The Settlements: Obama's Demands and Netanyahu's Options

Amidst the whirlwind of activity surrounding President Obama's diplomatic efforts to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, one issue has stood out among others as particularly contentious. The renewed statements by President Obama, Secretary Clinton and the rest of the US administration on ending Israeli settlement activity has caused considerable discord on how to find common ground in this controversial issue. The Obama administration's demand that Israel end all settlement activity, including natural growth, has been deemed unacceptable by Netanyahu's government, which insists that a total freeze will severely aggravate normal life and engender internal political rift. Mr. Obama reaffirmed his position in his address to the Muslim world from Cairo when he stated: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements; this construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." It is unlikely after such a statement that the US administration will retreat from this position. This will undoubtedly compel Netanyahu to revise his stance on settlements and a two-state solution as he addresses his countrymen on Sunday.

A close review of the Israeli point of view suggests that putting an immediate stop to natural growth on settlements, especially those which have become full fledged cities like Ma'ale Adumim, will be extraordinarily difficult to implement both politically and practically. Not only would the settler's movement rattle the government, but violence might inadvertently erupt, creating a scene that the Netanyahu government would want to avoid at all costs. The question is, what can be done to resolve this problem which has such potential to strain US-Israeli relations and undermine the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

To understand the serious nature of the problem it first must be put in its proper context: More than any thing else, the existence of the settlements reminds every Palestinian of the Israeli occupation, and the expansion of these settlements not only reinforces that painful feeling and humiliation, but suggests that Israel is intent on maintaining the occupation indefinitely. The fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu has refused thus far to accept the idea of a two-state solution further strengthens the Palestinian argument that Israel has no intention of relinquishing the occupied territories. President Obama must insist on stopping the expansion of the settlements as a prerequisite to instilling some confidence and integrity into the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Mr. Netanyahu has thus far been against the freeze partially because it would imply an early concession on one of his main bargaining chips: the idea of the two-state solution.

To resolve this quandary it seems unlikely that President Obama will settle for less than a 'moratorium' on further expansion. Changing the semantics from a freeze to a temporary moratorium could initially provide some maneuvering room to agree on a workable formula. A temporary moratorium would mean a halt on the expansion of all settlements and settlement related activity during a set negotiating process, likely between three to six months. This might well work if it were done with the understanding that Israel and the Palestinians would enter immediately into negotiations with direct and active American involvement to determine the future borders of the two states. Once the borders have been agreed upon, Israel can expand settlement activity within them and will be prohibited from any development outside these borders. Whether the objective of the negotiations from Netanyahu's perspective would be a Palestinian state or not, he has already conceded as much when he stated that the Palestinians have the right to self-rule living side by side Israel in peace. Netanyahu may be able to sell the moratorium idea to his centre-right coalition partners because the alternative will be a direct confrontation with the United States, which could bring his government down. This may explain his likely change of heart, especially when recent polls show a majority of Israelis support the freeze.

During these negotiations, Israelis and Palestinians can agree within a few months as to which of the settlements will be incorporated into Israel proper under a peace agreement, and what contiguous land of equal size and quality can be swapped with the Palestinians in its place, which should be enforced under American monitoring. The two sides have negotiated in the past (at Camp David and in Taba in 2000-2001) and agreed in principle about the status of these settlements. Although the Palestinian Authority will want all issues on the table to reach a final status agreement -- including the Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem -- it appears that they are willing to discuss borders first once Israel accepts the moratorium. Mahmoud Abbas, along with Jordan's King Abdullah has publicly agreed that borders would be the first order of business. Throughout the duration of these negotiations, the Palestinian camp would be expected to make discernable progress on security and ending incitement, in keeping with the mission of the US security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority General Keith Dayton.

It should be noted that historically the Israeli public has not tolerated and will not support any Israeli government that alienates the United States. Moreover, no Israeli Prime Minister could hold a government together should the United States decide to exert direct pressure -- which the Obama administration appears to be willing to wield. The Wye River negotiations between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Clinton in 1998 over Hebron clearly indicate that Netanyahu is capable of surpassing expectations. The idea here is to start the negotiations with a significant concession, and then let momentum and American pressure move the process forward.

To provide some practical suggestions, it is necessary to break down the settlers' movement into its three basic constituencies. In doing so, some interim solutions can realistically be made to satisfy the American demands, meet the Palestinian and Arab requirements for resuming negotiations, and to provide Netanyahu with a face saving way out that he can bring to his coalition.

