T. Belman. Yes, the government policy is to refrain from building in Judea and Samaria. Even Bennett’s right wing party accepts this. They have stopped demanding that the freeze be dropped. To highlight this, they choose to demand security measures in exchange for supporting the inclusion of Liberman rather than demanding more construction. Though Bibi has refused to acknowledge such a freeze, he has been enforcing one even in Jerusalem.
Meanwhile pressure is building to take unilateral steps to a TSS. Not only is this what Zionist Union and Yesh Atid are calling for, it is also what Kahlon’s party (including Galant and Oren) have called for. In addition two peace plan initiatives, have been launched, one in the US Jewish establishment and one in the Israel military/left establishment in Israel, calling for a peace deal based on Obama’s parameters. In all cases unilateral steps are being demanded because there is no partner for peace now or because now is not the time to enter an agreement. France has now launched a peace conference intended dictate such a framework and have the same endorsed by the UNSC. Obama, it is feared will not veto such a resolution. To make matters worse, the Democrats continue to distant themselves from a pro-Israel platform.
So far Bibi has not proposed unilateral steps though he has come perilously close to an agreement on the framework for peace. His stated position is that he wants direct negotiations and he doesn’t want a bi-national state. He refused to limit negotiations to the Kerry framework but at the same time negotiated based on it. Basically he is not prepared to reject the Obama parameters. He only seeks to tweek them on security issues and on timing issues. Everyone acknowledges that Israel will keep the settlement blocs but there is no agreement on what blocs are included.
The hand-writing is on the wall.
Yoav Galant says the government must take diplomatic initiative in the West Bank even without a Palestinian partner.
Construction and Housing Minister Yoav Galant said in a meeting with Jewish leaders in New York last week that the government’s policy is not to build in the West Bank and that he abides by it.
Galant, a member of Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu party, said that due to the threat of the formation of a binational state, the government must take diplomatic initiative in the West Bank even without a Palestinian partner.
Galant, a member of the security cabinet, made the comments in a closed meeting with the heads of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Partial recordings of the meeting were carried by a newsletter sent out by the Jewish Insider, an American news website. Haaretz has obtained full transcripts.
Galant was asked several times about construction in the settlements and gave an answer that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to confirm consistently over the past year.
“Basically – I am following the policy of the government and it is that we are not building in Judea and Samaria. But I am not the only one with the ability to build,” Galant said. “There are private people and other segments of the government that work according to different ministers.”
Galant said the solution to the settlement construction question had to be based on the understandings reached by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former U.S. President George W. Bush. According to those understandings, construction should take place only in the settlement blocs and only based on natural growth.
After President Barack Obama entered office, the White House said it did not know of such understandings from the Bush administration. The secretary of state during the Bush years, Condoleezza Rice, also said there were no such understandings.
Galant expressed great concern over the implications of a continued freeze in talks with the Palestinians.
“Within 10 years we will have 7 million Palestinians and 7 million Jews – we understand it is a major event,” he said. “A solution with the Palestinians is an Israeli interest – we need it the sooner the better.”
Galant said Israel did not have a partner today on the Palestinian side, but this should not stop it from moving ahead.
“On the other hand there is a question of what happens if we take our hands off the stick and let this plane keep gliding. What will happen in a generation. We know the numbers,” he said.
“Those numbers are not very promising. A one-state solution is a very bad idea for Israel – we saw what happened in the Balkans …. Thinking about the future obliges us as a government to bring a solution even if the other doesn’t like it.”
Much of Galant’s talk was devoted to ties with Egypt. He praised President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, whom he called “Mubarak with a facelift.”
“We were very lucky that Sissi took over. The Egyptian military stayed solid. If you think that Iraq or Lebanon are a problem – if something happens in Egypt it will be a problem,” Galant said, adding that this was the reason it was in the Israeli and American interest to support the current regime in Egypt.
“Sissi took over in an undemocratic way but he is much more liberal than Morsi,” Galant said, referring to Sissi’s predecessor Mohammed Morsi.
“Do you prefer the theory or the practical side? I think the practical side is more important,” he said. “I think Sissi is a combination between Anwar Sadat and Nasser. He is as powerful as Nasser and smart like Sadat.”
As Galant put it, “I think Sissi is the right man in the right place in our eyes but he is dealing with dramatic problems. We would love to help him. We are working for the Egyptians in the U.S. regarding the military aid. We want Egypt to be strong and under the right regime. Sissi is part of the solution and we are lucky to have him.”
Galant also discussed Israel’s attempts at reconciliation with Turkey. “We have to keep Turkey on our side no matter how problematic it is,” he said.
“We know the Turks sometimes don’t behave the way we want them to, but we know how important it is. We don’t want what happened in Iran to happen in Turkey. It is very dangerous.”
Galant was harshly critical of France over its proposal for a peace conference.
“Let the French unify Paris first before they deal with us. There are a lot of problems over there. And we are willing to help them,” he said.
“No one can predict when the next event will happen in Europe and how to prevent it. So exporting the problem to the Middle East is ridiculous.”
