Israel/Palestine: the settlements are unsustainable, and Netanyahu knows it
Posted on Wednesday 17 March, 2010
Filed Under Israel
ISRAEL’S announcement of plans for 1,600 new settler housing units in illegally occupied Palestinian territory has triggered both stern condemnation from Washington and rioting on the streets of East Jerusalem. And just to highlight their heartfelt regret over these adverse reactions, the Israeli authorities have today confirmed their desire to build 300 more.
It is difficult to interpret such intractable obstinacy as anything other than deliberate provocation, and not just in respect of the timing. As Netanyahu is well aware, substantial withdrawal is the sine qua non for the two-state policy increasingly pressed on his government by the rest of the world.
Yet his evident determination to scupper this outcome is so deep that he is willing quite literally to try and build his way out of his impasse. Not only can he not be allowed to succeed; he cannot succeed, even within his own terms.
Netanyahu’s hardline position puts him directly at odds with majority opinion in his own country. Most Israelis do not regard preservation of settlements in Palestinian territory as a fundamental objective of the state, and do not believe that the interests of settlers take priority over those of the population in general.
Still the administration pushes on with colonisation, either oblivious to – or more likely perfectly conscious of – the consequences. But in either eventuality, it is equally culpable. Yet in the long run, the economic, demographic, diplomatic and political realities that will ultimately culminate in the establishment of a Palestinian state render the practice unsustainable.
The argument is sometimes advanced that any Israeli government calling for the abandonment of even a single settlement would run the risk of civil war. It is indeed the case that some isolated communities are home to potentially terrorist elements inspired by the ideas of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.
But these groups lack sufficient wider support to mobilise mass backing for any resistance to an order to withdraw. There is also the precedent of Yamit, an Israeli-built town in northeast Sinai, which was evacuated in 1982 under the terms of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.
Ultimately the settlements are an obstacle in the way of a settlement, and that is why the construction work – tellingly, employing mostly Palestinian labour – is being stepped up. But they are not enough of an obstacle to do anything more than delay the inevitable cave in to reality.
<<Go back
Comments
70 Responses to “Israel/Palestine: the settlements are unsustainable, and Netanyahu knows it”
Leave a Reply
PS: Thanks for the link to the Foot article, good to see what he said.
Shame that Paul can’t even get his own father’s title correct.
It was not Lord Caradon, but Baron Caradon, holder of the Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Order of the British Empire, Privy Councillor.
I wonder if his grasp of these complex issues is equally as faulty?
Richard Harris is happy to quote the poll of Israeli kids in high school but naturally doesn’t mention polls in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc etc etc. which indicate that nearly 100% (or, in the case of Jordan, actually 100%) have negative opinions of Jews (not to mention they don’t allow jews into the country, or citizenship, or ability to own property, etc etc.) Harris is obviously another graduate of the David Irving School of Fact-presenting, where you cherry pick facts to support your predetermined ideological position and ignore any other facts that contradict it. Nice work, Richard.
Videchaye “just doesn’t get it!” as an American feminist would screech.
Israelis are seen by many educated Westerners as civilised people who are letting the side down.
Their neighbours, and the Turks as well, are judged – by the same people – by totally different standards.
Human rights abuses in Egypt and Syria and Turkey? Yeah, right. What else would you expect?
Check out the US State Department reports or what Human Rights Watch has to say about Israel and also about Israel’s neighbours.
“doesn’t mention polls in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc etc etc. which indicate that nearly 100% (or, in the case of Jordan, actually 100%) have negative opinions of Jews”
Can you give references for these polls then? I would certainly be astonished if that was the case in Turkey, for example.
Shame that Paul can’t even get his own father’s title correct.
It was not Lord Caradon, but Baron Caradon, holder of the Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Order of the British Empire, Privy Councillor.
A stupid point and wrong to boot:
the Baroness Thatcher, a suo jure life peeress, may be referred to as either “Baroness Thatcher” or “Lady Thatcher”. “Baroness” is incorrect for female holders of Scottish Lordships of Parliament, who are not Baronesses; for example, the 21st Lady Saltoun is known as “Lady Saltoun”, not “Baroness Saltoun”.
