Netanyahu Proposes “Settlement Freeze” That Would Allow for Much New Settlement Construction
I’d say the developments reported by Ethan Bronner in The New York Times show that even very modest American pressure can force the Israeli government to try to do something to heal the breach. But it’s important to be clear that this doesn’t actually amount to very much:
Israel would be open to a complete freeze of settlement building in the West Bank for three to six months as part of a broad Middle East peace endeavor that included a Palestinian agreement to negotiate an end to the conflict and confidence-building steps by major Arab nations, senior Israeli officials said Sunday. [...] The freeze would not affect construction that was already under way, nor include East Jerusalem. But it would mean that during the specified time no construction of any kind could start even in the close-in settlement blocks that Israel expects to keep in any future two-state agreement with the Palestinians.
The combination of the short duration of the promise with the exemption for “already under way” development seems to deprive this of much real force. This wouldn’t halt any projects on which ground has been broken, and it wouldn’t halt continued planning, etc. for any projects planned to be undertaken in the near future. And my guess is that there’s probably a lot you could do to fudge the difference between a “shovel ready” but not-yet-underway project and one that’s already begun.
There’s no reason it should be this hard for Israel to agree to just stop and thereby toss the ball back into the Palestinians court.
33 Responses to “Netanyahu Proposes “Settlement Freeze” That Would Allow for Much New Settlement Construction”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 29th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Feud Addiction! World’s most expensive drug habit.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:00 am
If Israel is anything like most of the developed world, the economy has already imposed a temporary construction “freeze” along these lines.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Perhaps they are offering Obama a face-saving way to declare victory if he wants it?
June 29th, 2009 at 10:32 am
It really comes down to what they mean by ‘already under way’. If that’s stretched to include projects where permits have been issued or plans drawn, but no actual physical construction has begun, then this (already weak) offer is worthless.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Attached is a column from todays’ Washington Post indicating the stupidity of the Osama Administrations” lets beat up on Israel approach. The fact is that Bibi is not going to impose a total freeze on all settlement construction so President Osama is left with the unpalatable options of either backing down or getting tough. A little quite diplomacy could have avoided getting caught in this toilet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802287.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
June 29th, 2009 at 10:42 am
You used ‘Bibi’ and ‘quiet [I'm assuming] deplomacy’ in the same paragraph. This is the same guy who has Lieberman as Foreign Minister.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Reports are out today that the Obama administration has decided to approve the sale of 24 new F-16s to Egypt after the Bush Administration had repeatedly turned the Egyptians down. The timing of the news is purely coincidental, no doubt.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Maybe Obama’s getting tough is unpalatable for you, SLC, but I think it’s about time. Does Bibi have any reasons aside from political expediency and religious chauvinism (we don’t tolerate it from the Islamic crackpots, why should we tolerate it from the Jewish ones?) to keep building on ostensibly Palestinian land?
June 29th, 2009 at 11:14 am
The Israelis are not going to stop building. They’ll play games and try to outlast Obama’s administration since presidential administrations lasts only 4 to 8 years. Short in terms of geopolitics.
The key is the US Congress – but they are pretty much a strong supporter of Israel so nothing will really change.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:23 am
I think the problem with settlements is twofold, in that they are already incredibly established, and the religious right in Israel is incredibly powerful. Once you “go there” I think its pretty hard to be convinced away. But a broad opposition movement in Israel might be able to politically isolate them, keeping them from growing.
