OCTOBER 28, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
It is more than likely that the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) will reach a dead end. If not on the issue of settlements then on other matters. It’s not in the details, it’s in the big picture: Benjamin Netanyahu will not go as far as his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, and the Palestinians have already rejected Olmert’s generous deal. So it is probably a good idea to start thinking about Plan B.
To do this, we Israelis must first set our priorities straight: The more urgent goal is not peace; it is partition. That’s because the alternative to partition would be the end of Zionism. If the land is not divided into two states, there will be one state with an Arab majority. This is also not in the interest of Palestinians, since this one state is not likely to be a healthy binational democracy. It is more likely to be a country beset by chronic civil war.
But partition without peace now seems difficult from Israel’s perspective. It has been tried in Gaza, and Israelis mostly (though not necessarily rightly) remember the move as a failure: The forced evacuation of some 7,000 settlers from their homes in August 2005 went down in the national memory as traumatic, and what Israel received in return was a Hamas takeover and a constant barrage of rockets on its southern towns. So the evacuation of more than ten times that number of settlers from the West Bank—at least 70,000 settlers live in the territory that would become Palestine under any viable partition plan—seems unlikely. Israeli public opinion will not stomach a large-scale, forced evacuation for anything less than a full peace deal. Which would seem to mean that there is no alternative to the negotiations.
Yet this view assumes that the Gaza way is the only way. And that is not necessarily the case. A pullout from the West Bank can—indeed must—be very different. Here is how it might look.
The first step would mimic the Gaza disengagement. There is a relatively wide consensus among Israeli supporters of partition—unilateral or by peace accord—that we first need another “evacuation-compensation bill,” like the one enacted by Ariel Sharon’s administration. Many of the settlers are not fanatical religious ideologues, but people who were encouraged to live in the West Bank because of government subsidies. If this policy is reversed, and the state were instead to offer subsidies and alternative housing in exchange for settlers’ homes in the West Bank, many will come back to Israel proper.
The next step would diverge from the Gaza strategy considerably. It has to do with the legal status of the settlers. The whole foundation of settlement rests on a cluster of legal patches, sometimes collectively referred to in Hebrew as Tzavie Hazika (probably best translated as the Linkage Ordinances)—a series of orders issued by the military, along with some Knesset legislation, designed to apply Israeli law to Jewish settlers. Rights, political and social, are tied in Israel to residence, not just citizenship. Israelis cannot vote from abroad, and the whole net of social, civil, and often commercial services is dependent on residence within Israel’s borders. This originally posed a problem for settlers because they live outside Israel, where the official sovereign is not Israel’s parliament but the military. The Linkage Ordinances, however, established that Jews residing in the territories would be treated like residents of Israel. This created a colonial-like situation in the West Bank where, unlike in Israel proper, Jews have rights and services that Arabs do not.
A unilateral pullout would need to do away with the Ordinances. This in itself is not an entirely new idea. It once was discussed inside Sharon’s government as a possible Plan B for the Gaza evacuation. Sharon instructed the army that under no circumstances would it shoot at Jewish settlers, not even shoot back. If they picked up arms, he said, the Israel Defense Forces would simply withdraw. In such a case, some of his advisers suggested, the Linkage Ordinances could nevertheless be voided as planned on the day of the scheduled evacuation.
In the end, of course, there was no need for a Plan B, because the settlers complied and left their homes peacefully. But if this time the Ordinances were voided ahead of any evacuation, the picture would change substantially. All services that depend on the Ordinances—commercial water, electricity supply, medical care, telecommunications, public transportation, law enforcement—could be gradually transferred to the military. This would create an intermediate stage before the pullout, which will make clear that the state means business and also give the settlers an idea of what life without the benefit of Israeli residence rights would mean.
Upon withdrawal—and I would argue for a withdrawal from almost all of the West Bank, while retaining the possibility of land swaps and other adjustments during future negotiations—those who wished to stay in the evacuated areas would be allowed to do so. It is a safe guess that very few would. Mostly these would belong to the extreme messianic core, a group distinct from the majority of religious settlers. Such radicals may prefer the land to the state and value geography over citizenship. A partition plan can and should accommodate these preferences and let them choose Palestine over Israel if they so wish. Israel has a large Arab minority, and there is no reason to insist that Palestine be cleansed of Jews entirely.
In practice, however, staying under Palestinian rule is likely to be unsafe, and though we can hope Palestine will become a liberal democracy, accepting of minorities, we can by no means be sure this will happen. So Israel should make clear that it will not tolerate any violence against Jews in the West Bank and would reserve the right to invade Palestinian territory and use whatever means necessary to evacuate those in danger. This is how Israel has behaved in other instances: It not only has a Law of Return, it has also actively evacuated Jewish communities that were at risk and sought shelter in Israel.
