Settlements remain a key obstacle to peace, Hassan A. Barari

Opinion, July 2003, www.aljazeerah.info

Settlements remain a key obstacle to peace

Hassan A. Barari

Jordan Times, Tuesday, July 29, 2003

EVIDENTLY, THE most palpable manifestation of Israel's unwavering condescending attitude towards peace is the unwillingness of successive governments to put a freeze on settlement activity. Settlement expansion and the increase in the number of settlers thus constitute a genuine impediment that has the potential of catapulting the conflict back to square one. According to the Israeli interior ministry statistics released last week, the number of settlers in the West Bank and Gaza has risen by 5,415 in the first six months of this year. Now, the total number in the West Bank and Gaza is 231,443 settlers, excluding those couple of hundred thousand settlers in occupied East Jerusalem. In addition, of the 91 “illegal” settlement outposts that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pledged to remove at the Aqaba summit, only 11 have been dismantled. The rest have yet to be removed in accordance with the roadmap plan.

If this trend goes on unchecked, the Israelis will soon find themselves in an unenviable position. Predictably, the Israeli government will find it very difficult, for purely domestic political considerations, to offer the Palestinians a viable state as a quid pro quo for peace without dismantling the majority of these settlements. Such a move would probably lead to a flare-up within Israel. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a majority of 65 per cent among the Israelis who would prefer dismantling some settlements in exchange for peace, there is no such majority for dismantling all settlements. Much more troubling still is the fact that as many as 10 per cent of settlers, according to one Israeli poll, said that they would fight tooth and nail any decision to evacuate or dismantle settlements.

The expected internal upheaval, if Israel decides to evacuate settlements in the context of peace, will certainly deflect any prime minister from seriously contemplating such a move. Due to the coalitional nature of Israeli politics, a political price is awaiting any prime minister who would do so. Given the rightward shift in Israeli politics, the ultra-nationalist parties such as the NRP have become indispensable to forming a working government. These parties would not hesitate to bring down any government on this issue. Here is a classic example of a vocal minority of settlers and the party that represents their interest blackmailing the majority — the tyranny of the minority.

In his conflict with the settlers, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin managed to sideline them, albeit only for a short while. He coined the phrase “security” settlements that are deemed vital for Israeli security and “political” settlement, which he nevertheless opposed on the grounds that they were intended to forestall any prospect for peace. Then he came up with the notion of “reordering the national priorities,” thus pledging, if elected, to channel the scarce national resources inward, for development, rather than spending them on political settlements.

Thus, he managed to drive a wedge between the settlers and other needy segments of Israeli society, thereby winning the 1992 election. Despite this shrewd manipulation of Israeli politics, the number of settlers after signing Oslo has increased by more than 50 per cent. Unsurprisingly, Israeli objectives of arriving at peace with the Palestinians and maintaining unceasing settlement growth remain irreconcilable. It goes without saying that this puzzle was the product of a conscious policy on the part of the Likud-led governments, which insisted on intensifying the settlement activity with the design of eventually incorporating the whole of the West Bank and Gaza into Israel.

Yitzhak Shamir was reported to have said, after his electoral defeat, that he intended to drag on negotiations for ten years, in order to have time to inundate the West Bank and Gaza with a million settlers.

The fact remains that the Palestinians would not enjoy freedom of movement in their own state if territorial contiguity were not guaranteed. With all these settlements scattered throughout the West Bank, it is inconceivable that such territorial contiguity will be possible. Thus, there is barely a Palestinian leader, be it Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat or anyone else, who would acquiesce to the Israeli tactics on settlements. At the end of the day, the credibility of peace with Israel relies, by and large, on the removal of settlements or the evacuation of settlers.

Undoubtedly, the issue of settlement will remain the toughest nut to crack and, therefore, the result of the final talks will be another impasse. Certainly, there are some innovative ways of solving this rather knotty issue without evacuating all settlers. Limited mutual territorial exchange, whereby some settlements are linked with Israel, might be acceptable to both sides in the conflict. Settlers can also be given the right to stay, on the condition that a Palestinian citizenship is conferred upon them. In this case, they become Palestinian citizens who are subject to the Palestinian law and who are not under the tutelage of Israel. Well, while this is easier said than done, it remains to be seen how both sides are going to approach this issue. It is, however, worth noting that Israel is shooting itself in the foot by following the current settlement policy that cannot help but clog the wheels of diplomacy. The time of reckoning is approaching, and Israel should reassess its settlement policy.

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).