Some Hard Truths about Settlements…

• Settlements are antithetical to peace. Continued settlement construction will destroy the very possibility of peace and leave Israeli decision-makers with an impossible choice: be a democracy and give full rights to the Palestinians, at the cost of Israel's Jewish character, or deny rights to the majority of the people under Israeli rule - which the Palestinians will soon be - validating accusations that Israel is increasingly an Apartheid-like state.

• Settlements are, at every level, a liability for Israel. It is because of settlements that the route of Israel's "separation barrier" has been distorted, lengthening and contorting Israel's lines of defense. The settlers' presence in the West Bank places a heavy burden on the IDF, and a heavy economic, moral, and political burden on all Israelis.

• It is because of settlements that Israel is forced to rule over a huge - and growing - non-Jewish, disenfranchised population, contrary to basic democratic values. Settlement policies and the actions of settlers erode Israel's image in the world as a democratic state that respects the civil rights of all people under its rule.

• Settlement expansion understandably extinguishes hope among Palestinians that Israel is serious about peace. It destroys the credibility of Palestinian moderates - Israel's best partners for peace - who reject violence and tell their people that negotiations will deliver a viable state. After more than four decades of watching settlements grow to take up more and more land and damage the fabric of their lives, Palestinians view settlement construction today as a litmus test of Israeli seriousness about peace.

• Past negotiations suggest that a peace deal is possible in which most settlers remain where they are, as part of a land-swap deal. Existing settlements already make such arrangements complicated; if settlements continue to expand, creating new facts on the ground in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, they will further complicate the situation and could render an agreement impossible. That, after all, is the goal of the settlements and of many of those who support them.

Listen to APN's briefing call with Lior Amichai, the director of Peace Now’s Settlement Watch Project. Click here.

Return to the Main "Settlements" Page

Some Hard Truths about Jerusalem…

• Jerusalem is of central importance to Israelis and Jews everywhere.  It is a city that throughout history has been the focal point of Jewish collective yearning and collective identity. The Jewish return to the Old City and its holy sites after 1967 was the fulfillment of this yearning. No one can deny or undermine the Jewish connection to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is and will forever be the capital of Israel.

• Jerusalem is also a city that has deep political, historical, economic, and cultural significance to Palestinians, and deep religious importance not only for Jews, but for Christians and Muslims everywhere.  

• Jerusalem is already a divided city.  One-third of its population is Palestinian, in addition to large Palestinian urban areas lying just beyond the municipal border. The patterns of life in the city disclose two distinct populations - Israelis and Palestinians - living separate and rarely overlapping existences. 

• Jerusalem must be re-fashioned as two capitals for two states.  No resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian or Israel-Arab conflicts is possible without compromise on Jerusalem.  Refusal to negotiate in good faith over the future of Jerusalem will mean the loss of the two-state solution.   Settlements in East Jerusalem are and have always been about only one thing: cementing Israel’s hold on the land in order to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian capital in the city. After 47 years, a two-state solution is still possible in Jerusalem, but barely. 

• If political obstinacy and extremism are allowed to stand in the way of compromise, or if settlement-related developments continue and succeed in taking Jerusalem off the negotiating table, it will mean the end of the two-state solution.  Loss of the two-state solution directly threatens Israel’s viability as a democracy and a Jewish state.

• The current borders of Jerusalem have no historical or religious meaning. Shortly after the 1967 War, Israel annexed large areas of land, including a number of Arab towns and villages, to expand Jerusalem. There is nothing sacred about these borders, either to Israel or to Jews.  The emergence of a Palestinian capital in Arab areas of Jerusalem, along with a special regime or special arrangements for the Old City and its surrounding area – would not undermine Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital. Rather, it would clear the way for international recognition of Jewish Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

• For the sake of Israel's security and stability – and for the health and stability of this remarkable city – a formula must be found to share Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Pragmatic, creative solutions exist to satisfy competing claims to Jerusalem and its holy sites; what is needed is the leadership, courage, and goodwill to explore them.  Most of the proposed solutions for Jerusalem's future would put Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian control, while Jewish neighborhoods would remain under Israeli control. These arrangements would make Israel's capital a more Jewish city and would allow Israel to shed the burden of ruling over Palestinians, while guaranteeing Jewish access to holy sites.

