotts and demanding that we
accept conditions that will damage our security,” Elkin added. “We want
to create a solid belt of settlement in Jerusalem, from west to east,
and the Palestinians want to create their belt of settlement from north
to south.” E1 was where the showdown would take place, Elkin said.
“Someone will win in the end, and they are not prepared to surrender. We
must overcome the Palestinians and build in E1. Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu said this,” Elkin reminded listeners, referring to past
comments by the PM prior to taking office.
Also speaking at the event was Agriculture Minister Yair Shamir, who
said that the government “is with you. The reason I am in politics is to
be doing exactly this. I joined the government in order to raise my
hand at the right time and to say the right things. We will not lose
faith in the justice of our path, and only with faith will we be able to
complete our vision.”
Let's go to the videotape.
All of this has Zany Zehava
seething.
"The participation of minsters from the government and Knesset MKs
reveals Netanyahu's [Prime Minister Binyamin] two-headed monster,"
Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On said on Friday.
The rally on Thursday
took place at E1, which is an uninhabited area of the West Bank
settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim. Settler leaders and Right-wing politicians
at the rally called for the state to build homes for Jews in the area.
"Today
it is clear that in the framework of a peace deal the city of Ma'aleh
Adumim will remain under Israeli sovereignty," Gal-On said.
Well, clear to everyone except the 'Palestinians' to whom Maaleh Adumim, Jaffa, Jerusalem and the tiniest outpost of Samaria are all the same....
Gal-On said that Katz and Ariel know that building in E1 would divide
east Jerusalem from the Palestinian populated areas of the West Bank and
it would lead to complete Israeli control of the eastern part of the
capital. The building would hinder the possibility for east Jerusalem
to be a capital of a future Palestinian state, would split the West Bank
in two and would prevent the Palestinian state from having any
territorial contiguity, the Meretz leader added.
What a great idea. Let's build now.
Lots of pictures
here.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, E-1, East Jerusalem, John Kerry, Maaleh Adumim, two-state solution, Uri Ariel, Zehava Gal-On
Jews rally for housing in E1 (between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim)
Today is a (short) travel day, but it's snowing here in Boston and I have to work for a few hours so posting may be light. Or if I get stuck in an airport or use the WiFi on the plane it may not be so light....
For weeks now, I've been seeing signs about a rally in E1 - the area between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim in which the Obama administration
prevented Israeli construction several months ago. The rally is on Thursday, and Deputy Defense Minister and MK Danny Danon (Likud) says
Washington is watching.
There is no doubt that Washington will be watching, Danon told Arutz
Sheva. “It is important that the Americans observe the events, and that
they realize that there are limits to what a government led by the
national camp can do,” he said.
“I think that in the situation we are in today, there is great
significance to an event like this,” he said. Senior political leaders
from the Knesset and the coalition will be present, he said, “and will
tell the Prime Minister that there are things we cannot agree to, and
one of those things is [dividing] Jerusalem.”
“I’m sure they will follow this event in Jerusalem and in Washington,
and it’s a good thing, too. The message needs to be heard loud and
clear,“ he said.
“The Prime Minister, too, who will sit down with President Obama next
month, needs to make it clear that he represents a certain population,
with certain values,” Danon continued. “With all due respect to the
pressure Obama applies, when it comes to matters like compromising on
Jerusalem and evacuating Jews, that is something that [Netanyahu] cannot
do even if he were to agree.
“I hope he doesn’t agree,” Danon added. “But even if he does, he
needs to realize that politically speaking, there are things that can’t
be done.”
I hope a lot of people show up. According to my
weather report, it's a warm and beautiful day in Jerusalem. The temperature is about 40 degrees warmer than here (which is 10 degrees warmer than it was here last night)....
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Boston, Danny Danon, E-1, East Jerusalem, Maaleh Adumim, snow
Netanyahu does as he's told
Prime Minister Netanyahu did as he was told by his master in Washington on Tuesday, shelving plans announced by Housing Minister Uri Ariel (Jewish Home) for some
24,000 new housing units in Judea and Samaria.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu directed Housing and Construction
Minister Uri Ariel to "reconsider" plans for preliminary planning of
some 24,0000 housing units beyond the Green Line, saying this would harm
efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program.
He said that the
announcements of the preliminary planning is without any statutory
standing, would do nothing to promote settlement, and only create an
unnecessary conflict with the international community at a time when
intensive efforts are underway to get an improved deal between the world
powers and Iran.
Ariel, according to a statement put out by the PMO, agreed to reconsider all the plans.
State Department Jen Psaki said that the US was "deeply concerned" by the announcement.
That's a lot more 'deeply concerned' than they seem to be over the possibility of a nuclear Iran....
Peace Now revealed Tuesday that the Housing Ministry issued tenders
in the last two weeks for preliminary work to be done on the units,
including hiring an architect to begin drawing up plans for some 1,200
units in E1, between Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem.
Government
officials said Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, after being informed
on Tuesday of the developments, stepped in immediately and demanded the
ministry freeze the E1 plans, saying this issue was too sensitive and
would detract international attention from Iran.
Israel was
roundly censured in December 2011 when it announced plans to develop E1
following the UN General Assembly's vote to gain non member statehood
status to the Palestinians.