The quality-of-life settlers are those who moved to the West Bank primarily for economic reasons, the majority of whom live in the block of settlements located closer to the green line. According to Peace Now statistics, there are about 196,000 residents in these settlements, several of which are no longer considered settlements and resemble large cities, home to more than 30,000 people each including Ma'ale Adumim, Modi'in and Beitar Illit. The routing of the security fence leaves most of these settlements on the Israeli side of the fence, though some deep inside the West Bank may not be included into Israel proper. The pressure on the government to allow for natural growth in these settlements is enormous and it is here where the Netanyahu government will experience the greatest difficulty in trying to implement the moratorium. This can be done however, because American overt pressure offers a high degree of political cover and limited options.

The second group consists of ideological settlers who use religious arguments to justify their presence in the West Bank. They view the return of the Jews to the land of "greater Israel" as a fulfillment of God's will. They occupy settlements located for the most part deep inside the West Bank and often in the heart of Palestinian populated areas. It is quite evident however that the public support for these settlements is declining. A growing majority of Israelis accept the fact that Israel will need to evacuate most of these nearly 100 settlements that dot the West Bank. The pressure to expand these settlements is minimal and it can be denied without considerable cost in political capital.

The third group is made up of Ultra-orthodox settlers in the West Bank who are a function almost exclusively of cheap and segregated housing close to the Green Line. They are descendants of devoutly religious Jews who oppose change and modernization. They have historically rejected active Zionism and continue to believe that the path to Jewish redemption is through religious rather than secular activity. There are eight ultra orthodox settlements that were built in the eighties and nineties with roughly 80,000 residents, all of whom are located within the settlement blocs that Israel wants to incorporate into Israel proper. These settlements are currently expanding more rapidly than others due primarily to a higher birth rate. Here -- once an agreement on the borders is achieved-the expansion can then be quickly resumed within Israeli lines.

Based on the settlers' ideological leanings and location of the settlements, and considering the political constraints under which Netanyahu's coalition government operates, the Obama administration should focus on four possible areas where it can persuade the Israeli government to take action.

First, the US should push for the dismantling of all illegal outposts-which the government has already begun-but must also insist that no new outposts be allowed to rise under any circumstances.

Second, the United States should focus on removing small clusters of settlements occupied by ideological activist settlers in places such as Nablus and Hebron that are troublesome and heavily tax Israel's security forces. All of these settlements are deep in the West Bank and most Israelis agree that they must eventually be evacuated for any peace deal as soon as there is an agreement.

Third, Israel must create a program of diminishing incentive that will provide settlers who are willing to relocate voluntarily with equal housing an extra incentive if they leave within the first year from the initiation of the program. The incentive will then be reduced every few months thereafter. The idea is to create reverse migrations to Israel proper while psychologically preparing the Israeli public and the Palestinians for the inevitability of ending the occupation.

While many settlers will not accept the compensation and try to hold out for a better deal, the government must be resolute and not give into blackmail. There have been some discussions about the fate of a few thousand Israeli settlers who simply refuse to relocate to Israel proper. Some suggest that they may continue to live in their homes under Palestinian authority, though neither side has reached an understanding on this issue in previous negotiations. This idea remains a viable one as a matter of principle, and can be worked out between both governments. Finally, as difficult as a complete moratorium on expansion of settlements will be, the United States must still exert sufficient pressure on Israel to be sensitive to Palestinian and Arab sensibilities and stop major development projects in and around East Jerusalem.

The Obama administration is likely to intensify the pressure on Netanyahu to make meaningful concessions for advancing peace. Although Netanyahu as a Prime Minister will be a tough negotiator and will demand full compliance in return from the Palestinians for any concession he makes, he may also prove to be the more worthy interlocutor and more trusted by the public. It should be noted that the largest territorial concessions-the Sinai, Hebron and Gaza were all made by Likud leaders Begin, Netanyahu and Sharon respectively.

Special envoy George Mitchell, who is now President Obama's Arab-Israeli point man, concluded his report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee with the following words, "Israelis and Palestinians have to live, work, and prosper together. History and geography have destined them to be neighbors. That cannot be changed. Only when their actions are guided by this awareness will they be able to develop the vision and reality of peace and shared prosperity."

No American president has taken such a keen and immediate commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this early in his term as President Obama. And no agreement between Israel and the Arab states has been achieved without direct American involvement. If time, resolve and visionary leadership matter, there may not be a better time to push for a solution than now.

Comments

[bandit09]

Obama is sending the message to Israel--the US is not your attorney. It appears the Obama administration is going to start requiring Israel to give the US something in return for what we provide them: the most steadfast and powerful ally they could ever hope for. I personally don't care what Israel does as long it stops acting like a self absorbed jerk to the non jews who live in its neighborhood.

