Powered by

To get maximum benefit from the ICJS website Register now. Select the topics which interest you.

The Significance of the Israeli Settlements Freeze

Follow @icjsr

Why would anyone want to enter into negotiations for a settlement of anything, where he had to beg the other party to participate? Even more so, where he had to give real concessions to the other party just to sit at the same table.

What can possible come from such negotiations?

Parties enter negotiations when they want to settle a conflict in whole or in part. Sometimes a party does not seek a settlement of anything but wishes to extract further concessions.

The more one desires a settlement the more he will be taken advantage of. It is for this reason that parties should never show how anxious they are for a settlement. The right posture is to show a reluctance to negotiate.

Netanyahu violated all these axioms, begged for peace, and made unilateral concessions. Now that the long-awaited direct talks have begun, Israel appears desperate for a settlement and the PA appears only interested in what it can get for nothing.

Already the PA is conditioning its participation on the continuation of the freeze when it expires on Sept 26/10. It is appropriate to understand what is at stake in whether the freeze continues or not.

If the parties believe they can settle the dispute in one year or even two, then whatever can be built within that time span, assuming no freeze, will in no way hinder or impact on the agreement.

To date, the PA has shown no desire to get a state. Their only agenda is to destroy Israel, sooner or later. They feel time is on their side with no downside. With the support of Israel and the West, their economy is booming and their financial support keeps flowing. They care nothing about alleviating the plight of their brethren in the refugee camps. But they do care that they not be resettled around the world, as this would remove one justification for the struggle. They don't even want the IDF to get out of the West Bank as they need the IDF to prevent Hamas from taking over. So clearly they have nothing to gain from a settlement and perhaps much to lose. They can only get a demilitarized state that they care nothing for; they would have to make painful concessions on the demand of return; and the PA leadership may get killed in the process or get overthrown by Hamas.

Israel, on the other hand, is being demonized and delegitimized in the absence of a settlement so the pressure is on them. But there are limits to what Israel will concede to end the attacks. Israel and her friends have mounted a counter attack to delegitimize the delegitimizers and they are confident of success. Leading the fight are Im Tirtzu, NGO Monitor and the Friends of Israel Initiative.

Netanyahu made a big mistake in announcing the freeze ten months ago for Judea and Samaria only, and a bigger mistake extending it, de facto, to Jerusalem. It made no difference to the start of negotiations. In fact it allowed Abbas to play around for ten months until its expiry was immanent. At a minimum, Netanyahu should have made the freeze conditional on the start of negotiations. But he didn't and friends of Israel can't understand why. But even if he had made it conditional it should have been limited to the same tens months within which period a deal would have to be reached.

The freeze only becomes important if no settlement is expected. From the PA perspective, a permanent freeze would put enormous pressure on Israel. Israel needs to provide for the natural growth within the settlements. Families are growing and thus more bedrooms and classrooms are needed. If they are not provided, the communities will start to break up. Until now, Israel was accommodating the growth of these communities with the provision of roads and other services. Similarly, the settlement blocks grow by at least 20,000 inhabitants a year. Israel will have to provide housing for these people in Israel and this will require the provision of new infrastructure and planning. Effectively a permanent freeze will require Israel to focus its growth in Israel and will give the PA an enormous victory without any concessions on its part. There would be a great deal of political instability, uncertainty and dislocation.

From Israel's point of view, building avoids these problems and puts enormous pressure on the PA. The longer the PA waits to cut a deal the more Israel consolidates its hold on the Judea and Samaria. In ten years the present Jewish population living east of the green line would at least double to a total of 1.2 million. The current Arab population east of the greenline, including in Israel is 1.6 million

The peace process enables the international community and the PA to make demands on Israel. Israel should abandon the peace process and regain its independence. If the international community had stayed out of it, the conflict might have long been solved. The peace process prolongs the conflict because it strengthens the PA will to resist. Even more so, by creating the PA in the first place and giving voice to the refugees, the situation in Judea and Samaria greatly deteriorated. Prior to Oslo the local Arabs in Judea and Samaria peacefully coexisted with Israel. Only recently did the situation in Judea and Samaria improve due to policies of the Israeli government and willingness of the PA to cooperate on security matters.

Israel has changed its negotiating priorities for the better. It used to be that Israel pursued diplomacy to reach a deal and then went to the IDF and told them to provide security. Now Netanyahu has reversed this order and is first demanding security. He is demanding the IDF remain on the Jordan, the new Palestine be demilitarized and Palestine recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The PA is not about to agree to any of these three demands. Such rejection will end the process.

I don't want Israel to limit its demands to security i.e., if we got all our security demands met would Israel then agree to the '67 borders with mutual swaps. Just as Abbas always demands that "Israel end the occupation of Palestinian lands", Israel should be rejecting the assumption that they are Palestinian lands and should be putting forth the claim that the lands were given to the Jews in San Remo and should be retained by Israel as a result. It used to be, with this in mind, Israel called the lands "disputed." But not now. It is a huge mistake to not assert Israel's claim to these lands. At a minimum it would take some of the bite out of the accusation that Israelis are occupiers.

The Partition Plan of '47 drew borders based on demographics. At a minimum, the same principle should be followed now and for the same reason. A settlement should not require Israel to up root a massive number of Israelis. The borders should be drawn to minimize the dislocation.

