T. Belman. Israel must insist on “annexation” now as a pre-condition to accepting the Deal of the Century.
U.S. Ambassador also briefed Israeli journalists about the plan in a way that emphasized annexation while downplaying elements less satisfactory to Israel’s right, American and Israeli sources say
By Noa Landau, HAARETZ
A demonstrative shrug by a senior member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s entourage on the plane home from his visits to Washington and Moscow pretty much said it all on Thursday.
Reporters aboard the plane asked what had changed between the bombastic statements about annexing all the settlements as early as next week’s cabinet meeting, and the ice-cold water poured on it by the White House on Wednesday. “I hope nothing has changed,” he replied.
Later, a tortuous explanation was offered. It was all just a “technical problem.” According to another senior official aboard the plane, who was asked to explain the confusion, Israel wanted to annex the Jordan Valley, the northern Dead Sea and the West Bank settlements as a kind of first instalment, and then, in a second wave, the areas around those settlements, for a total area of 30 percent of the West Bank. “But the Americans only want it all in one go, and this will take time.”
Obviously, this “technical” explanation doesn’t reflect the whole reality. In numerous briefings and interviews in recent days, senior U.S. officials – including current and former members of the “peace team” headed by Jared Kushner – made it clear that there’s a more fundamental problem: Netanyahu’s rush to annex is ruining the launch of the plan on which they labored for three years. Immediate annexation wasn’t their intention. And the announcement wasn’t even coordinated with them.
The story gets even more intricate. According to Israeli and American sources, the person urging Netanyahu to annex straight away was none other than U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman – a generous donor to the settlement enterprise, who has often seemed more like Netanyahu’s ambassador than Donald Trump’s. According to these officials, he did this without Kushner’s knowledge, and not for the first time.
Friedman, Netanyahu and their associates briefed Israeli journalists about the plan in a way that emphasized annexation while downplaying elements altogether less satisfactory to the right – like the establishment of a Palestinian state in the remaining 70 percent of the West Bank, connected to the Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem. For the next four years at least, Israel will be forbidden to change the status quo in that area, in order to give the Palestinians time to change their mind and enter negotiations.
It looks like Trump, as he once told Netanyahu – a remark dismissed in Israel at the time as a slip of the tongue – really does like the two-state solution better.
To sell the plan to rightists when, despite its clear tilt toward Israel, it has Palestinian statehood as a foundation, required a little bit of magic. Playing up annexation was the necessary sleight of hand.
Only thus could Netanyahu recruit settler leaders, who, until the very last moment, vehemently opposed even the slightest prospect of a Palestinian state. The evening before the launch, they laid siege to Blair House, where Netanyahu was staying, until the wee hours of the morning to make sure he got the message.
But Netanyahu’s spin shattered their resistance. Rightists literally sang and danced after hearing Trump’s speech, even though it was, eventually, also about Palestinian suffering and dividing the land they want whole.
The illusion continued during a briefing for journalists right after the White House launch, with Netanyahu promising to bring an annexation proposal to the cabinet the very next week. The brakes the Americans publicly applied the next day hurt Israel’s right far more because the prime minister made this explicit promise. Had Netanyahu not rushed, as usual, to brag and commit to a specific date, the disappointment might have been less intense.
A new talking point has now been introduced. It says that rightists should be satisfied with the “enormous achievement” of American recognition — in principle — of Israeli sovereignty over the settlements. “As if, without immediate annexation, nothing has been achieved,” Netanyahu’s aides scoff, rebuking anyone who dares to complain that he sold them a bill of goods about the upcoming cabinet meeting. “What difference does it make whether it’s this week or afterwards?”
The Trump administration is now pondering how to get out of the corner into which Netanyahu and Friedman has them backed. The plan does propose that all the settlements remain under Israeli control, but the administration apparently intended this to happen as part of a comprehensive agreement, or at least appear to be, in order to retain the Arab cooperation Kushner worked so hard to secure.
Trump himself said a committee would be established to delineate the borders, and Kushner has already said its work won’t be finished before Israel’s March 2 election. Maybe they’ll give Netanyahu a consolation prize – a mini-annexation to tide him over. But other sources say the Trump administration is leaning against compromising on this issue; it would rather wait and see who forms the next government.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s rival, Kahol Lavan Chairman Benny Gantz, is accumulating some mileage with Washington; he has been cooperating with the White House on the plan for some time. His visit to the U.S. capital this week was seen as a success, and they’re preparing for the possibility that he’ll be the one to implement the plan.
In a rather clever maneuver against Netanyahu, Gantz has already announced that he’ll bring the full plan in front of the Knesset to seek its approval. After all, the right won’t be able to approve it in full – and that will maybe prove the hypocrisy of it all.
The United States Embassy in Israel refused to comment on the claims regarding Ambassador Friedman’s involvement in the matter.
@ Sebastien Zorn:Addition and correction to my above comment
When one reads the plan the Pals would need to erect almost a full blown Swiss type democracy plus accept the Jewish State of Israel and be demilitarized and agree to this while allowing Israel to maintain everything militarily and security wise they have now, as Israel best determines.
I saw where Israel beyond the areas in the plan which are basically now recognized as sovereign Israel shall have a moratorium on building in other areas. Though I could not find that the moratorium is four years.
@ Sebastien Zorn:The plan says the Pals have four years to agree to and implement the plan. The Plan says Israel has to not build for four years in the areas not allocated to. It says it can keep building from happening those areas without its approval. It supposed to freeze those areas for four years.
After the four years there are no more restrictions on Israel after the four years if the Pals have not agree to and implemented the plan.
@ MIchael S:
There’s a headline going around that the PA recognized Texas as part of Mexico. Snopes says it’s satire. So much real news is so ridiculous that it’s hard to tell sometimes, these days. The fact that Snopes has a liberal bias compounds the problem. Another is that Pelosi is reported to have actually said that if Trump is acquitted, his lawyers should be disbarred. The speaker of the House apparently doesn’t know that in the U.S. you are innocent until proven guilty and lawyers can’t be disbarred for defending their clients.
@ Bear Klein:
Somebody here waded through the entire plan with a fine tooth comb and said he found nothing to that effect. Where does it say that?
@ Sebastien Zorn:
As Kusher points out in the article if the plan is not agreed to settlements will just keep expanding.
Since the Pals have very clearly and emphatically said NO to the plan the settlements beyond the ones already established will be setup.
This plan will not happen. The US if they are telling the truth will work with Israel on the 30% of Judea/Samaria and use precise survey maps of were Israeli sovereignty will be recognized (“within a few months”) by the US.
I wonder how long it will be, before the US is partitioned.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
If the articles are accurate Kusher says they (US) will provide the recognition to the 30% Judea/Samaria as Israeli but want maps (detailed) from Israel in a joint committee as the technical process.
If accurate it is a process not substance issue.
@ Bear Klein: Then I have to amend my previous view and conclude that Noa Landau’s interpretation of what happened is essentially correct, despite her past record of distorting the sovereignty proposals of the Israeli Right (Dr. Sherman documented her deceptive behavior towards him in an earlier column).
Apparently, Netanyahu’s belief that the Trump administration would support an immediate application of Israeli sovereignty over Israeli settlements and the Jordan Valley resulted from an oral promise Netanyahu received from some of Trump’s Plan author’s or possibly Trump himself, but not from the written text of the Plan. The complaint of ambiguity in the promise made to Israel echhoes the ambiguity of the promises Eisenhauer made to Ben Gurion in 1957 and Bush made to Sharon in 2005. The U.S. repudiated both of these promises when Israel called on them to implement them. Plus ca change. . .
@ Adam Dalgliesh:My understanding was that Israeli Settlements plus Jordan Valley/North Dead Sea are via the map allocated to Israel. Then verbally Trump and Friedman told Bibi that they if he verbally accepted the plan they could apply sovereignty now.
Can anyone find a passage in the 181 pages of the Planthat gives Israel the right to declare Israeli law in the settlements even if no agreement with the Palestinians in signed? Is there any provision for continued building in the existing settlements even if there is no agreement with the Palestinians? I have been unable to find these sections on my PDF copy, which is difficult to search. But I believe they are there somewhere.
It is true that the proposal is very fair to the Arab side, and does include a two-state solution. But Israel can still praise the plan in general terms, and then pick and choose what it wants to implement. Since the PLO and Hamas leaders have made it plain that they will never accept the plan, Israel does not have to negotiate the terms of it with either terrorist regime. And contrary to what Haaretz claims, the plan does permit some unilateral Israeli steps.
The green stains = expansions of Hamas rule in the Negev or south of of Judea are a terrible mistake. And Also Egypt will not accept the change of neighbour from Israel to Hamas along the Sinai border . Nevertheless , I am 200% certain the PLO – Hamas will cling to their fairy tales of liberation of P- tine . Therefore the Trump plan will be implemented by Israel and refused by the PLO-Hamas . Not bad for a start . cheers to Trump-Kushner-Friedman
. No Palestinian State, period. What is being suggested by Trump, we have been promised, is nothing other than the most profoundly LIMITED autonomy, coupled with an immediate green light for Israel to proceed with annexations as promised.
If this latest Bait and Switch talk turns out to be true, then Trump and Kushner can shove it.
In that case, Shaked is correct, annex and annex some more.
No more double standards.
@ Edgar G.:
@ Edgar G.:
I hadn’t properly looked at the Map…As shown above, at first sight it looks as if Israel will have the whole centre of YESHA, because the colour is the same as that of Israel. Then scrolling down, I see the key. which is altogether disappointing..
I think they shoognty to all cities, towns and villages in YESHA populated with Israelis We already have de facto control of the Jordan Valley, and every important defensive points..so we can afford to wait until they get it RIGHT.. In the meantime, Humpty Dumpty may fall, and remedy the whole mess.
@ Ted Belman:
I agree, at least, certainly the always designated for Israel “settlement” cities and other Israeli populated areas. I’ve written elsewhere where I think that the Netanyahu desire for gardual extension of sovereignty, might save a multitude of pitfalls trouble and time wasted
Without “annexation” now, there is no deal.