At this point a settlement freeze (in the name of secularism and reason) could be achieved. The problem then becomes what to do with the settlements already established. But at least the intractable, irrational religious fundamentalism would be out of the equation.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Zionism is a fucking disgrace, that’s what it is.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I think the only realistic way you’d be able to put together a government without being forced to support a pro-settler agenda is by including the arab parties. Good luck there.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am
The key is the Congress, and each of us need to contact our senators and representatives and DEMAND that all aid to israel be stopped immediately, stop protecting israel by veto power in the UN, support embargos of all israeli products for starters. The constitution does not allow for American tax dollars going to foreign governments anyway. WAKE UP CONGRESS OR YOU WILL LOSE YOUR JOBS AS MANY AMERICANS HAVE ALREADY.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Obama’s going to have to get tough here – there’s really no reason for Israel to continue it’s settlement building except as a naked land grab, as the settlers could just as easily have been placed in West Jerusalem, or East Tel Aviv.
I think the US abstaining (or even threatening to abstain) in a Security Council resolution that places sanctions on Israel is the perfect answer.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“The fact is that Bibi is not going to impose a total freeze on all settlement construction so President Osama is left with the unpalatable options of either backing down or getting tough”
When we’re facing major economic problems at home, “getting
tough” in the form of suspending the billions of dollars of
aid the US gives to Israel doesn’t really look “unpalatable”
at all. Besides which, the neocon/Likudnik faction of US
politics backed Bush/Cheney/McCain to the hilt, and they
lost. Elections have consequences: if you back a loser, you
don’t get to continue your favorite policies.
And if Obama gets tough, Bibi’s fragile coalition is toast:
Obama can get along just fine without Bibi, but Bibi can’t
get along without the support of Obama. The only real
question is whether the chaos of Israeli politics can produce
a government with the common sense to do what needs to be
done (and what Israel long ago promised to do).
June 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Politically, it was a big deal for Israel to forcibly remove settlers from Yamit after the Camp David Accords returned the Sinai to Egypy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamit
Yamit had 2500 residents and most of whom left peaceably. There are almost 300,000 settlers in the West Bank and nearly 200,000 in East Jerusalem. Israel will never have peace with the Arabs until they kick the settlers out (the freeze is just a start). I wonder how that will go down in the settlements.
I agree with SS, Obama should let the Security Council play the heavy by abstaining from a veto.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
One problem with all this is that we are still waiting of the administration’s peace plan, and in the interim the settlement freeze has been built up to be some sort of important end in itself.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Whether Bibi or Ehud, or whomever- Israel will continue the land grabs, “natural growth”, maintain their Warsaw ghetto hold on Gaza, ad nauseum. It’d be nice to think Obama & Co. would put a spigot on the billions, but…
June 29th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I think a temporary freeze makes complete sense. The Arabs say this is the sticking point to genuine negotations. You don’t like 6 months? Fine, make it a year.
Then it will be put up or shut up time. If Obama can pry some genuine concessions out of the Arabs, I’ll be thrilled. If he can’t, will you please STFU about the settlements after that?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Just for clarification purposes, how many non-gangster governments are there in the world today? I’d say 1, Canada, but then things get dicey.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I think the problem with settlements is twofold, in that they are already incredibly established, and the religious right in Israel is incredibly powerful.
Remember, though, that the “pro-settlement constituency” is multifold:
- religious types who want Israel to extend its borders outwards.
- Yisrael Beitenyu types who eat pork sausage but who moved en masse to occupied territory from the former USSR.
- J. Random Israeli who wants to move to a bigger home and pay less rent, and doesn’t see the fuss about it being on occupied land.
And that’s before you take into account plenty of Israelis who might be anti-settlement in the abstract but are also “anti- settlers moving next door”.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
If he can’t, will you please STFU about the settlements after that?
And larry birnbaum once again shows that he’s just a politer version of SLC.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
By agreeing to a “temporary freeze” of settlement building with Israeli-dictated conditions, this will be taken as an express approval for the continuation of settlement building when the Israelis inevitably determine that the conditions are not met.
Pres. Obama must NEVER,NEVER underestimate the degree of Israeli intransigence and deception with respect to this issue.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Absolutely not – the settlements are being built in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, and their construction is a war crime.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Settlements have little to do with religious right, they are populated by standard-issue secular Zionists. They prefer to live there because it’s cheap (subsidized by you), and because they are racist swine and a fucking disgrace.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Yeah the settlments have got to go for sure. Good luck convincing some religious freak and member of a master race that he has no god given right to steal land from those he views as dogs. It takes a certain kind of bigot and that selfish mentality will not change overnight. Not surprising these places are havens for unsavory characters like the Bat Ayin Underground in the Bat Ayin settlement. A nice little community of thieves that aspire to be terrorists and botch blowing up an arab all girls school. I can assure you they are the best of neighbors!
The good news is that there are good Jews out there that do not support the Israeli monsters and consider it a black mark on thier religion. They are the real Jewish victims suffering the backlash that the agressive Israelis have caused.
Here in the US we need to end support and trade with Israel. Not to mention no more UN vetos! Stop being these thugs cash cow!
June 29th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Israel’s situation is structurally similar to the problem of
global climate change. Everyone knows that demographic change
is a time bomb: the Arab population of Israel is growing faster
than the Jewish population, and at some point 20 or 30 or 40
years from now, Israel – if it remains a democracy – will no
longer have a Jewish government, let alone a Zionist government.
And that’s really unthinkable: so the choice is between a
two-state solution, or some kind of dictatorship or apartheid.
However, the incentives of individual Israeli politicians
encourage them to deny this reality and postpone the necessary
compromises for the duration of their own careers. They
get elected by talking tough, and even worse – as in the
brutal Gaza misadventure – acting tough.
The USA is the one entity that can exert enough influence
on Israel to make them come to terms with reality sooner
rather than later. Because while it may be electorally
painful to reach compromises with the Palestinians, it’s
surely even more electorally painful to risk a serious breach
with the USA.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Damn, would you people ever stop calling racist crap “demographics”? This is exactly like saying that Nazi death camps were a solution to a “demographic problem”. You’ve gotta be ashamed of yourself.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Re pseudonymous in nc
And Mr. pseudonymous shows once again that he’s just a more polite version of Mr. abb1 and Mr. Trevor.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Dan has it right: “One problem with all this is that we are still waiting of the administration’s peace plan, and in the interim the settlement freeze has been built up to be some sort of important end in itself.”
And Obama is going along with it because he can’t afford to “get tough” with Israel if he wants a second term.
Obama is also stalling on the Iran nuclear issue, pretending that it matters who ends up winning the election (and today we know it’s Ahmadinejad anyway, which was a foregone conclusion) when it doesn’t as both hardliners and reformers support the Iranian nuclear energy program (Moussavi actually started that program!)
In other words, as I said repeatedly during his campaign, Obamas HAS NO foreign policy except continuing to act as “Bush Lite” in Iraq and Afghanistan and futzing around with Iran and Israel.
Again, if Obama isn’t threatening to cut off foreign aid to Israel and cut off support for Israel in the UN, nothing will happen.
And what do we hear from Obama? This:
Israeli envoy sees firm U.S. support at UN Council
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLT296997
June 29th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Israel’s attack on Gaza was certainly brutal in many ways. I’m not sure I’d characterize it as a “misadventure” however. Israel’s goals were quite limited: to stop Hamas from launching attacks. In this it has been successful. They haven’t been so successful in getting Shalit repatriated. On the other hand Hamas hasn’t been particularly successful in getting Gaza’s border opened up in the absence of his release.
Whether it was worth it in the long run is harder to say. But the immediate objectives of the invasion were mostly met. The northern border with Lebanon has also been quiet since the 2006 war. I know that people who don’t wish Israel well may not be particularly happy with this and will add all sorts of caveats. But so far, so good.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:21 am
You wonder whether it might be possible to make some determination of what portion of American aid is involved in settlement activity, and then just cut it from next year’s aid to Israel.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:57 am
All of American aid is involved in settlement activity. All American aid is military aid and the settlement activity is, in part, the reason why Israel needs a military.