The failure of slow-motion diplomacy can be told in numbers. In 1993, when the Oslo process began, 116,000 Israelis lived in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (excluding Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem). Seven years later, when negotiations collapsed, the settler population had risen to 198,000.
Watching this steady march, Ehud Olmert, then Ariel Sharon's deputy prime minister, stunned Israelis in late 2003 by renouncing his lifelong commitment to keeping Gaza and the West Bank under Israeli rule. "We are approaching a point where more and more Palestinians will say: 'There is no place for two states between the Jordan and the sea,'" he warned. Instead, he said, they would demand equal rights in a single, shared political entity--one person, one vote. The only way to preserve a Jewish state was to withdraw, he argued. By then, according to the Israeli Interior Ministry, there were 236,000 settlers.
Olmert's declaration presaged Sharon's decision to withdraw from Gaza. In 2006, Olmert was elected prime minister. Despite the Gaza evacuation, the settler population was then more than 253,000.
Last year, when Olmert resigned and elections were announced, the number of settlers in the West Bank had passed 290,000, living alongside 2.2 million Palestinians. (Another 187,000 Israelis lived in annexed East Jerusalem, next to 247,000 Palestinians.) By the time the next prime minister takes office, more than 300,000 Israelis are likely to be living in the West Bank, with the number continuing to climb.
There's a large and fascinating public choice literature on how politicians attempt to lock future politicians into their choices. A good example might be the FDR's famous remarks about Social Security. According to Luther Gulick,
Henry Morganthau showed no interest in the proosals and repeated all of the regular arguments on the sales tax ignoring the fiscal policy considerations arising at a time of high incomes and commodity shortage. I, therefore, discussed the problem with FDR when he asked me how I was coming with the Treasury study. He said to go ahead and explore the idea with Harold Smith, Marriner Eccles, and others.
In the course of this discussion I raised the question of the ultimate abandonment the pay roll taxes in connection with old age security and unemployment relief in the event of another period of depression. I suggested that it had been a mistake to levy these taxes in the 1930's when the social security program was orgiginally adopted. FDR said, "I guess you're right on the economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren't a matter of economics, they're straight politics."
So far, FDR has proven absolutely right.
Those who favored expanding the settlements have proven similarly able to lock Israel in. The more settlers there are, the harder it is for the government to reverse its settlement policy, and the more the settlements grow, which makes the whole thing even more impossible. It's hard to see, now, how Israel's fractious government can reverse itself. Whatever the policy wisdom, it's political suicide. There's another public choice lesson here: while all Israelis have a stake in the settlement question, the people most affected are the settlers, and hence policy is very likely to follow their wishes.
I'd argue that this is not good for the State of Israel, for reasons others have exhausted. Israel hasn't the political will for genocide all-out war forcible transfer, nor the support of the US, without whose military technology their formidable edge would erode. But they can't simply occupy the West Bank forever. After a certain point, they will be forced to recognize that they are the government of the West Bank. And either give the Palestinians the vote, or decide not to be a Western democracy. Either would destroy the conception that most hold of the State of Israel.
I think the time for a two state solution has probably already passed--I don't know anyone who gives a convincing rendition of a viable Palestinian state on the remaining territory. The issue of water rights alone seems to be impossible. All of the scenarios where everything works out sort of okay seem, to this outsider, to rest on some pretty big dose of fantasy: one in which the settlements are pulled back, or Jordan agrees to take the bits Israelis don't want, or where the Palestinians, I don't know, kind of, just aren't there any more.
Why do the options have to be "a Palestinian state" or "Palestine becomes part of Israel"? Why is "Palestine is returned to Jordan, its previous owner and home to millions of Palestinians" completely off the table as an option?
I think Israel could absorb 2.2 million Palestinians, which goes in line with the original intent. Prior to the first intifada, there was no segregation of Jews and Arabs.
Dan:
Presumably because Jordan doesn't want the "bits [of the West Bank] the Israelis don't want. And there aren't many (if any) things the U.S. and/or Israel can do to make them change their minds on that.
Some nutjob named Gunnar Heinsohn, writing in the WSJ, seriously suggested that the long-term solution to the Gaza situation was to encourage unrestricted immigration of virile young Palestinians into the United State. Hey, there's plenty of room in Montana!
