« Iraq Briefing - 02 June 2008 - "Attack, Attack, Attack" | Main | Missed Opportunities »
June 4, 2008
No, the Settlements are Not the Problem
Once again we have a news story that spectacularly misses the point. All the more disappointing since it's in The Washington Times:
Israeli settlements seen subverting peace talksTop Palestinian negotiators complained Tuesday that continuing Israeli settlement construction on contested land was undermining chances of a peace deal this year, even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration still hoped to nail down at least the outlines of a peace deal before Mr. Bush leaves office in January.
With embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Washington for talks with President Bush on Wednesday, Maen Areikat, deputy general of the Palestine Liberation Organization's negotiating department, said Israel's continued settlement building since the U.S.-sponsored Annapolis conference in November had dimmed prospects of a breakthrough.
"Unfortunately, the situation on the ground has not changed significantly" since Annapolis, Mr. Areikat said on a Washington visit. "On the contrary, Israel is trying to change the facts on the ground to its advantage."
Another story in the Times earlier this week made essentially the same point about the Golan Heights
KATZRIN, Golan Heights | Life has suddenly become very uncertain for the residents of the 32 Israeli communities in these highlands captured from Syria in 1967.Recent peace overtures with Syria have put their homes on the trading block, raising the prospect that they could be evicted in scenes reminiscent of the evacuation of the Gaza Strip in 2005.
But the Golan occupies a very different place in the Israeli national psyche from Gaza or the West Bank, where ideologically driven settlers live in tense proximity to a Palestinian majority....
Israelis feel more at home in the Golan than in the West Bank and even Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods. Now that the Golan is back on the bargaining table, Israeli residents there bristle at comparisons with the religious nationalist settlers of the West Bank and the former Jewish communities in the Gaza Strip....
Tourists, a rare sight in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, browse for upscale wine at a Golan Heights shop. Residents there do not consider themselves to be nationalist settlers.
Since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the Golan Heights' border between Israel and Syria has been the calmest of any border zone. Despite the ubiquitous presence of military vehicles on the roads, residents ask rhetorically why a treaty with Syria is necessary when the Golan is more tranquil and more secure than Tel Aviv.
The message is clear: If it wasn't for those darn settlements there would be peace in between Israel and Palestine.
What rubbish.
Answer Me This
If the settlements are the problem today, what was the problem before 1967?
The "West Bank"
Suppose Israel removed every settlement from what we call the West Bank, and what they call Judea and Samaria. Fatah would be nominally in control, at least for a short period. However, Hamas would undoubtably make a play for total control, and would likely succeed just as they did in Gaza. What we would then have is a terrorist state that would spend it's time attacking Israel.
If Fatah retained control, however, the situation would not be much if any better. Fatah, as I have written, is basically a terrorist organization that has no intention of accepting the existence of Israel. As Andy McCarthy wrote last year
The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are Fatah's terrorist wing. They have been a specially designated Foreign Terrorist Organization under U.S. law since 2002, and, as I noted here, have now taken to directly threatening the United States. ("We won't remain idle in the face of the siege imposed on the Palestinian people by Israel, the U.S. and other countries[.]...We will strike at the economic and civilian interests of these countries, here and abroad.")Fatah's Abbas, our "moderate" "peace partner," maintains close ties to the Brigades -- even if he didn't want to (which I doubt) he has no choice as they are very popular among Palestinians.
Even as the administration announced its strong support for Fatah in the wake of Fatah's ouster from Gaza by Hamas, Fatah's al Aqsa Brigades have continued to carry out attacks against Israel, in coordination with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another designated terrorist organization with a long history of working with Fatah.
The reason for all this is simple; the Palestinians do not want a "two-state solution". They want to destroy Israel. Notably missing from most stories, including the ones in the Times above, is any mention of the Palestinian demand for a "right of return".
The "right of return" is what the Palestinians is their right to return to land "stolen" from them in the 1948 War of Independence. What they want to do is to be able to go into Israel proper, ie the pre-1967 borders, and take land that they claim is theirs. Four million or more Palestinians want to exercise this "right." Given that the population of Israel is currently only 7 million, with 1 million being Arabs, clearly this is a recipe for the end of Israel.
Some might propose a trade; the Palestinians give up their "right of return" and the Israelis the settlements, but one neither side will give in, and anyway it doesn't answer the question of Palestinian terrorism.
Lastly, I don't see any evidence that granting the Palestinians their own state would "pull the ideological rug out from under the terrorists", or "take away their issue", as we are commonly told. As it is, about 50% of Palestinians support "resistance operations" against Israel.
The Golan Heights
Readers will recall that in early May I visited Israel and as part of out tour went up on the Golan Heights. On the Golan plateau we went up on Mount Avital, at the top of which is an old Israeli fort since turned into a park. Here's the view from the top into Syria
As with Gaza, the West Bank, and the Sinai, Israel captured the Golan in the 1967 war. It's essentially a plateau to the northeast of Israel proper.
Some say that Israel should give it back in return for a peace treaty with Syria. As the Times story above implies, if only the settlements weren't in the way there'd be peace.
Again, what rubbish.
To this day Syria supplies and funnels arms from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yet United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 demands the disarming of Hezbollah. There are UN peacekeeping troops in Lebanon who are charged with enforcing 1701. Yet they do not, and Hezbollah remains well armed.
So there is no reason to suppose that if Syria regained control of Golan they would not let in Hezbollah and continue to supply them with arms. Hezbollah would use Golan as they do Lebanon; as a base with which to attack Israel. The idea that peacekeepers from the UN or anywhere else would do anything about it is silly.
"Peace for Land"
Peace for land worked with Egypt because Anwar Sadat was a sane man with whom the Israelis could work. He was a dictator, to be sure, but rational and pragmatic. This cannot be said about Mahmud Abbas or Bashir Assad.
Once Israel gives up territory, it's gone for good. Taking it back would require a bloody war.
When Israel left Gaza, the Palestinians there a golden opportunity to show the world that they could govern themselves in peace. Instead they massacred each other and have turned it into a terrorist sanctuary.
Right now there's simply no good reason to believe that they do anything different anywhere else.
Missed Opportunities
The Arabs have had, by my count, at least five chances to make peace with Israel since 1948. In my next post I am going to go through them.
Whatever you think about the settlements, however, they are not the barrier to peace.
Update
Here it is: Missed Opportunities.
Posted by Tom at June 4, 2008 9:27 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1136
Comments
TRH,
Thanks for the comment and the photo. Could you post a photo taken of Israel from the Golan Heights? A picture is worth a thousand words and such a photograpgh would explain why Israel should never give back the Golan Heights. Strategically, giving back the Golan Heights would be suicide.
Meanwhile, the issue you raise w/ respect to the additional settlements on the West Bank seems to be: "Why should the Israelis stop settling the West Bank b/c 1. Fatah is still a terrorist organization; 2. Ultimately Hamas will take over the West Bank anyway and we all know about Hamas' intent; and 3. A two state solution is simply not viable.
I agre w/ 1. and 2. and for the most part agree w/ 3.
I think, however, that Israel should afford the Palestinians the opportunity to fail.
The Palestinians have never in in history been autonomous. You are correct regarding the vast percentage who do not want peace w/ Israel.
I think they should be given a chance. If by some chance such a Palestinian state succeeds, well and good. If it fails and Israel is compelled to respond militarily, which will result in another Palestinain diaspora, well the winners of wars get to write history.
As I see, one complicating factor in Israel is the dependence of the Palestinians on Israel for basic necessities such as jobs and fuel. Another complicating factor is the distribution of water on the West Bank.
You having been there, I would appreciate your comments on any of the above subjects, particularly, the issue of water.
Oh yes. The right of return is a ridiculous phantasm. History happened and the Palestinians and their enablers, who are many, cannot seem to get their minds around that. Meanwhile, for a taste of how one Muslim law student (although waht law he is studying I have yet to determine) visit clean-fun.blogspot.com. For me, reading and interacting w/ this guy demonstrates the intractable nature of the Palestinanian problem. Mohamed, the blooger, states that he is an Egyptian, yet he never discusses issues that deal w/ Egypt like the rising price of bread.
Again, thanks for the photo and the comment.
TLGK
Posted by: TLGK at June 5, 2008 1:11 PM
Hi TLGK
Thank you for stopping by.
You can find all of my Israel photos here. They're not all labeled yet, but I did finish the ones from the Golan Heights are done (photos #674-703)
"I think, however, that Israel should afford the Palestinians the opportunity to fail."
I agree. And this what what the whole Oslo Accords that set up the Palestinian Authority were all about. My take is that the Palestinians are failing as it is. Their government is split between Hamas and Fatah, the latter being only marginally better than the former. They have a pseudo-democracy but no real liberty for their people. I don't see that giving them anything more would change matters.
To be sure, Gaza would be a tough place to make work regardless of who was in charge, but the Palestinians made the worst of a bad situation. When the Israelis pulled out, the Palestinians could have let the world see that they could govern themselves. For example, the Israelis left behind in Gaza some high-tech green houses that the Palestinians could have used to make a lot of money. What did they do? Looted and ransacked them.
And then there was the bloodbath in which Hamas murdered the Fatah people and took the place over. Now they use it to shoot rockets into Israel.
So my take is that the Palestinians have enough right not to prove whether or not they can do it. And so far they're failing.
"As I see, one complicating factor in Israel is the dependence of the Palestinians on Israel for basic necessities such as jobs and fuel. Another complicating factor is the distribution of water on the West Bank.
You having been there, I would appreciate your comments on any of the above subjects, particularly, the issue of water."
We didn't get into the water issue while we were there so I don't know any more about that one than you do.
But yes, you hit the nail on the head on the issue of economics and resources. The PA territories as they are are not economically viable, and frankly they're not going to get the whole West Bank, and even if they did I'm not sure it would make any difference. No doubt being dependent on the hated Zionists has got to grate and gives them an inferiority complex. Arabs have enough of a chip on their shoulder as it is.
On the flip side, as we both know there's not necessarily a positive relationship between resources and wealth. Japan and Switzerland are rich nations, yet poor in resources. Israel doesn't have a drop of oil but is richer than Saudi Arabia.
We did drive by some Israeli settlements on the West Bank near the Jordan river, and it was impressive how through farming (date trees, figs and the like) they had turned the desert green. Sad to say but in all their time there the Arabs have not done likewise.
Now, that the Israelis have profited from the land while the Palestinians can't doesn't mean in and of itself that the Israelis "deserve" to live in their settlements and the Palestinians don't... I'm just pointing out that the Palestinians always seem to make the worst of a bad situation.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at June 5, 2008 9:51 PM
TRH,
I agree about making the worst of a bad situation.
Thanks for the reference to the photos.
I have read a number of articles, the most recent one in the 11/7/07 Sunday NYT Magazine section by Tina Rosenberg titled "The Perils of Petrocracy" about how Hugo Chavez is screwing up Venezuela, in which one thesis is that countries whose economies are soley based on extraction natural resources tend to fail their citizens in the provisions of basic goods and services.
As to the issue of water in Israel and the West Bank, my understanding, though minimal is that there exists a intricate interconnectedness w/ respect to supply and flow.
If I come up w/ more I will advise.
Regards.
TLGK
Posted by: TLGK at June 6, 2008 3:30 PM
Tom, I'm going to Israel on the 14th for 2 weeks. You've armed me with the questions I want to ask the locals. Thanks, and God bless you.
Posted by: DagneyT 
at June 7, 2008 6:34 PM
Tom,
Great photos, thanks for sharing the link.
Posted by: jason at June 8, 2008 10:46 AM
Tom and DagneyT,
Check out Thomas L. Friedman's column in the 06.08.08 Sunday NYT Week in Review.
It is about Warren Buffet's investment in an Israeli company, the Israel economy, and Amadinejad's comments about the end of Israel.
Money quote:
"So would would you put your money on? I'd short Amadinejad and go long on Warren Buffet."
TLGK
Posted by: TLGK at June 8, 2008 11:45 AM
Tom: That is awesome that you visited Israel!
I'm dying to go!
Thanks for stopping by my blog and keep up your great work!!
Posted by: Americaneocon at June 8, 2008 11:34 PM
Fascinating Comments re Palestine here, Gentlemen.
It's necessary to remind readers that Hamas & Hezbollah are Iranian Puppets, and Fatah (PLO) is funded by the Saudi/Wahhabi Royal Family. Both are anxious to dominate the region, and kill each other, when they are not killing Jews. reb
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
Posted by: Ralph E. at June 11, 2008 1:15 PM
