Netanyahu's Settlement Freeze

Last week, West Bank settlers and right wing activists gathered outside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's home in Jerusalem to demonstrate against the government's decision to halt new construction in the West Bank for 10 months. Protest organisers claimed that as many as 30,000 people turned out, although other reports put the figure at approximately 10,000. Netanyahu's move was always set to elevate tensions between his administration and the settler community, but the settlers' rapid mobilisation - and degree of unrest so far felt - has dominated domestic news coverage over the last fortnight. This document looks at the highly charged atmosphere created by the settlement moratorium within Israeli society, and at how Netanyahu is seeking to manage these tensions as he attempts to advance Israel's broader political and security interests.

Netanyahu announced a suspension on residential construction in West Bank settlements on 25 November, calling on the Palestinians and the Arab world to ‘seize the opportunity' to ‘move forward towards peace'. He has subsequently worked to ensure that the 10-month suspension, approved by the security cabinet, is fully enforced.

Compared to past efforts, Senior Israel Defence Forces (IDF) commanders have been more determined to implement the government's policy on settlement activity since the announcement. One of the IDF's brigade commanders in the West Bank, Colonel Itzik Bar, has stated that apart from combating terror threats, implementing the government's decision to freeze settlement construction is currently the army's main objective on the ground. Ha'aretz quoted another officer saying, ‘This is the first time we're receiving clear, detailed instructions on how to deal with building in the settlements.' The implementation of the freeze is increasing the risk that long-standing tensions between the Israeli security authorities and more radical parts of the settler community could spill over into violence.

The settler community feels stabbed in the back by the Netanyahu government. Its leadership wants to break the prime minister's new policy, and greatly fears that what has been announced as a temporary freeze could become permanent.

Some on the right, such as Likud Minister Benny Begin, are more comfortable in going along with the settlement freeze. They recognise the international pressure on Netanyahu to show he is serious about peace but are deeply sceptical about Palestinians reciprocating meaningfully. They can tolerate a temporary settlement freeze in the firm belief that in the absence of a Palestinian response, it will soon expire along with its political credibility. Others in Likud, such as party whip Zeev Elkin, denounce the freeze but are, so far at least, unwilling to actively oppose Netanyahu and lead a party rebellion.

Aryeh Eldad, of the more right-wing National Union party, which is outside the coalition, claims, ‘When Netanyahu speaks of a settlement freeze, he means disengagement.'[vi] By invoking former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's uprooting of all Israel's settlements from the Gaza Strip and part of the northern West Bank in the summer of 2005, he intends to rally broader opposition to the current freeze.

Despite some of the more extreme settlers vowing an ongoing confrontation, a ‘day of rage' and ‘civil war', opposition has so far been mainly through non-violent demonstrations. Home-made banners displayed by protesters are directed at Netanyahu: ‘No entry to Bibi's freeze inspectors' and ‘Stop Iran's nukes, not our homes.'

Activists are also trying to make it difficult for officials to implement their work. It took 200 police officers and much longer than expected to issue building suspension orders at the settlement of Kedumim last week. One tactic being used is to encourage young protestors, and especially female students from religious seminaries, to take the ‘front line' against uniformed inspectors and border policemen. Images of this nature have abounded in the Israeli print and television media over the last fortnight. In another attempt to defy the freeze, activists at the Efrat settlement invited reporters to witness them pouring concrete to lay the foundations of buildings. The government, in a sign of its determination to implement the freeze, plan to use aerial photographs to spot any new building starts. By laying concrete the settlers hope to create the impression that construction on their plots is already underway.

The next step will reportedly entail nationwide protests, including at key road junctions and outside ministers' and officials' homes. Precedents for such protests were set during the Gaza disengagement in 2005. In the Palestinian territories, too, the IDF has expressed concern that Jewish extremists may target the local Arab population. An investigation is underway into an arson attack on a Palestinian mosque last week that settlers are suspected of having carried out. This act has been widely condemned in Israel, including by other settlers. A group of Rabbis from the nearby settlement of Tekoa presented a Quran to the Arab community connected to the Mosque this week in a show of solidarity. However, the need to prevent small groups of violent extremists from escalating tensions in the West Bank presents a major challenge for the IDF. According to a Palestinian eyewitness, a group of five armed settlers burned cars and tractors in his village last week. Senior Israeli defence official Amos Gilead assesses that Israel's Civil Administration - which handles Israeli government activities in the West Bank - faces ‘an unprecedented (law) enforcement challenge'.

The hard-line sentiments held by sections of the settler community and its supporters on the right are not shared by most Israelis. Most reject the idea that Israel can continue to build across the West Bank, and take a pragmatic view. Netanyahu himself committed to the construction halt with external political considerations in mind - in particular, considerable pressure from Washington. Israeli public opinion is sensitive to the impact of policy on Israel's relations with the US. According to the Institute for National Security Studies data, an overwhelming majority of Israel's Jewish population would not support further settlement activity if its result would be a confrontation with the United States. In the context of the ‘two states for two peoples' formula, a majority of Israelis would also be willing to make significant territorial concessions to the Palestinians.

In addition, the same survey shows suggests extensive public support in Israel for the removal of unauthorised outposts, established by individuals without the consent of the Israeli authorities. Both Netanyahu and, more vociferously, Defence Minister Ehud Barak, have committed to dismantling them. These two figures - long time political rivals - are today working together closely in government; this is considered key to the translation of policy into action. Barak is co-heading a new committee that Netanyahu has set up to monitor implementation of the settlement moratorium. Evidence of the effective functioning of the Barak-Netanyahu relationship is the speeding up of the process to remove checkpoints and other barriers to movement in the West Bank. Commentators have noted that Barak appears more ready to take these steps with Netanyahu in the Prime Minister's chair than he was with Ehud Olmert, with whom Barak had a tense relationship.

Yesterday, in a precedent-setting move, Barak ordered the IDF to sever ties with a religious seminary that has been part of its bespoke programme for young people wishing to combine military service with Torah study. The dean, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, had urged his students to defy the military if ordered to evacuate settlements. It is reported that in support for the rabbi, some 100 IDF reservists, including officers, have said they will no longer perform reserve duty.

Through his decision to halt new construction in the West Bank, Netanyahu has entered into a less safe political environment. In a recent meeting with settler leaders, he tried to set red lines, stating that he does not intend to rescind his decision, and that it would be carried out in full. He told the grouping, ‘There is one thing that is out of the question. You are allowed to demonstrate and protest, but you cannot show disrespect for a decision that was made lawfully'.

Netanyahu's domestic interest is to try to keep the settlement community in check, and to prevent an escalation of tensions within his own Likud party or with other coalition partners. He needs to maintain a political balance between Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas on the right, and Labour on the left. In an attempt to calm the anger among his right wing base, Netanyahu has stressed that the moratorium is temporary, and included six settlements among revised ‘national priority' areas that will qualify for increased public service budgets. Technically, this is not inconsistent with the construction freeze, as the funds are not being allocated to construction projects in the West Bank, but for education, cultural and employment programmes. The vast bulk of the assistance will go to the Negev and Galilee regions within the Green Line, and 40% of Israeli Arabs are among the beneficiaries. Netanyahu's justification for his decision to include a number of settlements is that the future of settlements will be determined through final status agreement with the Palestinians. He has consistently asserted that whilst he is ready to curb settlement construction, he wants those already living in the settlements to be able to enjoy normal lives. This has not satisfied Labour ministers, who voted against the plan on Sunday because of the inclusion of settlements.

Whilst trying to straddle the political divide at home, Netanyahu also has broader strategic factors in mind. Israel sees the strategic relationship with the US to be of paramount importance. Washington, in turn, expects Israel to demonstrate through its actions its commitment to peace with the Palestinians. The Obama administration views this as important for maintaining as broad a regional and international coalition as possible for tackling the Iranian nuclear threat.

