I recently renewed contact with a secular friend from Tel Aviv on Facebook. He asked if we’re ever in Tel Aviv so our families can meet each other. I said we’re not there often, and at the moment don’t all fit into our 5-seater sedan to drive there (despite Banana’s helpful suggestion that we strap Bill’s carseat to the roof of the car). I asked him, in turn, whether he and his family would come to see us in Efrat, and he responded that they couldn’t, that it’s Palestine, and that he would have to bring a passport. He followed it up with a little lopsided smiley-face (colon-close parenthesis).
But still.
I know the settlements are a popular whipping-boy these days. There are those who like to say that they are the chief object that stands between humanity and Middle East peace. They like to say that settlements are a shameless land grab on the part of the Israelis in an effort to deny the Palestinians their rightful land for their rightful (and as yet imaginary) state. There is even a European who works with the Arabs in “Palestine” who encourages Israel to continue building the settlements so they’ll have something substantial to give up on the day when the Arabs finally pull their finger out and decide to concede Israel’s right to exist.
But I’d like to point out a few things about settlements for those who may not have thought the issue through very carefully.
First of all, settlements didn’t exist in British Mandatory Palestine. There were Jews and Arabs dotted all over the landscape. There were times and places where they got along and even went into business together, and there were times when they did not, when the Arabs became violent and slaughtered Jews under the unconcerned nose of the British.
Settlements were also a non-issue in 1948 and 1967 when surrounding Arab nations decided to gang up on Israel in the hope of taking the rest of the land, something they (except for Egypt and Jordan, in popularly unsupported peace treaties with Israel) never gave up on to this day.
Settlements only became an issue when the Jews had control of land lost by Arabs in their desperate bid to destroy the Jewish State. This was a “humiliation” for the Arabs, a major loss of face, and their further attempts to topple Israel from the outside (the Yom Kippur War) and the inside (two terror wars, popularly known as “intifadas”) show their insistence on getting what they imagine is theirs back.
But it’s not theirs. Not anymore. The Bible says it’s ours. The archeological evidence of Jewish life everywhere say it’s ours. The British Mandate said it’s ours. Our presence here for thousands of years says it’s ours. And our win—and their loss—say it’s ours.
This is not to say that there aren’t some Israelis interested in a two-state solution. But this does not involve restoring a sovereign nation to its land; it’s giving a gift of land to a people to whom it doesn’t currently belong. It’s not the right of aggressors who lose to have land held for them in escrow indefinitely. If anything, the settlements should be seen as an incentive for the Arabs to come to the peace table. The longer they wait, the more we’ll build in the settlements. They are not a bargaining chip; they are a ticking clock. And if the Arabs choose to dally instead of make peace with us, eventually there should be no land left for them, and they should consider going elsewhere to establish their national home.
Contrary to the way the West chooses to view Arabs, they are grown-ups, they are smart, and they are capable of seeing that their choices come with consequences. To behave toward them as though they are tantrumming toddlers, possessed of limited faculties, is patronizing. They are like anyone else; they respond to incentives. If you make clear to them that they stand to gain if they act in their own interests now, you may be more successful than if you coddle and do their bargaining for them, scold and humiliate the Israelis, and do everything else possible to maintain political and diplomatic instability in the region.
Settlements are not the issue, and never have been. As Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon said in a recent interview, “In Judea and Samaria, if you are talking about peace, there is enough place for Jews and Arabs. If you are talking about war, it is more complicated. How much open space do you have in Judea and Samaria? Quite a bit. What percentage of the territory do the Jews control? Five percent. That is what everything hinges on?” In Ya’alon’s view, even in the eventuality of a land gift to the Arabs, not one settlement should be uprooted: “I don’t even want to talk about territorial withdrawals in an age in which the withdrawal from Lebanon strengthened Hizbullah, and the withdrawal from Gaza strengthened Hamas to the point where we have the second Islamic republic in the Middle East – the first in Iran, and the second in Gaza: Hamastan. That is opposed to our strategic interest, and to the strategic interests of the west.”
It’s time to stop perseverating on settlements and start perseverating on what is REALLY the issue: peace.
Shimshonit 
“To behave toward them as though they are tantrumming toddlers, possessed of limited faculties, is patronizing. They are like anyone else; they respond to incentives.” — Indeed. Rabbi Kahane used to say that he alone was the non-racist, because when the Arabs made a threat to commit terrorism, he actually took their word for it, and unlike the left, didn’t try to tell them that they didn’t understand their own words.
