The Settlement Freeze: Painted Into a Corner?
The deadline on Israel’s “settlement freeze” has come and gone. On the West Bank, construction crews are gearing back up and the settler celebrations have begun. Abbas is mulling over his options with the Arab League. Once again, the peace process seems to be hanging by a thread.
For their part, many analysts are now using a “painted into a corner” metaphor to dissect the impact of the settlement freeze. Israeli analyst Nahum Barnea, for instance, recently opined that,
Three politicians – Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas – painted themselves into a corner and didn’t know how to get out of it.
And none other than King Abdullah of Jordan said this on the Daily Show last week:
We all got painted into a corner on the issue of settlements, unfortunately, and where we should have concentrated was on territories and the borders of a future Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution.
It’s bewildering to me that the issue of settlements can somehow considered to be a pesky distraction to the peace process. How can talks on “territories and borders” proceed with anything resembling good faith if one side settles these disputed areas with impunity and the “honest broker” to the proceedings refuses to rein it in? How can we be expected to take such a process seriously?
We already know that one of the main reasons for Oslo’s failure was the inability to deal with the settlement issue directly. As a result, Israel took that as an opportunity to significantly expand its settlement regime during the course of the “peace process.” This has brought us to where we are today: in the wake of Oslo more than 500,000 settlers now live throughout the West Bank in settlements and small cities, with special Israeli-only highways that effectively cut Palestinian territories into individual cantons separated by military checkpoints.
Have we learned nothing from past experience? Here’s lesson #1: the settlements are not a side issue. The Israel’s settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem are – and have always been – a central obstacle to the peace process. Until it is made to cease and desist, I can’t see how the latest round of talks can be considered anything but a charade.
Obama, Netanyahu, Abbas and even Abdullah are telling you that settlements are a marginal issue with little bearing on the peace process, but you know better. Who are they, after all? Don’t they realize how brilliant your analysis is? Seriously.
The settlements are a moral disaster, and impossible to explain diplomatically–agreed.
But, We already know that one of the main reasons for Oslo’s failure was the inability to deal with the settlement issue directly. Really?
So, after the Nobel Peace Prize recipient Arafat was dragged kicking and screaming to the 2000 Camp David talks, talks during which Arafat repeatedly claimed that a Temple never stood on the Temple Mount, and the two sides failed to come to an agreement because Barak wasn’t personally friendly enough to Arafat (at least this is what Arafat’s people were telling the press at the time) . . . . those talks actually failed because of the Jewish settlements which would have been removed had those talks succeeded???
So, after the Israeli cabinet accepted the Clinton Parameters in December 2000-January 2001, and Arafat literally, LITERALLY, hid from the Americans for days, rather than give them an answer on those Parameters (which Arafat curiously started praising a year later, after Sharon and Bush had replaced Barak and Clinton) . . . he couldn’t accept those Parameters because of the Jewish settlements, which would have been evacuated under the terms of those Parameters?????
Not everything is always our fault.
@Shalom Rav
Would you agree that there will be some settlements (Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim, Ariel, the Old City) included within the future borders of Israel although they lie on the other side of the green line? If the answer is yes, why do you characterize the settlement issue as so monolithic? It seems to me that what King Abdullah was saying is quite right, namely that the issue isn’t simply ‘THE SETTLEMENTS” , but rather which ones and in what ways do those settlements affect the viable borders of a future Palestinian state. The green line is just line – time to move on to more practical issues.
To continue to hold the position that ALL settlements regardless of where they are and when they were established as being the major obstacle to peace means IMHO that all you really want is for Israel to apologize on a grand scale and to be embarrassed in front of the world. To be in favor of a Palestinian state and to advocate for the right of self determination of Palestinians does not require a person to be anti-Israel. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach could move things forward and we can deal with ideology and history another time.
Victor:
Are you implying that no one can really analyze this situation since “politicians know better?” If that is really your belief (and if you refuse to engage in my ideas themselves) then I really don’t have much to say to you in response.
Jonathan:
To suggest that Israel should stop settling disputed territory before real negotiations can begin should not imply that “everything is (Israel’s) fault.” It merely insists upon good faith.
Re Oslo: I don’t believe it is controversial to suggest that Israel’s massive settling of the West Bank post-Oslo was an obstacle to that peace process. I certainly didn’t claim it was the only one, but by any rational standard it must be considered a significant one.
Having said that, I’m not convinced by your (unsubstantiated) citing of Arafat’s behavior at Camp David (seven years into Israel’s massive settlement regime) as a major contributing factor.
And btw: it’s not true that Israel would have evacuated major blocks of settlements under the terms of the Clinton Parameters. That’s a myth that has long been disproven by figures who were actually at Camp David.
See:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/aug/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/?page=1
Uzi:
I would say that that the boundaries of the two states should be left to the parties involved – and yes, that should include all of Israel’s settlement of territory east of the Green Line.
If you think that is naive, and since you treat certain areas of settlement to be ipso facto part of the Jewish state, perhaps you can explain to me how settlements such as Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel can be annexed by Israel without the use of lengthy sovereign Israeli access roads that will carve up the West Bank and significantly compromise the contiguity of a potential Palestinian state?
I don’t see that suggesting Israel cease its settlement in this heavily contested territory means that Israel has to “apologize on a grand scale and be embarrassed in front of the world.” If you’re concerned about world opinion, I’d say that Israel has already embarrassed itself through massive settlement of war-conquered territory in direct violation of the 4th Geneva Convention and against the desire of the overwhelming majority of nations around the world.
If Israel ceased this behavior prior to entering into negotiations, I’d suggest it would be viewed by the international community as an act of good faith, not self-humiliation.
אמן ,שלום רב!!!
I don’t believe it is controversial to suggest that Israel’s massive settling of the West Bank post-Oslo was an obstacle to that peace process.
How was it an obstacle if the Israeli government agreed to the Clinton Parameters, which would have meant the removal of most of the settlements? Was the problem the “blocs?” If so, fine, but why didn’t Arafat say so? Further, why was the Intifada not directed only at those settlements, or at the Israeli military, but instead carried out in Tel Aviv and Chadera, and Ashkelon, and western Jerusalem???? Maybe just maybe the whole country is an illegal Jewish settlement, in the eyes of some?
Having said that, I’m not convinced by your (unsubstantiated) citing of Arafat’s behavior at Camp David (seven years into Israel’s massive settlement regime) as a major contributing factor.
Unsubstantiated? Are you serious????? Are you going to pretend that the Palestinian negotiating team (most especially Arafat himself) didn’t insist that no Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount–to the point that President Clinton at one point screamed–face red–at Arafat that he too believed that a Temple stood there once? Or, that in the aftermath of the Camp David talks the Palestinian spin doctors didn’t point to the fact that Barak didn’t visit Arafat enough as one of the big problems in the talks???
And btw: it’s not true that Israel would have evacuated major blocks of settlements under the terms of the Clinton Parameters
Here’s a copy of the Clinton Parameters : http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm
Remember, the Barak government accepted those Parameters, and Arafat literally hid from the Clinton Administration for days, rather than give an answer on them. These are simply facts I’m writing and, again, I’m confused as to how people here don’t remember these things. And Arafat did indeed begin praising the Clinton Ideas in December 2002 . . . a year too late.
10 years ago is a bit before googling, but if you want I can dig around a find sources for all of this. I simply remember it myself, and I’m confused as to why others here don’t?
I mean, that NYT piece that SR linked was written 4 months BEFORE the Clinton Parameters were even presented!!!!
Come on, if people want to re-write history a bit, that’s fine, but get your dates/facts straight at least.
I take it back, I got the date wrong on that piece, and on when Arafat began praising the Clinton Ideas. My apologies to SR.
for an excellent recounting of Camp David check out David Ross’ The Missing Peace It’s been awhile since I read it, but while he placed most of the blame on Arafat (as it should be) he squarely acknowledges that the Clinton plan was completely unsustainable for a contiguous Palestine. The problem with the settlement blocs is two-fold, in my mind. a) uzi’s belief that they should inevitably part of Israel is exactly why the Israeli government supported their rapid expansion and supports it to this day at the expense of a viable peace process–it is a land grab and is designed to make Palestine impossible. all settlements are illegal. all settlements should be dismantled according to the Geneva conventions unless the Palestinians agree to their annexation into Israel. Anything else is not a just peace. This is the problem, Israel negotiates to win, not to end the conflict. b) especially settlements like ma’aleh adumim were designed to separate Jerusalem from Jericho. har homa was designed to separate Jerusalem from Bethlehem. The list goes on. The settlement activity around Jerusalem is a blatant attempt to change facts on the ground and to cut off Palestine from its future capital. The point us such annexation is to solidify that dream into reality. It has nothing to do with anything else. It is a political land grab, and a not so subtle one at that.
Settlements are ABSOLUTELY an obstacle to peace. Not the only one, but a big one. To say “get over it, let’s move on” is to ignore a huge part of the problem in creating a contiguous and viable Palestine. It creates a defacto 4 state solution–three Palestinian bantustans and Israel
Fine, Justin. But that doesn’t explain why the Palestinian team didn’t just say after Camp David: “We can’t accept one Jewish community over the Green Line.” You know as well as I do that all of the talk after Camp David revolved around the Temple Mount, not about the blocs at all.
