Obama's Irrational Preoccupation with the Settlements

Stick to playing in your band, Asher. This shameless collection of tired untruths and misdirections is way beneath the level of other, more current hasbara efforts, whose lies are more carefully crafted than what you're peddling.

C'mon, you can do better.  

It's rare to see the recent history of the Israeli-Arab conflict summed up so succinctly. Kudos to Asher for laying it all out in plain view.

In a funny, if completely unintended way, Obama has been fantastic for Israel. By completely missing the point on the supposed peace process and alienating Israel with his demands, Obama has solidified the Israeli peoples' support for Likud and Netanyahu, who have been making the same argument for years: there is no peace partner, there is no peace process, Israel must be militarily and economically strong to withstand her enemies and to differentiate herself from the dictatorial third world countries at her borders. And, most importantly, and there is no point to conceding land that is in Jewish hands to the enemy at her gates.

The fact that a whopping 65% of the Israeli electorate supports Netanyahu means that Oslo, if it wasn't dead before, is now buried and gone. There's now hopefully an appetite in Israel for a new, post 9/11 security policy where we will hopefully annex conquered lands and convert settlers into normal citizens. Golan and Jewish sections of the West Bank should become Israel proper. Finally.

Very well written. I think the numbers--percentages of land, numbers of settlers, and approval ratings--say a lot as does the point you make about Israel's treatment by the world. You write, "Furthermore, I think one would be hard pressed to cite another example
in all of history where it was presumed that the victor would return
land that it had captured in a defensive war against the vanquished." Exactly. Why are there separate standards when it comes to Israel?

If it's any consolation, Ismail, I think you lie much better than he does.

Lie #1: "One would have to write a book to adequately address the issue of Israeli settlements, which is much more complicated than most news sources would have us believe."

Not at all. According to a bunch of fables composed by itinerant shepherds millennia ago, the West Bank is the ancestral home of the Jews and they therefore are entitled to claim it several thousand years after the fact. According to every particle of international law, on the other hand, and every intuition of modern democratic thinking-you know, those attributes that Israel is so proud to claim as its own-Israel has no right to transfer its citizens to captured land. Not complicated at all. And the business about "good" settlers and "bad" ones is entirely unresponsive and immaterial to the legal issues. If every settler were Gandhi or if every one were Hitler, it makes no difference. The illegality of one's behavior is not dependent upon the niceness of one's personality. 

Lie#2: " It is also worth noting that all settlers live on land that was captured in the '67 War, a defensive war that Israel fought for its survival and won. Against the backdrop of that war, the Arab aggression that led to it, and the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 that followed in its wake in which the Arab World established the three Nos—"no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it"—it is hard to blame Israel for allowing its citizens to settle captured land. "

First, the defensive nature of Israel's 1967 putsch is highly contested. Even Moshe Dayan acknowledged that Israel provoked the fight, at least with Syria. Second, despite Arab political intransigence, it is not "hard to blame Israel" at all. They're breaking international law. Period.

Lie #3: "...under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza settlements ..." 

Israel has blockaded Gaza, controls what goes in or out, prevents fishing, trade and the overall economic activity necessary to life-this is a withdrawal? Please.

I could go on (the "generous offer" and similar fairytales), but why bother?

The trouble with your argument, Ismail, is that Israel's borders were always undefined, thanks to the intransigence of its enemies. It was they who chose to proclaim their intention to destroy it and it was they who refused to recognise it on any basis. International law with regards to boundaries and borders of states simply does not apply when the state in question has no boundaries or borders to speak of.

It is quite reasonable to settle on land when you are under the impression that the enemy you captured it from wants to destroy you outright and will accept no other outcome. There is no possibility of a negotiation or other outcome to resolve the conflict between the parties under such circumstances. Letting the land lie fallow would be pointless.

I could go on, of course, but why bother? Fairytales are the province of the Arab nations. They have been living on them for centuries now, because they left themselves with nothing else to live for. Self-inflicted tyranny and corruption does that. 

Lastly, I should point out that Jews had their homes stolen from them by Egyptians., Jordanians and Palestinians after the 48' war--in East Jerusalem, for example, or in any another part of the country where Jews used to live. Of course, you could care less about the rights of Jews to land--only Palestinians. Nevertheless the by your logic we should kick out those Palestinian "settlers" and replace them with their rightful Jewish owners or their descendants.After all, the Egyptians/Jordanians/Palestinians had no right to this conquered land.

There is no trouble with my argument, thank you.

"International law with regards to boundaries and borders of states simply does not apply when the state in question has no boundaries or borders to speak of."

Very honest of you to tip the Zionist hand for all of us to see. Israel is beyond the law because it has no declared boundaries. And why? Because of the Arabs, of course. Amazing.

So you are saying, I assume, that Israel's removing people from land it occupied as a result of war, and replacing those with its own citizens is entirely OK, despite this practice being specifically forbidden in international law? And despite every arbiter of international law citing Israel repeatedly for just this offense?

Quite astonishing.

"Very honest of you to tip the Zionist hand for all of us to see. Israel is beyond the law because it has no declared boundaries. And why? Because of the Arabs, of course. Amazing."

Israel was quite willing to define its borders either on the 47' terms until 48', or on the 48' terms until 1967 and even beyond that point, though not at present. Presently it is willing to define its borders as encompassing some of the settlements in exchange for other land it currently had in its possession afterwards.

But the fact is that no one is or was around to accept those offers. The Arab states were too busy trying to kill Jews to accept a resolution of the conflict. 

Israel regarded much of that territory as its own for several reasons. Firstly, its citizens had previously bought a great deal of land legally prior to the wars. Secondly, land previously owned by Palestinians could not be returned to them because they were no longer in occupancy of it after the 48' wars. They fled as a result of a rumour of an Israeli expulsion, but that expulsion never even took place. That is evidenced by the fact that a very large number of Arabs stayed in Israel without disturbance. Afterwards, the  reintegration of the refugees became a political impossibility. The Jews regarded the State as a Jewish in part; the return of the refugees would destroy the Jewish character of the state and resign the country to a civil war.

Frankly the Arabs were far worse in this regard. Sorry to "tip the Arab hand" for you, but it was Arab policy to exterminate the Jews outright. The Palestinians' own sheikh--the man who led the Al-Aqsa Mosque--spent his days in Berlin during world war 2, calling for Arabs to exterminate Jews. Several pro-Nazi coups were instigated during world war 2 in Arab countries. Arab nations instigated several wars against Israel. Arab nations continued to call for the destruction of the state and the extermination of its people. And the only reason they have failed so far is because they were and are corrupt and incompetent. Thankfully there is reason to think that they will continue to be unsuccessful in the future for the same reason. 

"So you are saying, I assume, that Israel's removing people from land it occupied as a result of war, and replacing those with its own citizens is entirely OK, despite this practice being specifically forbidden in international law? And despite every arbiter of international law citing Israel repeatedly for just this offense?"

If your claims refer to the false allegations of ethnic cleansing in 1948, I should point out that those claims are propaganda. Palestinian "testimony" to the contrary cannot be regarded as reliable when it is likely to be the product of fraud or propaganda perpetrated by their leadership, or paranoia or hysteria. That is the case because it occurred in a society that lives on and is governed by paranoia, conspiracy theory and hysteria. 

To take one example, Arabs committed a foul pogrom against Jews in 1920 because some idiot imam claimed the Jews were going to desroy Al-Aqsa. The Arab population of Jerusalem participated in and tolerated the murder of Jews as a consequence. Tens of thousands of people were complicit in the murder of Jews--the same Jews who only days before  bought food in their shops and greeted them every day. And you tell me that Palestinian claims of forced removal should be regarded as credible? Palestinian politics and history has been written by a collection of village idiots.

One day the Palestinians may have the sense to do away with the unreasoning, unthinking conspiracy theories that govern their society. But until that day comes the Palestinians' "testimony" simply cannot be regarded as credible. Or would you order a commission on Israeli organ stealing? Or a commission on Israelis trying to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque, or Israelis taking over the world, or some other such nonsense?

"First, the defensive nature of Israel's 1967 putsch is highly contested. Even Moshe Dayan acknowledged that Israel provoked the fight, at least with Syria. Second, despite Arab political intransigence, it is not "hard to blame Israel" at all. They're breaking international law. Period."

Only by those whose religion dictates that Israel is, by definition, an aggressor: viz, socialists, most Arab nationalists, and Islamists.

"First, the defensive nature of Israel's 1967 putsch is highly contested. Even Moshe Dayan acknowledged that Israel provoked the fight, at least with Syria. Second, despite Arab political intransigence, it is not "hard to blame Israel" at all. They're breaking international law. Period."

Only by socialists, Arab nationalists and other idiots. Everyone else regards it as a textbook case of self-defence. I have no idea where this supposed Dayan quote comes from or what you suppose it to say, but I think it is likely to be false.

    In the aftermath of the 56 war, Eisenhower had the United States join with other nations to demand Israel withdraw from the Sinai.  Israel withdrew, but at the time received assurances that there would be freedom of passage through the Straits of Tiran and that there would be a United Nations Emergency Force placed between Israel and Egypt on Egyptian territory.  During the crisis of May 67 Nasser ordered the removal of those UN forces and declared the Straits of Tiran closed.  Whether these are considered causes for war or not from a strictly legal sense, I do not know, but it was clear to all the Great Powers that they would constitute a cause for war from a political sense.

     So the war occurred and Israel assured Jordan that it was willing to keep quiet on its border with Jordan (which at the time had controlled the West Bank).  Jordan ignored this thought and started a war on the front with Israel.  Israel fought back and gained the West Bank.

     In the aftermath of the Six Day War the United States and the Soviet Union disagreed what should be done.  The Soviet Union wanted an immediate withdrawal of Israel from all territory gained in the war and the United States was unwilling to repeat its 1957 approval of such a course of action.  So Resolution 242 was passed.  Included in it was a provision for withdrawal from territories.  The term used was "territories" rather than from "all the territories" or even "the territories".  The ambiguity of the term was intentional (on the part of the United States) and was understood to mean that there might be minor changes in the borders between Israel and its neighbors.  It was clear also that all of the territories taken in the war were referred to: not just the Sinai and the Golan, but also the West Bank.

      Whether or not this is unique in the history of the world or not, Israel's dependence on the United States makes Israel dependent on the United States's interpretation of Resolution 242.

      The offers made by Israel under the Olmert administration to exchange Israeli territory for the territory upon which the settlements are located was a very generous offer.  But there are reasons for the Palestinians to reject this offer: a real reason: the territory offered in exchange might be of inferior quality and of course an obstructionist reason: they are not interested in anything less than the borders of 67 and would prefer the state of war to continue because they feel that time is on their side.

      Whether Obama's emphasis on a settlement freeze is misplaced, I am of the opinion that for the most part the settlements are a mistake.

       The settlements turn the occupation into an illegal occupation.  Occupying territory is not in itself illegal, but moving your citizens into the territory is illegal and has been declared illegal numerous times by the United Nations Security Council including the United States (which has been Israel's financial and diplomatic patron particularly since the treaty with Egypt in 79).  To defy the United Nations and the United States in such a fashion is (to use an understatement) unwise.

        Technically Israel's changes to Jerusalem including the changes made to the Kotel and to the Jewish Quarter of the Old City are included in the above illegality.  But despite this I approve of Israel's actions vis a vis the Kotel and the Old City's Jewish Quarter.  Call me hypocritical or irrational, but the Kotel and the Jewish Quarter are different.

      (From a moral point of view Israel's offer of citizenship to the Arabs of East Jerusalem makes the situation different from the West Bank where no such offer was made.  The Arabs for the most part refused the offer because of their leaders' strategic considerations, but the offer means that there is not a two tier system as there is in the West Bank or to be specific if there is a two tier system it is "the fault" of the Arabs who refused citizenship.)

       From a strategic point of view I agree with the assessment that the settlement project was a mistake.  I think it was A.B. Yehoshua who said that if not for the settlement project Israel could occupy the West Bank for a 100 years and wait for the Arabs to come to their senses and negotiate a peace, but with the settlement project making the country in effect one country with two systems of law, puts Israel at a moral disadvantage and puts time on the side of the Arabs.

       Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was complete but its control over all the exits and access routes to Gaza means that there is still a responsibility for the situation there.  The fact that Hamas is the elected and then the winner of the coup to control the Gaza Strip certainly puts Israel in a tricky position in how to proceed.  Yet somehow there must be some way for Israel to allow some greater access of Gaza to the outer world.  This is not an easy proposition, but the current situation was what led to the war last January and some modus operandi should be found.  The militancy of Hamas and their foul charter certainly are obstacles, but there are more than a million people who live there and those people should not be dependent on the political wisdom of their leaders in order to live.  But as I said, tricky.

Because Palestinian Gazans' welfare is Hamas' welfare, and as a consequence more  access to Gaza means more access to guns, rockets and etc. for Hamas, I do not think that the world should on the whole have a greater degree of access to Gaza. The blockade saves Israeli lives.

With that said, I think it is more important for Israel to focus on a strategy to remove Hamas from power altogether. I think there are two relevant questions for the Israelis to consider. Firstly, does it need international backing to remove Hamas? Secondly, to what extent does the Israeli public itself support a military operation to remove Hamas and reoccupy Gaza?

Lastly, I think I should add that a return of Gaza to Fatah is insanity. Fatah must be removed from power just like Hamas. But that raises difficult questions regarding international pressure. Fatah are regarded as moderate internationally, and that is a problem for both Israelis and Palestinians.