According to Galant, France declares its population is 10 percent Muslim but it is actually 20 percent Muslim.
“How many general and colonels do they have if at all that are Muslims?” he said. “How many bankers that are Muslims. I am not talking about politicians – this is easy.”
And when the Pal refuse everything and anything? Then what? More concessions will further expose Israel to attacks from her enemies!
Let us face it: the West has NEVER been honest with Israel.
UNRWA is a shield used by the West against Israel.
its funny that there are still those who believe that BB wants YS for the jews. All that empty land in C designated in treaties and law for Jewish homes and BB covertly colludes with the euros for 8 years to build illegal muslim homes there instead… freezes the jews and helps the euros build there….. DUH??????????????
the only unilateal action to be contemplated should be the annexation of area C and parts of B, leaving the balance for future diplomatic negotiations. Thats how an intelligent nation behaves when they see no partner for any sustainable peace. You take from, you do not give to, your enemies…. and they are the enemy….. ask them they will tell you the same.
what is this solution that the other will not like? does it annex C or give it away. the only demographic problem is if one decides to give citizenship to enemies whose last citizenship was unilaterally withdrawn by Jordan. consider them jordanians or stateless but Isral has no obligation to give jew killers citizenship. also, israel need not solve the problems of jew killers… they are free to leave. Galant has accepted the in the box thinking of the foreigners who have always advised jews that dieing is in the Jews best interests.
Galant talks about the importance of thinking about the future and then makes this naive statement which contemplates basing Israels future on proven unstable current scenarios
so he wants to base Israels future on a current scenario which he himself ascribes to being “lucky”. Actual historical and current developments have proven that the peace with egypt and jordan are solely dependent on the agreement and strength of the current egyptian leadership… if the leadership changes all bets are off… plus the people hate the jews. this is hardly an intelligent assessment to base the future on a Sisi. the future must be based on a scenario which envisages a reversion to war with egypt. if that were not true there would be no need of a war machine which contemplates an egyptian enemy.
All of Israels future must include the greater likelihood of war with ALL of the usual enemies.. in which case the land must be taken and the enemy demographics reduced. they would be happy to go to europe… help them to go there. Logic and facts, as opposed to hopy dreamy jewish pipe dreams, should organize future plans around a factual self interest as opposed to a pipe dream self interest… that has never proven to be viable. After the enemies prove they have pipe dream potential by ceasing to teach their children that jews are sons of apes and pigs one could then consider a scenario of peace… until then accept continual hostilities but start to seek the benefits of a war machine that is necessary.
Really, are Israelis that dumb that they buy this story? Galant is telling them that BB follows an agreement that ties Israels hands that NO ONE acknowledges….DUH???? In other words there is NO agreement but BB follows it as his excuse NOT to build.
Who is BB hiding his construction freeze from…. it is NOT from the US, the EU and the UN because they would welcome him acknowledging the defacto freeze, it is not from the left because it would reduce pressure from them and the world,……. ALL of BB’s hiding of his covert actions which contradict a right wing agenda is meant to hide the truth from his electoral constituents to whom he committed fraud.
He does not only hide the fact that he is not building jews homes in judea samaria but he has spent 8 years hiding the fact that he has intentionally facilitated the illegal building of muslim homes in YS by the euros…. pretending like a con artist that he did not know, it was a surprise… that the same shin bet and mossad which he uses to incarcerate jews knows nothing about EU building projects in YS. BB incarcerates dissenters, defames and demonizes settlers, restricts Jewish religious rights, facilitates muslim abuse and building and for all of these there are always anonymous mutterings that he does it because he is under pressure from the foreigners. Why doesn’t he tell Israel the truth behind his fraudulent agenda.? All his under the table deals have never given anything to the right, they are all hidden left wing agendas. He does not build and he facilitates euro building covertly so as not to disturb Ys for the ultimate handover. Why did he not run as a leftist… why run as right wing and then covertly do everything left wing?
Bennet knows that BB has all these deals and that when he is soft on pals and hamas only his closest appointees in the cabinet get to know the truth. He hides the fact of tunnels because israelis will demand action…. but why does he avoid action that would eliminate the threat….. its because of his deals with the gulf arabs. Everyone is waiting for BB to fully neuter the right wing as he did Benett and shaked, to defame settlers, so then there will be little opposition to giving ys away.
you cannot take diplomatic action without a partner… only political and military action. why is unilateral action always considered as withdrawal… why not take the unilateral action to annex C and leave the rest for future diplomatic action. In that way if they declare a state they can only practically implement it in A and/or B depending on where Israel draws lines. It is absurd to take unilateral action with a non partner which gives it all to the non partner hostile enemy. In the absence of a non partner one should act solely in ones own interests. Annex C and parts of B,let the pals remain stateless or considered to remain jordanian. It is not Israels responsibility to give to them what jordan withdrew in a unilateral action.
BB’s domestic, foreign, defense and military policies are ALL determined by and subject to his covert understandings with foreigners… those in the know like yaalon have the real info… the rest of the cabinet are kept in the dark like the rest of Israel. It is those to the left of BB who agree with those covert policies and the goals they indicate down the road.