PROPOSAL LEAKED: Haaretz on Tuesday broke a story that under normal circumstances would have stirred a debate in Israel: the detailed proposal that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert allegedly submitted to the Palestinian Authority regarding future borders between Israel and the Palestinian state. But in a country led by a lame duck with low approval ratings, the story did not resonate. Rather, it raised speculations about the reason for the leak, and its timing.

According to the Haaretz report, "The centerpiece of Olmert's detailed proposal is the suggested permanent border, which would be based on an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank. In return for the land retained by Israel in the West Bank, the Palestinians would receive alternative land in the Negev, adjacent to the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians would also enjoy free passage between Gaza and the West Bank without any security checks."

Maps that the Israeli negotiators reportedly handed to their Palestinian counterparts delineate borders that would allow Israel to "keep 7 percent of the West Bank, while the Palestinians would receive territory equivalent to 5.5 percent of West Bank," Haaretz reported, adding that "Israel views the passage between Gaza and the West Bank as compensating for this difference."

According to the report, "The land to be annexed to Israel would include the large settlement blocs, and the border would be similar to the present route of the separation fence. Israel would keep Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, the settlements surrounding Jerusalem and some land in the northern West Bank adjacent to Israel."

The Israeli proposal, Haaretz reported, lays out a phased implementation: while Israel would annex the settlement blocs immediately after it signs the final-status agreement, the evacuation of the other settlements would be phased. "First, after the agreement in principle is signed, the cabinet would initiate legislation to compensate settlers who voluntarily relocate within Israel or to settlement blocs slated to be annexed." In the second phase, once the Palestinian Authority completes a series of internal reforms and extends its effective rule to the Gaza Strip, Israel would remove any settlers remaining east of the new border, the report said. "In this way, Olmert could tell the Israeli public that Israel is receiving 7 percent of the West Bank and an agreed-upon border, while the Israeli concessions will be postponed until Hamas rule in Gaza has ended." In other words, according to the proposal, Israel would immediately receive Palestinian recognition of its annexation of settlement blocs, while the Palestinians' obtaining their part of the territorial deal is conditional.

The leak triggered charges by both Israelis and Palestinians that Olmert is focused more on his legacy than on the benefit of the peace process. Palestinians charged that Olmert and his advisors were again trying to portray Palestinian negotiators as rejectionists who bear the responsibility for the failure of peace efforts.

Palestinian officials reacted with anger both to the content of the alleged proposal and to the leak. Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat issued an official statement, calling the Haaretz report "baseless or half truths." He added that ''at no time was any 'detailed' or package proposal ever presented to the Palestinians, either by Prime Minister Olmert or any other Israeli official.'' President Mahmoud Abbas' spokesman, Nabil Abu-Rudeinah, implicitly confirming that there was an Israeli proposal, said: "The Israeli proposal is unacceptable, it is a waste of time." Speaking to the Israeli daily Israel Hayom, Abu-Rudeinah added: "The Palestinian people will agree to a state with territorial contiguity only in a way that includes Jerusalem as its capital." (Haaretz 8/12/08; PLO Negotiations Affairs Department, 8/12/08; Israel Hayom 8/13/08)

WANTED: U.S. INVOLVEMENT: On the heels of recent polls showing that American Jews support more intense American involvement in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, a new Israeli poll shows that most Israelis, too, support such involvement. A poll commissioned by the Geneva Initiative shows that 73% "support increasing U.S. involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian process." Only 23% oppose such involvement, according to the poll. Geneva Initiative surveys asked the same question repeatedly over the past three years. The tracking polling data shows that with time, Israelis are increasingly growing more supportive of U.S. involvement. The support level of 73% in July was up from 64% in July 2007, 54% in May of 2006 and 47% in August of 2005. The poll also shows that Israelis increasingly support stepped-up European involvement in the peace process: 58% now, compared to 48% in July 2007. Support for increased U.S. involvement in the peace process was particularly high among Labor voters (96%) and Kadima voters (91%). It was also surprisingly high among Likud voters: 75% of those who said they intend to vote for Likud in the next elections expressed their support for a stronger U.S. role in the peace process. (www.geneva-accord.org, 8/13/08)

MIGRON TO EVOLVE INTO SETTLEMENT?: Facing a Supreme Court deadline to evacuate the illegal outpost of Migron by August 2008, Defense Minister Ehud Barak last week reached an agreement with leaders of the Council of West Bank settlements (known as the Yesha Council) to transfer the outpost to another location in the West Bank, and to approve it, in its new location, as an authorized settlement. According to the agreement, the Migron settlers would move to the new location only after the construction of permanent homes is completed, something that reportedly could take years. Yesha Council Chairman Danni Dayan told the Jerusalem Post that the Council will choose an alternative site close to Migron, east of Ramallah, within 30 days.

Other details of the agreement seem to be in dispute between Barak's aides and the settlers.

Settler leaders said that the new location for Migron will not be within the boundaries of an existing settlement but in a new, separate spot that has not yet been determined.

A Defense Ministry official on Tuesday denied the settlers' assertions, telling Reuters that Migron's families would be transferred to an existing settlement. Currently, the 42 families of Migron live in some 50 trailers and two permanent homes.

The Supreme Court earlier this year accepted the state's proposal, in reaction to a petition submitted by Peace Now, to remove the outpost of Migron by August 1, 2008. The state agreed with Peace Now's finding that the outpost was built on private Palestinian land. Since the state's Supreme Court filing in January, Defense Ministry officials have been negotiating with the leaders of the settlers over a compromise, seeking an agreement to transfer the illegal outpost to a different West Bank location, rather than simply evacuate it. Peace Now strongly opposes such a deal, since it would create a new West Bank settlement, in violation of Israel's Roadmap and Annapolis commitments. By rewarding settlers who have blatantly broken the law, such an agreement would also reinforce the impression that Israeli is not serious about the rule of law when it comes to the settlers - a problem highlighted in the 2002 Sasson Report commissioned by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Moreover, it would set a dangerous precedent for any future efforts to deal with the more than 100 other illegal outposts.

Strongly opposing the deal are also the settlers of Migron, who refuse to leave the site, as well as some leaders of the Settlers' Council, who argue against the precedent of complying with the forced removal of Jews from anywhere in the West Bank. Yesha Council leaders who support the deal counter that the deal is desirable because it sets a different precedent: the establishment of a new settlement despite the government's formal commitment not to do so. The practical meaning of the agreement between the state and the Yesha Council is that Migron's evacuation will not take place for years, if ever, said Peace Now Secretary General Yariv Oppenheimer. "Until then, the settlers will continue to live on private Palestinian land," he told the Jerusalem Post. (Makor Rishon, 8/8/08; Yedioth Ahronoth, 8/11/08; www.peacenow.org.il, 8/12/08; Reuters, 8/12/08; Jerusalem Post, 8/15/08)

SETTLER VIOLENCE UP: Settler violence against Palestinians -- and against Israeli troops in the West Bank -- has recently intensified in both volume and severity. It is much worse than the typical summer surge in violence, when young, bored settlers on vacation from school and religious seminary look for thrills.

Haaretz on Friday reported that at a meeting last week, representatives of the IDF, Israel Police, and the Shin Bet security service reported "a recent increase in the number of violent incidents involving settlers." Shin Bet representatives reportedly said that settler violence has been "intentional and planned." At the meeting, police representatives reportedly accused the IDF of turning a blind eye to the phenomenon, while IDF representatives argued that the police officers, too, often avoid acting against Jews in the West Bank. Data presented at the meeting, according to Haaretz, show a sharp increase in incidents of harm caused by Jews in the West Bank to Palestinians and their property this year. "Data presented in the meeting indicated that there were 429 such incidents in the first half of this year, compared with 587 incidents in all of 2006 and 551 in 2007." The increase in violence was not matched by an increase in enforcement. Information presented at the meeting, according to Haaretz, does not indicate an equivalent increase in the number of criminal cases opened against Jews in the West Bank this year.

What has changed this year, according to a Maariv report, is the decision by militant settlers and their spiritual leaders to use violence as a means to deter the authorities from removing illegal outposts and settlements. In recent weeks, after Israeli troops removed an old abandoned bus from one West Bank hilltop and an empty container from another, settlers rampaged, repeatedly clashing with Israeli police and military forces, attacking Palestinians, and setting Palestinians' fields aflame. One IDF officer who has been serving in the Nablus area for several years told Maariv that the settlers' radicalization is wearing out his troops. "We can't deal with it any more. We are burning out," the officer was quoted as saying.

