If we connect a few dots that have emerged over the past week or so, it would appear that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has begun quietly making the necessary political preparations that will allow him to make substantive concessions to the Palestinians on Jerusalem and outposts.
On October 1, the government moved the West Bank police headquarters to the contentious E1 development in the Maale Adumim settlement bloc east of Jerusalem. The transfer, as I noted then suggested the government was preparing to at last green light the building of 3,500 new housing units that the settlers movement has been demanding for years.
One week later, on October 7 Haim Ramon, the leading dove in the Olmert government, told the cabinet that Israel would have to turn over the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as part of any peace agreement. Coming from Ramon that comment was much of a surprise. What was a surprise was when right wing hardliner Avigdor Leiberman stood up in that same cabinet meeting and said “We must make concessions on the Jerusalem issue, or transfer to Palestinian control some of the neighborhoods and refugee camp.” Leiberman’s support is going to be crucial to Olmert’s ability to make any substantive concessions and survive politically, and it seemed that the Israeli premier was succeeding in getting Leiberman on board.
It seemed, however, like the government was pursuing two tracks that were at odds with each other. On one hand they were rallying support for the idea of turning over East Jerusalem to Palestinians, while at the same time pressing ahead on a development that peace activists warn would complete the encirclement of East Jerusalem and make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.
Two days later, on October 9, the IDF announced that it was expropriating 1,100 dunnums of land from four Arab villages to build a Palestinian road connecting East Jerusalem and Jericho. It seemed clear at that point what was going on. The government was intent on both building E1 and turning over East Jerusalem, or parts of it anyway, to the Palestinians. In this context, green lighting E1 seems a sort of payoff to the settlers, a bid by Olmert to garner some political capital ahead of a compromise on Jerusalem that is sure to raise a rumpus on the right.
But Olmert and Co. have another trick up their sleeve it seems. Just when it seemed like the government was going to push forward with E1, a massive expansion to the Maale Adumim settlement bloc, Maariv reports this in today’s paper:
The government has dramatically increased pressure on the settlers to evacuate illegal settlement outposts voluntarily. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has ordered a freeze on construction in the big settlement blocs — Gush Etzion, Ariel and Maale Adumim — even though they are regarded by most of the parties in the Knesset, and by an absolute majority of the public, as areas which will remain under Israeli sovereignty even in a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
In the framework of the negotiations which the Defense Ministry is conducting with the settlements with the purpose of reaching a new “outpost agreement,” [the Settlers Council] were told that so long as they do not sign an agreement which will lead to voluntary evacuation of illegal outposts, no new construction will be permitted even in the big settlement blocs.
The Olmert government knows it is going to have to follow through on years-old promises and start pulling down outposts as part of a peace process that will likely kick into gear with the Annapolis conference in late November. This would appear to be his bid to make that process a little less painful.
Many have long discounted Olmert’s chances of pulling off a peace deal with the Palestinians. He is too weak and too unpopular to sell the necessary concessions to a skeptical Israeli public, the thinking goes. But perhaps Olmert, whose most touted attribute is that he’s a wily political tactician, is just the man to navigate the political minefield of peace.
33 responses so far ↓
1 Mike Nargizian // Oct 12, 2007 at 5:25 am
So are you saying Israel is expecting to evacuate Gush Etzion and Ariel?
or just the far flung parts included in Gush Etzion?
In all seriousness how can anyone in their right mind possibly think that this move will move the Palestinian side 1 inch…. it will only embolden the Palestinians, Hamas and the Arab world…. to continue to more fervently demand everything including the “”Right of Return”" while now having control over East Jerusalem already officially off the table….
Meanwhile, the Waqf is still purposefully, and unsupervised, digging up the shit out of the Mount and dumping 3000 years of history… Canaanite, Hebrew and Christian.
It seems every few years the Israelis bend more and more while the Palestinians and Arab world become more intrasurgent and demanding…..
It’s 2007 and wey’re still talking about the “”"Right of Return”"”…………..
