Breaking the Israel-Palestine Deadlock

Truthout | by Noam Chomsky | 3 January 2011

While intensively engaged in illegal settlement expansion, the government of Israel is also seeking to deal with two problems: a global campaign of what it perceives as “delegitimation” – that is, objections to its crimes and withdrawal of participation in them – and a parallel campaign of legitimation of Palestine.

The “delegitimation,” which is progressing rapidly, was carried forward in December by a Human Rights Watch call on the U.S. “to suspend financing to Israel in an amount equivalent to the costs of Israel’s spending in support of settlements,” and to monitor contributions to Israel from tax-exempt U.S. organizations that violate international law, “including prohibitions against discrimination” – which would cast a wide net. Amnesty International had already called for an arms embargo on Israel. The legitimation process also took a long step forward in December, when Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil recognized the State of Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank), bringing the number of supporting nations to more than 100.

International lawyer John Whitbeck estimates that 80-90 percent of the world’s population live in states that recognize Palestine, while 10-20 percent recognize the Republic of Kosovo. The U.S. recognizes Kosovo but not Palestine. Accordingly, as Whitbeck writes in Counterpunch, media “act as though Kosovo’s independence were an accomplished fact while Palestine’s independence is only an aspiration which can never be realized without Israeli-American consent,” reflecting the normal workings of power in the international arena.

Given the scale of Israeli settlement of the West Bank, it has been argued for more a decade that the international consensus on a two-state settlement is dead, or mistaken (though evidently most of the world does not agree). Therefore those concerned with Palestinian rights should call for Israeli takeover of the entire West Bank, followed by an anti-apartheid struggle of the South African variety that would lead to full citizenship for the Arab population there.

The argument assumes that Israel would agree to the takeover. It is far more likely that Israel will instead continue the programs leading to annexation of the parts of the West Bank that it is developing, roughly half the area, and take no responsibility for the rest, thus defending itself from the “demographic problem” – too many non-Jews in a Jewish state – and meanwhile severing besieged Gaza from the rest of Palestine.

One analogy between Israel and South Africa merits attention. Once apartheid was implemented, South African nationalists recognized they were becoming international pariahs because of it. In 1958, however, the foreign minister informed the U.S. ambassador that U.N. condemnations and other protests were of little concern as long as South Africa was supported by the global hegemon – the United States. By the 1970s, the U.N. declared an arms embargo, soon followed by boycott campaigns and divestment. South Africa reacted in ways calculated to enrage international opinion. In a gesture of contempt for the U.N. and President Jimmy Carter – who failed to react so as not to disrupt worthless negotiations – South Africa launched a murderous raid on the Cassinga refugee camp in Angola just as the Carter-led “contact group” was to present a settlement for Namibia. The similarity to Israel’s behavior today is striking – for example, the attack on Gaza in January 2009 and on the Gaza freedom flotilla in May 2010.

Noam Chomsky says, "Truthout is performing an invaluable service, for those who hope to understand the world, and to go on to change it." Do you agree? Support our work by clicking here.

When President Reagan took office in 1981, he lent full support to South Africa’s domestic crimes and its murderous depredations in neighboring countries. The policies were justified in the framework of the war on terror that Reagan had declared on coming into office. In 1988, Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress was designated one of the world’s “more notorious terrorist groups” (Mandela himself was only removed from Washington’s “terrorist list” in 2008). South Africa was defiant, and even triumphant, with its internal enemies crushed, and enjoying solid support from the one state that mattered in the global system.

Shortly after, U.S. policy shifted. U.S. and South African business interests very likely realized they would be better off by ending the apartheid burden. And apartheid soon collapsed. South Africa is not the only recent case where ending U.S. support for crimes has led to significant progress. Can such a transformative shift happen in Israel’s case, clearing the way to a diplomatic settlement? Among the barriers firmly in place are the very close military and intelligence ties between the U.S. and Israel.

The most outspoken support for Israeli crimes comes from the business world. U.S. high-tech industry is closely integrated with its Israeli counterpart. To cite just one example, the world’s largest chip manufacturer, Intel, is establishing its most advanced production unit in Israel.

A U.S. cable released by WikiLeaks reveals that Rafael military industries in Haifa is one of the sites considered vital to U.S. interests due to its production of cluster bombs; Rafael had already moved some operations to the U.S. to gain better access to U.S. aid and markets. There is also a powerful Israel lobby, though of course dwarfed by the business and military lobbies.

Critical cultural facts apply, too. Christian Zionism long precedes Jewish Zionism, and is not restricted to the one-third of the U.S. population that believes in the literal truth of the Bible. When British Gen. Edmund Allenby conquered Jerusalem in 1917, the national press declared him to be Richard the Lionhearted, finally rescuing the Holy Land from the infidels.

Next, Jews must return to the homeland promised to them by the Lord. Articulating a common elite view, Harold Ickes, Franklin Roosevelt’s secretary of the interior, described Jewish colonization of Palestine as an achievement “without comparison in the history of the human race.”

There is also an instinctive sympathy for a settler-colonial society that is seen to be retracing the history of the U.S. itself, bringing civilization to the lands that the undeserving natives had misused – doctrines deeply rooted in centuries of imperialism.

To break the logjam it will be necessary to dismantle the reigning illusion that the U.S. is an “honest broker” desperately seeking to reconcile recalcitrant adversaries, and to recognize that serious negotiations would be between the U^.S.-Israel and the rest of the world.

If U.S. power centers can be compelled by popular opinion to abandon decades-old rejectionism, many prospects that seem remote might become suddenly possible.

(Noam Chomsky’s most recent book, with co-author Ilan Pappe, is "Gaza in Crisis." Chomsky is emeritus professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.)

© 2011 Noam Chomsky

Wikileaks: Barak had "geheime overeenkomst" met VS over uitbreiding nederzettingen

De meest verzwegen cable tot nu toe. Enkele dagen na Obama's speech in Cairo, waarin hij onverbloemd een bouwstop voor de joodse nederzettingen eiste, stuurde de Amerikaanse ambassade een geheime cable naar Washington, waarin vermeld wordt dat minister van Defensie Ehud Barak op 15 juni 2009 in een bijeenkomst met Franse regeringsambtenaren meldde dat Israël een "geheime overeenkomst" had met de Amerikaanse regering om "de natuurlijke groei" van de nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever te continueren.

Wat president Barack Obama in Cairo zei over de nederzettingen laat niets aan fantasie over:

Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Besproken cable werd afgelopen zondag, 19 december 2010 vrijgegeven. Hoe reageert Nederland op deze belangrijke smoking gun? Niet. Nederland reageert helemaal niet. It never happened. It was of no importance.

De Volkskrant houdt "dagelijks" de gepubliceerde cables bij. Maar blijkbaar niet afgelopen weekend. Maandag dan? Op maandag schreef de krant over de leak over Abbas en zijn samenwerking met Israël (niets nieuws dus). Maar niets over de "geheime overeenkomst".

De internationale nieuwsmedia dan? Amper. Het persbureau AFP meldde gisteren:

Another US cable newly published by Wikileaks said that a French official quoted Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak as saying there was a "secret accord" between Israel and the United States "to continue the 'natural growth' of Israeli settlements in the West Bank." It gave no further details of the alleged accord.

En er verschenen twee artikelen in de Jeruzalem Post, maar die gaan meer over de te brengen boodschap van Sarkozy aan Netanyahu. En dat was het dan. Is dat niet merkwaardig? Het lijkt wel een afspraak.

---

S E C R E T PARIS 000827

NOFORN SIPDIS
NSC FOR SHAPIRO/KUMAR LONDON FOR TSOU
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/22/2019 TAGS: PGOV PREL FR
SUBJECT: FRANCE MID-EAST DIRECTOR ON PEACE PROCESS

Classified By: Acting Political Minister Counselor Andrew R. Young for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

¶1. (S/NF) MFA Middle East Director (Assistant Secretary-equivalent) Patrice Paoli informed POL Minister Counselor June 18 that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told French officials in Paris June 15 that the Israelis have a "secret accord" with the USG to continue the "natural growth" of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Paoli noted that the French anticipate strong Israeli resistance to USG pressure on this issue. He asked whether the USG has considered how to adapt to possible Israeli responses: "How will you react to Israeli reactions to your pressure?" He claimed that "the credibility of President Obama will be judged on the issue of settlements." MFA DAS Ludovic Pouille, who also attended the meeting, underlined this point: "Arabs are saying progress on settlements is crucial. Saudi Arabia and Egypt seem obsessed with the settlements issue; they won't even enter the game without progress on settlements." Paoli added that "negotiations can wait until the fall, but steps forward cannot wait until then." Both diplomats emphasized the need to build confidence measures on the ground now.

