Israel: The Settlement Problem — Is It Still A Problem, And, If So, Is It Really “The” Problem In The Middle East?
Israel: The Settlement Problem — Is It Still A Problem, And, If So, Is It Really “The” Problem In The Middle East?
By
Ken Eliasberg
Tying up some allegedly loose ends re the Arab/Israeli situation, let’s take a look at the concerns raised by Mr. Bayer in his August 6, 2009 piece entitled A New Look At Israel, in which Bayer takes Israel to task for its treatment of the “settlement” problem. In this regard, it is a shame that Bayer failed to take a new look at the problem he himself raised. If he had done so, or even just waited a bit in view of the evolving developments in the area, he may have discovered that the alleged problem had ceased to be a problem (at least for the moment). Why is that the case? Because, as I noted last week, Netanyahu, almost immediately on taking office, had given instructions, via his Housing and Construction Minister, Ariel Attias, to bar Jews from building in the disputed territory (i.e. portions of the West Bank, a.k.a. Judea and Samaria). His doing so, in advance of negotiations with Obama and/or his Middle East representatives, and thus failing to secure any quid pro quo from the U.S. for this act of unilateral surrender, incurred the displeasure of many Israelis - again, see, e.g. an excellent column by Caroline Glick at Jewish World Review on August 21. 2009 entitled Et tu, Netanyahu. In the column, Ms. Glick, an authority on the area and a superb columnist, takes Netanyahu to task for this unnecessary act of pre-emptive generosity.
In fairness to Bayer, there does not appear to be a great deal of publicity re Netanyahu’s decision to halt “settlement” development. Nonetheless a bit of restraint might have leant a measure of objectivity to his appraisal of the situation, i.e. at least dispelled a hint of bias. However, I want to make it clear that my difficulties with Bayer have nothing to do with whether Glick is correct or not. Indeed, I hope that she is mistaken and that Netanyahu has made no concession whatsoever on the settlement issue. Why do I feel this way? Because I believe that any concession on the West Bank settlements would be detrimental to Israel’s national security, and not in the best interests of American foreign policy. Moreover, if Obama tries to blame Israel’s recalcitrance on this point for his failure to stop Iran from achieving a nuclear capacity, it would only demonstrate that his leadership in the foreign policy area is as bankrupt as it is on domestic policy (not that we need a further demonstration of his ineptitude in this arena). No my problem with Bayer relates to his judgment and his apparent predisposition to find Israel to blame for the current stalemate in the Middle East.
That said, let’s look at the “settlement” problem on Bayer’s terms — i.e. let’s assume that it has remained a problem, and that Israel, at the risk of incurring Obama’s displeasure (as well as that of Bayer), was continuing to expand on its West Bank accommodations for Jews already “settled” in the area. People may differ on Israel’s right to do so, but I would respectfully disagree. Israel, for any number of reasons, has, in my opinion, every right to make additional room for those Jews already “settled” in the area (and, for that matter, for other Jews who wish to live there). Let’s take a closer look atthe “settlement” problem, and see how it came to be.
On Israel’s coming into existence in 1948, this area — which we shall hereafter refer to as the West Bank — was awarded to the Arab State that was to be created in accordance with the terms of the U.N.’s original partition plan for the area. Likewise, Gaza was also originally assigned by the U.N. to the proposed Arab State. It was eventually given to Egypt by the Israelis as a result of the armistice following the 1948 war (in which Egypt had invaded the area), with the West Bank going to Jordan as a result of that war. It is important to make 2 observations in connection with this original arrangement: (1) Israel accepted the partition terms (the original plan for a 2-state solution) offered by the U.N.; the Arabs did not (and have not ever since), and (2) during the entire period preceding the 6-day (1967) war, no mention was made by the Arabs of a separate Palestinian State, i.e. the Arabs in the designated areas appeared to be quite content to remain under the charge of Jordan, on the one hand, (the West Bank) — at least until they took up residence in Jordan (from which they were expelled after precipitating Black September) — and Egypt, on the other (Gaza). It was only after Israel took possession of these territories, as a consequence of the 6-day war, that the matter of a Palestinian State emerged as an issue for the Arabs. And, as previously noted, at no point during the 6-decade period following Israel’s creation have the “Palestinians” or their Arab supporters in adjacent States been willing to acknowledge Israel as a separate and legitimate State.
An introductory observation re Israel’s historical interest in this area is worthy of note (if only to frame any discussion of the West Bank), and that relates to Israel’s historical presence in the area, and the area’s importance to Jews all over the world. Jews were in the area now known as the West Bank a thousand years before the birth of Christ, and more than 1,500 years before the berth of Muhammad. Passover (one of the holy days for Jews) prayers end with the statement “next year in Jerusalem” — a testament that, in its way, laments the diaspora and expresses the thought or the hope of how it might end, i.e. with Jews having a homeland in which they might feel safe and secure and with Jerusalem as its capitol.
