iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Hagit Ofran

Hagit Ofran

Posted: August 26, 2009 04:00 PM

Mitchell, Netanyahu Meet Over Settlement Freeze: What The Criteria Should Include


Following the meeting between US Senator Mitchell and Israeli PM Netanyahu, it seems that Israel and the US are getting close to some kind of agreement or understanding about a settlement freeze.

A settlement freeze is one of the key factors in order to enable a resumption of peace talks.

Unfortunately, I doubt I have to begin to look for another job. Settlement activity will always be one of the most important issues on the political agenda of our region.

In Israel the debate continues, in both the media and amongst activists, over whether a freeze will actually create results for peacemakers.

Netanyahu, I believe, will try to avoid final status negotiations; his work premise is to try to drag out the freeze talks, when he does finally reach an understanding over the settlements, to keep it as vague as possible, granting him leeway to interpret it as he sees fit.

As an Israeli who believes in the Two State Solution and who works daily to monitor and expose settlement expansion, I believe that any declared settlement freeze should be required to meet some minimum criteria, so to really enable any future negotiations.

Such criteria should include:

No loopholes. There must be no "loopholes" that will permit Israel to evade or undermine the freeze agreement, as was done in previous governments. According to reports, it seems pretty clear by now that a settlement freeze agreement is going to exist side-by-side with an Israeli insistence on completing a certain number of units already under construction. While we wish this were not the case, we recognize that this is a regrettable exception, rather than a loophole through which Israel could over time drag most of the West Bank.

Transparency. A list of any settlement construction to be completed must be public. Assuming Israel will insist, over US objections, that it will finish a finite number of settlement units already under construction, the list of those units must be made public. There is zero trust when it comes to Israel's intentions with respect to settlement construction and there will be zero trust in Israeli commitments regarding these units. Outside verification will be critical.

No US permission to build anything. Under no circumstances can a settlement freeze agreement include US approval, permission, or de facto acceptance of continued Israeli settlement construction, anywhere. If Israel is going to insist on "completing" a finite number of units already under construction, the US will have to find a formula that makes clear that it in no way condones Israel doing so, or President Obama will become the first president in US history to formally and officially approve settlement construction. And the US will have to make clear that the locations of this continued construction do not imply any new US understandings, formal or informal, about where Israel can build including in East Jerusalem.

No US permission to build anything in settlements in the future. Under no circumstances can a settlement freeze agreement imply or be permitted in anyway to be interpreted as implying that once the freeze period is over, the US will no longer disapprove of Israel building in settlements.

Freeze must include planning. For a freeze to be meaningful it must include stopping all new plans for construction in settlements -- no new plans submitted, approved, considered etc.... Otherwise planning is a constant sword hanging over freeze and over the political process a freeze is supposed to help launch.

Netanyahu, despite his extreme right wing coalition, has slowly begun to distance himself from his pre-election campaign declarations, regarding expansion of settlements, construction in E1 and in Jerusalem.

I think the above criteria on a settlement freeze can be met, even with the currant Israeli government.

In addition, my experience tells me that Israeli public support for US peace steps will begin to rise dramatically the moment Israelis sit down in face to face negotiations, with recognizable and personable Palestinian and Arab leaders, in a mutual effort to reach an agreement.

This should surely be the next immediate step.



Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Following the meeting between US Senator Mitchell and Israeli PM Netanyahu, it seems that Israel and the US are getting close to some kind of agreement or understanding about a settlement freeze. A s...
Following the meeting between US Senator Mitchell and Israeli PM Netanyahu, it seems that Israel and the US are getting close to some kind of agreement or understanding about a settlement freeze. A s...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 163
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
07:44 PM on 08/27/2009
The Israeli instructions to American Jews regarding furthering pro-Jewish sentiment in this country (The Hazbara - I encourage all readers to check it out on Wikipedia - It's an eye-opener!) encourages Jews to engage in pro-Israeli argument and shows them how to distort and misrepresent, even suggesting suitable phrases, while at the same time seeming to be reasonable. When presented with an informed and factual opponent, however, they are told not to continue the discussion. Terminate the discussion and walk away is what Hazbara instructs them to do. Hmmmm.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:00 PM on 08/27/2009
Typical! another religion that has lost the true meaning of its founders and adopted duplicity instead!
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
11:23 AM on 08/29/2009
The idea that Jews are involved in some sort of international conspiracy is nonsense at best and at worst the most despicable form of anti-Semitism.
07:07 PM on 08/27/2009
Doesn't Huff Post have fact-checkers. Two posters to this site , jordan is palestine & lightningbolt, both pro-zionist, are making false statements in their argument & rebuttal and no-one is calling them on it. First, when Gaza was evacuated the Jews did not leave all the buildings intact. They destroyed every one that had not been already purchased. Second - Israel has NO RIGHT to occupy territory captured in war and the "UN By-Laws" quoted by jordanispalestine don't exist. It is the several Geneva Accords and Conventions on the laws of war that govern. These two posters in particular appear to be mere propagandists for Zionism, and their bias needs to be pointed out, just as jordanispalestine claimed to be pointing out the claimed bias of the author of the story.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
08:38 PM on 08/27/2009
First, international law does provide for a nation to hold and to annex land taken in the course of a defensive war. The 1967 Six Day was defensive, Egypt fired the first shots of the conflict when it illegally closed the Straits of Tiran. Palestinians have no legal claim to the West Bank because it was not taken from them in 1967, Jordan lost the territory to Israel. Israel has every right under the idea of extinctive prescription to hold and annex the West Bank. Add to that idea is the right of cession, another international law idea that provides for Israel to hold the West Bank and the Golan. More to the point, the 1973 Yom Kippur War provided the best argument against Israel giving up any territory on its eastern border.
It is dishonest to claim Israel destroyed all of the non-purchased buildings in Gaza. The fact of the matter is most buildings were left intact and usable, but Hamas ordered the destruction of all buildings constructed by Israel or Jews. Your attempt to re-write the exit of Israel froim Gaza is a merely an admission your reliance on Arab propaganda outweighs your knowledge of the situation in the region.
09:24 PM on 08/27/2009
Read CLAIMS TO TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RELATIONS, Professor Norman Hill; Univ. Nebr. ; Oxford Univ. Press, 1954.

CURRENT international law: - an occupying power may NOT (1) transfer or remove a population (2) introduce its nationals into the occupied territory, (3) institute collective punishment , (4) no economic exploitation of people or resources within the occupied territory - ALL of which Israel is illegally currently doing. International law requires that certain actions MUST be taken by the occupying power, including (1) adequate resources allocated ftothe health and safety of the captive populace (2) no economic exploitation of the captive people or natural resources (2) ensure freedom of movement within the occupied teritory and (3) no harsh, unfair or discriminatory treatment of the occupied inhabitants, - ALL of which conditions the Israelis are currently violating. Over 10,000 Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons, indefinitely, and without charge!

Israel is furthermore in violation of UN resolution 242 requiring the Israelis to END their occupation of Occupied Palestine.

The Israelis have NO RIGHT whatsoever to continue to occupy the Golan Heights either. They seized this land and held it for the aquifer it contains and the large arable area which now feeds a good part of Israel's population.

Further, the Yom Kippur war was a DEFENSIVE war. As long as Israel continues to illegally occupy Arab land, the Arabs are legally justified in using force to re-capture it.

Finally, all land occupied by Israel beyond the 1948 partition line is
06:32 PM on 08/27/2009
I'm sure the author is well-meaning, but, who gave the United States the authority to approve or disapprove what goes on in occupied Palestine? Shouldn't the Palestinian voice be in here somewhere?

Furthermore, every scrap of land the Jews occupy outside of the 1948 partition line is stolen property, plain and simple. All the nuance in the world can't change that. The Israelis must evacuate this occupied territory completely and only then can they be guaranteed a future free from the effects of the completely legal and justified Palestinian attempts to liberate their land.

The most effective thing the US can do to bring about peace in the Middle-East is to stop subsidizing and arming Israel to the tune of at least $4 Billion in OUR money. If we don't stop the money flow then we are just blowing smoke about Palestine, and the whole world knows it!
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
05:28 PM on 08/29/2009
I take it you are not in favor of the US cutting off aid to Egypt, the Arab nation that has closed its border with Gaza and gets about the same amount of aid each year as Israel. By the way, the amount of aid to israel is around $3.2 billion, not the $4 billion you claimed in your inaccurate posting.
03:27 PM on 08/27/2009
How can there be a fair analysis from the woman in charge of Settlement Watch form PEACE NOW?? Does HP think we don't know her lefty leanings???
03:46 PM on 08/27/2009
How can we take anything you say seriously since you totally ignore international law
04:27 PM on 08/27/2009
How? International law allows nations fighting defensive wars against aggressors to keep the land won as a buffer from further attacks! Go read the UN by-laws..as I have...and put down "MY PET GOAT"!!
04:27 PM on 08/27/2009
I suggest you change that user name toJanet BS!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:33 PM on 08/27/2009
Attacking the person and not the message? That is an old trick.
01:22 PM on 08/27/2009
In any meaningful peace deal that includes a viable Palestinian state, The VAST majority of settlements will be utterly razed, with the possible exception of those that very closely hug Israels green line (actual borders). The Idea of haggling over a "settlements freeze in places that are going to be razed to the ground in a few years seems to belie some disingenuous intentions; why would anyone want to build anything on land that they will shortly lose forever?

DO NOT LET A SETTLEMENT FREEZE lull the US into complacency. In order for there to be peace and reduced terror against the US and Israel, settlement building must not be just frozen, the settlements, the settlers and the IDF must all go for good.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gregohb
02:34 PM on 08/27/2009
Yes, when the Israelis ended their occupation of the sinai peninsula, they dynamited all their buildings to not leave anything to thier new peace partners. However, I hope they leave the vast settlements in the west bank in tact to the Palestinians when they get out. Keep in mind that there are over 500 Arab villages that were destroyed - villages that lie inside Israel proper. The inhabitants of those destroyed villages, and their descendants have been rotting in refugee camps for 61 years. The least the Israelis could do is to give them a proper home to live in ... a home fit for a Jewish settler. Its the least they can do. How many millions have been paid out to Jews for property taken by the Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's? But not a penny is paid to Palestinians who lost their properties in 1948, 1967, or more recently as Israelis continue to confiscate land from Palestinians?
02:38 PM on 08/27/2009
When the Israelis left Gaza, they left the settlements intact. The Palestinians came and destroyed them and looted them. There is no point in leaving anything behind for them.
12:32 PM on 08/28/2009
My pojnt deals more with the need for all settlers and the IDF to go for good, rather than whether the houses and other infrastructure that they leave behind should be torn down or not.

If it is all done with the help of UN peace keepers, there will probably be a lot less msicheif on both sides during and after the pullout.

Furthermore, regardless of who tore down what and when, the core issue is that the settlers have never had any right to occupy or build on foreign soil in the first place. THAT is the issue, and lets all at least try keep that at the forefront of the discussion whenever possible.
photo
Flying Dutchman
Don't judge what you don't yet understand
09:09 AM on 08/27/2009
Spoiled kids in a candystore want it all, those children will cause a scene if they don't get what they want. Those children need an adult who tells them how it is and correct them when they start making a scene. It is the same with the Zionistic state.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eileenflemingWAWA
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
08:56 AM on 08/27/2009
On more loophole that needs more exposure was researched by the Tikkun [Hebrew for heal, mend and transform the world] organization which discovered that there are three distinct elements energizing the 'Christian' Zionists who provide millions that go to support the settlements.

These fundamentalists have a strong commitment to conservative and ultra-nationalist American politics and they lust for a cataclysmic “end of history” eschatological war in the Middle East that will precipitate what they think will bring about the second coming of Jesus and the Rapture in which their kind of Christians will be lifted up to heaven; but all the Jews who have not yet converted to their small god will burn in hell for eternity.

A widespread understanding among these fundamentalists is based in guilt for the 1700 years of murder, rape, and oppression of Jews that was frequently generated by the Church which corrupted what Jesus was all about when Augustine penned his heretical "Just War Theory."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DeniseA
Most Americans support Israel.
10:34 PM on 08/27/2009
Are you talking about John Hagee?
Here's why he believes Christians should support Israel.

http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Sites/dirmod.asp?sid=&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=27AAA6C53C0949FC85078AEDE43C4AA0&SiteID=8112722C039B4E508F0AB8552B898895
10:50 PM on 08/27/2009
Query:
You are are aware that Palestinian Christians are among Israel's victims, right?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:59 AM on 08/27/2009
Pt. II

"At many points in the story, the settlers seemed to have got all they wanted. But successful settlement and increasing immigration brought new usurpations. Enough was never, it seemed, enough. Even if the Zionist had never dreamed of taking all of Palestine from the Palestinians, it would have been foolish to suppose that they would not come to do so, but by bit."

Micheal Neumann, "The Case Against Israel" page 45.

Point is, if we are all honest, this is how the development of a settlement enterprise works everywhere and always. There really is no moral rationalization for demonizing and usurping another people and for this side of human behavior.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
07:17 AM on 08/27/2009
The West Bank was not taken from Palestinians, it was taken from Jordan.
10:17 AM on 08/27/2009
How is this at all relevant BubbC33?

We need less posturing and less semantics to divert from the issues. We need more focus on how to bring Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a lasting peace agreement.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
littlelordfauntleroy
my micro-bio is empty
11:58 AM on 08/27/2009
what do you mean by this ??? either you have no understanding of the issue or are trying at propaganda. the west bank was taken from the people who live there, whether they were considered jordan territory or not. and what justification do israelis have whether it was taken from Jordan or whoever else, as long as it was taken , by terrorism might i add. give back what does not belong to you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:53 AM on 08/27/2009
"When settlers move into an inhabited area, territorial compromises are all too often mere pauses in a savage process of dispossession...The rise of Zionism coincided with the last bloody stages of just such a process in the American West. Significantly, the American's settlers' profressive and very violent displacement of the native inhabitants was not some grand scheme thought out in advance......"

Micheal Neumann

TO be cont.
03:37 AM on 08/27/2009
Obviously the criteria for a settlement freeze would be that they freeze building on settlements. Not much to it

Its sad that this is our official position. Because it is not in line with international law
We should be demanding that they leave the settlements and return the stolen land not just stop building new ones.

But obviously that isn't going to happen with Obama in office
photo
basenji
Dog lover
03:35 AM on 08/27/2009
Looks like Obama caved on Jerusalem:

U.S. drops demand for Israel building freeze in E. Jerusalem

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1110507.html

Sadly, from healthcare reform to ME peace, Obama is so far excelling in caving. If we can't even tell a nation utterly dependent on our goodwill to follow international law, how are we supposed to influence NK, Iran, Pakistan etc.?
10:01 PM on 08/27/2009
Observation:
There is a chance this report is wrong... but likely it is accurate.

So much for change.
12:19 AM on 08/28/2009
This is a problem, if true. Then again, E. Jerusalem is not Obama's to give away. International law still governs and neither Mitchel nor Obama can change it. WE can bring pressure to bear on Obama & Congress, after all, WE elect Congress. The Israelis buy them after they're elected, that's true. We just have to be more careful who Democrats nominate in the primaries, that's all, but WE can control this issue from here if we have a mind to!
02:47 AM on 08/27/2009
Here are some criteria:

1. The Palestinians must adhere to all previous Oslo agreements
2. The Palestinians must cease the vitriol and incitement against Jews
3. The Palestinians must stop firing rockets into Israel from Gaza
4. The Palestinians must shut down all terrorist operations
5. The Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist

Oh wait, I just realized something, number one includes the others.
10:35 AM on 08/27/2009
Mendacious. Pathetic really.
12:21 AM on 08/28/2009
Oh, and #6. - Israel must return every square inch of Palestinian land it has stolen since Partition in 1948!

Then you'll have a deal!
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
11:33 AM on 08/29/2009
Israel has stolen no Palestinian land, your statement is demonstrably false. You cannot name a single inch of land taken from Palestinians.
The Arabs living in eretz Israel gave up any rights or claims to the territory included in the UN partition when they rejected it in 1947. Refusal to agree, which was refusal to sign a contract, was the Arabs way of forfeiting any and all claims to any of the land.
12:29 AM on 08/27/2009
Well stated.
10:34 PM on 08/26/2009
Her last guideline is completely unreasonable. In order for a town to survive it must grow to support population growth. The settlers birth rate is extremely high. You can't excpect them to stop having children in order stop growing. It would be like limiting arab growth in Israeli towns. As far as I am concerned Settlers are citizen's of Palestine. They live on their land. But restricting there growth because they are Jewish is like restricting the Growth of Arab cities in Israel because they are Muslim.
photo
CigarGod
What is your process?
10:45 PM on 08/26/2009
"...settlers are citizen's of Palestine."

Of course, there is the whole unequal rights thing.......
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freenation
11:12 PM on 08/26/2009
so you want US to expand into Canada and Mexico if US population starts mating like rabbits...there is something called c.ondom which was invented long time back as for the religious guidelines if you can't use it then abstain...this is no excuse, Ms. Ofran is right on money....
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
07:22 AM on 08/27/2009
No mention was made of a Palestinian homeland during the almost 20 years the West Bank was controlled by Jordan. It seems this homeland is desired more for the propaganda value it has in attacking Israel than in an actual homeland. The simple fact is a Palestinian homeland has been in existence since 1922. Transjordan was created to serve two purposes. One was to be a kingdom for the Hashemite allies of the Brits. The other was to serve as a homeland for the Arabs unwilling to live among the Jews.
The religious guidelines restricting birth control methods include condoms. Maybe you should do a little more research before making foolish arguments.
09:53 PM on 08/26/2009
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran and Iraq, and all the other ME nations are recognized Arab Nations, and they are muslim. Yet Palestinians will not agree to let the tiny sliver of Israel in that large whole, and to be made even smaller, be a jewish nation. There are Arabs in the Knesset who agitate against Israel. They may have a point, or not, but in most countries that would be considered treason. In Israel religions other than the jewish one are free to exercise their religion and culture. That is not the case in most Arab nations. There are, it appears, therefore, different standards for different folks. Everyone should respect olthers' choices of religion, culture, etc. That would be even more so if one nation wants to set up permanent domicile in another one. Israel exists now. Palestine does not exist. What exists are neighboring countries with Palestinians as well as Palestinians inside Israel. Giving in to all of the Palestinians' demands will solve nothing. Iran will overtake Iraq. Iran dictates to Syria and Lebanon, and Iran provides weapons and logistics to Palestinians. There are great risks in the ME and not just to the Israelis.
10:28 PM on 08/26/2009
There are Republicans currently in Congress showing approval for people stating that they are right-wing terrorists and people advocating gathering a group to go to Washington with guns. Shouldn't this be considered treason as well? Or is it only wrong when someone criticizes Israel?

Israel must stop ALL settlements. Even better would be if they would honor all UN Resolutions, not just the ones they want to because they are in Israel's favor.
04:33 PM on 08/27/2009
Comparing every-day occurences in Israel with one specific Congressional loon is ludicrous..but typical!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freenation
11:28 PM on 08/26/2009
"They may have a point, or not, but in most countries that would be considered treason. "

well have you ever heard Cantor, Huckabee (public servants) and not to forget A.IPAC, if we go by your defintion then these people commit tr.eason everyday by putting hurdles in Obama peace initiatives....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
courtb
04:26 AM on 08/27/2009
There's a difference between supporting terrorism against the country you live in and not supporting a policy that you don't believe in.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
11:39 AM on 08/29/2009
The "peace" proposals put forth by Pres. Obama have been a mistake. Israel has been an ally and done whatever this nation has asked of it since its restoration. Arabs have never been good partners for the US or the West. An example is the Arab support given to Nazi Germany during WW II.