2 Shual // Oct 12, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Mike Nargizian, S”o are you saying Israel is expecting to evacuate Gush Etzion and Ariel?”. I don’t think he said that.
And I think the Maariv-report is another classic of Yesha-propaganda. [Ex: “Ariel Sharon is destroying the Yesha communities to save himself from prosecution for gross political and financial corruption.” Last outpost-affaire]
After Barak took the job he immediatly sent Eitan Broshi to broker a deal with the Yesha-council in the case of a voluntary removal of [suspected Ramon-list, who heads the “Ministerial Committee on Unauthorized Outposts”] 26 outposts. At the end of August Barak set some “guiding principles” including that “no new settlements will be established in the West Bank”. Yesha reacted early, anouncing a “campaign” against anything from Barak and the first one who wanted to take the negotiations away from Barak was Lieberman early September. They wanted to give the whole scope into the hands of Ramons Comittee, that “is expected to establish rules for building in the West Bank.” [Time-factor]. It did not work, Barak ist still in charge.
The Yesha-allegation: “Barak is carrying out a clear policy to freeze all construction and marketing processes all across Judea and Samaria.” [destroying the Yesha communities? hahahah BOYKOTT? Wow!] is a fascinating peace of political theatric and thats the reason why I like my freinds of the Yesha Council so much. They don’t bore me.
The real question [and we have to understand that its a important question for THEM] “We ask to define, in a manner that will be deemed acceptable to both the residents and the government, the legal status of the outposts. This to prevent a long, aggressive battle.” [June last year]. Nothing happened, except they have to talk to the red rag Barak who is not very sensitive with them.
3 Xaxam // Oct 12, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Charles,
if any dots that you connect invariably reveal the same pattern, you may have a cognitive problem.
If I will do the similar exercise, the only conclusion consistent with all observable data would be that the present Palestinian leadership simply tries to avoid the creation of any independent state of its own. Of course, they would bite off their languages rather than acknowledge this, yet nobody can deny the obvious.
Every time there is a sign that Israel yields to some of their demands and intimates its readiness for some concessions, the Palestinians always raise their stake rather than go forward.
You need the examples? This week Abbas reiterated the sacrosanctity of the right of return and an reaffirmed his uncompromising position on the territorial issue. At the same time, in response to all “creative approaches” concerning the Holy Basin, Adnan Husseini claimed that the Western Wall is non-negotiable as the Waqf.
There is nothing new in this tactics: back in the year 2000, when Barak was trapped in Camp David and drew a checque for the amount that much exceeded all his political wealth then, it was almost impossible for Arafat not to cash it. At this critical juncture there followed a stern reprimand from Egypt: Mubarak stressed that the Haram ash-Sharif belongs to the entire Umma, and Arafat has no right to concede a single inch of it to the infidels. Of course, he rolled back.
In fact, I hardly can see any country, except for US and Israel, that would be genuinely interested in establishing a firm calm in Eretz Yisrael. Certainly not Egypt, Syria and even not Jordan. Clearly, neither China, nor Russia. You guess it about other Arab countries, Iran etc. Even the Palestinians themselves prefer to shirk the responsibility and enjoy it both ways, - blaming the occupier for all evils and having it policing the unruly neighnborhoods.
4 Anony mouse // Oct 12, 2007 at 6:36 pm
What a ridiculous lot of neonazis you are. You will find any excuse to excuse the evil of occupation. You are in denial that you have systematically robbed and terrorised Palestinians for decades and continue to do so. Or else why are 400 settlers preventing Palestinians walking the streets of their own town? It is Israel that has the military power an d stronger hand. The Palestinians demands are measly and even they are scorned. You are sick in the head.
5 Pappe // Oct 12, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Anony mouse: Calm down.
What you call “The occupation” is bad but there are far worst evil in this world.
“The Palestinian never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” — Abba Eban
6 greenmamba // Oct 13, 2007 at 12:56 am
There’s a new dot today. Abbas is demanding the Wailing Wall because Mohammed used to park his horse there.
