What Did Israel's Cabinet Meeting Accomplish?
Following a Cabinet meeting in which Minister Uzi Landau voted against any sort of moratorium on construction in settlements there is some confusion as to what Israel's security cabinet agreed to do. At a news conference today, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Israel will halt construction in the West Bank but not Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Cabinet Minister Benny Begin who supported Netanyahu in the meeting seems to have agreed to a different policy. Begin told the press:
"During these 10 months thousands of housing units and public buildings will be built in the West Bank to allow (settlers) to lead normal lives, and once the 10 months are over the government of Israel, just as it has declared, will resume construction in the West Bank in accordance with the policy of past Israeli regimes."
Begin's words seem to contradict the message delivered by Netanyahu. Netanyahu told the press that his government will "constrict" construction but would not halt construction of public buildings (such as synagogues and kindergartens.) And Netanyahu's message has led settlers and members of the Knesset to call for Netanyahu's resignation. One nationalist leader, Head of the Samaria Regional Council, Gershon Mesika, accused Netanyahu of deceiving Israeli voters and said he must resign. "I am ashamed and embarrassed that the Likud chairman is working exactly the opposite of the platform on which his name was chosen and is strangling settlement in a way even the most extreme left governments did not do," Mesika said.
One can clearly debate what the Cabinet agreed to do, but there is no debate that to the world Israel has taken a big step in a new direction. Israel has made some concession in hopes of jump-starting negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. This move has undercut the often repeated position that Israel will not accept pre-conditions before negotiations, that the settlements are somehow not legitimately part of Israel, and that Israel will only make concessions if the other side does so first.
Israel appears vulnerable to pressure from the United States. That impression bodes very badly for Israel's future. In the White House, Israel's critics know that if you push hard enough you can get Israel to change its course. Do not be surprised if this leads to Obama and the Europeans increasing the pressure on the settlements and Jerusalem.
If Israel's leaders thought that this action would get the world to lighten up on Israel they are wrong. All the talk about how the settlements should not be an issue, that there is no one on the other side to negotiate with have been undermined. Israel has boxed itself into the paradigm created by a hostile White House and a hostile Europe.
Along with boxing itself in by agreeing to make the settlements a bargaining chip, one has to wonder what did the Cabinet hope to achieve. Today, Abbas continues to be a political non-entity, Obama continues to pursue a Muslim oriented Middle East policy, and Israel is seen as malleable target.
As we said earlier, be prepared for Israel's enemies to re-energize their efforts for more concessions -- with focus being on Jerusalem.
.
It would be helpful if Israelis, Jews and people who want the best for Israel would use the correct words when speaking about the "territories", "settlements", "settlers"...Everyone I meet appears to have very clear viewpoints on Israel and the Palestinians, when seeming to be in a mist on quite a lot of other subjects. Not so Israel.... In the press, on TV, many times people are referred to "international law" and the International Court of Justice. Few seem to take trouble to find out what it all is about, even when information is just a click away. Lopsided, or outright false quotes, do incredible harm to your just cause. In 1967 the U.N. stood behind Israel, supported it evenhandidly. The 'world' now appears to be in the grip of totalitarians, showing off as exemplary democrats in New York, Brussels... firing off one diatribe after the other.
Please turn to discussing "communities" in "Judea/Samaria" and their "inhabitants"....
You would less shoot yourselves in the foot from the start. The world would learn "new" concepts and "maybe" be a little bit less inclined to gullibly believe what's been repeated again and again, no questions asked.