They Say, We Say: "The U.S. should get Israel to agree to limit settlement activity to construction inside the blocs only."

They Say We Say We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.

Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"

Are settlements really a problem?

They Say:

The U.S. has for too long wasted its political capital attacking Israel over settlement construction in areas everyone knows Israel will always keep. The more pragmatic, pro-peace policy would be for the U.S. to get Israel to agree to limit settlement activity to construction inside the blocs only. Israel agreeing to limit settlement construction to areas inside the settlement blocs would remove a huge and unnecessary irritant from U.S.-Israel relations. It would also be a huge concession by Israel that would prove to the Palestinians and the world that Israeli is serious about peace.

We Say:

Some in both Israel and the U.S. have adopted the narrative that confining settlement construction to the blocs would demonstrate an Israeli commitment to peace and the two-state solution. Such narratives are either mistaken or disingenuous, grounded in the view that Israel and/or the U.S. can dictate to the Palestinians what they “need” or must accept in a permanent status agreement. It is precisely this kind of thinking that has continually compromised the ability of U.S. negotiators to act as effective brokers for peace, and that has allowed Israel to get away with insisting that it wants a negotiated solution while undertaking unilateral actions on the ground that are designed to predetermine the outcome permanent status talks.

Supporters of this narrative often cite President George W. Bush’s April 14, 2004 letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as validation of their position, In that letter, President Bush stated that “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” Notably, those citing this letter generally omit mention of the fact that in the preceding sentence, President Bush stated that any agreement to this effect “should emerge from negotiations between the parties” and in the next sentence added the caveat that "any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities"[emphasis added].

Those omitted lines are the crux of the matter, because giving a green light to any Israeli settlement construction outside of the context of an agreement with the Palestinians contradicts not only what Israel and the Palestinians have previously agreed to, but also the position of every U.S. Administration, from 1967 through at least 2016. Doing so would also be antithetical to the re-starting of any negotiating process that can lead to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not simply a matter of rigid principles but of impact on the ground and on political realities: imposing on the Palestinians a policy whereby Israel is permitted to build in “settlement blocs” would directly threaten the possibility for ever achieving a peace agreement with the Palestinians and, in parallel, the ability for there to ever be established a viable, contiguous Palestinian state alongside Israel.

For Israel to today exploit “settlement blocs” to impose new rules on the game and take huge areas of the West Bank off the negotiating table, contradicts the fundamental concept of a negotiated solution. It also discloses to the world the cynicism and disingenuousness behind Israel’s rejection of international actions aimed at maintaining the distinction between Israel and settlements – rejection that has taken the form of outraged claims that the world is seeking to “impose a solution” on Israel.

As for the U.S., a shift in policy to green light Israeli construction in “settlement blocs” would concretely undermine the chances of reaching an agreement on the ground. Politically, it would deprive already weakened pro-diplomacy, anti-armed-struggle Palestinian leaders of their last shred of legitimacy. It would likely end the land-for-peace effort that began in Madrid more than two decades ago, setting the stage for even greater violence than we are seeing today. Likewise, it would be a boon to one-staters of all stripes, including hard-line Palestinians, post-Zionist Israelis, and the BDS movement, who would join Israeli hardliners in celebrating the end of the land-for-peace, two-state era. Such a policy shift would also directly harm the interests and credibility of the United States, putting the U.S. at odds with international consensus and international law settlements, and marking the end of the ability of the U.S. to act in any way as an honest broker of peace efforts.

They Say, We Say: "Why does the Left oppose construction in settlement blocs?"

They Say We Say We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.

Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"

Are settlements really a problem?

They Say:

Why does the Left oppose construction in settlement blocs? These areas are part of the Israeli national consensus running across the political spectrum.

We Say:

Today it is commonly said that the settlement blocs are part of the Israeli national consensus. Broadly speaking this is true, reflecting the fact that, over the years, almost all Israeli governments have invested heavily in making the settlement blocs seem like an integral part of the state of Israel, even without officially annexing them to Israel.

At the same time, it is also true that most Israelis probably have no idea what is meant by the term “settlement bloc.” Many if not most Israelis almost certainly could not identify what is or is not part of a “settlement bloc” on a map, or mark on a map the areas of the West Bank they believe are part of this so-called national consensus. Indeed, it wasn’t long ago that the whole idea of settlement blocs being part of a national consensus simply didn’t exist. Back in 1993, at the start of the peace process, the large settlements that are today considered part of the national consensus, like Beitar Illit, Modiin Illit, and Ma’ale Adumim, were many magnitudes smaller, both in population and footprint on the ground, and there was not national consensus – real or purported – in support of keeping these settlements, even at the cost of a peace agreement.

It is also important to note that around 20% of Israel's citizens are ethnically Palestinian, and this portion of the population generally does not support the view that Israel should or must hold onto settlement blocs. Thus, when observers - Israeli or non-Israeli - refer to the "national consensus" on settlements, they are by definition excluding the opinions of around one-fifth of the country's citizens. Moreover, even among Israeli Jews there is not an actual consensus, but rather a spectrum of views, including those adamantly opposed to Israel keeping any settlements and those adamantly in favor of Israel keeping all settlements. There are also many Israeli Jews who view the attainment of peace - not the keeping of settlement blocs - as the most important goal of peace negotiations, and who believe that the decision over whether or not Israel will get to keep settlement blocs must be left to the negotiating table.

They Say, We Say: "The term 'settlement bloc' merely describes an objective reality on the ground."

They Say We Say We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.

Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"

Are settlements really a problem?

They Say:

The term “settlement bloc” merely describes an objective reality on the ground. There is nothing controversial or political about the term or its usage – it is just the anti-settlement Left that wants to make it into an issue.

We Say:

The term “settlement bloc” has no official, legal definition even in Israel. Rather, it is informal, extremely flexible, and entirely political. In the early years of the settlement movement, the term was used rarely, and then only to refer to areas in the West Bank (and Gaza Strip) where groups of settlements had been established in genuine close proximity to one another and near the Green Line. In contrast, today the term is used to refer to huge and ever-expanding swathes of the West Bank. These “blocs” encompass settlements that are located at great distances from one another and from the Green Line. In this way, the “blocs” are being used to take control over large areas of West Bank land, both through settlement construction and related expansion on the ground aimed at thickening the “blocs” and at expanding them to include settlements located at ever-greater distances from their centers.

Likewise, the term “settlement blocs” has no meaning or legitimacy under international law, which views all settlements as illegal, regardless of their proximity to one another or to the Green Line, irrespective of whether they are located east or west of Israel’s separation barrier, and notwithstanding any alleged Israeli “national consensus.” Consequently, neither settlements located in blocs, nor the blocs themselves, are recognized by the Palestinians or the international community as having any special status. Moreover, construction in the blocs is clearly barred under Phase I of the 2003 U.S.-authored Roadmap, which states: "[The government of Israel] freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."

And notably, these “blocs” don’t just include settlements. Many of the “blocs” – as de facto defined by the route of the Separation Barrier – include what even Israel recognizes to be private Palestinian land. Moreover, if one were to take a radius from the center of a “bloc” like Gush Etzion, Givat Ze’ev, or Ariel, a large percentage of the population – in some cases a majority – is Palestinian.

They Say, We Say: "Keeping settlement blocs is necessary for Israel’s security."

They Say We Say We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.

Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"

Are settlements really a problem?

They Say:

Settlement blocs are mainly located within the route of the Separation Barrier. This means that keeping these areas is necessary for Israel’s security, so Israel has to be allowed to build there.

We Say:

Many Israelis assume that what is on the Israeli side of the barrier is part of the "blocs," and what is on the Palestinian side of the barrier is not. However, this ignores the fact that the route of the barrier has been gerrymandered to include as many settlements as possible and to encompass huge areas of adjacent land – the total area of West Bank land that is de facto annexed by the barrier is some twentyfold the size of the built-up area of the settlements in these areas.

This gerrymandering of Israel’s border for the benefit of settlements comes at the cost of vital Israeli interests. First, it undermines the possibility of a two-state solution – without which Israel cannot remain both a democracy and a Jewish state. And second, it sacrifices Israeli security, leaving Israel with a long, convoluted border running near or through the heart of Palestinian populated areas, and leaves large numbers of Palestinians within Israel’s lines of defense. For example:

  • In the case of the "Ma'ale Adumim bloc" (east of Jerusalem), the barrier route takes up land many times the size of Ma'ale Adumim, including the area of the planned mega-settlement of E1, a settlement whose construction successive US administrations have recognized as potentially fatal to the two-state solution.
  • In the case of the "Givat Ze'ev bloc" (north of Jerusalem), the barrier route extends so far north of the existing settlement that if construction were permitted to fill the bloc, the settlement could expand at least 5 times in size and reach the very edge of Ramallah - bearing in mind that construction is now underway in this "bloc" for a new ultra-Orthodox settlement (whose residents have an average of 7 children).
  • In the case of the "Etzion bloc" (south of Jerusalem), the route of the barrier not only captures a huge amount of territory that is not part of the built-up area of the settlements, but it extends deep into the West Bank to include the settlement of Efrat, and in doing so severs Bethlehem completely from the southern West Bank (leaving the city of Bethlehem an isolated enclave between the southern Jerusalem barrier and the Gush Etzion bloc).
  • Further north, in the case of the "Ariel bloc" and "Qedumim bloc," these blocs are actually narrow fingers reaching deep inside the West Bank - with the settlement of Ariel, for example, located almost exactly halfway between the Green Line and the Jordan River. Regardless of ideology, it is difficult to imagine a viable peace agreement that leaves these areas under Israeli control.

They Say, We Say: "Even the Palestinians know that settlement blocs are going to become part of Israel."

They Say We Say We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.

Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"

Are settlements really a problem?

They Say:

Opposition to construction in settlement blocs is purely manufactured outrage. Even the Palestinians know that settlement blocs are going to become part of Israel.

We Say:

Based on past negotiations, including the unofficial Geneva Initiative process (which yielded the Geneva Accords, the only detailed agreement ever achieved between Israelis and Palestinians) it seems likely that Palestinians will be willing to accept a peace agreement under which Israel retains control of some settlements, but only in return for (a) the evacuation of all other settlements and (b) land swaps, equal in size and quality, to compensate for the land kept by Israel. This is an important principle that, in the context of serious peace negotiations, could play a key role in the achievement of a viable final status agreement. However, it is disingenuous to cherry-pick this principle in order to justify new settlement construction outside the context of such negotiations and absent a peace agreement.

Under the Geneva Accords, the Palestinians (many of whom were and remain senior and influential political figures) agreed to Israel's annexation of some settlement blocs, in exchange for equal land swaps. However, such a negotiated agreement is far different from Israel acting unilaterally to annex territory, and it is important to note that the areas the Palestinian agreed would be ceded to Israel were far more modest than the expansive blocs of settlements and surrounding lands that Israel has de facto annexed with the security barrier. Indeed, the Geneva experience makes clear that any serious peace effort will have to recognize that settlement "fingers" stretching deep into the West Bank (like the Ariel and Kedumim blocs), and inflated settlement 'balloons" that effective block territorial contiguity of the West Bank (like the E-1/Ma'ale Adumim bloc) are inconsistent with the achievement of a peace agreement or the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. And, notably, further construction also threatens to make any agreement impossible, given that Israel does not have sufficient land reserves adjacent to the Green Line to compensate for all the areas that it wants to keep in the West Bank through one-to-one land swaps. If such land swaps become impossible, an agreement will likely be impossible as well.

Regardless of who may end up in control of or with sovereignty over these areas under a future peace agreement, if Israel is serious about wanting to make peace with the Palestinians, the future of these areas must be left to negotiations and not determined by unilateral acts. Unilateral acts by Israel only undermine those Palestinians who remain committed to a peaceful, negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and who still support a two state solution. Such acts also waste goodwill towards Israel around the world, fuel boycotts and other activism targeting both Israel and the settlements, and pointlessly consume valuable Israeli political capital.

They Say, We Say: "If Israel stops building in settlement blocs it's just rewarding anti-peace and anti-Israel extremism like BDS."

They Say We Say We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.

Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"

Are settlements really a problem?

They Say:

Why should Israel stop building in settlement blocs (or anywhere else)? Unless and until the Palestinians prove they really want peace, Israel should not make any concessions. Indeed, concessions now would just feed Palestinian intransigence and reward anti-peace and anti-Israel extremism like BDS.

We Say:

Israel needs to stop building settlements and end the occupation urgently. It must do so not as a concession to the Palestinians but for Israel’s own sake.

Israel has for most of the past 50 years shown to the world the face of a nation that does not truly seek peace. This period has been punctuated by various efforts to reach peace, the most serious of which was cut short by the assassination of a courageous peace-seeking Israeli prime minister by an Israeli extremist seeking to sabotage peace. Subsequent peace efforts have been undermined and discredited by the refusal of Israeli governments to put an end to policies on the ground that perpetuate and entrench the occupation and expand settlements, including with the trick called “settlement blocs.”