¶2. (S/NF) In stressing the energy with which the GOF plans to approach the peace process, Paoli said that France will not wait until all 27 EU members are in agreement before pressing ahead with their support of USG efforts. Pouille said the French can play an important role on "two key issues": working toward a settlements freeze and monitoring the implementation of an eventual agreement. By leaning on other countries in the European Union and within the Quartet to bring their resources to bear ("their diplomatic presence, their networks"), Paoli said that France hopes to contribute to pressing the parties forward as quickly as possible. Pouille stressed monitoring in particular, which he described as "a big hole at the Annapolis conference." He argued that "the US cannot be the only judge" of progress.

¶3. (S/NF) Paoli explained that President Sarkozy will have three messages to convey to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when they meet in Paris on June 24:

-- "You think you've got time, but you don't."
-- "You think you have an alternative solution, but you don't."
-- "You think you're stronger than the Palestinians, but you're not."

Paoli said that Sarkozy will stress that "there is a single door and it is imperative to move through it now." Paoli and Pouille both expressed disappointment with the reservations contained in Netanyahu's June 14 speech, but noted that it nonetheless reflected significant movement in the Likud position regarding a Palestinian state. "It's not easy to reverse a campaign promise two months after the campaign," Paoli observed. They also said that President Obama's address in Cairo was extremely well received in France and in the Arab world. "It was a speech, though, and it was a received as a speech," Pouille said. "The reaction in the Arab world was: 'Now do it.'"

PEKALA

(http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/06/09PARIS827.html)

Geen nieuws in Nederland:

(Belga) Mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch (HRW) vindt dat de Verenigde Staten hun steun aan Israël zouden moeten verminderen met een bedrag ter hoogte van de subsidies die de Israëlische overheid uitgeeft aan de nederzettingen in de Palestijnse gebieden. Dat stelt HRW zondag in een nieuw rapport.

Volgens het 166 pagina's tellende document ondergaan de Palestijnse woonkernen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever grove discriminaties ten voordele van de Joodse kolonies. Die beschikken over betere basisvoorzieningen - zoals water en elektriciteit - dankzij de Israëlische steun. "De Verenigde Staten, die jaarlijks 2,75 miljard dollar steun toekennen aan Israël, zouden daarvan een som moeten aftrekken die overeenkomt met de Israëlische investeringskosten voor de nederzettingen, of zowat 1,4 miljard dollar volgens berekeningen uit een onderzoek" uit 2003, oordeelt HRW.

Daarenboven maakt de mensenrechtenorganisatie ook melding van "een groot aantal hulporganisaties" die belastingvrijstellingen krijgen voor "de grote bijdragen" die ze leveren aan de Joodse nederzettingen. De Amerikaanse autoriteiten zouden moeten nagaan of al die vrijstellingen wel overeenstemmen met de verplichtingen van de VS om het internationaal recht te doen naleven, stelt HRW nog. Israël bouwde sinds 1967 ruim 130 nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, samen goed voor meer dan 300.000 inwoners. De internationale gemeenschap bestempelt de nederzettingen als een inbreuk op het internationaal recht. (KNS)

House vote against Palestinian statehood actually showed that Israel lobby is losing its grip

Mondoweiss | By Josh Ruebner | Dec 16, 2010

Yesterday the House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res.1765, “condemning unilateral measures to declare or recognize a Palestinian state.” At first glance, this vote appears to be yet another in a long string of resolutions shoring up unconditional Congressional support for Israeli occupation and apartheid. In reality, however, it demonstrates more a weakening—rather than a strengthening—of support for Israel on Capitol Hill at present.

“How does House passage of another anti-Palestinian resolution exhibit a slackening of Congressional support for Israel?” you might rightfully ask. Allow me to explain the paradox.

As are most “pro-Israel” resolutions, H.Res.1765 was brought to a vote under a procedure known as “suspension of the rules.” This procedure, which is supposed to be reserved for non-controversial resolutions such as the naming of a post office, prohibits the resolution from being amended and limits debate on it. In exchange for these restrictions, the resolution must get at least a 2/3 vote to pass rather than a simple majority.

However, unlike most “pro-Israel” resolutions, which often are not voted on for months after being introduced in order to give the Israel lobby time to marshal an overwhelming number of co-sponsors, H.Res.1765 was pushed through quickly with the co-sponsorship of only 53 Representatives.

In fact, the resolution was done in such a helter-skelter fashion that it was put on the calendar for a vote late Tuesday night while Rep. Howard Berman, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was still drafting it. Most Congressional offices did not even see the text of the resolution until a few hours prior to the vote. Many Congressional offices were reportedly infuriated that such an important foreign policy declaration was being treated in such an inconsiderate manner.

The ability of the Israel lobby to pass a resolution before the text of it is even officially made public undoubtedly reflects its still-considerable power. However, the way in which the resolution was debated and voted upon demonstrates that all is not well in the fairy tale world of Israel’s supporters on Capitol Hill.

Berman, who managed the debate on the House floor for the Democrats, appeared flustered and befuddled as he looked repeatedly and anxiously around the chamber for Representatives to appear magically to speak on behalf of the resolution. In the end, Berman mustered only himself and three other Jewish Representatives—Gary Ackerman, Eliot Engel, and Shelley Berkley—to offer full-throated support for the resolution.

The racism and paternalism of these Representatives’ statements make clear why so few of their colleagues wanted to associate themselves with this resolution. Berman patently knows what is best for Palestinians: “The Palestinian people don’t want a bunch of declarations of statehood.” And if Palestinians continue seeking the statehood that they don’t even really want, Berman reminded them that “This body [Congress] has been very generous in its support of their worthy efforts to build institutions and the economy in the West Bank. In fact, I believe that we are the most generous nation in the world in that regard. So I think our friends should understand: If they persist in pursuing a unilateralist path, inevitably, and however regrettably, there will be consequences for U.S-Palestinian relations.”

Without irony, Ackerman affirmed that “The only way to peace is negotiating in good faith and making the hard choices that it demands. Israel has shown time and again that it is ready.” He termed Palestinians’ objections to Israel colonizing their land as “overwrought.”

Engel called it “preposterous” to establish a Palestinian state based on the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 242. At least he told the truth: “Everyone knows that Israel would never and could never agree with it.”

Last, but not least, Berkley excoriated Palestinians as if she were a teacher and they were students lollygagging in the hall after the bell rings. Palestinians must “return immediately to negotiations,” she thundered. Because “While Israel has a strong country and a good education system, a vibrant economy, a national identity, a cultural identity and a strong democracy, the Palestinians, because of their poor leadership, have absolutely none of those.”

Berman managed to trot out two more Democrats—Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee and, I kid you not, the non-voting delegate of American Samoa Eni Faleomavaega—to make half-hearted statements of support. In her ponderous remarks, Jackson-Lee repeatedly advocated a “two-party state” to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Faleomavaega must not have received the memo since he believes that “Palestine should be given as an independent and sovereign state.”

Republicans only eked out two speakers in support of the resolution, one of whom—Rep. Ted Poe—wondered aloud, “Is this [Palestinian state] going to be a sovereign state within the sovereign State of Israel?” Huh? Is this really the best that Israel’s advocates can do these days?

By contrast, Rep. Lois Capps did a masterful job of deconstructing the intent of the resolution. After rising “in very reluctant support” of what she termed “yet another one-sided resolution,” Capps decried the resolution for failing to mention “Israel’s expansion of settlements.” She noted that “Resolutions, like the one we are considering today, are clearly done for domestic political consumption much more than for having any positive impact on the conflict. We should not be ignorant of the fact that this Chamber’s pattern of passing resolutions that are one-sided can, indeed, undermine our credibility to be serious brokers for peace.”

Having been put in his place by Capps, Berman called for a voice vote rather than a recorded vote. Fewer than ten Representatives then on the floor voted by “unanimous consent” to adopt the resolution, giving the illusion that the entire House gave its imprimatur to it.

It is common for only a few Representatives to be on the floor when a unanimous consent vote is taken; however, it is highly unusual for the Israel lobby not to ask for a recorded vote so that its supporters can be rewarded and opponents can be punished. In the case of H.Res.1765, Berman clearly feared that a recorded vote would have led to an embarrassing outcome: more Representatives agreeing with Capps’ assessment and voting to express their displeasure at the resolution.

Growing unease on Capitol Hill over these “one-sided resolutions” is attributable to several factors: Israel’s deliberate humiliation of President Obama on settlements; recognition that Israeli and U.S. interests are not one and the same; and a hard-to-define yet palpable Israel fatigue.

Driving and reinforcing this change of sentiment on Capitol Hill is an increasingly effective grassroots movement demanding a change in U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine to support human rights, international law, and equality. A few hours after breaking the news about the vote on H.Res.1765, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation collected nearly 9,000 signatures on a petition opposing the resolution that was delivered to Berman prior to the vote. At least a half a dozen national organizations, and many more local ones, put out similar alerts.

