Settlement Freeze
In the very early days of the Bush administration, George Mitchell was sent to the Holy Land to do a report on the Second Intifada. The resulting document contained ideas that, had Bush actually followed them, could conceivably have done a ton of good. One of the things on Mitchell’s agenda was a freeze of all settlement activity:
Settlements: The GOI also has a responsibility to help rebuild confidence. A cessation of Palestinian-Israeli violence will be particularly hard to sustain unless the GOI freezes all settlement construction activity. Settlement activities must not be allowed to undermine the restoration of calm and the resumption of negotiations.
On each of our two visits to the region, there were Israeli announcements regarding expansion of settlements, and it was almost always the first issue raised by Palestinians with whom we met. The GOI describes its policy as prohibiting new settlements but permitting expansion of existing settlements to accommodate “natural growth.” Palestinians contend that there is no distinction between “new” and “expanded” settlements; and that, except for a brief freeze during the tenure of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, there has been a continuing, aggressive effort by Israel to increase the number and size of settlements.
This is something I’ve written about several times in the past couple of weeks. And I think that absolutely the biggest thing President Obama could do to move the situation in a constructive direction would be serious public and private pressure on Israel for a total freeze on settlement activity. Appointing Mitchell to be his envoy to the region indicates some understanding of the importance of this issue. But as Mitchell’s report makes clear, settlement expansion has continued in the past despite nominal US opposition. Getting the job done will require something more robust.
44 Responses to “Settlement Freeze”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
May we point out, to the benefit of the guys who needs the flames to be high and strong, that EVEN during the Rabin freeze, Hamas was killing Israelis left and right, with the may I say inevitable hardening of Israeli public opinion?
Hamas made us (the Israelis who defended Oslo and pushed for a settlement freeze, also known as Meretz voters) look like assholes. Then Netanyahu won, which would have been impossible after the Rabin assassination, but was made possible by the Hamas spree of Feb-Mar 96.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
And I think that absolutely the biggest thing President Obama could do to move the situation in a constructive direction would be serious public and private pressure on Israel for a total freeze on settlement activity.</italics
Absolutely. But it is no longer 2001. To hopefully begin to shrink settlements ahead of any deal, I think there also needs pressure for Israel to adopt immediate policies to incentivize current settlers to move back inside the Green Line.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Can’t we call them by their non-Orwellian name. Colonies. I mean, settlements sounds like we’re on Arrakis searching for spice. These are colonists.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Freezing settlement activity would be an excellent first step. But it is a first step that can easily turn into a mere feel-good step that kicks everything down the road and relies on the magical powers of negotiations emerging from some new bullshit “peace process”. And if handled really poorly, the freeze can even have the effect of legitimizing the existing settlements.
The gravest error in past diplomatic approaches to this conflict has been the neglect of international law, and a failure of the international community to be more definitive and prescriptive in developing its peace plans. The US and other nations have put too much hope in the idea that a sustainable solution can result from a process of negotiation between a wealthy, militarily potent and nuclear armed state, on the one hand, and the poor, weak and stateless rabble the powerful state has under their heel.
What is really needed is for the United States and its leaders to acquire the political courage to make a definitive statement on this country’s view of the international legal status of the settlements and the land they sit on.
With all due respect to brave talk about “new beginnings” in the Middle East, many Palestinians and other Arabs justly suspect that the position of many Americans on the settlements and territorial issue is:
God gave the Land of Israel to the Jewish people. They still own it, so the settlements are legitimate.
An alternative view, of course, is:
The UN – not God – gave parts of Palestine to the Zionist movement in 1947. But during the war in 1948, Israel took more than was given, and in 1967, they took even more. The settlements are illegitimate.
At some point, the US needs to take a stand on the international legal question. Otherwise, all will remain confusion and muddle.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Linking US aid to removing settlements would make so much sense that it’ll never happen. Perhaps, at lease, aid could be linked to an actual, real honest-to-G-d end to colonial expansion in the West Bank if not East Jerusalem.