Another preliminary point that should be acknowledged if we are to look at the situation with any measure of objectivity, let alone fairness, is the fact that over 1 million Arabs are “settled” in Israel, where they are accorded full citizenship, and where they enjoy a higher standard of living than any other Arabs in the Middle East (other than your oil potentates, of course). This, in sharp contrast to the rights and privileges accorded Christians, let alone Jews, in Arab countries in the Middle East. The Jews in residence in 9 Arab countries in 1948 numbered over 800,000; they now number approximately 8,500 (almost all of the 800,000 Jewish refugees have been absorbed and assimilated by Israel without the need for outside institutional help or refugee camps — while a smaller number (i.e. those originally departing Israel during the 1948 war) of Arab refugees have languished in refugee camps for 60 years, doing nothing more productive than sucking up the world’s money while reproducing like rabbits, all the while blaming their lamentable circumstances on the Jews).
Christians have also been departing Arab shores in significant numbers, with their over all population being dramatically reduced in these countries. Why are they leaving? Because, in most instances, they are either entirely unwelcome or reduced to second-hand citizen status.Their safety cannot be assured, and with their status diminished, why would they stay? Yet shouldn’t these groups be allowed to “settle” in Arab countries? That is, if Muslims are welcome in Christian and Jewish lands, why should Christians and Jews not be accorded similar concessions in Arab lands? Could it possibly be due to the fact that Islam is not as tolerant as other religions? To ask the question is to answer it.
In addition, this is land that Israel captured in a war that it did not initiate. Now, how many countries do you know that have returned conquered territory, particularly in situations in which they did not initiate the war resulting in the conquest, and particularly where the lands in question are necessary to the conquering country’s national security? I suspect around zero. But Israel has always been willing to trade land for peace when they had reasonable assurances that the Arab country with whom they were dealing would honor the arrangement in question. Thus, after the Yom Kippur war (1973), when Israel had faith in Anwar Sadat, it entered into a peace treaty (one that has endured for some 40 years) with Egypt to return the Sinai desert (captured in the earlier 6-day war) — an area 3 X the size of Israel itself and possessed of oil riches (which Israel itself does not possess) — to Egypt. While a sign of Israel’s good will and the importance it attaches to peace, unfortunately, it did not go well for poor Sadat; he was assassinated by some of those frisky “freedom fighters” that the left keeps labeling the people who we used to call terrorists.
The bottom line here — at least for me — is quite simply this: Any serious student of the Middle East over the last 60 years, who is not a confirmed anti-Semite, will have little trouble in ascertaining that the Arabs don’t want peace with Israel; they just don’t want Israel. The settlements, like the “refugees” and like the “security fence” and like every other issue raised by the Arabs is completely bogus. No matter what concessions Israel makes, it will never be enough. That said, they will get what they want with respect to the “settlements.” Indeed, as I noted above they have already gotten it, and if Bayer had been more restrained in his zeal to condemn Israel - i.e. had allowed his judgment to override his bias - he might have ascertained that that was the case. As it were, he exercised neither diligence nor restraint; he merely jumped on the Anti-Israel bandwagon.
Also, lest there be any doubt re the resilience of the respective parties on the subject of negotiations, recent pronouncements coming out of the area should dispel them. Netanyahu, in one of his most recent statements, concedes — with conditions - the creation of a Palestinian State. Those conditions relate to Israel’s legitimate national security concerns. On the other hand, the recent Fatah General Conference affirmed that body’s continuing refusal to recognize Israel as a separate State. Bear in mind that Fatah is supposed to be the more reliable partner for peace in the area (Hamas being even more intractable on the subject of recognizing Israel). How do you reconcile these differences? You don’t, and you won’t!
The problem in the Middle East — at least that portion of it pertaining to Israeli-Palestinian relations — has never been about Israel’s refusal to recognize a Palestinian State. Quite to the contrary, the problem has always been about Arab/Palestinian refusal to recognize the State of Israel. Israel has leaned over backwards in its effort to engage the Palestinians in a meaningful effort to bring peace to that troubled area, and, on each and every occasion, they have been met with terror, hatred, and bloodshed. The Arabs will never accept Israel, will dishonor any agreement into which they enter with Israel (as they have every one in the past), and will not rest until there is no Israel. And Obama seems to be supporting them in that effort.
That being the case, I am not optimistic about Israel’s future. I believe that there is a good chance that all of these anti-Semites will get what they want — Israel’s demise. And this will not be the result of a military defeat; as Toynbee posits, great societies do not die via homicide — they commit suicide, i.e. they die from within. In Israel’s case, I see the threat from 3 sources: (1) Israel’s left-wing, which is more suicidally stupid than the left-wing in this country (although it should be noted that Obama, by throwing Israel under the bus, has produced a degree of solidarity in Israel that I have never seen (he has united almost 95% of Israelis behind either opposition to him or distrust of his intentions with respect to the security of Israel); (2) the 20% of Israelis who are Arab and, I strongly suspect, are almost all more loyal to Islam than they are to Israel and who, as a result, will serve as an active “fifth column” in the event of open Arab-Israeli hostilities; and, finally (3) the bigotry of posturing know-nothings like Shaffer and Bayer who labor to paint a picture of Israel as the real villain in the Middle East (and, as a consequence, for America’s travails in that region), and thereby lend support to a growing anti-Semitism in this country. And Israel very much relies on America, not just for monetary assistance, but, even more important, for America’s influence on world opinion. I hope that I am wrong, for America’s sake as well as that of Israel’s because I believe that our fates are inextricably tied together. That said, thanks to people like Shaffer and Bayer, I fear the worst re Israel’s long-term survival prospects.