"Does It Ever End?"

Arlene Kushner

Answer: Of course not.

Today is a day when there seems so much to write about that it's hard to know where to begin. And those other controversial issues I had hoped to examine will once again take a back seat, as we look at the more immediate and "tachlis" ("brass tacks") news. Here in Israel the political scene is in absolute turmoil as Ehud Barak pulls an "Ariel Sharon":

Just as Sharon pulled out from Likud and started Kadima, so has Barak -- along with four other members of Labor -- now left Labor and started a new faction, to be called Independence (Atzma'ut). This was made possible after the Knesset House Committee approved Barak's request to leave the Labor Party. Accompanying him are Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon; Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai; Deputy Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Orit Noked; and Knesset Member Einat Wilf.

~~~~~~~~~~

Following this move, the members of the Labor party who held portfolios -- Isaac Herzog, social services minister; Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, minister of industry, trade and labor; and Avishay Braverman, minister of minority affairs -- resigned from Netanyahu's government. There is no longer anyone from Labor in the government (i.e., cabinet). Their portfolios will be reassigned. Whether these three will still sit in the Knesset as part of the ruling coalition is doubtful -- it is anticipated that Labor may resign the coalition completely, bringing it down to 66 members.

Needless to say, the rage at Barak within what remains of the Labor party is considerable. Word is that Ben-Eliezer will serve temporarily as party chairman until a new party head can be chosen.

~~~~~~~~~~

All of the turmoil aside, there is a logic to what has happened:

MK Einat Wilf, explained at a press conference, "For a long time the Labor party has been acting as two separate factions.

"We cleared the way for them, and are letting them keep the name.

"...It's important that there be a leftist social party in Israel but it wasn't right for us."

Wilf's comments echoed Barak's written request to the Knesset:

"We believe that the future of the Labor party hinges on its return to Mapai origins and Ben-Gurion doctrine, which is located at the center of the political map.

"The ideological gap between the faction members is unbridgeable. In reality, two separate factions have been created."

The new party, declared Barak, after the split was accomplished, would be "centrist, Zionist and democratic."

He explained that the situation as it had been, "wasn't always healthy and good for Labor. We noticed a shift towards the left and post-Zionism."

~~~~~~~~~~

Barak has never been one of my favorite politicians. I consider him devious and self-serving, at best.

But what he has said with regard to the reason for this split has given me pause. Many is the time that he has behaved vilely -- sending the IDF in the middle of the night, for example, to take down an "illegal" house, leaving a dazed family literally in the dark. And I observed at those times that he was playing to the left wing of his party -- showing how tough he was with "settlers" to keep them happy.

Will Barak be more centrist now? Will he moderate his behavior, now that the left wing of Labor is no longer a factor he has to contend with? Don't know. Would like to think so, but we will have to see...

~~~~~~~~~~

Negotiations between Likud and Atzma'ut for a coalition agreement have already begun, and are expected to be completed quickly. Netanyahu had been aware that this was about to happen. There will then be reassignment of portfolios. Barak, however, will retain his portfolio as defense minister.

Netanyahu's take on this scenario is that it has strengthened the coalition and, with the left wing gone, made it easier to govern. There is considerable speculation about how all of this will affect Netanyahu's relationship with Shas and Yisrael Beitenu. And it remains to be seen how Atzma'ut actually shapes up as a party, and who may want to join its ranks.

And there is even more in flux. Meretz, a far-left party, is making a bid for the remaining members of Labor to join with them. While rumors are re-surfacing with regard to the defection from the Kadima party of a group --- headed by Shaul Mofaz and all originally from Likud -- that is to the right within the party and might rejoin Likud.

~~~~~~~~~~

President Obama is about to face a test, and I'm mighty uneasy that he may fail:

Officials of the PA, exhibiting an enormous amount of self-assurance and arrogance, have rejected Obama's request to refrain from seeking a UN Security Council resolution on the illegality of the "settlements."

As Khaled Abu Toameh put it, in today's JPost:

"The US administration has been pressing the PA to refrain from going to the Security Council out of fear that such a move would have a negative impact on efforts to revive the stalled peace talks."

Not only would it have a "negative impact," it would be tantamount to publicly sounding the death knell for that negotiated settlement. And it would be a spit-in-the-eye for Obama.

The Quartet, you see, has just announced that in early February its members will be meeting to talk about how to jump-start the "stalled" peace talks. Ridiculous on the face of it, certainly, but this is the US position. In fact, the US has come out quite consistently behind a negotiated settlement.

While this is absolutely the wrong time to pursue the matter (which is why the Quartet announcement is ridiculous), in principle this is the only way to go: All relevant UN resolutions and agreements call for final determination of all issues via negotiations. To turn away from this is to abrogate agreements and defy UN resolutions.

