Four years ago, the headlines were all about how a construction moratorium would jeopardize the entire settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria. In hindsight, these statements seem to have been empty rhetoric, almost artificial. They were divorced from reality; all they did was trigger a false alarm. Ultimately, communities were barely impacted. On the world stage, though, the move was of great benefit to the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett should have kept that in mind when they preferred to have Palestinian terrorists released rather than announce another settlement freeze when peace talks started. Prisoners who walk out of jail cannot be taken back into custody; but construction of new homes can be set in motion with the stroke of a pen. That is why the Obama administration, despite being furious about the newly announced construction plans, let it slide. The announcement coincided with the release of the second group of Palestinian prisoners. But then Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel came out with plans to build 23,000 homes. The U.S. seized this public-relations opportunity to condemn Israel over its planned construction, even though there are still no official construction permits. That is, once again, unfortunate. Not because the Palestinians are wary of hearing the sound of hammers building new homes. They know that Netanyahu is well aware of the potential damage this issue may have, and that is why he had this obstacle removed. But, of course, despite the prime minister torpedoing Ariel's plans, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat could not pass up an opportunity to attack Israel. Full of righteous indignation Erekat expressed outrage on live TV. He tried to exude self-importance and lamented that the prime minister should have told Ariel to "revoke" his plans, not just "to reconsider" them. Does anyone buy the Palestinian delegation's calling it quits over this semantic difference? Do they really expect us to believe they would now be a no-show for the talks? Is it really the end of the peace talks? Such threats should not be considered credible. Erekat has already resigned several times in the past. He keeps tendering his resignation, only to change his mind. The Palestinians have tried to suggest that another intifada could follow a failed peace process, but that threat does not hold water either because there may be other paths that lead to violence, not just the collapse of talks. But it is also true that in the event of a violent outburst, Israeli-Palestinian relations would suffer. Random individuals and members of terrorists groups (like those in Hamas or Fatah) would make things worse and Israel would have to respond. This would hurt both sides. All this goes to show that the peace process has reached an impasse. When Netanyahu is mad at Ariel, this is not because he believes the minister is undermining peace but because his actions might create the impression that Israel was responsible for the talks' cul-de-sac and, if and when that happens, their unraveling. What are the real chances of a successful peace process? Only Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and special envoy Isaac Molho know the true lie of the land. For the time being, neither side is willing to compromise. This might prompt the Americans to impose a plan on both parties, and both Israelis and Palestinians would have to comply with its terms. For the plan to have a shot, it should strive to achieve an interim agreement. The first step would be to establish a state called Palestine that has no permanent borders.