This is an excellent post, and I don’t have anything to add, except one excellent point made by my brother, which I will expand a bit (the gist of what I’m about to say was said by him, but I’m greatly expanding it):
Imagine France and Germany were today having a border dispute, or the United States and Canada, etc. With any of these two nations, the borders wouldn’t actually affect any citizens or inhabitants except for the address to mail their taxes. Physically, no facts on the ground would change. But with Israel, things are different. Oh, make no mistake, if Israel conquered a piece of Jordan or Egypt, no facts would change on the ground either; you’d just have Egyptian or Jordanian Arabs paying their taxes to Jerusalem instead of to Amman or Cairo. But somehow, everyone knows that if the border with Israel changes to create a new nation of Palestine, in that case, facts on the ground will most assuredly change. Everyone accepts that Arabs can live in Israel with no problem, but somehow, no one realizes that it says something that no Jews can live in Palestine. If Israel’s eastern border moved further east, then it’d simply mean that some Arabs would happen to find themselves in Israel, and while their political affiliation would change, their physical lives would barely be affected at all. But if Israel’s eastern border moves west, then Jews will have to pack up and leave. Isn’t that peculiar?
Michael: Thanks for your comment.
Bogie mentions the issue of judenrein Palestine but the presence of Arabs in Israel at the same time. It’s always seemed rather, hmmm, inequitable to me too.
1) When the partition plan that allowed the creation of a state “Israel” was made, there was a majority of arabs and a minority of jews in palestine.
2) The partition plan the UN voted in November 1947 to allow the creation of jewish state is a perfect example of “Jerrymandering” i.e. drawing completely illogic and arbitrary borders so that one group that is really a minority should get a majority.
3) The jerrymandering partition plan voted in November 1947 by the UN foresaw the creation of two states: one state with an artificial jewish majority (thanks to creative border-drawing) and an arab minority of around 40% and one with an arab majority of more than 90%
4) The arab state was never created to this day.
5) The jews could have called their state “jewish palestine” (as opposed to “arab palestine” for the arab state). However, they decided to drop any reference to “palestine” and called their state “Israel”. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate that the arabs use the name “Palestine” for the state they want to create.
6) The creation of a jewish state Israel was possible thanks to this partition plan voted in 1947 by the UN. Therefore, it is not opportune for Israel to refute this partition plan.
7) In the war of 1948 Israel annected large parts of the territories that should have belonged to the arab state according to the partition plan. No-one now mentions giving back those territories.
8) In 1967, Israel occupied the remaining parts of what should have been the arab state according to the UN partition plan.
9) They thought it was opportune to create settlements in those territories. Land under military authority was given to civilians for settlement. However, it remained in the possession of the military authority and could be taken back at any moment.
10) I personnally think it is a bad deal to build a house on a land that can be taken away from you any moment.
11) I think it is cynic that Israel uses their own civilians (who agree to settle in occupied territories) as a bargaining chip for negotiations. Imagine the outcry if negotiations succeed and the land is taken away under the houses of the settlers. So far, each time this happened, the settlers cried out, organised demonstrations, refused to leave and had to be taken out by military force. However, they knew what the deal was right from the beginning…
12) So if you want my 2 cents: it’s just a bad idea to buy a house in the territories, even if it seems cheaper than somewhere else.
1) When the partition plan that allowed the creation of a state “Israel” was made, there was a majority of arabs and a minority of jews in palestine.
Yes.
2) The partition plan the UN voted in November 1947 to allow the creation of jewish state is a perfect example of “Jerrymandering” i.e. drawing completely illogic and arbitrary borders so that one group that is really a minority should get a majority.
Agreed. The patchwork plan was utterly ridiculous. But the Jews, in the interest of keeping the peace and getting something—ANYTHING—in the end agreed. Jerrymandering also describes the way the entire Middle East was carved up after World War I in the Sykes-Picot agreement. But I’m sure you know that already.
3) The jerrymandering partition plan voted in November 1947 by the UN foresaw the creation of two states: one state with an artificial jewish majority (thanks to creative border-drawing) and an arab minority of around 40% and one with an arab majority of more than 90%
Yeah. So?
4) The arab state was never created to this day.
No, but 22 others were. And the Arabs would have had their state if they’d not been so bent on denying the Jews THEIRS. Or if they could add “yes” to their lexicon when offered a generous deal by one of the several Israeli prime ministers who made such offers. But the state the Arabs REALLY want includes Tel Aviv, so there is nothing further to discuss at the negotiating table.
