Settlement Freeze

The Christian Science Monitor carried today a terrific piece covering efforts to freeze the growth of settlements. In it, there is discussion of the intricacies of a settlement freeze and the difficult of defining what exactly a settlement freeze should be. Israel agreed to a settlement freeze at the most recent Annapolis meeting; however, enforcing the freeze has never been successful. Successive U.S. administrations have agreed that settlements are an "obstacle to peace," though, only one President pressured Israel to freeze growth--Bush 41. In 1991, Bush 41 delayed loan guarantees to Israel until the elction of Yitzhak Rabin who immediately promised to freeze settlements. The U.S. acquiesced and settlement growth continued, albeit at a slower pace. It quickly ramped back up and throughout the Oslo years, 1993-1997, settlements grew at an alarming rate, by 78%. They now stand at 300,000 in the West Bank.

The Obama administration has taken this issue very seriously. In the most recent meeting between Israeli PM Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama; Obama impressed upon Netanyahu the seriousness of his administrations efforts to freeze settlement growth. At the moment, the U.S. and Israeli authorities are in discussions over what should be deemed a violation of the U.S.-Israeli agreement to freeze settlements.

Yossi Alpher, the coeditor of the online Israeli-Palestinian web op-ed forum Bitterlemons.org says "There's all sorts of loopholes. Are you going to deny them a new nursery school?" And the answer is emphatically Yes! The setttlers have chosen to live in the West Bank. They have chosen to live there for religious reasons (a minority, however an active, organized minority) and for financial reasons (the majority). Settlements are cheap, the loans for houses are low-interest, and the government subsidizes buildings. More relevant to my point, the settlements are a nice place to live. They are new, they have beautiful synagogues and they are very well protected. If we are to stop settlement growth, it must begin with making settlements unattractive to live in, even if that means denying settlers a nursery. They have chosen to live in territory deemed occupied, continue to harm the national security of Israel through their growth and thus should not be rewarded with a nursery school, a synagogue and a yeshiva. Rather, they should be punished with high housing prices, high-interest loans, and no public amenities. Give them the basics: water, electricity, food. But do not subsidize their education. They have chosen to disobey government regulations and therefore should not be helped, or more radically should be punished. If we are to freeze settlements, we must make them unattractive to live in. The question is, will the U.S. be able to pressure Israel to make settlements unattractive to live in?

Alpher continued on to say that "even the most dovish prime minister would have to point to American pressure" to justify enforcing a settlement freeze. He is right and I just hope that pressure is really coming; otherwise, we may not be able to save this fragile two-state solution that we dream of.