Construction in Har Homa
Photo: AFP
Settlements: An obstacle to peace?
Arabs were fighting Israel, rejecting peace long before settlements were built
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was just back in the Middle East for a fresh round of talks and trilateral meetings between Israelis and Palestinians to help cement an Israeli-Palestinian agreement before the end of 2008 as President Bush has outlined.
While Rice certainly understands what is going on, she has made mistakes in the past by pressuring Israel to make concessions that were not only non-beneficial but also completely detrimental to Israel's security. This week, Secretary Rice commented that, "I am very concerned that at a time when we need to build confidence between the parties, the continued building and settlement activity has the potential to harm the negotiations going forward."
While Secretary Rice made these comments partially to satisfy the Palestinians and partially because she really believes that settlement construction is a problem, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said, "The settlements are the main obstacle in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians." This comment needs clarification.
Israel's detractors often argue that Jewish settlements in the West Bank obstruct the peace process and cause unnecessary tension.
It is crucial to understand the background of the Arab-Israeli conflict to understand why settlements are not and cannot be an impediment to peace and is simply an excuse used by the Palestinians and their apologists.
In 1937, the Peel Commission was sent to Palestine to explore the reasons behind the Arab riots, which broke out in 1936. After hearing the argument from both sides, it was determined that a partition plan was necessary and the Commission introduced such a plan. While the Jews debated this plan, the Arabs rejected it outright. As a result, as early as 1937, the Arabs rejected a state of their own. There were no settlements then.
Two years later, in 1939, the British White Paper outlined another partition plan and again the Arabs rejected it.
Israeli peace moves rejected
In 1947, the UN drew up a partition plan, which the Jews accepted, resulting in the new State of Israel. The Arabs rejected the plan and immediately launched a multi-pronged attack on the new state.Between 1948 and 1967, the West Bank and Gaza were in Jordanian and Egyptian hands respectively. The Arabs continued to fight, rejecting Israeli peace overtures. There were no settlements in existence.
In 1964, the PLO was established with the sole purpose of destroying Israel. This came at a time when there were no settlements and Israel was actively pursuing a peaceful end to Arab hostilities.
In 1979, when Egypt wisely decided to make peace with Israel, the Palestinians were offered autonomy, which may eventually have led to their own independence. This, too, was rejected. Furthermore, the Israeli settlement Yamit located in the Sinai, was evacuated as a result of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty - not as a prerequisite to peace negotiations.
The 1993 Oslo accords created a historic opportunity for the Palestinians to achieve full independence. Again they rejected peace and an independent state along with it.
In 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered an unprecedented peace deal that would have dismantled almost every settlement but again, the Palestinians rejected peace.
With this in mind, it is difficult to see how the settlements were an obstacle to peace in a period when no settlements were in existence or when Israel made clear it was prepared to dismantle most of the settlements in exchange for peace.
Before she forces Israel into another unfavorable situation, Secretary Rice should think about the outcome of the 2006 elections in Gaza or her insistence that Israel leave the Philadelphi corridor. The results should expectantly awaken her to the reality that more is at stake here than her own legacy.
Israel Kasnett is an MA student of Government specializing in Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at the IDC Herzliya