Bolstering the West-Bank based Palestinian leadership is also in Netanyahu's interest. A weakened Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to resign as Palestinian President, rather than engage in peace talks with Netanyahu, though in practice he could remain in office for some time. The Israeli security establishment fears the weakening of Abbas's Palestinian Authority is to the benefit of Hamas. They are also concerned that Hamas will get a boost on the Palestinian street from a prisoner exchange deal to bring about the release of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu took a major political risk in adopting the new settlement moratorium. Both he and Defence Minister Ehud Barak are committed to enforcing it, which is a serious test of their political authority. Netanyahu has established a task force of senior ministers and military personnel to monitor and coordinate implementation. However, the political cost to Netanyahu of enforcing the settlement freeze is high. The policy has sparked significant social and political unrest in the Israeli settler community, which is likely to intensify over coming weeks. Whilst some have speculated that the settlement freeze, once implemented, will be impossible to reverse, a lack of diplomatic progress for Netanyahu will contribute to its unravelling. The Israeli Prime Minister is spending real political capital enforcing this move. Without a diplomatic dividend for Israel from the US, Europe and the Arab world, the case for sustaining it will become increasingly difficult for him to make to his supporters.
. Read more...

Riots in Jerusalem

Since September 27th there have been riots and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police in East Jerusalem following a mistaken Palestinian attack on a group of tourists entering the Temple Mount. The tensions have been heightened by internal Palestinian politics between Hamas and Fatah who are each trying to persuade the people of their strength and credibility as Palestinian elections appear to be back on the agenda.

So far 50 people have been arrested, an Israeli border policememan has been stabbed, 4 policeman have been injured in the Ras Al Amud neighbourhood and confrontations have taken place between 100 of the Islamic Movement and Israeli police. today a suspected inciter of the violence, Sheikh Saed Salah was arrested, all because of a mistaken sighting of a group of tourists entering the Temple Mount who were thought to be some radical Jewish worshippers. In fact the Israeli authorities had prevented the Jewish radicals from entering the Temple Mount previously.

In the meantime, Jordan, who manages the Temple Mount area under the auspices of the Waqf, have requested the PA and the Israeli authorities to cordon off the area and meet to discuss ways to calm the tensions down. Unfortunately, the PA has used the incident to accuse Israel of trying to Judaise the area and claiming this could spark off a 3rd Intifada.

what is really happening here though and what lies beneath the tensions? Lets go back in history a little... In 1967 when Israel took over control of East Jerusalem, it introduced and encouraged freedom of religion to all and gave control of the Muslim sites to the Jordanian administered Waqf. As it stands now, Jews and tourists are allowed onto the Temple Mount but only for certain amounts of time and at only at sepcific times of the day, following the tensions of the 2nd Intifada that ended in 2003. They were not allowed up there at all during the 2nd Intifada itself (2000-2003). The times they are allowed up there are chosen to not clash with Muslim prayer times. Nevertheless, a radical Muslim northern branch of a group, called the Islamic Movement, has constantly tried to stir up violence and tensisons by spreading false claims that Israeli archaeologists are undermining the Al Aqsa mosque.

These tensions are taken advantage of at this time due to the renewed possibility of elections between Hamas and Fatah who are using these tensions as an opportunity to leverage influence and control over the people to win votes. The possibility of electins however still rests fraily on talks currently taking place in Cairo. From the PA's point of view, it is finding it needs to win back support by taking a harsher line after withdrawing its support for the bias Goldstone Report and also for meeting with Israeli PM at the UN last month. For Hamas, they are using the tensions to reinforce their perceived strength and victory at having won the release of 20 female prisoners from Israeli jails last Friday in return for a video of captured IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit.

All in all, the Temple Mount has once again become a hotbed for tensions and is being exploited by the Palestinians for political gain. Read more...

Gilad Shalit Video

Gilad Shalit is in a healthy and normal condition according to a tape released by his captors Hamas this week in return for 20 female Palestinian prisoners. It seems that everyone is now asking not 'if' but 'when'. But why was the video released now and what does it mean?

