Why Is Israel Blatantly Breaking U.S. Rule On Settlements?

[Purveyor]

By Akiva Eldar

Defense Minister Ehud Barak most certainly knows better than anyone else that there is no chance of the U.S. accepting the Migron-Adam deal, put forth by the Defense Ministry on Monday before the Supreme Court. Even those who claim that the Bush administration allowed them to continue building to meet the needs of "natural growth" in settlement blocs know fully well that the exchange deal, offering Adam for Migron, would be inacceptable to even the most ardent Netanyahu supporters in Washington.

The deal is not about additional construction inside the built-up area of an existing settlement, nor is it about adding additional floors to buildings; according to the plan brought before the court, 50 families from Migron are supposed to move to a new neighborhood, located on a relatively large parcel of land outside the built-up area of the Adam settlement. This proposal blatantly contradicts the iron-clad American rule - an integral part of the road map - that the area of settlements should in no way be expanded.

Moreover, according to the documents presented to the court, aside from requesting building permits for 50 new housing units, the defense minister last month also approved the detailed planning for constructing an initial total of 200 housing units; all part of the general construction blueprint for an additional 1450 units in Adam.

Eitan Broshi, the defense minister's aide for settlement affairs, argued Monday that this was part of a plan that had been approved by a previous government during the late 1990s. However, if the decisions of previous governments to expand settlements or to build new ones pave the way for the infusion of ever more settlers into the territories, there is no point to the commitment to freeze construction and to haggle over "natural growth." Such earlier decisions allow Israel to place a settlement under any tree located in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Barak was quick to present the plan to evacuate Migron and build at Adam as an effort meant to deter a petition by Peace Now, scheduled to be brought before the court Monday. The defense minister's aim is to gain more time. In any case, the Defense Ministry argues, the construction of the new neighborhood in Adam will take at least two years - a decent amount of quiet time. Barak based his gamble on the images of the violent evacuation of the Amona outpost and is hoping that the justices will be deterred from another clash with the settler-invaders, and will jump at the opportunity to put the whole matter to rest for a long time.


MORE...

HAARETZ: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1096640.html

[thereismore]

1. because US rules don't apply in Israel-occupied lands? Just a guess. nt

[azurnoir]

2. Israel is a sovereign country and can do as it pleases

however that it still expects support financial and otherwise from the US is where the problem comes in.

[aranthus]

3. Well yes.

The US is a sovereign country and can do as it pleases as well. Will the current president react to this with a shrug? I don't think so.

[azurnoir]

4. Neither do I but how much actual action can he take? n/t

[aranthus]

5. For example

What if he were to ask the State Department to issue an opinion that Israel was in violation of US rules. that would give him authority to enforce the rules. This president can do a lot. He's still very popular, and he's got a heavily democratic Congress behind him.

[Thothmes]

6. By enforce the rules,

You mean sending troops to tear down the developments and maybe bomb the hell out of them.

[aranthus]

9. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Especially the outragoues comments you made. If that's what you want the US to do, tell us why.

[Thothmes]

18. You were the one that made the comment about

us "enforcing the rules" on the state of Isreal. I was just speculating how you proposed we "enforce" our rules on a soverign nation.

[Kurska]

10. Israel is a nuclear armed nation with one of the world's finest militaries.

Do you really think such a action would end well for anyone?

[shira]

7. Israelis are mostly behind Netanyahu now.....Obama isn't going very far without Israelis' trust

Obama will have to do better than a 6% approval rating in Israel in order to expect them to buy into his vision.

History shows that when Arabs make real gestures for peace, Israel is a guaranteed lock to follow suit. Obama would be better off getting some real concessions from the Arab world (and Palestinian leadership first. Once that happens, Israel will eat out of the palm of his hand.

[aranthus]

11. There's more to it than that.

First, the issue of the thread is whether Israel is contravening US policy by moving a settlement onto new land, and if so, what could the US do about it. Second, while Israel has in the past reacted favorably to Arab gestures, the relationship with Palestine is a bit different. The Israelis never had an ideological/political/historical claim to the Sinai, and they were perfectly willing to give it up in exchange for peace with their most dangerous neighbor. Not so the West Bank (Jerusalem is right out). Given the history of Israeli actions in the West Bank, the Palestinians have reason to be distrustful. Third, you're right that the Palestinians could make certain gestures that would convince the Israelis that peace was at hand, and would get the process moving. They aren't going to do that, so what does Israel do now? The status quo can not be maintained.

[shira]

13. there hasn't been a new settlement since the 1990's and there won't be now

and there is some history with Arafat's PLO only having to recognize Israel (which Fatah now claims does not apply to them) and talk a good game for Israel to grant the PA autonomy ever since, as well as freeze all new settlements.

As for what Israel can do now, I believe they should agree to at least a temporary total freeze, see how that goes, give Obama a chance. I'd imagine Israel would at least want to come to an agreement within that timeframe for which major settlements they would retain so that the freeze would only apply later (maybe after 3 months) to other settlements not likely to be included within Israel's final borders. But maybe something else - like Hamas agreeing to Quartet conditions (yeah, right) or if RoR is taken off the table, Israel is recognized as the nation state for Jews, PA agrees to demilitarization....any one of those could extend the freeze.

3 months shouldn't be much of a problem if Obama and the Arab League is serious. Otherwise, the Camp David/Taba and Annapolis meetings were a complete waste of time. The parties concerned wouldn't have to start from scratch after all.

[azurnoir]

12. Perhaps its time for Israel to find new allies n/t

[Purveyor]

15. With the baggage they would bring, just who would claim them as an ally? eom

[Alamuti Lotus]

16. In the past, it was others with equal baggage

for example the Contra regime in Nicaragua, Shah Pehlavi's Iran, Taiwan, Apartheid South Africa, and Micronesia. The latter is not large enough to actually support any baggage, but has been one of Israel's longest and truest friends.

[Ken Burch]

17. You can't put it all on the "Arab" side. There's equal blame to spread around for the conflict

Israelis long ago lost the right to claim primary victimhood in THIS conflict.

[varelse]

8. "Because we've always done it this way"

oh, and because it usually works.

[Alamuti Lotus]

14. When you know there is no tangible consequence to whatever empty threats bandied about, why not?

[Sezu]

19. It's more like Israel has SEEN what removing settlers has done

-in GAZA. You think they want Hamas taking over the West Bank? What fool wants that?