Several Congressional offices marveled at this efficient outpouring of coordinated opposition and said yesterday that they were receiving many calls against H.Res.1765. While the Israel lobby retains enormous power and influence, the tides are beginning to turn. Join this growing movement today!

Josh Ruebner is the National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, a national coalition of more than 325 organizations working to change U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine to support human rights, international law, and equality. He is a former Analyst in Middle East Affairs at Congressional Research Service.

Obama beloont bouwstop Israël met 3 miljoen dollar per uur

Alleen het buitenland bestaan er nieuwsmedia die de 3 miljoen dollar per uur van Obama aan de schurkenstaat Israël, om niet te bouwen in en rond de illegale nederzettingen, met uitzondering van Oost-Jeruzalem, gewoon bij de naam noemen: bribe, omkoping, steekpenning. In Nederland is dat ongekend. Hier heet het zonder uitzondering "voorstel" en "plan".

Ik heb zodoende ook een voorstel: laten we alle journalisten, die er zo over schrijven, en hun familie uit hun huizen schoppen, waarna we vervolgens met hen gaan onderhandelen over wat we eventueel terug zouden kunnen geven en op welke voorwaarden. En dat noemen we dan een "vredesproces". Ondertussen laten we ons royaal belonen door hun redacties om te voorkomen dat we niet de eigendommen van het resterende personeel stelen of platbranden. En beloven zij ons dat ze geen aangifte doen bij de politie. En de regering beloont ons vervolgens met allerlei financiële voordeeltjes en onvoorwaardelijke vriendschap en steun.

Robert Fisk: An American bribe that stinks of appeasement

The Independent | by Robert Fisk | 20 November 2010

In any other country, the current American bribe to Israel, and the latter's reluctance to accept it, in return for even a temporary end to the theft of somebody else's property would be regarded as preposterous. Three billion dollars' worth of fighter bombers in return for a temporary freeze in West Bank colonisation for a mere 90 days? Not including East Jerusalem – so goodbye to the last chance of the east of the holy city for a Palestinian capital – and, if Benjamin Netanyahu so wishes, a rip-roaring continuation of settlement on Arab land. In the ordinary sane world in which we think we live, there is only one word for Barack Obama's offer: appeasement. Usually, our lords and masters use that word with disdain and disgust.

Anyone who panders to injustice by one people against another people is called an appeaser. Anyone who prefers peace at any price, let alone a $3bn bribe to the guilty party – is an appeaser. Anyone who will not risk the consequences of standing up for international morality against territorial greed is an appeaser. Those of us who did not want to invade Afghanistan were condemned as appeasers. Those of us who did not want to invade Iraq were vilified as appeasers. Yet that is precisely what Obama has done in his pathetic, unbelievable effort to plead with Netanyahu for just 90 days of submission to international law. Obama is an appeaser.

The fact that the West and its political and journalistic elites – I include the ever more disreputable New York Times – take this tomfoolery at face value, as if it can seriously be regarded as another "step" in the "peace process", to put this mystical nonsense "back on track", is a measure of the degree to which we have taken leave of our senses in the Middle East.

It is a sign of just how far America (and, through our failure to condemn this insanity, Europe) has allowed its fear of Israel – and how far Obama has allowed his fear of Israeli supporters in Congress and the Senate – to go.

Three billion dollars for three months is one billion dollars a month to stop Israel's colonisation. That's half a billion dollars a fortnight. That's $500m a week. That's $71,428,571 a day, or $2,976,190 an hour, or $49,603 a minute. And as well as this pot of gold, Washington will continue to veto any resolutions critical of Israel in the UN and prevent "Palestine" from declaring itself a state. It's worth invading anyone to get that much cash to stage a military withdrawal, let alone the gracious gesture of not building more illegal colonies for only 90 days while furiously continuing illegal construction in Jerusalem at the same time.

The Hillary Clinton version of this grotesquerie would be funny if it was not tragic. According to the sharp pen of the NYT's Roger Cohen, La Clinton has convinced herself that Palestine is "achievable, inevitable and compatible with Israel's security". And what persuaded Madame Hillary of this? Why, on a trip to the pseudo-Palestine "capital" of Ramallah last year, she saw the Jewish settlements – "the brutality of it was so stark" according to one of her officials – but thought her motorcade was being guarded by the Israeli army because "they're so professional". And then, lo and behold, they turned out to be a Palestinian military guard, a "professional outfit" – and all this changed Madame's views!

Quite apart from the fact that the Israeli army is a rabble, and that indeed, the Palestinians are a rabble too, this "road to Ramallah" incident led supporters of Madame, according to Cohen, to realise that there had been a transition "from a self-pitying, self-dramatising Palestinian psyche, with all the cloying accoutrements of victimhood, to a self-affirming culture of pragmatism and institution-building". Palestinian "prime minister" Salam Fayyad, educated in the US so, naturally, a safe pair of hands, has put "growth before grumbling, roads before ranting, and security before everything".

Having been occupied by a brutal army for 43 years, those wretched, dispossessed Palestinians, along with their cousins in the West Bank who have been homeless for 62 years, have at last stopped ranting and grumbling and feeling sorry for themselves and generally play-acting in order to honour the only thing that matters. Not justice. Certainly not democracy, but to the one God which Christians, Jews and Muslims are all now supposed to worship: security.

Yes, they have joined the true brotherhood of mankind. Israel will be safe at last. That this infantile narrative now drives the woman who told us 11 years ago that Jerusalem was "the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel" proves that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has now reached its apogee, its most treacherous and final moment. And if Netanyahu has any sense – I'm talking abut the Zionist, expansionist kind – he will wait out the 90 days, then thumb his nose at the US. In the three months of "good behaviour", of course, the Palestinians will have to bite the bullet and sit down to "peace" talks which will decide the future borders of Israel and "Palestine". But since Israel controls 62 per cent of the West Bank this leaves Fayyad and his chums about 10.9 per cent of mandate Palestine to argue about.

And at the cost of $827 a second, they'd better do some quick grovelling. They will. We should all hang our heads in shame. But we won't. It's not about people. It's about presentation. It's not about justice. It's about "security". And cash. Lots of it. Goodbye Palestine.

Obama's 'voorstel' aan Netanyahu

Bron: Blogging the Casbah

Wait- we are giving who?? 20 F-35 stealth attack jets?? for what??

In onze nieuwsmedia lezen we niets over Obama's "omkoping" van Israël, voor een miezerige settlement freeze van 3 maanden, laat staan dat de wereld al decennialang heeft geakkoordeerd dat Israël zich terug moet trekken uit de bezette gebieden en de nederzettingen moeten verdwijnen. Bij ons heet het simpelweg "vredesoverleg", wanneer een dief onderhandelt met zijn slachtoffer over de gestolen waren.

MondoWeiss | By Virginia Tilley | November 20, 2010

With 25 years of experience under my belt analysing the Middle East conflict, and as a close observer of US foreign policy with a pragmatic attitude toward its realist exigencies, I have never seen anything as destructive, humiliating and ruinously conceived as the “incentive” package now being offered by the US to Israel for a 3-month settlement freeze. It is our country’s foreign policy nadir: a deal is so damaging to US interests that it is hard to find words for it. What can be said plainly is that US citizens – yes, even those jaded, tired, embittered, disillusioned folks who have watched this stuff for too long – have to rise up and move fast to stop this, in the name of our country’s future.



Let us briefly consider just what’s being proposed here. Israel has been asked (asked!) to freeze illegal settlement construction in the West Bank for a lousy three months in the interests of the so-called peace process.

This brief hiatus is purely cosmetic. Jewish settlements in this occupied territory have been steadily and deliberately eradicating taking over East Jerusalem and the West Bank for over 40 years. The whole full-bore settlement construction programme makes open nonsense of partition now, as well as the putative “peace process”, by “eating the pizza”. But Israel has refused even a short-term freeze. And the US, egg all over its face, is being reduced to bribing the Israelis with a mind-boggling package of incentives – $3 BILLION in military hardware, equivalent to Israel’s annual automatic US package – just for three months of a partial freeze on construction, after which construction will continue unabated.

Israel’s refusal to freeze settlements even temporarily should surprise no one: the enigma is rather that anyone still finds that refusal confusing. Israel’s strategy for annexing the West Bank is recorded in Israeli government maps and settlement Master Plans dating back decades. For reasons too complicated to summarise here, deep divisions in Israeli society and politics make changing that policy effectively impossible at this late hour, as it is entrenched in Israeli doctrine, politics, policy and practice at levels so deep that the State’s very survival is implicated in it. The entire Israeli government, from the Agriculture Ministry to the World Zionist Organisation, is fully involved in and committed to building the West Bank settlements. But no one in the White House seems to have told President Obama this. He has already been deeply humiliated in world eyes when he insisted that Israel freeze settlement construction and Israel (predictably) gave him the diplomatic finger. Ever since that debacle, he has looked like a tin man in Middle East politics. Many wondered – first when, then whether – the US might find some spine with Israel over a situation so obviously damaging to the country’s image and interests. But Obama’s language about the settlements lately has been mealy stuff about “unhelpful” and “both sides”. As billions of tax dollars sink into the Afghan morass and US soldiers are shot down in ditches, the US superpower can’t get Israel to do diddly to help out and isn’t willing even to try. On the contrary, the US is committed to helping Israel do the opposite of what it urgently needs and what its own rhetoric asks for.