Others have suggested paying the Palestinians to leave. A bit of cash to the hosting country and the rest to the individuals in question. Line up enough countries so that each one only has to take a hundred thousand or so and maybe the problem goes away.
Does the increase in population equate to an expansion of the area of the settlements? I had the impression they were infilling places which weren't really on the table. And, hey, with Gaza's effective independence from the West Bank, the Palestinians are getting *two* statelets, not just one.
"Others have suggested paying the Palestinians to leave. A bit of cash to the hosting country and the rest to the individuals in question. Line up enough countries so that each one only has to take a hundred thousand or so and maybe the problem goes away."
The reverse Liberian solution! I hear the Rubashkins are looking to hire some Halal butchers...
Presumably because Jordan doesn't want the "bits [of the West Bank] the Israelis don't want. And there aren't many (if any) things the U.S. and/or Israel can do to make them change their minds on that.
Replace "Jordan" with "Israel" and vice-versa and the sentence is equally true. Obviously somebody (probably us) is going to have to sweeten the deal for whoever winds up controlling the West Bank. So why not sweeten the deal for the Jordanians instead of the Israelis? They've got a much better claim on the land than Israel does and their populations are culturally, religiously, and linguistically almost identical.
Jordan's GDP is around $16 billion. We currently give them half a billion per year. Switch some of the Israel money to them and add in another, say, billion a year. At those prices I bet they'd take Palestine off Israel's hands.
Dan, you appear not to have understood Megan's post. She was making the point that Israel has for all intents and purposes completely annexed the West Bank, settled it, and filled it with Israeli towns, roads, farms and citizens. Jordan can't claim it any more than they can claim New Jersey.
To be clear, "forcible transfer", as Megan alludes, is more commonly called ethnic cleansing.
Dan,
The settlements are scattered across the West Bank. The network of Jordanian and Israeli enclaves would be strategicly problematic.
I'm begining to think the only route is to accept the settlements as citizens of Palestine, with some ottoman-like gaurentees like the Europeans did to protect Turkish Christians. Nothing else seems carrographicly realistic.
Megan, the Luther Gulick link points to some unrelated article on foreignpolicy.com
Thanks!
A Palestinian woman and an Israeli man should get a baby and start a new religion called Jeslam. It will united Palestinians and Jews for the first time and .. eventually start a few wars that we cannot even imagine yet.
Dan, you appear not to have understood Megan's post. She was making the point that Israel has for all intents and purposes completely annexed the West Bank, settled it, and filled it with Israeli towns, roads, farms and citizens. Jordan can't claim it any more than they can claim New Jersey.
If that is indeed Megan's point then Megan doesn't know what she's talking about. The settlers represent 10% of the West Bank population and are crammed into an even smaller percentage of the real estate. Most of the remaining 90% are former Jordanian subjects and their children. How exactly it is possible for Israel to annex the West Bank but impossible for Jordan to do so? For Israel to absorb the West Bank it must either cease being a democracy or cease being a Jewish state. Jordan won't have to change at all.
Put forth an ultimatum to the settlers: we'll pay to relocate you, but otherwise you'll be Jordanian citizens after such-and-such a date. The minority of Israelis who still think the settlements can exist over the long term will fight back, yes, but it should still be politically possible.
So, Ethnic cleansing of the Israelis, or Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinians. Which to choose?
The settlements are an easy issue to deal with, and, in fact, can be dealt with in any numbers of ways. What prevents peace is the the intransigence of Palestinians, who want no counry except Israel.
According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (the same source that provided the data for the first pull quote), 63% of the annual population increase is due to natural growth (i.e., procreation), which makes sense when you consider that most of the settlers are Orthodox Jews, who tend to bear many children. That does not detract from the fact that the population also increases due to an influx from Israel proper. But the influx does occur in existing settlements, not new ones.
Israel has already withdrawn from certain parts of the Northern West Bank in 2005 (along with the Gaza withdrawal), and new settlements have not been built since. The 2005 withdrawal proved that Israel has the will to withdraw from the West Bank in the future.
And the notion that Israel won't commit genocide or ethnic cleansing because it's a political or diplomatic inconvenience is offensive. Modern Israeli society is rooted in morality and humanism. You won't find calls for the annihilation of infidels in any government charters or documents.
or where the Palestinians, I don't know, kind of, just aren't there any more.
Well, Hamas certainly has a plan where the Jews aren't there anymore.
Remember when Israel built that well, and moved its own settlers out? The Palestinians have been rendered incapable of peace because they are indoctrinated from birth in a culture of death and hate, funded by Arab states.
What they tell their children is truly disturbing.
So why not sweeten the deal for the Jordanians instead of the Israelis?
Jordan doesn't want them; they kicked them out years ago. Neither does Saudi Arabia, which could certainly afford them.
The Arab countries want the Palestinians right where they are -- a dagger in Israel's side.
Here's a little background on why the Jordanian ruling elite are, shall we say, reluctant to accept the Palestinians into their country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_(group)
Modern Israeli society is run by immigrants from Europe.
Europeans do ethnic cleansing, both in places which they settle and back in Europe.
Personally, I wouldn't say it's a hypothetical risk at all.
Dan,
The problem with the settlements is that, in order to keep the settlements and settlers safe, the surrounding territory is criss-crossed with fences, patrols, whathaveyou that put the remaining 90% of the territory under de facto control of the Israelis.
I'm no fan of the Palestinian leadership, but the Settlements are salt in the wound. The Settlements create an apartheid-like system of containment on the Palestinians living around them.
If the Palestinians would have adopted non violent resistance anytime along the path from 1945 they would have had political victories small and large. Ah, what if. Before it get's past your lips don't tell me nonviolence is not in Arabic or Muslim culture or in their 'nature'. Or explain to me that South African or American blacks have always been noted for their equanimity and non violent natures.
A few thousand people sitting in front of those Israeli tanks in late December would have totally altered the situation there, forever. Or sitting outside their places of shelter in large numbers.
Arafat's pistol or Hamas rockets will never bring them victories.
The problem with the settlements is that, in order to keep the settlements and settlers safe, the surrounding territory is criss-crossed with fences, patrols, whathaveyou that put the remaining 90% of the territory under de facto control of the Israelis.
I don't think anyone disputes that Israel has *control* of the West Bank. The question is whether they're so ingrained in the area that they can't leave and have no choice but to annex the area. That's a definite "no". They can relocate 300,000 people. Hell, they relocated 15,000 Ethiopian Jews from Ethiopia to Israel in a day and a half, and that was WITHOUT international pressure and assistance encouraging them to do so!
And TallDave, I'm well aware of Jordan's past problems with Palestinian terrorism. But you have to admit that Israel's problems with it are even worse, and on top of that its ability to deal with such terrorists is limited. Jordan pretty effectively wiped out Palestinian terrorism via good old fashioned brute force; when Israel tries that, the Muslim and European nations trips over each other rushing to the UN to condemn them for doing so.
If we offered Jordan some money and agreed to not ask too many hard questions about how they tamed the West Bank, I think they'd take the deal.
One other thing, Xmas:
Comparing the situation in the West Bank to apartheid is insulting. Apartheid existed to maintain white power over blacks. The security setup in the West Bank exists because Palestinians keep trying to murder the Jews who live in those settlements.
If South African apartheid had existed solely because black Africans couldn't resist murdering white people, I wouldn't have condemned it.
Jordan doesn't want the West Bank in large part because it can do the demographic math as fast as Israelis. There's no way to *make* them take it.
And yes, sure, Israel *can* relocate 300,000 people. America *can* eliminate farm subsidies and privatize social security. But we're not going to, because the political math mitigates against it. Ditto Israel.
This is, incidentally, exactly what I was talking about with the fantasizing.
This is an unsolvable problem given the demographics. Getting Israelis and Palestinians to some agreement within existing areas is not going to happen.
Better that the world start pressuring other Arab nations, and with huge incentives, to rewrite the borders of several states... rearranging the national furniture of the Middle East, with one or several states giving up some land in exchange for some massive benefit from Israel, the U.S., Europe and maybe China and Russia for good measure. And with these same nationals offering to assist in the total construction of the new Palestinian state.
