Israel's supposed offer of a temporary settlements freeze is a scam, writes Saleh El-Naami Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had not counted on such a long tour of South American states, but it was a political necessity in light of US-Israeli positions. Abbas believes it is now essential to drum up as much international support for UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as soon as possible. This in the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's deceptive announcement of temporarily freezing settlements for 10 months, which was welcomed by the US administration. But "a freeze on settlements", according to Netanyahu's scheme, does not include Jerusalem and its suburbs, and allows continued construction of 3,000 residential units in existing settlements across the West Bank. The "temporary freeze" also excludes infrastructure and services projects, such as building schools, synagogues, factories and tourism ventures. The fact that some of Netanyahu's most fanatic cabinet ministers strongly support this proposal is proof that it is a sham. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Likud Minister Beni Begin and Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon are among the most politically extreme and yet enthusiastic about the proposal. Begin told Israeli Radio on Sunday that his enthusiasm stems from the fact that the proposal ensures the expansion of settlements and achieves a marked acceleration in construction. Begin explained that it legitimises the building of 3,000 new residential units in the West Bank, which would house a record breaking 15,000 new settlers to the area within 10 months. In addition, infrastructure construction will continue uninterrupted, which will augment settlement projects after the 10- month freeze is over. "No doubt, US support for this idea is especially important because it legitimises continued construction in Jerusalem," Begin added. "From now on, no one can ask us to halt settlements in Jerusalem; and everyone knows that the freeze in the West Bank is only temporary." Meanwhile, Yaalon compared the clash between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama over the legitimacy of settlements to a boxing match. He stated that in the end, the Obama administration has adopted the Israeli position, which means "Netanyahu won the match with a knockout blow." The Palestinian leadership followed the debate in Israel about Netanyahu's proposal and realised that its manoeuvrability is very limited. Also, Abbas's insistence on negotiations was rapidly being undermined, causing several leaders in Fatah to seriously question the president's political choices. In response, Abbas and his aides were quick to denounce Netanyahu's idea and US support for it. More importantly, Abbas appears to have realised that it is vital for him to move quickly in order to contain Netanyahu's scheming, by seeking Arab and international support for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). In South America, Abbas declared there was "nothing new in Netanyahu's plan because settlements will continue in the West Bank and Jerusalem, since they were excluded from the proposal". The Palestinian president also pointed out that the Israeli prime minister did not honour re-launching negotiations from the point talks with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert ended. "The Israeli prime minister had a choice between peace and settlements, but unfortunately he chose settlements," stated Abbas. He added that he plans to continue consultations with Arab, Latin American, African, European and Asian countries "on the possibility of going to the Security Council with the aim of marking the borders of the Palestinian state according to 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital". Abbas further asserted: "Our goal is an independent sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side-by-side with Israel in security and peace." The president added emotionally that, "there is not a surplus people in the Middle East, there is a missing state. Some 61 years after the Nakba, it is time for the Palestinian people to live in safety and peace in their own independent, sovereign state, which will be a cornerstone of security, peace and stability in our region and the entire world." Palestinian writer and political analyst Tala Okal believes Netanyahu's plan is a "charade" and accused Washington of playing a main role in it. Okal asserted that Netanyahu's "temporary freeze" is nonsense and does not indicate any shift in Israel's position. In fact, it allows Netanyahu's government to forge ahead in constructing previously approved residential units in the settlements. He further opined that Netanyahu is seeking Palestinian acknowledgement of the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, which directly implies shutting down any discussion regarding the return of refugees. "By all measures, this is a moronic ploy," retorted Okal. "Anyone who believes that a single Palestinian would agree to this is ignorant and dim-witted." He explained that the proposal aims to thwart any negotiations regarding a final settlement to the conflict before they even begin. The only remaining issues to talk about would be statehood without Jerusalem or the areas that are being usurped for settlements, and the apartheid wall, according to Okal. "This means running any future state will be more like administrative self-rule," he added. Okal believes that Washington's support of Netanyahu's scheme is "regression in the US position, and brings into questioning the US's ability to mediate a revival of the peace process." Okal argues: "If this is the US's position after all that President Obama has said, and his talk about change, reconciling for peace, and seriously addressing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and Arabs, it proves previously held perceptions that Democrats in the US are more loyal, supportive and interested in maintaining an alliance with Israel." He insisted that the Israeli-American gambit will not succeed in "hurling the red hot ball in the court of the Palestinians, even if Obama's administration puts pressure on the Palestinian Authority". The US's position was received with caution even by Israeli commentators, who criticised American hypocrisy. Haaretz commentator Akiva Eldar asserted that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's conduct is a form of duping Palestinians, which will only push them into the arms of Hamas. Eldar questioned "how long US administrations will continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the Palestinians". He noted that "all US leaders who have inhabited the White House, including Mrs Clinton's husband, have dealt with the issue of settlements as if it were the weather; it's pleasant to talk about, but cannot be changed." Eldar criticised how Israel and the US have dealt with the PA, which he believes has proven its aptitude in fighting Hamas. "American and Israeli generals have praised the PA's role in hunting resistance movements in the West Bank, and said it has honoured its side of the roadmap," stated the Israeli commentator. "In return, no one can claim that Israel has upheld its commitments in the roadmap regarding halting settlements." Israeli political analyst Zvi Barel noted that for 41 years Washington disregarded settlement projects in the West Bank and Jerusalem, while successive US administrations merely expressed timid objections in the form of occasional reports without taking any real steps. "Various US administrations claim that they object to settlements in the West Bank, or refuse to recognise the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights by Israel," stated Barel. "In reality, the US is merely giving Israel a meek slap on the hand." The same is true of Obama's administration, he continued. "Obama criticises Israel and firmly calls for a halt on settlements," stated Barel. "But he does not do this as part of a deliberate and calculated plan. Rather, it's a personal duel between him and Netanyahu." On the Palestinian front, it has become evident that Abbas's ability to manoeuvre or secure support for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state has been greatly curtailed. This is especially true after the US and the European Union denounced this prospect. At the same time, doubts that Abbas would succeed in convincing the world in supporting him in his mission caused many Palestinians not only to call for his resignation but also to demand a public admission of failure. Such a confession would bar anyone who embraces his policies from succeeding him. Many believe that Fatah will not be able to stay at the helm of Palestinian politics, since all candidates within the movement who are rumoured to succeed Abbas share the same political outlook as Abbas. Hence, if any of them rise to power, they would only cement the lamentable status quo.