A strategy of this kind must have an end goal. The Israelis must, should they reoccupy Gaza and the West Bank, re-educate the populace. Islamism and "Fatah-ism" must go out the window and the pirnicples of liberal democracy must come in their stead. Autonomy, and independence, may well follow.

Zeevico- I am guilty of wishful thinking in regards to easing the blockade of Gaza.  The greater influx of goods will increase the influx of weapons.  But there is wishful thinking in your words as well.  Israel is not prepared to reoccupy Gaza.  And although liberal democracy can be taught, the primary goal of the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank will remain independence from the Israeli occupation for the foreseeable future.  Maybe I'm too squeamish about the necessity for cruelty in accomplishing Israel's goals.  But those goals have to be realistic before I can begin to consider recalibrating my squeamishness.

You're right to say that I engaged in wishful thinking there, but even if the Palestinians do not turn to democracy they will at least be ruled by a competent government. Competent, at any rate, compared to Fatah or Hamas.

Israel already was at war with two other countries by the time conflict broke out with Syria.

Ismail's injection of the late Syrian front into this discussion as evidence that Israel's war was not defensive to begin with is the most unthinking attempt at making the Arab side look respectable. The Arab role in the Six Day War is not defensible by any standard and even Arabs today would not seek to rehabilitate that shiny turd. 

Of course, the reason they do this is because they lost and they were too unenlightened in 1967 to resist equating winning and losing with right and wrong. But they lost. And they were wrong.

"a regular citizen of any political persuasion who is motivated by economic concerns"

I'm glad Asher Weiss admits, albeit indirectly, one unique feature of Israel ~ it may be the only country in the world that will bribe civilians to live in a conflict zone, even new immigrants.

I also agree that the settlements aren't the biggest obstacle to peace.  But neither is the Palestinians' refusal to recognize Israel.  There won't be peace even if they do.

"it is hard to blame Israel for allowing its citizens to settle captured land."

Like Ismail said, it's only hard if you don't give a damn about international law.  During the first decade of the occupation, Israel told the int'l community it was applying the Geneva conventions even though transferring or facilitating the movement of civilians into occupied territory is against the 4th Geneva Convention.  Is it also hard to blame Israel for torture, arbitrary detention and imposing economic dependence on the territories?  And for that matter, not allowing Palestinians to live in Israel?

I see it's still popular to blame Arafat for the second intifada even though it started in E. Jerusalem where the PA doesn't operate.  By the way, Arafat and Barak continued negotiating until Jan. 2001, which may well mean Barak didn't even take the notion he peddled of Arafat rejecting the offer and starting a rebellion seriously.

I also don't know where you get 100% of the West Bank from Olmert when the Ha'aretz headline clearly says 93%.

"Hamas rules over all of Gaza, roughly 38% of the Palestinian population."

What???  Hate to break this to y'all, but 1.5 million is not 1/3 of 8 million.  This slip just shows that Israel apologists don't even count the refugees as part of Palestine.

"and another whose most moderate elements have principled objections to referring to Israel as a Jewish state, is not a legitimate peace partner."

Partner implies equality in a relationship.  Abbas is a full-on collaborator.  His police are armed and trained by the US and Israel.  They put down demonstrations against Israel, during cast lead for example, and arrest or fight Hamas members.  Plus, he already signed off on respecting Israel's right to exist.  This demand to recognize it as a Jewish state is just a flaming hoop.

"Partner implies equality in a relationship.  Abbas is a full-on
collaborator.  His police are armed and trained by the US and Israel. 
They put down demonstrations against Israel, during cast lead for
example, and arrest or fight Hamas members.  Plus, he already signed
off on respecting Israel's right to exist.  This demand to recognize it
as a Jewish state is just a flaming hoop."

Fatah is an armed gang whose grip on power is vulnerable. Hence their reliance on foreign support. This does not render them collaborators: quite simply, their interest is to retain power (and destroy Hamas, the rival armed gang) first, and then to expand (and destroy Israel) second.

Take a look at what Fatah media and spokespersons say about their Israeli and US 'partners', and you'll see that Fatah views Jews as subhuman and the US as Jew-land, just as Hamas does.

Fatah feels threatened by Hamas and for good reason. Many Palestinians have decided that victory lies in being more religious and that magically religion will do away with corruption and lead them to victory. Hence support for Hamas has risen and lo and behold, a civil war arises.

If and when Hamas should be destroyed, Fatah will go back to being the Palestinians'  "defender" in your eyes, rest assured--just as they did not magically turn into Zionist collaborators because Abbas wanted it so. Abbas is hardly that powerful. He'sa figurehead of a divided organisation that spends as much time killing its own members as it does Hamas.