The negotiations over Shalit and the hundreds of terrorists demanding to be released by Hamas had, like the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations as a whole, come to a stalemate. The release of this video is being hailed as a PR victory by the Palestinians as Hamas have put pressure on the Israeli government to hurry along with the fulflling their demands.

Netanyahu, mentioned by name in the video will also be pleased by the video. Now that we have seen Shalit is in good form, less people in Israel will be supporting the release of hundreds of the most dangerous terrorists Israel holds. It is also unlikely that a military strike will take place on Gaza to release Shalit as this would jeaprdise his life. No military or political leader would dare risk his future career on such a decision either.

On the other hand, Hamas knows that pressure has now been raised on the Israeli public to have Shalit back home with his parents as soon as possible now that it is known he is well. But it is unlikely the price of 1000 deadly terrorists will nevertheless become palatable as it still poses an unnecessary and high level security risk to Israel.

How and when negotiations will continue is yet to be seen. In the meantime, for now it is the Palestinians who will be welcoming back the less threatening terrorists to their hometowns. Read more...

Richard Goldstone's UN Report

Following Richard Goldstone's Report for the UN into Israel's conduct during the Gaza War of December 2008 - January 2009, there has been a flurry of criticism from many sides regarding the bias of the report and whether it even achieved what it was meant to or whether it was misdirected altogether. The report recommended that the case be brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague. For Israel to be brought before this court however for war crimes it has to be shown that it did not deal with allegations internally.

Let us remind ourselves what was the purpose of Operation Cast Lead to begin with. Following the daily bombardment of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel, the difficult decision was made by Israel to retailiate and achieve its goal of 'restoring quiet to its southern communities'. This was a very tough decision to make as it would mean retliating in areas which are known to be very densely populated and fighting an enemy which is rooted amongst civilians. In this way, Israel faced very similar conditions as US and UK forces are being confronted with in their war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The overriding concern in fighting this kind of war is how to minimise civilian casualties and fight the war according to international law while at the same time achieving these objectives. It is interesting to note that following goldstone's report, and despite Europe's usual disapproval and criticism of Israel, NATO have been consulting with Israel as to how best fight this kind of assymetrical warfare.

It is known that throughout Israel's war, there were International Law experts and lawyers behind every decision and manouvre to ensure it was compliant with the standard requirements. Furthermore in Israel, these lawyers, although part of the IDF, are not confined by rank and are free to counter a superior ranking officer's desire or viewpoint on a certain operation. Furthermore, all legal departments are overseen by Israel's internationally respected independent Supreme Court, established under British Mandate rule in (1922-1948).

It is true that civilians were killed and mistakes were made. This is the very nature of war. No war is perfect and operations do not always go according to plan. No-one in their right mind would expect this of any country though Israel seems to have different standards applied and expected of. This is unfair. According to international law, it needs to be proven that there was no intention behind the mistakes and that they were indeed just that, mistakes, with Israel following procedures to avoid such casualties according to international law.


With regards to this aspect and following the war, it is well documented that Israel has carried out thorough investigations into its conduct and that of its soldiers and have investigated over 100 allegations. To date 1 soldier has been charged and sentenced to 7 and a half months in prison for looting. More serious allegations such as using civilians to inspect houses before IDF soldiers go in, which was banned by the Supreme court in 2005 are also curently under invesitgation.

Prior and following the report there are also investigations into attacks on UN compounds, the use of white phosphorous, shootings at medical facilities and personnel which have been ordered by Israel's Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi.

The issue of the War in Gaza raises important questions about the nature of modern warfare which is more often than not involving States Vs Non-State Actors, something which International Law is still under-developed and highly ambiguous to handle with certainty. It has been shown, despite Goldstone's report which arguably focussed on the issues which were not part of its purpose,that Israel has a credible system in place for ensuring that it operates according to high professional military standards and investigates allegations of misconduct and operational errors. Like any other system, it is not perfect, and like other modern democratic states, Israel tries to take stock and learn lessons for dealing with future threats. Ultimately, Israel seeks to be held to account for its military operation in Gaza in the same way that other Western democracies are held to account when they go to war and not to have a double standard applied to it which would not be held against many other states who have carried out far worse.
Read more...

