Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories

23/08/2009 - Geoffrey Aronson, Foundation for Middle East Peace

Never in the forty-two years that Israel has been occupying and settling the West Bank has an Israeli prime minister taken seriously, let alone imple¬mented, U.S. demands for a freeze of settlement expansion. From the admin¬istration of Lyndon Johnson, when the United States first noted Israel's viola¬tion of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting the transfer of its civilian population to the occupied territories, to the June 4, 2009, declaration in Cairo by President Barack Obama rejecting "the legitimacy of continued Israeli set¬tlements," Washington's opposition to settlements has been variously, and always successfully, ignored, outlived, sidelined, or negotiated away.

Israel has built settlements demon¬stratively, as a "Zionist response" to Palestinian attacks or aggressive Ameri¬can diplomacy. The settlements in Hebron fit this category, as do the "Baker settlements," championed by Secretary of State James Baker's nemesis Ariel Sharon almost twenty years ago. In one of these, Revava, outside of Nablus, a new neighborhood of 52 "vil¬las" is now under construction.

Israel has built settlements quietly, hoping not to excite strenuous interna¬tional opposition. Until recently, this has been the case with E-1, the vast area of the West Bank east of Jerusalem where for many years Israel has been con¬structing elaborate infrastructure for future settlement that would effectively divide the north and south West Bank and seal off East Jerusalem from its Palestinian hinterland. This project con¬tinues despite widespread protest, including a recent, unprecedented public ceremony inaugurating a new national police chief in the imposing police headquarters built in the eastern part of E-1.

Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir trumpeted their settlement achievements. Many others, including Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert "talked left and built right." Whatever the method, Israel has never stopped building settlements and related transportation and security infra¬structure for settlers.

Israel has built settlements without consideration for international opinion, as did Defense Minister Ehud Barak when in June 2009 he authorized the Civil Administration to submit a plan for the construction of 300 housing units in the unauthorized outpost of Givat Habrecha, near the settlement of Talmon east of the security fence. Palestinian opposition to settlements is invariably ignored or dismissed.

Is this central feature of the occu¬pation about to change? President Obama's insistent call for a comprehen¬sive end to continued settlement activity is unprecedented in its intensity. Despite the fact that until now all that he has asked of Israel is that it abide by the settlement commitments of George W. Bush's road map, Obama's demand rings all the louder in comparison to the more forgiving U.S. policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations.

It is not surprising that when faced with Obama's demand for a freeze, Israel's leaders are confident that the new president's efforts will be neutral¬ized. Once again they are offering a menu of policy compromises - a freeze of limited duration and scope, construc¬tion within existing settlement perime¬ters, no new settlements or special gov¬ernment incentives, "natural growth" to accommodate growing settler families and their everyday needs, and expansion only in settlement blocs. These artifices have succeeded for almost five decades, enabling Israel to settle close to half a million of its citizens in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights in the face of virtually unanimous interna¬tional opposition. This is an astonishing achievement that reflects Israel's deter¬mination, the chronic weakness of American and international diplomacy, and the failure of Palestinian protest and opposition.

"[U.S. special envoy George] Mitchell knows the fraud exactly," says a former top official in Israel's Defense Ministry. When Israelis argued that restricting the natural growth of settle¬ments is like the Holocaust, as they did at a May 26, 2009 meeting in London, the Americans sitting opposite remained unmoved.

While Israel's leaders' discomfort with Obama's demand is genuine, like the incredulity of a child when a parent finally says "enough!" they hope that something will happen to "change the subject" and draw the American spotlight off settlements, as has happened for decades.

As long as the diplomatic focus remains limited to a settle¬ment freeze, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will remain within his comfort zone. Netanyahu would prefer to discuss and debate ad nauseam the finer points of settlement expan¬sion, construction perimeters and the like - a contest Israel has always won - than to address the more fundamental issues of borders, settlement evacuation, security measures, Jerusalem, and refugees, which must be resolved to achieve a two-state solution.

Obama's goals are much broader than a settlement freeze.  The appointment of Mitchell is the clearest signal of hiintention to work vigorously to end the occupation and to create a Palestinian state at peace with Israel. Yet there will be a diplomatic "opportunity cost" if the settlement freeze debate is prolonged, and the issues of borders, settlement evacuation, and Palestinian sovereignty are deferred. A continuing impasse risks undermining the momentum and credibility of a U.S. diplomatic initiative aimed at ending occupation and cre¬ating a Palestinian state.

Whether or not Israel rejects a freeze, Obama and Mitchell will have to continue a more assertive and convinc¬ing diplomacy that addresses the wide range of final status issues - settlement evacuation prominent among them - if it aspires to end Israel's forty two year occupation and settlement adventure.