Freezing Settlement Construction a Defining Test of Israel's Intentions

A year or so after the signing of the Oslo accords, I was one of a group of Palestinian journalists who were invited by Shimon Peres to his office at the Israel Foreign Ministry in West Jerusalem. When questions focused on continued settlement activities, the then foreign minister tried to deny them. When a journalist from the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center presented documented facts about land confiscations, he reluctantly admitted the fact, but said that Palestinians should not worry about these issues since they will soon have sovereignty over their own state and therefore these issues will become inconsequential.

Fifteen years later, Palestinians are understandably adamant that they will not be tricked again into accepting the continuation of Jewish settlement activity in occupied territory. For ordinary Palestinians as well as negotiators the demand that Israel completely freeze all settlement construction (including for so-called natural growth) has become the real test of whether Israel is serious about peace.

The international community has repeatedly asserted that the building of Jewish settlements on lands occupied by Israel in 1967 for Israeli civilians is illegal and in clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In 2004, the International Court of Justice at the Hague yet again affirmed that the settlements were illegal when considering an appeal against Israel for building a wall inside occupied territory. All settlement construction, including for "natural growth", is clearly rejected by the roadmap agreement that Israel signed and the Knesset approved.

The Bush administration, followed by President Barack Obama's team, publicly supported the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state, defining it as an American "national interest". It follows that continued Jewish settlement in areas slated for a Palestinian state -- that obviously in practice undermine prospects for a two-state solution -- is contrary to US national interests. It should be no surprise then that Palestinians are pleased that Washington is finally serious about at least this one crucial aspect of the conflict. If the present administration continues in the same vein, many Palestinians may be more patient in allowing negotiations to run their course in order to secure an end of occupation.

Whether negotiations are swift or prolonged, the one specific aspect that worries Palestinians most is how settlements, these "facts on the ground", will shape the final outcome. Their concern is not limited to the fact that Israel routinely demands concessions from the Palestinians in return for agreeing to give up settlements. During the Bush administration, these facts on the ground became "a reality" that "Palestinians must take into consideration during Israeli-Palestinian negotiations." A 2004 understanding between Bush and Sharon is said to include an agreement that the US will support Israel's demands to keep hold of the settlement blocs closest to the green line.

In 1967, after Israeli troops occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, the UN Security Council in the preamble to resolution 242 called the occupation "inadmissible". Today, 42 years later and after hundreds of illegal settlements have been built on occupied Palestinian land, the issue of freezing construction in the settlements has become a defining issue for peace in the region. While negotiations require concessions from all parties, mistrust and unfulfilled commitments have been the main obstacles to peace in the region. Palestinians need to address Israel's security concerns and the Israelis need to understand Palestinian aspirations for freedom and statehood.

Continued settlement construction provides a concrete reminder to Palestinians that the world community is unable to enforce this simple but crucial prerequisite for peace. The authors of the roadmap placed obligations on both sides. Fulfilling these obligations will go a long way toward creating a better environment for talks that can lead to peace and security for Israelis and independence and freedom for Palestinians.

Published 13/7/2009 © bitterlemons.org

Daoud Kuttab is an award winning Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University.

Follow Daoud Kuttab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/daoudkuttab

Comments

[myopinion2]

What would be a defining test of the Palestinian's intentions? Of the intentions of saudia arabia.

Within the past 2 or 3 months, Israel has taken down many, including some major, checkpoints in the West Bank, and has increased the authority of palestinian security forces while restricting Israeli army presence. It would be a good thing for peace if Abbas acknowledged and applauded those actions. But that would imply that Israel is taking some positive steps. Is Abbas and the PA capable of that. If not, it is a setback for the peace process. We all want peace immediately, but if both sides were to show good faith in taking and acknowledging incremental steps, we could start to build momentum for the process.

[Justtellthetruth]

Funny, I have not read about that. I have read that they are GOING to take down some of the illegal settlements, but no checkpoints.

Furthermore, in the final analysis, it is silly to talk about "check points" being taken down, when they get put back up rather quickly, even as the population and size of the settlements keeps growing every year. If you think about it, as long as the settlements exist, there will ALWAYS be an occupation to keep them safe from attack. So whats your point?

[myopinion2]

Yup, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Another rationalization to absolve the Palestinians of any responsibility for peace.

[yaskeptik]

Daoud, good writing.
Most Israelis I know ( 3-4 couples, engineering and IT types) would agree that prolonging and expanding settlements is not in Israel's best interest. Their message is get rid of Hamas, IJ and such and we'll be able to live in peace. The only Palestinian I know personally fled WB as he was threatened when he worked for a company owned by Jewish settler.

Remember Hamas elected Bibi/Liberman gov't, but most Israelis would trade settlements for real peace

Realistically the solution will be somewhere in between where Israelis and PA will work out some kind of a swap so that biggest settlement block around Ariel exchanged evenly and in good faith for a land in Isr proper to have a contiguous Palestinian state.

[Wisdo]

remeber Bibi and people like him helped create HAMAS and Hezbollah.

they "couldnt negotiate" with arafat.
they "couldnt deal with" abbas

and now they "must get rid of" Hamas.

We start to see the pattern. The Israelis will only negotiate with someone who has already surrendered completely to their fascist view of the world.

When one refuses to negotiate for peace and imposes an unjust regime on one's neighbours; when one expects them to simply surrender and do your bidding or leave the country to go and live in squalid refugee camps in Jordan or Lebanon - then one has abdicated all moral responsibility. The violence is then of one's own creation and one deserves every bitter day of it.

[Darwin256]

When will Palestinians get a Nelson Mandela?

The only way to get the settlements out is an Anti-Apartheid struggle.

[messy]

But...but....the Occupation is anywhere in the World a Jew stands or sits. To end the "occupation" completely would mean auto-genicide.

[Darwin256]

Let's see, and wherever a Palestinian stands or sits it is not his land, right?

[Justtellthetruth]

Great Article.

The US ought to be committed ending the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the occupation COMPLETELY.