Normally, of course, the US would just strong-arm the Palestinians. But the Palestinian Authority is down to its last thong of dignity and even this is ready to snap. It can’t participate in a peace process that’s so openly idiotic. Politically, and despite the partial economic benefits that appointed Prime Minister Fayyad has brought to a narrow sector of Palestinian society in the West Bank, the PA is on the brink of implosion. Looking too much like a stringed puppet dancing in an empty diplomatic theatre, “negotiating” for a territory vanishing day by day, Mr. Abbas confronts a level of shame that even hard-core PA cronies have to consider soberly. For years, he has cultivated the image of a much-abused Palestinian patriot on the brink of resignation, enduring endless insults from Israel and the US only to do his best by the Palestinian people. But that always dubious story is crumbling to reveal a sordid truth: whatever its individual members’ intentions, the PA is effectively a cluster of native clients sucking up funds and graces from enemy patrons who are happy to pay a self-serving indigenous elite to keep the native masses quiet. This classic colonial deal can be sustained only as long as the Palestinian people as a whole are not smacked in the face with it.

But why does the US care about sustaining this farce? To understand the outlandish military deal now being offered, we have to recognise the whole Middle East “peace process” as a survival pact. The US needs the PA to help keep alive the whole fake story about the PA – Oslo’s “Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority”, supposedly “interim” to full Palestinian independence but actually “interim” to Israel’s final victory – to achieve what it needs to do in Afghanistan. Israel still needs the PA, too, because otherwise Israel will be identified for what it is: an Apartheid state. The Ramallah-PA elite relies on the coloniser’s needs -- indirect rule of the natives – for its very existence. So everyone needs the game a little longer and, if all goes right, it will work out for all of them. The US and Israel assume that when Israel’s eastern border (marked by the Wall plus the Jordan Valley) is finally consolidated, the PA will serve as the “self-government authority” – language straight out of the South African Bantustans, not incidentally – that will keep the natives quiet in assigned “reserves” which may or may not be called a state. The Ramallah PA hopes to land on its feet: a native elite that can enrich itself on sweetheart deals with Israel that it will cultivate by ensuring “security”. Counting on this pact, Israel need contemplate no true change to settlement policy because, token protests aside, the PA will take whatever it can get. No one in the US government really cares where Israel decides to put its borders, so the US government will not insist on any change either. The only concern is keeping up appearances. The short-sightedness of this plan is obvious and sad: it can’t but culminate in Palestinian revolt, Israeli violence, security dilemmas throughout the region and periodic regional upheavals. But then, colonists always assume that colonialism will win out somehow.



Even sadder is that the US actually has immense power in this situation and need do very little to deploy it. All it has to do to alter the entire power balance in the Middle East – in the interest of its own desperate situation in Afghanistan and its credibility as a world power – is sit back and abstain in the UN, leaving Israel to face the monumental international opprobrium that is brewing around its multitudinous human rights violations and sins against international security. Instead, the US is now doing the opposite: promising openly to protect Israel from any such blame, however legitimate, and handing over twenty – TWENTY – F35 stealth attack jets, the latest in US military stealth equipment, as well as unnamed satellite intelligence capacity and other cutting-edge technology. And for what? A 3-month token freeze that will end with Israel bouncing back to exactly the same strategy as before, putting the US back in the same impossible situation by February 2011.

Of course, it’s unlikely that the US is really doing this. Probably the deal was in the works anyway – maybe to capacitate Israel to strike Iran, in reality or as a threat – and some pro-Israel fanatic in the White House thought it might make slightly better sense to the world if cast as a sweetener to Israel regarding the always-fictive “peace process”. The opposite is true: attaching this colossal military transfer to a 3-month diplomatic nod from Israel makes the US look like a giant on its knees to a local mafia thug, handing over the family jewels (in both senses?) to cover the next short-term protection-racket instalment. It announces to the world that the US has no foreign policy leverage whatever and is reduced to giving away its best goods for the slightest temporary cooperation by a rude ally that claims openly to control its foreign policy. It also announces to the world that we are ready to destabilise the entire planet to plead for the most immaterial of Israel’s diplomatic graces. It indicates an infatuation with Israel so craven as to betray the foundations of our country’s essential interests – to remain a credible power in world affairs. (And let’s not even go into how deeply it abuses and insults the millions of desperate jobless Americans for whom $3 billion in mortgage assistance, education and job training could make all the difference – and whose children are being killed or maimed in Afghanistan as this disgusting deal goes forward to make their lot worse.)

I don’t usually speak like this, but this is a matter for US patriots. I don’t mean tea-party dolts, I mean liberal principled citizens people who – even grown cynical after decades of disappointments and disillusionments – still in their hearts really care about the US and what we always believed it was founded to become. And I include people who don’t much care one way or the other about the Middle East. For, although it will indeed be ruinous for the Middle East, and catastrophic for US relations with the Middle East, this crisis isn’t only about the Middle East. We cannot possibly hand over vast first-strike armaments at the tune of $3 billion on the utterly shaming rationale of coaxing an arrogant local power into a minor diplomatic gesture with a dinky 90-day limit. Doing so would mark the end of the US as any kind of sensible player in the world.

Virginia Tilley is a professor of political science and international relations and author of The One-State Solution. She lives in Cape Town and can be reached at vtilley@mweb.co.za. Thanks to John Haines for circulating her piece first.

With settlement deal, U.S. will be rewarding Israel's bad behavior

Daniel Kurtzer, voormalig Amerikaans ambassadeur van Israël en Egypte, meent dat het omkopen van Israël door de VS voor beide partijen een slechte zaak is.

The Washington Post | by Daniel Kurtzer | November 21, 2010

It was only a little over a year and a half ago that the Obama administration demanded a freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including even the "natural growth" of existing settlements. At the time, the administration called settlement activity "illegitimate" and appeared ready to go to the mat with Israel to show just how strongly the United States believed that settlements impede peace.

But now, the administration says it is prepared to pay off Israel to freeze only some of its settlement activity, and only temporarily. For the first time in memory, the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.

Here's the offer that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is reported to have put on the table recently: The United States will provide a package of advanced weaponry and military assistance to Israel totaling several billion dollars, all in return for an Israeli commitment to freeze settlement construction for just three months, excluding construction in Jerusalem. During this period, the United States hopes Israel and the Palestinian Authority will negotiate an agreement on the final borders of a future Palestinian state. The Israeli cabinet is weighing the offer, having demanded a letter from Washington confirming the terms.



This is a very bad idea. And while Washington will almost certainly come to regret bribing Israel, Israel may regret receiving such a bribe even more.

Previously, U.S. opposition to settlements resulted in penalties, not rewards, for continued construction. Washington deducted from its loan guarantees to Israel an amount equivalent, dollar for dollar, to the money that Israel spent in the occupied territories. While it's true that the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories - such as tax deductions for American organizations that fund settlements - the deal now being offered to Israel is of a totally different magnitude. If it goes forward, it will be the first direct benefit that the United States has provided Israel for settlement activities that we have opposed for more than 40 years.

It is not clear that Washington has thought through the implications. Will the United States similarly reward Palestinians for stopping their own bad behavior? Will Washington pay them to, say, halt the incitement against Israel and Jews in their public media and some educational materials - something that shouldn't have been going on in the first place?

Will the rewards for Israel be automatically renewable? Meaning, if Israel is willing to continue the settlement freeze after three months, will another set of rewards be the price for that?

And what about enforcement? Will the United States demand its money back if it learns about construction during the freeze, even if that construction was not authorized by the Israeli government?

The list of problems is so long that it would not be surprising if the administration were already experiencing buyer's remorse. But the arrangement has an even more serious long-term implication, one that should worry Israel profoundly.

If it goes through, this deal will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership. Since the early 1980s, the two countries have cooperated closely on assessing Israeli security, and Washington has promised to ensure Israel's "qualitative military edge" over any combination of potential Arab adversaries.

This commitment has been insulated from the vicissitudes of politics and diplomacy. Whatever the state of U.S.-Israeli relations or the peace process, America's commitment to Israel's security has been manifest. Not so, if this deal materializes. By subjecting Israel's defense needs to the political demands of an American administration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has done something quite dangerous for Israel - he has made those needs contingent, negotiable, optional. Israel's security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.

