The real price of Israel's settlements

[Violet_Crumble]

Israel has spent $17bn on its settlements in the Palestinian territories, but the cost to the peace process is much higher.

Seth Freedman
guardian.co.uk
Thursday 25 March 2010 10.00 GMT

The cost of building Israeli settlements in the occupied territories stands at more than $17bn, according to a report released this week. The painstaking study into the economics of construction in the West Bank encompasses every building and road in the settlements, which cover a combined space of 12m square metres, and in doing so quantifies the enormity of the 43-year-old project of colonisation.

Not included in the cost calculations are the vast military resources spent guarding the settler community, nor the massive subsidies dished out by the government to those dwelling east of the Green Line. Were those to be factored in, the cumulative price paid to maintain the settlement scheme would be far higher, demonstrating even further the tenacity of successive governments and electorates in ploughing on with the illegal venture.

Much is made of the average Israeli's supposed antipathy towards the settlement enterprise, yet the facts on the ground tell a very different story. What began as a casually dismissed effort by a bunch of radicals on a windswept hillside in Samaria has morphed into a 500,000-strong unstoppable force – and all under the watchful eye of Israeli voters.

Daniella Weiss, currently mayor of Kedumim and one of the most prominent settler leaders, was amongst the initial wave of settlers, and described to me the reaction of the non-believers to the Gush Emunim faithful's actions:

"'Who are these strange hallucinating people?' they would ask. 'What are they doing Biblical hills? There's nothing there!'... They thought they'd be able to control us, to keep us in place and watch over us. They thought we'd grow tired and go back to Tel Aviv… This was the start of Kedumim."

This early success was a shot in the arm for wave after wave of successive would-be settlers. Bolstered by the founding of Kedumim, they also drew strength from the reluctant acquiescence of the incumbent Israeli cabinet, headed by Yitzhak Rabin, to their activities in the West Bank. That the leftwing government of the day chose to pander to the movement, rather than to nip it in the bud, speaks either of incomprehensible weakness, or, more likely, of an unwillingness to give up the land that had a profound historical resonance for many Jews.

However, Israelis' gradual warming to the settler movement was not based simply on romantic notions of dwelling on the same soil as their ancestors 2,000 years previously. More pragmatic considerations swayed the majority of Israelis' opinions, who were won over by constant propaganda claiming settlements were vital for the protection of "Israel proper". In Weiss's eyes too, settlers are the soldiers on the front line, guaranteeing the safety of those back home: " represent something… this belief that we came here to stay for good. Whoever represents this gives life to the people who sit comfortably in the pubs "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/25/israel-settlements-palestinian-territories-price

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Israel doesn't want peace.

They obviously think they'll eventually win it all.

[oberliner]

2. An interesting observation in this article that is worth considering:

"External pressure on Israel from the likes of the United States and European Union serves only to provoke a siege-mentality response from Israelis and plays into the hands of the paranoiacs on the Israeli right."

Thanks for posting another thought-provoking article from Seth.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Why do you think it worth considering?

After all, Israel already has a siege mentality. What action would you suggest should be taken in order to get Israel to not only stop new construction in East Jerusalem, but to roll back the settlements in the West Bank?

[oberliner]

5. Because there may be some truth to it

Perhaps simply getting the two sides to sit down together for talks, in spite of the many disagreements that exist, would have some chance for a positive outcome.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Some truth to what?

That pressuring Israel might provoke a siege mentality? Are you denying Israel doesn't already have a siege mentality?

[oberliner]

7. To what Seth Freedman wrote in the passage I cited from the article you posted

I don't know whether or not Israel already has a siege mentality, but I have observed (as Seth Freedman has) that external pressure provokes a siege-mentality response from Israelis, especially the Israeli right.

Have you not found that to be the case?

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Of course Israel already has a siege mentality!

You just contradicted yrself where you initially said you weren't sure Israel had one, and then in the same sentence saying that you've observed that it does.

What do you suggest be done to make Israel not only stop new construction, but roll back existing settlements?

[oberliner]

9. I don't know if I can agree with that

I more agree with what Freedman says in the article about how a siege-mentality response is provoked by those actions he mentioned.

I think a different action would result in a different response.

I would propose something like what President Clinton did - get the two sides to sit down and try to force them each to make some difficult compromises.

President Obama, I believe, would have a more than fair chance to be successful in achieving some of those goals you listed if he helped create the space for that to occur.

Edit to add: And I do think he has taken some steps to make that happen via the work of George Mitchell and the proposed proximity talks.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. You already agreed with it...

"but I have observed (as Seth Freedman has) that external pressure provokes a siege-mentality response from Israelis, especially the Israeli right."

Obama has so far been totally unsuccessful in forcing Israel to make any compromises whatsoever, so why on earth do you think Nutty's totally rejectionist stance would change if the two sides were sat down together?

[oberliner]

11. Are you having trouble following what Seth Freedman is saying in that sentence?

I can repost the quote for you if that would help:

"External pressure on Israel from the likes of the United States and European Union serves only to provoke a siege-mentality response from Israelis and plays into the hands of the paranoiacs on the Israeli right."

That's the sentence that I am referencing.

I have observed the phenomenon that he is describing there, and I think there is some truth to that sentence.

If I say that correcting Poster X on DU will provoke a mean-spirited response from Poster X, I am not saying that Poster X is mean-spirited. A lot of otherwise kind people have mean-spirited responses when provoked.

Seth Freedman's sentence (that I am expressing agreement with) is stating that the external pressure provokes a "siege-mentality response" - akin to how correcting a certain poster (who is not mean-spirited) could provoke a mean-spirited response.

I hope that helps clarify the distinction between the two.

In response to your question, I believe that if Obama can get the two sides to sit down, Netanyahu will perhaps feel like he hasn't given up anything before even sitting down to negotiate. That way he can seem magnanimous for making concessions in exchange for the concessions he would want Abbas to make. Maybe once some things are on the table, Obama (or Hillary Clinton, or George Mitchell) can help bridge the gap between the two sides and negotiate a deal that is mutually acceptable.

If Obama (or the EU, or the Arab League) is able to convince the Palestinians to sit down with the Israelis this would also help weaken the oft-presented argument that there is no peace partner on the Palestinian side.

I think there is at least the potential for some positive outcome, in spite of the RW nature of the current Israeli leadership, if the pressure is in the direction of getting the two sides to sit down (preferably with US involvement) and make some compromises.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. No problems at all following him. It's you who contradicted yrself...

Here's where you contradicted yrself. I'm quite happy to break it down into detail for you if you think that will help you understand:

'I don't know whether or not Israel already has a siege mentality, but I have observed (as Seth Freedman has) that external pressure provokes a siege-mentality response from Israelis, especially the Israeli right.'


It's totally delusional for anyone to believe that Nutty would agree to stop settlement construction if only he talked to the Palestinians instead of Obama. He refuses to make any concessions when he's talked to Obama, so it's ridiculous to think he'd cave if he talked to the Palestinians.

[Jefferson23]

4. Funny, he doesn't mention WHO is suppose to lead them by the hand:

"The real task facing those calling for concessions from Israel is not preventing a few hundred homes being built in this or that settlement, but convincing Israeli citizens collectively once and for all that the entire settlement project is doing them untold harm."

And what are the consequences for the Palestinians while they wait for the settlers to, "get it"?