The Lead up to the Freeze.
By Ted Belman
In August 2008, PM Olmert initiated a construction freeze in Judea and Samaria and we didn’t hear about it until many months later and we never learned why.
Netanyahu campaigned on a rightwing platform of rejecting the two-state solution and supporting settlement growth.
In January, Haaretz, reported
“Mitchell told Israeli officials that the new administration was committed to Israel’s security, to the road map, and to the 2004 letter by president George W. Bush stating Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel and the border between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would take into consideration facts on the ground, meaning large settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands”.
When PM Netanyahu formed his government in March 2009, to the surprise of his supporters, he continued with the freeze and we were not told why.
Then Obama put Netanyahu under intense pressure to make the freeze total everywhere east of the greenline including Jerusalem. He even went so far as to deny the deal that Bush had made with Sharon prior to the disengagement even though Mitchell had assured Israel of Obama’s support for it.
Finally on June 12/09 Netanyahu made a major speech at the Begin Centre in which he shocked Israelis by agreeing to a two-state solution.
“We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them. In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.”
Nevermind that Netanyahu had only limited sovereignty in mind.
He went on to demand as a precondition that “Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people” and that a Palestinian state be demilitarized, “with ironclad security provisions for Israel.”
With respect to the contentious issue of settlement construction he affirmed that there would be no “building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.” But reserved the right to “natural growth” within existing settlements:.
As for Jerusalem and refugees, he declared: “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.” And he totally rejected the return of refugees to Israel.
At the time, the concessions were warmly received or hotly debated, Many complained that he had caved to the pressure without anything in return. Afterall, this was not the platform that Netanyahu had campaigned on.
A month later Obama met with Jewish leaders to reassure them and by all accounts the meeting went well. But shortly thereafter some Jewish leaders demanded that he make demands also on Arab countries. Obama publicly took up the challenge during the summer only to be rebuffed.
Undaunted, Obama then focused on getting Abbas to accept what Netanyahu had offered in his BESA speech when they met in September at the United Nations. Abbas rejected negotiations. Obama had crapped out.
So it then came as a surprise that Netanyahu on Nov 26/09 announced a unilateral 10 month freeze in the settlements except for the 3500 units already announced and natural growth. But he emphasized that the freeze did not include Jerusalem. In fact a few days earlier, a new project of 800 units was announced for the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo. Although Obama complained about it, he probably agreed to it to help Netanyahu win over his right wing.
The right in Israel was incensed; first the acknowledgement of the two-state solution and now the freeze all with nothing in return.
On the heels of Netanyahu’s speech, Sec Clinton made the following statement,
“Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
This is little different from Bush’s wording ,
“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”
Clinton referred to these realities as “subsequent developments”.
Thus the borders will be moved to the east of these blocks thereby limiting the number of Jews that have to be uprooted to about 50,000 give or take 20,000 depending on negotiations.
But there are two, and possibly three, major departures from the Bush letter. Bush had written that “Israel must have secure and recognized borders… in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338” leaving open the possibility that Res 242 did not require retreat from all territories. Clinton made no mention of 242 and said the borders must be “based on the 1967 lines”. This suggests that all the land is to be ceded, facilitated by mutually agreed swaps.
Where Bush had agreed that “the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”, Clinton was silent. Is Obama thereby reserving the right to impose a plan as many in his administration recommend he do.
Whereas Bush had written “and the settling of Palestinian refugees there [Palestine], rather than in Israel.”, Clinton was silent. Is this also a departure? I think so. Obama is clearly trying to stay as close to the Saudi Plan as he can. It required the settlement of the refugee issue pursuant to UNGA Res 194.
Clinton’s statement was noticeably silent on Jerusalem and Hamas. These two issues are intractable.
Originally Netanyahu’s freeze was to be reciprocated by the Arabs and the PA. In the absence of such reciprocation, Netanyahu decided to initiate it unilaterally at the request of Obama. Obama wanted something more but after failing to deliver on normalization and the end of incitement, he had to settle for less.