How does that factor into the puzzle? (I have an opinion but I won’t voice it until I calm down.)
7 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 2:23 am
Didn’t King Solomon also had horses in the place called today Al-Aksa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon’s_Stables
Oh, wait a minute, it was only the crusaders who used it as stables so I guess it all belong to the Pope now.
8 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 2:24 am
URL did work quite right: http://tinyurl.com/3cxrta
9 Compulsive Reader // Oct 13, 2007 at 3:34 am
“The Palestinian never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” — Abba Eban
And a Zionist never misses an opportunity to grind their jackboots in their face. Occupation not so bad, eh? Tell that to the thousands of dead.
The only dots I see are the trail of blood left by the two state solution.
10 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 5:31 am
The so-called “trail of blood” (tens of thousands Jews were killed in this conflict - their blood is red as well) is mainly because of opposing to the “two state solution”.
After all, Islamists (who now control Palestinian Public Opinion as well) never accepted the simple right of the Jewish people for a homeland in the Middle East.
You and many westerners who keep pushing for the so-called “one state” as a final solution to the conflict know very well what such “final solution” means: Denial of the Jewish people right to sovereignty over a piece of land in the middle east.
Why would the Jews (those you call “Zionists” – but we know what you really mean) – Palestinian call them “Yahood”) have any incentive to compromise when Palestinians and their supporters in the west declare from Every opportunity that they want to end the ability for a homeland for the Jewish people.
So as long as you push for the “winner take all” solution (one state in which only one people will rule) the Palestinians are going to loose.
If on the other hand, you will grow up, and start telling your Palestinian friends , what every mother tell her 5 Year old (that they better learn how to share) – at that point the Palestinians will be doing much better and will be on their way to end “The Occupation”…….
If you wonder why the ” ” – ask every Palestinian in East Jerusalem if they prefer living under Israel or under Jordan or under Palestinian rule. When it comes to economics suddenly “The occupation” is gone and everyone wants to live under Israeli rule. Many in Gaza now feel the same…..Wonder why ????
11 Mike Nargizian // Oct 13, 2007 at 8:02 am
Greenmamba,
Mohammed DID NOT park his horse there in his dream….. assuming the farthest mosque is referring to Jerusalem and not Medina) he supposedly parked it on the Southern Wall….. and everybody knows this
This is a perfect example of the Islamic Propoganda Machine (Goerrbelsque) in the last 10 years… started by AFATRAT…. who tried to say that a Temple never existed there…. and then tried to say that the Western Wall is Muslim… even though every member of the Waqf knows its the Southern Wall…. now they’re purposefully diggging up and dumping the Mount and 3000 years of history to try and destroy ANY trace of Judaic or Biblical (not to mention Caananite, Greek, etc…) history…..
This is how a big lie makes it to mainstream Western “”"”"unbiased”"”"” media…. We’ll see the fing BBC in 3 years stating that Muslims claim the Western Wall (only bcs its the Jooooos wall) as the Wall Mohammed ascended to heaven from……
David Irving spoke at Oxford this past week on his “”views”" on the Holocaust…. they said if Columbia could host Ahmedinejad than we can host Irving……….
It’s only gonna get worse in the next 20 years to be a Jooooooo and giving up neighborhoods in Eastern Jerusalem for NOTHING ain’t gonna do a g-d dam thing…
Mike
12 Compulsive Reader // Oct 13, 2007 at 11:40 am
I wasn’t differentiating between Israeli or Palestinian blood. That’s just it. The one state solution is maximalist in its claim for universal human rights to be enshrined by the state regardless of religion. Only a single bi-national state can achieve that. I don’t understand the claim that if Jews aren’t given an explicitly exclusive state for their own religion that they are in some kind of danger. That is what I mean by Zionist: paranoid colonialists. Just look at American Jews. Are they in some kind of danger here? No. They thrive here because of the one good thing this country has: separation of church and state. Now go ahead Pappe. Call me an anti-semite. Thats what your reactionary instincts tell you to do.