The other problem from the Jordanian perspective is when allowed migration the Palestinians tried to stage a coup and take over. The Jordanians haven't forgotten.
Megan, I think that the numbers might be misleading you here. Most of those settlers are concentrated in the Gush Etzion or Ma'aleh Adumim blocs. Those border Jersualem, and it's pretty much understood by both sides that even though they're over the Green Line, they will be part of Israel in any final status negotiation. Israel HAS pretty much freezed settlements in the West Bank (though Netanyahu threatens to settle the E1 region bordering Maaleh Adumim), though those two aforementioned settlement blocs are growing.
And yes, sure, Israel *can* relocate 300,000 people. America *can* eliminate farm subsidies and privatize social security. But we're not going to, because the political math mitigates against it. Ditto Israel.
As of 2005, two-thirds of Israelis favored dismantling the settlements as part of the peace process. Of the settlers themselves, two-thirds were willing to relocate if compensated by the government. Israel has already dismantled the settlements in Gaza and forcibly removed settlers from there, so we know they're not completely unwilling to force settlers out of Palestinian territory.
Yet you believe that removal of West Bank settlers is too hard, and the *easier* political option is for Israel to either (a) commit demographic suicide by annexing Palestine and giving Palestinians the vote or (b) commit to a permanent occupation and system of apartheid with themselves as rulers over a disenfranchised Palestinian majority, with the ensuing increase in terrorism and decrease in US support. This, despite the fact that the Israelis, the Palestinians, the entire Muslim world, the United States, and pretty much everyone else hates the idea of Israel becoming the official government of all of Palestine.
Yet I'm the one fantasizing. Heh.
Make a unified state over the area with freedom of religion and encourage intermarriage. There should be no "Jewish", "Islamic" or other religious state, but Jews and Muslems both, along with others including non-believers, should be free to live there peacefully. Give the vote to all, but have constitutional freedoms that can't be voted away.
Give the vote to all, but have constitutional freedoms that can't be voted away.
Let us know when you figure out how to pull that one off. No nation has managed it yet. :)
There were 3000 settlers in Gaza. There are 300,000 in the West Bank. This is precisely my argument. Also, Sharon's aids have, as I understand it, basically *said* that they thought of dismantling the Gaza settlements as a way to avoid doing anything about the West Bank.
Even assuming these aids of Sharon that you're privy to are telling the truth (those wily Israelis, making concessions just so they don't have to make concessions--if the Palestinians did half as much there'd be peace by now), I'd think what happened in Gaza afterwards shows that whatever happens to the settlements has no bearing on whether or not a solution can be worked out.
I realize it sickens the Palestinians to think they should have to live with any Jews, but if there's to be a two-state solution (I realize the Palestinians don't want one--I'm just saying if), what's the big deal? While the easy solution is to redraw some borders back and forth a bit, if there happen to be some Jews, even recalcitrant ones, in a new Palestinian country, so what? There are many more Arabs in Israel. These Jews won't have an army--if they get out of line arrest them. I bet Israel would even help deal with them, and I guarantee the UN won't lift a finer to help them even if their rights are violated.
There were 3000 settlers in Gaza. There are 300,000 in the West Bank.
Of whom, like I noted above, 200,000 are willing to leave if compensated. The remnant represent a little over 1% of the Israeli citizenship and somewhat less of the electorate. You're arguing that Israel will destroy itself as a Jewish democracy for the sake of 1% of its population, which -- especially considering that well over half of Israelis are willing to give up the settlements -- is a pretty absurd suggestion.
This is precisely my argument.
It is an argument the way "abiogenesis is so unlikely, God must have created the universe" is an argument. "A is unlikely, ergo B must be true" is a fallacious construction, especially when you ignore that B is much less likely. Your proposed solution is opposed by large majorities of all sides of the conflict. It isn't going to happen.
Also, Sharon's aids have, as I understand it, basically *said* that they thought of dismantling the Gaza settlements as a way to avoid doing anything about the West Bank.
Yes, Gaza was the low-hanging fruit of the settlements issue. That's how these things usually work. But Sharon's unwillingness to dismantle the settlements isn't evidence that unwillingness to dismantle settlements is a permanent fixture of Israeli politics.
no, Megan, you have your numbers wrong. There were 9,000 settlers in Gaza. On the West Bank, the numbers are closer, but ignore where the settlers are: they are concentrated in a small handful of fairly dense blocs, close to Israeli population centers -- specifically, Ariel (near the Tel-Aviv-Netanya-Kfar Sava metropolis), Gush Etzion (near Jerusalem) and Maale Adumim (also near Jerusalem). The image people have of the settlers as fanatics on the remote hilltops surrounded by ancient Arab towns is true of a pretty small percentage of the settlers. Most of them moved there for cheap real estate and less traffic, which is why they are near the major cities. They aren't there for ideological reasons. Either incentivizing them to relocate or redrawing map lines to a pretty limited extent would solve most of the "settlements" problem if there was a political will on the Arab side to end the crisis. There isn't.
Bear in mind that when the fence was built, the settlers who were to be left outside the fence screamed bloody murder about it and were told "too damn bad."
It sounds like the problem is that Israelis have been moving into the "wrong" neighborhood.
the time for a two state solution has probably already passed
Yeah, the Palestinian terror kleptocracy was soooo close to viable self-governance -- if it wasn't for those meddling Jews!
The figures that Dan mentions seem to raise more questions than they answer. Per Dan:
(1) Two-thirds of Israeli settlers are willing to leave in exchange for compensation
(2) Two-thirds of the overall Israeli public is willing to remove the settlements as part of a peace deal
I'll add in one more point:
(3) The longer Israel maintains a hold on the West Bank, the more difficult it becomes for it to avoid enfranchising the millions of Palestinians under its control, which it does not want to do.
Dan's two points and my third all suggest that Israel wants to remove the settlements.
So, why are the settlements still there?
Why, in fact, did Israel build the settlements in the first place? And why has it expanded them so much since the Oslo agreements were signed?
Reverse Dan's numbers. Now you see the one-third of the settlers who don't want to leave, and the one-third of the public that doesn't want them to, even if peace is negotiated. One third is half of two-thirds, so on numbers alone it would seem that the interests in favor of land-theft are weak. But the actual facts are telling: Settlements exist, new settlers continue to move in, and the land area claimed by the settlements continues to grow.
Megan is presenting an argument as to why the land-theft interests have gotten their way even though they may be a minority. She also goes on to conclude that it may be too late to overcome them. A good argument against her conclusion has to address how these interests will be overcome.
If Dan's figures are correct, then the question is why are new settlers arriving despite this? Why are settlement blocks expanding despite this? And what will change in the future to alter this reality?
Personally, I don't think it is too late for a two-state solution, but I think any attempt has to be realistic and acknowledge that it is up against formidable forces within Israel that, whatever their % of the population, are promoting and achieving an agenda that makes a separate Palestinian state less and less possible.
This was a very fair and well thought out post.
The only section I would disagree with is when you write
"But they can't simply occupy the West Bank forever. After a certain point, they will be forced to recognize that they are the government of the West Bank. And either give the Palestinians the vote, or decide not to be a Western democracy. Either would destroy the conception that most hold of the State of Israel."
Based on the political climate and the sampling of some of the messages left in the comments section, it is entirely reasonable to assume the current occupation will continue for the foreseeable future. I simply can't see any scenario where a major party in the US begins to voice public criticism of Israeli policy.
And there is little sign that Americans are viewing Israel in a negative light. In fact, from the polls I've seen, more and more americans view the Israeli conflict with palestinians as similar to the US conflict with al-queda.
By the way, here is an article from September of 2008 on a proposed bill discussed in the Israeli cabinet to compensate settlers for leaving.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3596376,00.html
Interesting points from the article:
(1) "According to the data he presented the cabinet with, some 18% of settlers – roughly 11,363 people – are willing to vacate their homes immediately. "
Those are settlers living east of the wall Israel built. Far less than two-thirds of them are willing to leave. Though it is understandable why more settlers living west of the wall might be willing to move.
(2) "Kadima chairmanship hopefuls, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz and Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter, were adamant against pushing ahead with the evacuation-compensation bill.
