
Debating the settlements
The Los Angeles Times published point-counterpoint op-eds on settlements.
First, Yisrael Medad, head of information resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem and resident of the West Bank town of Shiloh, offered up a defense of the settlements:
No one, including a president of the United States of America, can presume to tell me, a Jew, that I cannot live in the area of my national homeland. That's one of the main reasons my wife and I chose in 1981 to move to Shiloh, a so-called settlement less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem. ...
I believe the president has been misled. There can be nothing illegal about a Jew living where Judaism was born. To suggest that residency be permitted or prohibited based on race, religion or ethnic background is dangerously close to employing racist terminology.
Suppose someone suggested that Palestinian villages and towns in pre-1967 Israel were to be called "settlements" and that, to achieve a true peace, Arabs should be removed from their homes. Of course, separation or transfer of Arabs is intolerable, but why is it quite acceptable to demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the area? Do not Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in the state of Israel? ...
Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch supplied a sharp condemnation of settlements:
The debate over Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories is often framed in terms of whether they should be "frozen" or allowed to grow "naturally." But that is akin to asking whether a thief should be allowed merely to keep his ill-gotten gains or steal some more. It misses the most fundamental point: Under international law, all settlements on occupied territory are unlawful. And there is only one remedy: Israel should dismantle them, relocate the settlers within its recognized 1967 borders and compensate Palestinians for the losses the settlements have caused. ...
Removing the settlements is mandated by the laws of the Geneva Convention, which state that military occupations are to be a temporaryThe economic and social cost of Israeli settlements to the Palestinian population, stemming in part from Israel's need to protect them, are enormous. The 634 (at last count) roadblocks, barriers and checkpoints erected to control the movement of lawful residents of the territory make travel an ordeal. Sometimes even getting to work, school or the home of a relative is impossible for Palestinians. Every day, they must wait in line for hours to show their IDs, and some days they are randomly rerouted, told to go home or, worse, detained for questioning....
In addition to the op-eds, the L.A. Times supplied a guide to settlements by Gershom Gorenberg, a prominent critic of Israeli expansion in the territories. And The Jerusalem Post also has put together a guide.
2 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Share



Sheldon Dan
06/29/09 04:51 PM
All right, if Ms. Whitson wants Israel to relocate the settlers within the 1967 borders (which are NOT recognized borders, merely cease-fire lines) and compensate Palestinians for their losses, then the Arab countries should compensate the Jews who lived in their lands for centuries (about the same population as the Arabs who were displaced in 1948) for THEIR losses. Lots of luck.
She cites the Geneva Convention, but the applicability of this is disputed. She also cites the ordeals the Palestinians go through. Has she thought that if some of those Palestinians didn’t commit suicide bombings, shoot rockets into Israeli territory, etc., there would be no need for those checkpoints?
I will state again that these 1967 borders were merely cease-fire lines. They are NOT “secure and recognized borders” called for in UN resolutions. And I might remind everyone that Resolution 242 required withdrawal from “territories,” NOT “all” or “all the” territories. In a final settlement, these borders are to be negotiated, and they were not anticipated to be the same as the 1967 borders. The Palestinian apologists can complain all they want, but at best the West Bank is “disputed,” not “occupied” territory, and it should be determined through honest negotiations where the border should be.