Coalition MKs said they were sending a message to the US on Wednesday when they voted in support of West Bank settlement blocs and in favor of a compromise deal with the settlers to retain some unauthorized outposts.Let me note that it's not entirely as pleasing as one would like to think, as Hasson seems to be taking a certain double stance:
"The United States has to understand Israel's red lines when it comes to a final status solution," MK Yoel Hasson (Kadima) told The Jerusalem Post.
Less than a week before the large international meeting in Annapolis, Maryland on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at which settlements and outposts are among the topics under discussion, the coalition in the Knesset plenum called for a statement of support for high-density Jewish population areas in the West Bank. The motion passed 39 to 18 with no abstentions.
The Labor party refused to support the motion that was otherwise affirmed by MKs from Kadima, Israel Beiteinu, the Gil Pensioners Party and Shas.
Instead, it joined opposition party Meretz and called for the evacuation of all 105 unauthorized outposts in the West Bank - a move that was rejected by 42 MKs and drew support from only 14.
The other coalition parties, in turn, favored making a deal with the settlers that could include authorizing some outposts and moving others to legal areas within the settlement blocs.
The votes ran counter to Palestinians' demands prior to Annapolis that Israel freeze construction activity in all West Bank settlements as part of the overall call by Palestinians for a withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. Implicit in that is also a demand to take down the outposts, a move included in the road map.
Speaking on the plenum floor, Hasson said that one thing was very clear to him: "There is majority support among the Israeli public and in this house to preserve the settlement blocs." "Even the Palestinians understand that there are places that Israel won't evacuate under any circumstances. There should be no argument with respect to the continued development of these areas, particularly along the lines of natural growth."
He added that he was of the opinion that it had been a mistake to expend energy on the creation of small settlements and outposts.Correct, it is illegal construction being conducted by Arabs that needs to be the concern here, and not what Jewish builders are doing.
"If we had invested energy in another [city like] Ariel and another Ma'aleh Adumim, and not in placing another 20 caravans here and 50 caravans there, maybe the settlement blocs would be much wider," Hasson said.
It is these settlement blocs, where the population density is high, "that will determine [Israel's] final borders," he added.
But National Union Party chairman Benny Elon said Israel should retain all the settlements. He added that it should take steps to place them under the regular Israeli legal system rather then the West Bank military one that governs them now.
National Religious Party chairman Zevulun Orlev spoke in defense of the unauthorized outposts and said that Israel had to deal with the overall issue of illegal construction throughout the country - including in Arab areas of east Jerusalem, the Negev and the Galilee - rather then focusing on the West Bank.
I should note that there's a mistake in the article above: it speaks of "pre-1967 borders". However, Israel had no borders with Arab states before 1967 - only armistice lines from the 1949 armistice agreements.
In other news regarding the possible Annapolis conference, Syria is likely to forego attendence. As good as that is, it does not excuse the fact that Condi Rice invited them to begin with and even invited them to make demands for the Golan Heights, which may be against US interests and policies.
And, why am I not surprised by this? Annapolis is holding up an IDF offensive into Gaza. On the other hand, there's been no mutual declaration by either side. However, Olmert has been offering Fatah armored vehicles, against the better interests of the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment