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: