Palestinians reject any deal between Israel-US allowing for settlement growth to continue

Reuters published today an article titled, "Palestinians reject any Israel-U.S. settlement deal." I find the title misleading as any casual observer would be led to believe the Palestinians are "rejectionists," a term used to negatively convey any Arab state who is "refusing" to negotiate with Israel. The article is actually discussing Palestinian discontent about a recent Maariv (Israeli newspaper) report, which stated that the US and Israel had come to an agreement allowing for the construction of 2,500 housing units in the West Bank. The report was denied by the US state department; however, Israeli officials have refused to comment on the report, neither denying nor confirming the Maariv report. Palestinians are reasonably concerned about such reports.

Over the years of the Oslo negotiations (the failed peace talks of 1993-2000), settlements increased by 78% at a previously unseen pace. This while the American public was flooded with reports of peace talks. The reason for such an increase in growth during peace talks is up to speculation. Gershom Gorenberg, a noted Israeli author, believes it is related to settlers fearing the end of settlements and thus rushing to complete construction, while Israeli authorities work parallel to the settlers to solidify West Bank land grabs and thus change "the realities on the ground," to quote from Taba. I agree with Gorenberg on why settlements have grown most prodigiously during peace talks and thus fear any peace talks, which do not begin on the condition that settlement growth stop. The peace talks would serve again to deflect attention away from the issue of settlements, while settlers grow untended in numbers, and peace talks amble along. Peace "talks," a favorite of the Western powers working to end the conflict, are never guaranteed to lead to peace (exhibit a: the Oslo years). Therefore, it is crucial that the realities on the ground do not change and the chance for a two-state solution is not lost.

The Palestinian negotiators seem to feel the same way: there is no negotiations with Israel without a stop to settlements. According to Saeb Erekat, "There are no middle-ground solutions for the settlement issue: either settlement activity stops or it doesn't stop." I still feel strongly that Reuters has however taken what is truly a reasonable Palestinian position (one shared by the US and its President) and made it out to be unreasonable, radical, and out of step with the US and Israel. Meanwhile, the US remains clear of any criticism for its hypocritical actions, and Israel appears to be the victim of Palestinian inflexibility,asking for a reasonable exemption: "we only want 'natural growth', Daddy Obama." In summary, Reuters has expertly crafted another article painting the Palestinians in negative light and avoiding strong criticism of Israeli intransigence on settlements.

One lesson for Reuters reporters: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

News of the Day

There were many noteworthy articles of interest today: signs that Congress is preparing to fight Obama on his Middle East Policy; Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman's pronouncement that Israel would not bomb Iran; the much-anticipated Obama speech in Cairo; worrying signs of increasing intra-Palestinian violence; the removal of .33% of Israeli West Bank roadblocks; however, least covered was the increasing settler violence amidst Israeli moves to close illegal West Bank outposts.

In the last several days, settlers have taken responsibility for numerous attacks upon both Palestinian civilians and IDF troops. The unwarranted attacks have consisted mainly of rock-throwing and blocking of roads. In one noteworthy incident, settlers set aflame several Palestinian fields in the northern West Bank. They subsequently left oil and nails along access roads to impede Palestinian firetrucks trying to put out the fires. These violent settler outbursts are in response to increasing Israeli government efforts to close illegal West Bank outposts. These outposts are typically manned by the most ardent of settlers, who believe it is sacred land. In a statement to reporters, a settler group said the attacks were "the price for harming our sacred land." Most exceptionally, the Israeli government has so far taken little action on illegal outposts; however, the government of Israel is expected to further broaden crackdowns on illegal outposts in repsonse to U.S. pressure. It is expected, of course, that this will result in only increased violence. Stay tuned.

And for a good editorial on why Obama should visit Gaza, see Benjamin at electronic intifada: Obama should visit Gaza.

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.