- I am pleased to be able to publish this important essay from Amos Gvirtz, a longtime member of Kibbutz Shefayim, in Israel. JWN readers may recall the interview I published with him back in March.
Gvirtz is a pillar of the Israeli nonviolence movement, and was a founder of Palestinians and Israelis for Nonviolence. He was the founding chairperson of the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions, and every week since summer 2006 he has published a short essay under the title “Don’t Say We Did Not Know.” You can find some older samples of these essays here, along with the email through which to subscribe to them. ~HC
Prioritizing Peace over Settlements
By Amos Gvirtz
A short while after his victory in the 1977 elections and his appointment as prime minister, Menahem Begin announced: “There will be many more Elon Morehs [an early ideological West Bank settlement].” And he went on to say, “So that a left-wing government will not be able to return the territories.”
In order to give weight to this announcement, the Begin government declared the settlements to be areas of national priority. This meant that the government viewed the construction and development of settlements in the occupied territories as a supreme Israeli interest. And in fact, since then and until today the settlers receive extensive benefits, far beyond what is allocated to any other population in Israel. This is also true for industrialists and business people who build their factories and businesses in the occupied territories.
Since the Begin government, no Israeli government has changed this priority, including the Rabin government, which while it froze settlement construction, paved bypass roads for the settlers, with all their ramifications.
Thus even during the seven years of the Oslo process, no Israeli government changed the policy which viewed the establishment and development of settlements as a supreme Israeli interest! We witnessed a political process, which seemed to most of us to be a peace process, at a time when the occupation actually continued to deepen! And in fact, during the time of the Oslo process, the number of settlers increased from 110,000 to 204,000; Israel demolished more than 1,000 Palestinian homes in the occupied territories; implemented two expulsions; and confiscated some 40,000 acres of Palestinian land. From the Palestinian point of view, these are unilateral acts of war by an occupying power against a defenseless civilian population.
After the 1999 elections, Prime Minister Ehud Barak added fuel to the fire when he appointed Yitzhak Levy of the National Religious Party as Minister of Housing in his government. The results were not long in coming: construction in the settlements reached new heights. The Meretz Party, which also sat in Barak’s government, fought against the corruption of the Sephardic religious party Shas (thereby deepening the rift with the Sephardic population in Israel), but failed in its role as guardian of the peace process. This failure marked one of the biggest mistakes of the Israeli Left, which occupied itself with political issues, while the Right created facts on the ground, with the goal of making the settlement process irreversible.
Israeli governments have developed a fixed pattern of behavior: they “agree” to American and European demands on the peace process, and at the same time deepen the occupation. We saw how the Olmert government did this during the Anapolis process.
Given all this, I have reached the conclusion that today the central demand of the Israeli Left must be, first and foremost, the cancellation of the priority status of the settlements in the occupied territories; the total cessation of funding for the settlements and the illegal outposts; upholding the law against settlers who expel Palestinian farmers from their lands and then take them over; the cessation of all land theft; a total cessation of house demolitions; a total cessation of the expulsion of Palestinians from the areas of the Southern Hebron Hills, the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim; the encouragement of settlers to return to Israel; and of course an end to the theft of West Bank and Golan Hight water. Only when these conditions are fulfilled, can it be said that the government of Israel has changed its policy from prioritizing the occupation to prioritizing peace, and only then will there be a chance for a political peace process to succeed.
So far the Obama administration is making good noises about actually standing up to Israel on the settlements. I expect them to cave soon, but if they actually don’t, the next critical point will be this: will the Obama administration then try to turn a freeze into a component of a final settlement? Because that would be worse than no freeze at all; it would confirm the illegal settlements as legal, and not only would they instantly expand as soon as the ink was dry on the peace agreement, but also they would prevent Palestine from ever being a real state and would force the Palestinians to eventually win through demographics, with the result that permanent apartheid or the end of the Jewish State would be the only long term options.
thanks for publishing this guest essay.
I was struck by this one passage — with the ironic phrase, “occupied itself”:
“The Meretz Party…. failed in its role as guardian of the peace process…. one of the biggest mistakes of the Israeli Left, which occupied itself with political issues, while the Right created facts on the ground, with the goal of making the settlement process irreversible.”
What then are the prospects for the “Israeli left” to “un-occupy” itself and offer a serious challenge on settlements? Or is it true that much of the Israeli left — has left? (literally)
At risk of seeming un-original I’ll make this point: the issue of settlements needs to be separated from that of a Palestinian state.
This needs to be done in order to establish, clearly, the borders of any possible Palestinian state as having been established, again and again, since 1948: the Occupied Territories are the minimal territorial basis for a state.
The problem of settlements is one that will have to be negotiated when the state is established: settlements within the Occupied Territories will, naturally, fall under Palestinian sovereignty.