It is something that hasn't been required of Israel by the US and it now seems to be happening. It is about time it did--Netanyahu better start jumping through some hoops because Obama is tired of his nonsense.

[S1m0n]

"First, the US should push for the dismantling of all illegal outposts..­."

There are no legal outposts and no legal settlements. They're ALL illegal.

And yes, that's exactly what Obama is already doing.

[Geria]

I don't know what else, except firmness by the US on the settlements issue, is going to bring hawkish Netanyahu to the negotiating table. The US has clearly given Israel the impression that anything it wants to do will be accepted by the US; such accomodating attitudes must stop if there is to be any progress at all. I think Obama should cut funding to the settlements as part of a temporary freeze or better, a permanent change in policy.

[DaveCarroll4]

I've just read some comments and must admit that I have no real enthusiasm for either side, individually. I am though, grateful for this article because it seems to be a very good summary of what's going on. I haven't read anything quite as comprehensive and concise. I feel I've learned from reading this. All I know is that from what I read, the entire Middle-East stability hinges on a resolution of this problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Leaders in nearly every Mid-East country have stated as much. I feel we have enabled Israel in their unyielding stance, thus far. Some solution must be possible because very little is impossible in this world. After all, the Neo-Cons have been uprooted by the people, in the United States. The rest of the world has heralded this as proof of the good-will of the American people vs the previous, corrupt, insane Administration. Though I view the Holocaust as the greatest tragedy in modern history, I have come to feel that Israel has become a vindictive State and operates on some unreal expectations. You would think that after their long strife for a home, they would have some compassion for others in that position..­. the Palestinians. Compromise must be possible!

[sokolof]

I so agree with you.

[teccoord]

I believe the President realizes the profound truth, that the position of the United States as a Mediator Nation is a position of great responsibility. Failure is not an option for the President and the United States. The President realizes that the consequences of failure, could lead to a Middle East nuclear disaster and the Region destroyed. The disastrous affect on the World stage as a whole and the Middle East in particular will be a disaster ...
1. Population 2. Economic 3. Environmental 4. Diplomatic 5. Political 6. Religious
I believe the true road to peace in the Middle East may involve the belief and the threat of the above by the leaders in the Middle East and that they finally see a disastrous end to Civilization in the Middle East. Much is at stake.
I believe the President and his Middle East advisors including the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, want a total solution in the Middle East … a solution which includes …the security of the region, political independence of members in the region, the economical stability in the region, along with solutions to any other topical concerns of the members in the region.
Would like the major countries from outside the Middle East … to be, at the very least, those major countries involved in the post World War II solution, regarding the establishment of Israel … The other countries would obviously be all those interested Middle East countries … along with other stakeholder countries.

[Chbronze]

Gee, if only every President since Nixon had only taken this seriously.

[danielet]

The concept of "natural growth" is a dangerous typical East Euro fraudulent play on words as most of the settlement homes, according to the US DeptState, are empty "facts on the ground." As an East Euro myself I know how such self delusion can lead to disaster for Israel. It is based on an assumption that Israel is dealing dealing with "dumb goyim"; this kind of implicit insult tends to make Americans very punitive. Israel has been schezophrenically sneaking up on peace talk with brutal seizure of land, copied from South Africa , where Sharon had studied how apartheid works. In 2002 Sharon declared that all Diaspora Jews must make the Great Aliyah by 2020 or "lose their Jewish souls." But most Diaspora Jews consider Israel a nice place to visit but wouldn't want to live there. Because it is neither part of the Mideast nor accepted by Europe, Israel is a 60 y/o fetus of a state living off an American $ placenta that is drying up; US is broke. Israel's survival depends on Netanyahu's plan to integrate the Palestinians economically so the Arabs will integrate Israel once the two states solution is achieved. Most settlers will gladly sellout. Israel must be saved from land-greed so its sci/tech sabras can lead the Arabs out of their banana republic one crop (oil) economies into modernity.

[norkas]

Peace will only be made if this is a tough tough fight between Barak Obama and Israel.

If anything comes easy the talks with fall apart fast and foghting will begin again.

In the past peace agreements became to easy for Israel and the PLO rejected offers of land and peace because they thought everything fell into place easy and they voted it down because they thought they could get more from Israel.

Every crumb has to be a fight and a struggle otherwise nothing will becone of the 2 state solutions because other middle east countries will tell the PLO they can get more by rejection. This is a fact and if any of you know the moddleeast and how business done you will see it is true

[theaetetus]

"Natural Growth" has become quite the buzzword among the pro israelis that don't want a settlement freeze. I guess "lebensraum" doesn't sit well with them. It essentially the same thing though: Expansionism. This idea the there has been a silent approval of settlement expansion while official US policy has been opposed to it underscores the sheisty attitude of many involved in the peace process.
No new settlements means no new settlements.

