Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

How 24,000 new settlement homes allowed Netanyahu to save face

Israel’s nearly unprecedented announcement and subsequent ‘review’ of plans for 24,000 new settlement units was actually a win-win situation – for everyone but the Palestinians, of course.

PM Netanyahu and Secretary Kerry (Avi Ohayon/GPO)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was outflanked from the right on Tuesday, purportedly surprised by an announcement of 24,000 – yeah, you read that right – new settlement housing units in the West Bank.

Immediately following the first report of the unprecedented settlement expansion, Netanyahu announced he would block construction in E-1, one of the West’s least favorite proposed settlement plans. Some eight hours later, he publicly reprimanded his housing minister, denied having advanced knowledge of the plans and said they would be “reconsidered” – but not canceled.

The initial announcement drew immediate criticism and, coming as it did on the heels of one of Washington’s harshest condemnations of Israeli settlement building in recent memory, increased the risk of what appeared to be a quickly deepening crisis brewing between Israel and the United States.

Click to read Kerry’s condemnation of settlements

Part of that crisis was driven by the Israeli government throwing a diplomatic temper tantrum over what it fears is a bad deal between the P5+1 states and Iran over the latter’s alleged nuclear arms program.

Fully aware of the situation’s complexities considering the goal of Israel’s primary diplomatic push on Iran, Palestinian negotiators mocked their Israeli and American counterparts on Tuesday, acquisitioning the language they have been using surrounding the Iran talks.

“All options are open,” chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in response to the Israeli settlement announcement, clearly mocking the regular assurances Washington makes to Israel, repeating ad nauseam that “all options are on the table.”

Another Palestinian negotiator and fellow Oslo veteran, Mohammad Shtayyeh, made even clearer use of Washington’s growing bank of Iran-related sound bites. “We believe that it is better not to reach a deal than to reach a bad deal,” he said, responding to the latest of Israeli settlement building announcements. Washington has repeatedly used the phrase to reassure Israel that it won’t make a “bad deal” with Iran.

And maybe it is smart that the Palestinians started using the language of Iran nuclear talks. After all, they’re all Netanyahu can talk about lately.

In his condemnation of the 24,000 planned settlement units, Israel’s prime minister didn’t once mention Palestinians or the peace talks. Instead, Netanyahu explained that announcing one of the largest-ever tenders for new settlement construction “creates an unnecessary confrontation with the international community at a time when we are making an effort to persuade elements in the international community to reach a better deal with Iran.”

And it’s pretty likely that Netanyahu is telling the truth when he says he was unaware of the latest announcement ahead of time.

Housing Minister Uri Ariel, himself a settler, is at least bureaucratically responsible for the latest announcement. Ariel is a senior member of Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home party, which firmly opposes a two-state solution and advocates annexing the majority of the West Bank. Bennett in the past has said that he has no problem with Netanyahu’s peace process, because he is certain it will fail.

What if he, or more likely, someone in his party, decided to try and ensure that the talks fail, to make Netanyahu look bad in front of the Americans and Palestinians and to fire a warning shot, reminding the prime minister that strong elements in his own party oppose the peace process and two-state solution.

The other possibility is that Netanyahu’s public about-face was calculated and not reactionary.

Last week, Secretary of State Kerry said – in a joint interview with Israeli and Palestinian television – that Israel’s continued construction of settlements on land that will eventually be Palestine, “sends a message that somehow perhaps you’re not really serious.”

Netanyahu was irate.

So how could he save face and broadcast to the world that he is indeed“serious?” By stopping the largest planned settlement growth of the decade. And the best part – nobody loses but the Palestinians.

The Israeli Right doesn’t actually lose anything because Netanyahu didn’t order that the settlement building be canceled. The only thing he objected to, actually, was the timing of the announcement. The prime minister, who was called out by Kerry last week, in turn gets to reprimand his housing minister for announcing the settlement plans while the world’s attention is on Israel. The “reconsideration” that he demanded, relates only to the timing and size of the announcement. The same plans will be open for bidding again soon, only announced more quietly and in smaller numbers.

Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home party also saves face. Under increasing pressure for sitting in a government that is – at least in theory – negotiating away chunks of the Land of Israel, Jewish Home can now show its supporters that it hasn’t abandoned its ideology and will continue pushing to expand Israel’s grip on what it swears will never be Palestine.

