The Big Freeze
Greetings one and all! It's good to be back. Sukkot vacation is over and we can resume regular programming.
I emerged from a child-enforced news embargo to headlines announcing that the peace talks are about to die, and it's all -- of course -- the settlers' fault.
Two thoughts on that.
One: The settlement freeze was on for ten months. The whole point of the freeze was for Israel to make an initial major gesture to demonstrate its good will and seriousness of purpose -- and for the Palestinians to respond by coming to the table. Abbas squandered almost the entire freeze and only showed up to talk a month before it was due to expire. Now he's threatening to walk unless Israel extends the freeze beyond its scheduled expiration.
It's hardly surprising that Bibi sees little point in conceding on this. Abbas is wielding the cudgel of global opinion as a weapon with which to extort a further major concession from Israel without offering anything at all in return. I applaud Bibi for refusing to cave in. There's no point in our keeping the lights on if nobody's coming to visit.
The second point is that the future Palestinian state, if such a thing will come to exist, is going to have Jews in it, and they're going to have to live in houses. Yes, it can be argued that the construction amounts to the Jews' attempt to create irreversible "facts on the ground," but the prevailing assumption seems to be that some of those settler homes will eventually be located in Palestine, not Israel, and we'll all have to suck it up and deal with that whether we like it or not. Okay, fine. The Jews who want to live in Judea and Samaria for religious reasons will be residents of the state of Palestine. Oh, what's that you say? The Jews won't be allowed to live in Palestine? They're going to be forcibly evicted, and you're going to expect the IDF to help with that? Well, a Jew-free Palestine would be consistent with the PA's recently enunciated policy of executing Palestinians who sell land to Jews. What it isn't consistent with is any pretense of wanting to establish a genuine peace between the nations.
To everyone bellowing about how the Israeli refusal to extend the freeze reveals its unwillingness to make peace, I ask you: what does the Palestinian Authority's refusal to act on the freeze for nine of its ten months' duration say about their willingness to make peace? If you're so keen on our all making nice, why not ask Abbas exactly what the PA's intentions are for the future Jewish residents of Palestine? Or is that too awkward a question?
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: The Big Freeze
Judith, this is a decision I don't get. What is the moral distinction between the Palestinians saying, "We don't want Jews in our future state," and Israel saying, "Forget about the right of return, this is a Jewish state?" The position on both sides is, "We don't want to live among you. We're not friends; let's not pretend we are. We'll have our own ethnic-majority states and maybe if we're lucky we won't be at war." I don't find the Palestinian position on settlement unreasonable per se. (Obviously, the proposal to execute Palestinians who sell land to Jews is obscene, but let's separate that, analytically.) So what does Netanyahu have to lose by extending the freeze? Is the point simply to say, "You waited too long, you're obviously not serious, we can't work with you, when I say ten months I mean ten months?" Because there's a lot to lose by failing to extend it. Why not put responsibility for the failure of the talks, if they must fail, unambiguously in Abbas's hands?
Re: The Big Freeze
I'll answer your second question first. Saying "fine, we'll extend the freeze to make you more comfortable" will not in any way put responsibility for the failure of the talks unambiguously in Abbas's hands. On the contrary: it will be perceived as an admission that the failure or success of the talks is unambiguously in our hands. We freeze the settlements, things progress; we allow construction, the talks die. Everything else becomes irrelevant. I assure you that if Bibi bends, this will not be the last time Abbas demands we extend the freeze.
As to the first question: one-fifth of the population of Israel is Arab. Israel is far from, is in no way angling to become, Arab-rein. Refusing to allow the grandchildren of people who fled from Jaffa in 1948 to take back the old apartment is hardly analagous to the statement that no Jew, young, old, prior claim or no, is allowed to live in Palestine.
Israel is a Jewish state with an Arab population. Abbas apparently wants Palestine to be a Muslim state with no Jewish population (and possibly no Christian population either, for all we know). These are apples and oranges.