[apduncan1]

There is always "manifest destiny"; it is the same euphemism used to describe a land grab.

[realistic2008]

The Prime Minister, an ortodox intransigent hard liner, has no incentive to a.- respect the United Nations Resolutions, b.- not to embelish history, c.- to stop receiving US aid; therefore, he will reinstate that the land belongs, in fact the have the deeds given to them by God, to the Israelis and that the Palestinians have no rights to it even though they have "legal deeds"
It is time for the United Nations to act and once and for all resolve this bad situation for the region and the indeed the world.

[ashershemon]

It is interesting that the 49th article of the Geneva Convention is used as ammunation against Jewish Settlements. Especially since the "Palestinian Territories" never held legitimate sovereignity at any point in their so called history. They have never at any point been recognized as a state. Before the rebirth of Israel this area was under British control having taken it over from the Ottoman empire previously. It is amazing how little people understand about history.

The idea of a palestinian state in this area is a complete myth. This does not mean that there are not real arab lives and family's and people that are in a very bad position, and need to be given the opportunity for a better quality of life. Yet never in history has a Palestinian state been a reality. This entire area is covered with literature, ruins and archaeological evidence of the Jewish history in this land. Now we have this outcry that a state be returned to a people who have never held any legitimicy to begin with.

You can't give something back to someone who never owned anything to start with. The Jews have existed in this land for 4000 years. And yet now there is an outcry for land to be given "back" to what? The myth of Palestine.

[zaz33]

I, and others have no problem with the indigenous Jews. We have a problem with European and over imigrants that are not indigenous. They come from another culture.

[BubbaC33]

You do realize Jewish children are born inside Israel each and every day. My daughter, 9, was born in Israel. If I had not been born very premature I would have been born in Israel. But the bottom line is this, it doesn't matter. I hold dual citizenship, but that doesn't matter.Wha­t matters is I am an Israeli, my wife is an Israeli, and my daughter is an Israeli. Where a person is born is relatively insignificant. We are Jews and our culture is what makes us Israelis.

[drjj]

who is "we"? Well lots of "we's" all over the world have a big problem with all the murderous terrorism committed by Islamic fanatics over the last 20 years. Do you have a "problem" with any of that?

[Chbronze]

Aren't these disputed properties the spoils of war? If so shouldn't we as Americans stop new subdivisions in New Mexico, Texas, and California and cede this property back to Mexico before we put in our two cents.

[ashershemon]

While I can see your point with Indigenous Jews, especially if you are currently living in a settlement, the point is that there has never been a Palestinian State recognized at any point in the past, so why now this cry for one in the future as if they have been stolen from? The UN only recognizes 1948 borders of Israel, which is much larger then what Israel currently has. Once this was recognized in 1948 it was up to the state of Israel, like any other state to decide it's immigration policy. The purpose of the state was to be a Jewish homeland so obviously this includes Jewery from around the world.

And Chbronze that is a wonderful point. America makes quite a racket for destroying a whole culture in it's founding, (which is not what I'm comparing Israel to doing). Anyone who compares this current conflict to that or the lovely Holocaust analogies is so grossly out of touch with reality and also incrediably insulting.

[MIKEinNYC]

The US never took land from Mexico.

Now Spain,,,,,,,,,,,, that's another story.

[drjj]

excellent post!

[driven989]

The Kingdoms of David and Solom, which Zionists base their claim to the land on, only lasted a total of....(dru­m roll please)...­.73 YEARS!!!..­.All of the Jewish Kingdoms combined last just over 400 years. On the other hand, Arabs (self-identified as Palestinians) have been the majority population in the land of Palestine since the 7th century -- over 1,200 years consecutive years!

You are right, it is amazing how little people understand about this history...

[Assadiq]

Palestinians for 1200 years only? No sir, it is more like 4000 years, centuries longer than the Hebrews. Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites who inhabited the land of Canaan (Palestine west of the Jordan River) when, Joshua stormed into the land from the East and tried to exterminate men, women and children of Canaan - along with their forests and crops and livestock, in fact "everything that walketh or runneth, creepeth or crawleth" - On God's Orders, no less; and of 2) the Philistines who had inhabited the Mediterranean littoral of the present day Israel whom the 12 tribes encountered as they moved West toward the 'Great Sea' and of 3) the Israelites themselves who first embraced Christianity and, later, under the awful yoke of Justinian got fed up with the western Christianity and embraced Islam less than 50 years after the demise of that great tyrant. Justinian the 'Great' (Christian Emperor) sought to stamp out 'heresy' but wound up losing three quarters of the Byzantine Empire to the new light of Islam.
Palestinians are purer representation of the Biblical Israelites - this was the opinion of Cheim Weitzmann, Ben Gurian, Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein than the European Jews who are, according to the great Jewish intellectual giant Arthur Koestler, the Khazar converts to Judaism and who, by Jewish precepts of Exclusivity based on birth, have no claim at all to be true Jews (a Jew is born of Jewish mother, not converted from among the Goyim). I rest

[DarkSlope]

Look at a map pre-1948, Genius. That's all you have to do to realize that you are spewing a racist fabrication. Your quote is akin to the claim that the Holocaust never happened.

[TEPK]

After 62+ years, it's time to end the malarkey. The Palestinians need a separate state. The Israelis need to end their expansion efforts. And the U.N. needs to take over and govern Jerusalem as a tripartite (Jew, Christian, Muslim) World Heritage Site with orderly free access and passage - and protection of all who may live there or visit.

[myopinion2]

Under current Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, all religions and nationalities have access to the holy sites -- which was not the case before 1967. I support Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, but your implicit claim that Israelis do not provide access and security for all who reside and visit there is libelous and vicious propoganda.

[Paul Hackett]

It's hardly libelous and viscous propoganda when arabs living in Israel are treated like dirt on a daily basis.

[genofear]

Some Palestinians who are FROM Jerusalem are not even allowed in Jerusalem.

[Jeremy Urbach]

The only problem is that the timeframe when Israel held its most land was during the 1956 war and from 1967-77 when Israel gave back the SInai to Egypt and dismantled the Yamit settlements in exchange for a peace treaty with full normalization of relations.­.and Sadat paid for his life with it.

[driven989]

And Shamir paid for Oslo with his life. Thus, instead of implementing its obligations under Oslo, Israel decided to continue its expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

The major obstacle to peace is clearly Israeli/U.­S. rejectionism.

[MIKEinNYC]

Let's talk reality.

At the heart of the issue is that in or about 1948 the UN took land from Palestinians and gave it to Jews so that they could establish a homeland. The Palestinians were never compensated for twhat was taken from them so they're ticked-off and resentful. Who wouldn't be?

You take someone's property and the natural result is 60 years of war. The Jews haven't had it too great either. They've endured nothing but war since 1948.

The United Nations created this problem and they should fix it. They should invite Palestinians with viable claims to come forward, present adequate proof of their claims and receive just compensation in exchange for a release of claims.

End of problem!

The settlers? If they love it there in the West Bank so much, they can stay there and become Palestinian Jewish citizens of the newly formed State of Palestine. Israel has Israeli Arabs. It's the same thing. If they don't like it or if they get tired of fulfilling the so-called biblical prophecy of a Land of Israel, (Eretz Yisrael), they can leave and emigrate to Israel or any place of their choosing.

[BubbaC33]

First, you don't deserve the use the Yankkee emblem as your icon, it is ideologically and philosophically wrong.
A Palestinian homeland was created in 1922 when the mandate authority took over 70% of the proposed Jewish Homeland to create Transjordan. Transjordan was created to serve as a homeland for Palestinians unwilling to live among the Jews. The Brits wanted Transjordan created for a second reason, to establish a kingdom for the Hashemite family.

[Paul Hackett]

Transjordan does not exist, Jordan does. Explain to me in plain English why the inhabitants of the land that we now call Palestine, a place which has had a stable population for over at housand years - should be forced from their lands with no compensation and move to a distant region many hundreds of miles away in a different country? There is no good answer to this, apart from to admit the simple truth that the zionist "settlers" (colonialists would be a better word) wished to steal the Palestinians land and take it for their own use.

I would also love to hear how you feel the British had ANY right to decide who gets what in the middle east. Looking forward to your answer to the above points.

[MIKEinNYC]

Let's put history aside for a moment and deal with today's realities. 7.5 millions Jews aren't going anywhere nor is it correct to expect them to go anywhere.

The Middle East dilemma was created by the United Nations, a world body, not by Jews or so-called Zionists, to solve the problem of Jewish refugees who had suffered and become displaced as a result of nazi persecution. Giving Jews a homeland in a place that already had a substantial Jewish population and had a strong connection with the Jewish Nation made a lot of sense back in 1948.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of the UN's actions is that a grave injustice was done to the Palestinian people. That injustice must now be un-done. Just compensation and a state of their own seems to me to be a fair solution. Money is exchanged for a release of claims. The recipients spend it however and wherever they like. Even buying back the land that was taken from them.

No more bloodshed.

Save the recitation of history for the history books. Make some new history now by dealing with present-day reality and being fair and reasonable.

[Jeremy Urbach]

Your Historically inaccurate with " The UN took land from Palestinians and gave it to Jews"...th­e reality was that Jews had been making Aliyah into the Yishuv ala " Settlement" from the 1880s-1948 and had to buy the land via the JNF office and buy them from Arabs...Th­eir were disturbances prior to Independence in 1948, such as the 1929 Nebi Musa riots and the 1936-7 Arab uprising against British Mandate/Jewish colonists.­.The outlines of the state of 1948 borders were in effect the best method for giving the areas where Jews were a majority on the eve of partition that land, and the land where Arabs were a majority in their own state...It was a modified form of the 1937 Peel recommendations. And, Egypt and Jordan both have peace treaties with Israel which shows that Arab-Israeli peace is reachable. The problem with your statement claiming that Palestinians should just come and be absorbed back into Israel is never going to happen..If you had studied all the negotiations from Madrid,Oslo, Wye River, Interim Agreements, to Camp David...Re­solution 194 can only be applied to the future Palestinian State, Israel holds sovereignty over who it can allow into its territory.

[myopinion2]

What a relief to find someone who actually knows the history and accepts reality.

[Ipanemagirl]

why, when someone as an outsider, tries to look at this picture in fairness, to discuss the problems in order try to solve it, one is immedately attacked as a jew hater! That is absurd and is like attacking someone below the belt! ...and its a childish threat that achieves nothing!
I am not a jew hater My father is a jew, and I always admired jews for their intellectual accomplishments and contributions. I also believe that the Palestinians deserve a better life in their own land.
We have to be honest and forget bigotry when analizing a situation. Only then can we arrive at a feasable negotiation that will provide both sides with the PEACE they aspire.

[myopinion2]

troll alert. No one called you a jew hater in this thread, so why are you posting about it. In fact, I've seen your post about your dear jewish dad in threads for several other columns. I have no issue with your substantive position, but your complaint about below-belt-attacks and your professed admiration for Jewish brains is frivolous and insulting.

[AMP43]

I think the Isreali's learned well from the Nazi's

[BubbaC33]

Anyone with the bad taste and bad judgement to compare Israel to Nazi Germany lacks the intellectual honesty to join this discussion.

[Paul Hackett]

Since the facts don't support the Israeli's position its supporters are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks on their critics. It's pathetic but they never seem to hesitate to do it.

I'm Irish, live in New York and have lots of close friends and colleagues who are Jewish, but apparently since I find Israel's policies towards the Palestinians disgusting and shameful I'm only one step away from Adolph Hitler. I really think these people who throw the anti-semitism charge around so freely ought to reflect on whether there's a better way honor the memory of those who died in the Shoah than using them as a cheap debate point to excuse Israel's own ethnocentric crusade against the Palestinians.

[Aziat]

criticism of Israel =/= anti-semitism
Delegitimizing Israel, Holding Israel to a higher standard, viciously attacking Israel as a Jewish state=anti-semitism

[calirighty]

And what policies would those be? Palestinians who choose to live with the Jews instead of in Palestinian slums fair far better than they would in Muslim countries. Where are all of the Muslim nations? Why do they refuse to contribute any money or resources to help the Palestinians? You are ignorant. There is no crusade against "Palestinians". And just so that we are clear, there is no such thing as a "Palestinian". There are Muslim Arabs that live in Israel. By your definition of "Palestinian", you would have to include Jews because they have lived in the territory called Palestine for thousands of years.

[Jeremy Urbach]

I have spent some considerable time in Israel and know the Gush Emunim movement doesn't reflect the consensus of a vast majority of Israel..So when you say " Israels own ethnocentric crusade" you lump all Israelies together..­.the reality is that Netanyahu would love to give that land over in land swaps, negotiations with PM Abbas..but the reality right now is Bibi's voting bloc is made up of Agudath, Shas and NRP groups who could call for early elecitons if Bibi goes too far in negotiations. He has to look over his shoulder..­the only way for Bibi to make concessions such as giving the Palestinians more control by giving more control from B-C areas in the W. Bank is if he calls for a new national unity govt that gives labor and kadima more room to maneuver. The idea that Israel has state policy of ethnocentrism is ridiculous­..their are legitimate security concerns about terrorism as to why the checkpoints and wall exist..Its very easy for someone in the U.S to say what Israel needs to do when you aren't confronted with it.

