Israeli settlements - To freeze or to hold?!

Israel has agreed to a settlement freeze, of sorts. It a "de facto moratorium" on new building in the settlements. In fact, there have been no new housing tenders issued by the Netanyahu administration came to office, but this new "cooling" will add to it and extend it.  Here is the story:

 

In a subtle overture to the US, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Housing Minister Ariel Atias agreed upon a de facto moratorium on new building in the settlements.

According to the estimates of officials involved, the freeze will be in effect until the beginning of 2010. The objective is to provide an opportunity for a Mideast peace process to gain momentum in hopes that the new "waiting" tactic will allow international recognition of Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem and the large settlement blocs.

 

 Despite pressure from right-wing ministers, the housing minister has yet to issue one building tender in the settlements, including in the large settlement blocs, since Netanyahu has taken office. This has been confirmed by Prime Minister Netanyahu's office. The ministry also did not issue new tenders in the final days of Olmert's administration. The right-wing and the haredi sector have expressed their disappointment over this quiet policy.

 

....

 

Atias suggested that Netanyahu and Barak present the "waiting" tactic to special US Mideast envoy George Mitchell and President Barack Obama as proof of Israel's willingness to advance the peace process.

 

Barak: We'll continue with current policy

 

The housing minister, who believes Israel should work towards easing tensions with the US, has withstood pressure from his rightist colleagues in the cabinet, who are protesting the fact that no new tenders have been issued for building projects outside Jerusalem and in the settlement blocs.

 

Atias told the ministers that this gesture would pave the way for the US and the international community to recognize Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem and the large settlement blocs. He said the Obama administration should be given ample time to urge the Arab states to make gestures of their own regarding the normalization of ties with Jerusalem as part of the efforts to reignite the peace process.

 

According to the Shas minister, continued construction in Jerusalem and the settlement blocs that will remain in Israel's possession in a peace deal will be made possible only in the framework of a US-backed permanent agreement.

 

On Monday, Netanyahu is scheduled to begin his short European tour, during which he is expected to meet with Mitchell.

 

 Barak has called for a 3 to 6 month settlement freeze, while Mitchell is demanding Israel halt settlement construction for a period of a year and upwards.

 

 "We must make it clear to the Americans that this situation, in which we are being criticized by the US despite the fact that we are freezing settlement construction, will not go on forever," one Israeli minister told Ynet.

"We'll tell the Americans that we are not freezing construction, but rather putting it on hold in order to give the process a chance," he said.
 
Barak's office, which is in charge of all construction in the West Bank, said, "As long as there is no consistent, agreed upon new policy, we will continue to enforce the current one, meaning the removal of illegal outposts."

Barak's explanation is an absurd sort of spin, "We'll tell the Americans that we are not freezing construction, but rather putting it on hold in order to give the process a chance." What is the difference between a freeze and a hold?  Do houses get built or not built? It seems to me that the "subtle" overture is as subtle as a ton of bricks, but that is still too subtle. It remains to be seen if this will assuage the USA and the Palestinians. What is needed here is not "subtle." The whole point of the settlement freeze from the American and Palestinian points of view is that it must come as a humiliating concession that is won after a hard public battle. There must be pictures of a miserable Netanyahu emerging from a meeting with a triumphant George Mitchell, along with a victory speech by Mahmoud Abbas, explaining that Palestinian resistance has won a great victory over the Zionist enemy, in the name of the martyrs of the Palestinian struggle. There must be another speech by Barack Obama, preferrably from Ramallah or perhaps Damascus, again comparing the suffering of the Palestinian Arabs to the Holocaust victims and announcing the great concession he has won from Israel, but never forgetting the "unbreakable" bond with Israel That would give the USA the credentials it needs in the Arab world to show that it is no longer in the thrall of the wicked right wing neocon Israel Lobby and the international Zionist conspiracy, and has Israel under its thumb. That would give certain Arab leaders the ability to tell their people that they have achieved a great success on the road to uprooting the Zionist entity, and that they are as qualified as Jew haters as the disciples of radical Islamism.

 

This unilateral concession misses the point entirely. The Western media will go on referring to the ultranationalist right wing warmonger expansionist neo-conservative wicked regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. The 'moderate' Middle East media will go on explaining the need to eradicate the evil expantionist Zionist project. Obama will not get credit for humiliating Israel. So what was gained? Couldn't this concession have been dramatized? Couldn't the Americans have sent Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel to Israel to explain, in the foulest language possible that "NO  F***ING SETTLEMENT MEANS NO MOTHER F***ING SETTLEMENT YOU MOTHER F***ERS!" Much better with the cameras rolling! Hillary could come with a whip and say "Bibi, HEEL! Lieberman, SIT!" Then it would have been a convincing demonstration. Until that happens, the "problem" of settlement construction is not solved.

 

Ami Isseroff