"We think the people in the Housing
Ministry should be more responsible," one government official said,
stopping short of accusing Bayit Yehudi Construction and Housing
Minister Uri Ariel of intentionally trying to sabotage negotiations with
the Palestinians.
"Maybe somebody was looking for headlines."
According to the official, Netanyahu specifically instructed that the E1
plans not be worked on "because at this sensitive time the
international focus must be clearly on Iran, and we don't want any issue
to divert the attention of the international community from this
crucial goal."
Asked why, if Netanyahu was concerned about the international
reaction, he did not ask the ministry to shelve all the plans at this
time, the official said because E1 was the most sensitive.
A
Housing Ministry spokesman said that preliminary tenders such as these
are issued by the tens of thousands throughout the year throughout the
country, and that the vast majority – for various reasons ranging from
environmental concerns to objections from various planning bodies -- do
not come to fruition. He said that of the 650,000 units in the country
in various preliminary stages of planning, only some 25,000 will likely
be built, and that only over a period ranging from four to 20 years.
And you wonder why we have a housing shortage that sees young couples living in windowless storage rooms and paying rent of $600-$1,000 per month....
Netanyahu caught wind of the plans after Justice Minister Tzipi
Livni, who was contacted by foreign ambassadors who learned of the
tenders from Peace Now, called cabinet secretary Avichai Mandelblit for
clarifications.
In addition to E1, the plans also include 2,500
units in Ma'aleh Adumim, some 12,000 units throughout the Binyamin
region, including in Shilo, Eli, Mitzpe Yeriho and Shvut Rachel, and the
rest in the Gush Etzion region.
According to Peace Now, the total
number of technical plans are23,786, of which 4,000 are in east
Jerusalem and 19,786 in the West Bank. Peace Now spokesman Lior Amihai
said the level of planning was unusual but cautioned that it would be
years before any building could actually take place.
Netanyahu has all the backbone of a pretzel soaked in warm water overnight....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, E-1, Jerusalem construction, Judea and Samaria construction, Middle East peace process, Tzipi Livni, Uri Ariel
'Palestinians' put ICC on hold
With US Secretary of State John FN Kerry due in our area on Sunday, the 'Palestinians' have put a planned
appeal to the International Criminal Court to stop Israeli construction in Area E1 (between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim) on hold.
PA Foreign Minister Riad Malki said the PA leadership was expecting
Kerry to bring new ideas and proposals for resuming the peace process.
Amireh said the decision to postpone the court bid was taken three
months ago in order to give a chance to US efforts to resume peace talks
between Israel and the PA.
He said the PA was hoping that the US
and other international parties would be able to exert pressure on
Israel to stop its "measures" against the Palestinians.
"The
Palestinian leadership took the decision to postpone its plan to go to
the international court in order to give a last chance to halt Israeli
plans to build in area E-1 [between Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim,"
Amireh told the Palestinian news agency Quds Net.
Amireh denied that the PA decision was related to Kerry's renewed attempts to revive the peace process.
An
Israeli government official said the Palestinian decision to "take
unilateral steps in international bodies has been one of the major
causes of friction, because ultimately the only way to solve issues is
through negotiations, not grandstanding at UN forums where they have an
automatic majority."
Another PLO official, Ahmed Majdalani, said
that he did not rule out the possibility that Kerry, who is returning to
the region this week, would carry new ideas to resume the stalled peace
talks. Majdalani said that Kerry's visit to the region would determine
whether the Americans have new ideas to revive the peace process.
He
stressed that the PA's stance regarding the peace process remained
unchanged, noting that Israel must cease construction in all
settlements, including east Jerusalem, and release Palestinian prisoners
imprisoned before the signing of the Oslo Accords.
Please tell me our government won't be dumb enough to cave in to these demands again. The 'Palestinians' don't want a solution and all a 'settlement freeze' will do is to encourage them to stall some more.
Labels: E-1, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Judea and Samaria construction, Maaleh Adumim, negotiations without preconditions, two-state solution
Police evacuate 'Palestinian' trespassers from E1
While President Obama was here, the IDF and the police ignored an encampment of 'Palestinian' trespassers in the E1 corridor between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim. Now that he's gone, 200 Israeli police officers moved in and
evacuated the 'protestors' without incident. The two organizers of the encampment were arrested. Incredibly, the story has stayed out of the media except for the
initial report of the 'Palestinian' occupation. This is from the first link.
Police stated that some 40 demonstrators were evacuated from the
hilltop between Ma'aleh Adumim and Jerusalem. Over 200 police officers
were involved in the operation which continued for an hour.
No
officers or demonstrators were injured. Two men were arrested at the
scene for organizing the incident and one woman for attacking a police
officer.
Building tent encampments is the latest initiative
organized by the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee to protest
Israel building in Area C of the West Bank, where, under the Oslo
Accords, Israel has civil and security control.
Security forces
have been on alert for such activity since Palestinians first erected a
tent city on E1 in January that Israel dismantled within days.
But
on Wednesday, the activists were able to sneak into the area and put up
three large tents and five or six gray camping tents, before security
forces closed off the area.
They also erected a large Palestinian flag that could be seen by drivers heading up the main road into Ma’aleh Adumim.
