'Evacuation-compensation cabinet debate unrelated to PA talks'

By TOVAH LAZAROFF, HERB KEINON
settlers fence 224.88 (photo credit: AP)
settlers fence 224.88
(photo credit: AP)
The Prime Minister's Office on Saturday night denied allegations that the cabinet debate planned for Sunday on paying settlers to leave isolated West Bank communities was based on diplomatic considerations. The timing of the cabinet's first discussion on the matter, which comes a week after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to discuss a final-status agreement resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has raised some eyebrows. There is speculation that it indicates more progress in the negotiations then either side is letting on. An official in the Prime Minister's Office denied that diplomatic considerations were involved and said that Sunday's discussion meant that work on an evacuation-compensation bill that would help settlers leave isolated communities outside of the security barrier had reached a point where it was ready to bring to a debate. According to the official, Olmert asked Vice Premier Haim Ramon to look into the possibility of an evacuation-compensation bill in 2007, and that "now it is ready for discussion." Sources in the Prime Minister's Office reiterated Saturday night that the evacuation-compensation bill would be discussed by the ministers on Sunday, but said no vote would be taken. According to Ramon's office, he will present statistical information, including financial data, relating to the feasibility of implementing such a bill. Still, politicians could not help noting the odd timing of the discussion, which will take place 10 days before the Kadima primary and on the day that police are expected to recommended that Olmert be indicted on corruption charges. MK Yuli Edelstein (Likud) told The Jerusalem Post he believed that Olmert was trying to deflect attention from the police proceedings. Some Kadima sources have speculated that Olmert is opening the evacuation-compensation discussion now to undermine his Kadima rivals' ability to form a new coalition with right-wing parties after the primary, even though the challengers for the party leadership have all come out against the bill. Kadima primary front-runner Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, meanwhile, has said that a debate on the matter is ill timed. At a primary campaign event in Tel Aviv on Wednesday night, Livni said it would be possible to move this bill forward only after "we know what the borders will be." "Only after the road map [peace plan] is implemented will it be possible to be move to the next level," she said. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, Livni's chief opponent in the primary, said he was "adamantly" opposed to the law, which "weakens Israel, and weakens its position in the negotiations, and I will not support it." Public Security Minister Avi Dichter (Kadima) is also against the bill at this time. Shas ministers oppose the bill, while Labor, whose parliamentarians helped initiate the idea in 2005, have come out in favor of the measure. Speaking to branch heads on Friday, Defense Ministry Ehud Barak said, "The Labor Party sees the evacuation-compensation bill as part of the master plan to advance a final-status agreement. It is a step in the right direction. In the deliberations in the cabinet on Sunday, it has our support." His statement was to be expected as Labor has been pushing Olmert to bring the matter before the cabinet. MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima), who opposes the measure, told the Post he was of the opinion that Olmert set up Sunday's discussion in what was likely to be one of his last cabinet meetings to make good on a pledge to Labor. Olmert is the kind of person who doesn't likes to leave things undone, Schneller said. On Saturday night, Dani Dayan, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, attacked the bill even though he is of the belief that since Olmert's days are numbered there is little chance that the debate could lead to anything. "The only evacuation that is going to take place in the near future is that of Olmert from the government," Dayan said. There is no majority for the measure even within Kadima, so the discussion is futile. "They are trying to retool the internal [Israeli] discussion with a paycheck, and that is immoral," said Dayan who said that these communities outside of the barrier were growing and that the homes there were marketable and valuable. He said Ramon's study regarding the bill was biased given that it was conducted by Rubi Natanson, a member of the Meretz executive committee. "So this is an ideological study and not a scientific one," Dayan said. MK Avshalom Vilan (Meretz) told the Post Natanson was a respected professional and that his political affiliations had nothing to do with his ability to do an objective job. Vilan and Labor MK Colette Avital in 2005 first proposed offering settlers in the 74 communities outside of the security barrier financial incentives to move within the pre-1967 Green Line. They did so at the request of a number of settlers in those communities who felt that the value of their homes and their ability to run their businesses and conduct their daily lives had been harmed by the barrier. Those settlers said they saw the barrier as the future border and if that was the case they did not understand why they had to wait to leave. In the version of the bill put together by Vilan and Avital through the One House organization, settler families would be offered $150,000-$300,000 in compensation if they would agree to leave. Their homes would then be boarded up so that no one else could move in. Their bill is meant only to be used for those West Bank communities outside of the barrier and would apply to other areas such as the Golan Heights. Avital told the Post that based on previous conversations with Olmert, the prime minister appeared to support the legislation. She said the measure had the support of 41 MKs outside of Kadima. Avital said she believed Sunday's discussion "is meant to signal to the public what the next government could and should do." While she did have a final figure for what it would cost, the initiative would be costly and therefore would need the full support and commitment of the government. Edelstein told the Post the bill was dangerous and sent the wrong message to the Palestinians. "It weakens the negotiations because it sends a message to the other side that the only thing that we have to settle is the issues of refugees and Jerusalem because the other issue of borders have been settled," Edelstein said. But Avital said the bill had little to do with a final-status agreement, because those who wanted to remain in the settlements outside of the security barrier could do so. What this bill would do, she said, was to give those who felt there was little point in remaining the financial means to leave.