Just say “No” to the settlement freeze
By Ted Belman
The Arabs know what they want, and that is the end of Israel.
The Jews are divided as to what they want. The left wants to get the hell out of the West Bank. The center, including Kadima and Labour, want to keep the settlement blocks containing most of the settlers but are prepared to uproot as many as 70,000 Jews, perhaps even 100,000. The right does not want to allow a Palestinian state to emerge, even if demilitarized.
All are united in requiring an end of conflict and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
Netanyahu is a centrist, though he campaigned on the right. In his response to Obama’s Cairo speech, he demanded recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and was prepared to accept a demilitarized Palestinian state. He also demanded that Jerusalem be part of Israel and that Israel have defensible borders.
Unfortunately, he was silent on his intentions regarding the settlers and the demanded settlement freeze. He did emphasize Israel’s historical rights but went nowhere with them.
If he was sincere in his demands, he would have said that until such time as the Arabs accept Israel as a Jewish state with defensible borders and a united Jerusalem, and until they accept a demilitarized Palestine, there would be no reason to proceed with negotiations. Having not done so, one must conclude that none of these are red lines.
The Arabs weren’t shy about totally rejecting demilitarization and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. They also said that they wouldn’t commence negotiations until there was a complete settlement freeze. I suspect that this position is for starters only, and if Israel agreed to a meaningful freeze, if not total, they would go along.
Subsequent to Netanyahu’s speech, Netanyahu has sided with Barak in being prepared to compromise on a freeze. In trying to avoid it, his government has been rejecting the freeze as being immoral or unjust or unworkable. They have been pleading for “natural growth”.
Nowhere do I hear the government of Israel insist on the right of Jews to live anywhere, particularly in their ancient homeland, or to reject the notion that such settlements are illegal under international law or to reject the constraints of the Roadmap regarding a settlement freeze. Nowhere does it reject the notion that Israel must withdraw from100% of the territories except for mutual exchanges. Netanyahu has not even banged his reciprocity drum by demanding that the Arabs stop their incitement and violence and get unified before any settlement freeze will be agreed to. Obviously, Netanyahu’s remarks about the rights of Jews were throwaway lines for home consumption.
Under no conditions should Netanyahu agree to a settlement freeze. Any time the Arabs want to stop the growth of settlements on “their land,” they could compromise on all the issues, including borders, so that thereafter there would be no settlers or construction on their land. This assumes, without debating it, that the settlers would have to leave.
I am reminded of the story we read on Yom Kippur of Rabbi Amnon of Mainz of whom it was demanded, convert to Christianity, or else, similar to the demand Obama made on Netanyahu, freeze settlements of else. Reb Amnon said in reply”Give me only three days to think about the matter — then I shall bring you my answer.” Netanyahu also replied something in the same vein, namely, let’s discuss it.
The Rabbi was horrified by what he had said and then explained his actions and change of mind.
-
“In a moment of weakness I fell into sin and lied and made false promises. To save my life without defying my faith I sought the cowardly grace of three days in which to give you my answer.
Netanyahu should likewise have said “no” and take what comes with with it.
The reason that the settlement freeze is the most important issue for the Arabs is that so long as construction continues, time is not on the side of the Arabs. If they had a freeze in place, they could continue to be as intransigent and uncompromising as they have been. Concomitantly, it would put enormous pressure on Israel to capitulate.
The Arabs don’t want a state. They prefer to be the object of everyone’s attention and largesse. Why give that up. For a state? Fuget about it. They will not compromise on the “right of return” or on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. To do so would sell out the refugees and the Arab Israelis respectively.
So where does Obama fit into all this? His hubris, aided and abetted by his anti-Israel staff, friends and State Department, convinced him he could succeed where countless others couldn’t.
To understand just how outrageous Obama’s demand is read Joseph Farah’s article Obama tells Jews where they can live
-
It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.
I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel let alone their own country.
Obama thought he could get the Arabs to be less withholding, particularly if he kissed up to them enough. That was his first error in judgment.
Then he thought that he could force Israel to give in on settlements and that capitulation on Israel’s part would win him friends in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Not only was he wrong in this assumption, he was wrong to believe that he could put the squeeze on Israel in this way.
