Defense Minister Gantz wants to set red lines at the outset of the government, in which he is somewhat a fifth wheel
By Amos Harel, HAARETZ Jun. 30, 2021 6:02 AM
Young men studying in the illegal West Bank outpost of Evyatar, on Monday. Credit: Moti Milrod
After another day of deliberations, on Tuesday night, the settlers of the illegal Evyatar outpost agreed to the wording of a compromise with the Israeli government that reflects most of their ambitions. As part of the proposal, the settlers waived the demand they raised during negotiations that a yeshiva be established in the outpost as early as August, in order to maintain a continuous civilian presence at the site even after the evacuation. It has now been agreed that the yeshiva will be established only after the state determines the land’s legal status.
The settlers waived this demand due to Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s insistence. Gantz always wanted to evacuate the community without any compromises – by force, if necessary. He was reluctant to meet the settlers’ demand regarding the expedited establishment of the yeshiva. In the meantime, a military base will be established there instead.
In the background lies a deeper issue. The Defense Ministry expected the settlers to petition the High Court of Justice against the eviction and lose. That would have given the government greater bargaining power. But a cabinet member who spoke with settler leaders made sure to tell them there was no need to petition the court, since an agreement could be reached that would protect their interests
Gantz looked to his right and to his left, and discovered that he was alone. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and ministers Ayelet Shaked and Zeev Elkin had negotiated energetically with the settlers on several channels simultaneously. And members of the government’s left wing kept silent. Thus a compromise was reached without the defense minister or the army even being briefed on the talks in real time.
Gantz tried to set red lines, already at the outset of the Bennett-Lapid government, in which he is a kind of fifth wheel. He sought to prevent the settlers from creating facts on the ground by taking over land whose legal status is in doubt without any permission from the state or Israel’s Civil Administration in the West Bank.
Gantz also sought to prevent the capitulation of the left wing to the right wing in the government. But in reality, it seems that the left has already folded, and the right has laid down its own red line against forcible evictions, which would put Bennett in an uncomfortable situation with what remains of his electoral base. Aside, perhaps, from the new coronavirus outbreak, there probably isn’t an issue in which the government has invested more time during its first two weeks in office than the evacuation of Evyatar
- Settlers accept Israeli government deal to evacuate illegal outpost
- West Bank settlers just showed Bennett who really runs the country
- Explained: Israel’s ‘compromise’ evacuation of an illegal outpost – what the settlers achieved
The army doesn’t like the compromise, which defies the original recommendations of its Central Command and the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories. Both wanted a full, rapid evacuation of the outpost, which was established in the heart of a group of Palestinian villages south of Nablus.
But senior army officers didn’t visit the scene Tuesday morning, and they understand full well the balance of forces there. The moment the prime minister supports the compromise, the army will salute and carry it out.
So far, the outpost’s establishment hasn’t gotten much attention beyond the opposition of the neighboring villages and the benefits the Palestinian Authority is trying to reap from it. The Biden administration hasn’t shown much interest, and our new friends in the United Arab Emirates preferred to attend the dedication of the Israeli embassy in Abu Dhabi Tuesday rather than taking a deep dive into the laws of land use in the territories.
Gantz has thus been left to wage a rearguard action whose chances of success don’t look very high, unless the settlers adopt more extreme positions and blow up the agreement.
What the new government needs first and foremost is industrial peace. If achieving that requires it to accept the establishment of a large new outpost and the defense minister’s continued discomfort, the other parties in the governing coalition can apparently live with that just fine.
I’m not sure what this signifies but is everyone aware that the US openly bombed Iran-backed militias in Syria and Iraq three days ago in retaliation for Iranian drone attacks that were able to avoid radar on American forces?
As for Ganz, I recall reading years ago that he did come out as opposed to Jewish settlement outside of large blocs and did, in fact, say he didn’t rule out another “evacuation” like Gush Katif. I found those by googling when he was running for PM. Don’t know if the articles are still up.
I’m frankly confused about what’s going on though everybody’s theories sound plausible.
@ Peloni you have some good points. I do not mean they are harmless.
@Bear
With respect, Bear, I think you consider these men more silly than serious, as they hold more sinister motives than your views allow. The first thing this administration did was to reinvest in the Middle East with an expanded presence in Syria within hours of Trumps departing. This was to reposition the US to control the situation in the Middle East, not abandon it.
Should the US have had a mind to leave the Middle East, as there is much support for this in the US, they would have not opposed Trumps designs with moves that were treasonous(lying about troop #’s), they would have supported him – at the very least they would not have moved back into Syria as they did.
They mean to revitalize and alter the status quo to suit a globalist agenda while still satisfying the US Military Industrial Complex and its many well paid US politicos fat with cash. Opposition to remodeling the Middle East and ending the Endless Wars were among the defining issues of the Trump doctrine of America First which was opposed by the many candidates and political opposition groups from both parties that assaulted him in 2016 and have plagued him ever since.
Obama’s crew are not interested in leaving the Middle East, but remaking it in an image of Iranian supremacy. This is why they sidelined Israel, and, via terrorist proxies, funded and armed the overthrow of their many US Sunni allies that sought refuge in a regional alliance with Israel against the US. It should not be forgotten that among the foreign meddling interests in the US election that brought Obama’s group of Globalists back to power included an enormous Iranian cyber-attack.
Indeed, the Iranians were only second to the Chinese in their election tampering to make certain of Obama’s Globalist crew return to power. Iran will be made supreme in the region by these globalists, not by mistake but by design – and Iran knows this. Israel’s involvement in these negotiations are only meant to limit her a future response or expose her moves towards the war you mention is coming(and you are quite correct in this).
Any move that temporarily counters these objectives would be to allow the many election reviews to be dealt with while holding everything in the Middle East in a point of limbo. The Iranians and all evolved members of this Communist overthrow of the US are of a single mind to make this stolen election certain, and failing that they mean to leave the US in a state of shattered division and economic ruin.
It should also be noted that the funds from the US which paid the Iranians 1.4 billion dollar stipend to accept the 2015 Iran Deal which gave them everything they wanted, was likely used, via a slush fund of several hundred million dollars(250-400), as a revenue source from which the Russia Coup was financed and likely other opposition operations and perhaps the election theft as well – though this is yet to be made certain, as it involves Italy and the best way to lose a sense of certainty is to involve the Italians.
So Malley and his men are not acting stupidly, but with a certain intent to make Iran a nuclear force in the Middle East, and as in Obama’s first 2 terms, this third term means to move forward with this paramount goal once they are able to secure their stolen election in the US.
The only thing things that will stop Iran from getting nukes is military action combined with regime change to NON Islamist Iranians.
So unless one accepts a nuclear Iran as part of the future a war is coming!!!!
@Ted
Biden & company want their cake and eat it too. In other words Biden wants out of the middle east and if the nuke deal would stop them from getting nukes he would be for it. His people realize that Iran needs to be stopped from getting the bomb. Just because they are acting stupidly does not mean they want a nuclear Iran. Israel has made it clear to them that military actions are CLEARLY on the TABLE and will be used if and when Israel so decides.
The USA by the way in-spite of them wanting to leave the middle east is still involved in military or military support and clandestine activities.
@Adam @Peloni@Bear
The quality of your analysis always impresses me. Your comments are an invaluable part of Israpundit.
1. Golan.Blinken said there is no change of position thinking “yet”. He never affirmed his commitment to keep it that way.
2. Bib is often criticized for his Bar Ilan speech. He placed enough qualifiers on the creation of Palestine that it would never happen. He made other concessions to Obama but in doing so he managed to withstand Obama for 8 years, I applaud him for that.
3. Iran. Biden’s gang have no objection to Iran getting the bomb otherwise they would continue Trumps sanctions and containment policy.
@Bear
If your prediction holds true, you are quite correct that would be surprising to me. Obama’s crew is running the ground game with Malley and the whole gang. If they don’t want Iran to get the bomb, that would undermine everything they put in place in 2015 to make it a certainty that Iran gets a bomb. But I will look favorably for any sign of that possibility holding true. As for the cloak and dagger bit, yes, that game has been rolling for some time and I expect it will continue, but I do not see that as enough to hold things off indefinitely.
@Peloni
On Iran you may see surprises. US does not want Iran to get nukes. Iran is not really showing they are willing to cooperate enough with US to roll program back and stick to any agreement. So some things could happen to further derail their nuke program which is already hampered by some of the “industrial accidents” they are having in various locations.
@Bear
In fairness to Bibi and Trump both, neither expected Bibi to be side struck by a member of his coalition as Lieberman did, and, following that, any path forward was stymied by Bibi’s inability to overcome first Lieberman and then others.
As to the current US administration, I think some leeway will be allowed to see that Bennett’s gov”t does not soon fail. They do not want Bibi back and have desired to be rid of him for a long time. I believe they would much prefer to keep a gov’t composed of less Zionist stock, notwithstanding Bennett and Saar, which they can try and manipulate at another time. Also, this current administration does not want Bibi to be able to call on his US Israeli allies for support as there is a delicate issue of election theft currently being considered in the US. I hold no hope for greater issues such as sovereignty and Iran, but on other smaller issues, the US might be willing to offer some rewards to prolong Bennett’s coalition. I believe this was the issue with the Golan last week – a twenty-four hour delay between the initial leak and the official denial was a pretty pregnant pause, I think, and Blinken had made a point to not stipulate support for the Golan in the past months. It will be interesting to see what Bennett does to foil the US Iran policy, as he will have to see it set aside if his gov’t survives long, but it should not likely survive much longer if he does so – or maybe he will surprise me again. Today was a nice surprise, a very unexpected surprise as well, so we will see.
