'Settlement freeze biggest obstacle to direct talks'
Senior cabinet ministers hold first discussion on extending freeze; Abbas has conditioned direct talks with Israel on a continued construction freeze.
By Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff Tags: Israel news Benjamin Netanyahu Israel settlements Mahmoud Abbas Middle East peaceThe "forum of seven" senior cabinet ministers held their first meeting over the weekend to discuss the continuation of the West Bank settlement freeze, which is due to expire in September, concluding that the issue would be the main hindrance in direct talks with the Palestinians.
 |
Palestinians work at a construction site in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Elazar, near Bethlehem, Tuesday, July 7, 2010. |
| Photo by: AP |
The Palestinian Authority has said that it would halt direct negotiations if Israel did not extent the settlement freeze beyond September 26, yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said that continuing the construction freeze after it expired would be impossible politically and would bring down the coalition.
Most of the ministers in the forum are against extending the freeze, yet Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor have been pushing for a compromise in line with the previous government's policies, in which the construction will only be renewed in the main settlement blocs, or the freeze would be extended by an additional three months.
The ministers concluded after their meeting that Israel would agree to certain goodwill gestures toward the Palestinians once the talks began.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has conditioned direct talks with Israel on a continued construction freeze.
Palestinian sources told Haaretz that Abbas seeks unequivocal clarifications from the United States that the framework for direct talks will include a declaration that the Palestinian state will be based on the June 4, 1967 borders and that border adjustments will be based on exchanges of territory.
The PA also wants an Israeli declaration that the construction freeze in the settlements will continue and that construction in East Jerusalem will stop.
The Arab League has laid out its conditions for supporting the direct talks, specifically, that there are clear terms of reference, a definitive time frame to end the conflict and a monitoring unit to ensure conditions are being met.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
so if israel has a right to the west bank annexe it. Then we could focus on fighting the resultants apartheid state. Nothing would please us more
We dont need a lot of half built buildings built when we mean freeze we mean before construction starts. Okay finish the building s then fight over who gets to live in them. Karoon
Ya think?
i'm so sorry that you think so because the biggest hinderance is Israels security. when Israels security can be guarantied then peace talks can be discussed.
So Bibi's concerned that his govt will fall if he extends the freeze - it's nice to see that he's more concerned about his political survival than the good of the country. But there is another choice, wave bye, bye to Lieberman and the NRP (Shas won't go - though no great loss if they do) and bring Kadima in. Were Bibi to assure Livni that he would SERIOUSLY pursue negotiations, extend the settlement freeze and develop a fall back plan if negotiations fail (settlers come home army stays in WB) Livni would have no choice but to bite the bullet and join Bib's government. Then Bibi'd get to do the right thing AND stay in power. Win/Win for him at least (personally I can't stand him but if he did that I'd be ok with him staying in the PM's office)
Abbas understands that without a settlement freeze, Netanyahu will talk, and talk, and talk, until the entire Palestinian population of Judea and Samaria has been driven into a few Ghettos or displaced entirely.
Nicely put Mark
What Abbas understands, fool, is that, by repeatedly setting conditions which are unreasonable and unsustainable, there can never be a so-called "State of Palestine". The worst thing that could ever happen to the ficticious "Palestinians" (no such thing, of course) would be to rid themselves of the "Poor me, I'm so oppressed" stigma. (For that matter, it would probably be the worst thing that could happen to you too. What on earth would you do with your life if you couldn't devote to perpetual condemnation of Israel?)
Forget about personal opinion- Lets examine International Law! The present situation in the West Bank and Gaza raise similar issues. The rights of the respective claimants must be examined in order to determine who has the superior title to the territory in question.If the Palestinian Arabs had accepted the United Nations resolution in May 1948, there would be no conflict over the title in this area.Palestinian Arabs could have joined Israel as successor to Great Britain, the mandatory power in Palestine. Sovereignty would have bee vested in the Arab State and the Jewish State respectively; this did not occur.Israel is the only state to assert its right to self-determination and thus receive the sovereignty previously vested in the mandatory power.No Palestinian government exists that can contest Israeli sovereignty in Palestine. Although there have been many offers of independent sovereignty; they have made no apparent effort to claim title within a "reasonable time." Thus by virtue of the doctrine of extinctive prescription, the Palestinians have lost whatever legal title they may have possessed. ("Prescription' is a means by which a state can acquire or lose sovereignty and title over territory with the passing of time.) Source International Law by Phillip J. Gendell, Paul G. Stark
is Abbas' setting conditions on beginning talks
Israel in my opinion has as much right to claim the West Bank as Palestinians claim the right to return to land which the Arab Legue drove them from in 1948. The residents of this country have the right to keep homes that they built in the past 62 years. Many of these home are owned by Christians, Muslims,and Druze. What about this novel idea? How about both sides searching for ways to buid our region sanely???? A proud Israeli hoping that we will do better!! Earl in Haifa
The Palestineans use the building freeze as a way to delay coming to grips with the negotitions.If they would be prepared to discuss borders it would soon be clear where building could continue & where it should not as areas destined to be returned do not require further building. Keeping the situation blured is an ideal way to put off any decision
It is more than likely that the"no preconditions" of Netanyahu is more a smoke screen to continue authorizing illegal settlement building and also likely that his government is quite happy to leave things to drift along and avoid having to negotiate with the Pals.