Netanyahu could have said, “We accepted the Roadmap based on an agreement made at the time which was described by Sharon at the Herzelia Conference in 2003.
-
“Israel will deliver on all its obligations, including on the matter of settlement construction. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction lines. There will be no land confiscations meant for construction, no special economic incentives, and there is no construction of special settlements.”
If you now deny that agreement, we deny the Roadmap”.
Now that Mitchell failed to reach a resolution of the issue with Barak, he won’t be meeting Netanyahu for another two or three weeks. My how time flies when you are not having fun.
When Bush Sr wanted to squeeze Israel, he froze loan guarantees just when Shamir needed the money to resettle the Russians, who were coming in droves.
Obama, on the other hand, made no issue as U.S. re-approves Israel loan guarantees program.
Recently JPOST reported Israel, US bridge gaps over fighter jet.
-
A deal is close to completion for the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter jet after the Defense Ministry and the Pentagon recently reached understandings on a number of IAF demands to integrate Israeli technology into the plane.
On these two important matters, Obama chose not to impose linkage. Though he did attempt linkage with the Iranian issue, which appears now to be a dead letter.
He has not been able to get the Arabs to make meaningful concessions, which was part of his original plans.
So where does that leave him?
If he can get Israel to agree to a settlement freeze, as I have written in the past, that would be victory enough. But it would be a serious mistake on Israel’s part. At least the Administration is now speaking of a moratorium only.
Time will tell. In the meantime, Israel should not agree to a freeze, even a temporary one. Of what significance is a temporary freeze unless it is considered a stepping stone to a permanent freeze.
Its not too late for Netanyahu to find Rabbi Amnon’s resolve.
Beg to differ BB is a leftist in ideological rights clothing. I don’t know what a centrist is in relation to Israeli politics and never did. Sounds rational and middle of the roadish but when one dissects the meaning here in Israeli terms, it has no meaning. In actuality when looked at it closely there is not a lot of space between Labor and BB or even Livni except some of the political jargon to keep the dupes at home content and happy while they plan, plot and bargain our futures away. Hawara checkpoint to be closed IDF has closed the checkpoint near Schem, which has intercepted dozens of Palestinian terrorists. That’s a centrists move? Olmert was better for the Jews than BB at least he was honest with us and told us what he was prepared and ready to give away. BB is not only a card carrying liar but an incompetent one at that. Centrist? for BB is too complimentary he is now and always has been for BB and no one or nothing else.
A Jewish PM of a Jewish State demanding , no begging, the Black Plaque that Jerusalem remain a Jewish Town? This son of a word renown Historian pleads with our modern Caligula that the Jews be allowed to keep Jerusalem? My stomach turns and mile bile rises to my tongue.
Ted you always bring up defensible borders but never define what you believe are defensible borders. The borders of the covenant with Abraham included a lot of territory never needed or used in antiquity only today with modern weapons and missiles do we appreciate our Law Givers Wisdom. Today we understand his wisdom and why the buffer of Sinai and the Euphrates and all of Southern Lebanon and Southern Syria is the absolute minimum.
BB must be toppled ASAP for all our sakes.
Comment by yamit82 — July 1, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
Ted
Bur Ted that is a traitorous position you have just put forward. Analyse it!
Yamit82
I go to pursue your bombast on this other thread
Comment by Felix Quigley — July 2, 2009 @ 11:48 am
“I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.”
Pres. Barack Hussein Obama, June 4, 2009
As a policy statement, this means that America (or any other country) cannot deny the right of any country to WMD. It undercuts the reasons for America’s attack in Iraq, assents to nuclear proliferation and precludes any action against Iran. It also turns the focus on Israel.
Amidst all of the distortions and inaccuracies of Pres Obama’s speech in Cairo, this paragraph sends chills through Israel’s intelligence community. His reference was not just to Iranian nuclear weapons, but “any nation” that has, or acquires them. That includes Israel.
Obama’s emphasis on a commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, something which Israel has refused to agree, since that means opening all of its facilities to inspection - including its top secret plant in Dimona - is a direct threat to Israel’s security. Aware of Israel’s long-standing policy in this matter, Obama shifts the attack.
By linking support for Israel against Iran with a halt to all settlement building, and establishing a second Arab Palestinian state, Obama has set the stage for his big prize: Dimona.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obamas_real_agenda_israels_dim.html
Comment by yamit82 — July 2, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
I wrote in the Cornell Daily Sun more than 25 years ago that Israel should annex the occupied territories as compensation for the four wars that the Arabs started, and to punish the Arabs for starting them. The Sinai Peninsula should in fact have been annexed, and Egypt told that, if it started another war, it would lose even more land–or perhaps have the Aswan Dam blown up. That would have made a real mess. Damascus should meanwhile have been flattened in 1973.
Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza, expel all Palestinians who have not demonstrated a willingness and ability to live in peace with Israel and each other (i.e. 60 to 70 percent of them would have to go) and inform Syria & Co. that, in the event of a repetition of the events of 1973, “you will lose cities.” Perhaps the latter statement can be backed up by an underground nuclear test, noting how little the world is willing to do about North Korea’s and Iran’s threats to use nuclear weapons for purposes other than self-defense. (With regard to North Korea, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan should arm themselves with nuclear weapons very quickly.)
If this sounds overly harsh, it may be remembered that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany lost entire cities for just one as opposed to four attempts to kill or enslave their neighbors. When the Nazis fired cruise and ballistic missiles at London–fewer rockets than the Palestinians have launched at Israel–the British firebombed Dresden and killed tens of thousands of Germans. Under the circumstances, Germany had it coming.
Comment by Bill Levinson — July 2, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Bill has taken a page from my book and I believe that he is correct in the annexing of Gaza, Judea and Samaria and probably the Sinai. The Sinai was probable because Israel, at the time, was not nearly as strong as now.
I do differ in opinion with regards to South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. The US has enough nuclear bombs in the area for their defence.
Comment by Ed D — July 2, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Yes we should differentiate which countries could have nuclear weapons and which should not. The countries which are free and democratic have the right to nuclear weapons whereas dictatorships and terror states need to be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is a distinction understood by any reasonable, moral person. But the moral deviant we currently have in the White House obviously isn’t capable of making such distinctions. We are all morally equivalent, no in fact we are the bad guys, according to his perverse belief system, beliefs which have been indoctrinated in him since his youth by people like frank marshal davis, bill ayers and jeremiah wright.
Comment by Laura — July 2, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Levinson:
How about nuking Norway for Oslo?
How about destroying Moscow for Yom Kippur war?
Terminating Teheran for Hizbollah and Hamas?
and how about waking up and forgetting your fantasies. Bill, get real.
Comment by h peskin — July 3, 2009 @ 3:53 am
Don’t say “yes” or “no”. Just build.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — July 3, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
No man can defy G-d. Israel’s leaders may not appreciate the Torah and they may scorn the land but they cannot controvert what G-d has decreed. All the talk of giving up Yesha is the empty pursuit of vanity, mere chatter upon the wind. The nations are deaf, the enemy is struck dumb and Israel is blind and cannot see His glory. Who maketh man do the things He does? For in the end all of us are servants of a Will far greater than ours and we must submit to the True Judge Of The World.
Comment by NormanF — July 4, 2009 @ 12:44 am
Benjamin Netanyahu: CFR Member
Comment by David BenAriel — July 4, 2009 @ 4:27 am
Yamit says ’I don’t know what a centrist is in relation to Israeli politics and never did.’
I know. A centrist is a politician that sits on the fence and you do not know which way he will fall on any issue. Sometimes he falls to the left, sometimes to the right and sometimes flat on his face. You are unsure whether to call a centrist a hawkish dove or a dovish hawk.
P.M. Netanyahu has allowed the US to dictate terms and steer the debate on matters pertaining to Israel’s affairs. Why not change the subject of the debate entirely? Why not call President Obama on some of the things he has said. Put him on the defensive. Ask him why he is breaking his ‘no meddling’ rule. Ask why he thinks it is okay to propose actions that are against Israeli law. Ask why he has made a moral equivalency between terrorists and a democracy. Ask him why a nuclear bomb owned by fanatics is not a more important issue than a bunch of crybaby losers.
The politicians get fixated on the micro issues and leave the big issues for later. Why has Israel let herself get caught up in such a stupid arguments? The great majority in the free world wants to get married, buy a house and have kids. How can anybody say that Israelis cannot do the same? Yet rather that reject the idea outright of allowing Israelis the same rights as the rest of the free world, we actually discuss whether they should give in to Obama or not. The only thing that should stop any one from buying a house is funds. If they have the money they can do it, end of story.
I agree with Bill, that Israel should annex the land. She has caused no end of hurt by her half-ownership. She has all the pain and none of the gain. The Israelis make a big point of how the land is theirs because it was given to them by God. If this is true (of course it is) then stop that meddling and the outpouring of worthless opinion and debate by making it official. Kick out the enemy and start moving forward. The Jews deserve no less.
Comment by SarahSue — July 4, 2009 @ 10:25 am
SarahSue and Felix:
Lets face the painful truth Israel is a de-facto colony of America and BB is not the one who will effect a change in this relationship and status.
Nationalist Camp Opposition A-Forming
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) MK Yaakov Katz (Ketzaleh) says he has begun to work to coalesce a nationalist-camp opposition, based on Likud, religious and hareidi-religious MKs, to stand against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s freeze on construction in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem.
“I plan to dedicate the coming months towards the creation of a bloc,” Katz said Sunday, “comprised of the religious and hareidi parties, together with as many loyal Likud ministers and MKs as possible. The goal is to build a large opposition to Binyamin Netanyahu from within the coalition.”
Emphasis on Hareidim
“The emphasis will be placed on the hareidi public,” Katz said, “which has been very hurt from Netanyahu’s decision to cave in to Obama and Sarkozy.”
Katz has often criticized the Shas and United Torah Judaism parties, “which remain in the coalition and allow Netanyahu to rule, even though their constituents are crying out for inexpensive housing in places like Beitar Illit, Modiin Illit, and elsewhere… Unlike the nationalist-religious public, whose young couples often move into caravans, hareidi newly-weds move into new apartments - and there are none to be had.”
The National Union is working on Likud members as well, organizing teams of prominent figures, including former generals, writers, and others, to visit Likud chapters around the country. The goal is to arouse the latent support for the Land of Israel that Likud members are famous for and have them act against Netanyahu’s turnabout from the positions he took during the election campaign.
Yesha Council Wants Meeting with Netanyahu
Meanwhile, the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria has asked for an “urgent meeting” with Netanyahu. In a letter to Netanyahu, the Council writes of a “worrisome erosion in Israel’s position on construction, such as a ‘temporary’ freeze, building only in built-up areas, or in blocs, or for natural growth, etc. Defense Minister Barak even went so far as to speak openly about holding off on new projects, and even said that your own position is not far from a total cessation on new construction.”
“We are in the midst of a total freeze, for all intents and purposes,” the Council’s letter states. “Not one new construction project has been approved in Judea and Samaria for several months. The government that you head declared clearly that it would put Jewish settlement back on the path of growth and development. This is the promise of most of the parties in your government, as well as your personal promise.”
Defense Minister Ehud Barak is set to meet with US envoy George Mitchell in London on Sunday. Israel has not yet formally agreed to a construction freeze, temporary or otherwise, but Barak is reported to be planning to tell him Israel’s conditions for such a freeze. If the US provides guarantees and the Arab nations begin normalizing relations with Israel, Barak will agree to a construction freeze, the reports say.
Yesha council are paid government stooges whose salaries and benefits are paid by the Israeli government as are most of the Rabbis. Until a change occurs where leadership rises who are not subservient or dependent on the Israel government these same officials represent no one other than their own personal interests and have in the past acted as a Trojan horse against the very constituents they purport to represent.
Comment by yamit82 — July 5, 2009 @ 10:45 am
David BenAriel Our erstwhile Temple Bomber
Pls. Note the following:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/862156.html
Since Obama all the hedge funds have taken a beating and their status today needs to be checked.
Comment by yamit82 — July 5, 2009 @ 11:05 am