Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)
Caroline Glick’s column yesterday in the Post addresses issues very similar to those I’ve written about in recent days here.
She speaks about the duplicity and the foolishness of Netanyahu having de facto frozen construction in Judea and Samaria in some attempt to mollify Obama — an attempt that will not work:
“Today Netanyahu is reportedly working in earnest to reach a deal with the Obama administration that would formalize the government’s effective construction ban through 2010. Netanyahu is set to finalize such a deal at his meeting with Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell in London on Wednesday.
“Unfortunately, far from treating Israel better as a result of Netanyahu’s willingness to capitulate on the fundamental right of Jews to live and build homes in the land of Israel, the Obama administration is planning to pocket Israel’s concession and then up the ante. Administration officials have stated that their next move will be to set a date for a new international Middle East peace conference that Obama will chair.”
Glick speaks about the fact that what the prime minister is doing is not, as he seems to think, the only way to go:
“There is another way. It is being forged by the likes of Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon on the one hand and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on the other.
“Ya’alon argues that not capitulating to American pressure is a viable policy option for Israel. There is no reason to reach an agreement with Mitchell on the administration’s bigoted demand that Jews not build in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. If the US wants to have a fight with Israel, a fight against American anti-Jewish discrimination is not a bad one for Israel to have.
“Ya’alon’s argument was borne out by Huckabee’s visit this week to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Huckabee’s trip showed that the administration is not operating in a policy vacuum. There is plenty of strong American support for an Israeli government that would stand up to the administration on the Palestinian issue and Iran alike.
“Netanyahu’s policies have taken a wrong turn. But Netanyahu…understands why what he is doing is wrong. He just needs to be convinced that he has another option.”
I last urged that Security Minister Moshe Yaalon be supported. Let’s carry this one step further. Don’t know quite how we “convince” the prime minister that he has another option, if he doesn’t open his eyes and see so, and the right flank of his party hasn’t convinced him.
But, none-the-less, we must raise our voices as loudly as we can, now, before Netanyahu meets with Mitchell later in the week. Let him know that his current policies are not satisfactory and represent a betrayal of all those who supported him.
Let him know that, far worse, he would be betraying the nation and the rights of Jews in this land if he caved to Obama — who wishes us no good. Let him know what a slippery — and terrifying — slope he has started down already, and how urgent it is that he find the courage to stand strong against US demands. Let him know that the nation will be with him if he does, but that he may lose the support of the people of Israel if he weakens further.
Remind him that he has many friends in the US — in Congress, and in other quarters, as Huckabee illustrated so fantastically last week. We are NOT along, but these friends can best speak in our behalf if the prime minister of Israel demonstrates strength.
Tell him that this is his time of testing, his hour to prove himself a leader of courage — to show us that he is capable of standing for what matters.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
E-mail: email@example.com (underscore after pm)
Be strong in doing this, folks, and get others to join in conveying the message that must be sent!
Speaking of Huckabee. Here’s a link to fantastic TV footage of an interview. This man actually gets it!
Other matters will keep me from my computer until mid-week, when I hope to be able to post again.
I would like to close here with the text of a letter-to-the-editor of mine that ran in the Post the other day, in response to a discussion on our right to be in Judea and Samaria, and to build there. It is keenly pertinent to the whole issue, above, of freezing settlements. For that demand is based on much fallacious thinking. Each of my points might be an essay unto itself, but I kept it short because it was a letter of restricted size.
The points are basic — worth keeping, using and sharing:
 The UN was obliged under the terms of its charter to honor “existing international instruments,” including the Mandate for Palestine. Designating Palestine a Jewish homeland and encouraging close settlement, it stands as an article of international law to this day.
 The armistice agreements of 1949 indicated that the armistice lines were “not to be construed in any sense” as political…boundaries, and that “no provision…shall in any way prejudice the…claims…of the parties…” The Green Line –roughly that armistice line — is not a border at all; that has yet to be negotiated. Presumption that everything beyond the Green Line is off limits to Israel is fallacious.
 Resolution 242, after the 1967 war, did not require Israel to withdraw to the Green Line. It implicitly recognized that “secure boundaries” required something else. This resolution mentions neither a Palestinian state nor the Palestinians people, putting the lie to current thinking that defines Judea and Samaria as “Palestinian land.”
 The establishment of settlements has nothing to do with “transfer of civilian population by an occupying power,” as forbidden in the Fourth Geneva Convention. First, that Convention refers to the forced movement of the indigenous population of an area by the occupying power – not its own population. Second, Israel “forced” no population, as the Jews who moved into the settlements did so absolutely voluntarily.
 The Oslo Agreements did not bar settlement activity by Israel.