Well This is Going Swimmingly

Remember back when everyone was mad at Netanyahu? That was because just as Joe Biden was in Israel trying to get peace talks started, Israel announced it was going to build a whole bunch of new settlement housing in East Jerusalem, in a neighborhood called Ramat Shlomo.

As part of the newest round of proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Israel annouced yesterday that it would not build the approved Ramat Shlomo neighborhood for at least two years. There, are you happy now?

Israel had pledged not to build in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of East Jerusalem for two years and that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas vowed that he would work against incitement of any sort.

But then today, one day later, oops.

Just two days after resuming peace talks with Israel, the Palestinian Authority has reported to the United States what it termed the first violation of negotiation terms, a senior Palestinian official said Monday.

Yasser Abed Rabbo said the construction of 14 housing units for Jewish settlers in an East Jerusalem neighbourhood, as reported by the Israeli Peace Now pressure group, violated the terms of new talks.

About the first round of talks, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said:

Erekat said that during their meeting, Abbas gave Mitchell a letter outlining the Palestinian Authority's position on proximity talks and the issues it wants to discuss. Abbas would head the Palestinian negotiating team himself, Erekat said, adding that the Palestinians view the talks as aimed at "The end of the occupation and creation of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel along the 1967 borders."

And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak echoed his sentiments at a separate event:

"Without an agreement, we will be subject to international isolation, and we will suffer a fate similar to that of Belfast or Bosnia, or a gradual transition from a paradigm of two states for two peoples to one of one state for two peoples, and some people will try to label us as similar to South Africa. That's why we must act," Barak said. If both sides are willing to make brave decisions, he said, "it will be possible to get to direct negotiations and a breakthrough toward an agreement."

So it looks like Barak is super duper ready to make a two-state solution with the Palestinians, but clearly the rest of the government is not on board. Ah, well, no matter. I'm sure Netanyahu and Lieberman and all those guys will enjoy being a Jewish minority in, oh, 20 years.

Let Mommy and Daddy Talk, Kids

Ha'aretz says today that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak went to Washington DC to discuss with George Mitchell about whether or not Israel would agree to a temporary freeze of settlement construction. Their four-hour "discussion" (Mommy and Daddy aren't fighting, kids, we're discussing) did not seem to bring them any closer to a decision. But that might be because Obama and Michell have not explicitly demanded an end to settlement construction, instead saying, "that Jerusalem must take 'action' on the matter."

And this article talks about a deal where settlers in Migron (a tiny settlement just East of the Palestinian city of Ramallah) would be relocated in Adam, a settlement annexed to Jerusalem and much closer to the green line.

Ha'aretz says:

Barak was quick to present the plan to evacuate Migron and build at Adam as an effort meant to deter a petition by Peace Now, scheduled to be brought before the court Monday. The defense minister's aim is to gain more time. In any case, the Defense Ministry argues, the construction of the new neighborhood in Adam will take at least two years - a decent amount of quiet time. Barak based his gamble on the images of the violent evacuation of the Amona outpost and is hoping that the justices will be deterred from another clash with the settler-invaders, and will jump at the opportunity to put the whole matter to rest for a long time.

Every single time, I am dumbounded that an entire government acts as a frightened child with even the thought of action from a violent minority of their own population. Again and again, it's been made clear to us "outsiders" that the settlers have the Israeli government on a short leash.

Settlements Not an Obstale to Peace

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington meeting with President Obama this week, and he made some surprising concessions, in theory at least. Only time will tell if he will make good on his promises.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are of two types: state-sponsored and illegal. The "legal" settlements are built by the Israeli government, are protected by the Israeli military, and are usually much larger than the second type. Illegal settlements are those that are built in areas not approved for settlement by the government. These settlements are sometimes home to only one family, or several families.

Of the 26 illegal outposts on record, Israel will dismantle "a number of" them. No mention of dismantling any of the "legal" settlements. But no matter. According to Netanyahu, those are not really an issue.

From Haaretz:

The document, which Netanyahu issued for distribution only after meeting Obama, says Israel is ready to evacuate the illegal outposts. As for stopping construction in the settlements the document was more cagey, saying the settlements were not an obstacle to peace and that the evacuation of settlements in Gaza only led to the establishment of a Hamas terror base in the Gaza Strip.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak also added, "the new Israeli government would take action against the outposts, not because it was told to do so by the United States, but because Israel 'is a state of law."

