[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

It is hardly surprising that Haaretz Correspondent Zvi Bar'el, like anyone
who dogmatically thinks that withdrawal to the '67 will yield utopian peace
(give me that Oslo religion - it's good enough for me) and thus recommends
that a temporary reduction in terror be considered permanent in order to
justify full withdrawal. The twist here is that Bar'el is linking a
settlement freeze to the presentation of an imposed American "solution".

The propaganda campaign for an imposed "solution" is on.

Damn the democratic process.

We know what's best for Israel and if we can't get our way via the ballot
box then let America impose it.

Meretz (3 Knesset seats) head MK Chaim Oron this morning embraced an
American imposed solution (whatever it is) this morning in a live interview
on Israel Radio in which he explained that it didn't matter what Fatah
adopted at its meeting in Bethlehem. What matters is that Israel and the
Palestinians sit at a table to be presented with the American plan.]

Freezing for failure

By Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz Correspondent Last update - 05:56 09/08/2009
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1106160.html

It should be said from the onset: Do not freeze settlement construction, do
not stop it in part or periodically, not for six months, not for a single
day. As long as the U.S. administration does not present a comprehensive
plan that explains its endgame - what the end will look like and what the
shape and character of the Palestinian state will look like - the demand for
a cessation of construction is pointless. It is a pathetic return to the
doctrine of "confidence-building measures," which led nowhere. The demand to
freeze settlement construction is like the demand to remove roadblocks or
cease razing homes; all these demands and similar ones mean only one thing:
making the continuation of the occupation a little more pleasant.

The demand for a cessation of settlement construction will have no impact on
the political process as long as they are not telling the Israeli and
Palestinian public what will happen with the half-million Israelis who
already live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. How many of them will have
to be evacuated? How much money will this cost and who will pay for it?
Evacuating 7,000 Jews from the Gaza Strip cost more than NIS 10 billion.

Even if only 100,000 Jews are evacuated from the West Bank the move will
cost, on the basis of this estimate, some NIS 150 billion - about 50 percent
of the national budget for an entire year. It is true that it amounts to
"only" about 8 percent of the cost of the American war in Iraq to date, and
maybe for the sake of peace in the Middle East the U.S. administration would
be willing to invest another 8 percent in the area, but someone in
Washington must articulate this clearly. That would be much more convincing
than halting the work of a crane.

American pressure yielded an impressive achievement when they twisted Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's arm and got him to say that he wants "two
states for two peoples." But what comes next? Are Netanyahu's two states the
same two as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' and the same two as
Washington's? Where will the border be demarcated? After all, if it is
agreed that the end of the process will leave the settlement blocs in
Israel's hands, and if indeed the Palestinians accept this in return for an
exchange of territory, why is it necessary to cease construction in those
blocs?

Logic dictates that construction should continue in the blocs and if
possible at a faster pace, so that it will be possible to absorb those
evacuated from other settlements. But when there is no plan or agreement on
the border, not to mention that negotiations are not even taking place, the
demand for ceasing construction appears to be some sort of independent aim -
isolated from its political context and whose sole intention is to display
America's ability to impose "something" on Israel. Meanwhile, the removal of
illegal outposts is not something Washington has proved it is able to impose
on Israel, despite Israel's promises to the Americans and despite all the
brouhaha caused by Defense Minister Ehud Barak on the matter last month.

The attempt to understand the American move as an action from the periphery
inward - a tactical move meant to lead to further moves, one slice at a
time - is leading toward a dead end and might even be dangerous as well.
Assuming Israel freezes construction and negotiations resume, and that
(although there is no evidence to support it) some Arab states agree to
grant Israel grace in the form of normalization, the desired result is that
such confidence-building measures will encourage the government to convince
the Israeli public to support the process and agree to a withdrawal. But it
is not the public that needs to be encouraged; it is the right-wing
government for whom the remnants of the Labor Party are serving as
apologists. What is worse is that this government may agree to a gradual and
temporary cessation of settlement construction, and at the same time will
make every effort to prove that there is no worthwhile partner for this
"sacrifice" on the other side. At the end of the settlement construction
freeze, the government will be able to celebrate the failure of the
negotiations and prove to the Americans that the pressure had been put on
the wrong side. The chance of restarting the process from there will then be
nil.

An honest government would not have to rely on the Arab safety belt in order
to shake off the process. It would have taken advantage of the long period
of calm in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the efficiency the Palestinian
security forces have exhibited in the West Bank in combating terrorism, and
the willingness of Abbas to negotiate seriously in order to tell the public
that the quota of confidence-building measures has been fulfilled and the
time has come for withdrawing and reaching an agreement. But this is not the
sort of government that is running Israel. Washington knows this, as every
Israeli citizen does. Hence the need for a comprehensive plan that will be
managed with precision and determination. Freezing the settlements is not a
plan and is not a prescription.