Written hours before the end of the moratorium, an editorial in alAyyam, a Palestinian newspaper, forecast an end to negotiations, and called for Israel to be held responsible for the failure:
It is hard to see how a satisfactory solution could miraculously emerge within the next few hours. So it seems safe to say that negotiations will stop. What happens if the Palestinian side announces its withdrawal, just as negotiations resume? What position will America take? From his podium at the UN, didn’t Barack Obama ask Israel to stop settlement activity? Will America hold Israel accountable for the failure of the negotiations? We certainly hope it does so.
Another Palestinian daily, al-Quds, agreed that Mr Abbas should not back down on the issue of settlements:
There is no doubt that building settlements and continuing the occupation completely contradict any peace efforts. Negotiations should not be a cover for this kind of politics. They should be stopped immediately if Israel fails to commit to the settlement freeze. We want to stress the importance of halting settlement construction and putting an end to the Judaization of Jerusalem. Exempting the holy city from the settlement freeze is a serious issue and should not be allowed under any circumstances.
Nazih al-Qasous, writing in Jordanian daily al-Dustour argues that Mr Netanyahu’s refusal to end settlement construction—and the Obama administration’s failure to force him to do soare signs that peace was not a priority:
There is an important reality that the Palestinians and the Arabs should recognise: Israel does not want to withdraw from the occupied West Bank and it does not want peace. If it does, why insist on building settle-
26
ments in the West Bank, even though Israel is supposed to withdraw from this land to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state there? If America, Russia and the European Union—which make statements all the time against the establishment of settlementswanted to achieve peace they would have forced Israel to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions with threats of economic sanctions and an international boycott.
Others in the regional media, however, criticised Mr Abbas for making the contentious issue of settlements central to negotiations. Abdel Rahman al-Rashed writes in al-Shara al-Awsat, a pan-Arab daily:
Mahmoud Abbas deserves the award for the world's worst negotiator, to be celebrated either with the collapse of the peace talks or a freeze on settlement building. With all due respect, he was wrong when he downgraded the demands of the Palestinian people to simply stopping settlement building (which has become his greatest ambition). There are two parties happy with what he's achieved: extremist Israelis and Hamas, which wants to sabotage anything in which it doesn't play a part.
A Syrian daily, al-Watan, was also critical of Mr Abbas but chose to focus its attentions on the moratorium itself, arguing that the settlement freeze did not live up to its name:
What's worse is that the debate during negotiations was about a settlement freeze which, it seems, is a flexible and interchangeable term. Its literal meaning implies stopping construction. Its actual meaning—and clearly the definition preferred by Israel - suggests a readiness at any time to continue settlement activity which never stopped in the first place.
27
While members of the governing coalition and settler movement leaders support Mr Netanyahu's end to the settlement freeze, commentators in Israel's English-language media tend to oppose the renewed construction.
Opposition to settlement building is widespread in opinion columns, with a prominent exception in Michael Freund's "Rev Up the Bulldozers," published on Arutz Sheva, a right-wing news site. Mr Freund, expressing a view widely held by settlement supporters, argues that:
...settlements are not the obstacle to peace. They never have been. The true obstacle to peace remains what it has always been: the Palestinian refusal to accept a permanent and sovereign Jewish presence in the land of Israel.
In the right-of-the-centre Jerusalim Post, however, David Newman argues that as the settlements grow, evacuating them as part of a two-state solution becomes increasingly difficult, writing that "every additional house, family and road make a peace agreement less plausible." He continues, condemning Netanyahu's decision:
Israel is the stronger side in this ongoing conflict and, as such, is the one able to make the critical concessions and lead the way. They should be seen as concessions from a position of strength and not, as the right wing argues, a sign of surrender. [...] Back to square one. No settlement freeze, no significant peace talks. All of us, Israelis and Palestinians alike, will suffer the consequences.
The editorial board of Ha-‘aretz, a left-leaning Israeli newspaper, similarly criticises the settlements as antithetical to the peace process, and highlights the impact of the settlements on Palestinians living in the West Bank:
28
There is no greater folly than expanding the settlements at the height of peace talks aimed at establishing a Palestinian state. [...] Expanding the settlements undermines any diplomatic agreement, damages Israel's international standing and increases the occupier's pressure on West Bank Palestinians, whose lands are being stolen and whose day-to-day lives are bound by the limitations of checkpoints and roads built for the settlers.
On Ynetnews, the English version of the Israeli news source, Yedioth Ahronoth, Uri Misgov laments Mr Netanyahu's decision as being against Israel's own interests:
The settlements contradict Israel’s interest because they make it more difficult to partition the land, thereby threatening the continued existence of the Zionist enterprise...The settlements are our folly. There is great symbolism in the fact that at this time too, the fate of the diplomatic process will be determined by settlement construction, rather than security arrangements, the return of refugees, or sovereignty in Jerusalem.
Vocabulary
accountable − обязанный отчитываться, ответственный, подотчёт-
ный Syn: responsible; понятный, объяснимый Syn: explainable negotiations – переговоры; ведение переговоров
contradict – противоречить, возражать Syn: contravene; опровергать,
отрицать Syn: deny , disprove , refute
exempt – свободный, освобождённый (от обязанностей, налога, военной службы) ; пользующийся привилегиями exempt from tax – освобожденный от налога; свободный, независимый; не подлежащий контролю
circumstances – обстоятельства, условия, положение дел
withdraw – withdrew , withdrawn – отодвигать, отдёргивать; отни-
мать, забирать; отзывать; отводить
deserve – заслуживать, быть достойным чего-л.
29
downgrade – наклон, склон, уклон ; падение, упадок (морали, культуры) ; понижать (в звании, должности, статусе); приуменьшать, принижать; переводить в низшую категорию, снижать сортность literal meaning – буквальное, прямое значение
imply – предполагать, подразумевать, заключать в себе, значить widespread – широко распространённый
prominent – выступающий; торчащий; выпуклый, рельефный, выступающий вперёд; Syn: protuberant ; заметный, видный, бросающийся в глаза; Syn: conspicuous; выдающийся, знаменитый, из-
вестный Syn: outstanding , leading
plausible – благовидный, внешне честный или правдоподобный ; Syn: specious; похожий на правду, правдоподобный (о каком-л. высказывании) ; внушающий доверие (о внешности, поведении) ; вполне убедительный (об информации)
condemn – осуждать, порицать
concession – уступка territorial concessions – территориальные уступки tariff concessions – тарифные уступки tax concessions – нало-
говые льготы; признание (какого-л. факта) ; допущение, допуск Syn: admission; концессионный договор, концессия (договор на сдачу государством предприятий или участков земли); концессия (предприятие, организованное на основе концессионного договора) surrender – сдаваться; капитулировать
consequence – (по)следствие, результат (чего-л.), важность, значимость
antithetic(al) – антитетический (философ.); прямо противоположный
highlight – отводить главное место; выдвигать на первый план Syn: feature; подчёркивать, выделять
folly – неосмотрительность, недальновидность, непредусмотрительность; глупость; недомыслие; глупый поступок или идея; без-
рассудный поступок или поведение. Syn: inability to think things out , thoughtlessness; прихоть, причуда (особенно какое-л. дорогостоящее и невыгодное предприятие).
undermine – делать подкоп, подкапывать; минировать; взрывать, подрывать Syn: mine; подрывать, расшатывать
partition – расчленение; деление, раздел, разделение; Syn: division; распределение Syn: distribution; линия раздела, граница
30