In an interview with Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted that there was growing support among Israelis for unilateral steps such as the annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria or a pullback to the settlement blocs while leaving the military in position until a peace agreement is reached with the Palestinians. Netanyahu did not express support for such potential moves. Neither did Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, with whom Netanyahu reportedly has bad blood due to her recent meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in London. Livni said on Friday that such unilateral actions "would not happen" as long she was part of the government. Until now, it had been the political center and Zionist Left that had sought a unilateral move -- to consolidate the settlements into only the main blocs. But now Naftali Bennett, head of the right-wing Habayit Hayehudi party, has proposed a different unilateral action -- to dismantle the security fence and annex the settlement blocs, as well as perhaps additional parts of Area C. Likud MK Zeev Elkin was quick to say that Israel should begin preparing for such a step. Both of these proposed unilateral moves are worthy of analysis. Ahead of the renewal of the peace talks last year, both Israel and the Palestinians told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to strive for a permanent peace agreement. Experts advised Kerry to talk about a permanent deal, but in fact seek an interim deal under which Israel would withdraw to the settlement blocs. Such a move would give legitimacy to the homes of around 80 percent of the settlers. Kerry was filled with a sense of divine presence, thinking he had the power to, within a year, reach an agreement on the issues of borders, refugees and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. This effort collapsed. It would still be possible to withdraw unilaterally from the settlements outside the blocs (without pulling out the military), but, unfortunately, both the government and a majority of the opposition would not support such a move. The other proposed unilateral move -- dismantling the security fence and annexing parts of Judea and Samaria -- is a populist gimmick that Habayit Hayehudi and Likud politicians are using to amuse themselves. They can afford themselves this pleasure, which will bear fruit for them in internal party elections, as they view Netanyahu as a stable bedrock who would not actually allow such a move to happen. There are two reasons he will not let this happen. Firstly, the security fence is an important component of the war on terror. During the days of the Second Intifada, the idea to build the fence had four proponents -- Ehud Barak, Avi Dichter, Dan Meridor and Haim Ramon (all of whom are now out of politics). The rest of the establishment opposed the initiative. But the fence was built. It is not the only means of thwarting terrorism, but it is a vital one, both in Judea and Samaria and in the Gaza Strip (where there is also a security fence on the border). The importance of security fences has been proven on the border with Egypt. During his time as prime minister, Ehud Olmert refused to build a fence there, and Israel was struck by terror and filled with infiltrators from Africa. Netanyahu took a different approach (ordering the construction of a fence), and the difference between the two results is obvious and unequivocal. Dismantle the fence in Judea and Samaria? This would open the door to Palestinian terrorism. Secondly, if friendly nations barely accept unilateral construction in the settlements, the annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria would be a disastrous for Israel. Before right-wing politicians cash in the chips that would be given to them by their fiery constituents, let them first find out what the response of friendly governments would be. Here is the answer: These governments would summon their ambassadors to Israel home for consultations, the diplomatic meaning of which would be a low-level severing of ties. Israelis who call for unilateral annexation are not smart and are not careful with their words.
