The idea of extending the 'settlement freeze' for another three months in exchange for the release of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard seems to begathering steam.The Prime Minister's Office is reportedly checking an idea with the U.S. government whereby Jonathan Pollard would be released from prison in exchange for another three month freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria.And the reports this morning are looking more specific.
The Prime Minister's Office claims that the Prime Minister has not changed his mind regarding ending the freeze on schedule.
According to the deal being talked about in Jerusalem, the freeze would be extended for three months, while Pollard would be freed just a few weeks shy of his 25th anniversary in prison.There's a huge difference between Pollard being released in exchange for an arch-terrorist and Pollard being released in exchange for Israel extending a government policy that has been in effect for ten months for another three months. If Pollard were to be released in exchange for Barghouti - God forbid - he might justifiably have on his conscience any future Barghouti victims. I don't see why he should feel guilty by the 'settlement freeze' being extended for three months in order to free him.
The idea was not initiated in Washington, but rather by staffers in Netanyahu’s office. Army Radio reported Monday morning that Netanyahu asked an unnamed person who specializes in the Middle East conflict to find out if the Obama Administration would be interested in the idea. The person in fact made queries, but it is not known what, if any, response he received.
The Prime Minister’s Bureau has denied the report, issuing this statement: “We know of no query to the Americans on this matter. The Prime Minister has not changed his mind, and the freeze will end on Sept. 26.”
Pollard’s wife Esther has not commented on the report. It is known that the Pollards objected to the Pollard-Barghouti exchange that was floated several years ago, though the deal could be carried out without their consent.
Danny Dayan, head of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria, said, “The very idea is an ugly form of blackmail. Should we also agree to give up the Golan Heights in exchange for Gilad Shalit?”No, there's huge difference between giving up territory and freezing construction for a limited period.
Army Radio adds (via IMRA):
This idea has been rolling around in recent days, and even reached the office of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Government elements believe that most of the right wing ministers would be able to "swallow" the very bitter pill of extending the freeze in the West Bank in such a process.Hmmm.
A private element, engaged for many years studying the Israeli - Palestinian conflict who is in contact with Palestinian and American officials said that a few days ago he was approached by someone close to the prime minister and asked to undertake a discreet and informal check with government officials as to the feasibility of the matter. The Israeli passed the request to Washington, but did not know how the Americans responded to the idea. In addition, various elements indicate that in the opinion polls recently conducted by the Prime Minister's office, respondents were presented the question "Would you support extending the freeze for the release of Pollard?".
Likewise, you can also see that Prime Minister Netanyahu has held no orderly discussion about the end of the freeze - neither in the government or cabinet - which might indicate that something is happening behind the scenes and quietly. Defense Minister Barak is these days visiting Washington and met with American military officials. It is not known whether the release of Pollard is the subject of these meetings, but it is certainly a possibility.
Let's go back to the Arutz Sheva link for a minute and add this to the mix:
The last time Netanyahu reached an understanding regarding Pollard with an American president was with Bill Clinton – a Democrat, like Obama – in late 1998 during the Wye Plantation talks. Netanyahu agreed to release 500 PA terrorists from prison in exchange for Pollard’s release, in the framework of the Wye agreement in which Israel agreed to withdraw from over 13% of Judea and Samaria. However, at the last minute, Clinton reneged regarding Pollard – though Israel still released the terrorists.Those of you who think Bill Clinton was the best friend Israel ever had in the White House, keep that one in mind. I'm a little less concerned about that possibility though. Clinton was widely perceived to be a friend of Israel and most Israelis (including Netanyahu) trusted him. Obama is not trusted here at all and is very unpopular. I cannot see the government here falling for a trick like that.
Would you do this deal? I would under the following circumstances:
1. The extension is three months (at most) and not a day more.
2. Pollard is released immediately and not at the end or in the middle of the period. This is a one-time card that the Americans (and by extension the 'Palestinians') will not be able to play again.
3. The 'peace talks' agenda will not be adjusted to discuss only borders - as the Obama administration has proposed - and if in three months there is no agreement, the freeze is off the table completely and we will build where we please whether or not Obama or anyone else thinks it's an area that we will ultimately keep. Talking about borders without talking about security is meaningless.
4. At the end of December the freeze is over. If the 'Palestinians' want to walk out on the 'peace talks,' so be it.
At the end of the day, I don't believe the Americans will do this deal. When I mentioned George Tenet in one of Sunday's posts, someone in the comments pooh-poohed it. But it was Tenet's threat to resign as CIA director that convinced Bill Clinton to renege on his commitment to Netanyahu in 1998. More on Tenet's relationship with Israel here andhere. A troubling incident regarding his relationship with Jews is here. Tenet was part of Obama's transition team after the 2008 elections.