In Bibi’s Bad Week, Caroline Glick, tore into Netanyahu for agreeing to the freeze, relying in part on an article in Yediot Aronot which said that Obama is making many more demands on Israel. I have found no other reference to these additional demands save for a comment by Alex Fishman writing in YNET to wit “However, President Obama made it clear to the Israelis in Washington that he is willing to try this move in order to promote the revival of talks, but expects much more later on.”
Obama must now get Abbas to return to negotiations. So far Abbas has refused and in all likelihood will continue to refuse. This new US position may lead to the disintegration of the PA. Abbas was counting on Obama getting a better deal from Israel and certainly on more support for his negotiating position. He has already threatened to resign and may well follow through. So “additional demands” can be expected.
Even if Abbas agrees to negotiate, the differences between the PA and Israel will not be bridged leaving aside the Jerusalem and Hamas.
What we don’t know is what happens at the end of the 10 month freeze. Netanyahu says Israel will start building again at the rate that existed prior to Olmert’s freeze. It is unlikely Obama has agreed to this. And if the PA disintegrates what will Obama’s reaction be. Will he push for a binational state or allow Israel to annex Judea and Samaria? Will he attempt to impose a solution?
Meanwhile Obama has less than six months to decide to what extend he will cooperate with Israel in bombing Iran.
Where does it all leave Bibi and Israel?
Bibi is cornered and soon will become desperate. That’s dangerous. Who knows what this guy is capable of doing in order to retain power.
The Right can’t stand him for being too weak, the Left can’t stand him for not being more accomodating to the “poor” palestinians. And the palestinians hate him for being a Jew! He’s in a no-win situation and is probably the beginning of the end for him.
Israel has never been as deligitimized before thanks to all the geniuses that run the country. The future is bleak unless something dramatic happens.
The Talmudic story of the King and the servant with the fish, mentioned by Kahane in one of his articles, and often quoted by Yamit, has never sounded more apropo to the current situation.
My solution: bring a change to Likud, with a new leader like Feiglin, the only politician that constantly makes sense, or someone else like him.
Comment by drjb — December 2, 2009 @ 1:06 am
Dumping BB by calling new elections can put everything on hold except Iran. An interim Government could be limited to only dealing with extreme existential security threats. The interim government would be virtually immune to external pressure as they would have limited authority to commit to any policies that might impact on our most pressing problems. Every likud MK and minister would suddenly turn into the most Hawkish of Hawks in order to get on to a safe slot on the likud list.. Israel could use up almost a full year of impotency in our executive.
But how to dump BB should be our highest priority. Olmert may have been everything we thought him to be but he didn’t lie or betray his constituents. We knew what he wanted and where he was taking us. BB is pliant to any threatening pressure foreign and domestic. Everyone here hates and distrusts him, nobody but the the most naive and obtuse has any trust in him/ He is making Olmert look good to us.
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 1:32 am
Dumping BB by calling new elections can put everything on hold except Iran. An interim Government could be limited to only dealing with extreme existential security threats. The interim government would be virtually immune to external pressure as they would have limited authority to commit to any policies that might impact on our most pressing problems. Every likud MK and minister would suddenly turn into the most Hawkish of Hawks in order to get on to a safe slot on the likud list.. Israel could use up almost a full year of impotency in our executive.
But how to dump BB should be our highest priority. Olmert may have been everything we thought him to be but he didn’t lie or betray his constituents. We knew what he wanted and where he was taking us. BB is pliant to any threatening pressure foreign and domestic. Everyone here hates and distrusts him, nobody but the the most naive and obtuse has any trust in him/ He is making Olmert look good to us.
Click to Edit
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 1:33 am
The issue of Israel’s existence is intractable.
That would be an uncharacteristically philanthropic gesture. Arafat pocketed over one billion dollars while serving as Palestinian president. Has Abbas already stolen so much that he is willing to provide a successor with the limitless looting privileges associated with the office? Not likely.
Leading the vanguard of anti-Semitism has always been spectacularly lucrative. Degenerates from the beginning of time have learned that while raping and pillaging may be fun, the big money is in Jew hatred.
Comment by ayn reagan — December 2, 2009 @ 1:37 am
This little fact seems to throw all of Ted’s theories and analysis in the proverbial dumpster.