Just ask yourself, David, in whose interests is delaying negotiations? Israel will find ways to delay forever, or until settlements take over the West Bank entirely.
Why does Israel have to live by a different world standard? Nearly a quarter of US territory once belonged to Mexico before it was conquered and annexed in war. And when considering the limits of Israeli borders, why do we consider Palestine at all. There was never a "nation" of Palestine. The disputed land in the West Bank belonged to Jordan. The land in Gaza belonged to Egypt. Those calling themselves Palestinians never clamored for their own land and nation when Arab entities controlled it. And as far as where a Jew can live, does anyone believe that Jews could freely settle in any Arab country (or most Christians for that matter). There are Arab citizens in Israel. Are there any significant Jewish citizens in Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Iran. The Palestinians once lived in land that belonged to Jordan and Egypt. Those countries should welcome them home. They do not. They still call themselves "refugees." What other group of people have been "refugees" for sixty years. They're refugees because their brethren won't even welcome them and because they can't get together to govern themselves.
So, if Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and/or Iran attack Israel and emerge victorious, they can take all the land back, then?
Settlements are at the core of whether a viable Palestine can ever result. It is the settlers that harbor hostility and attack the Palestinians. As long as they exist with IDF support, there can be no free Palestine.
Could anyone give me a rational ground for building in the Westbank? Don't say: It is also Israel, it is not occupied, it is our right. That is all irrational.
If you know the geography/topography of the land of Israel then you know that the west bank sits atop the central mountain range which overlooks the coastal plain where 80% of Jewish Israelis live, where most industry is to be found including the airport, sea ports , power plants etc. Controlling the west bank for security is rational
Islam declared war on Israel. Islam will be destroyed.
How can peace be negotiated as long as Israeli hard right wingers and settlers insist on living on stolen Palestinian land? let's go back to 1967 borders, and get peace at last! Israel deserves better than settlers.
Once again, if someone screams "occupation" it must be true. Maybe I should go build a tent in the middle of the highway at night when no one is driving on it, then in the morning when people try to arrest me I can say that my land is being stolen because when I got there at night no one was there to tell me it didn't belong to me. So surely "my highway" is "occupied"...
It is not illegal. It is a disputed area. What law says it is Palestinian land ? where are the borders of Palestine ? when was Palestine founded ? did Jordan exist in the 1800 s? No.
The occupation of the Palestinian territory and the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are denounced by the European Union, the USA, UN agencies, international NGOs, international human rights groups, Israeli human rights groups, Israeli pro-peace groups... Only the settlers and Israeli hard right-wingers support settlements on Palestinian land.
It is a military occupation which has gone on so long as to become an oppression. It is, however quite legal. Read the Fourth Geneva Convention, Section III. The government of Israel has allowed unlawful acts by Israeli citizens within the occupied territories. That is another matter.
If the occupying power abuses land and property rights , subjects the population to collective punishment and deprives the population of basic human rights then the occupation can be deemed illegal. WWII was a result of such actions by Germany.
After Netanyahu admitting that extending the settlement freeze would be politically impossible and would bring down the coalition , goes to show what priority " peace talks " have........NONE !
the Pals would not have any assurance at all that Israel is acting in good faith... moreover, the ineffectiveness of the USA and EU to elicit such a freeze, would further deepen the lack of trust that the Pals feel in dealings with Israel's current regime...the Pals are being pushed into a desperate corner... the likes of Iran are licking-their-chops and waiting for an opportunity...
Esther, your concern for every aspect of arab sensitivity, your motherly care is heart warming, however in this context it is unimpressive simply because those emotions are not extended towards the jewish side. Have you ever considered jews getting desperate by being pushed into the corner?
He's had 9 months to start talking, but he waits until the end of the freeze and then says "you have to extend it before I'm prepared to negotiate"??? You had your chance Abbas.
he waited until the end of the freeze becusae it will put the pressure on israel to work fast and bring real purposals to the table upfront instead of waiting to pull them out as a last resort. If they start tomorrow it will give a sense of urgancy to Israel and cut out alot of the posturing and grandstanding.. I perdict that the talks will begin within a week.
Palestinians are not serious. If they want a state they will not give conditions. Perhaps, they love American and European money that is why they are being stubborn.
Does US money explain the Israeli stubbornness?
"If they want a state they will not give conditions." It rather depends. They do if they want a VIABLE state. They don't if they are willing to be satisfied with bantustans.
If Abbas pins down the borders, the construction becomes irrelevant. The settlers inside the to-be-Palestine may want to keep building and try and prevent Palestine. But their funding will dry up. This is a primary reason Netanyahu doesn't want to talk borders. It dries up his raison d'etre.
If foreign workers and Pal laborere had the cash for a home in TA, why would they be slaving away at our most medial jobs?! And what has Masada to do with all, while we stage our most avant-garde operas there?! Miron is enjoying never-never land, while-Rome-burns...
Canadians live in Canada, they do not occupy the land of their neighbor. All that the works asks from Israel is to put an end to the colonial policy led by a handful of settlers out of its borders.
But Abbas is talking about 300,000 people.
East Jerusalem is also occupied.
I guess you have no knowledge of the "Palestine Mandate," or why it was named that. We will not bother you with the origins of the name "Palestine" as applied to the region. That involves usage over thousands of years by many empires. It would involve reference to Herodotus, Hadrian, the Byzantine Empire, and the region known to the Arab Caliphate as Filistin.