It is quite expected and natural for Hamas and Fatah to be at one others' throats. They're rival armed gangs: it's what they do. They can hardly tolerate one anothers' existence just as they could not tolerate the existence of any other threat to their power. This is obvious.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you have embraced the pro-Hamas position and, ergo, decided that anything anti-Hamas is necessarily pro-Israel.

"I see it's still popular to blame Arafat for the second intifada even
though it started in E. Jerusalem where the PA doesn't operate."

It was Arafat who called for the intifada and it was his ministers who openly acknowledged that it was pre-planned. It doesn't take much of a genius to work out that he started something he explicitly called for, particualrly when your news organisations fit only the news Arafat deemed fit to print (viz: Jews evil, subhuman).

Also, you seriously misunderstand politics if you think that the PA has no influence outside of the areas that it does not operate.

And lastly, the PA did operate the Orient House in E. Jerusalem at the time, though that hardly amounts to de facto control of E.Jerusalem. That's more of a historical footnote or factual correction than anything else.

I mean, seriously. The Fatah central committee took as a given that the Israelis murdered Arafat. That same committee appointed Abbas. And you think they are collaborators?

You don't have to quote Bialik to be pro-Israel.  You don't even have to like Jews (say hello to Nixon or better yet, Leopold Galtieri).  Arafat, Abbas and co. doomed their faction to collaborator status by signing an agreement that legitimated the balance of power between the Israeli military and the occupied Palestinians and turned them into local police, even manning some checkpoints that were held by the IDF.  Arafat's traditional backers turned away after the Gulf war.  He wanted to be in charge of the resistance even if that meant resistance in name only.  So it is true that he needed the conflict to go on, he just didn't necessarily have to fight Israel.

Since I'm not Palestinian it's not really my business to gauge the effectiveness of Fateh without a good dose of insight.  So when they become serious at resisting Israel again I'll be the last to know.

But I think it's kind of interesting how you now take the words of a Palestinian at face value now when just above anything they say is paranoia (sheesh, how do you know the PA ministers weren't full of crap if they really claimed they began the intifada.).  And if you're going to draw conclusions based on testimony, it has to be researched a bit more vigorously than a few sentences.  For example, a cross-section of the West Bank and Gaza population would have to be surveyed before you can reasonably conclude they would've been content with the Oslo process had Arafat not demonized Israel and Jews.  Scholars like Efraim Karsh and Dershowitz haven't done this so I'm very underwhelmed by their explaining a social phoenomena as one man's puppet act.  Especially when the first intifada began without the PLO leadership which had to interject itself.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/1FFAE064-4230-41EA-A6A7-50EF5760556D/0/AdHocLiaisonJune2009.pdf

Since 2008, there has been increased coordination between the IDF and the PSF. Israel has adopted a series of steps intended to improve the security capacity of the PSF, however this is a gradual process.

Joint coordination efforts have included: meetings, application of a more lenient policy regarding PSF coordination requests, and establishment of a real-time coordination mechanism and a joint direct 24/7 hotline.

"But I think it's kind of interesting how you now take the words of a Palestinian at face value now when just above anything they say is paranoia (sheesh, how do you know the PA ministers weren't full of crap if they really claimed they began the intifada.)."

Yeah, point taken on that. But there's still, you know, Arafat going on the radio and calling for a million martyrs to head on over to Jerusalem. Which happened, 'coincidentally', as the intifada began. I don't think he suggested they go out for a friendly barbecue and a night out on the town either. And then he released Hamas prisoners. 

"Arafat, Abbas and co. doomed their faction to collaborator status by signing an agreement that legitimated the balance of power between the Israeli military and the occupied Palestinians and turned them into local police, even manning some checkpoints that were held by the IDF.  "

You mean that agreement they ignored whenever inconvenient? The one that gave them de facto control over the West Bank and Gaza and some money to go along with it? And all they had to do was sign a peace of paper?

Arafat and co.'s plan was to destroy Israel and do it for free, with Israel's help. It still is. If it wasn't, you'd find Fatah members lynched on lamp posts. The premise of Fatah's existence is to destroy Israel. Its entire political structure is set up so as to preclude any sort of change in this fundamental policy--much as the Soviet Union, for example, was an inherently expansionist country as a result of its social and political structure.

It's no secret that Fatah today cooperates with Israel. Why shouldn't they for goodness sake? It's common sense for them. They have a common enemy in Hamas. This is simply a case of Hamas growing too big for Fatah's comfort.