US offers new incentives package for moratorium

[curlyg]

According to the offer Israel would stop construction in the West Bank for 90 days. The freeze includes construction that began after the end of the first settlement moratorium on September 26.

The moratorium would not apply to construction in East Jerusalem. The U.S. will not ask Israel to extend the new moratorium when it expires.

In return, the U.S. government would deliver 20 F-35 fighter jets to Israel, a deal worth $3 billion. Moreover, if an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is achieved, the U.S. would sign a comprehensive security agreement with Israel. The U.S. and Israel are to discuss the nature of the new security arrangements in the next few weeks.

U.S.-sponsored direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority broke down on September 26 when a 10-month Israeli freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank expired. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said he would not restart negotiations with Israel while settlement construction continues.

Now we're talking...

[I am David 2]

How is this even possible? Why can the prime minister arbitrarily interject and control the zoning/housing approval process? I thought in most governments the local administration process is protected from short term political noise, at least in theory. If Obama wants to control Israel's internal affairs he shouldn't be able to dispatch an official request on behalf of the U.S. government to stop specific people from getting construction approval in another country.

[farmboy]

MK Danon Calls Emergency Freeze Meeting


Reported: 11:45 AM - Nov/14/10
Follow Israel news briefs on and


MK Danny Danon has called an emergency meeting of the heads of the Yesha Council, Local Authority leaders and mayors, and activists, to discuss the proposed extension of a building freeze in Judea and Samaria. The meeting will take place Sunday night in Barkan.

At Sunday's cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that the U.S. proposal to extend the freeze for an additional three months was “incomplete. I will update the ministers on the parameters of the American offer.” According to reports, the U.S. has offered Israel 30 new advanced fighter jets, and a temporary guarantee to veto any anti-Israel legislation in the UN or other international bodies. At the cabinet meeting Sunday, Netanyahu said that he was still working on the deal, and “I intend to ensure that in any event Israel's security needs will be taken care of.”

[GratefulFred]

Indian Giver - The expression related to someone who offers but goes back on his word.

There is no way we will see those F-35s under Obama unless they are loaded on the plane right this very moment. Obama will find some excuse for some action we did or were percieved to have done to stop the deal and since it's logical that we won't close anything with the Pals Obama won't consider the sacrisfise of a building stoppage that very important. As for the UN, would the US put in writing that when a motion comes up soon to establish a Palestinian state on the '67 borders that the US will veto this? And didn't Bush also say there were certain new established facts on the ground?

The bottom line is discussing a settlement freeze is a good thing in that it takes up time and brings us that much closer to the end of Obama's Presidency.

We need to forget about our pride for a second, because we all know this paramounts to blackmail. We need to look and see if the Palestinians would take the bait or look for a way out. If you think that they could compromise on a deal, than object to this like crazy. If you think Obama will ask for another 3 months even though they promised not, Bibi can say what about my planes first.

Though every pro-Zionist must hate this, the bottom line is that if the Pals don't take this 90 days will fly by like a piece of cake.

Building in Israel takes forever anyways.

[yonatan]

Israel just signed a deal for the delivery of 20 F-35 fighters. So what is this new deal that the Obama Administration is offering? Are they promising additional US foreign aid to help pay for the 20 aircraft? Or are they offering to help fund an additional 20 aircraft beyond the initial batch of 20 currently on order? Also, under the terms already signed, those aircraft won't be delivered until 2015-17 (at the earliest) - so Obama can promise the world right now, knowing full well that he doesn't have to pay for it under his current administration (or even the next one if he's not reelected). Plenty of time for Obama to change his mind and find an excuse to back out of the deal.

[Reffo]

It begs the question, what's in it for Obama? Does he really think that another 3 month of a freeze would bring peace? I doubt it. Anyone who thinks so is very naive, IMHO.

So here is why I think he has made the offer. It is his way [Obama's] of taking the first steps for changing the relationship between Israel and America. It is his way of making what used to be an automatic American response conditional on what Israel does. Past American administrations tended to use the veto whenever Israel was under unfair attack in the UN and whenever unfair, unbalanced anti Israel resolutions were attempted at the UN security council level (where the USA has veto power). What Obama is saying with this offer is that the USA will no longer defend Israel at the security council, unconditionally.

So where does that leave Israel? Whatever Israel does, whether Israel accepts or rejects the offer, Obama has made his point. The USA's support for Israel under his administration is conditional, full stop. Therefore, IMO, Israel may as well contemplate the offer seriously and should accept it. But only if it will be put in writing and clearly spelt out. It should clearly state that after 3 months Israel will not be asked again to freeze the settlements and that East Jerusalem is NOT included in the proposed freeze. Unless Obama is prepared to write those conditions down, Israel should ignore the offer. Why? Because all too often, past verbal promises to Israel, by past administrations, were ignored by this administration.

[Womble]

Israel just signed a deal for the delivery of 20 F-35 fighters. So what is this new deal that the Obama Administration is offering?

