BATTLE OF WILLS‏

For Israel, the moment of truth is now

This analysis ignores the possibility that the choice exercised by Netanyahu with the agreement of Yaalon and Begin is the best short term policy. They are privy to much that we are totally unaware of.

By Ted Belman

According to David Horovitz, editor of JPOST, The Battle of Wills has begun. He is referring of course to the will of the settlers to resist the freeze and the will of the international community to impose it. Although Netanyahu was at pains to assure the settlers that after the ten months are over, construction will resume as before. Begin went so far as to emphasize that the amount of construction would return to what it was before Olmert instituted a defacto freeze last summer. But no one is buying it.

To modify the old Cat Stevens song, the first halt is the hardest. Ten months from now, Iran will likely be a more urgent threat; internal Palestinian rivalries will be still more acute, possibly following Hamas electoral successes; the international community will probably be yet more critical of Israel and still more supportive of unilateral Palestinian moves to statehood; and American pressure for positive Israeli measures will be even more intense. For all Netanyahu’s protestations to the contrary, it is hard to conceive that, 10 months from now, the man who gave us 2009’s West Bank Moratorium would resist 2010’s Moratorium II.

Netanyahu argues that this painful decision was in the “wider national interest”. That’s the rational. But he doesn’t tell us in what way. Perhaps he is referring to international resolve to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Although Obama is now talking about stronger sanctions in January, that’s a far cry from bombing Iran while there is still time. Or perhaps he is thinking of avoiding the Tools of Persuasion that could be applied.

He also argues that this freeze was necessary to get Abbas to return to negotiations. This doesn’t make sense. He could have said as soon as Abbas returns to negotiations we will institute a 10 month freeze. That would make mores sense but in either case why would Abbas return to negotiations? With the current freeze he could stay away for nine months letting Israel suffer and then return to negotiations with the conditions that so long as negotiations are ongoing, the freeze must continue. In the latter situation he would not return to negotiation that are certain to end in ten months.

The fact that the freeze didn’t make an exception for Ariel and Maalah Adumin has increased the opposition to it. Why stop the construction in places we are resolved to keep. As for Jerusalem, even though 800 units have been released, nobody believes that it is really excepted from the freeze. There has been a defacto freeze for years. Just ask residents of Efrat and Gush Etzion.

Obama has come down squarely on the need to return the equivalent of 100% of the “occupied” territories made possible by agreeing to land swaps so that some settlement blocks can be retained. The Quartet will not allow Israel to keep east Jerusalem. As for the solution to the refugee problem he probably wants some refugees to be allowed into Israel and compensation for the rest.

On the one hand the Quartet demand that no unilateral steps be taken that would pre-judge the outcome of negotiations as provided in the Roadmap, yet they themselves take unilateral steps, as do the Arabs, in violation of the Roadmap.

Israel is not obligated to freeze construction unless and until the Arabs end incitement and terror. The Quartet ignores the fact that the there are now two governments ruling the Arabs and to various degrees they are both dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Furthermore by weighing in on what the final solution should be they are pre-judging the outcome. By not allowing Israel to negotiate freely without coercion it is forcing a solution on Israel.

Its plain to see where all this is headed. The Saudi Plan is being imposed on Israel. When Powell at the last minute inserted the Saudi Plan into the Roadmap and told Sharon to shut up and sign on because it was “only a process”, the handwriting was on the wall. The Saudi Plan has effectively replaced Res 242 which was silent on Jerusalem and entitled Israel to secure borders and did not require the evacuation of 100% of the land.

I see little difference between the Goldstone Commission and the peace process. Both are unfair to Israel in denial of her rights, both represent an abusive process, both demonize and blame Israel and both prejudge the outcome.

This is the moment of truth. The battle lines must be drawn now.


Ted Belman
Jerusalem