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"?

Analysis: The Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy Game

At first, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam on Saturday 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.

On Sunday (which was the anniversary of the symbolic Nov. 15, 1988 declaration of independence by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat), Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said that the Palestinian Authority is working on a two-year development plan aimed at consolidating the groundwork for independence. It was also stated that these two issues- applying to the United Nations Security Council to have the independence legitimized in the eyes of international law, and the two-year-long economic development plan- were separate issues. Fayyad said:

I know some people are concerned that this is unilateral development plan. But it seems to me that it is unilateral in a healthy sense of self-development.

However these two statements are lacking a strong vision when it comes to the realities of the region. First of all, as I stated yesterday, there is no need to guess at Washington's approach to an appeal for a unilateral demand to be recognized in the UN Security Council. Secondly, the fact that the first plan cannot be achieved overnight breaks apart the claim that they are not inter-related. Fayyad stated that they need two years in which the economic power of the Palestinian Authority can be strengthened - a plan that he hopes will weaken Israel's position and gain US support. Of course, it is not possible and not consistent with the realities Palestinians face today. Can anyone think of an economic development in the West Bank that will strengthen the Palestinian Authority politically yet weaken Tel Aviv, as if the latter has no interest in this land's economic development? Do not forget that it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has been highlighting "the significance of the economic development of the West Bank"! So, the economic liberalization process of the West Bank is already in Tel Aviv's interest.

The statements from the Palestinian Authority are aimed at consolidating their position and strengthening it legitimacy in the West Bank, and are not rationally-formulated and strongly-believed plans to make progress toward peace. In other words, they have grown out domestic concerns rather than any deep and wise plans to save Palestine from Israeli occupation.

On the other side of this game, Netanyahu warned that Israel would respond to any unilateral Palestinian steps - particularly declarations of statehood - with one-sided steps of its own. He said:

There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral path will only unravel the framework of agreements between us and will only bring unilateral steps from Israel's side.

At the end of the day, there is still a big question as to whether the statements of the Palestinian Authority will work as they desire them to- are they pushing Netanyahu into the corner or are they merely helping Netanyahu show the Israeli public how "uncompromising" Palestinians are following Netanyahu's continuing rhetoric that "Israel is ready to sit at the negotiating table without any pre-conditions?"

Yes, Washington is stuck in the middle of this game. However, the Obama Administration needs to work harder than ever and show its seriousness with concrete action on both sides.