Settlements talk a ‘waste of time?’ I don’t think so
Today’s Ha’aretz reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “arguing” about settlements is a waste of time, and more and more Jewish leaders here seem to agree: Jewish settlements in the West Bank may be a legitimate issue, but there’s way too much focus on it. So why not move on to something else?
The problem is, that view ignores a lot of history, and it ignores the way settlements have become a critical symbolic issue to the Palestinians, with a lot of help from assorted Israeli governments.
| Return to Jewish Week Home Page
Follow the Jewish Week on Twitter And check out the Jewish Week’s Facebook page and become a fan! |
I am not one of those who considers Israel a colonial power; the current settlements mess, I believe, is the result of a tangle of factors, including bureaucratic inertia, political cowardice and Israel’s convoluted political system, as well as the “greater Israel” aspirations of a Jewish minority.
Nobody has explained the roots of the settlements problem better than Israeli journalist Gershom Gorenberg in his seminal “The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977.” Read that book and you come away with the impression of human error and tragedy, not clever conspiracies.
But it is also undeniable that some Israeli governments and leaders deliberately used settlements to create facts on the ground – facts meant to make it difficult if not impossible to carve out any kind of viable Palestinian state. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a major player in settlement expansion, proudly admitted as much to columnist Doug Bloomfield in the 1980s.
Nor is there any real doubt some Israeli governments used “natural growth” as a pretext for expanding the footprint of existing settlements.
Do settlers who moved to the big settlement blocs because it was the only way they could get cheap housing need ways to house expanding families? Sure. Do Palestinian leaders have good reason to get nervous every time Israeli leaders use the words “natural growth?” You bet.
Is it any surprise that the Palestinians regard settlements as a vivid symbol of Israel’s intentions, a symbol made even more powerful by virtue of Israel’s reluctance to even remove illegal outposts over the years and by the extremism of some settlers (yes, I know, a minority, but still one with an amazing ability to attract the television cameras)?
Settlements are a great issue for the Palestinians, one on which they and their supporters and a lot of the rest of the world believe they hold the high moral ground.
Israel rightly argues that the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to curb incitement in schools and textbooks indicates a lack of seriousness about peace efforts. It’s pretty easy to see how the Palestinians and their supporters and much of the rest of the world sees Israel’s handling of the settlement issue over the years in much the same way.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting settlements are the root cause of the current Middle East stalemate.
Palestinian terrorism and the unwillingness of Palestinian leaders to curb it have done far more to disrupt the climate for peace than settlements. Weak, indecisive and inept leadership on both sides, particularly on the Palestinian, is a much bigger factor in the current mess. Then there’s the little matter of Hamas, which controls Gaza and which no sane analyst would call a partner for peace.
But it’s disingenuous to speak of the settlements debate as a waste of time, or something that can be handily put aside for later. For a variety of reasons it has become a central symbolic issue for the Palestinians that needs to be addressed if there’s any hope of creating a climate that will allow a real peace process to move forward.
I think the Obama administration really understands that, which is why it is not going to let the Netanyahu government do what so many of its predecessors have done – make a few nods toward U.S. policy on settlements, and then go on its merry way thickening and, in some cases, expanding them.
Tags: Israel, Netanyahu, settlements, West Bank
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Netanyahu is doing the right thing. Few doubt that Israel and the Obama administration could make some sort of deal regarding the settlements. I also understand what Obama is trying to do in reaching out to the Arab nations and trying to create a constructive ‘climate’ for negotiating with the Palestinians. However, therein lies the problem: so-called peace deals are made by interested third parties, i.e. ‘The Quartet’ and a host of others over the years, without bringing a majority of Palestinians to the negotiating table. This latest focus on ’settlements’ only shows that nobody, including Obama has been able to confront and deal with the fundamental issue, that is, who represents the embryonic Palestinian nation? Is it Hamas/Damascus, Hamas/Gaza, and/or PA/West Bank or all of them in some kind of politically stable arrangement? The history of the ME show that settlements come and go. Gaza once had Jewish settlements. Today, there are none. If, as and when settlements in Samaria and Judea need to be vacated in exchange for something tangible and valuable, I have no doubt that Israel will do what’s necessary. However, until the fundamental issues are dealt with, then the residents of Samaria and Judea should have the right to have children, and live reasonable lives, and expand their communities a little to take in natural growth. If the Palestinians are really worried about this, then, the first thing to do would be to get their leadership issues resolved quickly and then sit down in concert at the negotiating table with Israel.
It really can’t work any other way. I know Obama and others have tried, but until the real parties to the dispute are willing to sit down and talk, nothing will change. This is unfortunate, because the parties have shown that they know who to fight with, but can’t bring themselves to deal with each other. This is a long shot: Maybe the place to start might be for the parties to recognize each other (as terrifying as that sounds).
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Says Besser “…Palestinian terrorism and the unwillingness of Palestinian leaders to curb it have done far more to disrupt the climate for peace than settlements.”
But there is never any discussion of the factors and causes that drove the rise in terror in the first place…such as increased contact between the two peoples on Geneva Convention internationally recognized occupied territory in the first place…or armed settler violence against residents of Hebron…never!
No wonder the Palestinian center doesn’t hold with that kind of help from the side supposedly always in sought of peace.
Seems very disingenuous to suggest that people having rights to have more children should be able to do so on somebody else’s internationally disputed land in communities built knowingly outside the law (by money from imperialist countries). Strange strange choices of fact patterns and moral codes here.
Clearly a limited view of what it takes for a ‘climate for peace’, as always!