~~~~~~~~~~

Negotiator Saeb Erekat has now said that the PA is going ahead in spite of US opposition. The PA, you see, refuses to make any "undignified" concessions to Israel -- which is being held completely responsible for the breakdown of talks.

"The Israeli government has chosen settlements over peace." The Israeli policy (of refusing to freeze everything) "will lead to more violence, chaos, extremism, and bloodshed."

~~~~~~~~~~

Said PA official Nabil Sha'ath, in light of the lack of negotiations, there were four things the Palestinian Arabs could now do: wage a "non-violent" popular struggle, seek international recognition of a state, achieve national unity [with Hamas], and build state institutions. Of course the option of violence -- as spelled out quite clearly by Erekat, above -- also stares us in the face.

Sha'ath predicted recognition by most of Latin America within three months of a Palestinian state "along the 1967 borders, with east Jerusalem as its capital."

"We don't intend to negotiate about the land...We won't give up any part of the Palestinian (sic) territories, especially Jerusalem."

And so, this resolution on the illegality of "settlements" is simply a runner-up to the main thrust of PA intentions.

~~~~~~~~~~

For the ten-millionth time: the land beyond the Green Line does not belong to the Palestinian Arabs. But they act "as if" and the world has bought it.

It's essential to be very very clear on what's happening:

The PA believes it can get a better deal by avoiding negotiations, which would require some compromise, and pushing their demands this way. Thus is the issue of "settlements," which was never a stumbling block to negotiations before, being made the "reason" why the PA cannot sit down at the table.

~~~~~~~~~~

But of course it was Obama who raised the issue of settlements in the first place. Obama, with his declared eagerness to have better relations with Muslims and his readiness to be publicly tough with Israel, who convinced Abbas and company that he was on their side.

And you know what? Even though the US has requested that the PA not proceed with a SC resolution, I believe that the PA still thinks he will end up on their side:

Thus has Erekat said that the PA was holding discussions with several countries, including the US, with regard to the proposed draft of a resolution. "We don't want this resolution to be met with a veto by the US or any other party."

What this means is that the wording is being adjusted in hopes that ultimately it will be palatable to all who sit on the Security Council (or, at least, all those permanent members with veto power). Although Erekat did indicate that they would continue even if it seems likely there will be a veto.

~~~~~~~~~~

And Obama? The US has a history of blocking anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council. Will his government sustain this policy now? Will he stand strong against what the PA is doing, instead of trying to find "conciliatory" or "compromise" wording that he can live with?

If the US doesn't stop this resolution, he will be delivering to Abbas the message that the PA has a clear playing field, and that their techniques ultimately will succeed. He will be abandoning the demand that there must be give- and-take between the parties involved, with a mutually agreed upon border. And he will be setting the scene for that violence down the road.

~~~~~~~~~~

All this said, there are serious impediments to what the PA is planning to do. A non-state party cannot legally decide by itself to become a state, claiming a border that the adjacent existing state does not agree to. (If the PA were to declare a state in the area that it now controls, with perhaps Ramallah as its capital, that might be something else.) Especially is this the case as UNSC resolution 242, passed after the '67 war, does not require Israel to pull back to the Green Line.

~~~~~~~~~~

From where I sit, watching these events unfold, my chief concern is one of how Israel can come out strongest, and remain intact.

~~~~~~~~~~

It was not unexpected: A temporary injunction on construction at the Shepherd hotel site has been issued in response to a petition by the Muslim Committee in Israel, which is questioning the legality of the building permit.

A meeting will be held on Wednesday by the appeals committee of the Ministry of the Interior to examine the legality of the project.

In a statement to the JPost, David Luria, executive director of Ateret Cohanim -- which supports Jewish building projects in eastern Jerusalem -- expressed confidence that all challenges to the project would be overcome because it was legal. This petition was just one more attempt -- and likely not the last -- intended to halt construction.

~~~~~~~~~~


© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution


see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info