Organizers
said they wanted to protect the land from settlement expansion, claim
their rights to return to the land and their sovereignty over it as well
as to continue their “popular resistance.”
The problem is that no one reads the agreements. The Oslo accords gave Israel total control over Area C (and security control over Area B) and say nothing about a 'Palestinian state.' Just as Yitzchak Rabin promised in his
last speech to the Knesset.
Labels: E-1, Israeli Knesset, Oslo accords, Palestinian state, Yitzchak Rabin
Obama's 'Palestinian' contradiction
Following @JodiRudoren's live tweet of the Obama - Abu Mazen news conference, President Obama made a statement that I've been waiting to hear for at least the last four years:
Very good. So why does he say this three sentences later:
Aren't borders supposed to be one of the issues on the table? Haven't we shown in the past that we will dismantle 'settlements' for real (and unfortunately even for non-existent) peace? So then why does it matter where we build?
Moreover, if we believe that E-1 will ultimately end up a part of Israel, as was agreed between Abu Mazen and Olmert and as was part of the Clinton parameters, why is staking our claim to it 'very difficult to square with a two state solution'?
And isn't trying to freeze us in position - as has been done for most of the past 46 years - just another way of demanding that all issues be settled ahead of time?
So where's Obama?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, E-1, Judea and Samaria, Judea and Samaria construction, negotiations without preconditions
Israel changing 'separation fence' route to keep 'Palestinians' out of E-1
After a second 'Palestinian' outpost in E-1 was demolished overnight, Haaretz's Barak Ravid reports that the Israeli security forces have decided to
change the route of the 'separation fence' to keep 'Palestinians' out of E-1.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak has decided to close the breach in the
separation fence between Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim, thereby
positioning the fence between the Palestinian village of Al-Zaim and the
contested E-1 area.
This would mean that Ma'aleh Adumim would be located outside the
security fence and that Palestinians would be prevented from reaching
area E-1.
The plan is to be presented to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his approval next week.
The breach in the fence at Al-Zaim, a small village just east of
Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, is three kilometers wide. However,
there is a wall west of Al-Zaim which was built to prevent the residents
of Al-Zaim who are not permitted in Israel from reaching Jerusalem.
(Al-Zaim can be accessed via the Al-Zaim checkpoint on the road leading
from Jerusalem to Ma'aleh Adumim and the Dead Sea. )
The breach in the wall at Al-Zaim was reportedly left intact to allow
Ma'aleh Adumim to be encircled by a huge loop in the security fence.
However, the defense minister has now decided against including Ma'aleh
Adumim within the security fence because of the astronomical cost of the
loop.
With regard to Al-Zaim, the defense minister had two options: include
it in Israeli territory or position it east of the fence. The main
difference between the options has to do with E-1, in which Netanyahu
plans to build a settlement, despite opposition by the international
community.
Area E-1 ends behind Al-Zaim and is connected to the village by a path; this is how the Palestinians who built the outpost of Bab al-Shams over a week ago reached the site.
Including Al-Zaim within the security fence will cut off Al-Zaim from E-1, leaving E-1 disconnected from Palestinian territory.
Hmmm. No, I have not been able to find a map.
Labels: E-1, Maaleh Adumim, security fence
Obama patronizes Israel (again) and threatens too
Jeffrey Goldberg reports that President
Obama has decided that he - and not the democratically elected Israeli government - knows what's in Israel's best interest, and that building in E-1, which will be part of Israel even if God forbid there is ever a 'Palestinian state,' is not in Israel's best interest.
When informed about the Israeli decision, Obama, who has a famously
contentious relationship with the prime minister, didn’t even bother
getting angry. He told several people that this sort of behavior on
Netanyahu’s part is what he has come to expect, and he suggested that he
has become inured to what he sees as self-defeating policies of his
Israeli counterpart.
In the weeks after the UN vote, Obama said privately and repeatedly, “Israel
doesn’t know what its own best interests are.” With each new settlement
announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a
path toward near-total isolation.
And if Israel, a small state in
an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah -- one that alienates
even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend -- it won’t
survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.
If most Israelis felt Obama was in our corner, there might be something about which to talk,. But we don't. Obama is obsessed with the invented 'Palestinians' - as is most of the American Left - and the average Israeli now tunes him out completely. He has zero credibility here. Most Israelis see the continued security cooperation as being foisted on Obama by the Congress and by the American people. If Obama had the choice, most Israelis believe he would long since have cut us off.
That message is reinforced by the nominations of Chuck Hagel, John 'al-Quds' Brennan and even by the nomination of John F.N. Kerry. Most Israelis see those nominations as being driven by Obama's hostility not just to Netanyahu, but to Israeli itself.
Now come the threats....
But it is in terms of American diplomatic protection -- among the
Europeans and especially at the UN -- that Israel may one day soon
notice a significant shift. During November’s vote on Palestine’s status, the U.S. supported Israel and asked its allies to do the same. In the end, they were joined by a total of seven other countries, including the Pacific powerhouses Palau and Micronesia.
When
such an issue arises again, Israel may find itself even lonelier. It
wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. failed to whip votes the next time, or
if the U.S. actually abstained. I wouldn’t be particularly surprised,
either, if Obama eventually offered a public vision of what a state of
Palestine should look like, and affirmed that it should have its capital
in East Jerusalem.