@Peloni I also thought Bibi did a decent job of contesting Obama without getting him to totally nix support of Israel. Never the less during the Trump Presidency Bibi not take maximum advantage of the situation.
Bennett is doing this while Biden is POTUS who also opposes Israel settlement growth in Judea/Samaria. People who know Bennett well generally a have belief in his intelligence, energy, and ability to learn quickly and come up with solutions to problems.
@Bear
No correction possible. An obvious point supporting Bibi’s overriding policy of maintaining the status quo was his poor timing at being PM while Obama was president, though I believe the country greatly benefited from his skilled stewardship of state. His focus was necessarily to stabilize the nation among some serious crosswinds from Obama who viciously sought to topple him and his nationalist ideology for 8yrs – he attacked him even before Bibi was PM, and even before he was president. It placed him in the position of playing defense, though he turned that with some skill into an offensive move on Obama’s Iran policy.
But he had to pick his battles, as all men do, and sovereignty was not on the table before the age of Trump. In the early period of Trump, Bibi and Trump created great successes. Though less than 2yrs after Trump came to power, Bibi was placed on a domestic game of defense as his governing allies were more and more his enemies, intent on his fall at the expense of a reliable gov’t to pursue any agenda. When sovereignty in J & S became a questionable reality, it was soon shelved to allow the Abraham Accords. So there could be many answers to why Bibi did not pursue sovereignty in J & S, but he did not. In fairness, though, this is yet to be done by Bennett’s gov’t, and regardless of his want of it, I don’t see it as a likely possibility with the current members, but we shall see.
Relating to the dismantling of the settlement, Bibi opposed Gantz’ policy. Who knows what would have occurred had he not been removed. Regardless, though, I am pleased that Bennett was able with some skill, it would seem, to have outplayed these Leftists he has aligned himself with to see this settlement saved as I noted earlier today.
@ Peloni
Bennett, Shaked and Gantz (behind the scenes Lapid) all realize that with no compromise and a violent eviction the government would fall probably.
Always remember Bennett and Shaked have for years wanted to apply sovereignty to all of Area C in Judea/Samaria. This is who they are. This something Bibi has never done I believe, kindly correct me if I am wrong.
@Bear Klein
I totally agree – I am clueless as to how he managed it. The fact that Meretz hates this deal holds it own reward as well!
Israeli security officials have reached an agreement with residents of an unauthorized town in Samaria aimed at avoiding the community’s demolition.
The more than 50 families now living at the outpost town of Evyatar, near Tapuah Junction in Samaria, have agreed to voluntarily evacuate, until the defense establishment can verify that the land in question is not privately owned.
Meretz hates this deal. The beauty of the deal is that will allow for the implementation of a new Jewish town and legalize it after the fact. No violence. Good job in my view!
@Adam
I had seen Gantz as an America First policy hawk, as he clearly supported them with devastating effect in 2015 when he undermined Netanyahu regarding the Iran Deal vote in the US Congress. He reaffirmed this with his calls to move discussions with the US behind closed doors and end any public contest to their policy demands. However, I believe his move to, alone, demand this settlement be dismantled, would suggest a more Leftist leaning philosophy than I had suspected prior to this point.
I had been assured that he was a member of the Right by many friends and family and that he just opposed Bibi – though I never accepted this as a fair explanation of his positions in 2015 and what I saw as his overly cryptic nature when he first ran in 2018(?). Yet, it seems his motives in 2015 may have had less to do with supporting the US policy and more to do with his own inner beliefs than I had suspected. His isolation on this position does offer us the benefit of having removed any doubt of his true nature.
Bennett has really allied himself with too many of these two-state policy advocates to maintain his Redlines, as I understood them in any case. Having said this, Bennett seems to have crafted this policy well enough with the declared Leftists and been savvy enough to do so without involving Gantz’ til the Leftist support was completed. Interesting the manner that this divide and conquer approach was devised.
This confirms what I have suspected all along: that Gantz is opposed to Jews living in Judea-Samaria, except in certain large “settlement blocs.” He wants the other settlements, nnot just “outposts,” evacuated.
The settlements and settlement outposts are not “illegal.” The laws enacted by the former Ottoman and British governments of the disputed territories, which the Israeli government views as still in force, do not prohibit Jewish settlement in these areas. And if Israel is the lawful sovereign in these territories as many experts in international law maintain, then certainly there is no Israeli law that forbids settlement in these areas. The court orders to that effect issued by the Supreme Court and the similar orders of the “Civil administration” have no basis in Israeli law.