Barkat: Jerusalem Freeze Would be Illegal
by Maayana Miskin
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat is in Washington this week to meet with senior United States officials. In a news conference held during his tour, Barkat took a firm stance on the Obama administration's pressure to stop building houses for Jews in eastern Jerusalem, saying a construction freeze would be "illegal".
"There's no freeze... We're going to build, and we're not going to stop it," Barkat told reporters. "It is illegal to stop it."
Barkat admitted that construction in certain parts of the city had temporarily slowed following the Obama administration's angry reaction to a housing project in the Jewish neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, in northern Jerusalem. However, he said, the slowdown was a momentary gesture of respect for the US, and construction has since picked up steam again.
Barkat added that the Jerusalem municipality will not change its planning process despite the diplomatic incident regarding Ramat Shlomo. The city will continue to approve construction without involving the prime minister, he said. "It doesn't work like that," he said. "Each of us has his own authority and his own decisions to make."
During his visit Barkat met with several US lawmakers, among them House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor. Cantor backed Barkat's statement that Jerusalem will remain Israel's united capital, and said that both Democrats and Republicans back that view, despite the position taken by Obama and his staff.
Gathering support for continuing Israeli sovereignty over a united Jerusalem appears to be a central goal of Barkat's trip.
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have pushed for a freeze on construction of Jewish housing in all parts of Jerusalem east of the 1949 armistice line, including those neighborhoods such as Mei Shiloach (Silwan) and the Old City that are historically Jewish. The Palestinian Authority demands those neighborhoods as part of a future PA state, to be established in Judea and Samaria with Jerusalem as its capital. (IsraelNationalNews.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J'lem fears UN may recognize PA state
By DAVID HOROVITZ AND KHALED ABU TOAMEH
30/04/2010 02:40
As proximity talks near, Israeli officials wary of Abbas's intentions.
While Israel and the Palestinian Authority are finally expected to begin US-mediated indirect "proximity" talks in the very near future, concern is growing among some in the Israeli government that the PA is planning to marginalize the diplomatic process and instead unilaterally seek UN recognition for a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines.
There is a rising conviction among some in the Netanyahu government, The Jerusalem Post has learned, that the PA is aiming to secure a new UN Security Council Resolution, updating 1967's Resolution 242, providing for the establishment of Palestine and fudging the refugee issue.
The idea of such a move, runs the bleak assessment, would be to establish a state not at peace with Israel, but rather to continue the conflict with Israel.
Not all senior figures share this assessment, it is stressed, although it is very widely doubted within the coalition's senior decision-making echelon that PA President Mahmoud Abbas is prepared to negotiate viable terms for peace with Israel.
By contrast, the US administration, in its contacts with Israel, is said to have conveyed the assessment that Abbas is ready for a negotiated peace, and President Shimon Peres is said to have made clear his belief that Abbas does not intend to seek to flood Israel with refugees under the demand for a "right of return."
In an interview with Channel 2 this week, Abbas denied plans for a unilateral declaration of statehood or any other unilateral acts, and noted that the Arab League peace initiative provided for a "just and agreed" solution on the refugee issue - a solution, that is, that would have to be acceptable to Israel.
In February, the Post reported that a paper prepared by chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat on the status of the peace talks recommended that the Palestinians try to secure a UN Security Council resolution that recognized the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital, as well as a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue in accordance with UN Resolution 194.
The Erekat paper, entitled "The Political Situation in Light of Developments with the US Administration and Israeli Government and Hamas's Continued Coup D'etat," recommended that the Palestinians consider the possibility of abandoning the two-state solution in favor of a one-state solution if the peace process did not move forward.
Within the Netanyahu government, the Post understands, there is a growing awareness of the rising level of international support for Palestinian statehood, and of the reduced international empathy for Israeli concerns and reservations.
Central to those trends, it is recognized, is the credibility of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who has impressed international figures, including many of the most firmly pro-Israel American political leaders, with his commitment to building credible institutions of statehood in the West Bank.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has essentially partnered the PA and Fayyad via his "economic peace" moves over the past year, dismantling roadblocks, reducing checkpoints and easing freedom of movement to help the PA toward an estimated 10-percent-plus growth in gross domestic product over the past 12 months. But some in the prime minister's inner circle nonetheless have profound reservations about Fayyad's strategy.
It is noted, for instance, that the "Program of the Thirteenth Government" issued by Fayyad last August, and entitled "Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State," contains no direct, unambiguous reference to making peace with Israel.