A peer is referred to by his peerage even if it is the same as his surname, thus the Baron Owen is “Lord Owen” not “Lord David Owen”, though such incorrect forms are commonly used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage
Baron
Lord of Parliament (The Rt Hon) The Lord London My Lord or
Dear Lord London My Lord or
Your Lordship or
Lord London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_Address_in_the_United_Kingdom
One substantive point here is that it has been a right-wing Israeli invention that because the resolution refers to “the territories” rather than “all the teritories” it justifies them staying in some of the West Bank, in fact the opposite is true ,the intention was to avoid endorsing the land-grabs the Israelis had made previously.
Most Israelis do not regard preservation of settlements in Palestinian territory as a fundamental objective of the state, and do not believe that the interests of settlers take priority over those of the population in general.
Statements like that should always be preceded by “according to” so as to point to a source and any underlying assumptions. What does “most Israelis” actually mean? In opinion polls in the mainstream Israeli media and commissioned by the government, it usually means Israeli Jews or at least, people entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return. Polls that unusually involve Arab opinion are including 22% of the population that most mainstream polls exclude. There have been polls in Israel that show that most Israeli Jews do not see Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory so I don’t know where David Osler gets his notion that where the Israeli majority stands on what it sees as occupied Palestinian territory has any bearing on construction (and ethnic cleansing) in Jerusalem.
Also, if Mr Osler troubled to read Ha’aretz, he would see that America had already agreed to Israel building in Jerusalem. It was the timing of the announcement that was at issue.
I have noticed on this site a tendency to gloss over certain facts and even to distort them in favour of what the writer desperately wants to make out is an acceptable brand of zionism than it is neither racist nor expansionist. He has to jump through quite a lot of hoops to do this and he is doing it now with his unreferenced reference to “most Israelis” without saying who he means, what they mean, and where he got his information from.
Mark Elf has spotted that humans are selective about the stuff they spout to score a point.
True enough, Mark.
This may interest some here. This woman’s father was in charge of pre-1967 terrorist operations from Gaza into Israel:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9646.shtml
I suppose if Elf wants to criticise Dave asking “where he got his information from.” then Elf might equally want to provide evidence which refutes Dave’s arguments.
If, of course, Elf has any?
The discourse-narrative about Israel-Palestine is quite sane and courteous compared with the masochistic self-flagellation Australians enjoy so much:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/23/australia-aborigines-race-issues-film
I want to thank Mark Elf for his excellent site and for allowing me to discover the wonderful Lawrence of Cyberia site.
Here is a link from that site, which shows an image that always gives me great satisfaction,
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2010/03/quote-of-the-week-karl-deutsch.html
Also, if I was in any doubt that Modernity is a little Zionist tosser (and between us I didn’t really have any) I have none now.
It’s noticeable how many of these supposed “anti-Zionists” are marvellous when it comes to are invective and insults, but pretty useless when it comes to facts and reasoned arguments.
Of course, if you choose to believe the worst of people without reason or facts then you’re in the territory of the Far Right and where prejudice is uppermost.
If, however, you consider yourself a socialist then it’s probably not the territory that you should be venturing into…unless you wish to eventually become a bigot.
I have asked David Osler for his sources. I have also asked him before now how he can claim that zionism is not racism on the basis of his reading of one book, Der Judenstaat. I have also asked him how he can say that Der Judenstaat is not racist when its author says that a Jewish state could form a “rampart of Europe against Asia: of civilisation against barbarism”. He hasn’t so far replied.
I am not going to take up time finding sources for my assertions in comments when the author of a post is not held to the same standard.
David Osler has indicated that he didn’t know that the US, that is Obama, has already permitted the continued colonisation of Jerusalem. He has also implied that most Israelis want Israel out of east Jerusalem. It is for him to justify his position. The onus isn’t on me to find sources to refute the assertions of someone who provides no sources for assertions he cannot have investigated single-handedly.
Modernity – if you want a serious invective-free discussion here, stay out of it. That will help. Ok, one last contribution from you please. Ask David Osler for his sources. He doesn’t reply to a seeker after truth like me; perhaps he’ll answer to your voice of intellectual authority.