My belief that the building freeze is all or mostly what BB wants, whether to placate Barak and his extreme leftist elements in Labor or some other reasons like revenge against those from the right who dumped him before, it is clear: from the fact that when The Attorney General complained there are too few inspectors to monitor settlers’ compliance with the construction ban. So What did BB and Barak do? issued tenders to hire hundreds of new inspectors.
Herzl would be swinging in his grave: the government of Israel bends over backwards to prevent Jews from colonizing the Promised Land.
If Netanyahu needs the ban to soothe Obama, there is no need for the government to sneak into every backwater village to monitor compliance. They are now in the process of hiring hundreds of inspectors.
There are over 26,000 illegal Arab dwellings in Israel controlled parts of Y&S and only 6 inspectors to monitor them. According to Peace Now: in all of the Settlement there are about 3000 what they claim are illegal buildings of all types.
No it seems this is an all BB and Barak show.
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Barak’s Self-Hatred Behind Building Freeze, Says Hebrew U. Prof.
Reported: 11:44 AM - Dec/02/09
Follow Israel news briefs on Twitter and Facebook
(IsraelNN.com) Defense Minister Ehud Barak engineered the building freeze in Judea and Samaria, and self-hatred and Labor party politics are behind the move that endangers the country, according to Professor Shalom Rosenberg, who teaches Jewish Thought at Hebrew University.
He explained that the real danger to Israel is that “internal objectives change foreign policy.”
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Uncle I just don’t understand Israeli politics, you are obviously aware of that.
I find it disheartening that the government would be divided on some of the most important issues concerning Israels territorial rights.
This division is what the Palestinians and obama administration thrives on.
How about these folks putting aside their petty differences and rally together for the interest of Israel.
Forget any freeze on community growth, this land was provided by G-d and the Israeli government was entrusted to protect it.
They are doing a lousy job.
Comment by rongrand — December 2, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
disheartening? That’s an understatement. We are a large dysfunctional extended family in need of a big national couch.
How about these folks putting aside their petty differences and rally together for the interest of Israel.
Chances of that are about as good as Ayn Reagan letting any guy best her in a second round of anything. At least she’s competitive, Ours are monopolistic, where all institutional power is concentrated in the hands a a very few and they shut out and down any threatening opposition.
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Uncle, your right about that. She is one smart lady. She could be the captain of my team any day.
I just enjoy being around intelligent folks and with the exception of a few this is a great hangout.
Comment by rongrand — December 2, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Believe me, I’ve endured my share of losses…see all these scars? But I prefer to fight back, even when I am going to lose. The frustrating thing about Israel is the lack of resolve. Olmert said that he was tired of defending the country, tired of fighting for survival. I fear that attitude is gripping more and more Israelis. As Benjamin Franklin said to the American people, here is your freedom - you get to keep it as long as you are vigilant.
In Israel and in America, vigilance is in short supply.
Comment by ayn reagan — December 2, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
A different look at Israel:
Israel: Leader of Business Innovation
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1311023934&play=1 Must watch
http://www.isrealli.org/cool-facts-about-israel-new-update-version/
http://www.isrealli.org/cool-facts-about-israel-new-update-version/ Al Jolson sings in backround
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=%20Al%20Jolson%20&gwp=16
Funniest joke I have seen or heard in ages http://www.isrealli.org/cool-facts-about-israel-new-update-version/
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
A different look at Israel:
Israel: Leader of Business Innovation
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1311023934&play=1 Must watch
http://www.isrealli.org/cool-facts-about-israel-new-update-version/
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
How to beat the FREEZE!
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/9#3948 Uplifting
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
But I prefer to fight back, even when I am going to lose
That’s the spirit! I like it.
Not so much of playing on poor guys egos but I can’t empathize as I have no comparable life experience on that level. I always play to win and know when I am being played.
This is a lie but it sounds muy macho.
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
You are truly the master of Yiddish.
Comment by ayn reagan — December 2, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
SMILING!!!
Comment by yamit82 — December 2, 2009 @ 8:23 pm