[Michelle Adams]

Some of those settlements are on land that would theoretically never be given to the Palestinians, and/or on land that Jewish people built up in the late 1800's up until the time Israel became a nation. In the case of the latter, the Arabs destroyed those settlements, and then, once re-gained, the Jews re-established them. Alot of this settlement issue is built on distorted truths and misconceptions.

[DarkSlope]

That is flat out false. I don't know where you are getting your facts, but Palestinians lived peacefully with Jews for hundreds of years in Palestine. The Zionists betrayed their Palestinian Neighbors by using violent force to kick them off of the land to realize the dream of a "Greater Israel." I don't know where you get your information, but the Palestinian residents of Palestine never kicked Jews out of Palestine to establish homes where Jews had been living, and surely never engaged in the act of destroying Jewish homes. When reading about historical Palestine, please make sure that it is a legitimate source, and not propaganda. After the violent taking over of Palestine, there were plenty of books published by Zionists to distort the truth and fabricate evidence to justify their crimes. You have to look at the source first, otherwise you come off looking foolish. Like now for instance.

[Vickster]

Arabs and Jews lived peacefully in Palestine until the British Mandate declared the region a Jewish homeland in 1920. Sadly, some Arab factions reacted to the Mandate with riots and massacres aimed at Jews. And so the madness began.

[AniJustMe]

Its not a flat out lie. When Jordan annexed the area of the British Palestinian Mandate when hostilities ceased in '48 and renamed it West Bank ( west of the river Jordan) they drove out Jews who had been living there for centuries close to the sites of their ancestors from biblical times who were buried there. Only Britain and Pakistan agreed with this move - rest of the other nations did not.

So after 19 years of Jordanian rule - no mention of a separate state for the Arabs from the Jordanians- Jewish people were able to go back to their holy sites, they did so. They are returning to the area. In fact Jordan relinquished the land, so it was ownerless.

Most Arabs there were tenants of the Ottoman Empire - not landowners. They were the equivalent of the Serfs in England centuries ago.

[troutfan]

If your argument were consistent, you would be defending the right of return of Palestinians who were systematically pushed out of Israel. There have been many Arab villages inside Israel proper that were destroyed by Israelis, and Israel consistently refuses to negotiate the right of return for Palestinians who were deprived of their homes. This cuts both ways. If you are concerned about "distorted truths and misconceptions" you need to clean up your own comment.

[myopinion2]

I think you left out the part that the Palestinian "refugees" were created by the rejection by the palestinians and the Arab states of the UN's 1947 establishment of Palestine and Israel (note that there was no Palestine before 1947), and their barbaric military assault against the Jews in an attempt to abort the Jewish state. Israel was forced from the instant of its birth to fight for its life in self-defense.

[BubbaC33]

In 1967 Israel took the West Bank in the defensive Six Day War. We did not take it from the Palestinian people, but from Jordan. We took Gaza from the Egyptians, not the Palestinians. For the almost twenty years Egypt and Jordan controlled Gaza and the West Bank neither established a Palestinian homeland. Neither Egypt nor Jordan did much for the Palestinian people.
The bottom line is this, if a homeland for Palestinians was as important as you and others make it seem why did two Arab nations fail to create one?

[drjj]

The "Palestinians" (mostly Arab farmers who nomadically inhabited the region intermittently) left after Israel became a state, simply because Israel was simultaneously attacked by multiple arab countries. The resident Arab population (less than the then indigenous Jewish population) was told to leave temporarily, so that the "jews could be pushed into the sea", and were also told they would then be able to appropriate all the Jews' homes and land!

Read some history before making any more idiotic biased statements.

[Jeremy Urbach]

The " Right of Return" is a non-argument when it comes to negotiatio­ns...the PA negotiations like Saeb Erakat and Mohammed Dahlan realize this and use it as a ploy to frustrate Israeli negotiatio­ns...Their is no way in hell that Israel will accept a flood of Palestinians into its territory resulting in the disruption of the Jewish nature of the state..its not going to happen..it would be like Greece taking in large Turkish population­s..would Greece want its country to become a Turkish state? i don't think so. UN resolution 194 can be applied to Palestinians being accepted on a limited basis, and the rest being repatriated to a new palestinian state possibly in the west bank, and settlement in their host countries now.....Wh­at is consistently ignore here is that from 1948-67 460,000 Mizrahim Jews were forced out of their countries from the Maghreb to Iran and settled in Israel..wh­y no mention of their compensation?

[Pupadup4oBama]

My view of it is this...the Arabs are like the little brother who wants to get his way....the Israeli's settled the land and made good use of it, and now the Arabs want it without having done the actual work.
That's a little simplistic I know...but to me, that's the gist of it.
I do believe the Israeli's need to compromise­...that is the only way this will get settled.