The questions that will then arise will be related to land ownership, title and other legal questions eminently capable of being arbitrated in a proper manner.
If it should it be agreeable to the Palestinians to have, within their borders, communities of Jewish citizens, practising their religion, under the protection of the state nobody could object. But the idea that, by building a settlement, a new pocket of sovereignty is established beyond the borders of Israeli is utter nonsense. And a deliberately constructed barrier to peace.
Abbas has already stated that Jews could live within a new Palestinian state as long as they honor Palestinian laws and pay taxes like everyone else. On the surface this looks to be an ideal solution as opposed to moving 200,000 – 500,000 Jews out of the west bank.
However, I have 35 relatives living in West Bank settlements and outposts and I can assure you that neither they nor most of their fellow settlers will ever agree to follow Palestinian laws or pay Palestinian taxes. Can you imagine how long a Palestinian policeman would live walking into Kiryat Arba, Bat Ayin or dozens of other settlements?
Stopping settlement construction would mean acknowledging that the settlements are illegal and that international law applies to Israel. Israel will never make such a concession because it would call into question the whole Zionist enterprise. There will be complaining, whining, pressure from the Israel lobby, but eventually Israel will agree to something which may sound like some sort of concession, but which will nonetheless, allow settlement construction and expansion to continue. Israel will never agree to voluntarily permit a real Palestinian state. Israel is content with the current status quo which includes the apartheid option while it waits for the transfer option to become viable.
jdledell – I think that most of the “ideological” settlements (was it Meron Benvinisti who came up with that term) were established by the early 1980s. I presume that, given your family’s background, most of them would be “ideological settlers”. A good number of the “settlements” established since are populated primarily by people looking for affordable housing within commuting distance from Jerusalem and Gush Dan. This latter group could either be enticed to leave by economic incentives or could remain under Israeli sovereignty as a result of a land swap with the Palestinians.
Stopping settlement construction would mean acknowledging that the settlements are illegal and that international law applies to Israel.
Jack, I couldn’t disagree more. Stopping settlement construction would simply mean that the government views settlement expansion as not politically expedient.
As for being content with the current status quo, I suggest you read Jackson Diehl’s piece from yesterday’s Washington Post. It seems that someone else is perfectly happy with the current status quo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html
“Israeli governments have developed a fixed pattern of behavior: they “agree” to American and European demands on the peace process, and at the same time deepen the occupation. We saw how the Olmert government did this during the Anapolis process.”
Yep we’ve watched the Israeli game for years…provoke Hamas, seize land, cry security,hooddoo the US,keeping on seizing land, cry security.
But I think Obama just whispered the whisper heard by other governments round the world….”No new settlements or expansions”.
And the eruption on the ocean floor that is going to send a tidal wave straight for US zionist is his recently famous statement…’Israel’s actions are NOT in America’s SECURITY interest”.
Heheheh….”Israel’s actions are NOT in America’s SECURITY interest”..I don’t think too many people in Orwellington DC have caught on yet to how well that is going to work with the US public. When pushed THAT is the case Obama will make….”I am acting in the security interest of the USA”.
good damn luck zios when that campaign machine gets cranked up on Israel’s occupation and it will be cranked up if the zios go after Obama.
I was very plesed to see the Pres of Germany make his official statement saying Germany agrees with Obama’s position on Israel and that the EU and other ME coutries must all join the Obama bandwagon on Israel’s settlements.
Noticed in the international press that most European governments have also come out officially aligning themselves with the new US policy on Israel.
This is good start.
Yep we’ve watched the Israeli game for years…provoke Hamas, seize land, cry security,hooddoo the US,keeping on seizing land, cry security.
How did provoking Hamas help Israel to seize land in Gaza (where Hamas is in control and where all the rockets have been coming from)? Maybe the ‘Bummer can figure that one out? In the meantime Carroll, maybe you should study up for another seven years!
JES – I agree most of the ideological settlements were stated years ago. However, if you have not been out to the secular settlements lately you have not met up with Moshe Feiglin’s desciples(to borrow a phrase from our Christian friends). There is a disciplined plan to disperse radical settlers amoung all the settlements to try to turn the local communities against any move to close down any settlement.
jdledell – I didn’t say “secular”, I said “ideological”. I believe that Feiglin (who is not secular, BTW) is from Karnei Shomron, which I classify as an ideological settlement established in 1977.
What I mean by non-ideolodical settlements are Arieal, Alfei Menashe and the “settlements” (actually neighborhoods) around Jerusalem that were built on what had previously been no-man’s land administered by the United Nations, or had been taken over by the Jordanian military prior to June 1967.
Interesting to note that Palestinian rap group DAM have a new video, Alef to Ya, they are touring US in April, which is bound to capture some attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5Wnyp2gCMg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvirtuallyislamic.blogspot.com%2F2009_03_01_archive.html&feature=player_embedded