The Greatest Achievement of the Settlers

[Recursion]

From Goldblog:

The settlers of the West Bank have accomplished a great many things: They have built entire towns on previously-barren hilltops; they have created a network of schools, religious institutions and cultural centers that rival their counterparts in Israel proper. Of course, they've been subsidized generously by successive Israeli governments, but still, the concrete achievements are large. And in the political realm, they have achieved disproportionate influence, through savvy lobbying, clever coalition-building, and appeals to Jewish pride and tradition.

Their greatest achievement, though, is in the interconnected realms of ideology and propaganda. The settlement movement, its supporters, and its apologists (in Israel and in America) have successfully conflated support for their movement with support for Israel and for Zionism itself. They have created a reality in which criticism of the settlement movement has come to equal criticism of Israel. You see this at the AIPAC convention, where no speaker dared suggest that the settlements are, in fact, the vanguard of Israel's dissolution, rather than the vanguard of Zionism. (I explain why the settlements could lead to the end of Israel here.)

It is astonishing that what was once so small a movement now defines what it means to be a supporter of Israel. The official position of this blog (yes, we have official positions here) is that the settlements should be fought as if there was no such thing as anti-Zionism, and anti-Zionism should be fought as if there were no such thing as the settlements. This, I think, reflects the centrist position. A centrist on the question of Israel believes that the settlements represent a corruption of Jewish ideals, but that Israel remains the physical manifestation of a righteous cause. The right, of course, believes that settlements are an expression, not a corruption, of that cause. The left, on the other hand, believes that settlements are a manifestation of Zionism's true nature. I disagree with that argument strenuously. But I will say this, though: The left position on this question has the wind at its back.

Sullivan continues:

That is one of the lessons I have learned from the latest round of grinding conflict on this. Israel now means for a critical mass of Israelis a state from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan. Borders they defended with brilliance and vigor and ease in 1967 are now "indefensible" - but the vulnerable spaghetti of settlements on the West Bank are allegedly integral to security. But they are obviously very vulnerable as is. And it seems very likely that the only way to defend them permanently is annexation of the whole West Bank. What scales were left have therefore dropped from my eyes. Israel has moved past a two-state solution, and has done so through these cumulative facts on the ground and the rise of Jewish fundamentalism and American Christianism. I do not see how this will be easily reversed, and with every day, this new reality gets set in the concrete and stones of new settlements.

I think Carter was right and the time for two states has passed. There will be one state between the river and the sea, and Israel will now confront the choice of being either Jewish or democratic.

[leveymg]

1. I think the choice we are presented with is a democratic Israel or a fascist Greater Judea.

It cannot be both. That is the choice, and the path chosen will determine whether even one state survives.

[shira]

2. Goldberg makes a good point. Sullivan doesn't know his ass from....

A credible two state solution was just offered in fall 2008 by Olmert, giving Palestinians the 100% equivalent of land beyond the '67 lines, so no annexation of the entire West Bank is needed.

Just more rightwing crap from Sullivan.

[azurnoir]

3. lolthat one just never dies no matter how many times it has corrected

let's see Netanyahu said he would nor honor it

it would not take effect until Hamas was out of power

members of the Israeli government said it gave away more than Israel would be willing to give

want more?

[shira]

5. So Abbas should have accepted it and put the pressure back on Israel to honor this historic deal

Abbas said the gaps were still too wide so none of your points mean anything as Abbas has never once hinted that he would have accepted if only......

The offer obviously didn't leave Israel weak or defenseless enough for Abbas' tastes.

[azurnoir]

6. Abbas never said anything and Olmert resigned days after the the 'offer' was made n/t

[shira]

7. Abbas said the gaps were too wide. You're defending the indefensible once again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html
http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl290609ed25.html#isr1

[JonScholar]

8. FAIR: Isabel Kershner Misleads on Israel's 'Far-Reaching Proposal'

http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/07/15/isabel-kershner-misleads-on-israels-far-reaching-proposal

The notion that Mahmoud Abbas rejected a generous offer in 2008 is a commonly heard media trope: Jackson Diehl (Washington Post, 5/29/09) called the proposal a "a generous outline for Palestinian statehood," and the Post's editorial board described it as a "far-reaching peace offer" (11/5/09).

But the proposal was only "generous" or "far-reaching" from the official Israeli perspective. The Olmert plan (Newsweek, 6/13/09) would have had Israel annex illegal settlement blocs as well as reject the Palestinian "right of return," a position firmly grounded in international law. The “far-reaching” proposal actually would have required Palestinians to give away rights guaranteed to them, and would create a series of Palestinian islands surrounded by Israeli settlements.

Kershner also omits important context about Olmert's term as Prime Minister that would make it understandable as to why Palestinians did not act immediately on the proposal (Mondoweiss, 7/17/2009):

Read more: http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/07/15/isabel-kershner-misleads-on-israels-far-reaching-proposal

[LeftishBrit]

4. Disagree. I think that's what the settlers would LIKE to do; but they haven't succeeded

There are many who support the settlements; but there are many, centrists as well as left-wingers, who oppose them, though with differing views as to the timing and practicalities of ending them.

In fact, opposing the Occupation and wanting two states has become *more* acceptable in Israeli discourse now than many years ago.

Sullivan seems to contradict himself at times, saying (correctly IMO) that the centrist view is that 'the settlements represent a corruption of Jewish ideals, but that Israel remains the physical manifestation of a righteous cause' while at the same time saying that the small settler movement somehow defines the nature of support for Israel.

He is right that continuing the status quo would ultimately endanger Israel, but not that it is likely to become too late to reverse it if people are determined. It was far more logistically difficult to end the British and French empires, disband the Soviet Union, and reunify Germany to give a few 20th-century examples; yet all these were accomplished *because people chose to do so*.

On many issues besides this, Sullivan is inclined to contradict himself, and he can be very RW (he used to be unmitigatedly RW, though he has somewhat modified this - but not consistently or completely). The article is interesting, but ultimately somewhat superficial.