Most Israelis won't be surprised by this. But as a practical matter, I'm not sure how much difference it will make. Will the UN send troops here to fight? Can Obama vote for such an action in the UN Security Council? Basically, he's telling us that our options are suicide now (a 'Palestinian state') or suicide later (UN action against us). Between the two, I would opt for suicide later and hope that something happens in the interim or that the world doesn't really hate Jews enough to decide that it is going to extirpate the only Western democracy in the Middle East.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, E-1, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, settlements, two-state solution
Israel's intelligence agencies missed the boat
Israel's security forces were caught flat-footed on Thursday night when 'Palestinians' set up tents and squatted on land located in E-1 between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim. They should not have been. The 'Palestinians' set up a
Facebook page for the 'event' on December 30.
With all that our intelligence services supposedly monitor social media, you have to wonder where they were on this one.
Labels: E-1, Facebook, outposts, Palestinians
Security forces evacuate 'Palestinian' squatters from E-1
The IDF and the Israeli police have evacuated the
250 'Palestinian' squatters and 25 journalists who had set up an illegal outpost in the E-1 corridor between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim.
They completed the evacuation around an hour later, with no arrests or
injuries reported. Those protesters who refused to leave were carried
down the hill by officers, but there was no violence.
"Everyone was evacuated carefully and swiftly, without any injuries
to officers or protesters," said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld.
Prior
to the evacuation, the state had appealed to the High Court of Justice,
asking the court to rescind a temporary injunction it issued on Friday,
saying that failure to evacuate immediately will lead to riots in the
area.
I have serious doubts that action would have been taken so quickly were it not for the fact that we are engaged in an election campaign and that the Prime Minister has strong challengers both within and outside his party. In fact, I think that the following had a lot to do with the speed with which the government moved.
On Saturday night, MKs Michael Ben-Ari and Arieh Eldad, who are running
for reelection with the Strong Israel party, said that unless the
outpost was taken down over night, they planned to head to the area on
Sunday to hold an election meeting. They called on Netanyahu to stop
talking, and to start building in Judea and Samaria.
Bibi was probably afraid of that more than anything else.
Labels: E-1, IDF, Israel police, Palestinians, Supreme Court
Who runs this country anyway?
For those who wonder why I moderate comments, I just caught someone trying to slip a virus download into an old post....
Incredibly, Israel's Supreme Court, which believes it's
more equal than our other branches of government, issued an injunction on Saturday prohibiting the government from evacuating the 'Palestinians' who are camped out on E-1 between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim. The government is now trying to
get the injunction lifted.
The High Court of Justice issued a temporary injunction against the evacuation of the make-shift tent city on Saturday.
The
state was scheduled to turn to the High Court on Saturday evening in a
request to cancel the injunction and allow security forces to carry out
Netanyahu's order.
Pending the discussion in the High Court,
Netanyahu ordered security forces to block off the area in order to
prevent the arrival of additional activists to E1. The area was declared
a closed military zone.
Palestinians over the weekend hailed the establishment of the new
"village" as a turning point in the conflict with Israel and a step that
would pave the way for Palestinian independence.
On Saturday, Fatah called on its supporters to head to the area to prevent IDF soldiers and police from evicting the activists.
Several senior Palestinian officials who tried to join the activists said they were turned back by soldiers and policemen.
One of them, PA Labor Minister Ahmed Majdalani, complained that the IDF confiscated his Israeli-issued VIP card.
PLO
official Hanan Ashrawi and PA Minister for Social Welfare, Majida
Al-Masri, were also prevented from entering the new outpost.
Scores of Palestinians joined the activists Saturday after avoiding checkpoints.
Anyone want to call the Knesset back into emergency session this week to overrule the 'Supreme Court'? What could go wrong?
Labels: E-1, Palestinians, Supreme Court
Police to clear 'Palestinian outposts' from E-1?
Some 200 'Palestinians' who have erected an 'outpost' in the E-1 Jerusalem - Maaleh Adumin corridor have been
served with an eviction notice by the Israeli police.
On Friday, approximately 200 Palestinians from villages in the West Bank erected about 20 large, steel-framed tents on the disputed land, in order to prevent Israel from building thousands of new housing units in the area.
The Palestinians claim the E1 plans would sound the death knell to a
two-state solution by breaking up the territorial continuity of a future
Palestinian state.
According to the Bethlehem-based Ma'an news
agency, the police on Saturday morning delivered the evacuation orders,
which allegedly stated that they would use force to disperse the
Palestinian activists if they did not leave voluntarily.
For their
part, the protestors reportedly have decided to resist the evacuation:
"We only have our determination, and it will not be easy to expel us
from our homes. We will use our experience and skills to remain on the
land," Ma'an quoted protest leader Abu Rahma as saying.
Moreover,
Channel 10 reported Saturday afternoon that dozens of Palestinians had
descended on Bab al-Shams to protest the evacuation, and were attempting
to breach the security perimeter.
It will be interesting to see whether the police will really evict them by force or whether only 'settlers' merit such treatment. Let's say that I have my doubts that they will be evicted. If they are evicted, it will be before the elections.
