A White House-approved unilateral sovereignty plan for some or all of the West Bank settlements, would have seemed like a settler pipe dream, just three years ago. Settlers and right-wing politicians who battled to retain any of the settlements under Israeli sovereignty are now expecting to see a plan that would give them most, if not all of them. For the past 27 years, the Israeli Right has battled peace plans that spoke of Israel retaining at most 10% of the West Bank and at worst just one or two percent. So one would think that a plan that would hand Israel 30% of the West Bank would be greeted with simple relief. Instead, once the host of grateful platitudes were issued, settlers and the right-wing, including the Yamina Party, have dug in their heels and embarked on a campaign for their maximal position. The saying that the “eternal people do not fear the long road” is applicable here. If they could do the impossible, persist until a peace plan in on the table that no longer adheres to the pre-1967 lines or eliminates the settlements, why stop when the tide of history suddenly seems to be on their side? If a lone caravan on a sandy hill in the West Bank can become a city and the White House would be willing to recognize such settler city as part of Israel, why not push for all the rest of the fantasy? Settlers and right-wing politicians want to see a plan that would allow for the full annexation of Area C, which comprises 60 percent of the West Bank. Even more significantly, they do not want to see the creation of a Palestinian state. Yossi Dagan, Samaria Regional Council head, is heading to Washington to solicit support among evangelical and Republicans to ensure that the peace plan observes these red lines. Four other settler leaders, headed by Yesha Council head and Jordan Valley Regional Council head David Elhayani are going to the US capital as well – ostensibly to offer support to Netanyahu – even though Elhayani is vehemently opposed to a Palestinian state. Former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said that her party opposed a Palestinian state. Yamina Party head Naftali Bennett warned that “we won’t be willing to hand over one inch of land to the Arabs.” If Trump’s plan is less than Area C and involves a Palestinian state, it will place Netanyahu in a precarious position before the electorate. Rumor has it that the plan would allow for Netanyahu to apply sovereignty over the settlements, but not on all of Area C and maybe not even on all of the settlements. Dagan has warned that the plan divides the larger settler population centers known as blocs, from the isolated ones. It’s a statement that suggests that possibly not all the settlements would be included in the plan. Once the plan is delivered, Netanyahu would have little choice, but to approve it. If it meets the right-wing demands, it will galvanize the Right and Netanyahu as its leader. It would give Yisrael Beytenu part head Avigdor Liberman a reason to back Netanyahu. But if it comes in at less, it would separate Netanyahu from his right-wing base. There are only two other parties aside from the Likud, who could possibly support it in that scenario: Liberman and the Blue and White party, headed by Benny Gantz. For two elections now, Gantz has headed a left-wing bloc of voters and Netanyahu has headed a right-wing one. Neither has had enough support to form a coalition. Twice Liberman could have been kingmaker of the Left or of the Right, by joining either party. Twice he refused and tried unsuccessfully to push for a centrist secular party with Likud and Blue and White. Now, in the latest unusual twist in this election campaign, it might be Trump and his peace plan that finally breaks that electoral deadlock.
Source
Comments are closed.