If Israel chooses this strategy, its West Bank policies would no longer be held hostage by the whims of a small group of settlers. The very difficult decision to evacuate people from their homes would be transformed from a public to a private one: It would be up to the settlers, each of them individually, to decide whether to return to Israel or stay put.
But policy toward the settlers is not the only way in which this pullout should differ from the case of Gaza. It should also seek to avoid the Gaza results—a Hamas takeover and a barrage of rockets. This time around, the withdrawal should be coordinated with the PA, increasing the odds that power will be transferred in an orderly fashion and that Hamas can be kept at bay in the West Bank. The PA would doubtlessly cooperate, as Hamas poses a greater danger to Fatah than it does to Israel. Moreover, the PA is not the only party with which Israel should coordinate. Absent a full peace deal, any pullout should be backed by an international agreement with third parties. The United Nations, the United States, the European Union, hopefully Russia, and even some of the Arab League members are all relevant. Few countries would object to the ending of the occupation, and some would likely be willing to help shoulder the burden, including security guarantees.
Interestingly, some pragmatists on the Palestinian side have also reached the conclusion that unilateralism is a viable alternative to a peace accord. Palestinian Prime Minster Salam Fayyad has promised to unilaterally declare Palestinian statehood in 2011. Perhaps Fayyad, too, thinks that a two-state condition should first be established de facto: that issues now burdened with huge symbolic weight—dividing Jerusalem, giving up the so-called right of return, and much else—would be treated in a more practical way once the conflict is reduced from a controversy over full and final justice to a border dispute between two sovereign states. And he may well be right. Such a unilateral move by the Palestinians would complement, rather than contradict, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal.
We generally assume that those willing to negotiate are moderate, while those who wish to create facts on the ground unilaterally are warmongers. But in this long, complicated, and festering conflict, the opposite may be true. Because it may well be that peace would be easier after, not before, partition into two states.
Gadi Taub is an assistant professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and author of The Settlers. This article ran in the November 11, 2010, issue of the magazine.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
37 comments
I am afraid this brilliant analysis does not reflect the reality. First of all, there are many non-settler Israelis who see withdrawal as a grave sin; the army is full of settler-supporters and will not permit even a simple army withdrawal; secondly, the idea of leaving ideological settlers in Arab Palestine will not change their character - it would surely lead to dreadful bloodshed, possibly iniated by the remaining Jews, but also very possibly iniated by vengeful Arab residents. In any case Israel will find itself entagled back in the West-Bank (Judea-Samaria) bloodshed immediately after the withdrawal, this time with a disintegrating army. Thirdly, the whole idea of preparing the withdrawal by adjusting legislation sounds over-optimistic: the atmosphere here is full of hatred of the leftists and the racist to the bones. Even centrists are afraid to expose their views under their name. In this condition the Knesset is not a platform for a legislation towards the withdrawal-partition. What is needed now is a formulation of Israeli-Jewish identity free of racism and overebearance - to bring back the Israelis from their renewed medieval Jewishness that at the moment defines their identity. This labour of humanist spiritual rejuvenation was never done here, so the unreformed medieval Jewish insticts came back to blossom - also among the "seculars". Without such a spiritual work Israel and especially the Israelis has only a dark future (which is ok for many medievalists).
- zechariata
October 22, 2010 at 2:25pm
This is not a brilliant analysis, it's a scary myopic view from an elitist left 'scholar' who is on the fringe of Israeli mainstream thinking. It's actually another reason to run, not walk, far and fast away from so-called policy 'thinkers'. This author sits in an ivory tower and dismisses with a nod the fundamental reason Jews live in Judea and Samaria. It's not economics. Sure, that's a by product that brought Russian immigrants to Ariel and Maaleh Adumim. The core of the 750K settlers, however, which btw comprises ~13% of all Israeli Jews, (depending on how and where you count them) are believers. They believe that the land belongs to ancient Israel. Waving money in their face will not placate. Suggesting that any Israeli government could or would simply abandon them and suggest they pick up Palestinian passports is simply absurd. Firstly, the Israeli electorate has voted right-center since Oslo. No government or political party would abandon its power base in order to score 'potential' points with Obama or the UN. Secondly, the PA would never let a substantial number of Jews live in their new country. There is no Arab country in the world (scratch that, there's no Muslim country in the world) where Jews are permitted to live in great numbers, save for a token few (see Iran, Syria, Morocco, et al). Thirdly, the cost of resettling 750,000 people would be beyond prohibitive to Israel. In a tough world economy, the rich uncle from America (USA), cannot shoulder the bill. The Gaza disengagement, which moved 'only' 9,000 Jews over to Israel proper (not to mention the terrible emotional hardship, unemployment, and clinical depression that remains with most of these displaced peoples today) cost the Israeli taxpayer over $6 billion (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). Using a simple back of the envelope calculation, extrapolating that cost to 750K people would cost about 500 BILLION dollars. Any peace plan has to be win-win and agreeable to all parties based on the facts on the ground, not fantasies or ideals. Land transfer seems to be a more plausible option, but people transfer on such a grand scale, is out of the question. I wonder if TNR ever considers a symposium or balance of ideas when publishing articles on Israel. This article is so far left, and I'm afraid the casual reader would take it as a generally accepted option.
- streaming
October 28, 2010 at 3:27am
With some slight variations, Professor Taub is reading my mind, or my posts in TNR. Streaming's complaints fail to take any account of the alternatives. He doesn't like what Taub says, more or less likes the status quo and wants it legally blessed, and considers not at all that the alternative to what Taub describes is not the status quo at all. If one is able to think through the possible end scenarios for continuation of current Israeli policies, I think it is clear that all of them are worse for Israel than anything Taub describes. Streaming is also blithe in what he says must be a "win-win," but his idea of "win-win" is that Israel wins. It is not at all what the Palestinians consider a win. Streaming is also blithe in considering that whatever Israeli voters vote for therefore must be just and achievable. This is about like arguing that if Gazans vote for Hamas then Hamas has the perfect right to shell Israel because it is what a majority of the electorate wants. The fact that a government is elected does not give it a free hand in world affairs. Israel made a mistake of enormous proportions in settling the West Bank because it undoes the partition on which the existence of Israel depends. At the end of the day, Israel has only three options: incorporate the West Bank and become a binational state, evacuate the settlements, leave them there as part of Palestine. There is some possibility, very slight in my opinion, that the Palestinians will agree to land transfers to allow Israel to incorporate some of them, but that really does not change the fundamental character of the problem much. It just reduces it slightly. It would actually be better for Israel to leave the settlement bloc in Palestine as an inducement to proper behavior on the part of the Palestinian government with the implicit and quietly explicit threat that, if Jews in Palestine are threatened, Israel will invade, annex the near settlements, evacuate the rest, and never negotiate anything further as there will be nothing to negotiate. What streaming fails to notice is that most of what Taub describes is actually inevitable. If incorporation of the West Bank is unthinkable, as it should be, and complete evacuation is unthinkable, as it appears to be for the Israeli public, there is only one alternative left. The third alternative is what will come about. Palestine will likely declare a state. Israel will be compelled to withdraw the legally privileged status of settlers, even if, as it should not, it does not immediately withdraw the IDF, and the world will recognize the currently unincorporated territory as Palestine. Too late now to start unilaterally incorporating it. Jerusalem will remain for the time-being as a border dispute and an inducement to Palestinian progress and cooperation. I think it is tragic that Netanyahu cannot guide Israe, and smooth its path, to the inevitable by actually making that deal with the Palestinians. The absence of an agreed path is sure to make things much more painful for Israel, even if it is also more painful for the Palestinians. There are many aspects of this future that are not inevitable, such as control of the Jordan, that would benefit from an agreement. Withal, it is probably better even for Israel that the Palestinians unilaterally declare their state. If they allow it to be something given to them by Israel, it will always taste like ashes to them. Better that they declare their equality as a nation among nations, gain the inevitable recognition of the world as such, and then negotiate with Israel as an equal, of occupied, state party, for a settlement of outstanding issues. The smartest move of all would be for the Palestinians noisily and publicly to offer to Israel to accept Israeli settlers as citizens of Palestine in exactly the same numbers as Israel agrees to accept Arab returnees. Then Israel will really have to make a choice as to how many settlers remain. My guess is that about 300,000 is a plausible maximum. As the settlements non consolidated are not defensible in any case, this would allow for a "win-win," with mutual self-congratulation - the Palestinians for achieving return, the Israelis for securing a major bloc of settlements - when both are really just bowing to the strategically inevitable. It is welcome to see that someone at least in Israel, right or wrong, is able to think about this problem in a manner that at least makes sense, that is at least plausible, rather than just dumbly repeating the standard litany of historical justifications for the status quo.
- roidubouloi
October 28, 2010 at 8:55am
noga, who keeps a library of my posts on TNR, should hang onto the one within the last year where I describe in detail what the shape of a final settlement will be, not what it should be, but will be. It largely overlaps what Taub describes. Let us see when the deed is done how close I was to the mark, shall we? If it turns out that I am right, it will not be in the slightest degree because of "brilliance" or any such silliness. It will be entirely due to the fact that, if one is able to roll forward all the alternatives in one's mind, not very difficult if you are willing to set aside your own desires and ignore historical claims and justifications, the range of possible outcomes is really very narrow. It doesn't take any genius to see that if there is essentially but one possible outcome, that is what will happen, sooner or later.
- roidubouloi
October 28, 2010 at 9:09am
The assumption that the PA and the Arab League will openly cooperate with a withdrawal to less than full pre-1967 lines and the Palestinian right of return not addressed is somewhat dubious. By cooperating with Israel, it would reduce pressure on Israel to give more concessions. Also it ignores the increasing evidence that the PA desires more the elimination of Israel than independence, it desires a cause more than a solution. Salam Fayyad who everyone is pinning their hopes on - has no real power base. Still I agree that a withdrawal from much of the the territories is ultimately in Israel's own interest - getting there is the difficult part.
- jneuberg
October 28, 2010 at 11:55am
roi: The biggest snag to your prognostications is one very simple factor: The Palestinians are not going to behave in accordance with your wishes. Had they not been Arab, Muslims and Palestinians, there might be some hope that this would change. But as it is, they can't and won't do what's in their best interest, according to you. They are bound by the strictures of their religion, the tenets of their foundational charter and encouraged by the coddling of the world's opinion to continue as they are. They are not interested in creating their own state. Inf anything, they wish to be assimilated into greater Syria or something like that. They will not give up their dreams of revenge upon those uppity Jews who rebel against the place and importance that Mohammad had assigned for them in his writings. They consider this revenge as their right, which they even gave it a name: Right of Return. What Israel needs to do is repatriate 70.000 settlers that are in the West Bank (in two new cities, one in the Negev, the other in the Galilee, next to Um-el-fahm, hopefully) and annex the territory between the separation fence and the Green Line. Finish building the Fence. And declare that when the Palestinians are ready to make peace, about some border adjustments, they will find an attentive partner. Just like it was with Jordan. Netanyahu should respond to the threat to declare a Palestinian statehood the way Abbas responds to Israel's demand that it recognize its Jewish character: Netanyahu should say that Palestinians can declare themselves as whatever they want. It's not his business (as long as that declaration is not used as an excuse to attack Israel and Israelis).
- noga1
October 28, 2010 at 12:19pm
Oh and BTW, roi, I only saved those comments by you which I thought contained good points about Israel advocacy. But I find them quite useless now, except when I want to point out your own self-contradictions. The fact that you could write those comments and since then have gone to write as if you were Arafat's Arabic speech writer is proof that whatever you write you don't write out of any conviction or interest in good moral outcomes. You write exercises in rhetorical persuasion, and they look like it. Not very persuasive (persuasion needs to pay attention to three elements which are absent from your attempts) and not even very readable.
- noga1
October 28, 2010 at 12:40pm
What cannot happen, won't happen. When there is only one plausible outcome, it will happen. The flaws in your analysis are at least two-fold: First, you talk as if the conflict is entirely within the arena of the area between the Jordan and the sea. It is not. There are other forces in the world interested in this outcome. They are moving, despite the shrieks of despair and demands for justice emanating from Israel. Second, it is quite unnecessary for the Palestinians rhetorically to abandon what you claim to be their ambition in order for this outcome to be achieved. That is part of Taub's point, that a formal settlement requires certain rhetorical adjustments that are difficult. If those are bypassed, you still get to the same place. If Palestine declares a state and Israel still refuses to negotiate other than on the basis of obtaining more territory, an outcome the Palestinians rather evidently will not accept, it will take some time, but Israel will be forced out -- as long as the Palestinians can maintain non-violence or at least exert sufficient control that they are not regarded by the world as blameworthy for relatively isolated incidents. Can you really imagine a situation in which Israel does maintain, indefinitely, by sheer force of arms what would indubitably by a colonial presence inside another state? Had Isreal settled only proximate to the Green Line, it might have gotten away with it. As it is, I think it is too late to succeed with annexation. It is a reasonable ploy, but it is not the Palestinians who need a settlement most, it is Israel. If Israel refuses to negotiate for the settlements to remain in Palestine, then the likely outcome is that it will ultimately be forced to abandon them altogether. All of them. That's what happens when you overreach. When the reaction finally comes, it does not stop at the lines you might have drawn or achieved had you not overreached. Whatever the religious nuts think, the UN gave this territory (and more) to the Arabs. Sooner or later, that UN will make good that agreement. The time when Israel might have changed the outcome with a lot less settlement combined with formal annexation of a few border areas is gone. The Likud in its stubbornness waited too long.
- roidubouloi
October 28, 2010 at 1:16pm
"...as long as the Palestinians can maintain non-violence or at least exert sufficient control that they are not regarded by the world as blameworthy for relatively isolated incidents. " Your entire scenario is based on this premise. A very quick look at the history of the last 100 years, and the present realities shows that they are incapable of maintaining non-violence. If they could do that, there would not have been a problem in the first place. _____________________ If Israel annexed the territory between the fence and the Green Line and gave the Arabs there Israeli citizenship, there would be no call to name the move "colonialist". By your own definition it would be perfectly within international law. ________________ How do you think is the UN going to enforce the 1947 partition borders which you menacingly hint at in your statement? Do you think the UNSC is going to declare war on Israel? To finish what the Arabs failed to achieve in 1967?
- noga1
October 28, 2010 at 1:49pm
For about 10 years now I held a position that Israel needs to unilaterally disengage from the territories. Remove the settlers from all but the largest towns hugging the green line, surround the area with the separation barrier and let the Palestinian decide what they want: A complete separation, no relations with Israel whatsoever or some semblance of cooperation. Let's remember that Israel and Palestinians cooperated on many issues in the past and I think they can do it in the future. I even had a Palestinian partner with whom I am in contact to this day. I think the risk of rockets from the territories is real. I also think that Israel can deal with them just like it dealt with rockets from Gaza. I think that after a few years of divorce Israel and Palestinians can come to some agreement. That's why I think that Taub's analysis is timely. Let the Palestinians stew in their own juices for a while. Let them work on establishing Palestine. Hell, let them declare it if they want it. I agree with Noga: "Netanyahu should say that Palestinians can declare themselves as whatever they want. It's not his business (as long as that declaration is not used as an excuse to attack Israel and Israelis)". I also agree that they will not declare anything because I truly believe that for them it is a zero sum game: Palestine or Israel. In addition, I think that they will actually have a hard time passing it in the UN. The Arab and Muslim states are all hosts to all kind of ethnic entities wanting independence. I don't think the Arabs will cut their own noses to spite their faces by opening avenue for those claims. But if this is what the Palestinians will do then Israel will have to be behind the fence for a very very long time.
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
October 28, 2010 at 2:11pm
Noga are you serious?: "Had they not been Arab, Muslims and Palestinians, there might be some hope that this would change." היהפוך כושי עורו ונמר חברבורותיו?
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
October 28, 2010 at 2:32pm
makover “For about 10 years now I held a position that Israel needs to unilaterally disengage from the territories. Remove the settlers from all but the largest towns hugging the green line, surround the area with the separation barrier and let the Palestinian decide what they want: A complete separation, no relations with Israel whatsoever or some semblance of cooperation.” I had similar thoughts since the early 90's. Yes, Israel needs to withdraw settlers from most of the territories; however, it shouldn’t remove the army till there is a solid agreement that’s workable. The mistake Sharon made of withdrawing settlers and removing the army from the Gaza strip should not be repeated. Each time Israel withdraws from territory unilaterally, the enemy, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon uses that territory to attack the country and its citizens without restraint. A withdrawal of settlers will change the political dynamic of the conflict. However, just leaving the West bank militarily without and agreement is not an option for the Jewish State.
- jdyer
October 28, 2010 at 2:47pm
As Orwell once said, "Some ideas are so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."
- NHRDS
October 28, 2010 at 5:05pm
JDyer: I gave this issue a lot of thought throughout the years and I really and truly believe that there is no chance of settlement or agreement with the Palestinian in the near future. I know that it sound fatalistic and pessimistic but I really think this is the pragmatic and realistic outlook. In the near future the Palestinians will never agree with anything that does not meet their maximalist positions and Israel must be prepared to live without an agreement and without final recognized borders for years to come. However, I think that withdrawal will reduce the pressure on Israel and will reduce the mantra of "occupation, occupation, occupation..." which serves the left to clobber Israel. I think that the left will continue to blame "occupation, occupation, occupation..." for every f...up of the Palestinians (and there will be plenty of those) but the effectiveness of this defense will be reduced.
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
October 28, 2010 at 5:57pm
NHRDS: "As Orwell once said, "Some ideas are so absurd only an intellectual could believe them." What do you refer to?