The young settler activists reportedly confirmed that there is a shift in their tactics. Unnamed activists told Maariv, the in the past settlers seldom violently challenged IDF efforts to demolish structures that they placed on hilltops. But now the strategy has changed, and from now on, "the police have to realize that we are crazy. They have to be wary about messing with us," one settler activist was quoted as saying. "Before they come to destroy an electricity pole, they should think a hundred times."

IDF officers interviewed for the story painted a somber picture. Jewish rioters in the West Bank are seldom detained and tried. They intimidate police officers and hinder police efforts to gather evidence. They violently attack police officers and IDF troops. They reject the authority of the state. And many of them, young militant activists, reject even the traditional leadership of the settlers, according to Maariv's report.

At the receiving end of the settlers' violent rage are not only police officers and soldiers but mainly Palestinian civilians. Incidents of brutality and vandalism are rampant, according to the report. One settler is quoted as saying: "Those who hurt the Land of Israel have to realize that there is a price, and if the police fight us instead of fighting our enemies, then we'll do their job and we'll fight the Arab enemy." (Maariv, 8/8/08; Haaretz 8/15/08)

BARAK SNUBBED AS HE TAKES ON KADIMA: A story about Defense Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak, unveiled last week in a new book by former senior U.S. diplomat Martin Indyk, has made its way into the pre-election Israeli mudslinging.

Last week, Yedioth Ahronoth published a chapter from a new book by the former ambassador to Israel and senior peace-processor, telling the story of Barak's inability to make a bold step toward a peace accord with Syria in December of 1999, when Barak was prime minister,. Yedioth's senior columnist Nahum Barnea, who at the time reported on the Israel-Syria peace negotiations, recounted Indyk's account and added his own recollections. Barnea wrote: "At the end of 1999, it appeared as if an historical window of opportunity had opened.  [Former Syrian President Hafez] Assad, who knew that his death was approaching, was eager to reach an agreement that would make it easy for his son to succeed and establish himself in power; Barak viewed an agreement with Syria as the fulfillment of a campaign promise and a means of enabling an IDF withdrawal from Lebanon with an agreement-another campaign promise; [President Bill] Clinton wanted an agreement that would be the crowning achievement of his second term. In mid-December, Barak came for a work visit to Washington. The plane landed safely, but Barak did not come out. I remember this surreal sight, because I was there, on the tarmac, waiting with the entire entourage in the freezing cold for the prime minister to descend. Instead of exiting, Barak called Indyk to him, into the plane, and said: 'I can't do it.' 'My political situation has changed,' he explained."

Barnea continued: "What really changed was that Barak was frightened by the polls, 'I am a more seasoned politician than you,' Clinton told him. 'I know that if you sign a peace agreement with Syria, the public will support you.' Clinton proposed to come in person to Israel and persuade the Israelis that the agreement was justified. Barak insisted: He couldn't do it." According to Barnea, "a different conclusion arises from Indyk's descriptions: That what prevented Barak from reaching an agreement with the Syrians was the fear of being described in Israel as a frier [sucker]. It was not the Golan that [Barak] sought to preserve-he believed that what Israel would receive in exchange for the agreement justified a withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 lines-but rather himself."

This week, as campaigning for next month's Kadima primaries heated up, the story came back to haunt the former prime minister. Barak, with an eye on polls that show Livni's growing popularity, attacked her and her party. Alluding to a famous Hillary Clinton ad, Barak said that due to her poor security experience, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is not only incapable of giving the appropriate answer at 3:00 AM, but even at 3:00 PM. He also called Kadima "A one time party" of "refugees and deserters." Instead of turning Kadima supporters against Livni, Barak's comments reportedly united the party, even if just for a moment. Livni supporters, as well as those who support her contender, Shaul Mofaz, lashed out at Barak. One Livni supporter told Maariv: "We hope that next time Ehud Barak faces fateful decisions, he will have the public courage to get off the plane, because even public courage is an important characteristic for someone who must answer the telephone at 3 AM." (Yedioth Ahronoth, 08/11/08; Haaretz, 8/13/08; Maariv, 8/14/08)