A May 4th poll commissioned by Israel\'s leading daily, Yediot Acharonot, found that 62% of the public feels that Israel should agree to the proposal of \"ceasefire in return for a settlement freeze.\" (On the other hand, 49% disagreed with the idea that Israel should \"evacuate isolated settlements and unilaterally set the border with the Palestinians;\" 44% agreed.) Several days later, the paper\'s editorial seconded the poll\'s findings, writing, \"The current government can live with the Mitchell Report’s call for a total settlement freeze in return for a total freeze on terrorism, [as it will put] the Palestinians to the fateful test of deciding whether or not to call off the intifada and return to the negotiating table.\"
HaTzofeh came out strongly against the idea, writing last week,
\"Israel cannot accept the recommendation regarding a complete halt to construction in Yesha.\" The paper added a call to the government today “to make clear to the entire world that the Jewish communities in Yesha are an existing fact that will not change in light of any future diplomatic settlement... We need not apologize for the development of existing communities and the channeling of the requisite resources.”
Ha’aretz called strongly today for a settlement freeze: \"Such a step, which could result in a cease-fire, would harm the interests of the settlers a lot less than a continuation of the violence and terrorism aimed against them.\" Arutz-7\'s Yosef Zalmanson countered, \"The settlers themselves are in the forefront of the campaign not to give in to terrorist demands.\"
Ha\'aretz: \"The argument posed by Peres that a complete end to settlement construction would signify a reward for violence is not convincing, in light of the levels of violence exhibited by both sides during the past eight months... An Israeli acceptance of such a freeze would jibe with already existing information that the Palestinian leadership believes that a continuation of the intifada is a dead end, and facilitate the resumption of negotiations.\" Zalmanson: \"If the intifada is about to end, what logic would dictate that Israel quickly reward it by giving into its perpetrators\' demands? It would be akin to the U.S., a moment before Germany\'s surrender, agreeing to turn over one of its armies.\"
Ha\'aretz: “Does the Israeli demand for ‘zero violence’ also not set the standard for the Palestinian demand for ‘zero settlements’?” Zalmanson: \"Not at all. The Israeli demand for \'zero violence\' is rooted in both the Oslo agreements and human ethics, while the Palestinian demand for ‘zero settlements’ is rooted in neither.\"
HaTzofeh came out strongly against the idea, writing last week,
\"Israel cannot accept the recommendation regarding a complete halt to construction in Yesha.\" The paper added a call to the government today “to make clear to the entire world that the Jewish communities in Yesha are an existing fact that will not change in light of any future diplomatic settlement... We need not apologize for the development of existing communities and the channeling of the requisite resources.”
Ha’aretz called strongly today for a settlement freeze: \"Such a step, which could result in a cease-fire, would harm the interests of the settlers a lot less than a continuation of the violence and terrorism aimed against them.\" Arutz-7\'s Yosef Zalmanson countered, \"The settlers themselves are in the forefront of the campaign not to give in to terrorist demands.\"
Ha\'aretz: \"The argument posed by Peres that a complete end to settlement construction would signify a reward for violence is not convincing, in light of the levels of violence exhibited by both sides during the past eight months... An Israeli acceptance of such a freeze would jibe with already existing information that the Palestinian leadership believes that a continuation of the intifada is a dead end, and facilitate the resumption of negotiations.\" Zalmanson: \"If the intifada is about to end, what logic would dictate that Israel quickly reward it by giving into its perpetrators\' demands? It would be akin to the U.S., a moment before Germany\'s surrender, agreeing to turn over one of its armies.\"
Ha\'aretz: “Does the Israeli demand for ‘zero violence’ also not set the standard for the Palestinian demand for ‘zero settlements’?” Zalmanson: \"Not at all. The Israeli demand for \'zero violence\' is rooted in both the Oslo agreements and human ethics, while the Palestinian demand for ‘zero settlements’ is rooted in neither.\"