With the end of the peace process, the PA may well return to violence, but they will have a lot to lose in terms of their prosperity and freedom of movement. On the other hand with or without the peace process Hamas will keep up the attacks. The same can be expected of Hezb'allah. Of course Iran is behind both of them

The US policy is to ignore Iran and pursue solutions in Iraq and Israel as though Iran was not calling the shots. But she is. Iran is the elephant in the room and must be neutered.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and editor of Israpundit. He recently made aliya from Toronto and now lives in Jerusalem

# reads: 289

Original piece is http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_significance_of_the_israel.html

Printable version

Articles RSS Feed

News

Tell us what you think

The living styles of Jews living in Judea and Samaria is not the issue. Nor is my preparedness to serve to protect my fellow Jews. The issues are: (1) Arabs were ejected by Israel from lands now disputed in a defensive war; what Arabs get must be obtained through negotiations; (2) Israel has the same right as any other nation to compensation for attacks on it; (3) the Arabs residing in Judea and Samaria are not inconvenienced by the tiny amount of land on which Jews build; (4) a people - brand named Palestinian in 1965 - who are racist aggressors need to be kept in check until they join the 21st century; better battle with terrorists in Judea and Samaria than yield to their demands and subsequently battle them in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Posted by paul2 on 2010-09-21 06:02:24 GMT

Could the last opiner vouch to do reserve service with his kids and grand children in the West Bank, to protect and defend the lucky ones living in terraced , marble floored duplexes, during the cold winters and the hot summers? Who will continue to man the checkpoints, do guard duties, patrols, drive ambulances, man rescue helicopters, subsidize a host of unimaginable benefits unavailable to citizens of Israel proper? It is clear the many of the readers have no family or live in Israel, it is easier to offer lips" service and moral support, but when it comes to 30 days service in a check point, who will say: Send me?

Posted on 2010-09-17 05:10:46 GMT

I am not surprised that the previous commentator hid his or her identity. The rant against Jewish building in Judea and Samaria is contemptible. While it may be argued that Jewish control of all of Judea and Samaria is unrealistic because mohammedans squat there, it is plainly stupid to argue that Jews should retreat to what Abba Eban described as "Auschwitz borders". Israel must control the Jordan valley and the five routes that any invading army must take, as well as the Golan Heights. Further, one must not pretend that Israel did in fact offer to return to the"Green Line", but the Arabs declared no peace, no negotiations and no recognition after they were thoroughly trounced for their aggression in 1967. One does not need to be one of the knit kippah clan to assert Jewish rights in Judea and Samaria. (And one should not be a hater of people of faith either). In Efrat, Jews have merely rebuilt a town where Jews had lived pre-1948 and where its defenders were exterminated. A few other facts. The "tremendous" problem of "settlements", is on 1.7% of Judea and Samaria and is on unclaimed and uninhabited land. Moreover, the land the Arabs claim as "historic Palestine" the Jordanian termed "West Bank", was an area siezed by Jordan in an aggressive war. Funny how UNSC 242, which reiterates the unacceptability of acquiring territory by force, does not apply to Arabs, but is applied to Jews when land is gained in its own defence. To all nations, except the Jewish one compensation is paid for repelling aggression; Israel uniquely has to sue its aggressors for peace and is expected to yield to the demands of its vanquished aggressor. People and nations who support that topsy-turvy position of justice and practise with regard to no state other than Israel should be ashamed of themselves. But antisemites have no shame, have they?

Posted by paul2 on 2010-09-17 04:49:26 GMT

No matter how one looks at it, the entire policy on the settlements was not only potty but strictly speaking idiotic. It began with the phony Alon plan. An independence War general who was brought back from the cold after the 1967 war and was given a cabinet posting in which he "helped" to shape the battle against the fatah terrorists from Jordan and Nahal outposts along the rim facing the Jordan River. Sounds good as a military strategy but son it became a form of creating new settlements, the army will leave a "Camp" and settlers "Former Nahal" will take over. This half baked policy of capitulating to the ever increasing violent and extortionist believers, cost the country huge fortunes. Every ounce of fat was siphoned to bolster the infrastructure of the settlements. Suddenly, the less prosperous kippa wearers,live in style, overlooking marvelous views, good air, no crowding, suburban style, unavailable to most Israelis, all under the phony guise of "we were sent", we were "called". This entire history was turned on its head. The whole history has been so distorted and rewritten, yet the truth cannot be made up. This goofy, mindless expansion ruined the entire social fabric. The gap between the "settlers" and the residents of the "Green Lines" is even more acute. All one needs to do is travel to a place like Efrat and see the opulence in which many live, multilevel complexes, marble stones, nice roads, less crowded schools, IDF security, etc...What makes them, implants from Philadelphia or Baltimore more entitled to tax payer supported luxurious life style like this is beyond the comprehension of residents of Ashdod or Kirayt Shmona. Israel will pay for this folly over many generations. It is one thing to bite from the edges, it is another equation, trying to swallow the whole enchilada with all the poison that is built in - hostile numerically superior society of hateful strangers.

Posted on 2010-09-07 23:08:21 GMT

Links

The Significance of the Israeli Settlements Freeze

News

Tell us what you think