Labels: E-1, Israel police, Palestinians
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Monday, January 7.
1) An intellectually honest editorial
Daled Amos and Israel Matzav linked to a Washington Post editorial, Overheated rhetoric on Israeli settlements:
Overall, the vast majority of the nearly 500,000 settlers in
Jerusalem and the West Bank live in areas close to Israel’s 1967
borders. Data compiled by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East
Peace show that more than 80 percent of them could be included in Israel
if the country annexed just more than 4 percent of the West Bank — less
than the 5 percent proposed by President Bill Clinton 12 years ago.
Diplomats were most concerned by Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to allow
planning and zoning — but not yet construction — in a four-mile strip of
territory known as E-1 that lies between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, a
settlement with a population of more than 40,000. Palestinians claim
that Israeli annexation of the land would cut off their would-be capital
in East Jerusalem from the West Bank and block a key north-south route
between West Bank towns. Israel wants the land for similar reasons, to
prevent Ma’ale Adumim — which will almost certainly be annexed to Israel
in any peace deal — from being isolated. Both sides insist that the
other can make do with a road corridor.
This is a difficult issue that should be settled at the negotiating
table, not by fiat. But Mr. Netanyahu’s zoning approval is hardly the
“almost fatal blow” to a two-state solution that U.N. Secretary General
Ban Ki-moon described.
I won't pretend to agree with some of the criticism of Israel in the
editorial, but this is a very important point. Nothing Israel is doing
endangers the peace process.
In praising this editorial, Barry Rubin explains two ways in which the settlement blame game is wrong:
First: the day after the Israel-PLO agreement was signed in 1993,
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made it clear that Israel’s interpretation
was that it permitted continued construction on existing settlements.
The Palestinian Authority did not object, and that policy did not
prevent it from negotiating over the next seven years.
Misrepresentations — deliberately? — often make people think that Israel
is establishing new settlements or expanding the size of existing ones.
Both claims are untrue.
Second: if the Palestinian side wants an end to settlements, that should
be an incentive for reaching a peace agreement faster and thus getting
rid of all settlements on the territory of the new state of Palestine.
Notice that Israel — under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, no less —
demolished all of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as, among other
things, a sign of what could be gained by a peace deal.
Yet the Palestinian side has been in no hurry to make a deal. In theory,
when it complains about settlements, the response should be: “So why
don’t you compromise for peace and get rid of them, rather than having
them become ‘larger?’”
This is important. It means that those who complain that settlements are
destroying the peace process are really the ones who are preventing
peace. They are providing cover for the Palestinians, who refuse to
negotiate in good faith with Israel. If Abbas knew that elite world
opinion thought he was the obstructionist, he might be inclined to
negotiate. Since he knows that the "settlements" excuse exists he can
drag his feet, feigning outrage and pay no price - diplomatic or
political - for his obstinacy and get Israel blamed in the bargain, he
has no incentive to negotiate.
The editorial is extraordinary for another reason. Shortly after
Binyamin Netanyahu formed a new government in 2009, The Washington Post
ran an editorial, Israel's new Government and Palestinian Statehood, that concluded:
The problem with that course is that it could deliver a fatal blow to
the two-state solution, which most Israelis recognize as the only way
to preserve a democratic Jewish state. As outgoing Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert understood, the time for that solution may be running out. It is
vital that the United States and European governments insist on Israeli
acceptance of it -- just as they have done with Palestinian governments
-- and that they publicly oppose actions that could undermine it, such
as settlement expansion. If that creates tension between the United
States and Israel in the short run, the result may be productive.
Israelis -- starting with Mr. Netanyahu -- need to get the message that
acceptance of a two-state solution has become a prerequisite for normal
relations with the United States.
Four years ago the Washington Post viewed the newly elected Prime
Minister Netanyahu the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
What's changed?
A few months later, a member of the of the editorial board (and former
Jerusalem correspondent for the paper) Jackson Diehl wrote Abbas's waiting game on peace with Israel:
Yet on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House
meeting in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted
that his only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to
his demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and
swear off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to
force a recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction
and publicly accept the two-state formula.
...
What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it
says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent
to Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush
administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East
was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism,
established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters
for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major
concessions from Israel.
Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a
West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has
shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian
fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make
critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees,
while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders
of the world," Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt.
"They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago
they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You
have to comply with the conditions.' "
Last year, in Mahmoud Abbas's unhappy anniversary, Diehl wrote:
Abbas’s defenders will claim that Netanyahu’s right-wing government,
and the Obama administration’s inability to influence it, left him with
few options. That’s a canard. In fact, Abbas has never seriously tested
the Israeli leader. He could have done that by fully committing to the
negotiations the Obama administration tried to organize or to those
sponsored by Jordan’s King Abdullah this year. That would have forced
Netanyahu to reveal his terms for Palestinian statehood — and brought
real pressure to bear on him if they were unreasonable.
Instead, Abbas has repeatedly backed away from serious diplomacy, citing
as an excuse Israeli settlement construction in Jerusalem and the West
Bank — something that did not stop him from participating in
negotiations with previous Israeli governments. He embarked on his
unity-U.N.-intifada strategy on the premise that it would bring about
Palestinian statehood without the need for negotiations with Netanyahu.
