I had said earlier that things would get interesting between early July and the September date on which the Palestine Authority intends to go to the UN and unfortunately I was apparently correct.
Two articles appeared in tonight's Israeli Newspapers. This JP article and this one both appeared tonight as did this one in Ha'aretz. What these articles are discussing is a process whereby by a number of smaller bills, Israel will assert sovreignty over the settlements, as one of two approaches to asserting sovreignty over and annexiing what the right wingers pushing this call Judea and Samaria, and most here call the West Bank, before the UN acts on the PA request.
On the same night, this article in Ma'an concerning Netanyahu's desire to resume direct negotiations now, to be conducted in Israel and WB has also appeared. There may also be a phrasing change in the recognition language he has demanded as well, now discussing the refusal of part of the other side to recognize Israel as a state. The ma'an article may or may not be correct in using that language, rather than recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State". One of the two phrasings, the former, might then be understood to be rejecting Hamas and Gaza, who it is claimed will recognize no state, and the other is the phrasing that has been discussed here, which demands more but raises different questions, particularly as to refugees and Non Jewish Israeli citizens. The article is not clear which.
The articles about annexation, whether by a slow route described as one bill a week on particular subjects, or the quicker and en grosse annexation also sought, perhaps as a response to the UN mission of PA, are the more concerning to me.
When the Boycott bill was presented, one of the issues mentioned in the Israeli opinion columns was that it constituted a claim at least in the nature of sovreignty over the settlers, because it created a conventional Israeli cause of action in Israeli courts which could be exercised by the settlers for the utterance of certain words concerning products and services manufactured by or executed in the WB settlements specifically. This is relevant because the peace deal would make those settlements and their doings specifically not in Israel at all, as if England created a cause of action suable in England for something which said about to persons in France who might or might not be English citizens.
Following it, the current museum bill is also asserting, more specifically according to its sponsors, the notion that the settlements and their citizens are a part specifically of the Israeli polity and sovreign area, as to the matter of museums. The plan stated by the sponsors in the articles is to put up one new bill a week asserting sovreignty in a different area in each bill, looking to increase the sovreignty claim until Judea and Samaria are annexed in whole. Other pols are recommending publicly now, supposedly supported by polls saying over half of Israelis support it, that Israel should simply annex now or at least before September and the UN situation, all of Judea and Samaria. The museums bill is at the beginning of the legislative process, but it is also promised as the first in a weekly series, which would assert ownership and permanent exclusive control over successively more urgent areas concerning the governance of WB.
Of course, nothing in the articles or the bills explains what would upon annexation happen to Palestinians, nor as to Gaza.
The second article suggests that the PM of Israel now almost urgently wants direct talks, now, to be held in Ramallah and Israel, and contains the possibly modified language about the existence and rightfulness of what is either the State of Israel or the Jewish State of Israel, as an essential issue. IMO if Netanyahu is telling truth this time and/or Ma'an is reporting it correctly, he may have realized that his ability to string out the matter of talks is now over, and with it whatever leverage he has been working, and the matter of a two state deal must be resolved before either the right wingers in his coalition go forward with annexation without a solution that works for him as to any Palestinians at all, or the UN does. If Ma'an is correct, the switch in terminology would solve many problems and would perhaps allow the Quartet to set forth the deal to be pushed internationally which it thusfar has not been able to do by reason of the prior verision of the same language. He may have lost control of the situation.
This pickle, now getting very sour, presents a number of issues to be considered some of which I list here for discussion.
If Israel is claiming sovreignty over the settlements and their residents, what happens to a Palestinian state which would look like swiss cheese, with the settlers having most of the resources, and Israel asserting in all probability the continuing need to keep IDF enforcing skewed laws to protect the rights of said sovereign territory, and anything connecting it to the old Israeli state. Unlike the Armenian-Azerbaijani problem with the one landlocked piece, this would be scores of small landlocked pieces to be dealt with.
If Israel annexes WB in gross, what is going to happen to all the Palestinians there? Will they become citizens with equal rights, or will there be a continuation of this residential visa business? And what will happen to Jordan, as the now infamous Ayalon video claims that Israel has always had the claim to WB, and there have been suggestions that it also claims the East Bank, part of the original demand in the twenties for a Jewish Homeland supposedly agreed to by the colonial powers. And then, of course, what about the refugees, who were forced one way or another out of the now united state and have literally no place to go? The notion of paying off some and sending the rest to New Palestine only works if there is a Palestinian state to go to and under an annexation, there would be no such state. And no other state has any interest in taking that many million people forever.
As to the possible direct talks, what are the probabilities of difficulty in resolving settlements, as a claim of sovreignty over people by legislative action is one so serious that it would, I suspect be extremely difficult to withdraw in order to provide the only state that Palestinians would be able to accept, one in which no other country asserted sovreign rights of protection and etc. as to land and people within its boundaries. The sheer political chaos which I at least suspect would arise if Israel as part of the treaty had to disclaim this sovreignty once having asserted it, is difficult to imagine calmly.
And what happens to Gaza?
Your comments are invited. No flame wars, please. This one has what now looks like s seven or eight week time limit to be dealt with, as the annexers want that done before PA's state is internationally recognized.
JNEREBEL also has a diary up tonight which also needs a look, about the economic status of WB. WB as it is is refusing to pay through electric fees and such to Gaza, which complicates that relationship, and there is a question about whether Israel is paying through to PA varous taxes and fees which it collects, supposedly for WB, on WB's 'foreign' trade, thus manipulating the financial status of both areas. My own view on that issue is that Israel probably will not get away with claiming that the PA state cannot be one because of its leaky economics, under a state of affairs which has Israel in no small part contributing to said leaky economics.