[genofear]

This is part of the propaganda. When the European Jews arrived, the land was populated with cities and villages and vast agriculture. The Jews drove people off their land, by force or by fear, and completely destroyed many of the villages. There are people alive today who still have keys to the homes they were driven from.

[ApolloSpeaks]

US ISRAELI TIES UNBREAKABLE

Obama's speech was an intellectual mess: on the one hand he rejects the legitamcy of the settlements, and on other other says that US-Israeli ties are "unbreakab­le." If these ties are unbreakable then settlement activity can continue with impunity, with no cost to Netanyahu, no cost to Israel but with Obama losing credibility with the unappeasable Israel-hating Arab world

[DallasMike]

Who are we to dictate to Isreal? You people on the left are doing the same exat thing you acussed Bush of doing which is telling other countries what they can and cannot do.

[DarkSlope]

Because we give them BILLIONS in our tax money. Hey, I would be glad to let them figure our their own mess, manufacture their own weapons, and fight their Arab neighbors off on their own, all while using the BILLIONS of US taxpayer money towards healthcare and education. And that is why we have a say in the matter. Your welcome.

[David78737]

Obama is not telling others what they should or should not do. That's a red herring. There are consequences, SIGNIFICANT consequences to perpetrating injustice and oppression­...( by any of us). Everyone on the planet potentially faces those consequences when those who have very little to lose feel justified to martyr themselves in the cause of "righteous­ness." Whether someone is murdering doctors or abrogating agreements to limit settlements, there are repercussions we all feel that are chilling and limit fundamental freedoms we all seek.
Many feel that Israel has been a bad faith partner hiding behind the skirts of US leaders for years. Israeli current and past policies ultimately cost all US citizens dearly both in political capital worldwide and blood and treasure spilled on Mideast soil, and here on 9/11.
Neither the US nor the Israelis can stick their head in the sand and pretend our actions or failure to act does not have consequences. Obama is calling it like it is and demanding that Israel take responsibility for placing themselves (and the US by proxy) in the situation they (and we) find themselves. We should stop enabling their (and our) dysfunctional behavior. Press forward for the two state solution, the only viable solution.

[realistic2008]

and of course who are we to tell Israel what to do right? and yet they did, telling Bush what to do, thank goodness he is gone otherwise Israel would have ordered him to attack Iran and Syria by now and provide them with more arms to destroy the Palestinians.

[ApolloSpeaks]

My friend, would a leftist call the Arab world "unappeasable?" Unrealistic leftists like Obama wrongly believe that the Palis' war against Israel is grievance driven and appeasement and peace are possible. Obama learned nothing from Bill Clinton's failure with Arafat. .He arrogantly believes that the past counts for nothing and that history started anew when he became president. He is clearly one of the biggest and blindest fools ever to sit in the White House.

[Fractal122635]

As with all articles this one fails to even consider the two most important points.
1) There have been NO NEW SETTLEMENTS IN MORE THAN 15 YEARS.
2) The Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, consider Jewish Presence anywhere, including Jerusalem, a "settlement".

The use of the term settlement is itself an Arab construct and an unfortunate bit of foolish translation by the part Israelis. 'yishoov' means both town and settlement.

The overwhelming majority of what are termed settlements are well established suburbs of Jerusalem or other cities, or were established in the days after the 1967 war.

But, the vast majority are simply natural growth, with population growth, in the 42 years since the end of the 6 day war.
There are NO NEW SETTLEMENTS (when some religious fanatic puts a trailer on a hill, the Israeli government forcibly removes them), so the issue is ONLY natural growth.

Asking this to stop is the equivalent of asking the US government to stop construction in the suburbs of NY.

Since the other side has yet to meet a SINGLE commitment made in ANY agreement it is particularly offensive.

"Land for Peace" means we give you everything you want, and you stop killing us. Has that EVER worked in history?

The so called Palestinians, as indicated in every poll, do not want a homeland as much as they want NO ISRAEL.

Until that is understood, with full recognition and an end to terror, there can be no progress on substantive issues.

[Freenation]

"no settlements since 15 years"

ok then it is even easier than we all though of, just remove the settlers who are sitting on empty roads, trees, satellites etc...not sure what is the problem then, right?

[genofear]

Woah Fractal122635! Do you actually believe that?

If so, please tell me your source of information.

[Sentientbeing09]

Nonsense. The settlements are illegal and illigitimate. Theyve always been illegal. The length of time they have been there doesnt make them any more legitimate.

The settlements need to go. Eventually they WILL go and eventually Palestinians will have self-determination, identity, security and freedom.

The sooner right-wing Israelis realize that the better for everybody.