Israel: Netanyahu Buys Time with Settlement "Freeze"

On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would impose a 10-month freeze on construction in West Bank settlements:

I hope that this decision will help launch meaningful negotiations to reach a historic peace agreement that would finally end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

We have been told by many of our friends that once Israel takes the first meaningful steps toward peace, the Palestinians and Arab states would respond.

However, Netanyahu quickly clarified the nature of this "freeze." It would not include East Jerusalem, the ongoing construction including 3,000 new housing units, and basic requirements of "natural growth" in the West Bank. He explained:

We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital.

We will not halt existing construction and we will continue to build synagogues, schools, kindergartens and public buildings essential for normal life in the settlements.

Following Israel's announcement, one might argue that Washington's positive response was too quick, if not inappropriate. However, the wider picture remains. The Obama Administration has already declared its commitment to approach the issue through step-by-step negotiations, and that "Washington's position on the settlement issue both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has not changed."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "Today's announcement by the government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." US Mideast special envoy George Mitchell added,
"It falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli government has done before and can help movement toward agreement between the parties. Nothing like this occurred during the Bush administration." Clinton added the caution, hoewver, that the challenge still remained of meeting "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".

The Palestinian side quickly rejected Netanyahu's "concession". Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said there was nothing new in Netanyahu's announcement: "This is not a moratorium. Unfortunately, we hoped he would commit to a real settlement freeze so we can resume negotiations and he had a choice between settlements and peace and he chose settlements." And Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad put an end to the discussion, "What has changed to make something that what was not acceptable a week or 10 days ago [acceptable now]? The exclusion of Jerusalem is a very serious problem for us."

The Israeli right was no more happier with the Prime Minister's announcement. Yaakov Katz, member of the Knesset and chairman of the National Union Party, "It can't be possible that Netanyahu is spitting in the faces of those to whom he promised less than a year ago that he would constitute an alternative to Sharon's policy of uprooting."

So Washington may have grasped Netanyahu's announcement as the branch for talks which they have been seeking. Yet how is it going to be possible to urge Palestinians, including Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas let alone Hamas, to agree? How sustainable is the prospect of meetings given the mistrust built over the wait, which lasted almost a year, for an Israeli "concession"?

Palestinian Authority: "No Unilateral Action but Confirmation of Two States"

Israel-Palestine Analysis: Time for a Complete Halt of the West Bank Settlements?
Israel-Palestine Video: Obama “Additional Settlements are Dangerous”
Israel-Palestine-US Special: Stakes Raised With Approval of More Settlements

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Having been rebuffed by Washington and Brussels, on Tuesday, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat now says the Palestinian Authority is not considering an unilateral declaration of  a Palestinian state: "What we are seeking is to preserve the two-state solution. One state is not an option. We want the Security Council to declare that the two-state solution is the only option and that it would recognize the state of Palestine on the '67 borders and to live side by side with the State of Israel."

Israel-Palestine-US Special: Stakes Raised With Approval of More Settlements

Palestine: Mahmoud Abbas Sticks Around as “President”

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Tuesday, the Jerusalem Municipal Planning Committee approved the construction plan for an additional 900 new housing units beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem.

Washington responded harshly through Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly repeated that "they were dismayed". However, even more important --- only weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had praised Israel's "unprecedented" concessions --- was Washington's warning to the Netanyahu Government to withhold support from the Jerusalem committee's move:

QUESTION: On the peace process, Israel has approved today the construction of 900 new housing units in East Jerusalem. How do you view this approval at this specific time?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think, Michel, you’ve heard us say many times that we believe that neither party should engage in any kind of actions that could unilaterally preempt or appear to preempt negotiations. And I think that we find the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval of the – approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem as dismaying.

This is at a time when we’re working to re-launch negotiations, and we believe that these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. So we object to this, and we object to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes.

And – just to repeat what we’ve said all along, our position on Jerusalem is clear. We believe that the – that Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties.

QUESTION: Can you tell us, did this come up in Ambassador Mitchell’s meetings in London yesterday? Apparently, we were told that he met an advisor to Netanyahu, asked them to not permit these new buildings, and then that request was flatly turned down.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Andy, I just don’t want to get into the substance of these negotiations. They’re sensitive. I think you’ve seen the Israeli – some Israeli press reports that did report that this was raised in the meetings. This is – I mean, these kinds of unilateral actions are exactly the kind of actions that we think that both sides should refrain from at a time when we’re trying to start the negotiations again. But I don’t want to get into the substance of the discussions yesterday in London.

QUESTION: Would you steer us away from not believing the Israeli press reports?

MR. KELLY: I just don’t want to get into the substance. I’m not going to steer you one way or the other on it.

QUESTION: Where’s Senator Mitchell today?

QUESTION: How long is the U.S. going to continue to tolerate Israel’s violation of international law? I mean, soon it’s not even going to be possible – there’s not going to be any land left for the Palestinians to establish an independent state.

MR. KELLY: Well, again, this is a – we understand the Israeli point of view about Jerusalem. But we think that all sides right now, at this time when we’re expending such intense efforts to try and get the two sides to sit down, that we should refrain from these actions, like this decision to move forward on an approval process for more housing units in East Jerusalem.

QUESTION: But should U.S. inaction, or in response to Israel’s actions, then be interpreted as some sort of about-face in policy – the President turning his back on the promises he’s made to the Palestinians?

MR. KELLY: You’re – okay, you’re using language that I wouldn’t use. I mean, again, our focus is to get these negotiations started. We’re calling on both parties to refrain from actions, from – and from rhetoric that would impede this process. It’s a challenging time, and we just need to focus on what’s important here, and that’s --

QUESTION: Well, what actions (inaudible) the Palestinians taken recently that would impede progress?

MR. KELLY: Well, as I say, we would discourage all unilateral actions

Reacting to the unilateral action in Jerusalem, Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said that there was no point in discussions while Israel expands Jewish neighborhoods in a part of Jerusalem that Palestinians want for their capital.

Middle East Inside Line: Threats Begin To Fly Between Palestine & Israel

Middle East Inside Line: Israel’s Lieberman Renews Attack on Palestinian Authority

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

After mutual threats both from the Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and the Israeli Prime Minister who have stated that the Palestinians would be going to UN Security Council to ask unilaterally for the recognition of a Palestinian state and that any unilateral move would be met in the very same way respectively, both sides continued threatening each other on Monday.

Erekat stated that they will be seeking European Union's support before applying to the UNSC. He added: "We will seek the support of all members of the international community." EU foreign ministers are going to discuss this on Tuesday.

In a prompt reply, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reiterated Netanyahu's threats and said:

Any one-sided Palestinian move will be met with steps of our own. Whoever makes unilateral policy with complete disregard for past accords will get the same from us. Breach of accords will not go unanswered.

However, following the increasing tension, a sign of a possible crack has appeared in the Netanyahu G=government. Although neither Netanyahu nor Lieberman elaborated on what these retaliations might be, Industry and Trade Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer (Labor) stated that his party would be pulling out of the government if the government decides to annex the West Bank settlements.

And, Hamas... Of course, it dismissed the PA's proposal and called on Mahmoud Abbas to work on ending the occupation before declaring independence. Hamas spokesman Salah Bardweel said:

Why not declare a Palestinian state from the sea [Mediterranean] to the river [of Jordan] rather than in the West Bank and Gaza only?

This move is not a meaningful declaration. It simply aims at escaping the benefits of resistance against the occupation. Instead of threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state to be established in the air, we should work on liberating the occupied territories and end the current internal [Palestinian] division.

Palestine's National Holiday: A Land of Hope?

Sunday is the anniversary of the symbolic Nov. 15, 1988 declaration of independence by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

On the Hamas side, despite an earlier decision to keep schools funded by Fatah open on independence day, it was declared that schools would be shut.

Hamas also targeted Israel with words that claimed that "Israel was trying to find pretexts to cover up its previous war crimes with a preparation of another war."

Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, director of Military Intelligence, announced last week that Hamas had launched a rocket some 60 kilometers into the sea. In other words, it meant that Hamas could hit Tel Aviv if this rocket was fired from the northern border of the Gaza Strip. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said:

These claims are part of the Israeli lies to justify a new aggression on the Gaza Strip.

Such threats are coming under the title of incitement and creating pretexts in order to commit more new crimes against Gaza and cover up the previous crimes that were committed during the last war.

However, another Hamas spokesman Abu Obeida said that he could not confirm or deny that the group had test-fired a rocket, "since such news come from the occupation [Israel]."

On the Fatah side, on Saturday, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam that the Palestinian Authority is considering seeking recognition from the United Nations Security Council of a Palestinian state along 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital. He also added that both United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Russia are supportive of this idea.

On the eve of the national independence day, on one hand, Hamas is directing its words against and trying to give a "non-aggressive" image vis-a-vis its rival party Fatah. On the other hand, Fatah is appealing to nationalist sentiments and trying to give new hope to its people. But the question is: does Washington find this idea useful as a leverage against Tel Aviv's continuing resistance to change? Such a move would strengthen Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hand in the eyes of Israeli public?