Whatever your moral problems with the settlements are (and they also creat diplomatic problems for Israel–although I don’t think that concerns Justin,) how would the settlements create a 4-state-solution if they could all be removed as part of any deal?
The Israeli government removed every single settlement from Sinai in 1982, and in Gaza in 2005. I’m still confused as to why an Israeli government wouldn’t be able to remove every single settlement in the West Bank–including Ariel, Maale Adumin, etc.–if the two sides would agree to such a deal.
Btw, I have bad news for everybody, but the Palestinians would still be living under Israeli occupation even had not one settlement ever been built over the Green Line.
to say that ALL the talks focused on the Temple is just plain wrong. Arafat mentioned that he does not believe the Temple was in Jerusalem, but in Nablus, and he’s right about the latter, but there was also a Temple in Jerusalem. He didn’t make it up at the talks, he had said it for years and years and years. Who cares if a crazy old terrorist doesn’t believe there was a Temple in Jerusalem? That was a smoke screen for the media. Israeli governments WOULD be able to remove all settlements, and that would accord for a just peace, but they don’t WANT to because that would be a compromise in negotiation, not a “win” for the blue team.
Shalom Rav,
I think it is indicative of a general problem in your perception and motivation that when all the leaders involved in direct negotiations are saying that focusing on the settlements is corrosive to diplomacy and delays peace, you don’t believe them. Instead, you continue the very process which they have experimentally learned, and have now warned against, of emboldening irreconcilable radicals and violent extremists.
To paraphrase Justin, you give the impression of not being interested in compromise or negotiation, of taking practical steps towards a final peace settlement, but a “loss” for the blue team.
The settlements are your Ahab.
… I meant the whale, Ahab’s whale.
How can talks on “territories and borders” proceed with anything resembling good faith if one side settles these disputed areas with impunity and the “honest broker” to the proceedings refuses to rein it in?
The answer to this seems pretty obvious to me. Talks on “territories and borders” focus on final status issues, whereas settlement construction freezes are inherently temporary.
Yes, unfreezing settlement activity today will likely make it harder to effect whatever plan the parties eventually agree on. But if we waste all our time and energy focusing on how many housing units Jews can build in this town or that town this month, we’ll never get to the stuff that really matters, which is whether this town or that town will be included in Israel or Palestine once we all get over ourselves and come to an agreement.
Who cares if a crazy old terrorist doesn’t believe there was a Temple in Jerusalem?
It matters because the Israeli government has made tons of mistakes since 1967, but the Olso process fell apart for one reason–when all of the pieces were aligned for a deal, Arafat made the decision that he didn’t want to go for a deal. Fine. That was his right.
But it irks me to always have to read the excuses–(1)the Palestinian team wasn’t ready to discuss the final status issues at Camp David (after all, they only had decades to think about these things), (2) Barak was rude to Arafat (who of course had such a thin skin), (3) the Barak proposals and/or Clinton Ideas were a trap (then why didn’t the Palestinians present their own proposals, instead of always just saying “no”, (4) and the most painful of all: we’ve now suffered a decade of death, and agony, and violence because Ariel Sharon walked up on the Temple Mount 10 years ago today–Happy Anniversary.
oh….no…we cant mention the T….word…..Terrorism….when did building a house blow someone up?
Everyone’s got their own favorite version of how the Camp David/Taba talks went down. Israel critics point to the Malley-Agha account; those inclined toward blaming the Palestinians for the breakdown cite Ross and Clinton. Hard to ever know without examining the non-existent maps and the verbal proposals.
Still, I like what Shlomo Avineri has to say on the subject:
“There are obvious disagreements about the details of what happened at Camp David. But even the Palestinians’ best friends are at a loss to explain why the only counterproposal Arafat could come up with was the insistence on the right of 1948 Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. Practically for all Israelis, including the left, this was analogous to what the response would be if in 1990 a German chancellor would make normalization of relations of a reunified Germany with Poland and Czechoslovakia dependent on the right of return of 12 million ethnic Germans expelled from these countries after 1945.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2002/jul/18/the-road-to-nowhere-an-exchange/?page=1
Justin,
I draw your attention to Rootlesscosmo’s post, above. I don’t know how many Palestinians you converse with on a regular basis. The ones I’ve known, over half a decade, have NEVER, EVER said that the “return of refugees” is up for negotiation, that anything less than a 100% return (including great grand children) is acceptable, or that it’s merely symbolic. No matter what else they may believe, this is a taboo subject for them. Maybe Palestinian elitists believe otherwise, but they will have to answer to the street, which may not be as nuanced on the subject as you believe.