“I am not going to take up time finding sources for my assertions in comments “
Exactly, your points are mere assertion, not evidence based reasoning, thus not of much use.
Plus, if *you* can’t be troubled to engage with Dave’s arguments and counter them with evidence not assertions then *why* should he take the time and effort on your points, if you are not going to on his?
Moddy, you are simply and dishonestly trying to waste my time by holding me to a higher standard than you would hold David Osler to.
Following the logic of Mr Osler’s post, he doesn’t know that Obama had already ok’d Israeli settlement construction in east Jerusalem and that most Israeli Jews do not consider east Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory. Why should a commenter on a post be held to a higher standard on this than the poster of the post?
What I would like David Osler to do is to cite his source for the idea that most Israelis don’t want settlements built in east Jerusalem and the idea that Obama’s objection to the announcement of settlement construction in east Jerusalem is more to do with the construction than with the announcement. Failing that, he might consider admitting that he has missed something here.
Ok ok, since it’s so recent and there’s not much time involved, I will provide two links for what David Osler and you (Moddy) must have known already, that the yanks approved the settlement construction that David Osler is claiming or at least implying they don’t approve of.
Here – http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155895.html
and here – http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155646.html
The first link has the giveaway headline, “U.S. gave Israel green light for East Jerusalem construction”. David Osler seems not to know that.
Now we know that the Americans don’t disapprove of the settlement construction, just the “insulting” timing of the announcement, perhaps David Osler could provide some evidence for his assertion that most Israelis don’t want settlements constructed in east Jerusalem.
Thank you
oi! I’m getting soft. I am only submitting this link to an Israeli poll because I stumbled on it whilst looking for something else.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3457830,00.html
Check out the headline – Poll: 37% of Israelis willing to cede sovereignty in Jerusalem’s holy sites
Wowee! considerably less than half of Israelis polled think it’s ok for Palestinians to run their own mosques and churches. But what’s this?
The poll was back in 2007 when the moderate Kadima was in power. Since then Israel has elected a government led by Likud governing with support from parties to the right of itself.
Over to David Osler to back up his claims.
Do us a favour now Moddy. Could you butt out to allow for a serious discussion?
Thanks
“moderate Kadima” should have been “”moderate” Kadima”.
While I’m correcting, I’ll resubmit the links that I posted in the last two comments.
These two deal with the Americans’ pre-approval of settlement construction in east Jerusalem
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155895.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155646.html
I’m worried that my comment containing those two links has been lost in moderation.
This one deals with an Israeli poll in which 68% support the retention of east Jerusalem:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3457830,00.html
All three are an over-indulgent response to this dishonest and time-wasting “challenge” from “Modernity”
Mark
My source is Bernard Wasserstein’s 2003 book, ‘Israel and Palestine’. Your opinion poll evidence, being more recent, trumps the claim. But opinion polls are notoriously volatile, of course.
on March 21st, 2010 at 10:55
Mark
My source is Bernard Wasserstein’s 2003 book, ‘Israel and Palestine’. Your opinion poll evidence, being more recent, trumps the claim. But opinion polls are notoriously volatile, of course.
Thanks for responding but volatility doesn’t usually explain away a 68% majority especially when we consider who most Israeli Jews vote for in the genuine polls for who governs. Rabin was elected on a platform to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank but this was after a virulently racist campaign showing a maternity ward with a heartbeat soundtrack emphasising that with occupied territory comes a “demographic” threat. Subsequently, Barak was ditched after claiming falsely that he had offered the Palestinians a state on 90% of the West Bank. He seems to have been dumped for his perceived generosity.
I don’t think there is anything to support the idea that by adding American disapproval of the timing of an announcement of construction in occupied east Jerusalem to the number of Israeli Jews who are opposed to the construction you get an unsustainable project.
Netanyahu’s noisy Likudnik chauvinism could have harmed the project, but the project itself wasn’t problematic for the American administration or for the majority of Israeli Jews.
While you’re on Dave, can you explain the moderation on this site? Some comments of mine seem to go straight through while earlier ones “await moderation”.
Ta
Mark
Two links and you’re out, Mark. Anti-spam precaution.