The Settlement Fixation

[shira]

The Settlement Fixation
The Obama administration and the Western media treat Israeli settlements as the key to Mideast peace. In reality, it's the least of their problems.

BY MICHAEL WEISS | NOVEMBER 10, 2010


Of all the problems bedeviling Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the status of Jewish settlements in the West Bank -- thrown into the spotlight again this week by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States -- has surely attracted the most attention. But that does not make it the most important or the most pressing issue.

Contrary to what many believe, Israelis are largely in agreement over the terms and circumstances under which they would compromise over the settlements -- a consensus that is surely larger than that which exists in Palestinian society over how to reconcile the feuding Islamist and secular nationalist factions in Gaza and the West Bank. While Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has used settlements as an excuse to disrupt the latest round of peace talks, the open secret in today's Middle East is that the issue is one of the least problematic obstacles to a final-status agreement.

The settlement project was originally conceived as a response to Israel's national security concerns and was bolstered through an awkward marriage with the ambitions of Messianic Judaism. But as Israeli realpolitik and demographic calculations have turned against the settlers, the settlements have been emptied of their original ideological justifications and reduced to the status of a mere bargaining chip by even the country's most hawkish leaders.

The first settlements were built following Israel's capture of Gaza and the West Bank after the 1967 Six-Day War, but expansionism did not begin in earnest until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Although Israel prevailed in 1973, Israelis believed the war could easily have gone the other way. The Israeli security establishment reckoned that possessing the military buffer zone of the Israeli-occupied territories made the critical difference between victory and defeat. Territorial depth provided the Israel Defense Forces with the room to maneuver and time to recover from the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Jordan stayed out of the war, but Israelis worried that it would not have been so restrained if the Hashemite Kingdom still controlled the West Bank and was thus capable of launching an invasion from next door.

more...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/10/the_settlement_fixation?page=full

[parkia00]

1. Ostrich's Head In Sand.

Can't see nothing if you don't wanna see it. Anyone who believes that the settlement issue is not one of the biggest stumbling blocks to a permanent peace is either an idiot, lying or an ostrich. You can point to rockets, terror or militant Palestinian terrorist but the facts are very clear. Rockets and terror can be curtailed. Even now there is a sharp decrease in rockets or other forms of terror activities perpetrated by the Palestinians. The facts are also clear that the settlements are expanding and there was never really a stop to them at all. Will Israel agree to a permanent peace if the Palestinians dangled the possibility of only a temporary moratorium to stop rocket attacks? And when that is over there was no guarantee that rockets will not continue to be fired into Israel? That would be ludicrous. But somehow Israel expects the other side to accept their most generous offer?

Through all the name calling, finger pointing, huff and puff of all sides involved in peace talks; one very important point about the hole Israel dug itself into is overlooked. Right now as it stands, Israel cannot have a permanent peace settlement with the Palestinians. It wants to. But can't. It can't because it doesn't know how. To have any peace, the issue of the settlements MUST be resolved before any meaningful steps to peace can be achieved. To resolve the settlements, it must first be stopped, decided upon in some sort of land swap with the Palestinians where some smaller outposts to be given up but the main settlements go to Israel and viable land to be traded for it. But then the settlers again will never accept ANY form of compromise over areas under their control. What would Israel do if settlers refused to move out of any areas that are to be given over to the Palestinians in trade. They will never leave. They will hunker down, armed to the teeth and wait for war. Either with the Palestinians or other Israelis. And if the Palestinians take over the area as agreed upon in any land swap, you can bet your pretty crab cakes they will never accept governance by the Palestinians even if they were guaranteed equal rights and security. They will hunker down with their weapons, create their own laws and become a de Facto state within a state. Then with no more controls by Israel the settlers will do what they want. And you can bet your ass that they will start forcibly annexing nearby land to be brought under the control of their private armies.

So if you are a Palestinian official and faced with constant violent raids by the settlers, what would you do? Would you try to bring them under control of law? Then we will have fighting again. Palestinians vs. The settlers. And when that happens, how long do you thing it will be before Israel as a country will be drawn into it? And when Israel goes in; to create law and order, who's side will be Israel on? The Palestinians who are fighting an organized but non recognized heavily armed group which threatens security in the area? Man that would split Israel right down the middle. Or against the Palestinians who are fighting fellow Jews but are not a threat to Israel but would be classified as an internal problem of the Palestinians. Either way, Israel will come out smelling like shit.