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
October 28, 2010 at 5:58pm
"Yes, Israel needs to withdraw settlers from most of the territories; however, it shouldn’t remove the army till there is a solid agreement that’s workable." Couldn't agree more. But the tasks of the IDF would be rather different, and under most circumstances permit a much lower profile, if there were not settlers to protect. Equally important, international law does not at all prevent Israel from maintaining its military occupation in the absence of a settlement to the extent that security requires. It is an order of magnitude less likely that the UN would ever take action if the only Israeli presence in the West Bank were military and it were kept to a minimum. The burden would then be on the Palestinians to come to terms on security arrangements that would permit Israel finally to withdraw. The Palestinians would also have zero leverage with which to press their claimed right of return. Israel's negotiating position would be much stronger as it would need little or nothing from the Palestinians. All to the good. ___________________________ "If Israel annexed the territory between the fence and the Green Line and gave the Arabs there Israeli citizenship, there would be no call to name the move "colonialist". By your own definition it would be perfectly within international law." Not so simple. As I have said repeatedly, if Israel had annexed and incorporated territory, it would not be violating the Fourth Geneva Convention by settling there. That doesn't mean that annexation would be legal or recognized in the world as such. As a practical matter, it surely would be labeled as colonialist by most of the world. Leaving aside the legalities, I have repeatedly tried to make the point that if you want to succeed with a contested annexation the way to do it is to make it an accomplished fact and then so far integrate the annexed territory that no one can see how to do it and it just becomes accepted de facto. That is essentially what has occurred with the portions of the Arab partition that fell to Israel in 1948-49. Tactically, the settlements have been an insufferably stupid idea if Israel had the ambition to seize and hold additional territory contiguous to the 1949 lines. First, a lot of the settlement is by no stretch contiguous. But even as to more or less contiguous parts, by settling far and wide Israel has kept the whole matter politically open and controversial so that there has been no possibility for an annexation to be accepted de facto. Israel did that to itself! The notion that at this late date Israel can suddenly annex a piece and have that be regarded as somehow different in character than the rest of its settlements is fanciful. For the same reason, the West Bank settlements have compromised Israel's de facto hold on Jerusalem. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Even for the right-wing this was pretty dumb. Now, there is some chance that a late annexation could work, although not very great in my opinion, but to make even that work would require getting out of all the settlements that Israel would not attempt to annex and getting rid of those hydra-looking things that jut out into the West Bank. The pattern of settlement has made that virtually impossible. Thus, tactically, Israel hasn't even given itself a plausible line to which it can withdraw while incorporating a substantial portion of the settler population. Not to mention that this solution is probably politically impossible for Israel due to all the years of aggressive rhetoric. You see, Israelis can get trapped by their own rhetoric too. Just like the rest of humanity. From a purely tactical point of view and considering only Israel's self-interest without regard to the benefits to it of peace, I cannot even think of how the whole matter of settlements could have been handled worse. Did I mention stupid? Because Israel has not even had the forethought to give itself a fallback position in the West Bank, its choices are exactly those I mentioned: evacuate, annex the whole, allow the settlements to become part of Palestine. Partial annexation is what we call, "Too little, too late." It would delay the outcome, but that's about it. ______________________ "How do you think is the UN going to enforce the 1947 partition borders which you menacingly hint at in your statement? Do you think the UNSC is going to declare war on Israel? To finish what the Arabs failed to achieve in 1967?" I don't think the UN is ever going to attempt to force Israel to return to the partition lines. For the reasons, see above. The territory west of the Green Line is long since de facto Israel. That's because that territory was incorporated and fully integrated, including full political rights for Arab inhabitants, years ago. But, precisely because Israel itself has not permitted any lines other than the 1949 armistice line to come to rest, everything east of the Green Line is still up for grabs despite the lapse of much more time than the mere 18 years between the armistice and the Six Day War. Unless Israel can get the Palestinians to agree otherwise, the UN will force Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines, although I think the Jerusalem outcome is uncertain. By war? No, of course not. Did the world need to declare war on South Africa to persuade the Afrikaners that the were holding a losing hand? Israel is far more dependent on its external commerce that South Africa ever was and, unlike both South Africa and Iran, has nothing that the world particularly needs. If Palestine is declared a state and Israel just maintains the settlements by force, the situation there will come to be much too close to apartheid for the world to tolerate. Indeed, if sanctions were ever a serious threat, I think Israel would yield rather than allow itself to become a pariah. That possibility would carry too much risk of another war with the Arabs in which Israel could find itself alone. As I have also said repeatedly, Israel's existence depends on a moral world order. It cannot exist by force of arms alone. It is not powerful enough.
- roidubouloi
October 28, 2010 at 8:19pm
"no one can see how to undo it"
- roidubouloi
October 28, 2010 at 8:20pm
too bad the Israelis who are determined to reagin Judea and Samaria can not take the long view (I know, 2,000 years has been the long view). Strategic withdrawal, Fayyad is on his own, and see what happens. am being politically correct by going to a different place where I do not have be PC :)
- K2K
October 28, 2010 at 8:37pm
makover “JDyer: I gave this issue a lot of thought throughout the years and I really and truly believe that there is no chance of settlement or agreement with the Palestinian in the near future. I know that it sound fatalistic and pessimistic but I really think this is the pragmatic and realistic outlook.” I agree with you that there is no chance of a settlement in the near future. The status quo is untenable. This is why I think that Israel should take the settlers out and keep military control over the rest. This will avoid another Gaza. It will also tell the Palestinian Arabs that if they negotiate in good faith some sort of agreement wherein they will gain independence in exchange for a formal treaty pledging to cease hostilities. In this way if they renege, then Israel will have the legal right to retaliate in some form. If Israel takes out the military as well as the settlers they will again be perceived as weak and the Palestinians will think that all they will have to do is keep applying pressure and the Jews will just melt away.
