Only the future can place the recent Israeli government's approval of 455 housing units in Judea and Samaria in a proper perspective. But some observations can be made now.
The number of housing units approved by the Israeli government can be evaluated. The United States administration was unhappy with just under a million new housing unit starts for the year in 2008. It was a 17 year low. This was seen as low economic activity and harmful to the economy (www.housingwire.com/2008/06/17/housing-starts-hit-17-year-low-in-may/.) That number represents 1 new house for every 300 Americans. When this rate is applied to the population of of Judea and Samaria in Jewish administered areas it means they should be building over 916 new homes per year. If not, it is an indicator they are in a recession.
In Australia the Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reports an average of 12,000-16,000 new homes built per month, or 168,000 per year for the last financial year (www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/8731.0Main%20Features5Jul%202009). This is 1 new home for every 125 people. Australia is at the border of, but not yet officially in recession. At that rate for just the existing population in Jewish administered areas we could expect 2,200 new homes. (There should be another 17,000 housing units for the Palestinian population, but presumably America is not interested in that).
There had been no new housing approvals for Judea and Samaria since 31 March 2009 when Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office (fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite). That is nearly six months. Even in an economy struck by dire recession there would have been a backlog of demand for nearly 500 units. As Israel has a vibrant economy, we could expect a demand for at least double the 445 units the Israeli government actually approved for that period. The 2,500 units which are to be completed are only natural growth.
Netanyahu knows. He calls what is happening a suspension (hash'ayah), a waiting period (hamtana), or a cutback (tzimtzum) of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite)
On May 27, 2009 Lachlan Carmichael (AFP) reported that United States Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had said the President Barak Obama “was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here during his visit to the White House on May 18” and “He wants to see a stop to settlements. Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions."
The 2003 Road Map had many requirements of both parties. Only one of which stated that, “Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report”. Most of the Road Map was directed towards Palestinian objectives. It required “Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence” and “political reform in preparation for statehood” (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm). Some steps were taken by Israel and the Palestinians but due to renewed and evident Palestinian violence, the Road Map, which had an end date of 2005 anyway, was abandoned. To revive the Road Map, the Americans had quite a few options, but they chose to ask Israel to freeze all settlement activity.
And it happens the new Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu was trained as an architect. He worked in his early years in a job facilitating development and construction.
In 1996 Professor Emeritus Leon Groisser of the Department of Architecture recollected that Netanyahu had told MIT professors he desired to use his combined studies in architecture and management to assist in solving Israel's housing shortage (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1996/netanyahu-0605.html). Management is about finance. When Netanyahu was Finance Minister, he was the 'architect' of present the entrepreneur led economy.
Asking Netanyahu, of all people, to prevent architectural constructions on prime degraded development land, was like asking someone committed to returning animals to the wild, such as George Adamson made famous by Born Free, to keep a zoo.
It seems Netayahu understood Obama. In the above Natayahu is listening with a quizzical expression. This expression may say 'I hear, I understand but I don't think you have thought of all the consequences'. Whether Obama understood Netayahu is another question.
Obama's training would affect how he deals with the world. Obama worked as a Community Organizer, bringing together diverse people to act together due to shared self interest. Obama's actions so far on the global stage fit this pattern. America has an interest in the Middle East Region. Israel and the Palestinians as neighbours in the neighbourhood ought to have a shared-self interest in peace. It is in the American interest to work to bring the neighbourhood together.
The Israeli government, by not approving even one house in Judea and Samaria since Netayahu was in office, to the disgust of those who support Jewish settlement there, is evidence that those who make the decisions in the Israeli government understand why Obama asked for the freeze.
However Netanyahu, no doubt influenced by his management training as an architect as well as his economic experience, has stubbornly argued that it was reasonable to continue natural growth. From the perspective of architect, or anyone trained in construction or finance, it makes no sense to halt the physical expression of the life of a developing community and even less sense to halt construction that is already begun. It cuts across Netayahu's training and ethos to even think of slowing or making a cutback to future development.
The recent approvals are a pragmatic admission that the Israeli government knows America's strategy had little chance of working in the short term. The White House and the European Union's foreign ministers expressed regret at Israel's actions, but they failed to mention their regret at others lack of response to the initiative. Obama's approach might have been too transparent. Or perhaps the willingness of the Israeli government to fall in line sent the wrong signals. But in the end Palestinian lack of unity and their inability to put someone forward to sit opposite Netayahu was a significant barrier to Obama's initiative.
Israel has the administration of the disputed territories, less those areas given already to Palestinian Authority. Administration, to anyone involved in construction, means they have power to decide who builds and what is built.
So no sooner does a trained architect reach what seems the top job, than international governance asks him in no uncertain terms for a stop to all construction in disputed areas. It turns out Netayahu is still facing the bane of an architect's life, government controls. In this case, the control is due to the unreasonable will of the international 'governance' of the nations.
It is unreasonable, as not one of those nations calling for the total freeze would accept such a restriction being placed on them.
The rate of housing starts and of new construction is an economic indicator for any nation. For growth nations such as America (and Israel) it is a key indicator. Obama and Clinton as lawyers focussed on political and legal objectives, might have missed this less than small sized point. Netayahu, who has called for an economic peace through shared development, however, would not have missed it. Restricting the economy in the disputed territories may have greater effect on the Palestinian than the Israeli economy at the real level of the individual, and so actually hamper peace efforts. If a region suddenly stops building in an economy with 5-7% directly employed in the construction industry, the flow on effects to the whole regional economy will be noticed.
Even the architects and planners who oppose settlement entirely, only ask for 3 projects to halt; the key E1 plan at Ma’ale Adumim, the demolition of 88 Palestinian homes at Silwan and ruins at Lifta from being turned into an Israeli resort (apjp.org/signatories/)
Netayahu, it seems, is doing what all architects do when faced with an objection to their proposed construction by a government authority. They work through the issues, whether real or imagined, one by one, and argue their case.
Anyone who thinks that defying America is the answer, hasn't thought about the consequences. Try openly defying the senior planner in your local government. It may at first achieve something, but two things will happen; there will be a legal battle and it becomes difficult to work in that area again.
This is the tragedy of Netayahu's current position. He, of all people, would be the first to push ahead with construction in the disputed territories, knowing that it will help the day to day life and opportunity of the Palestinians also. He has stated this position openly and been proven right, as Palestinian economy did have greater growth when it was more linked with the Israeli economy. But the very training and experience that structures his belief about economic peace, teaches him the value of working and negotiating within the international power structure.
For a part of the world that has population growth, the 445 units that were approved are only half what even an economy in recession would require. It is perhaps just enough to prevent the economy stalling while the Israeli government negotiates. A waiting period (hamtana).
America has had a great impact on the global economy by poor management in providing housing for their 'sub prime'. It seems they are not content with that, but now are putting in place global policy to make a mess of another nation's housing industry and economy also.
What is ironic is that America has put great effort into agreement for global stimulus to create small growth in the world economy to prevent disaster, including the housing sectors of the developed nations. At the very same time they prevent natural growth in an area of the global economy.
Typically people do not construct a building by demolishing it in one place. This applies to the global economy. It may seem that the economy of the disputed territories is infinitesimally small in the global context, but it must be remembered that the global economy is still in a shaky condition. It might not be wise to affect even the smallest part. Perhaps Obama and his strategists forgot that the inhabitants of the disputed territories are part of the global economy.