At the same time, it describes the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years as "not only possible," but "essential."
The fact that the PA refused to resume direct talks with Israel after Netanyahu took office last year, and sought to impose preconditions that contributed to the repeated postponement of even the indirect "proximity" talks, has reinforced the sense of many senior figures in the Netanyahu government that the PA is not urgently seeking progress via the negotiating process, and instead intends to take the UN route.
According to international law expert Ruth Lapidot, recognition of statehood is usually done by fellow states, but the Security Council could recommend that member states recognize a new state of Palestine. Lapidot said Thursday it was unclear if a veto power would apply in such a case; this would depend on the whether the issue were deemed to be of a procedural nature or a substantive nature.
In the case of Kosovo, Lapidot noted, the Security Council recommended establishing the state, but it did not impose that solution.
The council's mandate says that it can solve disputes, but does not define the exact powers. To date, said Lapidot, the Security Council has not established the borders of any state. Still, she elaborated, in the case of Kuwait after the first Gulf War, it established an arbitration commission, which then set the borders of the state.
Regarding the issue of admittance to the UN, Lapidot said, the Palestinians would need the approval of both the Security Council and the General Assembly. For this kind of resolution, veto power would apply, she said.
On a related matter, meanwhile, it is understood that the prime minister and some of those closest to him firmly oppose the notion, reported in parts of the Hebrew media earlier this month, of negotiating with the Palestinians for a state with temporary borders - an idea that Abbas has also rejected.
Support for such an idea is said to come from more dovish elements in the coalition, who believe that once the Palestinians have a state of some kind, even if its borders are not finalized, the international tide of delegitimization of Israel will turn.
Figures closer to Netanyahu, however, note that even an agreement on a state with temporary borders would require Abbas to address such critical issues as demilitarization and Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
If Abbas were capable of taking viable positions on those issues, runs the argument, it would be far better to have him do so in the cause of a permanent rather than a temporary accord.
Tovah Lazaroff contributed to this report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Israel must remove 23 outposts'
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT
30/04/2010 02:51
P.J. Crowley: "we expect to fulfill responsibilities."
Talkbacks (12)
WASHINGTON - The US pushed back against indications Israel has abandoned its commitment to take down authorized outposts Thursday, calling on Jerusalem to live up to its obligations.
"The Israeli government has pledged to take specific actions," US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "They have responsibilities and we would expect them to fulfill those responsibilities."
Earlier this week, The Jerusalem Post reported that Israel has no intention in the foreseeable future of dismantling any of 23 unauthorized West Bank outposts built after March 2001, despite a 2002 road map commitment and years of pledges by successive prime ministers including Binyamin Netanyahu.
The promise to dismantle the outposts was made in the framework of wider understandings with the second Bush administration that provided for continued home-building at settlements Israel is likely to retain under a permanent accord with the Palestinians.
Israeli officials told the Post that since the Obama administration replaced those wider understandings with a demand for a moratorium on all new home-building throughout the settlements - which was accepted by Netanyahu in November - Israel no longer regards itself as having to go through with the outpost demolitions on the basis of that pledge to the US.
Crowley, though, indicated the US sees the matter differently since it believes Israel still needs to keep its commitment.
He also said that "the parties need to take affirmative steps that create an improved atmosphere for negotiations to proceed and they need to avoid actions which inhibit progress, and certainly settlements are a contentious issue."
He added that settlements, along with borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem, were final-status issues that needed to be resolved in those negotiations.
"We're pushing hard to get them into proximity talks as soon as possible that we hope will lead to direct negotiations," Crowley said.
State Department officials, however, are denying a report in a Roger Cohen column in The New York Times this week that the US administration had presented the Palestinians with a letter promising an intense effort to produce a Palestinian state in two years, accompanied by a pledge - if Israel seriously undermines trust between the two parties - to withhold its veto from a Security Council resolution condemning Israel.
Instead, they pointed to building momentum and US Middle East envoy George Mitchell's plans to return to the region at the beginning of next week.
Tovah Lazaroff contributed to this report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hizballah has become major military force
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Tuesday acknowledged that Lebanese terrorist militia Hizballah has been the recipient of a massive amount of short, medium and long-range rockets and missiles in recent months.
Speaking at a joint press conference with visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Gates blamed Syria and Iran for providing Hizballah with "far more rockets and missiles than most governments in the world."
Gates did not directly address recent reports that Syria has transferred Scud ballistic missiles to Hizballah, which if true would put all of Israel within range of the terror group's arsenal.