- jdyer
October 28, 2010 at 10:12pm
What does that mean "Israel should take the settlers out". It make it sound like there's a summer camp or a spa that the government can just summon all 750,000 human beings that live in these areas and "take them out". How about we get some ideas from people who actually live in Israel and/or the PA, and not armchair American quarterbacks. Imagine the mass mobilization of a population nearly the size of Indianapolis plucked from all their homes and businesses...
- streaming
October 29, 2010 at 1:30am
"750,000 human beings " Where did you get this number? Even Taub is referring only to "at least 70,000 settlers live in the territory that would become Palestine under any viable partition plan—".
- noga1
October 29, 2010 at 6:44am
Actually today's Jpost writes that the Israel CBS counts 309,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=193215 I read in the past in Haaretz that the human rights watch group counts Jerusalem neighborhoods, etc, as "settlements" and that add upwards to 3/4 million. How does Taub count 70K? When Meretz speaks of resettlement they include 'consensus' areas. Before Roid gets all hot under the collar, the "consensus" areas include Gush Etzyon & Jerusalem.
- streaming
October 29, 2010 at 8:34am
Speaking of Taub: He writes "The forced evacuation of some 7,000 settlers from their homes in August 2005" Where did he get the number 7,000? The BBC (clearly not a pro-Israel organization) reported that 9,000 Jews were forcibly removed from their homes and businesses. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11002744 CBS (The USA News channel) reported 13,000 Jews were removed during the disengagement. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/26/listening_post/main798310.shtml The Israel media reported 3,500 families were uprooted. Over 2,500 of them still remain on welfare and/or in temporary housing. Many of the families had 6,8, even 10 kids each. How 3,500 settler families could only total 7,000 persons is a mystery to me.
- streaming
October 29, 2010 at 8:47am
Populations of Jerusalem neighborhoods that Israel CBS does not count as settlements, but the world community does (and Roi considers part of the population transfer) Gilo 40,000 Pisgat Zeev 50,000 Neve Yaakov 30,000 Ramot 70,000 Ramat Shlomo 10,000 (or more if the planned building goes thru) Har Homa 17,000 etc, etc, etc...
- streaming
October 29, 2010 at 9:11am
"I read in the past in Haaretz that the human rights watch group counts Jerusalem neighborhoods, etc, as "settlements" and that add upwards to 3/4 million." Human Rights Watch is not a source I rely on for statistics about Israel. I don't understand why you even consider their criteria as relevant. Gilo, Pisgat Zeev, Neve Yaakov, Ramot, Ramat Shlomo etc are not settlements but neigborhoods in Jerusalem. The fact that Palestinians claim them does not turn them into "settlements". Palestinians also claim Haifa and Tel Aviv.
- noga1
October 29, 2010 at 9:46am
Actually, streaming, I don't. I have always been quite clear that I do not think the Geneva Convention applies to incorporated areas where the inhabitants have been accorded equal political and civil rights. The legality of incorporation is a separate question, not a human rights issue, more of a legal/political issue, and much murkier because there is no equivalent to the Geneva Convention that explicitly addresses the issue. If the correct number in the West Bank is 300,000 and 70,000 are outliers, and assuming at least another 30,000 to 70,000 more would not willingly stay in Palestine, Israel is foolish indeed not to accept 150,000 to 200,000 Arab returnees in exchange for legalization of the settlements and concession of a Palestinian enclave in Jerusalem (for which I would demand in exchange one in Hebron).
- roidubouloi
October 29, 2010 at 10:40am
Actually, streaming, I don't. I have always been quite clear that I do not think the Geneva Convention applies to incorporated areas where the inhabitants have been accorded equal political and civil rights. The legality of incorporation is a separate question, not a human rights issue, more of a legal/political issue, and much murkier because there is no equivalent to the Geneva Convention that explicitly addresses the issue. If the correct number in the West Bank is 300,000 and 70,000 are outliers, and assuming at least another 30,000 to 70,000 more would not willingly stay in Palestine, Israel is foolish indeed not to accept 150,000 to 200,000 Arab returnees in exchange for legalization of the settlements and concession of a Palestinian enclave in Jerusalem (for which I would demand in exchange one in Hebron).
- roidubouloi
October 29, 2010 at 10:40am
The chief obstacle to a final settlement in my opinion is Israel's insistence on legalizing the illegal settlements by transferring them to Israel. I don't believe the Palestinians will ever agree to this, a "red line" for them, and if Israel cannot get to the table and alter it's position to one that respects it's own red lines but has a chance of success, then Israel is going to lose control of it's destiny and likely suffer casualties along the way, all for some imaginary consensus -- as if my consensus with myself is as good as a done deal.
