Israel-Palestine: will there *ever* be a solution?

[Winner]

This chap doesn't think so (not surprising for a hardline Jewish settler in the West Bank). What's more interesting about his argument is that he favours a continuation of the status quo (= "occupation" in the anti-Israeli dictionary) and claims that pretty much everybody in the region has resigned themselves to that outcome. This means that the Palestinian Authority will remain basically a client state/colony of Israel forever.

Israel’s Settlers Are Here to Stay

By DANI DAYAN
Maale Shomron, West Bank

WHATEVER word you use to describe Israel’s 1967 acquisition of Judea and Samaria — commonly referred to as the West Bank in these pages — will not change the historical facts. Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is therefore unassailable. Giving up this land in the name of a hallowed two-state solution would mean rewarding those who’ve historically sought to destroy Israel, a manifestly immoral outcome.

Of course, just because a policy is morally justified doesn’t mean it’s wise. However, our four-decade-long settlement endeavor is both. The insertion of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan would be a recipe for disaster.

The influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere would convert the new state into a hotbed of extremism. And any peace agreement would collapse the moment Hamas inevitably took power by ballot or by gun. Israel would then be forced to recapture the area, only to find a much larger Arab population living there.

Moreover, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution. The American government and its European allies should abandon this failed formula once and for all and accept that the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere.

On the contrary, we aim to expand the existing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and create new ones. This is not — as it is often portrayed — a theological adventure but is rather a combination of inalienable rights and realpolitik.

Even now, and despite the severe constraints imposed by international pressure, more than 350,000 Israelis live in Judea and Samaria. With an annual growth rate of 5 percent, we can expect to reach 400,000 by 2014 — and that excludes the almost 200,000 Israelis living in Jerusalem’s newer neighborhoods. Taking Jerusalem into account, about 1 in every 10 Israeli Jews resides beyond the 1967 border. Approximately 160,000 Jews live in communities outside the settlement blocs that proponents of the two-state solution believe could be easily incorporated into Israel. But uprooting them would be exponentially more difficult than the evacuation of the Gaza Strip’s 8,000 settlers in 2005.

The attempts by members of the Israeli left to induce Israelis to abandon their homes in Judea and Samaria by offering them monetary compensation are pathetic. This checkbook policy has failed in the past, as it will in the future. In the areas targeted for evacuation most of us are ideologically motivated and do not live here for economic reasons. Property prices in the area are steep and settlers who want to relocate could sell their property on the free market. But they do not.

Our presence in all of Judea and Samaria — not just in the so-called settlement blocs — is an irreversible fact. Trying to stop settlement expansion is futile, and neglecting this fact in diplomatic talks will not change the reality on the ground; it only makes the negotiations more likely to fail.

Given the irreversibility of the huge Israeli civilian presence in Judea and Samaria and continuing Palestinian rejectionism, Western governments must reassess their approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They should acknowledge that no final-status solution is imminent. And consequently, instead of lamenting that the status quo is not sustainable, the international community should work together with the parties to improve it where possible and make it more viable.

Today, security — the ultimate precondition for everything — prevails. Neither Jews nor Palestinians are threatened by en masse eviction; the economies are thriving; a new Palestinian city, Rawabi, is being built north of Ramallah; Jewish communities are growing; checkpoints are being removed; and tourists of all nationalities are again visiting Bethlehem and Shiloh.

While the status quo is not anyone’s ideal, it is immeasurably better than any other feasible alternative. And there is room for improvement. Checkpoints are a necessity only if terror exists; otherwise, there should be full freedom of movement. And the fact that the great-grandchildren of the original Palestinian refugees still live in squalid camps after 64 years is a disgrace that should be corrected by improving their living conditions.

Yossi Beilin, a left-wing former Israeli minister, wrote a telling article a few months ago. A veteran American diplomat touring the area had told Mr. Beilin he’d left frightened because he found everyone — Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — content with the current situation. Mr. Beilin finds this widespread satisfaction disturbing, too.

I think it is wonderful news. If the international community relinquished its vain attempts to attain the unattainable two-state solution, and replaced them with intense efforts to improve and maintain the current reality on the ground, it would be even better. The settlements of Judea and Samaria are not the problem — they are part of the solution.

Dani Dayan is the chairman of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria.

Link

Do you think this is realistic? If not, what outcome do you think is the *most* realistic?

 

[Arwon]

How convenient that the things which suit this dude just fine are the things which are not only eternally durable but all-round positive things for everyone!

 

[Winner]

How convenient that the things which suit this dude just fine are the things which are not only eternally durable but all-round positive things for everyone!

He's what he is. Let's not debate that, but the questions I've put forward.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Do you only want to talk about whether it's realistic, or can I comment on the rationalisations towards his pre-intended conclusions he puts forward?

 

[Winner]

Do you only want to talk about whether it's realistic, or can I comment on the rationalisations towards his pre-intended conclusions he puts forward?

Within reason (it's obvious that his logic is, how to put it, somewhat lacking in the "common sense" department). But the first part is more important to me.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Do you think this is realistic? If not, what outcome do you think is the *most* realistic?

Settlement as a means of suppressing continuous warfare in my experience, is costly and inefficient, with the noted downside that when you decide an area is not worth policing, you still have to defend unpleasant settlements from continuous warfare that you don't want anymore.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Within reason (it's obvious that his logic is, how to put it, somewhat lacking in the "common sense" department).

I'll just be short then. "rewarding those who aimed to destroy Israel" is nonsense. Then there are a boatload of assumptions which aren't supported but all are used to support his later conclusions.

But the first part is more important to me.

Ok, there's the case of cause and effect. He talks about how the checkpoints will disappear once the terrorism disappears. While just the fact of the checkpoints being there fuels the incentive towards terrorism. Whenever you restrict people, they'll push back. Always. So will he opt to remove the checkpoints? Of course not! First terrorism must end. And will terrorism end? Of course not! First the checkpoints have got to go.

I can see why there are a lot of people who love to glorify the current situation. Indeed, the settlers living on land they have no business living on (which he poorly justifies in the start of the article), those in Israel, Palestine, Jordan, etc who are exploiting the conflict and deriving power from it would indeed love to see the current situation continue. Concessions should only be made by other people.

So to your question, what outcome seems most realistic. I indeed don't see anyone who got to power on the back of the conflict have a change of heart. I don't see anyone giving in an inch out of fear to look 'weak' in a political environment where weakness is political suicide. If this only applied to one side, then getting rid of the violence while maintaining the status quo might be possible. The thing he overlooks is there are people who do not benefit from the status quo. Who suffer terribly from it. And they are the ones he wishes to do the compromising, while doing none of his own.

All rationalised in a thin veneer of self-serving botty-water.

 

[Bakspatel]

I don't see a solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict to come. Ever.
Setting aside that both parties have done a lot of unjustifiable things you cannot say that Israel is taking serious effort in establishing peace in the region. The very strict control over the Gaza, constant settlements in Palestine area, the construction of an iron curtain. Israel has been getting away with a lot of things a lot of times, and it doesn't look like it'll end anytime soon. Historical claims are nonsense: those people live there, its barbaric to claim their land and force the people out. How would you feel if a bulldozer pulverizes your home and to see that people who claim that its their land start settling there? No one would agree with that, and you'll have an increased chance for the recruitment of new terrorist that will aim to kill innocent Israeli's which gives Israel a new reason for a suppressing method.

The only way I think a solution is possible is when Europe and the USA put some real pressure on Israel and threaten to stop financial support if they don't put some serious effort in the peace negotiations. Whenever they like it or not, the only way to end the circle of violence is when they accept that the Palestine are part of the area which they have to share with them. But that is unlikely to ever happen.

 

[Dachs]

Settlement as a means of suppressing continuous warfare in my experience, is costly and inefficient, with the noted downside that when you decide an area is not worth policing, you still have to defend unpleasant settlements from continuous warfare that you don't want anymore.

