BICOM

Key Points

• Israeli West Bank settlers and activists are protesting against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision, announced on 25 November, to halt new construction in West Bank settlements for 10 months.
• Netanyahu’s move was politically risky for him. It was always set to elevate tensions with the settler community and the settlers’ rapid mobilisation – and degree of unrest so far felt – has dominated domestic news coverage over the last fortnight.
• The sentiments of hardliners within the settler community and their supporters on the right are not shared by most Israelis.
• The 10-month settlement freeze, adopted by Netanyahu against a backdrop of interrelated geopolitical factors, and heightened uncertainty in Palestinian politics, is coming at a domestic political cost. Whether Netanyahu can sustain the case for the settlement freeze going forward will be affected by whether or not Israel is seen to have reaped diplomatic rewards for the confidence-building measures it is taking on the ground.

Introduction

Last week, West Bank settlers and right wing activists gathered outside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s home in Jerusalem to demonstrate against the government’s decision to halt new construction in the West Bank for 10 months. Protest organisers claimed that as many as 30,000 people turned out, although other reports put the figure at approximately 10,000.^[i] Netanyahu’s move was always set to elevate tensions between his administration and the settler community, but the settlers’ rapid mobilisation – and degree of unrest so far felt – has dominated domestic news coverage over the last fortnight. This document looks at the highly charged atmosphere created by the settlement moratorium within Israeli society, and at how Netanyahu is seeking to manage these tensions as he attempts to advance Israel’s broader political and security interests.

Developments since the freeze decision

Netanyahu announced a suspension on residential construction in West Bank settlements on 25 November, calling on the Palestinians and the Arab world to ‘seize the opportunity’ to ‘move forward towards peace’.^[ii] He has subsequently worked to ensure that the 10-month suspension, approved by the security cabinet, is fully enforced.

Compared to past efforts, Senior Israel Defence Forces (IDF) commanders have been more determined to implement the government’s policy on settlement activity since the announcement. One of the IDF’s brigade commanders in the West Bank, Colonel Itzik Bar, has stated that apart from combating terror threats, implementing the government’s decision to freeze settlement construction is currently the army’s main objective on the ground.^[iii] Ha’aretz quoted another officer saying, ‘This is the first time we’re receiving clear, detailed instructions on how to deal with building in the settlements.’^[iv]The implementation of the freeze is increasing the risk that long-standing tensions between the Israeli security authorities and more radical parts of the settler community could spill over into violence.

The settler community feels stabbed in the back by the Netanyahu government. Its leadership wants to break the prime minister’s new policy, and greatly fears that what has been announced as a temporary freeze could become permanent.

Some on the right, such as Likud Minister Benny Begin, are more comfortable in going along with the settlement freeze. They recognise the international pressure on Netanyahu to show he is serious about peace but are deeply sceptical about Palestinians reciprocating meaningfully.^[v] They can tolerate a temporary settlement freeze in the firm belief that in the absence of a Palestinian response, it will soon expire along with its political credibility. Others in Likud, such as party whip Zeev Elkin, denounce the freeze but are, so far at least, unwilling to actively oppose Netanyahu and lead a party rebellion.

Aryeh Eldad, of the more right-wing National Union party, which is outside the coalition, claims, ‘When Netanyahu speaks of a settlement freeze, he means disengagement.’^[vi] By invoking former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s uprooting of all Israel’s settlements from the Gaza Strip and part of the northern West Bank in the summer of 2005, he intends to rally broader opposition to the current freeze.

Despite some of the more extreme settlers vowing an ongoing confrontation, a ‘day of rage’ and ‘civil war’, opposition has so far been mainly through non-violent demonstrations. Home-made banners displayed by protesters are directed at Netanyahu: ‘No entry to Bibi’s freeze inspectors’ and ‘Stop Iran’s nukes, not our homes.’