All because a group of people banging on their holy book insisting all they see is given by God and they aim to claim it and to hell with everyone else. Now in most parts of the world, there are people like this. Most of them in the fringes and the majority of people have enough common sense to keep them there. But in some places, these fringe groups are starting to become the standard bearers of government; pushing their one minded zeal till the end. Israel is one of these nations. This is not an insult I am making here. This is a fact. This fringe group has gotten so powerful and has gotten control of many parts of the government that no Prime Minister of Israel will put their political career and lives in danger to confront them. So instead of confronting the settlement issue, you get a bunch of excuses and diversions that are thrown to the Palestinians so Israel can twiddle their thumbs and not have to deal with hard issues. This time it is recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. Next time it will be something else. In fact, if the Palestinians really want to make the Israeli government sweat, they should agree to what ever excuses Israel throws up to avoid dialogue on the settlements.

"Yes we agree to your demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state! Now lets talk about the settlements!"

You will have Israeli policy makers tossing in their beds all night long.

So in short, my wall of text comes down to this; how can you make peace with a partner when you know in the back of your head they will balk, they will meander, they will change directions and they will drag their feet in order not to address the biggest stumbling block for a permanent peace between them and you? It's like trying to build sandcastles in the surf.

[oberliner]

2. Is this the Just Journalism guy?

Or is this a different Michael Weiss?

[azurnoir]

3. Perhaps it's this Michael Weiss

http://www.michaelweiss.org/

but it would seem to be the one from Just Journalism

http://justjournalism.com/

[oberliner]

4. Not sure who it is

It is a relatively common name.

[azurnoir]

7. Just Journalism links to the article at the top of its home page

it is most likely the Michael Weiss from that publication, but anything is possible

[azurnoir]

5. delete wrong place n/t

[Tripmann]

6. Yep, its the director of just journalism, CAMERAS cousin

From the article "Michael Weiss is the executive director of Just Journalism, a London-based think tank that monitors how the British media cover Israel and the Middle East."

[oberliner]

8. What is the connection between the two groups?

Are they run by the same folks?

[azurnoir]

9. CAMERA is an acronym for Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Just Journalism has the same function but for the UK, both are thought to have a strong "Pro-Israel" bias

[Tripmann]

10. Although both are apparently about 'accuracy & fairness in reporting' their articles and contents

are almost exclusively attempts to discredit legitimate criticism of israel or pushing pro-zionist agendas.

In other words, both are bought and paid for right wing zionist organisations. But permitted around here for some reason.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alanquatermass]

13. Got it -- and I will never understand people who accuse legitimate critics of Israel...

-- of being anti-semitic.

After all, is legitimate criticism of the United States "antiChristian"?

Just never made sense to me.

[Tripmann]

17. Basically it serves to silence the legitimate criticism of israel, just like

criticism of bush doctrine was met from the right with screams of 'unamerican' 'unpatriotic' 'america hater' etc. Its nothing but a bullying tactic, that also has bought and paid for organisations ready to pounce on people in the spotlight if their conscience makes them speak critically of israel, Look at the bullshit hit job carried out by the ADL against Roger Waters as a good example.

The truth, of course, is that genuine criticism of israel makes you an anti-semite in the same way criticising bush policy makes you anti-american, or criticising mugabes policies in zimbabwe makes you a racist i.e. it doesn't..

By the way, accusations of anti-semitism aren't allowed in I/P, even though certain posters make repeated futile attempts to infer it on anybody who criticise israeli atrocities (especially new people)

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pirate Smile]

22. You're not imagining things.

[oberliner]

19. I don't think that is accurate

What is the "function" of Just Journalism?

[azurnoir]

20. Perhaps you did not read Just Journalism's

Mission Statement

Just Journalism is an independent research organisation focused on how Israel and Middle East issues are reported in the UK media. We produce analysis of print, broadcast and online media and regularly publish research on trends in the media’s coverage.

http://justjournalism.com/

[shaayecanaan]

14. Something of an own goal, methinks...

The hasbarados are better off ignoring the issue of settlements. Every time they go near the subject they end up looking like apologists. The more they try and treat the occupation as a public relations problem, the worse it gets.

"The settlement project was originally conceived as a response to Israel's national security concerns and was bolstered through an awkward marriage with the ambitions of Messianic Judaism."

Messianic Judaism, as in the "Jews for Jesus" people? I didn't know that they were major powerbrokers as far as the middle East was concerned.

[azurnoir]

16. There was also this

The 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, a Messianic rejectionist of the Oslo Accords, marked the beginning of the erosion of the settler movement's credibility.

This is the first I've ever heard that Amir was Messianic, in fact everything I have read about him says he is ultra Orthydox

[shaayecanaan]

18. I suppose that he meant messianic as in apocalyptic...

rather than what we would normally understand as Messianic Judaism. Still, a significant blunder in what is essentially a very amateurish piece.

[Mosby]

21. I think he's using the term to refer to religious zionism

[azurnoir]

23. Of course however it should be noted that the reference

was sandwiched between 2 references to Messianic Jews and in the usage did not need to be capitalized, that could create a false impression

[Jim Sagle]

25. Fuckin' A.