But I simply can’t see Israel acting in its own long term interests right now, nor can I see the US standing up the pro-Israel lobby. Hell congress pretty much is the pro-Israel lobby these days.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Can’t we call them by their non-Orwellian name. Colonies.
Or possibly “compounds”, in American parlance. (There’s a reason why Alaskan militia types are also pro-settler.) And the problem of integrating those settlers outside of East Jerusalem — who have basically lived the libertarian wet dream under a military umbrella — is one that Israeli pols haven’t shown much desire to confront.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
NEVER EVER underestimate the degree of duplicity and intransigence on the part of the Israelis with respect to this issue.
Recall on the day after the Annapolis Summit where there was a consensus that Israel suspend further settlement expansion, Olmert announced further settlement building.
Despite all its promises and assurances over the years, Israel has consistently lied about settlement expansion.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
This, imop, is Israel’s biggest problem as far as credibility. The problem here is that settlements are an even bigger problem than military attacks on Gaza or the West Bank. Because in theory, military attacks have a legitimate military purpose in thwarting further terrorist attacks on Israelis. The only purpose of settlements is the wholesale displacement of Palestinians from even the meager parcels of land they currently occupy. It is only one step better than outright extermination.
It’s pretty simple. Israeli settlements are only somewhat less morally repugnant than genocide. It’s not obvious, but when you reason through the consequences, it’s still true. I would be a lot more sympathetic to their dilemma if it were not the case.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Good luck with that idea. Bush 41 tried to tie American monetary support to Israel to a settlement freeze, but eventually had to back away from that. If Bush couldn’t get away with it, “secret muslim” Obama won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole for fear of seeming insufficiently pro-Israel.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
You could not be more wrong, ScottS.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Re Dan Kervick
The UN – not God – gave parts of Palestine to the Zionist movement in 1947. But during the war in 1948, Israel took more than was given, and in 1967, they took even more. The settlements are illegitimate.
Here is an example of the big lie. Mr. Kervick neglects to inform the readership that, in 1948, the nascent Israel was attacked by the sourrounding Arab states after it declared independence and the land gained was a result of Arab aggression. The land occupied during the 1967 war was also a result of Arab aggression when fascist dictator Nasser ordered UN peacekeepers out of the Sinai and moved 100,000 Egyptian army troops up to the border and declared that his intent was to remove the State of Israel from the map. But of course, thats’ what Mr. Kervick favors so his lies are to be expected.
Additionally, the comments relative to pressuring Israel by withholding aid are the reason why the Government of Israel absolutely has to wean itself off the US teat and elect leaders who will not quail at telling President Osama to take his pressure and shove it up his ass.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Moderator — if there be such — please disregard second attempt to post the same comment above as I copied the following link wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density
January 21st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Mmm; since the request to the moderator — if there be such — above got published without “waiting for moderation” I might as well post the message before the link:
Israeli West Bank “annexers” v. American (1850) Midwest settlers
The Palestinian territories — that Israeli so-called “settlers” are moving in on — come in at number 11 on a population density list of 237 nations and city-states. The American Indian population of the 1850s Midwest — that Anglo settlers moved in on — would come in at 236 out of 238.
******
There seems to be a program that holds posts for moderation if you put X number of links in it or something. Same happened other day on same subject and comments never got out — may have been because of the holiday though. Wish I could figure out what the formula is.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Let’s try the last half of the message — maybe it doesn’t have too many links:
Here are maps of the extent of real estate annexments and native excluding roads:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/map/
http://www.btselem.org/Download/Forbbiden_Roads_Map_Eng.pdf\
January 21st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
thepuzzled1 –
“EVEN during the Rabin freeze, Hamas was killing Israelis” – You know what? The Israelis were still on stolen land conspiring to steal more. I might want to shoot at a thief that keeps on trying for 60 years to take my home.
SLC Says: – “land gained was a result of Arab aggression” I need more of this bullshit for my garden. It is almost time for my spring vegetables.