And, not for the first time, Mahmoud Abbas succeeded only in delaying Palestinian statehood — and weakening his own cause.
I believe that Jackson Diehl was the mover behind last week's editorial,
as he was watched Mahmoud Abbas closely over the past four years. This
is the way journalism should work. opinions and reporting should be
based on observations not unsupported allegations. As the editors of the
New York Times becomes even more unhinged when discussing Israel, it's
encouraging that another important paper can discuss Israel soberly.
Postscript: On Twitter two of those to criticize the editorial were M. J. Rosenberg and Lara Friedman. Rosenberg a known anti-Zionist accused editorial page editor (and Diehl's boss) Fred Hiatt of being an "Israel firster." Friedman a leader of the supposedly pro-Israel group, Americans for Peace Now, cited anti-Zionist Matt Duss. See item #2 below.
2) Zealots, the truth and polls
Recently, a campaign to support the flagging nomination of Sen. Chuck
Hagel as Secretary of Defense began. Part of that campaign were two
op-eds in the New York Times casting opponents of Hagel as extremists.
One by longtime political correspondent James Besser asserted:
There is also a lesson here for American Jewish leaders, who
increasingly tremble in the face of a small minority of zealots, whose
vision of Israel’s future diverges from that of the majority of American
Jews and clashes with core American values of freedom and democracy.
The other by regular columnist Thomas Friedman argued:
The only thing standing between Israel and national suicide any more
is America and its willingness to tell Israel the truth. But most U.S.
senators, policy makers and Jews prefer to stick their heads in the
sand, because confronting Israel is so unpleasant and politically
dangerous.
In different ways both argued that mainstream support for Israel is
driven by fanatics who are divorced from reality and that support for
Hagel, came from thoughtful people free from ideological blinders. It's
interesting to revisit these arguments in light of a recent poll of American views towards the Middle East. (via Daily Alert)
There continue to be stark partisan differences in Middle East
sympathies. Conservative Republicans maintain strong support for Israel
with fully 75% saying they sympathize with Israel compared with just 2%
who sympathize with the Palestinians. By contrast, liberal Democrats are
much more divided: 33% sympathize more with Israel, 22% with the
Palestinians. Independents sympathize more with Israel by a 47% to 13%
margin.
There were two other categories, but the only group that didn't have a
preference for Israel over the Palestinians by at least 3 to 1 was those
self-identified as "liberal Democrats."
Friedman and Besser comfortably fit in the liberal Democrat, the least
pro-Israel, grouping. Each, in his own way, from that perspective,
accuses the mainstream pro-Israel organizations of being out of touch
and in agreement with extremists.
I pointed this out to Barry Rubin who summarized the phenomenon like this:
Option 1: Israel is at fault for losing the Obama cult crowd
and a small but vocal increasingly left-wing sector of Americans (many
of whom aren’t that thrilled with the United States either).
Option 2: Given an increasingly left-wing ideology that’s based on
faulty assumptions and neglects the dangerous radicalism of Islamist
forces and other enemies of America, it is the dominant worldview in the
mass media, academia, and ruling circles in America that is to blame
for turning away from Israel.
Understand this well: Option 1 requires Israel to change; Option 2
requires the people voicing such complaints about Israel to change.
Well, these people don’t want to examine their assumptions and change
their views. They’d end up suffering for their support of Israel, they’d
be out of step with the mob; they might have to—shudder!—step away from
what’s popular and “in.” My goodness, they might even have to question
Obama’s brilliance and policies!
No contest.
So it’s not surprising that Option 1 wins out. Hey, do what you have to
do to avoid admitting your wrong and paying some price for telling the
truth. But don’t blame us.
When J-Street was founded, its supporters claimed that it represented
the true consensus of pro-Israel Americans. More specifically they
claimed that there needed to be an alternative to AIPAC,
which was too "right wing." Now, more than four years later, AIPAC is
still the main pro-Israel lobby and J-Street remains marginal. The
market for J-Street's pro-Israel views is rather limited.
If groups claiming to be "pro-peace" don't have much traction in the pro-Israel community, who are their allies?
This leads to another phenomenon. Last week, Haviv Rettig Gur wrote How the Hagel nomination battle became a fight over the Israel lobby. Part of Gur's argument is:
And opposition has even come from gay rights groups, including the
Human Rights Campaign. Though Hagel has apologized for comments made in
the 1990s that seemed to denigrate gays, the criticism has continued
from some quarters of the gay rights movement, especially on the right.
In the latest critique, published in a full-page ad in the New York
Times on Thursday, the pro-gay rights Republican group Log Cabin
Republicans urged supporters to “tell President Obama that Chuck Hagel
is wrong for Defense Secretary” and expressed support for “a stronger
and more inclusive Republican Party.”
Hagel’s supporters have responded vigorously to the agitation of the
Israel lobby, and in the process perhaps sought to crowd out opposition
to Hagel that can’t be as easily dismissed as illegitimate and –
Zbigniew Brzezinski said it outright – disloyal.
What's shocking isn't that there is strong support for Israel in
America, but that a significant minority of the political elite are
willing to disparage this support in such crude terms.