Re: The Big Freeze
Yes, but the ostensible question is the expansion of Jewish settlements--i.e., more Jews moving to territory that would in principle be part of a Palestinian state. I don't think the moral distinction is as clear as you're suggesting. Israel is not angling to be Arab-free, but it is certainly opposed to being Arab-majority. Once you've accepted the principle that the Jewish state must remain Jewish in character--and I do--you're on very shaky ground in challenging Palestinians who wish Palestine to be Palestinian in character. The issue ostensibly at hand isn't whether the Arabs now in Israel or the Jews now in the settlements will be expelled (although it might become the issue).
Sep '10
Re: The Big Freeze
The settlements are part of a strategy designed to enhance the chances of Israel’s survival. Thinking of them as a negotiating ploy is a mistake. What does Netanyahu have to lose? What does he have to gain? When the current talks fail Israel will be blamed no matter what, except by a minority, a good many of whom will not voice their opinions.
Re: The Big Freeze
Yes, this makes sense to me.
(P.S. It's so great to have you back Judith. When all this was "going down" I was checking Ricochet for your thoughts. Glad to now have them.)
Aug '10
Re: The Big Freeze
Claire,
You're missing the distinction. The so called "right of return", is a discussion of allowing the descendents of ostensibly some 700,000 refugees in 1948 to return to the borders of Israel "proper" (however that state will ultimately be defined).
Expanding settlements is not about mass population movements, it's about families adding on an extra room, enclosing a balcony and allowing their 25yr old married children to buy a flat next door as opposed to moving in an hour away. At worst it's about also absorbing 10% of the annual new immigrants (some 20,000 people or less at the moment)
Conflating the two is a serious misunderstanding of the issues. The first is comparable to requiring Arab countries to allow back or make reparations for the +/-700,000 Jews expelled in (and around) 1948. The latter is the equivalent to not allowing Israeli Arab's to build in Israel. As if Israel's Supreme Court would permit it.
Also, what will Netanyahu/Israel gain by extending the freeze? The freeze itself set back negotiations by at least 12 months. The most cruel action in war is to let the enemy think they can win.
Aug '10
Re: The Big Freeze
I'm glad the farcical peace talks are over, at least for now. The 'Palestinians' are a bogus entity invented by the Arab world to hammer the Jewish state; a counterfeit refugee class intended to garner sympathy from the world and squishy Israelis.
Just at the point where they are close to winning, Israelis appear to be waking up to smell the coffee.
Re: The Big Freeze
RF, the settlements are, certainly, about changing demography. It's a weak argument to claim otherwise; the strong argument is not that they aren't about changing the demography, it's that yes, of course they are, and they should be about changing the demography--Israel has no strategic depth without that territory, and is therefore going to keep it. It's ridiculous to expect all of that territory to be relinquished--that expectation was forfeited in '67. But a peace settlement, if it's remotely imaginable, is going to require that some of that territory be Palestinian. How much is precisely what's under negotiation. To say, "Yes, we're settling there, but those settlers will become Palestinian citizens" ... come on. That's not reality. Of all the demands the PA is making as a precondition for the continuation of talks, the demand for a freeze on settlements until an agreement is reached on the border is the least disingenuous. (The demand that the wall be torn down is totally disingenuous.)
Aug '10
Re: The Big Freeze
Claire, valid point, but I don't understand how your point follows as the logical next statement to your previous post.
Is there any mainstream claim that those people will "just become Palestinian citizens"? The notion is itself is merely to point out the double standards and absurdity of the situation. Further those towns are expected to be exchanged for other land in the 2 state model, why is their size (within reason) relevant?
The "settlement freeze" isn't an issue of expanding the footprint, it's not about mass new towns, it's about a few extra houses, balconies/closed in porches. To sell it as more is to believe the PA spin.
Indeed the whole term "settler" is a poor translation and fallacious in a post-colonial/biblical world - the "settlements" arent some pioneering venture - we're talking about a block of flats on the end of an existing town.