13 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 12:58 pm
“universal human rights ” - more use of slogans. (it seems Anony Mous is now “Compulsive Reader”)
never the less: The thinking that two people (The Jewish people and the Arab people) who can not sort out sharing of the same land when they are separated to two states would be able to do it under one state is ridicules and ingenuine.
The attempt to paint the right of the Jewish people for a homeland as some based on the Jewish religion is also misguided and false.
The Jewish people have a right to a homeland. This is true for the same reason the French people have this right, the Italian, the Ghanaian, the Syrian, the Tibetan, The Chechen, the Ingushetian etc…The fact that French or Italian people live in the US without fear has no bearing on the right of the French for a homeland.
So anonymous/” Compulsive Reader” : Why is it that you think only the Jewish people do not have tis right which the Palestinian people have (the right for a homeland) ?
If you want to drive the world toward a world without borders – so called “universal human rights ” let’s start with people who belong to the same “ummah” – the Arab people have 22 countries – why don’t you try unite all of them to a single country ?
You can start by trying to unite Iraq between the Shia/Suni/Kurds (the difference there is only religion – right ?) or take an easier step – start by reuniting Palestinians in Gaza and West bank into a single entity….. Good luck.
While you are at it, the Jewish people can strive in their own (one and only) homeland called: Israel . Do you recognize the right of such country to exist (as the homeland of the Jewish people) ?
14 Compulsive Reader // Oct 13, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I am not “anonymous”. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. Kurds are an ethnicity whom are predominately Sunni. I don’t even know why I bother, you know this. Your argument is an de-historisizing attempt to perpetuate and rationalize division.
15 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 2:40 pm
“perpetuate and rationalize division” - more slogans.
“Judaism is a religion” - this time a true slogan but you missed the important part: The existence of the Jewish people (both the secular and religious parts of it)
Luckily, the Jewish people don’t need your approval for their self determination.
Indeed over the years in History many try to obliterate the Judaism as a religion (by offering forced conversions as the inquisition did) but in recent history there were two important developments:
First, there was an attempt to destroy the Jewish people – all of it – irrespective of being a disciple of Judaism or being secular and more recently there is an attempt to deny the existences of the Jewish people as a people and to deny their political right for self determination.
anyhow, today most Jews are secular so it has nothing to dio with Judaism the religion anymore.
Over time, In Israel, members of the Jewish/Israeli people now include Christians, Druze and people with no religion. In fact other than those who call themselves Palestinians all others are now sharing the same destiny of the Jewish people.
In the rest of the world, those who call themself Jewish are also mostly secular.
Anonymous: Your lack of willingness to acknowledge the xistence of two people who share the same georagphy but deserve two independent states renders you unqualified to enage in discussions on Middle-east peace.
16 Shual // Oct 13, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Hi, CR!
Pappe: “The Jewish people have a right to a homeland.” The jewish people of my homeland have a homeland, my homeland and their homeland which is our homeland. Pappe: “Do you recognize the right of such country to exist (as the homeland of the Jewish people)?”
OH YES! Do you?
17 Shual // Oct 13, 2007 at 2:58 pm
“anyhow, today most Jews are secular so it has nothing to do with Judaism the religion anymore.”
This is the 7th most stupid thing I ever read in my life.
18 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Shual,
Stupid or not depends on what “it” is ?
So it this sentence what do you think “it” meant:
““anyhow, today most Jews are secular so it has nothing to do with Judaism the religion anymore.”
19 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 3:44 pm
sorry should have been:
So IN this sentence what do you think “it” ment:
““anyhow, today most Jews are secular so it has nothing to do with Judaism the religion anymore.”
20 Shual // Oct 13, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Pappe,
I can only preech it again and again: There are historic anomalies, like the anomaly of antisemitsm. The jewish answer must be respected. Respected means means to allow a maximum of free space for jews. This space must be protected. This is the common sense [finally].
Today Israel is a regular country, it started 60 years ago [and I wish it an eternal state] and now and before it is measured by regular views of what a countries liability has to be.
Paraguay? Does anybody talk about Paraguay? So “IT” has obiously nothing to do with Paraguay, even they have suffered, too? What IS the difference between Guaranis and Jewish?
The Jewish want to make their case in front of the worls-population. Ok. They want to explain that their existance is more worth than the killing fields of hunger in Africa. Ok. They want to explain us why they are useful for the planet. Ok.
My point of view is that the Jewish are bad advised in trying to show the world how good they can pretend to be “as imperial as the West”. The West will applaude that behaviour as long as they “need” them. But the West is trying to buildt some “arab”-structure to overcome this status quo. The policy of “a liitle air strike in Syria helps you over the winter” is a sign of helplessness. History always went bad for them. They should accept that they are caretakers. And if a caretaker does a good job, nobody wants to fire him.
What IT is? Bigger - Better - Burgerking. The arab world already shows that it is exhausted, cause Israel is impeding the regional development. Everybody is sich an d tired of them. Thats “IT”.
21 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Shaul,
“IT” meant a homeland for the Jewish people.
Such a homeland has nothing to do with the religion anymore as most Jews who live in their homeland are actually secular.
Actually the religious ones (both the anti-Zionist Netury Karta and the religious settlers) are some of the greatest dangers to such state.
22 Shual // Oct 13, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Pappe,
Quatsch. I can not divorce myself from the “Nazi-past” in proclaiming that I may be different from my ancestors.
Only because some Tsfonims behave like they are on crack they have not cut of their history.
Its war-time, so its allowed to pretend, but the hour of thruth should not be missed. To compare that with the arab-situation of hundreds of millions with a complete different story can not be the eternal Israeli interest.
To be Israel, or not to be. This is the question.
23 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Shaul,
I have not understood anything from what you say. what is Tsfonims on crack and what does it have to do withy the right of the Jewish peole to their own homeland ?
24 Shual // Oct 13, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“I have not understood anything from what you say.”
“SUCH A HOMELAND [own (one and only)]” - Zionism is the refinery of Judaism. [One of the dozends in history] Zionism had it easy to overtake Judaism cause of its oligarch-system. Judaism is a vehicle for Zionism, the structures stay the same. The real territorial effort can not replace the prayers.
To pray for a time in Jerusalem and to be in Jerusalem and pray [after thousands of years of diaspora] can not be cut of by declaring some in Israel to a mass of “unintrested persons”, or “persons with new propositions”. One can not pray for Jerusalem for 2000 years and then after arriving think its serious to say: “Now I am here and secular, so the 2000 years are meaningless.” [”Such a homeland has nothing to do with the religion anymore as most Jews who live in their homeland are actually secular.”]
25 Pappe // Oct 13, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Shual,
Nothing you say makes sense to me. sorry. I must be an idiot.
26 yaacov // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Cumpulsive Reader -
Find me one case of an Arab society that gained political independance in the 20th century, and in which there is still a significant Christian Arab minority, living in peace . (Hint: only the Copts, in Egypt). Then search the map for a sovereign Arab country that still has a functioning Jewish minority. (Hint: none, tho there are small rump communities left in Marocco and Tunesia). The One-State solution, as everyone knows, is merely a codeword for the No-Israel solution. Which brings us to the second point: whether Jews are a religion or anything else, and whether they have the right to a state or not, is up to them to decide. Just as it’s the decision of the Ugandans, the Bolivians, and the Mozambiquians.
27 Mike Nargizian // Oct 13, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Compulsive Reader
28 Mike Nargizian // Oct 13, 2007 at 11:51 pm
COMPULSIVE READER -
Oh so there is NO anti-semitism in the world… but THERE IS THOUGH massive “”"” Islamophobia”"”….. and there is no massive anti-semitism in the Arab and Muslim media, schools and Universities????
Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
It’s completely free, safe and utopian for a Jooooo to live in Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia or Egypt………… LMAO!!!