Rockets from Gaza

What better way to celebrate the end of Ramadan than firing over another few rockets into Israel. Such was the method of celebration today by some Islamic terrorists in Gaza as Ismail Haniyeh made a speech underlining how all talks with Israel will be doomed to failure and he continues to reject all efforts made by US envoy to the middle East, George Mitchell. These latest attacks bring the total to 200 rockets fired into the Western Negev since Operation Cast Lead in January of this year.

In the past, Israel has responded to every attack with a counter-attack and although it did not respond directly to these two rockets, it did kill two terrorist who were planting some bombs along the border earlier today. The sirens were heard yet again in Sderot and although there has been relative calm there since Operation Cast Lead ended, the threat remains and it is really very unclear as to what was really accomplished in the operation. For sure, Hamas is a battered organisation and in total disarray, as is the Palestinian movement as a whole. However, the fear felt by the residents of Sderot is still very much real and causes disruption in every day life.

Just like the Palestinian/Israel peace talks as a whole, the situation along the Israel/Gaza border has also reached somewhat of a stalemate, similar to what was seen before Operation Cast Lead. With the report into the War in Gaza being released last week and criticised heavily by Israel, one wonders whether Israel should have taken a leaf out of the Sri Lankan government's book and made the war really something worth investigating and destroying Hamas once and for all as was done to the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The main difference lies in Israel being a controlled responsible democratic government and the bearer of the burden that all the brings.

Read more...

US Talks With Iran

On October 1st Barak Obama and his administration will be hoping to begin talks afresh with Iran over their nuclear energy programme for the first time in over a year with the hope of persuading the rogue state of abandoning its ambitions for nuclear power. Will they succeed? Most of the international community thinks not.

For the past few years Iran has cleverly played a game of cat and mouse through delaying tactics and changing the subject whenever discussions have been held on this hot topic. There is no reason to think that this latest effort by the US, Germany and other members of the UN permanent security council will be any different. Should the talks fail, which is likely, the US will have no other option than to adopt sanctions outside of the UN as there is no reason for Iran's main allies, Russia and China, to not veto the vote on passing a fourth round of sanctions against Iran.

Even with the sanctions however it is unlikely Iran will give up on its goal and instead will continue towards the holy grail it is seeking - a nuclear bomb. Should the talks and sanctions fail, the situation would indeed become more grim and action would most likely need to be taken elsewhere.
Read more...

Fatah Leadership and Marwan Barghouti

With the talks between Hamas and Fatah still in turmoil and Obama wanting to push ahead with the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, there are calls and increased support to release the one man who is known to be able to unite the two sides and unify the Palestinian position. His name is Marwan Barghouti.

Despite being currently held in an Israeli prison for being behind a chain of terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of Israelis, the calls and support are being more loudly heard amongst the Israeli camp and the Knesset. Why? Because "Barghouti can probably deliver the goods and strengthen the moderate current, that supports a diplomatic solution and an accord with Israel" said Minority Affairs Minister, Avishay Braverman.

n 2004 Barghouti was tried for his involvement in terror attacks during the second intifada. He was sentenced to five life sentences for the murders of four Israelis and a Greek monk, and given an addition 40 years for an attempted murder.

However, Barghouti is seen as a relatively moderate force in the Palestinian leadership. In 2006 Barghouti was involved in shaping what became known as 'the Palestinian Prisoners' Document,' which called for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. It was signed by prisoners representing of all major Palestinian factions including Hamas. He is a charismatic figure who holds the respect of both major parties as well as the majority of Palestinians on the street. Whether he will be the main chip to be exchanged in return for Gilad Shalit however remains to be seen. Read more...

Iranian Protests Continue

Despite calls from Supreme Leader Ayatolla Khamenei to back down and accept the election results of last week, the Iranian public have once again taken to the streets today in protest against the allegedly rigged re-election of President Ahmadinejad. Many have been beaten and arrested by the government's forces, and 15 to date have been killed, in what is the most popular uprising and defiance of the Iranian regime since the 1979 Revolution. Due to massive media clampdowns, see here for all the latest updates coming from Iran Read more...

Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech at Bar Ilan

Benjamin Netanyahu's speech last night was bound to upset a lot of people, and not surprisingly it has ruffled the feathers of both his own supporters as well as those who were never going to be happy with whatever he said anyway. This is the price a right wing leader pays when he edges further towards the centre and tries to please everyone: he inevitably ends up pleasing no-one.

For the first time however we saw a man who has never before mentioned the possibility of a Palestinian state now outlining the conditions under which he will make it possible. He also addressed and praised the economic successes of the cooperation between Israel and the Gulf states. So as to align himself as much as possible with the US, Netanyahu was careful to echo the sentiments and tone of hope expressed by President Obama last week in Cairo too.

He was right to emphasise that, contrary to Obama's implication that Israel's right to exist was premised on the Holocaust, the Jewish right to a stake in the land of Israel based on the 3,500-year-old Jewish connection to that land. ‘The places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived,' he said, ‘are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.'

At the same time, he acknowledged that the Palestinian people also have rights, and that it is not Israel's desire to rule over them. In this context he declared, ‘If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarisation and Israel's security needs, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarised Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.'

Although Netanyahu has made a giant leap forward toward the a political solution to the Israel-Palestinian Peace Process (though of course many in the PA would disagree due to him stopping short of allowing them control over their airspace and denying them the right to have a military - though these are not new conditions as they were on the table during the Clinton proposals in 2000 and also part of the unofficial Geneva Accords) he will still face deep ideologial objections from his coalition parties and the National Religious Camp who belive that the West Bank is still the core of the Jewish historical homeland and steeped in Jewish culture and history.

So far at least it looks like the speech has gone down well in Washington though. With the positions now out in the open, there is a lot of talking to be done about how the details of both the American and Israeli plans can be hammered out and put into action as soon as the deep internal divisions amongst the Palestinians has been resolved. For this to happen, it will not just be the United States that needs to play a major role but also the wider Arab World will be crucial to giving the support required if the process is to move forward at all. Read more...

Iranian Election Results 2009

20 years ago the Iranian national elections, or any election in the Middle East for that matter, it would not have been worth staying up late for. This year however was different. With a close race expected and plenty of fun and games along the way, the results were highly anticipated and eagerly awaited. It turns out however that we may just as well have been living in the past as the results ended as a throwback to the 80s and it seems nothing has really changed after all.

With a modern and politically savvy youth population, Iranian President Ahmedinajad knew what he was doing when blocking websites such as Facebook and YouTube, and other viral style media, that would allow his opponent, Hossain Mousavi, a chance to spread his message running up to the elections. Is it a coincidence too that during the 30minute TV broadcast by Mousavi's Green Party (for change), the electricity grids in 5 provinces came down and disrupted the message?

As threatened by the supporters of Mousavi, there has been an uproar in the calling of foul play in the results of this election, with areas that are typically Mousavi strongholds even showing a landslide turn in the tide towards Amhedinajad. An uproar may well be an understatement as thousands have taken to the streets in protest and riots - the worst in Iran for 10 years according to some commentators. Chaos has broken out further with leaders of opposition parties taken into custody via raids on their headquarters by the police and other government security forces.

So it looks like no change in Iran and its more of the same. Or perhaps this election has brought to the surface the true feelings of Iranians to the outside world and created internal strife even further that may complicate matters and make life a little more uncomfortable for the ongoing President. If so, then this feeling needs to be exploited and, in order to keep the hopes of the Mr Mousavi, his party and their supporters alive, a move by the US that would make life even more difficult for Ahmedinajad would be most welcome. And what could this move be? A simple persistence in outstretching the arm of diplomacy and talks that would no odubt be refused once again and leave Ahmedinajad having to face his own people once more. If the results of the election are as true as he claims them to be then he should feel right at home... Read more...