Israel Matzav

The 'settlement freeze' canard

Moadim l'Simcha - a Happy and Kosher Passover to all. For those who are wondering how an Orthodox Jew could be online on the second night of Passover, please note that Israelis in Israel are only prohibited from doing "work" (which would include using computers) on the first and seventh days of the holiday (and on the Sabbath, of course!). Tonight is an intermediate day in Israel. We have only one seder here.

It is widely accepted outside of Israel that the main 'obstacle to peace' is Jewish 'settlements' in Judea and Samaria and that the only way to make 'peace' possible is to stop construction of those settlements Jewish cities and towns so as to have fewer Jews to expel to make way for the eventual 'Palestinian' state reichlet. In Wednesday's Washington Post, former US Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams rips that theory to shreds.

The real issue is not past settlement activity but the demand for a settlement freeze. Is current and recent settlement construction creating insurmountable barriers to peace? A simple test shows that it is not. Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. According to news reports, just three months ago, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state.

How is this possible? For one thing, most settlement activity is in those major blocs that it is widely understood Israel will keep. For another, those settlements are becoming more populated, not geographically larger. Most settlement expansion occurs in ways that do not much affect Palestinian life. While the physical expansion of settlements may take land that Palestinians own or use, and may interfere with Palestinian mobility or agricultural activity, population growth inside settlements does not have that effect. For the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians.

...

Settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity. In fact, the emphasis on a "settlement freeze" draws attention from the progress that's needed to lay the foundation for full Palestinian self-rule -- building a thriving economy, fighting terrorism through reliable security forces and establishing the rule of law. A "settlement freeze" would not help Palestinians face today's problems or prepare for tomorrow's challenges. The demand for a freeze would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between the United States and Israel's new government. That may be precisely why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should reject it.

I don't agree with everything Abrams writes, but this part is dead-on. The 'Palestinian' demand for a 'settlement freeze' is an excuse not to negotiate. For the Obama administration to adopt it (as seems likely) would be a serious but unsurprising mistake. For an administration that claims to be adopting a foreign policy based on 'realism,' they are really living in a fantasy land.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:59 PM