It is widely understood that these statements were the price Netanyahu paid for Obama's support regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is taking a tougher stance on even the officially recognized West Bank settlements.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a hard line against settlement construction in the territories Wednesday, including a call to freeze building for natural growth. Her statement came in contrast to the general terms U.S. President Barack Obama expressed about the issue to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier in the week.

"Natural growth" refers to home additions designed to better accommodate a growing family. For example, adding a room onto the house when you've had a new baby. Or adding another small home to the property when one of your children marries. This type of natural growth is common in Arab families, as one piece of land is often lived on by many generations of a growing extended family. Unfortunately in many cases, this natural growth is deterred by the denial of building permits. In East Jerusalem, Arab homes are sometimes demolished because a proper permit was not obtained.

Closure of Charities: Details Revealed

This past week, I've written about the IDF closing West Bank Charities and an orphanage in Hebron and many of you asked me why. I couldn't answer because the contributing information was given by one-sided sources.

Yesterday, Haaretz published an article that discusses the reasons the organizations were shut down, the possible repercussions for all involved, and the limitations of these types of tactics. I will do my best to sum up here.

The only information I had before this article about why the IDF shut the charities down was that they were somehow related to Hamas, either being funded by them or were funding them. This article reveals that the strongest connection they have to Hamas is probably secondhand:

Legally, the technology incubator is also criminalized by the fact that it takes money from an organization that aids charities run by Hamas. An educational institution in Hebron that helps underprivileged children via money from an United Arab Emirates charity fund, and the Hamas summer camp which that fund also aids, both have become criminal institutions.

In other words, if you accept donations from a fund that also aids Hamas, your organization is now illegal. And this is what has happened to most of the 36 organizations that Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared illegal on May 26.

Next, let's pretend that Hamas does not have roots all the way into the core of the Palestinian territories and that this economic blacklisting will actually stop them. Where will the Palestinian people then receive these services?

For those who believe Hamas' development and expansion can be delayed, finding the money source is an important means...Hamas' civil activity has no substitute in the Palestinian Authority. The small clinic in Gaza, the summer camps for children, the food distribution stations in the refugee camps, the enrichment classes for youth ¬ the PA and the municipalities are having difficulty offering alternatives. Hamas' civil activity often takes place in private homes and even in schools administered by the PA Education Ministry.

In effect, by hindering Hamas' power to offer constructive assistance to its people, Israel is causing the realization of its own fears. Without its "civil activity" Hamas is no more than a bunch of rogue revolutionaries.

And I wonder if it's better to prove this or to make its opposite true.

In any relationship, there must be compromise. And a prime example of this type of compromise is the struggle between being right and being happy. You cannot have both all the time. Perhaps it would be better for the couple if Israel would stop trying to prove that Hamas is up to no good, and start encouraging Hamas in its non-violence enterprises.

As for the limitations of this tactic, Haaretz says:

Israel has an even more difficult problem ¬ its ability to supervise the cash flow to these associations is much more limited. Monies transferred from Arab countries to the territories go through an Israeli clearinghouse by means of three banks, and each time the name of one of the organizations appears, the computer spits out the data, but it is very easy to rename the organizations or transfer money in cash.

So, realistically, this move has made a lot of people angry with Israel but the actual benefits could be minimal.

Haaretz offers an improvement to the plan:

Banning these organizations does have declarative importance and it does open a front against Hamas, but it appears that practically speaking, it will be difficult to realize...In order to succeed, Israel needs to cooperate closely with the PA, which can at least supervise the movement of money in banks or establish a "clean fund" that receives money from permitted sources. However, the PA is yet to establish such a fund.

But Israel can no more cooperate with the PA than the PA can cooperate with Hamas:

The PA does randomly strike at Hamas institutions in the West Bank (in Gaza it cannot do anything), but it also cannot appear to be damaging charities and welfare groups, especially when reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is on the agenda.

These three entities are all weakening each other. And if they succeed in breaking each other, nobody will benefit. They will each be the subjects of someone else's occupation- perhaps Jordan and Egypt again. Or perhaps the United States.