Israeli settlements: a building problem

[bemildred]

The communities in the West Bank are an obstacle to peace. The U.S. should push a building freeze.

In the latter half of 1967, while Israel's supporters around the world were still celebrating its stunning six-day victory over three Arab armies, leaders in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were already beginning to plan for Jewish settlement in the newly conquered Palestinian territories.

Some believed that the presence of Israeli civilians in the occupied areas would strengthen Israel's security. Others were driven by religious zeal. Some felt the pull of the historic homeland, the "greater" Israel that so many Jews had dreamed of for so long. "They have divided my land," roared Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook in a sermon just weeks before the war. "Yes, where is our Hebron? Have we forgotten it? And where is our Shekhem? And our Jericho -- will we forget them? ... It is ours, every clod of soil ... every region and bit of earth belonging to the Lord's land."

Over the next four decades, the number of Israeli settlers climbed steadily. There were none at all on the West Bank at the time of the 1967 war; 10 years later, when Menachem Begin was elected prime minister, there were more than 4,000. By 1993, when the Oslo peace process began, that number had grown to 116,000.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-settlements30-2009may30,0,1535140.story

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Obama has been and Israel has turned it down

I see points on both sides, but the settlements are facts on the ground and will continue to grow

[Violet_Crumble]

2. What points do you see in support of the settlements?

You make it sound like supporting the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is a reasonable thing...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. That they are not coming down...no Isreali govenment will give them up

They are also on land that was designated part of Israel prior to the invasion by Jordan.

The expansion in Jerusalem is more difficult since some of the land was Jewish own, even though it was not returned to Isreal until after the 1967 war(Har Homa)

[Violet_Crumble]

4. That's not an argument in favour of them staying...

And just because you may not want the settlements dismantled doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Also, the West Bank was not designated part of Israel prior to the 1948 war, so I don't know where yr getting that from....

Seriously, who cares what land was Jewish owned? It's very clear that when it comes to Palestinians having owned property, there's very few 'supporters' of Israel who give a shit and use their ownership of property in Jerusalem prior to 48 as an argument for anything. They're supposed to suck it up and get on with it, so I figure to be consistant the same applies to Jews who lost property too...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. It is as a practical matter. Isreal will not agree to dismantle all of them

[IndianaGreen]

6. A binational state will surely solve the settlements problem

and the new binational state will build similar settlements for its new citizens that used to be Palestinians.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Is a binational state possible in the foreseeable future. Hamas refuses to acknowledge Fatah except

with bullets. They have stated they will not abide by anything Abbas says or signs.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. No, it's not a reasonable argument in favour of the settlements...

You were making it sound as though you think the arguments of the settler movement are every bit as reasonable as the arguments of those who oppose the settlements and realise that while they remain and are expanded, there's no hope of a viable and independent Palestinian state emerging. Saying the equivalent of "It's there, and it's staying there!" is not a reasonable argument at all, and that's understandable as there is no reasonable argument to be made for Israel continuing the settlement activity in the West Bank....


Somehow I very much doubt that the Israeli government will go against the wishes of the US for long. They'll put on a show and then pretend that stopping expansion of the settlements was all their idea in the first place. What the intransigent stance of the Israeli govt proves is that they're much more interested in land than peace...

[bemildred]

8. Given an adequate level of pain, Sir, the Israeli government will do whatever it is told to do.

Those are the facts on the ground. They would do better to deal with reality than to continue to indulge in these self-serving fantasies. The settlements were and are an enormously expensive mistake. They will not become less expensive, or less of a mistake, by virtue procrastination about dealing with them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. I am not sure that the current administration has the stomach for that kind of fight

Way too many Americans support Israel.

[azurnoir]

10. It is not just the US

name a country outside of Israel that supports the settlements, but if Israel wants to isolate it self and continue to squeeze the Palestinians no one can stop them but eventually this situation will explode, and BTW supporting Israel does not mean supporting the settlements

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Name a nation that will do something about it or change their policy over them?

[azurnoir]

13. The EU quite possibly and perhaps the UK

both along with the US have taken a different tone towards Israel since OCL, however I guess when Barak said the aim of Israel was to "change the game" he was right, the game as it were certainly has changed as far "doing something" time will tell it will be an international body that does it perhaps UNSC

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Don't forget the letter from Bush that confirmed the game change

AS a practical matter the EU and the UK will not do anything over the settlements unless its the only thing blocking a permanent peace. Way too many other issues for that to be the case.

[azurnoir]

16. Bush is gone n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Its still on the record...

[azurnoir]

18. The 2004 letter and Annapolis cancel each other out n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

20. There won't be any great fight. Way too many Americans don't support the settlements....

Haven't you been reading some of the articles posted here? Obama's getting support from pro-Israel members of Congress because while they are pro-Israel, they are opposed to the settlements expanding. So it's not a question many Americans supporting Israel, but that far, far less support the settlements. So there won't be a fight. There'll be a whimper from the Israeli govt and that'll be it...

Here's a link to an OP I just posted that says that Congress are behind Obama on this, and explains why they're behind him. This should be good news for everyone, I'd hope...


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1089195.html

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Do you think peace will be possible without removing the settlements?

I think you're probably right that Israel won't remove them, but I don't think there's any possibility of peace unless it does.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. There are so many other issues that no one issue will be the tipping point, except maybe Jerusalem

[Violet_Crumble]

21. The settlements are an impediment to peace....

The Palestinians want their own state in the West Bank and Gaza. While Israel continues to build and expand settlements in the West Bank, it constantly reduces the chances of a viable and independent state emerging. Israel has to show that it's more interested in peace than in gaining territory, and it's not doing that at all. No surprises there, considering Nutty and his goons are in power in Israel...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. There are many impediments, not all are on Isreal. The settlemens are 40 years old, its not just

Netenyahu

[bemildred]

22. I want to add that the reason I posted this OpEd piece is that it was in the LAT.

I am starting to see such pieces on US news sites, in the last year or so. One also sees various things from pro-Israeli writers. What is new is that the terms of the debate seem to have been widened, and the subject is no longer radioactive in the mainstream. The crazy Aunt in the attic is being discussed. I think the change is significant, that it represents a change in the US' perception of it's national interests, but it will take more time to tell for sure. That does not mean that the US will no longer support Israel, but I think it means that the US now wants the issue settled (no pun intended). It also seems notable that the approach is different than in previous peace efforts, less flying back and forth and holding of photo-ops and such show-biz politics, and more two-sided public discussion of issues.

[Vegasaurus]

23. Obama has said that Israel's security is paramount

and that he will not speak to Hamas.

Therefore, I don't see much of a change at the moment.

[bemildred]

24. Obama is also demanding a settlement freeze.

That seems like a change to me.

It is true that constructing and legitimizing a negotiating agent for the Palestinians will not be easy, it looks like the trickiest part to me. Hamas must be part of the Palestinian government, but it will not BE the Palestinian government, and it may take some time to work that out. In the meantime Israel has the opportunity to get its ducks in a row domestically, to show that it is a willing and legitimate partner for peace too.

[LeftishBrit]

25. Agreed.

The current Israeli government is chaotic, divided, and dominated by extremist factions; and the same is even truer of the current Palestinian government. Poor material no doubt for a peace agreement - but effective peace agreements have been made from still worse material.

[bemildred]

27. Hey LB.

:hi: