JERUSALEM, May 24 (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rebuffed U.S. calls to impose a freeze on all settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, setting the stage for friction with President Barack Obama.
"We do not intend to build any new settlements, but it wouldn't be fair to ban construction to meet the needs of natural growth or for there to be an outright construction ban," Netanyahu told his cabinet, according to officials.
The note of defiance came less than a week after Netanyahu held talks in Washington with Obama, who wants Israel to halt all settlement activity, including natural growth, as called for under a long-stalled peace "road map"... By natural growth, Israel refers to construction within the boundaries of existing settlements to accommodate growing families..."Defiance" would seem an odd characterization of a statement that is virtually apologetic.
Abbas has ruled out restarting those talks until Netanyahu, whose right-leaning government took office on March 31, commits to a two-state solution and halts settlement expansion... Palestinians see the settlements as a land grab meant to deny them a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.Middle East peace-making often appears a glorified game of chicken. Unfounded assertions common in the media aside, Israelis and Palestinians, on the whole, do not want any peace the other would accept. When Israelis talk about accepting a two state solution, they generally view a Jewish and Palestinian state co-existing side by side indefinitely. When Palestinians talk about accepting a two state solution, they generally see a Palestinian State side by side with an Israeli State, with a Palestinian right of return that would, over time, "Palestinize" Israel. Put simply: Palestinians will not agree to a peace that envisions the long term survival of the Jewish State while Israelis will not agree to a peace that does not. (The "right of return" is the concretization of this, Palestinians will not agree to a deal without a meaningful right of return to Tel-Aviv, and Israelis will not agree to a deal with it).
The Palestinians -- perhaps because they have less to lose -- appear to understand more thoroughly that the game is not "getting to yes", but making sure the other party is seen as the obstacle. This natural growth talk is a great illustration. The notion that settlement expansion serves in any way to prevent Palestinian statehood is impossible to honestly defend. Twice now -- in Sinai and in Gaza -- Israel has evacuated settlements. On the other hand, if a permanent deal is on the horizon, freezing construction in the interim as a goodwill gesture seems a small matter, and Israel's refusal makes them appear the obstacle. The reality, of course, understood by both sides, is that no deal is on any horizon and the open-ended demand that, in whole towns, not an addition be built nor a kitchen remodeled, is simply unbearable.
In response, Israeli leaders generally appear (with the possible exception of Ehud Barak monday morning) touchingly earnest. Arguing, as Netanyahu did, that a total construction freeze is "unfair", is besides the point.
Israeli leaders do have savvier options available. For example: Netanyahu could agree to accept Abbas' demand he commit to a two state solution, if Abbas does the same, which is to say, he commits to there being no right of return to Tel Aviv. Netanyahu could also agree, after such a commitment from Abbas, to a fixed-duration (eg: six months) total settlement freeze, as a show of good faith while negotiations are underway. Abbas would, then, be painted into a rather tight corner. It is unlikely he has the ability to "give up" the "right" of return. If he cannot commit himself to a meaningful two state solution, he will have diminished ability to credibly demand the same of Netanyahu.
The problem with this course is that, for Israel, this is not simply a game and the goal is not simply to win points and buy time.
No comments:
Post a Comment