Also this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted that Hizballah has increasingly been permitted to mingle with the Lebanese army, making it increasingly difficult to differentiate between the two should another war break out along Israel's northern border.
Israel fought Hizballah in the Second Lebanon War in 2006. The UN resolution (1701) that brought an end to that conflict demanded that Hizballah be disarmed and prevented from operating as an armed force. Gates, Barak and Netanyahu all sidestepped the fact that the UN has utterly failed to enforce those conditions.
Many in Israel and Lebanon expect another war to erupt as a result of the international community's inability or unwillingness to reign in Hizballah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Admin takes aim at Jerusalem mayor
Senior Obama Administration officials on Tuesday expressed frustration and anger over criticism leveled against them by Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat in a series of interview with American media.
Barkat is currently in Washington for meetings and interviews set up for him by top congressional leaders. During the interviews, he has constantly referred to US pressure on Israel to halt Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem as "illegal," and has suggested that Obama is anti-Israel.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is also in Washington, and during meetings with top administration officials, he has been pressed to reign in Barkat and halt what they called his unproductive behavior.
Some American media referred to Barkat as a possible future prime ministerial candidate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Gulf units may not fire on Iranian military without White House say-so
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 29, 2010, 7:42 PM (GMT+02:00)
USS Eisenhower carrier
The US Fifth Fleet and US aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower in the Gulf of Oman were not allowed to shoot at an Iranian Fokker F27 aircraft which on April 21 hovered for 20 minutes 900 meters over the carrier and no more than 250 meters away, even though they saw its flight crew gathering intelligence on the Eisenhower and its warship escorts.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources report that the US Persian Gulf command went public on the incident on April 28, a whole week later, only after Gulf military circles, amazed at the American naval and air units' passivity in the face of hostile surveillance, threatened to break the story to local media.
This striking restraint indicates that the US Gulf and Arabian fleets are under orders to take no action - certainly not to open fire - against Iranian naval or air units, with first obtaining permission directly from Washington.
Military, naval and aviation sources told DEBKA-Net-Weekly that the Iranian spy plane was 10 second away from flying directly over the Eisenhower and could easily have been shot down.
To try and explain this incident away, US naval sources Wednesday, April 28, claimed the Iranian plane was unarmed and its encounter with the US carrier was not of a threatening nature, although irregular.
Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, tried to play down the importance of the incident by saying: "The Iranians (pilots) were not provocative or threatening. As long as they are professional and not threatening or reckless, it's international space."
But officials of the Gulf emirate navies think otherwise. They say it was the first time that an Iranian spy plane ventured so close to an American aircraft carrier and the US non-response will encourage Tehran to go for bolder and more provocative actions.
Of late, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, especially Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have become extra-sensitive of late to the raised US response threshold to threatening moves by Iran, after witnessing the sinking of a South Korean warship and the handling of the case by Washington.
The South Korean Cheonan, a 1,200-ton corvette, was sunk on March 26, apparently by a naval mine that was planted by the North Korean navy in the Baengnyeong Island area, whose sovereignty is in dispute between Seoul and Pyongyang. Right after the incident, in which 46 South Korean sailors were lost, the Obama administration hastened to issue a statement denying evidence of North Korean involvement - even though South Korean intelligence demonstrated that a North Korean mine, or midget submarine of a type of in the possession of the Iranian Navy, was responsible for sinking the corvette.
Undersecretary of State James Steinberg, who deals with Iranian affairs, said on March 29 that he had heard nothing to implicate any other country in the tragedy.
This was taken in Gulf capitals to show the Obama administration was ready to lean backwards to avoid military action against North Korea - even on the part of the injured party, South Korea. They see a close correlation between the provocative tactics employed by Pyongyang and Tehran, whose nuclear and missile programs are likewise coordinated. These Gulf sources, talking to debkafile, wondered out loud if the United States would also turn a blind eye to an Iranian attack that cause the sinking of a Saudi, UAE or Israeli ship sailing in the Gulf.
And another parallel is worth noting: Just as the two Koreas are at odds over the Baengnyeong Islands, so too the UAE claims the owners of three islands near the Straits of Hormuz - Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa - accusing Tehran of seizing them by force for the use of Revolutionary Guard naval bases.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources say that the Iranian spy plane that flew over the USS Eisenhower on April 21 apparently took off from an Iranian military airfield on the island of Abu Musa.
Far from giving up their claim to the three islands, on April 20, UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahayan said there is no difference between the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, South Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza, and Iranian occupation of these islands.