Rather than show it was serious about wanting peace, successive Israeli governments have – for reasons of ideology or political expediency – exploited the asymmetry of power in this conflict to turn peace talks into a fig leaf to cover actions on the ground that are antithetical to the achievement of peace and a two-state solution. By their own actions and statements they undercut talks, eroded the credibility of negotiations as a means of achieving an agreement in the future, and undermined their Palestinian partners. Today, members of Israel’s government are openly celebrating the demise of the two-state solution and are dropping even the pretense of supporting negotiated peace with the Palestinians.

In this way, for nearly 50 years a vast amount of Israeli resources have been squandered on the self-defeating and immoral settlement enterprise, including the ever-expanding “settlement blocs.” Five decades of Israeli military energies have been hijacked and morale eroded as military service has become an exercise in the subjugation and policing of the lives of Palestinian civilians. For 50 years occupation policies have generated more Palestinian grievances, anger and hatred, sowing the seeds for future conflict and violence and alienating potential allies regionally and internationally.

Occupation and settlements – including the “settlement blocs” – are destroying Israel. They have hijacked Israeli politics, and undermined Israel’s own interests and values. They are pushing Israel toward becoming an international pariah and are threatening Israel’s survival as a Jewish state and a democracy. Promoting and defending the occupation and settlements has eroded Israel’s claims to military self-defense, while leaving Israel increasingly demonized, defensive, and isolated – a nation of many virtues that has come to be viewed by much of the world exclusively through the prism of the occupation.

They Say, We Say: "American Jews have no business telling Israel not to build in the settlement blocs."

They Say We Say We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.

Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"

Are settlements really a problem?

They Say:

American Jews have no business telling Israel not to build in the settlement blocs.

We Say:

The American Jewish community bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the situation today in the occupied territories. For decades, American Jews and our community leaders and organizations have made excuses for Israeli policies, including with respect to settlements, and have worked to inoculate Israel from criticism and pressure. For decades, elements within the American Jewish community have actively supported and funded settlers and settlement projects whose clear mission is to prevent a peace agreement with the Palestinians and obstruct a two-state solution.

Now, 50 years into the occupation, it is time for the U.S. Jewish community to, belatedly, start to act responsibly – before it is too late. American Jews who care about Israel must end their head-in-the-sand approach to Israeli government policies, especially with respect to settlements. Israel’s future and its position in the world are in real jeopardy today, in no small part due to a U.S. Jewish community that has overlooked, made excuses for, funded (directly and indirectly) and otherwise enabled its self-defeating, immoral pro-settlement policies. Supporting Israel today means speaking truth to our Israeli brothers and sisters and to the Israeli government, and letting them know that American Jews, like the rest of the world, cannot rationalize or accept permanent Israeli occupation, and that we won’t be taken in by alternative facts or cynical manipulations meant to convince us that settlement expansion inside or outside the “settlement blocs” is consistent with peace and the achievement of a two-state solution.

News Nosh 3.23.17

APN's daily news review from Israel
Thursday March 23, 2017
 
Quote of the day:
"The man who is unable to read an intelligence document with more than nine paragraphs is not interested in the details, in the history, in the complexity and in the drives of the region’s people. His vision is to see towers rising on both sides of the Green Line, with water fountains and marble everywhere. That’s what he’s familiar with."
--Yedioth's Washington correspondent looks at what motivates US President Donald Trump to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.*
Continue reading

Statement on David Friedman's Confirmation as Ambassador to Israel

The U.S. Senate today confirmed, by a very narrow margin, the nomination of David Friedman to be America’s ambassador to Israel. 

Americans for Peace Now (APN) strongly opposed Friedman’s confirmation and worked hard to thwart it.

Continue reading

News Nosh 3.24.17

APN's daily news review from Israel
Friday March 24, 2017
 
Quote of the day:
"If the situation were reversed and this behavior were directed at a Jewish policeman, the sanctions and the response would have been immediate." 
--An Arab-Israeli policeman expressed concern and sadness that no arrests and no condemnations were made by Police Commanders against the two Israeli Riot Police who assaulted him at a Purim party for police officers, which he attended.* 
Continue reading
1 2 3 4 56 7