While Besser or Friedman might claim that they are pro-Israel or looking
out for Israel's best interests, what's undeniable is that they find
themselves closer to those who would suggest that Israel's supporters
are guilty of dual loyalty than to mainstream pro-Israel opinion. They
don't realize how far they have migrated.
Richard Baehr has related thoughts about American public opinion regarding Israel.
3) The "realist" paradox
Jackson Diehl, in an essay today, The Middle East Morass writes:
In Washington, some of the loudest calls for Obama’s reengagement
come from the “realist” foreign policy camp, populated by figures such
as former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent
Scowcroft — and former senator Chuck Hagel, whom Obama is considering
for defense secretary. These folks opposed the war in Iraq, and they
reject U.S. intervention in Syria or military action against Iran’s
nuclear program. They have been arguing for years that it is time for
the United States to recognize limits to its power.
When it comes to Israel, however, the realists assume boundless U.S.
strength. If only he chooses to do so, they argue, Obama could join with
U.S. allies or the U.N Security Council in imposing a two-state
solution on the Israelis and Palestinians, like it or not. The
supposition seems to be that a United States too weak to force Bashar
al-Assad out of Syria can compel Israel’s advanced democracy and the
leaderless Palestinians to accept compromises they have resisted for
decades.
I don't buy everything in this essay. I'm not convinced of the good
intentions of Brent Scowcroft or Zbigniew Brzezinski. However this is an
important point.
Instapundit points to a paradox in Senator Hagel's expected nomination.
Labels: American support for Israel, Chuck Hagel, E-1, East Jerusalem, Jackson Diehl, Judea and Samaria construction, Middle East Media Sampler, Middle East peace process, realists' fantasy, Soccer Dad, Washington Post
Netanyahu 'quietly delaying' E-1?
A report on the Arutz Sheva website claims that Prime Minister Netanyahu is '
quietly delaying' construction at E-1 (Hat Tip:
MFS - The Other News).
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has stopped progress on plans to build
in the E1 area of Maaleh Adumim, the Hebrew-language daily Yediot Aharonot reports.
...
The project won approval from Defense Minister Ehud Barak, but
Netanyahu is reportedly delaying sending it onward to a planning
committee.
The move proves he was never serious about the plan, MK Uri Ariel
(Bayit Yehudi – Tekuma) accused. “Stopping the publication of the
building plans for E-1 proves that his talk about settlement is an
illusion,” he charged.
“The day after the elections, we will again discover the real
Netanyahu, the one who freezes building and gives in to pressure,” he
added.
If this sounds familiar,
it should.
Labels: E-1, Judea and Samaria construction, settlement freeze
Good news: Iran has not crossed the nuclear red line... yet
Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke on Thursday to the same group of Israeli diplomats who were
chewed out by National Security Council Chief Yaacov Amidror earlier in the week. Netanyahu told the diplomats that
Iran has not crossed the nuclear red line... yet.
"Iran remains the number one threat," Netanyahu said, adding that
there was a chance for positive change if Iran was prevented from
getting a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu said in the short term he expected the regional tribulations to continue.
Netanyahu was accompanied to the meeting by his national security advisor, Yaakov Amidror, who chastised the envoys when he addressed them earlier this week
for asking critical questions of Israel's decision to announce
construction plans beyond the Green Line in response to the
Palestinians' successful upgrade bid at the UN in November. Amidror said
that the envoys could either faithfully represent the government's
decisions, or resign.
Ministry officials said that the incident
did not come up during the meeting with Netanyahu, though the prime
minister did address the issue of E1, saying that what was stopping any
progress along the diplomatic front with the Palestinians was not an
announcement of planning for E1, but rather the Palestinian refusal to
recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state within any borders.
Netanyahu
warned that Hamas could take control "any day" of the Palestinian
Authority , and therefore "concrete security arrangements" needed to be
included in any agreement, as well as a recognition of Israel as the
nation state of the Jewish people, an end to the "right of return"
claim, and an honest declaration of an end-of-conflict declaration.
Netanyahu cited an editorial in The Washington Post on Wednesday to support his assertion that the E1 announcement was not the barrier to progress on the diplomatic front.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, E-1, Hamas, Iranian nuclear threat, Israel is a Jewish state, Yaakov Amidror
Awesome WaPo editorial: The 'settlements' aren't the problem
Okay, so the title of this post is an exaggeration, but you almost certainly would not see
words like these in the New York Times.
Twenty-five years ago, Israel’s government openly aimed at
building West Bank settlements that would block a Palestinian state. But
that policy changed following the 1993 Oslo accords. Mr. Netanyahu’s
government, like several before it, has limited building almost entirely
to areas that both sides expect Israel to annex through territorial
swaps in an eventual settlement. For example, the Jerusalem
neighborhoods where new construction was announced last month were conceded to Israel by Palestinian negotiators in 2008.
Overall,
the vast majority of the nearly 500,000 settlers in Jerusalem and the
West Bank live in areas close to Israel’s 1967 borders. Data compiled
by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace show that more
than 80 percent of them could be included in Israel if the country
annexed just more than 4 percent of the West Bank — less than the 5
percent proposed by President Bill Clinton 12 years ago.
