Today, Peace Now released a new report entitled "Torpedoing the Two State Solution -- The Strategy of the Netanyahu Government," detailing a number of trends in settlement expansion that directly, and it seems, deliberately, undermine the viability of the two-state solution.
This report stands in sharp contrast to the meme which appears to be gaining currency among defenders of the occupation status quo, arguing that settlements aren't really an issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since they take up only a tiny fraction of the West Bank ( see Dore Gold in Slate and Evelyn Gordon in Commentary).
Peace Now's Hagit Ofran confirms: the built-up area of settlements comprises around 1 percent of the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem), but that doesn't mean that the meme-mongers are right.
Because that 1 percent doesn't even begin to tell the whole story.
Since 1967, Israel -- using various means -- has taken control of around 50 percent of the West Bank. Almost all of that land has been turned over to the settlers. The 1 percent of the West Bank on which the built-up areas of settlements are located is just the beginning. Because almost 10 percent of the West Bank is included in the "municipal area" of settlements. That is, the jurisdictional borders of settlements, as drawn by Israel, are so large as to allow settlements to expand many times over onto land that is in the meantime totally off-limits to Palestinians. In addition, almost 34 percent of the West Bank has been placed under the jurisdiction of the Settlement "Regional Councils." That is more than an additional one-third of the West Bank under the control of the settler and totally off-limits to Palestinians.
In this way, more than 40 percent of the West Bank is under the direct control of settlers/settlements and off-limits to Palestinians, irrespective of the fact that only a small portion of this land has been built on by settlers.
Moreover, more than 32 percent of the built-up area of settlements (and outposts) is on privately owned Palestinian land. This construction is on land that Israel has not been able to "legally" take control of since 1967. Under Israeli law, settler use of this land constitutes out-and-out theft -- theft that the Netanyahu government is currently working to legalize post-facto.
In addition, Israel has taken hundreds of kilometers of the West Bank to build roads that serve the settlements, connecting them to each other and to Israel. The negative impact of these roads is arguably more profound in terms of impeding normal life for the Palestinians than the settlements or the land seizures themselves. They crisscross the entire West Bank, dividing Palestinian cities and town from each other, and imposing various barriers to Palestinian movement and access, all for the benefit of the settlements.
The meaninglessness of focusing on the built-up area of settlements is self-evident in another simple reality: the "separation barrier" de facto annexes 9.5 percent of the West Bank to Israel, following a route that was manifestly guided not by security needs but to accommodate settlements and settlement expansion plans.This 9.5 percent is many times the built-up area of settlements -- underscoring the fact that Israeli territorial ambitions across the 1967 lines are not limited to the built-up areas of settlements. And even this 9.5 percent clearly doesn't begin to represent the extent of those ambitions, given that the barrier leaves the majority of settlements (built-up areas included) on the "wrong" side.
In addition, there is the issue of East Jerusalem. Since 1967, Israel has expropriated fully 35 percent of the land in East Jerusalem as "state land" and used it almost entirely for settlements. Such settlements (and new settlement construction going on today) has the explicit goal of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem -- which, in effect, means preventing the two-state solution.
The facts matter when debating settlements, and advocates of settlement activity shouldn't be allowed to cherry-pick the facts to suit their agenda.
Yes, settlement construction takes up only a small part of the West Bank, but settlements control almost half of the West Bank's territory -- spread across the entire length and breadth of the West Bank, connected by dedicated infrastructure and bolstered throughout by the Israeli army. They have exclusive authority over almost half the land and form a network of control that makes normal Palestinian life and development virtually impossible throughout the approximately 90 percent of the West Bank on which settlements have not (yet) been physically built.
To understand this better, think about a prison. The area dedicated to guards in any prison is relatively tiny, compared to the areas dedicated to prisoners. But this has nothing to do with who controls the prison. What is important is the guards' ability to use their presence in strategic locations and their overwhelming authority to project control into the entirety of the area.
Finally, settler defenders who raise the 1 percent factoid are, ironically, overlooking the figure's real meaning: that despite decades of government investment and preferential support, the West Bank settlement enterprise has failed in every way, except as an effort to block peace. Looking at the numbers, one has to wonder how much different a position Israel would be in today -- economically, politically, diplomatically, and in terms of security -- if successive Israeli governments hadn't poured millions of shekels into this self-defeating enterprise. An enterprise they continue to subsidize today, even as it undeniably poses an existential threat to Israel's viability as a Jewish state and a democracy.
Follow Lara Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Lara_APN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' Peace Now is calling “private Palestine land” is under the Ottoman Code at best miri land, and it is therefore not privately owned. In addition, regarding the West Bank, there is under the Ottoman Code another very important category of land known as mewat, or “dead land,” which was deceptively unmentioned by Peace Now.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=5&x_article=1234
Peace Now’s Blunder: Erred on Ma'ale Adumim Land by 15,900 Percent
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=1301
Dayan, however, responded that many numbers in the B'tselem report were incorrect & many of its claims were distortions. For instance, he said, the percentage of land in Judea and Samaria controlled by Jewish councils was 9%, not 42%.'
They took the contour of the area of the regional councils and counted everything comprised within.
But Avi Roeh [Binyamin Regional Council Head - YM] does not have any jurisdiction on the Arab villages, the roads, the open areas comprised within that contour line.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/July/BTselem-Israel-Built-on-Arab-Land-/
It's a city, folks. A city.
Manhattan doesn't take up much land mass, either, of the US.
What's wrong with Ramallah as the capital city, or even Gaze City, IF the "Palestinians" truly wanted their own state alongside Israel and NOT the 22nd Arab-Moslem state INSTEAD of Israel?
Under the current political climate, the only way a lasting peace agreement will be reached is through a settlement people pn both sides of the conflict woul be willing to live with. Realistically, the only way the Palestinian population will accept a peace agreement is if they get one of their two major demands: either a full, physical right of return, or East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
When forced to choose between the two, I highly doubt Israel will choose to allow RoR in order to keep East Jerusalem, since they see that a demographic suicide.
On a second point, it is disrespectfully and counter productive to put quotes around the term "Palestinians." Either you accept them as a people who deserve self-determination, or you do not. Using quotes indicates you do not, in which case you are amoung those who do not wish to see a just and lasting peace. I would not be appropriate to always refer to Isrealis as "Israelis," and the Palestinians are entitled to the same common courtesy.
Bottom line: the current hatred and distrust among the current opposing leaders is too huge to lead to any form of rational, much less peaceful dialogue. But in the coming decades, as the youth of these countries become more and more savvy about our world, particularly through the Internet, the necessity to become engaged with the real world will start to slowly move the leaders on both sides to seek peaceful solutions. Hatred cannot be ended by politicians, it requires new seeds of thought and the time to grow these new seeds, and the Internet will bring these new seeds, and the youth of this Arab/Israeli world, in time, will nuture these seeds into the roots of their future. Until then, hatred will continue to dominate the hearts of these old and aging leaders.
Fatah's twenty-plus years of negotiation with the Israelis have brought massively increased settlements and continued oppression. Hamas' acts of violence (the kidnapping of Shalit, for example) have brought tangible results.
I don't think that's the right path, and I wish Israel worked to reinforce the value of non-violent protest as opposed to violence, but I find it hard to believe that your vision for the future is true.
But obstacles can be overcome. Don't let those who don't have a real interest in peace convince you otherwise.
What are you taling about? Even the most generous offer made by Olmert had Israel give up control of only 90-91% of the West Bank.
"Now, many want to falt Isreal for keeping that @.04% of the gained lands,"
So now, 96% + 0.04% = 100%?
"for reasons Israel states is to control the security of the areas most likely where a future attack would come from, if another war on Isreal is created by those who history has shown has a strong tendency to make war on Israel."
IF that were the real reason, Israel would not be movin Civilians into those areas. How can that serve as a security buffer by putting civilians there? That is putting civilians CLOSER to Iran and Syria.
"Had any other nation been attacked as often as Isreal has by mostly the same cultural forces, I'm sure that nation would make sure their security arrrangements would include at least a +.04% increase in land to protect their nation."
Not "cultural force", countries. Egypt, Syria and Lebannon are all countries. "Cultural forces" did not attack Israel, nor could they, because they are abstract concepts. The rise of reality television did not attack Israel, nor did punk rock or rap. Even the embrace of universal human rights only attacks Israel on an esoteric level.
Citation needed.
As for your second paragraph, the vast majority of communities are close to the Green Line, so Israel is not really "moving civilians closer to Iran and Syria."
- A future attack may well come from the West Bank -- that's where homes are being destroyed.
- Of the several wars Israel has fought, only one -- the one they lost -- was initiated by an enemy.
- Where does +0.4% come from with regard to security? The IDF controls all of the borders of the West Bank.
- What is "the opposing cultural force"? Is that all of the countries in the world except Israel and the United States?
- The PA, which administers what's left of the West Bank, controls a security force that protects Israel. Is this what you mean by "terrorism"?
-So you agree that Israel is right to have soldiers in the West Bank, and that the Arabs should not be trusted to keep the peace?
-This has been debunked a long time ago.
-You are aware that the Palestinians use rockets right?
-The desire to reinstitute the Caliphate.
-The security force keeps the peace. Which means that the Palestinians could return to terrorism at any point, in fact the Palestinian people want to and must be restrained. Real "peaceful" don't you think?
That, and the rest of your post, simply indicates you have a very poor grasp of history and reality.
Because of this mentality Israel is disliked even despised among the nations of the world - the simple truth is that Israel has 'delegitimizes' itself among the eyes of the world by its illegal actions, wanton theft and shameless oppression of a civilian population.
By destroyed any chance of a Two State solution with the building and expansion of these illegal Israeli settlements and refusing to withdraw to the 1967 borders Israel has set it's course on decades of future conflict.
In short Israel had it's chances at peace (eg: the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative) but Israel chose Land over Peace.
I guess if Mexico moved into 1.1% of Texas or New Mexico that would be fine with you.
Well, then I guess we can expect Israel to make an offer for final borders in which it will only retain 1.1% of the West Bank.
This particular debate, namely what the building is doing to the possibility of peace is really not what the author asserts because all her points, large or small, true, partly true or totally false, start from the false premise that a permanent and stable peace arrangement could be consummated and implemented, if not for the Jews building houses on the disputed territory.
The Israelis have all but given up on a coordinated peace with the Arab leaders and have almost moved on. The Pal~Arab PEOPLE are suffering but their leaders are using this conflict to fuel their own power~base and payroll. They don't want this conflict to be over any more then Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel wanted to create a Broadway hit in the story "The Producers". Their entire existence gravitates around the perpetual war, ala Orwell's "1984". They are demanding:
All of Jerusalem including the Western Wall.
All of "West Bank".
The immigration of about 5.5-million Arabs as voting Israeli citizens, most all of them born in Arab nations and had never set foot inside Israel. That of course would displace the Jewish nation for a 22nd Arab/Muslim nation.
Israeli rightly and accurately realizes that nothing good can come of these demands.
If your neighbor is (proverbially) demanding to marry your wife, there is no sense in discussing with him the disputed excessive height of your hedges.
Those are the well established facts.
In Statecraft, published in the first part of 2008, Dennis Ross described Abbas as someone who “acted as if avoiding decisions rather than making them was his objective” and whose strength was “not his decision-making instinct.” Later that year, Abbas received an offer of a state on land equivalent to the entire West Bank (after swaps) and Gaza, with a safe-passage corridor between them, and a capital in Jerusalem — and walked away. The memoirs of both George Bush and Condoleezza Rice make it clear his decision was a considered one.
When you get three offers of a state in less than ten years, and turn all three down (the modern equivalent of the “Three Nos”), the problem is deeper than what Abbas disingenuously describes as the “Long Overdue Palestinian State.” It does not relate to the specifics of the offers, or to an alleged deficiency in decision-making instincts. The problem is an inherent inability to recognize a Jewish state, or defensible borders, or an end-of-claims agreement — and the inherent instability of a society that still lacks even the minimal institutions necessary for a democratic state.
"We affirm that armed resistance is our strategic option and the only way to liberate our land, from the sea to the river," he said. "God willing, Hamas will lead the people ... to the uprising until we liberate Palestine, all of Palestine."
Yeah, the "settlements" are the problem. The "settlements" of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Eilat, etc.
The portrait of Palestinian democracy is worse than last year. This week, Mahmoud Abbas began the eighth year of his four-year term of office, still unable to set foot in half his quasi-state, now in its fifth year in the hands of the terrorist group he promised to dismantle, with whom he is currently reconciling (for the third time).
He rules by decree, because there is no functioning legislature. He cancelled local elections in his own half-state again, ignoring the order of the Palestinian “High Court.” Both haves of the putative state are one-party police states. Last May, elections were promised for this May, in an effort to persuade the UN that Palestinians were ready for a state; the elections will not likely occur unless Fatah and Hamas can agree beforehand on who will win what. Abbas is periodically dragged to talk to Israel, but he lacks a mandate to make the concessions necessary for a state, much less the ability to implement them. He cannot make the minimal promise required for a two-state solution — that a Palestinian state will recognize a Jewish one.