Why Not Let the Settlers Stay in Palestine?
yosi
Posts: 3,038
Thought this was interesting:
Why Not Let the Settlers Stay in Palestine?
It could create a viable Palestinian state. But will the parties go for it?
By Yair Rosenberg | February 7, 2014
A funny thing happened last week in Israel: both the Israeli right and left managed to agree on something with regard to the peace process. First, an official in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office told the Times of Israel that in the event of a peace deal with the Palestinians, “settlers [should] be given the free choice of remaining in place and living under Palestinian rule.” Then, just a few days later, famed Israeli author and left-wing peace activist A.B. Yehoshua suggested the exact same thing to the media: “The fear of evacuating settlements is preventing peace. Maybe, just as we have an Arab minority within our midst, they [settlers] can remain as a Jewish minority among the Arabs. They can become Palestinian citizens if they do not want to evacuate.” (To get a sense of the vast political divide between Yehoshua and Netanyahu, Yehoshua offered this proposition while advocating a cultural boycott of the settlement of Ariel.)
When both sides of the Israeli political spectrum come to the same conclusion, they’re probably on to something. In this case, they may have just discovered the key to creating a viable Palestinian state. If Israel simply cedes some settler areas to the Palestinian Authority, it becomes much easier to fill in the territorial gaps necessary for a contiguous Palestinian state. Moreover, such a move sidesteps the problem of trying to evacuate certain smaller, more radical settlements whose inhabitants would resist any attempt to relocate them–religious people who feel more connection to the land of Israel than its government. Allowing them to stay put is thus preferable for all concerned. (At the same time, those settlers who don’t like the idea of being governed by Palestinians will have a strong incentive to leave for Israel of their own accord, obviating the need to forcibly remove them.)
Of course, as with anything connected to Israel-Palestine, this plan is not without detractors. Jewish Home party chairman Naftali Bennett, who strenuously opposes the two-state solution, tore into Prime Minister Netanyahu for floating the possibility, perhaps realizing that it offered the most realistic path to the peace agreement he disdains. (That said, in an interview several weeks ago, Bennett’s deputy Ayelet Shaked had voiced her support for having settlers remain in Palestine, demonstrating that the idea appeals even to Israel’s hard-right.) More consequentially, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has rejected Netanyahu’s proposal outright, saying, “No settler will be permitted to stay in a Palestinian state, not one, because the settlements are illegal and the presence of settlers on occupied lands is illegal.”
But it’s unclear just how seriously this claim should be taken. After all, both parties have staked out hardline starting positions on everything from Jerusalem to the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and all are expected to compromise on these issues in the context of an agreement–and have done so in previous negotiations. And in fact, leaked reports from the current talks suggest that allowing settlers to live under Palestinian sovereignty is on the table.
In this context, it’s important to realize that we are talking about a fraction of a fraction of Palestine. Erekat himself has pointed out in the past that settlements have been built on just 1.1 percent of the West Bank, as evidenced in satellite images taken by the European Union. Given that most of the settler population within this small slice will be transferred to Israel through land swaps, the actual amount of settler land and population that Palestine might be expected to absorb is truly miniscule.
If Palestinian negotiators can bring themselves to make that small compromise, under the prodding of Secretary of State John Kerry, both Israel and the Palestinians will have moved one step closer to a viable peace agreement.
Why Not Let the Settlers Stay in Palestine?
It could create a viable Palestinian state. But will the parties go for it?
By Yair Rosenberg | February 7, 2014
A funny thing happened last week in Israel: both the Israeli right and left managed to agree on something with regard to the peace process. First, an official in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office told the Times of Israel that in the event of a peace deal with the Palestinians, “settlers [should] be given the free choice of remaining in place and living under Palestinian rule.” Then, just a few days later, famed Israeli author and left-wing peace activist A.B. Yehoshua suggested the exact same thing to the media: “The fear of evacuating settlements is preventing peace. Maybe, just as we have an Arab minority within our midst, they [settlers] can remain as a Jewish minority among the Arabs. They can become Palestinian citizens if they do not want to evacuate.” (To get a sense of the vast political divide between Yehoshua and Netanyahu, Yehoshua offered this proposition while advocating a cultural boycott of the settlement of Ariel.)
When both sides of the Israeli political spectrum come to the same conclusion, they’re probably on to something. In this case, they may have just discovered the key to creating a viable Palestinian state. If Israel simply cedes some settler areas to the Palestinian Authority, it becomes much easier to fill in the territorial gaps necessary for a contiguous Palestinian state. Moreover, such a move sidesteps the problem of trying to evacuate certain smaller, more radical settlements whose inhabitants would resist any attempt to relocate them–religious people who feel more connection to the land of Israel than its government. Allowing them to stay put is thus preferable for all concerned. (At the same time, those settlers who don’t like the idea of being governed by Palestinians will have a strong incentive to leave for Israel of their own accord, obviating the need to forcibly remove them.)
Of course, as with anything connected to Israel-Palestine, this plan is not without detractors. Jewish Home party chairman Naftali Bennett, who strenuously opposes the two-state solution, tore into Prime Minister Netanyahu for floating the possibility, perhaps realizing that it offered the most realistic path to the peace agreement he disdains. (That said, in an interview several weeks ago, Bennett’s deputy Ayelet Shaked had voiced her support for having settlers remain in Palestine, demonstrating that the idea appeals even to Israel’s hard-right.) More consequentially, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has rejected Netanyahu’s proposal outright, saying, “No settler will be permitted to stay in a Palestinian state, not one, because the settlements are illegal and the presence of settlers on occupied lands is illegal.”
But it’s unclear just how seriously this claim should be taken. After all, both parties have staked out hardline starting positions on everything from Jerusalem to the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and all are expected to compromise on these issues in the context of an agreement–and have done so in previous negotiations. And in fact, leaked reports from the current talks suggest that allowing settlers to live under Palestinian sovereignty is on the table.
In this context, it’s important to realize that we are talking about a fraction of a fraction of Palestine. Erekat himself has pointed out in the past that settlements have been built on just 1.1 percent of the West Bank, as evidenced in satellite images taken by the European Union. Given that most of the settler population within this small slice will be transferred to Israel through land swaps, the actual amount of settler land and population that Palestine might be expected to absorb is truly miniscule.
If Palestinian negotiators can bring themselves to make that small compromise, under the prodding of Secretary of State John Kerry, both Israel and the Palestinians will have moved one step closer to a viable peace agreement.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
0
Comments
the settlers are hardliners. it will never, ever work.
who is being naive now, kay?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
As for the small minority of settlers who truly are hardliners, I think they would likely have to be forcibly evacuated - my guess is that they're more attached to their fetishized biblical Israel than they are to the the state of Israel, and would refuse to leave. At the same time I can't see the Palestinians accepting these people as citizens because these are simply not people that are desirable as citizens - they have no respect for the rule of law when they're living under Israeli rule; they certainly wouldn't respect Palestinian rule any more. On the other hand, it's at least conceivable that these people are just sane enough to understand that a Palestinian government would not respond to their provocations with the kid-gloves that the Israelis use with them, and would moderate their behavior accordingly.j
To your first point, I'm a pragmatist; we should certainly strive for justice, but I have no patience for people who essentially argue that we should always and forever seek perfect justice even when the perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm not saying that what this article suggests will work, but if such a proposal really would make a peace deal more attainable then I think it should be pursued even if it means swallowing a certain amount of injustice.
Why not just fall in with the rest of the World instead, and accept U.N 242 - a Resolution supported by every nation on the planet, barring Israel and the U.S? It wouldn't be that difficult to remove the fanatical settlers. If the Israeli army really are incapable of removing these people, then just cut off their funding, and water supply, and then wait a while.
Then, once that's been achieved, a U.N peacekeeping force could maybe be deployed along the 1967 border, and Israel could agree to recognize a Palestinian state, and agree to put an end to violence. Something akin to what's been done in Cyprus between the Greeks and Turks.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."