“Here is an example of the big lie.” – Your writing sure is. Do you really work for the Israeli gov’t? Israel has zero right to exist and this little imperial venture will die out soon enough. The Zionists need to get a one-state solution or they are doomed to extinction.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Eric R:
“You could not be more wrong, ScottS.”
No, I’m pretty sure Bush senior tried and failed to use America’s influence to curtail Israel’s settlement activity.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Ha’Aretz had a brief note on Israel’s population in December. It noted that growth in the West Bank was twice that of Israel as a whole. That is a bit of a slowing trend as a report from Ariel University (located in a West Bank colony) has West Bank growth as 3 times the National rate over the previous threee years.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I think the best thing Obama could do is say to the Israelis: ‘You know that thing Mr Bush told you, that you could keep the west bank settlements? Well, it aint so. We’re going back to the start.’
January 21st, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Someone needs to explain to me how settlements prevent serious negotiations towards a peaceful resolution.
I’m not a fan of settlements and certainly not of the settler mentality. However it seems to me that they serve a purpose. In my view one of the key difficulties in coming to a peaceful resolution of this problem after 60 years now is the belief on the part of the Palestinians that time is on their side. This is not an irrational belief. It is logical — they can lose many wars, they only need to win one — it has historical backing — the Arabs drove the Crusaders from Israel after about 100 years or so — and it has demographic backing — their population is growing much faster.
The difficulty in negotiating with someone who thinks time is on his side is that he will drag his feet in coming to an agreement, because he believes that the deal tomorrow will always be better than the deal today. The only way to counter this is to put in place a dynamic which pushes in the opposite direction, i.e., makes it just as likely, or even more likely, that the deal tomorrow will be worse than the deal today.
That’s what settlements do. So of course the Palestinians are furious about them — they undercut wbat they undoubtedly view as one of their key negotiating strengths.
The main argument against settlements as I understand it is that by angering the Palestinians, settlements radicalize them. No doubt there is some truth to this. But do they radicalize them so much as to prevent them from entering into negotiations towards a resolution of the conflict that would inherently prevent further settlements? This seems to me very unclear.
This is the same reason by the way why the Israelis couldn’t put the separation barrier on the 1948 armistice line. That would tell the Palestinians that however long they drag their feet, that’s the border. That would be extremely counterproductive to reaching an agreement any time soon.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 am
Dan is right: “At some point, the US needs to take a stand on the international legal question. Otherwise, all will remain confusion and muddle.”
The problem with that is that it might provoke someone to look at whether Israel as a state is legal at all. The UN commission set up to study that point in 1947 concluded the UN had no legal right to partition Palestine as it did. The Security Council set that aside because it felt the conflict was growing out of hand and because Britain was about to wash its hands of the whole thing as a result of Zionist terrorism.
Revisiting the legality of Israel’s land acquisitions might lead to revisiting the notion of Israel’s legality in toto. That’s the last thing the Israelis would want.
Plus firmly establishing the borders of Israel would upset most of the Zionist freaks who declare those borders should be considerably larger than they are, including parts of Lebanon, Jordan and Syria – and potentially Iraq.
Larry: The notion that the Israelis are using settlements to force the Palestinians into negotiations while the Palestinians are just sitting around enduring the occupation just so they can have more babies and eventually out-populate the Israelis is just bizarre.
It’s also completely ignorant of the statements of every Israeli leader since the 1940’s, who have made it very clear that Israel intends to drive out the Palestinian population COMPLETELY and gain control of the entire territory.
Some Israeli leaders have suggested that it would be adequate just to totally conquer the Palestinians and confine them to Gaza and a small portion of the West Bank. But the majority of Zionist leaders have declared that kicking the Palestinians out into Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan would be better.
Therefore, your notion is completely wrong.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
Richard Hack — And the evidence that they intend “to drive out the Palestinian population COMPLETELY and gain control of the entire territory” is what — that in the 40+ years they’ve controlled the West Bank they’ve driven them all out?
If this is the policy, I must say they’ve been extraordinarily incompetent in carrying it out.
Please. Let’s be empirical here. “The majority of Zionist leaders” accepted partition in 1948. Israeli government policy now, and the sentiment of the population, is that a two-state resolution is necessary. We already know what it’s going to look like and we’ve known for some time. That the terms are worse for the Palestinians than 1948 or even 1998 is, I’m afraid, due to their own actions, not anyone else’s.
But I’ll tell you what: Since I’d love to see serious negotiations resume that result in such an outcome, you tell me how to make it happen. I’m open to suggestions, because, frankly, I’m not terribly optimistic right now and I haven’t been since Clinton failed to get a deal closed at the end of his administration.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Israel has 7 billion very good reasons per year to freeze/roll back settlements if we seriously wanted them to. Of course that’s the last thing senators Schumer (D Likud), Feinstein (D Likud) and their ilk want.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
larry birnbaum Says: “That the terms are worse for the Palestinians than 1948 or even 1998 is, I’m afraid, due to their own actions, not anyone else’s.” – Do you actually believe that fable? What happened? Did the Palestinians get lost on the way to the store? Did they lose their car keys at the beach in Gaza and never could get home?
They were ethnically cleansed. By the Zionists. In 1948. In 1998. And every year in-between and since.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 am
Another extraordinarily useful contribution to the discussion.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
I’m sorry, I was referring to comment 22.
However, SeeDee, it does apply to your comments as well. Your position as I understand it is that Israel should embrace a one-state solution, which is another way of saying it should cease to exist. If we’re still arguing about that, we aren’t going to get anywhere. The Israelis, obviously, aren’t going to negotiate themselves out of existence. So either we’re working towards a two-state resolution or we’re simply going to see more of the same, or worse.
I agree that from a Palestinian perspective it doesn’t look like a very good deal. But it depends what you compare it with. Compared to what they might have had if Zionism hadn’t succeeded, sure. Compared to what they have now — well, it’s up to them, isn’t it? But to me it looks like an improvement.
For one thing, referring back to the actual topic of Yglesias’s original post, it would stop further settlement activity on their territory.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 am
larry birnbaum Says: “Your position as I understand it is that Israel should embrace a one-state solution, which is another way of saying it should cease to exist.” Yes, Israel should cease to exist. It is an illegitimate entity. It never should have existed. No Israel, no settlers, settler problem solved.
Only the US demands US (unconditional surrender). Maybe I exaggerate a little, but Israel needs to negotiate its demise – with favorable conditions. It is the governments that do not negotiate that are doomed to failure. Zionism is a failing movement, doomed to extinction. You can hope, all you want, for reality to be different. The colony will be overthrown.
US support for Israel will fade when their patrons here – “senators Schumer (D Likud), Feinstein (D Likud)” – traitorous scabs, as they are – die off or retire. How much support in the US for the IRA, now? Not much. Israel, pointless to most Americans, WILL have its official support end.
The settlements will be gone, sooner or later. With little bloodshed or much.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Israel isn’t going to negotiate its demise “with favorable conditions” (whatever that might mean). So if the Palestinian position is the same as yours, then I’m afraid there will be no peace. Apparently this outcome is ok with you. Mothers of dead children in Israel and Palestine may, I pray, think otherwise.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
larry birnbaum Says: “Apparently this outcome is ok with you.”
Larry, “no peace” is not the outcome I want. Unfortunately, there will not be peace as long as Zionism is perpetrated in Palestine. It is up to the ethnic cleansers – the Zionists – to choose peace over ethnic cleansing. A one state solution is the best they (the Zionists) can get in the long term.
We can agree that death and destruction is here for the short term. I don’t like it, but it is reality.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:10 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
i’ll reed it againn
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://aixopey.com/qqaxrt/4.html
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Very nice site! [url=http://aixopey.com/qqaxrt/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Very nice site!
March 24th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I don’t normally comment on blogs.. But nice post! I just bookmarked your site
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Thanks for the review! viagra