Activists are also trying to make it difficult for officials to implement their work. It took 200 police officers and much longer than expected to issue building suspension orders at the settlement of Kedumim last week. One tactic being used is to encourage young protestors, and especially female students from religious seminaries, to take the ‘front line’ against uniformed inspectors and border policemen. Images of this nature have abounded in the Israeli print and television media over the last fortnight. In another attempt to defy the freeze, activists at the Efrat settlement invited reporters to witness them pouring concrete to lay the foundations of buildings. The government, in a sign of its determination to implement the freeze, plan to use aerial photographs to spot any new building starts. By laying concrete the settlers hope to create the impression that construction on their plots is already underway.

The next step will reportedly entail nationwide protests, including at key road junctions and outside ministers’ and officials’ homes. Precedents for such protests were set during the Gaza disengagement in 2005. In the Palestinian territories, too, the IDF has expressed concern that Jewish extremists may target the local Arab population. An investigation is underway into an arson attack on a Palestinian mosque last week that settlers are suspected of having carried out. This act has been widely condemned in Israel, including by other settlers. A group of Rabbis from the nearby settlement of Tekoa presented a Quran to the Arab community connected to the Mosque this week in a show of solidarity.^[vii]However, the need to prevent small groups of violent extremists from escalating tensions in the West Bank presents a major challenge for the IDF. According to a Palestinian eyewitness, a group of five armed settlers burned cars and tractors in his village last week.^[viii] Senior Israeli defence official Amos Gilead assesses that Israel’s Civil Administration – which handles Israeli government activities in the West Bank – faces ‘an unprecedented (law) enforcement challenge’.

Israeli society at large

The hard-line sentiments held by sections of the settler community and its supporters on the right are not shared by most Israelis. Most reject the idea that Israel can continue to build across the West Bank, and take a pragmatic view. Netanyahu himself committed to the construction halt with external political considerations in mind – in particular, considerable pressure from Washington. Israeli public opinion is sensitive to the impact of policy on Israel’s relations with the US. According to the Institute for National Security Studies data, an overwhelming majority of Israel’s Jewish population would not support further settlement activity if its result would be a confrontation with the United States.^[x] In the context of the ‘two states for two peoples’ formula, a majority of Israelis would also be willing to make significant territorial concessions to the Palestinians.

In addition, the same survey shows suggests extensive public support in Israel for the removal of unauthorised outposts, established by individuals without the consent of the Israeli authorities. Both Netanyahu and, more vociferously, Defence Minister Ehud Barak, have committed to dismantling them. These two figures – long time political rivals – are today working together closely in government; this is considered key to the translation of policy into action. Barak is co-heading a new committee that Netanyahu has set up to monitor implementation of the settlement moratorium. Evidence of the effective functioning of the Barak-Netanyahu relationship is the speeding up of the process to remove checkpoints and other barriers to movement in the West Bank. Commentators have noted that Barak appears more ready to take these steps with Netanyahu in the Prime Minister’s chair than he was with Ehud Olmert, with whom Barak had a tense relationship.

Yesterday, in a precedent-setting move, Barak ordered the IDF to sever ties with a religious seminary that has been part of its bespoke programme for young people wishing to combine military service with Torah study. The dean, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, had urged his students to defy the military if ordered to evacuate settlements. It is reported that in support for the rabbi, some 100 IDF reservists, including officers, have said they will no longer perform reserve duty.^[xi]

Netanyahu’s political challenge

Through his decision to halt new construction in the West Bank, Netanyahu has entered into a less safe political environment. In a recent meeting with settler leaders, he tried to set red lines, stating that he does not intend to rescind his decision, and that it would be carried out in full. He told the grouping, ‘There is one thing that is out of the question. You are allowed to demonstrate and protest, but you cannot show disrespect for a decision that was made lawfully’.