Yes, surprisingly, the settlers don't tend to defend themselves. One wonders why they would be settled there in the first place if they can't even do that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, surprisingly, the settlers don't tend to defend themselves. One wonders why they would be settled there in the first place if they can't even do that.

Because they're spongers.

 

[Tee Kay]

edit: deleted. maybe I'll come back when I'm not so tired and malfunctioning and actually have a good post.

 

[Absolution]

The only solution is an agreement to found the Palestinian state on the territories they hold now. And then, we'll see about it's future.
As for now, Israel can not allow itself to give away more territories to uncertain hands.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

See? As I said.

The only solution is for them to compromise their position while we do ef all.

 

[wapamingo]

There is a solution, but not a solution that is amicable to all parties.

Israel will continue to settle and settle making any future shift in map impossible due to the logistical/humanitarian difficulty in attempting to resettle, plus who would financially compensate these people for their property? Palestinians dont have the money. So, the more Israelis are there the harder it is to ask for this land in any negotiation.

Israelis (the government) are smart, very smart, and this guy (article author) is right.

A 3 state solution is already a reality. Nothing will change from how things are progressing, there will be no more camp david talks, it is what it is. There will never be a peaceful solution other than what the Israelis dictate.

 

[ParkCungHee]

There is a solution, but not a solution that is amicable to all parties.

Israel will continue to settle and settle making any future shift in map impossible due to the logistical/humanitarian difficulty in attempting to resettle, plus who would financially compensate these people for their property? Palestinians dont have the money. So, the more Israelis are there the harder it is to ask for this land in any negotiation.

Israelis (the government) are smart, very smart, and this guy (article author) is right.

A 3 state solution is already a reality. Nothing will change from how things are progressing, there will be no more camp david talks, it is what it is. There will never be a peaceful solution other than what the Israelis dictate.

I disagree. I don't see Israels position as tenable in the long term.
If they had the capacity to enforce their will entirely on the Palestinians, they would have done it a long time ago.

As the OP says, these settlements are not constructed for economic, but for ideological purposes. That means that they're going to need support to remain viable. Israel is going to eventually have to come to the peace table, because these policies are going to leave it a failed state.

 

[wapamingo]

Why would israel want to exert control over all of palestine/palestinians? They gave up on that when they gave them gaza and west bank. They know they cannot exert control over them and they never could, hence their solution of isolating them behind a wall and have war like crossing checks.

Israel will never be a failed state, not for as long as there is westernr guiilt and there is a strong expat community

 

[ParkCungHee]

Why would israel want to exert control over all of palestine/palestinians?

To stop terrorism, obviously.

They gave up on that when they gave them gaza and west bank. They know they cannot exert control over them and they never could, hence their solution of isolating them behind a wall and have war like crossing checks.

Yes, exactly. And this situation is untenable, and the settlement solution doubly so. It requires the Israeli government to indebt itself to people it doesn't want to, and strains it's finances in a way that it cannot afford in all circumstances.

 

[Absolution]

While just the fact of the checkpoints being there fuels the incentive towards terrorism. Whenever you restrict people, they'll push back.
It is probably similiar to saying that diminishing your army during a war will make your enemy step towards negotiations.

The checkpoints were built because the terrorism was uncontrollable.
Therefore, as I said, first we'll have to see if they can really run their small state properly, and then we'll be able to grant them some favors, like removing parts of the wall and things like that.
The barrier only reduces terrorism. Not increasing it. Which means that we are stepping in the right direction.

 

[classical_hero]

Eventually there will be a solution to the problem but it will be a great cost that it gets done.

 

[Janig]

I recently read about an event called The Holocaust where countless Jews were persecuted. Israeli people now pride themselves in their military, and I imagine they appreciate the opportunity to test their military might. The Israel-Palestine conflict is about as close to a progressive war as I can imagine. The Gaza strip is beautiful in comparison to parts of Syria.