Trading outposts for large settlement blocs
If Benjamin Netanyahu insists on keeping illegal settlement outposts, he will be defending lawlessness and harming Israel's interests, writes Ha'aretz columnist Ari Shavit. And if Obama refuses to recognize that large settlement blocs near the Green Line will become part of Israel, he will be destroying President Clinton's legacy.
But if Obama and Netanyahu formulate an outposts-for-blocs policy, they will be serving their countries' interests, as well as promoting a realistic peace process.
He writes:
You cannot argue with facts. Nor can you argue with basic moral imperatives. Settlements that were lawfully built on public land are subject to ideological, political and security debate. Outposts that were illegally built on private land are robbery. The thousands of Israelis living unlawfully in the territories on lands that do not belong to them are lawbreakers. Israel must address their extensive, methodical law-breaking.
The outpost outrage also has a political aspect. The uncontrolled construction of mini-settlements in the last decade has fundamentally damaged national security. Instead of defining its just borders, Israel has entangled itself in a delusional and criminal settlement act. Consequently, even Israel's greatest friends have lost their patience. The illegal outposts robbing the Palestinians' lands are also robbing Israel of its legitimacy.
Barack Obama's administration has brought these issues to the test. His demand to stop all construction in all the settlements is extreme. On one level, it is not compatible with previous American commitments. On another level, it is causing moderate Palestinians and Arabs to harden their lines and freeze the peace process. But the sweeping American demand shows that after years of Israeli conniving and scheming, Washington has simply had enough.
Thus, to avoid a head-on clash with its ally, Israel must change its ways immediately. It must prove it will no longer make a fool of the world and stop sabotaging itself and start enforcing law in the West Bank.
Full column here.
2 Comments
Share This
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Dennis, I agree with with most of what you said that doesn’t pertain to President Obama. I think he is very concerned about Iran becoming a nuclear power. Honestly, I think the chances of success for any attempt to remove Iran’s nuclear threat will be low if the entire world knows about it in advance. So I really don’t want to read in the news about what the West’s plans are for stopping the Iranians.
And Barack Obama is NOT going to force Israel to accept a Palestinian state if the Palestinians don’t accept Israel’s inalienable right to exist in secure and recognized borders. I don’t think the “Pals” will accept, so I have to disagree with your statement that “the Pals can have their state.” I think we both know that the Palestinians won’t miss this opporturtunity to miss another opportunity--they will never give peace a chance because they truly don’t know how.
Leave a Comment
To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.
Not Registered?
There are real advantages to a FREE registration with JTA.org:
- Make your voice heard through comments on articles
- Receive our e-mailed Daily Briefing, an invaluable quick-read
- Help decide what Jewish news matters most with interactive tools
Register Now
Already a JTA member?
Dennis S. Kite
07/09/09 02:50 PM
Barack Obama seems to be overly concerned about Jewish people living in the West Bank. By contrast, he seems unconcerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons and missiles which can accurately deliver them. I was concerned that this would happen given he has zero foreign relations experience and a bunch of Jimmy Carter retreads advising him on this subject. The root of the problem has always been the refusal by Arab leaders(except Anwar Sadat and King Hussein) to recognize and accept Israel as a permanent and legitimate country in the middle east. Now Obama wants Israel to recognize a Palestinian state without the Palestinians and other Arabs/Islamists to accept Israel as a Jewish state. This is the invisible hand of Jimmy Carter and his pro-Arab policies taking hold of the new administration. I think the suggested solution posed by the article is a valid one, but the security of Israel must be guaranteed before any more land is traded. Israel must have defendable borders, and no more mass missile attacks can be launched from relinquished territory (as is the case in Gaza). At this time, Israel is only 9 miles wide in the central part of the country, and it would be all too easy for Hamas or Islamic Jihad or another terror group to launch missiles from relinquished land at Israel’s only international airport, or at Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. The Pals can have their state, but it must be a peaceful one that does not threaten to wipe out or destroy Israel. If some of the West Bank outposts were built illegally, they should be dismantled in a final peace agreement, but the major suburban areas such as Gush Etzion block or Maale Adumin need to become a part of Israel, and this idea of a complete “freeze” on growth there is stupid, shortsighted, and discriminatory.