"We shouldn’t make any decisions today," said Livni. "Forethought is all good and well, but this is no time to make any decisions." The government must the inhabiting of the Negev and Galilee areas, she added, but pushing the evacuation-compensation bill may harm Israel's ability to define the future border."
Note that Livni is afraid of losing the ability to "define the future border." In plainer terms, that means the ability to steal more land for Israel.
Statements like that, and the very existence and continuing expansion of the settlements, strongly suggest that key players in Israel are not content with the 1967 borders or minor modifications thereof. That is a de facto stand against peace.
Obviously, these irredentists have opponents within Israel, such as the proponents of the evacuation-compensation bill. More power to them! But the land-grabbers have been winning.
Great post on an impossible topic.
But I am a little uncomfortable with commenters discussing who would "willing to accept" the Palestinians and their land. The Palestinians, quite correctly, in my view, want independence, because they don´t have prospects of not being discriminated against in any existing country. They are right.
As is Megan when she says that the two-state solution is, at it stands, impossible. The trick would be to make borders less important as soon as they are settled (think Alsace-Lorraine, European Union).
Now, where are the famous economists (and the research budget that attracts them) devising plans for a regional common market (which would neighbour the EU, by the way, and could have a good treaty with it)? It could start with Israel, Palestine, and Turkey, possibly Jordan. Maybe Iraq. You get the big Asian players, China, India, Japan, to go along with this, it might just fly.
I am not saying this would be easy, or that it could be done without many political deals being cut, but, if the other acceptable alternatives are impossible, you know.
Other solutions might present themselves. Maybe the Chinese would want to build a Special Economic Zone in Gaza, for instance, but would the US like that?
Hi -
Y'all gotta think outside of the box. Really.
You've got two sides here. While most of the talk is about giving Israel incentives to resolve the problem, there is no one talking about giving the Palestinians incentives to resolve the problem as well.
One of the reasons that talks drag on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on without any resolution is that one of the sides has no real incentive to actually resolve the situation, except by the total destruction of Israel. Anything else is unacceptable, even though they could have had the West Bank under Oslo. They decided not to go that route.
So Israel is giving the Palestinians an incentive to resolve the problem sooner rather than later: the longer the Palestinians delay, the more settlers there are on the West Bank, and the more concessions Israel can demand for their removal. It's a very simple incentive and fairly elegant at that.
It really is as simple as that. Up to when the settlers started, the Palestinians could take as long as they damned pleased to even start talks. By starting the settlements and making them look permanent (putting up the walls), the Israelis increase pressure on the Palestinians to start getting serious about negotiating. The settlements aren't permanent: only the land is, and the moment that a real deal is reached, they'll disappear. But Israel is giving the Palestinians a very strong incentive to start dealing seriously.
That the Palestinians continue to dig themselves ever deeper into the hole is their problem, not Israel's. I see the Palestinians losing every day that they don't finally start serious negotiations, and that's what really is needed to resolved the situation, isn't it?
Look, there's nothing sacred about the borders of the West Bank - it is just where the fighting stopped in 1948 when the Arabs rejected the UN partition and invaded the Jewish area with the intention of wiping out the Jews. If 5% of that area has to be carved out and attached to Israel in order to place the majority of the "settlers" within Israel's border, then the Palestinians can be compensated with a land swap, with money, or frankly just told to pound sand for all I care. The settlers who live elsewhere will have a choice between moving into Israel or reliving Herod's last stand. Assuming that all happens and the Palestinians get a state, I am far more concerned about what will happen a few years down the road when there is a flood of refugees trying to get into Israel to flee Palestinian misrule.
I WANT the Palestinians to have their own state, that way when they launch attacks on Israel, as they inevitably will, it will be an attack by (or at least from) a foreign state and Israel can open the full can of whupass on them without all the carping about "occupations".
There were 3000 settlers in Gaza. There are 300,000 in the West Bank. This is precisely my argument.
Your numbers need to be fixed, but you speak with great wisdom. According to Wikipedia, there were 7,000 settlers in the Gaza Strip and there are currently 267,000 in the West Bank. But the latter does not count another 181,000 Jews in East Jerusalem, which is another place that Palestinians are disenfranchised and compete for land with Israelis.