Don't miss our briefing call with Jerusalem expert Danny Seidemann or with Daniel Seidemann and APN's Lara Friedman regarding the tension in Jerusalem in 2014.

Return to the Main "Jerusalem" Page

Some Hard Truths about Borders & Security…

• When considering the defensibility of future borders, it is critical to distinguish between legitimate concerns and the manipulation of these concerns for political and ideological purposes. Israel has legitimate security concerns related to its future borders. Misrepresenting facts or ignoring overarching Israeli national interests when discussing such concerns is often blatant manipulation, generally to advance an ideological "Greater Israel" agenda.

• Future borders will be the result of negotiations, based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed-on land swaps. Nobody can force Israel to accept the 1967 lines as a permanent and official border between the West Bank and Israel (and nobody serious is trying to do so). Likewise, Israel cannot unilaterally dictate borders, whether through facts on the ground like settlement construction or the separation barrier, or through legislation. Efforts by Israel to do so will never be accepted by the Palestinians or viewed as legitimate by the international community.

• While an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank will involve some security risks, these risks in no way render borders in a future two-state agreement "indefensible," as opponents of such an agreement may suggest. The national security benefits for Israel of a peace agreement with the Palestinians – one that involves robust security arrangements and leaves Israel with universally recognized sovereign borders – far outweigh the risks.

• Negotiations can produce a permanent border for Israel that meets its security needs. Israel will insist, with reason, on arrangements that satisfy its legitimate security needs – needs which Palestinian leaders have in the past indicated they recognize. Any peace agreement will require far-reaching verification measures and guarantees, and may involve both the parties to the treaty and third-party monitors and guarantors.

• The IDF's presence in the West Bank provides some security benefits for Israel. However, it doesn't guarantee against the infiltration of terrorists and the smuggling of weapons into the West Bank, or terrorist attacks, either inside the West Bank or in Israel. It involves huge security sacrifices for Israel, including harming army morale and leaving Israel's forces unprepared to handle serious external security threats. It cannot prevent the growth of extremist ideology and hatred of Israel and may, in fact, contribute to both, with the continued military occupation undermining the credibility of those Palestinians who argue against violence and who support the idea of a negotiated, two-state, conflict-ending agreement with Israel.

• The PA has demonstrated its ability to fight terrorism in the West Bank and to cooperate with Israel's security authorities, even with the West Bank still under occupation. U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation over the past decade has shown strong results, with PA forces effectively establishing law and order - and taking action against extremists - in areas under their control. Indeed, Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed satisfaction with the effort. As part of a peace agreement, security cooperation would most likely go even further. Similarly, recognized borders established through durable peace agreements make for good neighbors with whom mutually-beneficial security cooperation can thrive – as Israel has seen with both Jordan and Egypt, even during times of crisis and upheaval.

• It cannot be seriously argued today that Israel needs the West Bank as territorial depth or as a security buffer. Territorial depth - particularly when measured in single miles rather than in tens or hundreds of miles - is almost insignificant in an age of intermediate-range and long-range missiles. Holding on to the West Bank does not provide Israel additional meaningful strategic depth with respect to such a threat. Furthermore, by virtue of both topography and Israel’s superb military capabilities, it cannot be seriously argued that Israel needs the West Bank as a buffer to fend off an invasion by foreign armies from the east, through the West Bank.

• A peace agreement would strengthen Israel's ability to deter and defend against terrorist attacks. Israel's ability to inflict pain militarily against those who threaten it – Hizballah and Hamas, for example – is unquestioned. Absent a peace agreement, Israel's right to do so is often challenged. With an end to the occupation and the establishment of universally recognized borders, Israel's right to use force to defend these borders and its sovereign territory from attack will no longer be open to challenge, rendering Israel's military deterrence exponentially stronger.

• Israel should not repeat the mistake it made in Gaza by picking up and leaving the West Bank unilaterally. In the Gaza context, Israel's unilateral withdrawal - and implicit snub of President Abbas and the entire notion of negotiations - played into the hands of Hamas and other extremists. In contrast, a negotiated withdrawal – as part of a process that leads to the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel – can provide credibility for non-extremist Palestinian leaders, strengthening them and enhancing their ability to govern, and to live up to Palestinian security obligations, after an Israeli withdrawal.

Return to the Main "Borders and Security" Page