5) The jews could have called their state “jewish palestine” (as opposed to “arab palestine” for the arab state). However, they decided to drop any reference to “palestine” and called their state “Israel”. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate that the arabs use the name “Palestine” for the state they want to create.
Who cares what they want to call their as yet imaginary state?
6) The creation of a jewish state Israel was possible thanks to this partition plan voted in 1947 by the UN. Therefore, it is not opportune for Israel to refute this partition plan.
I’m not sure when you stopped reading your history books, but Israel didn’t refuse the partition plan. And as for Israel being created by a vote in the UN, I beg to differ. Israel exists because it has successfully fought off the Arabs bent on its destruction and the annihilation of the Jewish people for 62 years. Vote, shmote.
7) In the war of 1948 Israel annected large parts of the territories that should have belonged to the arab state according to the partition plan. No-one now mentions giving back those territories.
Right. Because the Arabs also took land that the Jews had been promised, and because it’s irrelevant.
8) In 1967, Israel occupied the remaining parts of what should have been the arab state according to the UN partition plan.
Damn straight. And we had it coming.
9) They thought it was opportune to create settlements in those territories. Land under military authority was given to civilians for settlement. However, it remained in the possession of the military authority and could be taken back at any moment.
All completely legally, I would add.
10) I personnally think it is a bad deal to build a house on a land that can be taken away from you any moment.
Then don’t buy a house here.
11) I think it is cynic that Israel uses their own civilians (who agree to settle in occupied territories) as a bargaining chip for negotiations. Imagine the outcry if negotiations succeed and the land is taken away under the houses of the settlers. So far, each time this happened, the settlers cried out, organised demonstrations, refused to leave and had to be taken out by military force. However, they knew what the deal was right from the beginning…
And I think it’s cynical to use your own civilians as human shields when firing rockets across the border at other civilians. And to keep your population impoverished and living in “refugee camps” (which over time have morphed into villages) when they could be living in a state of their own. And to refuse to enter into lucrative economic partnerships with your enemy who is trying to help you, because you’d rather see his head on a stick than live side by side in peace. And instead of building a state when you’re given a gift of land, to use it as a launching pad for a terror war against civilians, and instead of using the billions of dollars donated by the West for the development of said state, to use them instead to stockpile weapons. Israel has made a series of painful concessions (which you so eloquently describe), and the Arabs have done nothing. (But start wars, of course.)
12) So if you want my 2 cents: it’s just a bad idea to buy a house in the territories, even if it seems cheaper than somewhere else.
See #10.
In sum, the Arabs and their crybaby friends in the West can whine all they want about Israel and what it’s done over the years. No one is screaming for your blood or denying your right to exist. Frankly, if the world had shown before 1948 that it was capable of treating Jews like human beings and equal citizens, I probably wouldn’t be such a fervent Zionist. But it can’t, and therefore I am.
“And as for Israel being created by a vote in the UN, I beg to differ…Vote, shmote.”
“The arab state was never created to this day. No, but 22 others were.”
Well, if you do not recognise the role of the UN in the creation of Israel and advocate ethnic cleansing (removing arabs from Palestine to “one of the 22 arab states”), I do not think that there is any basis for discussion…
PS: If you want to live where you are, as a minority in an arab state, this is completely fine with me.
IAN: If the Arabs can’t bring themselves to accept an offer of a state, I don’t see any other choice for them but to move somewhere else–other than to destroy Israel, which is part of every Arab’s charter (except Jordan’s and Egypt’s, and those have no popular support). Is that your suggestion too?
And if expulsion of Arabs from Israel is considered “ethnic cleansing,” then why isn’t expulsion of Jews from an Arab state considered the same thing? Buzzwords aside, if the Arabs get to kick out all the Jews from their state, it’s only fair and consistent to kick out all of Israel’s Arabs too.
And if you think the Arabs are such deserving and wonderful people, why should I have anything to fear living as a minority in their state? Or have you actually read something to the contrary?
The UN is a talking head agency. It makes lots of pronouncements, but rarely has the will or manpower to implement them. What did the UN do to enforce its vote to create Israel when the Arabs attacked? Nothing. They popped popcorn and sat down to watch the show. The Israelis are ultimately responsible for their state, not the UN.
So if you think there’s no basis for discussion, why do you keep coming back for more?