Before the freeze
PM Netanyahu is under intense pressure from the Obama Adminstration as well as the EU and other countries to commit itself to a complete freeze on all building in the West Bank.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of Israel's claims to the West Bank, it has come down to this. Whether or not this policy was first adopted by the US and then became a condition for the PA President Mahmud Abbas to re-enter negotiations with Israel, or whether this was initially a Palestinian policy that was adopted by the US is now immaterial. The fact is that the Obama Administration and the Palestinians now have a consistent policy on these matters. Further, the Obama Administration appears to believe that there must be progress on the Palestine front in order to placate the Muslims, which seems to be Obama's number one strategic aim in foreign policy, before there can be progress on any other area of Middle East policy.
So PM Netanyahu has been trying to find a way to accommodate this freeze, in negotiations with US envoy Sen. Mitchell, while retaining his own independence (after all Israel is supposed to be a sovereign state) and keeping his Likud party and coalition government together. This is not an easy task. He apparently came up with a strategy, some would call it devious others clever, of having a building binge before instituting a temporary freeze. It is also understood that before declaring such a freeze Netanyahu wants to know that the US can deliver something tangible from both the Palestinians and the Arab world in return, and so far this resonse has not been forthcoming.
So the so-called "entry strategy" to the freeze would be to allow the 2,500 building permits for homes that have already been legally issued to go ahead, followed by another 500 permits that would "tide over" the "normal living conditions" in the West Bank settlements during the period of a temporary freeze (that would exclude Jerusalem in any case). This is a compromise apparently reached by Netanyahu in discussions with settler leaders in recent days in order that they not actively oppose his government on a freeze agreement with the US.
However, all the other parties who take upon themselves the right to advise Israel in its better interests, including of course the State Department, the White House, the Swedish Government, currently the Chair of the EU, and others, have now come out and opposed this "entry" policy of Netanyahu. The question arises, can Israel have any policy that would not be criticized by this bloc of pro-Palestinian sympathizers. In all these discussions it seems that Israeli rights and claims on the West Bank territory have been completely dismissed by default by these international actors.
The fact is that Israel has a very strong claim on the West Bank territory in international law. Apart from the Biblical claims and the historical claims (that the Palestinians are actively trying to undermine), there is of course the Balfour Declaration and many British Government policy statements issued during the early years of the Palestine Mandate. But, what is more compelling is the fact that Britain requested and was granted this Mandate by the League of Nations following several international conferences and meetings that unequivocally granted this Mandate to Britain in order to establish a Jewish political sovereignty (often called a "homeland") in all of what was then (before 1929) the whole of Palestine. I plan to write about this legitimate claim in more detail soon.
It is very hard for any Israeli Jew to understand why, according to this attitude, Muslims and Christians are allowed to build and expand in Jerusalem, under the current US policy, and Jews are not! If this isn't a racist biased policy what is? It smacks of pre-WWII German policies and other means of denying Jews rights to own land that have ancient medieval anti-Semitic roots. We Israeli Jews will not accept this type of prejudice being applied to our land and our birthright.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of Israel's claims to the West Bank, it has come down to this. Whether or not this policy was first adopted by the US and then became a condition for the PA President Mahmud Abbas to re-enter negotiations with Israel, or whether this was initially a Palestinian policy that was adopted by the US is now immaterial. The fact is that the Obama Administration and the Palestinians now have a consistent policy on these matters. Further, the Obama Administration appears to believe that there must be progress on the Palestine front in order to placate the Muslims, which seems to be Obama's number one strategic aim in foreign policy, before there can be progress on any other area of Middle East policy.
So PM Netanyahu has been trying to find a way to accommodate this freeze, in negotiations with US envoy Sen. Mitchell, while retaining his own independence (after all Israel is supposed to be a sovereign state) and keeping his Likud party and coalition government together. This is not an easy task. He apparently came up with a strategy, some would call it devious others clever, of having a building binge before instituting a temporary freeze. It is also understood that before declaring such a freeze Netanyahu wants to know that the US can deliver something tangible from both the Palestinians and the Arab world in return, and so far this resonse has not been forthcoming.
So the so-called "entry strategy" to the freeze would be to allow the 2,500 building permits for homes that have already been legally issued to go ahead, followed by another 500 permits that would "tide over" the "normal living conditions" in the West Bank settlements during the period of a temporary freeze (that would exclude Jerusalem in any case). This is a compromise apparently reached by Netanyahu in discussions with settler leaders in recent days in order that they not actively oppose his government on a freeze agreement with the US.
However, all the other parties who take upon themselves the right to advise Israel in its better interests, including of course the State Department, the White House, the Swedish Government, currently the Chair of the EU, and others, have now come out and opposed this "entry" policy of Netanyahu. The question arises, can Israel have any policy that would not be criticized by this bloc of pro-Palestinian sympathizers. In all these discussions it seems that Israeli rights and claims on the West Bank territory have been completely dismissed by default by these international actors.
The fact is that Israel has a very strong claim on the West Bank territory in international law. Apart from the Biblical claims and the historical claims (that the Palestinians are actively trying to undermine), there is of course the Balfour Declaration and many British Government policy statements issued during the early years of the Palestine Mandate. But, what is more compelling is the fact that Britain requested and was granted this Mandate by the League of Nations following several international conferences and meetings that unequivocally granted this Mandate to Britain in order to establish a Jewish political sovereignty (often called a "homeland") in all of what was then (before 1929) the whole of Palestine. I plan to write about this legitimate claim in more detail soon.
It is very hard for any Israeli Jew to understand why, according to this attitude, Muslims and Christians are allowed to build and expand in Jerusalem, under the current US policy, and Jews are not! If this isn't a racist biased policy what is? It smacks of pre-WWII German policies and other means of denying Jews rights to own land that have ancient medieval anti-Semitic roots. We Israeli Jews will not accept this type of prejudice being applied to our land and our birthright.
posted by Jack Cohen at 7:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home