Diplomats
were most concerned by Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to allow planning and
zoning — but not yet construction — in a four-mile strip of territory
known as E-1 that lies between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, a settlement
with a population of more than 40,000. Palestinians claim that Israeli
annexation of the land would cut off their would-be capital in East
Jerusalem from the West Bank and block a key north-south route between
West Bank towns. Israel wants the land for similar reasons, to prevent
Ma’ale Adumim — which will almost certainly be annexed to Israel in any
peace deal — from being isolated. Both sides insist that the other can
make do with a road corridor.
This is a difficult issue that
should be settled at the negotiating table, not by fiat. But Mr.
Netanyahu’s zoning approval is hardly the “almost fatal blow” to a
two-state solution that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described.
The
exaggerated rhetoric is offensive at a time when the Security Council
is refusing to take action to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of
civilians — including many Palestinians — by the Syrian regime. But it
is also harmful, because it puts pressure on Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas to make a “freeze” on the construction a condition for
beginning peace talks. Mr. Abbas had hinted that he would finally drop
that demand, which has prevented negotiations for most of the past four
years, after the General Assembly’s statehood vote. If Security Council
members are really interested in progress toward Palestinian statehood,
they will press Mr. Abbas to stop using settlements as an excuse for
intransigence — and cool their own overheated rhetoric.
Okay, so they still say (in the part I didn't quote) that criticism of the 'settlement construction' is appropriate. I disagree. At some point, the 'Palestinians' second and third and fourth and fifth and... chances ought to run out and we ought to be able to move ahead. But look at the bright side: They admit that it's not Israel that's killing the 'peace process.' Someone take this editorial to the White House!
Labels: E-1, East Jerusalem, Maaleh Adumim, Middle East peace process, Washington Post
'Master strategist'
'Palestinian' chief
negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat is calling on the 'Palestinian Authority' to play up the 'Palestine' thing to the hilt, including putting the seal of the 'State of Palestine' (which subsumes all of the current State of Israel and more) on all of its official documents, and attempting to spit in the face of the United States Congress by
seeking membership in all United Nations bodies.
Erekat, in a study published Sunday, accused
Congress and the Israeli government of “waging war” on the Palestinian national
project following the UN vote last November.
He predicted that the “war”
would continue. “The decisions they have taken are only the beginning,” Erekat
said, referring to Israel’s decision to withhold tax and customs revenues, and
threats by Congress to suspend financial aid to the Palestinians.
Erekat
also recommended that the PA leadership prepare a working plan for the
resumption of peace talks with Israel from the point where they ended in
November 2008.
There is no way that anyone in this country is going to agree to
start negotiating from Olmert's suicidal concessions. I don't believe that any Israeli government - even one (God forbid) led by the Left - would agree to such a thing. Even Tzipi Livni criticized Olmert for going too far at the time, because he was trying to save his own skin by becoming the 'hero' who reached an agreement.
He said such talks should be limited to six months, only
during which time Israel would freeze construction in West Bank settlements and
east Jerusalem and release Palestinian prisoners, especially those who were
incarcerated before the signing of the Oslo Accords.
We've frozen construction in the 'West Bank' before, and much as I would hate to see it happen, it's conceivable that enough pressure could be brought on the government to make it happen again. We've also frozen construction in 'east' Jerusalem (de facto) before and I could even see that happening again with a wink and a nod, although there is no way that any Israeli government is going to put any part of Jerusalem into play by making such an agreement explicitly.
But as to releasing 'Palestinian prisoners,' he's living in Never Never Land. What are we going to do after six months? Recapture them when we don't reach a deal?
And then there's the six-month thing. A deadline can be an impetus to finish negotiations when there's are real consequences to both parties if the negotiations aren't concluded. But it has to be a realistic deadline and it has to have consequences for both sides (that's why so many business deals get done at year's end). For example (and I'm not proposing this), if the US were to say, "you guys have x years to work out a deal and if you don't work it out, Israel will never again get a penny in US aid and we will never again propose or support or cajole Israel to allow the existence of a 'Palestinian state,' both sides would have an impetus to compromise and then a deadline might make sense. Of course, this kind of ultimatum would never happen, because other countries (hello, Eurabia) would continue to attempt to force Israel to acquiesce to a 'Palestinian state.'
Erekat said that if
Israel insisted on building in E1 and Givat Hamatos, the Palestinians should
take the matter to the UN Security Council.
“If the effort does not
succeed because of a veto, the case should be taken to the UN General Assembly
to make a decision regarding building settlements in the occupied State of
Palestine,” Erekat recommended.
That would accomplish a lot (not!) - the General Assembly is powerless. Of course, what they could do is to go to the International Criminal Court (if they are ever admitted to it), but then they run the risk that someone raises this little war crime called 'Palestinian terrorism'....
Erekat
disclosed that a special Palestinian legal team was now studying measures needed
to obtain membership in 17 UN agencies, including the International Criminal
Court, the World Health Organization, UNESCO and the World Bank.
Didn't they join UNESCO last year? World Bank? Just what the World Bank needs: Another basket case economy.
What could go wrong?
Labels: E-1, East Jerusalem, International Criminal Court, Judea and Samaria construction, Palestinian prisoners, Palestinian state, Saeb Erekat, World Bank