Netanyahu’s domestic interest is to try to keep the settlement community in check, and to prevent an escalation of tensions within his own Likud party or with other coalition partners. He needs to maintain a political balance between Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas on the right, and Labour on the left. In an attempt to calm the anger among his right wing base, Netanyahu has stressed that the moratorium is temporary, and included six settlements among revised ‘national priority’ areas that will qualify for increased public service budgets. Technically, this is not inconsistent with the construction freeze, as the funds are not being allocated to construction projects in the West Bank, but for education, cultural and employment programmes. The vast bulk of the assistance will go to the Negev and Galilee regions within the Green Line, and 40% of Israeli Arabs are among the beneficiaries. Netanyahu’s justification for his decision to include a number of settlements is that the future of settlements will be determined through final status agreement with the Palestinians. He has consistently asserted that whilst he is ready to curb settlement construction, he wants those already living in the settlements to be able to enjoy normal lives. This has not satisfied Labour ministers, who voted against the plan on Sunday because of the inclusion of settlements.

Whilst trying to straddle the political divide at home, Netanyahu also has broader strategic factors in mind. Israel sees the strategic relationship with the US to be of paramount importance. Washington, in turn, expects Israel to demonstrate through its actions its commitment to peace with the Palestinians. The Obama administration views this as important for maintaining as broad a regional and international coalition as possible for tackling the Iranian nuclear threat.

Bolstering the West-Bank based Palestinian leadership is also in Netanyahu’s interest. A weakened Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to resign as Palestinian President, rather than engage in peace talks with Netanyahu, though in practice he could remain in office for some time. The Israeli security establishment fears the weakening of Abbas’s Palestinian Authority is to the benefit of Hamas. They are also concerned that Hamas will get a boost on the Palestinian street from a prisoner exchange deal to bring about the release of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.

Conclusion

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu took a major political risk in adopting the new settlement moratorium. Both he and Defence Minister Ehud Barak are committed to enforcing it, which is a serious test of their political authority. Netanyahu has established a task force of senior ministers and military personnel to monitor and coordinate implementation. However, the political cost to Netanyahu of enforcing the settlement freeze is high. The policy has sparked significant social and political unrest in the Israeli settler community, which is likely to intensify over coming weeks. Whilst some have speculated that the settlement freeze, once implemented, will be impossible to reverse, a lack of diplomatic progress for Netanyahu will contribute to its unravelling. The Israeli Prime Minister is spending real political capital enforcing this move. Without a diplomatic dividend for Israel from the US, Europe and the Arab world, the case for sustaining it will become increasingly difficult for him to make to his supporters.

 

---

 

[i] Settler organisers were quoted in the Israeli daily, Yisrael Hayom, ‘We’ll break the freeze’ [Hebrew], 10 December 2009; see also ‘Israel: 10,000 West Bank Settlers Protest’, Associated Press, 10 December 2009.

[ii] ‘PM Netanyahu to Propose Ten-Month Suspension of New Construction Permits & Construction Starts in Judea and Samaria’, Israel Prime Minister’s Office, 25 November 2009; See BICOM Briefing, 25 November 2009.

[iii] Hanan Greenberg, ‘Officer: Enforcing freeze is main mission’, YNet News, 10 December 2009.

[iv] Amos Harel, ‘This time, the government means it’, Haaretz, 7 December 2009.

[v] See, for instance, Ze’ev B. Begin, ‘What else can we concede?’, Haaretz, 4 December 2009.

[vi] Liel Kyzer, “Rally against settlement freeze draws over 10,000”, Haaretz, 10 December.

[vii] Chaim Levinson, Rabbis meet Yasuf leaders to calm tensions after mosque arson, Haaretz, 14 December 2009

[viii] Chaim Levinson, Mazal Mualem and Avi Issacharoff, ‘Rightists planning ‘day of rage’ to protest West Bank settlement freeze’, Haaretz, 7 December 2009.

[ix] Amos Harel, ‘This time, the government means it’, Haaretz, 7 December 2009.

[x] The INSS has charted trends in Israeli public opinion for decades. For further information, see Yehuda Ben Meir, ‘The People’s Voice: Results of a Public Opinion Survey on National Security Issues’, Institute for National Security Studies, Insight No. 114, 14 June 2009.

[xi] Anshel Pfeffer and Chaim Levinson, ‘Far-right yeshiva head: My duty is to tell troops to refuse orders ‘, Haaretz, 14 December 2009