- roidubouloi
October 29, 2010 at 10:50am
The chief obstacle to a final settlement in my opinion are things like this: http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3483 "This message has appeared again in a PA TV history program, Witnesses and Testimonies. The program featured two Jordanian academics, who explained that the Jews' behavior had been "harmful" to Europeans because of the Jews' "great love of money." They cited Shakespeare's fictitious character, the moneylender Shylock, as proof of this "harmful" Jewish trait. "This is how they harmed the societies that embraced them," one of the academics explained."
- noga1
October 29, 2010 at 9:41pm
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3466 "PA TV: Tel Aviv residents are also "settlers""
- noga1
October 29, 2010 at 9:45pm
Noga, I agree that Human Rights Watch, et al, do not define who is a Settler inasmuch as they are an NGO. However, using Resolution 242 as a yardstick, which includes all territories captured in 1967, does consider Ramot, Pisgat Zeev, et al, as settlements. The Mishna refers to a concept "אין לדבר סוף". When Israel cedes Ariel and Alon Shvut, the Arabs will ask for Ramot and Pisgat Zeev. Next will be Jaffa and Haifa... Shavua Tov.
- streaming
October 30, 2010 at 12:52pm
I think the rout of the fence +/- is probably an approximation of what Israel is willing to concede. I don't see how any Israelis would really be interested in staying on as Palestinian citizens. I can't imagine such a situation. The decent thing for the world to do is to start talking to the Arab world about how their 99.99% the Middle East is in sufficient to solve the problem of the Palestinian refugees: http://www.romirowsky.com/7948/a-tale-of-two-galloways (In the category of questions for which the answer is "no"): Is there a world leader honest and brave enough to do that?
- noga1
October 30, 2010 at 3:04pm
More from the Pro-Arab NY Times Opinion page http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/opinion/30sat1.html "President Obama made a very generous — too generous, we believe — offer to Israel, to get Mr. Netanyahu to extend the moratorium. It included additional security guarantees and more fighter planes, missile defense, satellites." That's like offering an eskimo some more ice. Israel doesn't need guarantees from USA to sell more planes. Israel needs the PLO-PA-Hamas and the Arab League to cut the rhetoric, come to the table, and make a deal. Obama made the issue the settlement freeze. He should have made the issue be that both sides sit down and work it out without pre-pre-pre-conditions.
- streaming
October 30, 2010 at 3:21pm
That NYT was not pro-Arab. It was anti-Israel. I read it after this thread aand noticed this "Israeli soldiers would still be in the West Bank and so would 120 Jewish settlements with 500,000 settlers...." So, I guess the NYT is counting some parts of Jerusalem as 'settlements'??? And then they wrote: "Palestinians would not have free access to Jerusalem. " whichis the first good reason I have read to get the Pals to go to the UN :) The only thing worse than that editorial were the comments from readers.
- K2K
October 30, 2010 at 11:59pm
George Jonas, not mincing words about the UN: "The UN, which was supposed to step into the breach, didn't. The world body excelled only in posturing and dithering. Headquartering Third World dictatorships in Le Corbusier's architectural marvel in New York proved that while sheltering swine in lofty edifices may not do much for humanizing hogs, it's a perfect way of reducing palaces to pigsties. By the 1980s, emergency response became essentially America's call, aided by some NATO countries. Ronald Reagan responded in Grenada and Panama; Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands; George Bush (the First) in Kuwait, the French on the Ivory Coast, the British in Sierra Leone. NATO intervened in Kosovo; George Bush (the Second) in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even Bill Clinton, much as he disdained projecting America's power in theory, found himself obliged to intervene in Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo and Haiti. And, arguably, one of the worst blemishes on his foreign policy was his failure to intervene in Rwanda -- a failure which resulted in an estimated 750,000 dead." http://www.georgejonas.ca/recent_writing.cfm?id=917
- noga1
October 31, 2010 at 8:24am
I think the Falklands isn't really a good example as that was the British government responding to a military invasion of British territory that Argentina saw as theirs. That was much more like a classical war between two sovereign powers than most of what we've seen in recent decades, and to call it an "intervention" is misleading, whether deliberately so or not. Kuwait, aka the First Gulf War, should also not be casually glossed over in the way Jonas does, as that whole operation involved initially a unanimous condemnation of the invasion by the UN Security Council (including Russia), which in turn helped Baker build the remarkable global diplomatic alliance that buttressed the military operation (an achievement notably lacking when Iraq came around).
- ironyroad
October 31, 2010 at 3:14pm
maybe special envoy George Mitchell will be re-deployed to the D.C. Capitol to broker indirect talks between the Democrats and Republicans, which may be more effective than trying for peace in the Middle East, or the Near East as the Levant was once called :)
- K2K
November 1, 2010 at 9:40am