That's the thing- he isn't promising a new dea, he is rolling back the old ones. This is a declaration of downgrading the US-Israel alliance across the board, veiled as a generous offer.

You're right about the F35 part of the deal. It's already signed, and it's a scaling down of the original deal under which Israel intended to procur 70 jets (the falling dollar and rising unit price of F35 made it impossible for Israel to buy as many planes as originally intended). What Obama is doing here is making the already signed deal conditional on the freeze extension.

Another part of the deal being offered- US commitment to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the UN for one year- is likewise a rollback of the long-standing US policy to do exactly that. Note that even this conditional offer is for one year. What about next year? Why, next year they won't! Barack Obama promised the world a brand new UN member state of Palestine within a year, after all; he can't veto that, can he?

And then, of course, there's the "comprehensive security agreement". Didn't we already have one?

[Reffo]

... Then again, it would also make sense for Israel to say 'NO' to the offer. Why? Because if Obama would then implement his new policy then he would be seen for what he really IS. As a president who unwinds the 'special relationship' that Israel and the USA have. He would then be more likely to pay the political price for doing so. As opposed to if Israel would go along with the offer which would then offer a fig leaf for Obama to establish the idea that the USA's support of Israel against unfair and unbalanced UN security council resolutions is conditional, not a matter of US policy ...

[curlyg]

According to Haaretz the 20 F-35s offered are IN ADDITION to the 20 already purchased by Israel

[curlyg]

And then, of course, there's the "comprehensive security agreement". Didn't we already have one?

Really? What comprehensive security agreement does Israel have with America? Nothing formal that I know of...

[Mediocrates]

According to Haaretz the 20 F-35s offered are IN ADDITION to the 20 already purchased by Israel

that is correct, essentially a free $3 billion dollars

[Reffo]

... On balance, I think Israel SHOULD accept the offer, but as I said, only if it's put down in writing, in black and white ...

[yonatan]

The details on the proposed deal continue to leak out - but there are still a lot of gaps in the picture. Yes, the 20 aircraft would be in addition to the initial batch of 20 that Israel recently signed up for:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...efuse-1.324687

That doesn't answer the question, however, as to what systems these aircraft would have. Most likely, they would have the same US-supplied avionics package that was slated for the first 20 aircraft - with nothing more than some Israeli communications gear added to them. Israel's insistence that Israeli electronic warfare systems should eventually be integrated into the type has likely not been addressed by this offer. Without an Israeli countermeasures suite, the aircraft will be at the mercy of Washington's willingness to supply up-to-date ECM libraries for the various US and European supplied radar systems and missiles that arm Israel's neighbors.

Also unclear is the timing for delivering these additional aircraft. The first 20 fighters were expected to begin delivery in 2015 with the last of the batch to reach Israel in 2017. However, the development program for the F-35 is currently undergoing another reorganization that is expected to stretch out the flight test phase. Even if the Obama proposal called for maintaining the current delivery schedule (and simply doubling the deliver rate), the funds would not be allocated until 2013. Promising deliveries in some future scenario cost Obama nothing now, and can still leave plenty of time for Obama to announce a change in plan (when Israel refuses to bend to the President's wishes at the negotiating table, for example).

Hope Natanyehu gets this deal in writing, because I believe he will find that the Obama Administration has a very short memory on such matters.

[curlyg]

It begs the question, what's in it for Obama? Does he really think that another 3 month of a freeze would bring peace? I doubt it. Anyone who thinks so is very naive, IMHO.

There's one point worth making which appears to have generally eluded people.

The question you posed here is one that we should all be asking. Three months is obviously not enough to reach a peace agreement, which means Obama expects something significant to be achieved within the next three months. Presumably he has some basis for that belief unless he's completely insane (which I guess is a possibility we should not discount given his record...)

But seriously now, what this seems to suggest to me is that Netanyahu has reached some sort of basic understanding with the administration regarding borders and they believe that the issue can be resolved within 3 months of negotiations. At that point the issue of settlements would become moot and Israel could build where its borders will be, and cease building in areas which will be beyond its borders. Notice also that the settlement freeze excludes Jerusalem, which also supports the idea that this freeze is aimed at resolving ONE core issue, ie. borders. Most of you likely did not miss the fact that Netanyahu held a 7 hour meeting with Clinton while he was in the US -- presumably they had a lot to talk about... This theory also fits with the emphasis of discussions on Israel's security, such as the additional F-35s and promises regarding a comprehensive defense agreement between Israel and the US, which are intended to make it easier for Israel to make difficult border concessions.

Now if this is not the case, and the settlement freeze lapses at the end of 3 months with no change in negotiations regarding borders or security, Obama is finished. His credibility in the Middle East is gone and he might as well stop trying. He will never get a peace deal through. If he succeeds though, that will be a good first step.

[Reffo]

which are intended to make it easier for Israel to make difficult border concessions.

I hope Bibi won't contemplate giving up the major settlement blocs. Even Barak didn't entertain such madness ...