Today, the United States has "purchased" a short-term settlements freeze; what will be for sale tomorrow? For that matter, how seriously should our defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel's arguments about its security needs when it is prepared to market different elements of its policy for another squadron of advanced aircraft? Does anyone really believe that there is a substantive connection between a three-month settlement freeze and Israel's professed need for more airplanes?

These short-sighted tactics will lead both the United States and Israel into a long-term bind. Washington will be left fending off a landslide of demands from others who hope to be rewarded for their bad behavior, to be paid for stopping what they should never have been doing. Israel, meanwhile, will be left struggling to explain how precious its settlements really are if a payoff - albeit a high one - is enough to see them frozen.

And both countries will need a new rationale for the exceedingly steep price of what Israel calls its security requirements, but which will now look more like poker chips used to secure American aid.

This bargaining exercise has been unseemly all along. If it proceeds, both sides will probably regret it. But the deal has not yet been sealed. And it is not too late to start over.

Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, teaches Middle East politics at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians: Allowing the thief to negotiate with his victim

SpinWatch | By David Morrison | 3rd November 2010

The negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are equivalent to allowing a thief to negotiate with his victim about the amount of stolen goods he is going to give back, while he keeps his boot on the victim's throat.

Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians began in early September. President Abbas was opposed to direct negotiations without Israel calling a halt to settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.But, he came under great pressure from President Obama to do so and reluctantly gave in.

The Road Map

In May 2003, Israel agreed to freeze all settlement activity prior to the start of negotiations, when it accepted the Road Map (aka "a performance-based roadmap to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict") [1].

Drawn up by the Bush Administration, it is the internationally accepted framework for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1515 [2]. The EU and the Quartet (the US, the EU, Russia and the UN Secretary-General) have regularly called upon both sides to fulfil their obligations under the Road Map (see, for example, a recent Quartet statement of 21 September 2010 [3]).

One of Israel's obligations is that, prior to the start of negotiations:

"Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI [Government of Israel] freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)"

Another obligation was to dismantle all the settlement outposts built after March 2001.

The Israeli government attached reservations to its acceptance of the Road Map, but none of them objected to the obligation to freeze settlement construction [4]. The Palestinians accepted the Road Map without reservations.

The Israeli government has reiterated its commitment to the Road Map on several occasions, for example, at the Annapolis conference held in November 2007, when, in a joint memorandum with President Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert repeated Israel's commitment [5]. However, Israel continued settlement activity while the negotiations following the conference went on.

Obama backs down

So, Mahmoud Abbas was entirely justified in resisting direct negotiations while settlement building continued.Israel's 10-month "moratorium" on settlement building was never a complete freeze, and anyway it didn't apply to East Jerusalem, so it didn't meet the Road Map requirement. And settlement outposts haven't been removed. At the time of writing, the "moratorium" has expired – and Abbas may pull out of direct negotiations.

A year ago, Obama was on Abbas's side in insisting on a freeze on the Jewish colonisation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, prior to the start of negotiations.In his speech in Cairo on 4 June 2009, he declared:

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements [eg the Road Map] and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." [6]

However, a few months later, in the face of opposition from Prime Minister Netanyahu, he backed down ignominiously. Violating previous agreements and undermining efforts to achieve peace is apparently OK, as long as it is Israel that is doing it.

(It is difficult to believe that he would be as forgiving of Palestinian action that he deemed to be in violation of previous agreements and to undermine efforts to achieve peace. In the same Cairo speech, he insisted that in order "to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations" Hamas had to "recognize past agreements". He has yet to lift this requirement on Hamas.)

So, having given up trying to persuade the stronger party to stick to past agreements, Obama has been putting ever increasing pressure on the weaker party to enter into direct negotiations while the stronger party continues to be in breach of past agreements – and in early September, with great reluctance, Abbas conceded.

The only reason anybody can think of for this disgraceful bullying of Abbas by Obama is that he wanted a foreign policy "success" before the US mid-term elections.

Mitchell reports

A report published on 30 April 2001 stated:

"Palestinians are genuinely angry at the continued growth of settlements and at their daily experiences of humiliation and disruption as a result of Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories. Palestinians see settlers and settlements in their midst not only as violating the spirit of the Oslo process, but also as an application of force in the form of Israel's overwhelming military superiority, which sustains and protects the settlements." [7]

The chairman of the fact finding mission that drew up this report was George Mitchell, now Obama's Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.Mitchell went on to recommend, inter alia, that, in order to build confidence prior to a resumption of negotiations:

"The GOI [Government of Israel] should freeze all settlement activity, including the ‘natural growth' of existing settlements."

which, as we have seen, was replicated in the Road Map two years later.

One wonders how Mitchell feels now that he has been party to pressuring the Palestinians into direct negotiations with Israel without his proposal from 10 years ago being implemented, particularly since, in the interim, Palestinians have had to endure a rapidly growing number of settlers in their midst.

The Kuwait example

The negotiations are supposed to be about ending Israel's military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which began in June 1967.The Quartet statement of 21 September stated that "negotiations should lead to an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian State" [3].

The proper international response to Israel's acquisition of these (and other) territories by force in 1967 should have been to apply what ever pressure was necessary to force Israel to withdraw.The Security Council should have told Israel to leave and, if it didn't, economic sanctions should have been applied to make it leave.If that didn't work, it should have been made to leave by the application of armed force.That's what was done to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait in 1990, and should have been done to Israel in 1967.

But, Israel was not forced to leave.Instead, today, the Israeli occupier is being allowed to negotiate with the people under its occupation about how much, if any, of the territory it acquired by armed force 43 years ago it will give up, and when it will give it up.In these negotiations, Israel holds all the cards, since it dominates the occupied territories, militarily and economically, and is therefore in a position to dictate terms.And, if the Palestinians refuse to agree to those terms, they will continue to be occupied sine die.

These negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are equivalent to allowing a thief to negotiate with his victim about the amount of stolen goods he is going to give back, while he keeps his boot on the victim's throat.

The US has made it clear that it isn't going to help the victim recover the stolen goods, Obama said at the outset the US "cannot impose a solution" [8].He meant "will not".This statement is a green light to Netanyahu to set terms which Abbas cannot accept, in the full knowledge that Obama isn't going to make his life difficult if he does.On present form, Obama is much more likely to make life difficult for Abbas if he refuses to accept Netanyahu's terms.

The US could impose a solution – all it has to do is to cut off, or threaten to cut off, some or all of the US tax dollars that Israel receives annually (around $2.5 billion in 2007 [9]) and/or to make it clear that the US is no longer prepared to protect Israel from criticism, or worse, in international fora, in particular, that the US veto might not always be exercised to protect Israel in the Security Council.

Relentless settlement building

Meanwhile, Israel continues to expand Jewish settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, on the territory that is meant to belong to a Palestinian state at the end of the negotiations.B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, recently published a report on Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank [10].The report begins:

"Some half a million Israelis are now living over the Green Line [the 1967 border] : more than 300,000 in 121 settlements and about one hundred outposts, which control 42 percent of the land area of the West Bank, and the rest in twelve neighborhoods that Israel established on land it annexed to the Jerusalem Municipality."

The Jewish state was assigned 56% of mandate Palestine by UN General Assembly in November 1947.It was expanded by force to 78% in 1947/48, and 750,000 Arabs were expelled into the rest of Palestine and the surrounding Arab states, where they and their descendants live today.That is how a viable Jewish state was established in Palestine in 1948.

In 1967, Israel occupied the remaining 22% and has set about colonising the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, thereby staking a claim to even more territory.

In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) recognised Israel's right to exist within its 1967 borders and adopted the objective of establishing an independent Palestinian state in the remaining 22% of mandate Palestine. This "historic compromise" led to the Oslo agreement in August 1993 and to a series of negotiations under that agreement, culminating in the unsuccessful Camp David talks in July 2000.

Throughout the Oslo process, and subsequently, Israel has continued relentlessly to confiscate Palestinian land and to plant Jewish settlers on it.In 1988, there were about 60,000 settlers in the West Bank and about 120,000 in East Jerusalem (see B'Tselem report [10], p 9/10).Today, those numbers have increased to around 300,000 and 200,000 respectively.The total today at 500,000 is nearly triple what it was in 1988, when the PLO formally settled for a state in 22% of mandate Palestine.

It cannot be coincidental that when Palestinians expressed their willingness to accept a state in 22% of mandate Palestine, Israel accelerated settlement building to make it ever more difficult, if not possible, for them to reach that objective.The territory which is supposed to belong one day to a Palestinian state is being steadily eaten into by Jewish colonisation.

Michael Tarazy, a legal advisor to the PLO, once said: "It's like you and I are negotiating over a piece of pizza. How much of the pizza do I get? And how much do you get? And while we are negotiating it, you are eating it".

Contrary to 4^th Geneva Convention

All of Israel's settlement building is contrary to international law, because it involves the transfer of Israeli civilians into territory occupied by Israel.This is forbidden under Article 49, paragraph 6, of the 4th Geneva Convention, which states:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."[11]

The United Nations Security Council has made this clear in resolutions 446, 452 and 465, all of which demand that Israel cease settlement building and remove existing settlements.For example, in resolution 446, passed on 22 March 1979, the Security Council states that

"the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

and calls upon Israel

"to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" [12].

UN General Assembly

Every year, the UN General Assembly passes a series of resolutions on Israel/Palestine including one demanding that settlement building cease and existing settlements be removed, most recently resolution 64/93 passed on 10 December 2009.This reiterates the General Assembly's demand

"for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls in this regard for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 465 (1980)" [13]

This resolution was passed overwhelmingly (as it is every year), this year by 171 votes to 7.EU states voted for the resolution.The only opponents apart from Israel and the US were Panama and four tiny Pacific states – Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau – which are US clients.

On this matter, and others concerning Israel/Palestine, Israel and the US have very few friends in the world.

The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has also declared, in its Advisory Opinion on the construction of the Wall [14](paragraph 120), that "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law", contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

International Criminal Court

Under the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court (ICC), the colonisation of occupied territory is a war crime. Article 8.2(b)(viii) of the Statute defines "the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a war crime [15].

Since there is no doubt that such transfers have taken place, there is a prima facie case that the many Israeli citizens responsible for these transfers have committed war crimes.However, like the US and other states, for example, Sudan, Israel has not signed up to the ICC and accepted its jurisdiction, so there is no prospect of the ICC prosecuting these Israelis.

Theoretically, the Security Council could refer the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories to the ICC (as it did the situation in Darfur in March 2005, which led to the indictment of President Bashir of Sudan and others by the ICC).Then, the ICC could prosecute Israelis for settlement building carried out since 1 July 2002, when the Rome Statute came into force.Needless to say, it is certain that the US would wield its veto on the Security Council to prevent this happening.

(Speaking of the ICC, it is possible that Israelis could be brought before the ICC for the attack on the Mavi Marmara, which although a Turkish-owned ship was registered in, and flew the flag of, the Comoros.Legally speaking, therefore, the attack took place on the territory of Comoros, which is a party to the ICC.The ICC therefore has jurisdiction over the ship at the time of the attack.This was confirmed [16] by Desmond de Silva, a British judge, who was a member of the UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission into the incident.The mission reported on 22 September 2010 [17].

It appears that the Turkish NGO, IHH, that owned the ship deliberately chose to register it in the Comoros, because the Comoros was a party to the ICC, unlike Turkey.)

What freeze?

At the time of writing, the question dominating media attention is: will Israel renew its "moratorium" on settlement building and save the negotiations?

One question that is worthy of media attention, but is receiving very little, is: what effect did the "moratorium" have on settlement building while it was in operation?The answer is very little.

Here's how Dror Etkes described its effect in a Ha'aretz article [18] entitled Settlement freeze? It was barely a slowdown:

"The official statistics supplied by the Central Bureau of Statistics describe the story behind the 10-month construction moratorium in the West Bank. The story can be called many things but ‘freeze' is certainly not one of them. What took place in the past few months is, in the best case scenario, not more than a negligible decrease in the number of housing units that were built in settlements.

"The data that appeared in the bureau's tables clearly show that. At the end of 2009, the number of housing units that were actively being built on all the settlements together amounted to 2,955. Three months later, at the end of March 2010, the number stood at 2,517. We are therefore talking about a drop of a little more than 400 housing units - some 16 percent of Israeli construction in the West Bank over that period.…

"The real story behind the PR stunt known as the freeze took place in fact in the months prior to that, during which the settlers, with the assistance of the government, prepared well for the months of hibernation foisted upon them. In the half year that preceded the declaration of the freeze, which started at the end of November 2009, dozens of new building sites sprang up, especially in isolated and more extreme settlements east of the fence.

"This piece of information is also well documented in the bureau's numbers. In the first half of 2009, they started to build 669 housing units in the settlements, and then, as the months wore on, the pace of construction increased. Thus in the second half of 2009, no fewer than 1,204 housing units were built - an increase of some 90 percent in construction starts as compared with the first half of the year. …

"If we add to these statistics the fact that the government announced in advance that it planned to approve, in any circumstances and with no connection to the ‘freeze', the construction of 600 housing units in various settlements, and the chaos and anarchy that exists in some settlements and outposts, making it possible for every person to build where and when he feels like it, we shall get quite a good picture of what really happened to the settlements in the past few months."

A real freeze (and demolitions)

By contrast, Palestinian building is severely restricted by Israel in large areas of the West Bank, and has been restricted since Israeli occupation began in 1967.This is graphically described in a fact sheet published in August 2010 [19] by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on life for the approximately 150,000 Palestinians living in Area C of the West Bank.

As part of the Oslo process, the West Bank was divided into three zones, referred to as Areas A, B and C, A controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA), B under joint PA and Israeli control and C wholly under Israeli control.Areas A and B consist of a series of small islands within Area C, which comprises approximately 62% of the West Bank.There, the Israeli Civil Administration (ICA) is in charge of building and planning.

On this, the OCHA fact sheet comments:

"Difficulties in obtaining building permits from the ICA for construction and/or rehabilitation of buildings, prevents the construction of housing to meet natural population growth. In addition, the inability to build or rehabilitate schools and health clinics significantly impedes the adequate provision of basic services. In some cases, permit applications of a high technical standard for funded projects have been pending for years. The ability to rehabilitate rainwater harvesting cisterns and the weatherproofing of dwellings, and even their replacement by portable tents, is prohibited by the ICA.

"Due to the restrictive planning and zoning regulations in practice, the Israeli authorities generally allow Palestinian construction only within the boundaries of ICA-approved municipal plans. These cover less than one percent of Area C, and much of this one percent is already built-up. As a result, Palestinians needing to build in Area C are left with no alternative than to build without a permit and risk demolition of their structure."

And demolitions are common.

Right next to the Palestinians living under these severe building restrictions imposed by Israel are the Jewish-only settlements, which are all in Area C.There, even temporary restrictions on building are fiercely resisted by Israel.It is unthinkable, it is said, that homes cannot be extended to cater for growing families, or that schools and health clinics cannot be built or rehabilitated.

But not if the homes and schools and health centres are for Palestinians.

References:
[1]unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/6129b9c832fe59ab85256d43004d87fa
[2] unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/71b2c135fca9d78a85256de400530107
[3]www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sg2162.doc.htm
[4]www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/roadmap_response_eng.htm
[5]georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071127.html
[6]www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/
[7]unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/6e61d52eaacb860285256d2800734e9a
[8]www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/01/remarks-president-rose-garden-after-bilateral-meetings

[9]assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33222_20080102.pdf
[10]www.btselem.org/Download/201007_By_Hook_and_by_Crook_Eng.pdf
[11]www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600056
[12]unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc
[13]unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/b47fb4cb4b13f63b852576b7005b84a4
[14]www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
[15]www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
[16]www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39402183/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa
[17]www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf
[18]www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/settlement-freeze-it-was-barely-a-slowdown-1.316074
[19]www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_area_c_humanitarian_response_plan_fact_sheet_2010_09_03_
english.pdf

More of David Morrison's writing is available on his website

VS 'vredesproces' lachertje

In ruil voor Amerikaanse wapens steun, moet Israël een bouwstop van 90 dagen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever afkondigen. De stop geldt niet voor Oost-Jeruzalem.

De VS belooft daarna geen verlenging van de bouwstop te eisen. Verder zal de VS Israël proberen te behoeden voor kritische VN-resoluties.
(Bron: NOS)

The betrayal of Gaza

New Statesman | by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé | 8 November 2010

The US is vocal about its commitment to peace in Israel and the Palestinian territories — but its actions suggest otherwise.

That the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, not only is it possible, but there is near-universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognised (pre-June 1967) borders - with "minor and mutual modifications", to adopt official US terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (which call for the full normalisation of relations), the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (including Iran) and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the UN Security Council in January 1976 and backed by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend. The United States vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

But there was one important and revealing break in US-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognised that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That December, he proposed his "parameters": imprecise but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, while expressing reservations.

Palestinian children play near a tent in Ezbet Abed Rabbo area, that was heavily destroyed during Israel's 22-day offensive on the Gaza Strip. Photograph: Getty Images.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 to resolve the differences and were making progress. At their final press conference, they reported that, with more time, they could probably have reached full agreement. Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, however, and official progress was then terminated, though informal discussions at a high level continued, leading to the Geneva Accord, rejected by Israel and ignored by the US. Much has happened since but a settlement along those lines is still not out of reach, if Washington is once again willing to accept it. Unfortunately, there is little sign of that.

The US and Israel have been acting in tandem to extend and deepen the occupation. Take the situation in Gaza. After its formal withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Israel never relinquished its total control over the territory, often described as "the world's largest prison".

In January 2006, Palestine had an election that was recognised as free and fair by international observers. Palestinians, however, voted "the wrong way", electing Hamas. Instantly, the US and Israel intensified their assault against Gazans as punishment for this misdeed. The facts and the reasoning were not concealed; rather, they were published alongside reverential commentary on Washington's dedication to democracy. The US-backed Israeli assault against the Gazans has only intensified since, in the form of savage violence and economic strangulation. After Israel's 2008-2009 assault, Gaza has become a virtually unliveable place.

It cannot be stressed too often that Israel had no credible pretext for its attack on Gaza, with full US support and illegally using US weapons. Popular opinion asserts the contrary, claiming that Israel was acting in self-defence. That is utterly unsustainable, in light of Israel's flat rejection of peaceful means that were readily available, as Israel and its US partner in crime knew very well.

Truth by omission

In his Cairo address to the Muslim world on 4 June 2009, Barack Obama echoed George W Bush's "vision" of two states, without saying what he meant by the phrase "Palestinian state". His intentions were clarified not only by his crucial omissions, but also by his one explicit criticism of Israel: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

That is, Israel should live up to Phase I of the 2003 "road map", rejected by Israel with tacit US support. The operative words are "legitimacy" and "continued". By omission, Obama indicates that he accepts Bush's vision: the vast existing settlement and infrastructure projects are "legitimate". Always even-handed, Obama also had an admonition for the Arab states: they "must recognise that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning but not the end of their responsibilities". Plainly, however, it cannot be a meaningful "beginning" if Obama continues to reject its core principle: the implementation of the international consensus. To do so, however, is evidently not Washington's "responsibility" in his vision.

On democracy, Obama said that "we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election" - as in January 2006, when Washington picked the outcome with a vengeance, turning at once to the severe punishment of the Palestinians because it did not like the results of a peaceful election. This happened with Obama's apparent approval, judging by his words before and actions since taking office. There should be little difficulty in understanding why those whose eyes are not closed tight shut by rigid doctrine dismiss Obama's yearning for democracy as a joke in bad taste.

Extracted from "Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians" by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé (Hamish Hamilton, £14.99.
To buy the book at a special offer price of £11.99, call 08700 707 717, quoting "NS/Gaza" and the ISBN 978-0-241-14506-7

American teens gathering in Middle East pose terrorist threat

War in Context | via Paul Woodward | 19.08.09

American teens are fighting back in Israel
By Matt McAllester, Men.Style.com, September, 2009

Later this year, 21-year-old Ephraim Khantsis will pack a couple of suitcases, say good-bye to his mother, leave his home in Brooklyn, and move to Israel. On arrival in Jerusalem he will enroll in a yeshiva, or religious school, that is popular with Americans. After a few months he will make his way north, to a place this young American feels is his true home: the Jewish settlement of Kfar Tapuach.

Perched on a hill just off Route 60, the main north-south road in the occupied West Bank, Kfar Tapuach is known as a particularly hard-line community. Home to about 600 people, the settlement has a history of welcoming American immigrants whose beliefs and acts raise alarms among Israeli intelligence agencies, leading them to monitor it as a haven for suspected terrorists.

Khantsis, who is in the process of applying for Israeli citizenship, will fit right in. Like the assassinated Brooklyn-born rabbi Meir Kahane, the man some in Kfar Tapuach consider their spiritual leader, Khantsis believes that all Arabs and Palestinians should be forcibly removed from territory controlled by Israel, including the West Bank.

“It’s the most humane way to solve the situation,” Khantsis—who has just graduated from Stony Brook University, on Long Island, with a degree in computer science—says, sipping a soda in an Israeli-run kosher pizzeria in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, this past June. He acknowledges that he is advocating ethnic cleansing.

While such a view is unlikely to become mainstream in Israel, there’s a pledge Khantsis makes, one that it’s also possible to hear from Americans already living in settlements, that might be more troubling to Israeli authorities: If the Israeli military comes to remove him from his new home—and many in Israel believe such an event is likely—he will not leave peacefully.

“I would fight against it with all my strength, and I would leave nothing back to try to stop it,” says the slim young man wearing a black yarmulke. He speaks so softly that at times it’s hard to hear him. “If they use violence, then we’re justified doing the same.”

Would that include using a gun?

“Yes,” he says.

Is he absolutely sure that he would use a weapon against Israeli soldiers?

“That’s right. I strongly hope it would never come to that,” he says. But “if they’re already shooting us, I’d have no option. I don’t think the right thing to do is turn the other cheek. It’s not a Jewish thing to do.”

The Jewish organization Mishmeret Yesha operates a cell in Yizthar training adults & young children in paramilitary tactics for raiding Palestinian homes. "The IDF supplies the team volunteers with military weapons."

After Israel won the Six-Day War in 1967 and took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—Palestinian areas that had been held by Egypt and Jordan, respectively—religious and right-wing Jews quickly began pushing for the establishment of communities on what they considered land promised them by God. At first the Israeli government refused to let them build on occupied territory, but as the years went by, homes and businesses started popping up.

In May of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear that the Obama administration would have little tolerance for the growth of existing settlements. After Obama’s position was made public, extremist settlers rapidly erected new buildings and repaired outposts. In one location they built a wooden structure they named an “Obama hut.” Around the same time, an Israeli newspaper reported that the senior Israeli army officer in the West Bank had received threatening letters, apparently from radicals trying to dissuade the military from evicting settlers from their homes.

An unknown number of North Americans have settled in the West Bank and Jerusalem since Israel occupied the territories in 1967 and retain dual citizenship. Middle East historian Juan Cole wrote that an estimated one third of West Bank settlers are "Americans." (Bron: Bingo! U.S. donors fund illegal Jewish settlements)

There are now more than a quarter of a million Jewish settlers living among almost 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank—and many of the radicals resisting Obama’s wishes are American. The approximately 100,000 U.S. immigrants in the West Bank and Israel have been influential from the beginning of the movement, and many of them have been among the most extreme of the pioneers: Kahane founded a political party that was deemed racist and banned from the Knesset before he was assassinated in Manhattan in 1990; Brooklyn-born Baruch Goldstein shot dead 29 Palestinians in Hebron in 1994; and a group of settlers in Hebron, whose spokesman is New Jersey–born David Wilder, was involved in a violent confrontation with the Israeli military last year.

While Kahane’s original followers and other American extremists continue to face arrest and monitoring by Israeli security services, it is the young people—many of them, like Ephraim Khantsis, American—in the settler movement who are now the Israeli government’s primary concern. This new generation of hard-liners differs from the previous one in a crucial way—its members are profoundly alienated from the secular Israeli state.

This increasing radicalization is a response to the forced removal of Jews from West Bank settlements that the Israeli government considers obstacles to peace. In August 2005, the government of Ariel Sharon, once the great champion of the settlement movement, evacuated thousands of people from the Gaza Strip. The settlers generally did not use violence against the soldiers and police officers who came to evict them, tearfully pleading with—and even hugging—them instead. But that strategy failed. Some extremist settlers said they would never leave so easily again. True to their word, they put up a fight when the army tried to evacuate a settlement at Amona, in the West Bank, in February 2006—more than 300 people were injured.

Nowadays the talk is that the next evacuation will lead to even more violence. “I can tell you one thing,” says Yedidya Slonim, a 16-year-old Australian immigrant who lives in a sizable cave on a hill in the West Bank that functions as an illegal outpost called Shvut Ami. “What happened over there when the people hugged the policemen—that ain’t going to happen.”

“A lot of kids have got no authority, just them and God out there on the hills,” says Yekutiel Ben Yaakov, 50, formerly of Queens, New York, who now lives in Kfar Tapuach and has provided guard dogs for some of the young extremists who set up illegal hilltop camps.

How far the youth of the West Bank are prepared to go to stay on what much of the world considers occupied land is a question that is increasingly haunting a country surrounded by enemies. In November 2008, Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel’s internal intelligence service, told the Israeli cabinet that future evacuations would involve “a very high willingness among this public to use violence—not just stones but live weapons—in order to prevent or halt a diplomatic process.”

Making peace with Israel’s traditional enemies may have to wait until the country has dealt with the enemy within.

West Bank settlers clashing with Palestinians who were evicted from their Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem, February 15, 2010. (TIME, Muammar Awad/AP)

Aaron Gottlieb is 15 years old, speaks in a rapid-fire American accent, and has yet to have his first shave. He does not look like much of a threat, but he is part of a group that has many in Israel deeply worried: the Hilltop Youth.

