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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Here's a reasonable suggestion as to how to handle the settlers who think that the land they've settled upon needs to stay in Jewish hands:
What you do with the settlers is you let them stay where they are if that is what they want to do.
They become "Palestinian Jews", citizens of Palestine. They carry Palestinian passports. They vote in Palestinian elections. Israel has Israeli Arabs. Palestine, like most countries in the world, will have Jews. It's the same thing.
There's no good reason why the West bank needs to be cleansed of Jews, "Judenrein", so to speak.
On the other hand, if this is unacceptable to the settlers they can emigrate from Palestine to Israel or anywhere they choose.
I totally agree. Put up borders, and everyone on one side is Israeli and everyone on the other is Palestinian. However, the Jewish settlements inside grater Palestine would have to allow Palestinian Arabs to live within their city limits, and the Jewish only highways connecting the settlements would have to allow Palestinian Arabs to drive on them. Israel's army would have to be withdrawn, and the settlements would have to submit to Palestinian authority. Finally, everyone would have to share the water equally.
That's kind of my idea. Within the two states, Israel and Palestine, all of their citizens get to live wherever they want.
Jewish-only or Palestinian-only roads are eliminated.
When Palestinian statehood is accepted and recognized by the international community, Israeli settlers would be recognized in Palestine as foreign passport holders and residents.
I would predict that as resident foreigners they would not necessarily expect guaranteed ownership rights of illegally occupied land. I would also expect a Palestinian state to offer Palestinian citizenship to any former Israeli settlers with the mutual obligations and responsibilities that came with that arrangement.
This would Include giving up Israeli citizenship, passports and membership of the israeli army
There is no, nor has there ever been, a country called "Palestine". And there were never any people called "Palestinians" the whole time the region was ruled by Arabs including the Jordanians. The only reason we're getting this propaganda now is to create the image of a "victim" group so tthat antii-Semites like you can use them to bash Israel.
Read some history instead of just box scores, and you'll sound at least a little smarter.
Well, nowadays there ARE people called "Palestinians". Things have changed.
For the record, prior to 1948 there had never been a State of Israel and there were no people known as "Israelis".
See.
Things do change.
Israel is a modern artificial creation built on former Palestine.
Maybe you should check your maps.
I just have to wonder if Israel really wants peace in the middle east.
Maybe it doesn't, maybe it wants to have war forever. After all, all my life there has been unrest there.
If Israel REALLY wanted peace, a two state solution is a start.
Sadly, Israel is treating the Palestine's in similar ways they were treated.
Reminds me of the theory of those abused become the abuser.
Thank you President Obama for looking objectively at the middle east, and taking into account ALL their needs.
Palestine also wants a home land.
I find it fascinating that people like "liberal Oregonian" are amazingly concerned about peace in the area but only express this concern about the "abuse" of the "Palestinians'
It's telling that folks like you never seem concerned about Israelis getting regularly blown up while trying to live their civilzed lives, or getting murdered while trying to compete in the Olympics, or havijng their children shot to death in front of their parents, and then have the perpetrating terrorist wacko lionized when they get back to their Arab friends.
Gee, wonder why this irrational imbalance of "concern" could be so prevalent on this site?
Well....th
Fact remains, until ALL lands grabbed post 67 are returned, Israel should face serious pressure from the entire global community. If the settlers think violence against their own military is their grand solution then let them spill their own people's blood and suffer the consequences.
42 years later and nothing BUT B.S. and expansion by Israel has hardened my heart and stomped out any compassion I feel for those living on stolen land.
My sentiments exactly! The Jewish settlers must MOVE!; they can NOT live on the stolen land and expect the Palestinian people to like it. Many unnecessary deaths are atributable to this fact alone!
I can NOT support Israel so long as this situation continues to exist
For the record, the West Bank was taken from Jordan and the Gaza Strip was taken from Egypt. Of course, both regions were illegally annexed by Jordan and Egypt in 1949.