It is completely disingenuous to say that the settlers are not big deal and could all be moved if necessary. The settlers responded to the Oslo Accords by assassinating the prime minister of Israel. They responded to the Gaza evacuation by threatening to kill another prime minister of Israel. Sure, many of the settlers are moderates; but the others are as radical as South Carolina in 1860.
It is equally disingenuous to claim that towns like Ariel are close to Israel. Ariel is close to the center of the northern lobe of the West Bank. If Ariel is close to Israel, then 3/4 of the West Bank is close to Israel and the entire Gaza Strip is too. Likewise the land claims associated with Maale Adumim extend almost half way between the Jerusalem salient of the Green Line and the Dead Sea; it does much of the job of cutting the West Bank into separate northern and southern lobes.
It is true that the Palestinian leadership is dysfunctional, anti-Semitic, and murderous. You could make a case that they aren't "ready" for independence from Israel. But is Israel ready to have these people vote in Israel? Because that is the situation that the settlements are creating.
"...a minimum precursor to any sort of a peace deal".
I think freezing or withdrawing settlements has to be part of a peace agreement. The Oslo agreement did not cover settlements. I don't think that Israel will give more away without some quid pro quo, it did in Gaza, but that is clearly a failure.
The "Road Map" mentioned settlements in parts II and III, but part I never got finished, so that's moot.
Israel used to believe in Land for Peace, since it seemed to work in the Sinai. Now, Israel doesn't believe peace will happen, so it's preparing for whatever does come.
I think the Israeli leadership, by the way, is clearly confused about what to do. If you like, I can prove that both any 1-state solution and any 2-state solution will fail miserably. Sorry, I think it will be settled by war.
Fred2:
The Road Map mentioned settlements in Part I, not only Parts II and III. It said:
Settlements
* GOI [Government of Israel] immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
* Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
Israel was supposed to implement this immediately and unconditionally - just as the Palestinians were supposed to cease violence immediately and unconditionally. Needless to say, neither side did.
I guess the cross-out means Israel does indeed have the political will for genocide and all out war.
Megan previously referred to the "cancerous" quality of silencing criticism of Israel.
Well, at least she's come out of the closet as a Jew-hater, rabid rhetoric and distorted facts, masked by a kind of precious gentility.
She evidently doesn't recall that Israel uprooted the settlers in Gaza and that Ariel Sharon planned to do the same in the West Bank. If she ever knew.
In a year or two or five Iran will have a deliverable nuclear weapon. They will use it. Israel (and Palestine) will be uninhabitable. Problem 'solved'.
I'd argue that this is not good for the State of Israel, for reasons others have exhausted.
Is anyone else thinking of France, Algeria, and the pied noirs?
http://www.amazon.com/Savage-War-Peace-1954-1962-Classics/dp/1590172183/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232649784&sr=8-1
Ahwell apparently likes posing as a bigotted idiot.
Two states might still work if the economic incentives could be sufficiently large and cunning. So might a Confederation of Jordan, Israel and Palestine, given different but equally large incentives. Part of the incentive would have to be that all aid in every form would be cut off from those who did not sign up; so any arrangement has little prospect of working unless those who aid Hamas are also signed up. NNNNNot easy.
However, drift will mean a future of murderous misery for Palestinians - partly at the hands of their factions - and Israel miserably backing itself into an eventual repeat of the fate of the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.
I often assume that one of the great levers Israel has in encouraging stable relations with Jordan and Egypt is that all have the Palestinian problem looming, and both Arab nations fear a mass exodus of Palestinian refugees- destitute and violent in the extreme no doubt- probably as much as they fear Israel's military might.
And yet looking at Israel's unabated settlement activity and it's pretty hard-to-miss thwarting of a viable Palestinian state having any kind of territory it could exist on, it looks very much like handing off the most Palestinians crammed into the least land (Gaza's an obvious example) is if not plan A then certainly an option Israel continues to contemplate.
It could very well be forced exodus with a cover story of drawing an amicable border and the result of Jordan becoming a completely failed state. Or it could be something much worse.
Dan's two points and my third all suggest that Israel wants to remove the settlements.
So, why are the settlements still there?
That's an easy one: because, like I said, two-thirds of Israelis are willing to scrap the settlements as part of the peace process.
You're asking why they haven't unilaterally scrapped the settlements. The answer is simply that making a huge concession without some assurance of reciprocity is neither smart politics nor smart diplomacy.
The Palestinians, quite correctly, in my view, want independence, because they don´t have prospects of not being discriminated against in any existing country.
Which is ironic, considering that their actions in attempting to achieve independence are the cause of the discrimination they face in the western world.
I think Megan's inability to report the correct number of evicted settlers in Gaza (9000 not 3000) pretty much invalidates anything she has to say on Israel and the Palestinians.
Writing this sloppy is unforgivable in the Google universe.
Uh, Dan . . . they were supposed to freeze the settlements as part of the Oslo peace process. They didn't. In theory, Israelis are willing to do this. In process, during the actual peace process, they didn't.
they were supposed to freeze the settlements as part of the Oslo peace process. They didn't.
Again, you speak with great wisdom. But to be fair, both sides rampantly cheated on the Oslo peace process.
The mistake that Dan is making is that he thinks of a settlement freeze solely as a concession to Palestinians. It would therefore be conceding something for nothing if the Palestinians cheat or otherwise don't reciprocate. But that is not the situation. Although the settlers can't admit it, every time they build in the West Bank, they bring the Palestinians one step closer to Israeli citizenship.
Interesting post. Another framework for analyzing the situation is the unintended consequences theory. FDR's Social Security program has had the unintended consequence of discouraging saving; LBJ's Medicare program will likely bankrupt the federal government.
The settlers moved into the West Bank and Gaza because, despite what zealots will tell you, Israel kept getting invaded from there. Get some of your people in there and you have an early warning signal. Now, it's harder to pull them out, but the security concern is still there.
Further, I would disagree with Megan's first line, that freezing settlements is a precursor to a peace deal. Part of the reason I don't oppose settlements by Israel is because the Arabs assume that they are entitled to the entire West Bank. But why? They could have done something with it pre-1967 and didn't. They waged war on a democracy. They aren't entitled to anything. Pragmatically, they should get something, but Israel should be allowed to unilaterally adjust the border.
Don't like it? Don't keep waging and losing wars.
Have to join with those here who disagree with Megan's first line. "Most people agree that a settlement freeze in the West Bank is a minimum precursor to any sort of a peace deal." Doesn't make any sense to me. You don't have precursors to peace deals. People who refuse to negotiate don't get to ask for things.
In the meantime, as one comment pointed out, the pre-1967 borders don't mean a thing. They have nothing to do with the original partition plan; the West Bank was part of Jordan till '67. There are a lot of settlers already, too many for Israel politically to be able to remove. Any possible plan that Israel can agree to involves leaving a good chunk of the settlements as part of Israel. As more settlements go up, that percentage will rise. Palestinians should take that into account, when they decide whether to negotiate or hold out.
Remember, Israel has the theoretical ability to do this unilaterally, as they did in Gaza: Declare the area outside the Fence independent, and annex the area inside (where most of the heavy settlement has taken place). Again, those pre-1967 borders don't mean a thing. Right now, they wouldn't do it because most Israelis would oppose it. But they could if they needed to.
Of course, doing that wouldn't in any way "solve" the Middle East conflict, so probably Megan wouldn't count it. But I don't see why that's relevant. Just because American presidents want to create a "solution" doesn't mean that Israeli might not just make choices in the meantime that improve their security situation. Especially if the Gaza war works out fairly well for Israel, this kind of thinking may become more mainstream there - disengage and separate from the Palestinians, and use war instead of occupation to prevent terrorism.
Uh, Dan . . . they were supposed to freeze the settlements as part of the Oslo peace process.
I don't know where you read that, but it isn't true. There was supposed to be a five-year transition period to Palestinian self-rule. Disposition of the settlements was specifically put off until after that transition period. As it turned out, the accords fell apart long before the transition period was up.
I second the one-state solution. Neither the Israelis nor Palestinians have any appetite for a two-state solution. Both sides want a single state. Give it to them. As Megan says, the treaties are violated as soon as the ink is dry so we shouldn't waste our time on them. A single state with equality, religious freedom, democracy, rule of law, and a thriving economy, would be a beacon of hope for that part of the world.