Jewish building teams are or have been at work in only two locations as of now, Monday morning: At Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem and in the city of Ariel.All in all, the fact that the moratorium has not been extended (so far), is something of an accomplishment--especially since many feared that Netanyahu would end up backing down and giving into US, and worldwide, pressure.
Work at Joseph’s Tomb actually started on Saturday night. A new, five-ton gravestone was placed on the site, with the help of cranes, atop the exact spot on which the original stone was vandalized and destroyed by Arabs over the course of the past years.
In Ariel, the 4th largest city in Judea and Samaria with some 17,000 residents, work began this morning on more than 50 new housing units. The new homes have been designated for the former residents of Netzarim, who have been displaced since the Disengagement/Expulsion of 2005. Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused to make an exception in their case, and the freeze thus applied to their new homes as well.
It is even a greater accomplishment if you take into account the mistakes made--as recounted by Nahum Barnea:
Obama erred when he turned the settlement construction freeze from a respectable heart’s desire to an ultimate demand. He set a bar that the Palestinians cannot compromise on. He erred when he agreed to a 10-month framework, and he erred when ahead of the end of this period he openly demanded an extension.So it seems that Bibi has survived this major hurdle.
In his latest declarations, Obama greatly minimized the Israeli prime minister’s room for maneuver. The president let Netanyahu choose between two options: Either a humiliating capitulation to American dictates, or a head-on confrontation with the US. Meanwhile, he did not advance by even an inch his declared goal: Securing a peace treaty within a year.
Netanyahu erred when he endorsed a time-limited freeze. The 10 months were a tough corner. From the first day of the freeze, it was clear that Netanyahu would have great trouble extracting himself from that corner. He also erred when he made binding statements about ending the freeze. By doing so, he turned the debate on extending the freeze from a policy dispute to a debate about character; his character.
Abbas erred when he delayed his consent to direct negotiations for a year. He erred when he allowed his fellow Palestinian leaders to turn the talks into a hostage in the hands of settlement construction. He gained short-term profit, because settlement construction is an issue which the world shows no understanding to and doesn’t accept. Yet the short-term profit is a long-term loss. An issue of secondary importance replaced issues that are fateful for the Palestinians.
But just because Bibi did not cave on the moratorium, that does not mean that Abbas is not going to push for another concession:
Abbas reportedly asked that jailed Palestinians be released as good will gesture to help talks move forward; Israel yet to respond.According to Mounir Mansour, the head of the Palestinian Prisoners Committee, this is supposed to improve Abbas's image on the Palestinian street and give him a mandate to continue peace talks with Israel.
The Palestinian Authority has asked Israel to immediately release dozens of political prisoners incarcerated in Israeli prisons as a good will gesture that will help give peace talks between the sides momentum going forward, Israel Radio reported on Sunday.
This of course is laughable, since Abbas has no mandate to begin with--his term ended nearly 2 years ago and Abbas has avoided elections since.
Just to be clear on how outlandish the request is, Mansour pointed out that this is only an 'intermediary' measure: once a final agreement is reached, the PA expects that all 7,000 Arab
Technorati Tag: MIdeast Peace Talks.
10 comments:
Which Israel should refuse. Israel should say the Palestinians are entitled to bring up their demands in the talks just as Israel will bring its demands but no side may ask the other side to make concessions as a prerequisite to the talks themselves.
If that is too much for the Palestinians bear, they are the ones that stand to lose a great deal - And remember, they did not want to talk to Israel in the first place but only did so under tremendous American pressure.
And they are the side unwilling to compromise to help attain a peace deal. That is where matters stand today.
You blame abbas for complaining about Israeli illegal settlement activity? Why don't you listen to the UN, EU, Arab league and even America's opinion on that issue?
Illegal settlement activity must stop for ever! Unless there'll never be peace...
You blame abbas for complaining about Israeli illegal settlement activity? Why don't you listen to the UN, EU, Arab league and even America's opinion on that issue?
Why? Because those statements are based on a combination of ignorance, politics and convenience--not international law. Those areas are disputed, not occupied--least of all because there has never been any Palestinian state or sovereign control over that area.
See Israeli Settlements: Are They Legal for opinions by people who actually know international law.
I'm not going to read all those articles from your link, but I checked one or two of them. I'm not saying they're wrong, but tell me why should I only believe those "people who actually know international law" as you named them, while ignoring opinion of many important institutions like the UN, EU and many Arab and American lawyers and experts? I think it's way too simple to claim they're all ignorant and based on politics and interests. BTW, I checked a few names of those people you recommended me to read their opinion. Let's see who they are:
- Eli. E. Hertz is well known publisher and sponsor of books and articles regarding Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The "problem" is that he's also a prominent pro-Israeli businessman and activist, who among other roles, serves as the chairman of CAMERA's board and sits on the Executive Council of the powerful Washington-based pro-Israel lobby group (AIPAC).
-Maurice Ostroff is well known for promoting (only?) the positive side of Israel. He is a past chairman of the Israel South Africa Chamber of Commerce and is presently an honorary officer of the Chamber.
-Dore Gold is an Israeli statesman who has served in various diplomatic positions under several Israeli governments.
-Howard Grief served as a legal advisor to Professor Yuval Ne'eman at the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure.
I could go on, but I think you got the point. Again, I'm not concluding their opinions are all wrong, but tell me why should I only believe those (clearly pro-israel) people? What makes them so independent and trustworthy?
could go on, but I think you got the point. Again, I'm not concluding their opinions are all wrong, but tell me why should I only believe those (clearly pro-israel) people? What makes them so independent and trustworthy?
You miss the point.
You presented the position as cut and dried. I am demonstrating that it is not--that there are valid arguments on the other side.
I never said you should only believe them.
After all, I'm sure you were not claiming that I should only believe the sources you were giving. Right?
Of course, I was at least providing links--your argument is based on the idea that merely mentioning the name "UN" should make me shudder with fear and respect.
Anyone who is following the exploits of the UNHRC is way past that point.
Ok, fair enough. I'm not saying there's no good arguments on the other side. But as I said, the majority of those authors are jewish and/or pro-israel people, which tells a lot about their motivation and "independent" thinking. Let me try to illustrate my point. Say you'd like to know the truth about poverty and hunger in North Korea. Would you rather listen to the UN reports or to the North Korean ruling party?
But as I said, the majority of those authors are jewish and/or pro-israel people, which tells a lot about their motivation and "independent" thinking.
That's a cop out. The arguments are not based on opinion but rather on actual law and precedent. Let the counter arguments be made, but the fact is that the pro-Israel arguments are based on facts, not mere opinion.
Would you rather listen to the UN reports or to the North Korean ruling party?
What's the difference--other than the fact that the UN has been accused of rape and I haven't heard of that charge being made against North Korea.
Then there's the oil-for-food scandal.
Let's not forget about the record of the UNHRC (and the group it was supposed to have replaced).
Seems to me that North Korea is beginning to look pretty good in comparison...
So you think there's no good arguments on the other side? What makes you think that only pro-israeli arguments are based on facts? Those Israeli settlements, which apart from being in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 446, 452 and 465 are considered illegal by the international community. The UN is not making all this stuff up. The problem is very serious. Israel has never defined its border. Settlements are means to solidify expansion. President Obama and Abbas have both demanded a freeze because they understand that there can be no meaningful negotiations, while one side continues to strengthen its hold on the VERY land in contention. Doesn't it sound logical?
About North Korea, I think you've missed my point. I see you only look at the negative side of the UN. Rapes and oil-for-food scandal is all you're interested in. Fine. Let's make it clear, the UN is not a perfect institution and it'll never be (some people see the UN as nothing more than an instrument of American power). But does it mean that you don't need to believe anything the UN says (just because of those scandals in the past)?
Those Israeli settlements, which apart from being in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 446, 452 and 465 are considered illegal by the international community.
Here is an article that appeared in the New York Times by George P. Fletcher
George P. Fletcher, regarded as one of the leading scholars in the United States in the fields of torts and criminal law, in particular, comparative and international criminal law:
Those who pay attention to the details of history know better. Resolution 242, passed right after the 1967 war, envisions a just resolution of the conflict and calls for withdrawal and mutual recognition, but it says nothing about legality. Resolution 338, passed after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, imposes an obligation on Israel and the Arabs to negotiate peace. Because it insisted that the Palestinians negotiate an end to the Israeli presence, the Security Council could not have thought the occupation itself violated international law.
Later Security Council resolutions -- numbered 446, 452 and 465 -- do indeed condemn Israel's policy of building settlements in the occupied territories and declare that these settlements have "no legal validity." Yet these rebukes against Israeli policy were about the settlements -- not about the legality of the occupation. And even then, the Security Council stopped short of actually saying that all settlements are illegal. Some of the settlements might be acceptable under the language of Resolution 242, which recognizes that Israel has the right to live within "secure and recognized boundaries." However, there is room for debate about whether Israel's support for the settlements violates the prohibition in the Fourth Geneva Convention that states that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Please feel free to toss the phrase "international community" around to your hearts content, but it is vague and meaningless.
And of course we all know how the "international community" acquitted itself in the face of Hitler before the outbreak of WWII.
- Come on. WW2 has nothing to do with this topic. It's like saying "Germans and Italians are not to be trusted because of their role in WW2". We're in year 2010 now.
- It seems like we'll never agree on international law. But what about Israeli law? Are those settlements legal under israeli law?
I found a very interesting article here: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=781
The most interesting parts for me are:
"... Until recently, it was a mystery to me why Spiegel did not produce the data for our negotiations. In January 2009, Haaretz published what it asserted were detailed excerpts from Spiegel’s data base. What the data indicated is that, in many cases, zoning laws were not respected, building permits were not obtained, and construction was sometimes undertaken well beyond even the outer boundaries of settlements. In other words, the data indicated that even with respect to settlements authorized by the Israeli government and supposedly in compliance with Israeli law, there were systematic violations of the law that had gone uncorrected over the years. I met with Spiegel in Israel this past August and asked about the Haaretz report. He confirmed that the reason he had never shared the settlements data with me was that the data showed systematic violations of Israeli laws and regulations—not something he was proud of, but certainly not something his superiors believed ought to be shared with the Ambassador of the United States to Israel. ..."
and
"... The government appears not only unwilling to enforce the law with respect to those who break it in support of settlements, but also afraid to confront the settler movement and its various layers of support in the population. In the meantime, the corrosion of civil and military ethics continues, as the authorities continue to turn a blind eye to illegal settlement activity and the IDF continues to invest heavily in the daily tasks of protecting settlements and settlers."
Interesting, isn't it?
Post a Comment