Every
week or so new demands come out of the White House, the EU, and the Israeli Left
to "freeze" all construction by Israel in "settlements" in the "disputed
territories." Meaning Judea and Samaria. The
issuing of such calls is so predictable and clockwork-like that few eyebrows
were even raised in Israel when Netanyahu defended his wholesale release of mass
murderers of Jews on grounds that he had no choice, because the alternative was
to capitulate to calls for a freeze in construction. Just why
Netanyahu had to make any "payment" at all in terms of concessions to the
Palestinian Authority in exchange for conducting talks is one of the great
imponderables of Bibigrad. Just why are the "Palestinians" not
required to make large payments to ISRAEL in exchange for Israel agreeing to sit
down with them in talks?
There
are some serious questions of whether the West Bank should even be regarded as
"territories in dispute," as opposed to territories that belong to
Israel. But here is not the place for a long boring legal
analysis.
I
have only one small point I would like to make with regard to all this.
It is not a legal point but a logical one. Suppose that we
accept at face value the idea that Judea and Samaria are indeed "territories in
dispute." Now where I come from, a dispute is one that involves
two sides. I have never heard of a dispute involving only one
side, although some of the disputes within the Likud with itself might qualify,
mainly because schizophrenia can take the form of dispute between both
personalities of oneself.
There
seems to be one itty bitty point that everyone is overlooking. If
Israel needs to freeze all construction activity in "territories of dispute,"
then surely SO MUST THE OTHER SIDE TO THE DISPUTE. Otherwise these
are not at all territories in dispute!
So
Israel's position must be clear. Sure, no problem, we are
perfectly willing to have a freeze on construction in the territories in
dispute, just as long as the other side to the dispute also agrees to implement
a complete and retroactive freeze to its own construction activities in the
territories of dispute. If the other side, and here I mean by that
the "Palestinians," continues to engage in construction, they are effectively
proclaiming that the territories are not in dispute and hence there are no
reasons at all why Israel should freeze
construction.
So all
Bibi needs to do is to proclaim that he is ready for a new freeze in
construction in the territories in dispute, just as long as it is contingent
upon a total and complete freeze in construction activities by Palestinian Arabs
in those same territories. It also must be contingent upon
demolishing all construction carried out by Arabs ever since the FIRST freeze in
settlement construction to which Israel ever agreed. I guess I
would use 2008 as the base line for this, since in November 2008
Netanyahu issued a 10 month settlement freeze in the West Bank in an attempt to
"restart negotiations" with the
Palestinians.
So no problem at all. You want Israel to freeze
construction in Ofra and Yizhar? We are more than willing to do
so! Just as soon as all "Palestinian" construction carried out
after 2008 is demolished!
All we
are sssaaayyyyiiinnnggg is Give Peace a Chance!
2. Barry
Chamish like conspiracy nuts running the Million Moslem March:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-jew-hating-dem-behind-the-million-muslim-march/
3. Worth reading - the
story of the Farhoud:
No comments:
Post a Comment