Arlene Kushner
Leaders of Judea and Samaria are warning of a "silent, de facto building freeze."
Naftali Bennet, director-general of the Yesha Council, has reported that "The cities of Judea and Samaria are effectively frozen. The government has promised to stop the freeze, yet it is continuing it." There are 4,321 planned units that relevant government ministries have not officially sanctioned. Two of the biggest cities -- Ma'aleh Adumim and Beitar Illit -- are almost out of permits for building. In fact, building will soon stop in 14 of the 19 largest communities of Judea and Samaria unless the Defense Ministry authorizes more construction and the Housing and Construction Ministry issues more tenders. In nine communities all that is required is the political OK, as all technical arrangements are in place.
The Yesha leaders say that the media have been so focused on the few hundred building starts that have gone ahead that no one is paying attention to the fact that things may come to a dead stop soon. They aim to change this with their "Save the Cities" campaign, which is pushing for building permits to be issued.
~~~~~~~~~~
So what is going on? Wish I could tell you. This sort of "silent" freeze, which is not total in any event, is not sufficient to allow Abbas to climb down from his tree and sit at the table. Nor can Obama get many points for this before the election, because it's so much under the table, so unofficial.
Who is satisfied by this? What goals are achieved and by whom?
I suspect that in looking at Abbas or Obama for clues may, we may, in fact, be looking too far afield. As I've noted, what is required are permits from the Ministry of Defense, which is headed by our "good friend" Ehud Barak. Surely, we see his heavy-handed approach here. Barak often takes steps like this to mollify his Labor party, so that he can retain the position of party leader, and so that the party doesn't pull out of the coalition, thereby costing him his ministry.
The whole story? Probably note. But I do not discount this. Nor do I discount Barak's eagerness to be good buddies with Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~
The bottom line, however, is that the buck truly does stop with the prime minister. If Netanyahu weren't signing off on this somehow, or turning a willfully blind eye, this would not be happening. And so we must also ask what he has agreed to, what comes next, and what his intentions truly are.
~~~~~~~~~~
Once again, it's time to raise our voices. Please!
Let PM Netanyahu know (politely, of course!) how deeply enraged by this you are. Let him know that you hold him responsible for the lack of building in Judea and Samaria, and that his credibility is on the line. Tell him that you consider such building to be imperative, and that you will do everything in your power to promote such building and those Israeli leaders with the courage to support it. If we stop building, we will compromise the human rights of Jews in the area, the Jewish claim to the land, and Israel's broader security.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses
~~~~~~~~~~
Alan Baker, a lawyer and former legal advisor to the Foreign Ministry, does not think much of the PA threats regarding unilateral establishment of a state via the UN.
Most recently, the PA threatened that if the Security Council didn't sign off on a state, they would go to the General Assembly, whose resolutions are not binding in international law in any event. Says Baker, This threat "shows either ignorance of or contempt for the UN system."
Any attempt to circumvent the agreed-upon negotiation process stipulated by Oslo would undermine the basis of Oslo, he says, and with it the legal basis for the Palestinian Authority. This would provide grounds for voiding the agreement and "open the door to potential Israeli unilateral action..."
There is a question as to whether the parties who are signatories as witnesses to Oslo -- the US, the EU, Egypt, Jordan and others -- would in the end agree to sanction recognition of a state in a process that runs contrary to what they had signed.
What is more, claims that "settlements" are illegal -- because they violate Article 31 of the Accords, which prohibit alteration of the status of the territory that is subject to negotiations -- do not hold up. That is because legal arrangements between individual Israeli residents and the government authority that is administering the area under question does not alter its status.
As to the Security Council, Baker is not so sure it would sign on to unilateral declaration of a state either, for this would fly in the face of its own Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for the need to determine borders via negotiations.
And there are other problems as well: The call for the Security Council to recognize the state within "the 1967 borders" would be severely problematic because (as I've pointed out innumerable times) there are no such borders, only armistice lines. Says Baker, "Determining borders is an essential component in interstate relations. The principles of peaceful coexistence and bon-voisinage ["good neighbor" treaties that seek to bind countries to border cooperation], whether pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations or the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan, respectively, determine the necessity for mutual recognition of a common border."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=192886
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
No comments:
Post a Comment