ALL lands grabbed post-1967? So Israel should unilaterally withdraw its forces from the Golan Heights without any security guarantees from Syria ( Which is still in a state of war with Israel), about water protection rights along the Kinneret? Seems Israel gets no assurances whatsoever that its interests will be protected and it will lose strategic depth absent any early warning system and water rights. And the lands in Gaza were returned..
They're not "Obama's Demands".
Freezing the settlements is part of the Roadmap that ISRAEL'S rightwingers already AGREED TO.
Oh, they thought they could just keep settling, and attacking, and violating their AGREEMENTS forever, with the U.S. vetoing any and all UN resolutions and still giving Israel $1 billion a month.
Well, guess what. The new guy thinks everyone should play straight and honor their agreements.
Getting rid of the 'settlements' is a band aid after a shell hits the head. Israel was created to appease the West's guilt that one of their own 'democracies' should have executed Gypsies, Gays and Jews. It seemed like a quick easy and cheap (for the west) way to settle this political situation. It has now come back to haunt us (the West). Obama, for all his brilliance, touted the closeness of the US and Israel during his campaign. This is now coming back to haunt him.
The only potential solution is NOT a two state one BUT a one state solution. Let that whole land revert to being PALESTINE, allow all Semites to reside and be full citizens without privilege of one side or the other . Tear down that wall, de-nuke it and disarm it and give back all land heretofore stolen from their original owners and any refugees that were compelled to leave after the creation of Israel to return.
The only way to do this would be heavy sanctions on Israel and stop the American taxpayers money that is supporting this current Israeli regime. One further point, don't overestimate the influence of the Israeli lobby. Their numbers are not that large.
I admire your courage, Jackwaddington, to point out what nobody seems to have the balls to do so. The APEC (jewish lobby) must be very threatening and powerful for no politician can get elected if he does not go along with supporting Israel as if it were part of the USA.
What do we have to gain from this alliance? That the Arabs all wage war on us for supporting Israel? That american tax payers have to pay billions every year for supporting Israel's defense? and even wage wars on their behalf? I am jewish , but as an american citizen.I see things without the constraints of religion.
God didnt write the BIBLE, jews did! so giving god as an explanantion should be totally disregarded.
I think BOTH sides need to give in, if they want peace, and if Israel is not willing to give up anything in order to achieve this goal, then the USA should withdraw their financial allowance to them I do believe this will make them see more clearly what really needs to be done here!
Let the truth set us free! Even if its not what we like/want to hear.
Hey Ipanemagirl I was flattered that you suggested I was brave, BUT to me YOU ARE the real brave one. I have met quite a few Jewish people that are not blinded by the Zionist cause. My theme is we are one species, out of many, on one planet and I feel, that unless we learn, real fast, to live together co-operatively and stop dwelling on our differences we will be lucky to survive the end of this century. That would be sad.
Hey Ipanemagirl, I am guessing that you deliberately typed APEC rather than AIPAC as a little winky wink at KarlaElisa from her 3:53 PM post.
Obama will back off as he must. He is posturing that is all. Don't take him seriously neither should Netanyahu. The settlements should continue to expand since there cannot ever be any peace with the Palestinians. They are the victims of right of way and of the wars that were inflicted upon Israel. You will never change their mind set from believing that they should have all of Israel. Once you give them a little they will always demand more and more and if god forbid they were to get what they wanted they would fight amongst themselves for what they have. No land for Palestinians ever. Case closed, they lost out not to Israel but to their brothers who abandoned them lock stock and barrel. Let them stay where they are there can be no compromise. The arab agenda remains kill Israel. No amount of politicking will change that.
Luckily for the Palestinians and moderate Israelis, you remain in the minority.
Too many influential people are invested in a permanent Israeli / Palestine settlement and its gaining momentum.
Youll be one of the disappointed outliers, along with a couple of thousand Israeli Settlers.
Sorry.
Oh btw, why doesnt the ARAB brotherhood help the Palestinians? They all complain about Israel, but I have not seen any financial help from coming from the Saudis, UAE, Dubai, and other oil rich Arab countries.
Arab brotherhood does not exist. If it did, they would be much more powerful and they would threaten our global power stance. That is why it was important for Western powers to colonize and fragment South America, South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Less competition = more resources for us.
Exactly!
I think the rest of the Arab world sees the Palestinians as the red-headed step children..
On the other hand, the "Arab brotherhood" (i.e., the ruling families of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) and Israel now have a common enemy, meaning those pesky Persians in Iran, so maybe they will do more to promote a viable two-state solution.
The underlying realpolitick of the settlements issue:
until there is a balance of power which conclusively demostrates an ability by Palestinians (or an Arab/Muslim power on their behalf) to thwart future settlements, retake substantial existing illegal settlements, and successfully defend significant territories (orchards, waterways, valleys, mountain tops, militarily advantageous lands, etc), Israel will continue in its path. Balance of power, ying and yang thing.
BTW, Likud explicitly states that settlements are part and parcel of Israel's defense. Thus, when Israel says 'we have a right to defend ourselves' they are also saying "we have a right to build settlements as we see fit". Since no one challenges the right to self defense for Israel's but everyone challenges the right of Palestinians to defend themselves, only the Palestinians themselves, or a power on their behalf, can defend Palestinians.
BTW, if you have seen the settlers of Hebron, called Khalil by the majority Palestinians, dominate the city, what else will change this?
What to do about the settlers and their illegal settlements: threaten to strip them of Israeli citizenship and make each of them "person non grata" (unwelcome person)!
That's a good idea. But it will never happen. The military is closely tied to settlements. There is no way a political cause as such will do this.
When Palestinian statehood is accepted and recognized by the international community, Israeli settlers would be recognized in Palestine as foreign passport holders and residents.
I would predict that as resident foreigners they would not necessarily expect guaranteed ownership rights of illegally occupied land. I would also expect a Palestinian state to offer Palestinian citizenship to any former Israeli settlers with the mutual obligations and responsibilities that came with that arrangement.
This would Include giving up Israeli citizenship, passports and membership of the israeli army.
i keep seeing articles on how difficult it is to remove setlers from the illegally occupied lands...we
you just cannot grab a land and populate it and expect the world to give you legal tag...
so please no more articles on organic, natural etc....
Actually that's kind of how it has worked for all of human history, right up to the formation of the United States and Israel itself.
There won't be peace, because the process can be so easily derailed by individuals or small groups. Hamas will resume attacks on Israel if it looks to them like peace is close, because in a peaceful, prosperous Palestine they'd lose power very quickly.
The settlers will do whatever they can to derail the process as well, and its entirely likely that significant numbers of Israeli troops share the fundamentalist beliefs of the settlers, and would refuse an order to forcibly relocate them.
I do believe there will be peace, and it will happen in our lifetime.
Sadly, while it takes two to tango, it only takes one to start a fight.
The settlers were removed from the Sinai when Egypt decided to make peace with israel.
The settlers were removed from Gaza when Israel decided to leave Gaza.
Remember that Israel did not grab the land. The Arabs lost the land in a war they started in 1967.
UN Resolution 242 caleld for the return of land (and specifically not ALL of the land) in return for a permanent peace. Israel asked to meet with the arabs right after the war. The Arbs responded with the three Nos of Khartoum: no negotiation, no recognition and no peace.
Despite this, so many people lay 100% of the blame on Israel. maybe if the west wasn't so intent on protecting the Arabs form loss in war, peace could have been achieved.
It is interesting how people forget that Israel is surrounded by nations who repeatedly have sought to destroy her...that does not justify what has happened to the Palestinians, who have become pawns in this battle.
All settlements are a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I have trouble understanding the position that, since Israel has been building illegal settlements for so long, some of them are now legal. They aren't. The related argument that forcing Israelis to leave the illegal settlements is somehow unfair since they've lived there for years is also untenable; continued illegal occupation of property does not confer a legal right to the property.
The option I would like to see is UN recognition of Palestine as an independent country with preliminary borders based on the 1967 Green Line and an avenue for mutual agreement between Israel and Palestine of minor border adjustments. Then, a phased takeover from Israeli forces by an international peacekeeping force, starting at the Jordan border, until there are no Israelis in Palestine. The international force could then serve as border control between the two countries until the situation stabilized.
I totally agree that all settlements on Occupied territory are illegal. It is contrary to the Geneva Convention. It seems to be a tactic that if these settlements have been there for more than 40 years, it is a fait accompli, and "they exist". However, it is part of a scheme--divide and conquer!
Indeed the UN and world in general should recognize the legitimacy of Palestine as a country. But how ironic--An independent country with settlements of Israelis overlooking the villages and towns, settlements who use the resources and have their own highways to protect them from the 'natives'.
All Paleisinitans dream of the day when there are no Israelis in Palestine!
You are mistaken. The settlements are not a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention (that's the only one of the four GC that's in question, you can leave the other three out of the picture). The West Bank did not belong to any sovereign nation, for one thing, and for a second, Israel ended up with the West Bank as the result of their defending themselves against a multi-pronged Arab attack from several countries. Israel won fair and square and is entitled, under international law, to KEEP the West Bank if it wanted to (and it doesn't). An aggressor who loses has no claim. You attacked, you lost, end of story. You should have thought about it before attacking. Your logic, which parrots the Palestinian approach, is that of a gambling addict who loses everything at the crap table but then goes right back to the bank and demands to have his money back! No can do. Try that in Vegas and see how well you'll be received. And yet that's what you and so many others are demanding for the Palestinians, rewarding irresponsibility. So drop the Geneva Convention argument, please, it does not apply in the least. Instead, look for Tibet as a great case of 4th Geneva Convention being violated.
Palestine isnt Las Vegas.
Your analogy is ridiculous.
Israel isnt a special case. Civilian settlement of militarily occupied land is ILLEGAL. International law is SPECIFIC. Israel is a signatory to the Geneva conventions. International law applies to them.
Imagine what would happen if the US decided to start building residential neighborhoods in Baghdad or Kabul and gave away free land, houses and perferential water rights to American civilians just because the US has won a war there.
Expect outrage from the world and violence from the indigenous population. Lots of it.
Right on. After the war ended and Israel found itself with Gaza and Jordan, they tried to give them back to Egypt and Jordan. but both REFUSED and said no thanks. The said No to everything that was offered them at the time.
Neither Jordan or Egypt while controlling those areas for 19 years built one house for the refugees there. They kept their own Arab brothers in the refugee cities and even did not allow them to do repairs so that they became slums.
Way to go with Arab brotherly love. But then again, the Arabs in Gaza and the annexed west bank area are of different clans to those in Egypt and Jordan, and clan warfare still exists amongst them to this day.
Why don't we give the land we stole back to the Native Americans and Mexicans? hmmmm
Don't forget that Mexico is also a creation of European conquest.
Occupation and settlement of the Americas began in the 1500s.
Youre right, I agree. Israels behavior is backward, antiquated and belongs in another century.
Sounds like a good start. Let's get going!
I believe all of the previous proposed agreements show the green line as the border for a West Bank Palistine with minor land swaps. Now, Israel supporters are proposing a "facts on the ground" agreement with settlements deep inside the West Bank. This would eliminate the possibility of a sovereign Palistinian state with acceptable borders. I don't belive the Palistinian people would accept a swiss cheese state, with fewer holes.
I suspect that the leaders of Israel believe the dismantling of some settlements will turn violent and will very likely result in Jews killing Jews.
Even if Israel was interested in a peace settlement, and even with public opinion behind them, there would be very tough decisions ahead.
Excellent article. It seems there may be a glimmer of hope for peace afterall, as difficult as it may be to get there.
read our lips: you want peace? work for justice.
And your definition of "justice" is?
Brilliant.
I'd be interested in a detailed article by you on how Jerusalem and the Right Of Return issues should be approached.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