The fact that a freeze is demanded at all is testament to Obama's disastrous involvement and the lack of bona fide's from the PA. Its a transparent ploy to escape from the talks, give Obama a bloodynose in the upcoming elections and save face with Hamas.
Re: The Big Freeze
Either the building of housing in disputed territories is demographically significant--in which case the argument, "This is an effort to create facts on the ground, this is not negotiating in good faith" is valid; or it is "about a few extra houses, balconies/closed in porches," in which case--why hand the PA such a marvelous excuse to walk? Balconies are not an existential issue. If the argument is (as I believe yours was), "These talks are a joke to begin with," then it makes sense. If the argument is, "There is a remote chance they could bear fruit," then this makes much less sense.
Aug '10
Re: The Big Freeze
Claire,
You pose a false choice, and make two inferences, on each side of your equation both of which are false. Not enough words to elaborate. But...
Why agree to a freeze which costs huge political capital locally and creates hardship on the ground not to mention a gross violation of civil rights and hand the PA a victory when there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing so? The PA will walk out anyway and assume what was offered as a starting point for the next talks. Precisely why the freeze was a dumb, indeed dangerous, idea to start with.
You're arguing Oslo (i.e. 1993) logic, i.e. if Israel makes a small concession they might get something in return, or at least show the other side's intransigence. This logic has been extremely detrimental to Israel and is based on false reasoning. At least one third option exists, i.e. that the PA takes the concession and still gets away painting Israel as intransigent with the assistance of the useful idiots and worse. If there are more than 2 potential outcomes, there may be more than 3 as well.
Re: The Big Freeze
RF--okay, we're starting from different premises. If you think the freeze was absolutely idiotic to begin with, then of course you're not going to favor extending it. And that's consistent with your view that the negotiations themselves are a waste of time. My view, as you probably remember, is that the odds are against the negotiations, but they're not a waste of time--for all the reasons Judith described, and for a few additional reasons as well, to wit, that the pressure on the PA to get serious is uniquely acute right now given the Arab world's dawning realization that they have something much more imminent to worry about than Israel in the Iranian nuclear program. This makes the odds of these talks working better-than-zero--perhaps even as good as 20 percent. (Stupid probably to assign probabilities, but I'm trying not to be woolly.) This is the best time since Oslo for Israel to adopt aspects of the Oslo logic. The Oslo logic was not inherently bad for all negotiating situations; it was bad for negotiations with Arafat. Is Abbas Arafat redux? Some reasons to think not.
Aug '10
Re: The Big Freeze
Claire, I'm not sure the negotiations are a waste of time necessarily, I'm not decided. But I can see some very compelling arguments that they're at best neutral, possibly highly destructive and counter-productive - a fortiori for the freeze.
Oslo logic is not always bad - but it has proven bad with the Palestinians. If Arafat "won" against Oslo Logic, why would Abbas be rational to try an alternative approach? Further, you suggests reasons to think Abbas isn't Arafat, I've seen a few but the counter argument - i.e. that he's as bad or worse (either because of his ability to deceive, or his weakness) seems emintently more compelling given his behaviour and the pressures he finds himeself under - not to mention his stated intellectual and ideological position, not to mentio that of his terror gang.
Perhaps more viscerally, why should Judith or any other Israeli take the risk? It's not like there aren't alternatives. Repeating an action expecting a different result each time is hardly highly thought of in intellectual and scientific circles.
Aug '10
Re: The Big Freeze
I've argued Judith's naivety in the article linked.
The timing is propitious only for Obama and US politics. His presidency (outside of huge deficits / social healthcare) has failed miserably. He's desperately.
Neither Israeli's nor Palestinians are desperate for a "resolution". Israeli's are not under acute daily attack, level of violence is generally "restrained", Unpleasant, something needing correction, but chronically manageable, in particular given other social / economic issues. The Time article may be an anti-semitic canard, but with a grain of truth - ie Israeli's (Jews in particular) have suffered worse and each time learned to carry on with life as normal as best as possible.
More importantly the Palestinians wont gain by a "solution". Their economy is improving, but is still heavily supported by foreign aid, some 2/3rds of all employable young males under arms. Corruption is rife, but would only be worse with full PA control. Internecine violence is bearable, kept partly under wraps by the IDF and Hamas is kept at bay. If the IDF walked out tomorrow, foreign aid begins to dry up - the situation can ONLY get worse. Why reach agreement? Rather find a lame excuse to end talks?
Re: The Big Freeze
RF, we seem to be the only ones left on this thread, which surprises me--I would have thought this topic of great interest. The 200-word format is a bit limiting here, so forgive me if my answers aren't completely satisfying. But the short answer to the question "Why take the risk?"--as applies to any risk, really--is "What's the potential payoff?" And while I don't want to presume to speak for Judith, it seems to me the payoff for her would be not having to face the prospect of her kids being involved in this mess, which is a huge payoff indeed. My stepbrother's son is there right now. I'm sure we both know a lot of people who would prefer a happier future for their kids than this one. You're right that this is not an "unbearable" level of violence, but it is certainly not a great situation.
If you're giving the negotiations "at best neutral" prospects of success, you're conceding some possibility of success, no? What arguments do you see in favor of that possibility?
May '10
Re: The Big Freeze
It seems logical that any solution will ultimately involve some swap of territory. Given this, it seems as though freezing population movement (the actual construction involved is beside the point) seems like a neutral stance. If it represents a concession by Israel, that is only because they have the upper hand in terms of force. Saying that until we figure out who lives where, more population expansion into disputed territories is prohibited, seems fair to both sides of a territorial dispute.
I understand that domestic pressure may not make this viable, but I really fail to see how this is unfair to Israel. In the same way that ceasing attacks on Israeli civilians should also be a neutral stance not requiring concessions.
But to RF's point, if the Israelis are prepared to live with a certain level of threat from the Palestinians and the this is an acceptable cost for more elbow room, then let's stop the charade of peace talks. (But then neither can we excoriate TIME for its cover headline.)
Edited on Oct 4, 2010 at 7:13amMay '10
Re: The Big Freeze
One problem, Trace. Only the Jewish population is "frozen." Has anyone even suggested that the Arabs in "disputed territories" cease construction? They, apparently, can build pretty much wherever they please. And they largely do. Seems to me the biggest mistake Israel made was to allow such an idea as "disputed territories" to take hold. The areas west of the Jordan should have been annexed to Israel proper after they were taken in the defensive wars that they won. The Arabs living within who were unwilling to be Israelis should have been invited to move across to their homeland east of the Jordan. That was ostensibly why the country of Transjordan was created back in the 1920's, wasn't it?
May '10
Re: The Big Freeze
You raise a fair point Caryn and one that is not widely reported. You're right of course, fair is fair. There should be building or no building.
Re: The Big Freeze
Caryn, it is a good point, and Trace, you're right, it's not widely reported, and it should be. Can anyone point me to sources for the study of the rate of Palestinian "settlement" of the disputed territories, the number of new houses built, a map showing this? Are Palestinians building on territory that everyone pretty much knows will not be in the future Palestine? Judith--if you're still reading this--this would be an interesting post. I'm still not convinced this is a point on which Netanyahu should stand firm. To extend the freeze past the US election would not vitally compromise Israeli security. Is it not a mistake to allow the failure of the talks to be attributed to this? It allows Abbas, as Judith puts it, to bludgeon Israel with the PR cudgel and fail to take responsibility for the PA's unseriousness about the business. I know the counter-argument: "No matter what Israel does it will be blamed." True in a lot of the world, but not all of it, and the sympathy of the parts of the world in which it isn't true remain pretty important to Israel's security.
May '10
Re: The Big Freeze
Not super heavy on details, but this article from today by Caroline Glick makes some of the same points. She could certainly provide a lively and knowledgeable line of conversation on this topic. I'd love to see a debate between her and Claire, or perhaps a round table with Judith, too.