Gottlieb grew up in New Rochelle, New York, and immigrated to Israel with his family when he was 9. Whenever he can get away from his yeshiva in the town of Petah Tikva, he spends the night, along with Yedidya Slonim and other teenage boys, at Shvut Ami. Their mission is simple: to establish Jewish homes on as many strategic hilltops as possible throughout the West Bank. According to Peace Now, an Israeli pacifist organization, there are about 100 such outposts. The mainstream settler movement has largely disowned this radical wing and its frequently violent acts.

“I very much believe I’m a threat to my own government,” Gottlieb says. “There will be no giving up.”

Shvut Ami sits close to Route 60, near the hard-line settlement of Qedumim, one of the first to be established in the West Bank. Israeli police have tried numerous times to remove the teenagers—arresting some of them and destroying their temporary structures—but the kids keep coming back. In four months over the winter, they used picks and shovels to dig the cave into the hillside. To get rid of it, police will need to use dynamite. The boys live there among dusty blankets and pillows, a gas heater keeping them warm at night while they study the Torah.

Many saw the strong resistance put up by the Hilltop Youth and others at Amona as a harbinger of battles to come. “When bricks are thrown at the heads of soldiers and police officers, a line has clearly been crossed,” said then acting prime minister Ehud Olmert.

Like most other settlers, Gottlieb doesn’t call the people in the nearby town “Palestinians.” That would imply that there was a country called Palestine. Sometimes they’re “Arabs,” but mostly he calls them “terrorists.” Gottlieb says he’s not afraid. “God’s with me,” he says. “This land has been ours forever.”

Gottlieb’s belief in his right to live in the West Bank despite international condemnation and the laws of his own government is total. There is very little of America left in him. He goes back sometimes to visit his grandmother, who lives on Park Avenue in New York City, but he dislikes what he sees as the sinfulness of the United States.

“How much are you prepared to sacrifice?” I ask.

“For the land of Israel?” He taps his chest where his heart is.

“Your life?”

“Mm-hm,” he says.

The Palestinian town of Jenin lies about 15 miles north on Route 60 from the cave at Shvut Ami. It was at the refugee camp here, in April 2002, that militant leader Zakaria Zubeidi helped direct a brutal nine-day fight against the Israeli army, during which 23 Israeli soldiers and up to 56 Palestinians, including some civilians, died. Zubeidi survived, escaped capture, and spent the next five years on the lam, avoiding Israeli attempts to assassinate him—he was shot 11 times. In 2007, he and 178 members of the Palestinian political party Fatah, including members of his militia, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, were granted amnesty by the Israeli government as part of a deal intended to strengthen Fatah. Zubeidi committed himself to working for peace.

But given the recent rise in settler violence, Zubeidi, 33, has begun to lose faith in the possibility of avoiding more bloodshed.

“The next war is with the settlers,” he says, sitting in a room at Jenin’s Freedom Theatre complex this past January. He works at the theater, which was founded in memory of an Israeli woman in order to provide a creative outlet for young Palestinians. “I feel it will be very soon. I would not give it more than a year.”

Zubeidi’s body bears the marks of his experiences during the second Intifada. His face and eyes are scarred from a bomb that blew up as he was handling it. It gives him the look of a crudely tattooed Maori warrior.

I ask him if he and Jenin’s other militants are making specific preparations for war with the settlers.

“Of course we are preparing,” he says. “It will be dependent on individuals—to bomb themselves [as suicide bombers]. And some small guns. If the guns are not available and explosives are not available, we have experience using stones.”

During the six years of the first Intifada, Palestinian protesters, many of them young boys, would line up against Israeli soldiers and tanks, raining stones on the well-armed troops.

“I don’t fight in the shadows,” Zubeidi says. “I am in the right. They are taking my freedom. They are oppressing me. They are taking our land. We, the Palestinian people, are fighting for our freedom.”

Since I met Zubeidi, that fight has quietly but brutally intensified, and there have been several violent attacks on settlers in the West Bank. On April 2, a Palestinian was accused of using an ax to kill a 13-year-old boy in the settlement of Bat Ayin. A 7-year-old boy, whose father has been in prison for seven years for planning to bomb a Palestinian girls’ school, was also injured.

Security sources told the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz that they feared Jewish extremists would seek revenge for the attacks. In a vicious cycle of violence that appears to be quickening, radicals on one side are breeding radicals on the other.

Yehuda Goldberg was 16 years old when Israeli intelligence agents came for him. “They surrounded the house and knocked on the door—because they don’t want you to jump out of the window,” says Goldberg, 20, who has a pensive stare and wears the large yarmulke of the youth movement. “It was four or five in the morning. They came also four or five into the house.”

The Israeli officers, from the Shin Bet—Israel’s FBI—searched Goldberg’s bedroom at his family’s house in Kfar Tapuach. They found ammunition, explosives, and knives. He was given a suspended sentence and community service. Goldberg’s father, Lenny—who emigrated from New York City in 1985—is proud of his son. “He was going hand-to-hand combat with soldiers,” he says. “Our generation used to give cups of coffee to soldiers. The police found weapons in his room.”

Goldberg doesn’t want to reveal what he intended to do with the ammunition and weapons. “It’s not weird to have such things in our area,” he says. “Legally, it’s not allowed. But every kid can get ammunition.”

Soon after that arrest, the Shin Bet came to get Goldberg again, accusing him of involvement with a 19-year-old friend who, while awol from the Israeli army, had killed four Israeli Arabs and wounded nearly two dozen with his army-issue M-16 rifle.

The Shin Bet “had information that he was my friend,” Goldberg explains, sitting on a plastic garden chair outside his home while his mother prepares Shabbat dinner. “They arrested me and two other kids. They held me in a chamber for four days, with the light always on. I don’t have bathroom. They close my eyes with black glasses, put me in a chair with my hands behind my back.”

Eventually the Shin Bet released Goldberg and he received a letter saying the case was closed.

Lenny and his wife and their eight children seem to be a welcoming, loving family. Lenny rents out inflatable castles and swimming pools in the summer months. It’s quite a change from his life in New York, where he worked at J. Walter Thompson, a major advertising agency. His children don’t bear much resemblance to the American kid Lenny once was. “They have more chutzpah. They’re more brazen,” he says.

When I meet the Goldberg family in January, Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza is reaching its end, and Lenny—who is not legally permitted to carry a weapon after a mid-nineties crackdown on Kahane supporters—is frustrated with the military’s strategy, which involves sending soldiers into Gaza. Like many other hard-line settlers, Lenny is not hesitant to express views that most Israelis would consider abhorrent.

“I want them to bomb all of Gaza, even if they kill all the civilians,” Lenny says. “You have to firebomb all of Gaza and not let one Jew get hurt.”

“We can erase them in no time,” Yehuda says of the Palestinians. “But the government won’t let us do it.”

“How does it feel to meet a Jewish terrorist?” asks Yekutiel Ben Yaakov, the guard-dog trainer, laughing, when we meet at a café in the large settlement of Ariel.

“We’re heading toward a situation where in all likelihood there will be bloodshed between Jews,” he says. “I say this with a heavy heart.”

Would this mean settlers shooting at Israeli soldiers?

“I think we’ll see more innovative forms of Jewish resistance,” says Ben Yaakov, who is friends with Ephraim Khantsis and encouraged the young Brooklyn student to move to Kfar Tapuach. “We may see guys that themselves were colonels in the Israeli army or engineers helping the kids create rockets to shoot into Arab villages.”

The point of attacking Palestinians at a time when Israeli soldiers are coming to expel Jews from settlements would be, Ben Yaakov says, to distract and divert the Israeli army and to “change the balance”—to alter the dynamic of the conflict. That would also reduce the chances, he says, of Jews’ killing Jews.

In recent months, this strategy has been adopted by radical settlers around the West Bank. They call it the “Price Tag” campaign: The price for the Israeli government will be high. So far, settlers have blocked roads, attacked Palestinians with guns—during my visit a settler shot dead a Palestinian who was allegedly throwing stones at his car—and other weapons, daubed graffiti on at least one mosque, and battled soldiers by hand and with stones.

Pride of the nation: the Israeli bulldozer.

What Ben Yaakov sees happening is a step up from that kind of resistance.

It would include planting bombs in Palestinian villages. The Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s holiest sites, might also be a target for Jewish terrorists, as it was in the early 1980s for a group named the Jewish Underground.

There could, perhaps, be no more provocative action for extremist settlers to take than an attack on the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque, which sit in the old city of Jerusalem, on top of the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount.

Back in the Brooklyn pizzeria, when talk turns to the Temple Mount, Khantsis’ conviction is resolute. “I think it’s one of the greatest insults to put their place on our holy site,” he says. “I think the mosques should be removed. At best they should be peacefully removed and built elsewhere.”

The other option, he says, is that they should be “violently disassembled.”

That is a nightmare scenario for the Israeli government—an act of destruction that would make all-out war almost inevitable.

And it’s a nightmare that has roots that stretch all the way from the hilltops of the West Bank to the quiet streets of the United States.