The Americans are in a bind, but they too come out on top. Kerry had his tough words for Netanyahu, both about Iran and about Palestine, and voila – it worked. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki played into the possibility that Netanyahu was outflanked by his own, shortly before Netanyahu issued his “reversal,” noting that these types of settlement announcements aren’t always in the prime minister’s control.

But anyone who hoped Kerry’s harsh words about settlements last week were the beginning of a tougher American stance against the settlements will likely be disappointed. “I don’t think we’ve been shy about our disapproval of settlements, so we’ve called them illegitimate,” Psaki said, repeating the same tempered and seemingly exhausted language Washington has used for years. “We want to move forward.”

Or rather: nothing to see here. Move along.

Related:
U.S., Israel break not only on Iran, but on Palestine, too
Kerry denies existence of ‘prisoners for settlements’ deal 

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. 24,000 tenders were announced during closed door negotiations and they were not vented by the Security Cabinet? This is a government? Or a gang of thieves?

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Universally the answer to the last two questions is yes.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          +1 lol

          Reply to Comment
    2. sh

      Spot on.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Brilliant. The peace team resigns.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Indeed. It appears the Palestinians have decided to walk away from peace talks once again.

        Reply to Comment
        • It was Egypt’s President Sadat, shortly before he was assassinated in October 1981, who gave me the most revealing insight into what it was really like to negotiate with Israel. He told me that Israel’s negotiating strategy was to wear you out, to exhaust you, to make you so “fed up” that, at a point, you had to decide either to walk away from negotiations and take the blame for failure, or, if you were not to go mad, to throw up your hands and say, “Okay, you win, I’ll agree to more or less whatever you want.”
          Alan Hart in Zionism, the Real Ennemy of the Jews

          Reply to Comment
          • I think God uses the same strategy.

            Reply to Comment
          • More importantly, Ben-Gurion thought so too: “The Bible is our Mandate.”

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            And even more importantly is that Muslims, particularly of Arab origin, think that the land of Palestine is theirs because an Arab from Mekka visited it on a flying horse sometime during early-mid 600′s, while Christians believe that (at least a part of) the Holy Land is their because another Jew walked on water, resurrected dead, et cetera.

            So what’s the bloody problem?

            Reply to Comment
          • The “Jews” who are ruling Israel today didn’t even exist around 600, they became Jews 200 years later.
            And I don’t think Palestinians ever thought about the land being theirs, until the Zionists threw them out.
            I never thought about my country as being “mine”, but probably I will if some foreign thugs come and claim it as theirs.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >The “Jews” who are ruling Israel today didn’t even exist around 600, they became Jews 200 years later.

            Nonsense. You have not even slightest idea what you are talking about. And what about Jews from Arab countries? Are they not ruling Israel?

            >And I don’t think Palestinians ever thought about the land being theirs until the Zionists threw them out.

            Well, since “Palestinians” did not existed, they would not ever thought anything.

            >I never thought about my country as being “mine”, but probably I will if some foreign thugs come and claim it as theirs.

            1) “Palestinians” never existed and could not have a country of their own.

            2) Palestinian Jews were asking Palestinian Arabs for only one thing – equality.

            3) There are many Muslim groups who claim Europe as theirs and enforce their own imported laws on local population. It seems that you had missed the moment.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Women and children also. And door to door sales agents.

            But an Egyptian would not know.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Indeed. Those evil dastardly Jews refuse to commit national suicide while gradually forcing those wonderful Arabs into accepting their continued existence. Oh. The horror.

            Reply to Comment
        • JG

          “It appears the Palestinians have decided to walk away from peace talks once again.”
          Simple tactic for simple minds.
          Go and upset the other party just long enough that they resign cause there is no way Israel ever wants negotiations, and after that let your hagamonkeys tell the world that the Palestines the ones always quitting “peace talks”.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            The Israelis are still at the table. The Palestinians have left despite committing to continue negotiating for at least 9 months. The Palestinians have made a pattern of abandoning peace talks.

            It is such a simple fact that even you can grasp it.

            Reply to Comment
    4. David T.

      “So what’s the bloody problem?”

      That Palestine has been denied independence since the 1920s by Zionists or on their behalf.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Can you name bodies in Palestine, that demanded independence and were not recognized, from 1920 up to 1967?

        Reply to Comment

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel