"Is This for Real?"

Arlene Kushner

According to the JPost today, David Makovsky -- who is director of the Project on the Middle East Peace for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy -- says that Washington and Jerusalem have finalized a letter regarding the renewed building freeze.

Well-connected to the American administration though he may be, Makovsky has certain biases and does not represent an official source. Moreover, there is no news of an actual letter in our government's hands. Yet, what he says is worth taking a look at precisely because it evokes that "Is this for real?" response. According to Makovsky, the crux of the deal centers on the US providing Israel with advanced fighter jets in return for a three-month freeze that both the US and the Israeli government hope will get Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

That's it? Jets? What happened to promising that no further freeze would be requested by the US administration? What about wording that implies (although not explicitly stating) that Jerusalem is not included in the freeze? What about US security assurances such as backing our right to keep the IDF in the Jordan Valley? What about a promise that the US will not support PLO unilateral actions in the Security Council (even if for one paltry year)?

None of this is mentioned by Makovsky. And I'm inclined to accept this version precisely because that letter has been haggled over for so long now.

Many if not all of the items we might have expected to see included -- not asking for another freeze, etc. etc. -- have been sources of dissension. It's possible that the Obama administration backed off, in the face of vehement Arab objections, on what was promised by Clinton. And it's possible that Netanyahu misinterpreted or exaggerated what Clinton originally offered.

But there is also a third possibility. According to Arutz Sheva today, a "diplomatic official" says that Clinton deliberately misled Netanyahu. Her claim is that she wasn't speaking for the president, and he had final word.

~~~~~~~~~~

Explains Makovsky, even Obama's offer on the jets is not a sure thing, because the deal must be sanctioned by the House. Because of this, he says, Netanyahu is seeking some sort of "fall-back understanding" so that he can present the Security Cabinet with an iron-clad arrangement regarding the planes. What that might be -- how our prime minister could absolutely promise the Cabinet that we'd get our planes when relevant members of the House have not yet spoken -- is not explained. It would require some political doubletalk, methinks.

~~~~~~~~~~

On top of all of this, according to Makovsky, there has been a "verbal affirmation" from Netanyahu to Clinton that there would be "meaningful progress" on border issues during those 90 days.

Sickening, if true. But, of course, Netanyahu cannot really make such an affirmation, because "meaningful progress" depends on two sides.

As I have previously indicated, separating out this issue is greatly dangerous to Israel, for it might provide the PLO with the means to go to the Security Council and ask for recognition of a state based on borders that we had already agreed to.

~~~~~~~~~~

I'm going to try to adhere to my maxim, "Never say never," but it appears exceedingly unlikely that the Security Cabinet would approve this, as it is being discussed by the JPost according to Makovsky. I think Yishai has been too clear and public in his demands regarding no additional freeze and the exclusion of Jerusalem from the moratorium to buy into this for the sake of jets -- no matter what might be promised him and his Shas party under the table. I think he'd look too foolish, too corrupt, to do so.

~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not even certain if Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who is just starting to wax a bit ambivalent, would sit still for this. On Monday he said he would support the freeze if construction continued in Jerusalem and the US promised not to demand another freeze. Nu?

Likud Central Committee anti-freeze activists intend to focus on Sa'ar now.

~~~~~~~~~~

See the statement about the freeze by Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu):

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=bdR0nShI4Lg&feature=email

~~~~~~~~~~

In any event, Abbas is not going to come to the table. Since the vote on the referendum bill passed Monday night, this is, predictably, more certain than ever.

Declared Abbas: "This law is aimed at placing obstacles in front of a peace settlement. The Israelis are telling the world that they won't withdraw from Jerusalem and the Golan."

The Arab League has gone him one better, calling this bill proof that Israel is "aggressive."

~~~~~~~~~~

As to that referendum bill, allow me to expand the understanding of what it's about. The talk is about Jerusalem and the Golan. But the bill alludes to everywhere that Israeli civil law applies, and that means all of Israel within the Green Line, as well. Were Netanyahu or any other prime minister to attempt to strike a deal in which we were to keep some communities beyond the Green Line, but give the Palestinian Arabs a commensurate area of land within the Green Line in exchange, this, too, would have to be submitted to a national referendum or be approved by a supermajority of the Knesset.

(With thanks to Jeff D. on this.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Damn. In spite of predictions that Durban III might not happen, it seems now that it will. The General Assembly voted, 121 to 19 (with 35 abstentions) to commemorate the anti-racism Durban conference of 2001 at next year’s opening General Assembly meeting in New York.

Anne Bayefsky explains:

"Late yesterday, the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee adopted a resolution which launches another global 'anti-racism' hatefest. It is intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the debacle held in Durban, South Africa in 2001. But this time, the UN has outdone itself: the celebration of a notorious prescription for intolerance, closely linked to Islamic extremism, is now scheduled for New York City just days after the 10th anniversary of 9/11...
"The plans for Durban III contained in the document are much more explicit than a usual UN resolution and contradict a very active misinformation campaign already underway by the UN and closely-related individuals and organizations.

"Most heads of government avoided Durban I and the only one to attend Durban II was the poster-boy for racism and xenophobia himself, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So for Durban III, the UN decided to ensnare most heads of state and government by scheduling the event to coincide with the annual opening of the UN General Assembly, when they are all present in New York anyway. The resolution sets the date as September 21, 2011 ('the second day of the General Debate'), and specifically designates it as a 'High-Level' meeting 'at the level of Heads of States and Governments.'

"Contrary to some suggestions, the event will not be a quiet commemoration with minimal political design. Amendments made to the resolution late in the day decide that the meeting should 'consist…of an opening plenary, consecutive round tables/thematic panels and a closing plenary meeting.' And then the meeting will adopt a final 'political declaration.'

"...In addition, in the resolution the UN puts out a call for help from the world of rabble-rousers who masquerade as human rights enthusiasts. Despite being fully aware of the violent extremism characterizing the NGO Forum at Durban I, the resolution asks 'civil society, including NGOs' 'to organize and support' 10th anniversary initiatives 'with high visibility.'

"The Obama administration is clearly worried about the effects of Durban III on its policy of embracing the UN and its human rights apparatus. U.S. representative John Sammis spelled out their concerns, lamenting to the UN committee that the event 'risks undermining the relationship we have worked hard to strengthen over the past few years between the United States and the UN.'

"Indeed it does.

"The question now is which countries will ensure that their heads of state and of government will not participate in such an outrage. The United States and Israel walked out of Durban I in disgust. Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States refused to participate in Durban II.

"With 19 votes against and another 35 democracies concerned enough to abstain, it is time to send an even more powerful and permanent message to the UN about Durban and its progeny.

"Last night U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called on the Obama administration to 'announce publicly, right now, that we will stay away from Durban III, deny it U.S. taxpayer dollars, and oppose all measures that seek to facilitate it. And we should encourage other responsible nations to do the same.'

"Unfortunately, comments made by U.S. representative Sammis last evening suggest that the Obama administration will again refuse to take a leadership role in denying legitimacy to the Durban agenda. At Durban II, President Obama pulled out less than 48 hours before the event, ruining chances of building a larger coalition of like-minded states..."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/24/pours-salt-americas-wounds/

~~~~~~~~~~

We will have to return to this. A campaign is called for that will pressure the Obama administration on this matter.

~~~~~~~~~~


© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.


see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info