Just look at American Jews. Are they in some kind of danger here? No. They thrive here because of the one good thing this country has: separation of church and state. Now go ahead Pappe. Call me an anti-semite. Thats what your reactionary instincts tell you to do.
29 Mike Nargizian // Oct 13, 2007 at 11:55 pm
This country has moderate separation of church and state….. and Jews thrived in Germany in the late 1800’s through the beginning of Nazi Germany…. they also thrived in Poland and the Ukraine at different points in history… during intermittent, pogroms, massive murders and rapes…. What’s your point?
So the Palestinians should be able to thrive in Syria, Jordan, and Egypt?? But for some reason they don’t??????????????????????????????????
They seem to do very well in the US as well?????????????????
I’m not paranoid, are you calling me paranoid?
Did the Holocaust happen 60 years ago? Do the Arabs today massively read Mein Kempf and the Protocols of Zion? YES or NO?
Israel will remain a Jewish state… the only paranoid freeks are CAIR, MSA and the millions of Muslims that parade through the streets like violent fanatics over a STUPID FING CARTOON!!
Mike
30 Shual // Oct 14, 2007 at 12:00 am
Pappe! Another try.
“The attempt to paint the right of the Jewish people for a homeland as some based on the Jewish religion is also misguided and false”.
CR: “the claim that if Jews aren’t given an explicitly exclusive state for their own religion that they are in some kind of danger.” Yaacov: “Which brings us to the second point: whether Jews are a religion or anything else, and whether they have the right to a state or not, is up to them to decide. Just as it’s the decision of the Ugandans, the Bolivians, and the Mozambiquians.”
Understood? In regard of common human rigths there is no doubt that the Jewish have the rigth to create and live in a state “Israel”. But the territory is defined by their own belive. Even 1903 Zionists differ between “Uganda Project” and “Jewish Homeland” [The place were Israelites would be gathered together once more, their society and religion purified, and the unified Davidic kingdom be re-established.] Zionism was successful cause it refined this main item of identity of Judaism into a political plan. Other tries [Messianic, or Yehuda Loew -rigth of jewish self-determination-] failed cause they failed to organize the pure sense. If you are looking at contracts like Weizman-Faisal-contract you can see that Zionism did not “demand” some territory, they wanted to organize it, including the Arab-countrys affaires. And thats what we talk about: They still have the rigth to, but not the rigth to violate others rigths.
Secular-orthodox= intern spiritual and cognitive crisis, the same thing as in all western countries. conservative - progressive. liberal - traditional.
31 Pappe // Oct 14, 2007 at 4:18 am
“The One-State solution, as everyone knows, is merely a codeword for the No-Israel solution”
Not exactly true. I know many Palestinians; some already got their Israeli ID (resident or even citizen) that are perfectly happy living in a country that is called: “Israel”.
Their only issue is with the fact that the country is the homeland for the Jewish people. They are following an what they think is the correct Islamic interpretation which forbids any non-Muslim rule on any area that was ruled by Muslims. They call the area Dar-a-Salam (home of peace) and it cover not only the Middle East but parts of Spain as well. The rest of the world is called Dar-al-Harb (home of the sword/war) and the followers of this branch of Islam want to turn this area to be Muslim rules as well (i.e. turn it by force from Dar-al-Harb to Dar-a-Salam) so the correction of the opening statement is:
“The One-State solution, as everyone knows, is merely a codeword for the Israel no longer homeland of the Jewish people”
32 Mike Nargizian // Oct 15, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Pappe,
So your point is what?
Your giving us the more precise translation of Sharia and Dar al Harb?????
Wow, thanks for clearing that up, don’t know what one would do without you……
Now go back to watching Al Manar or Al Jazeera.
33 Pappe // Oct 16, 2007 at 7:22 am
My Point: ” The issue is with the fact that the country is the homeland for the Jewish people. ”
some people can not accept this simple notion of two states to two people.
They are willing to go for any soloution, as long as the Jews don’t have a homeland anyhwhere in the middle east.
Leave a Comment