Are Settlements the Major Obstacle to Peace?
Mahmoud Abbas is searching for an honorable way to climb down the tree. He is hoping that the US Administration or the Quartet will provide him with the needed ladder. The major obstacle to peace is the increasing radicalization of the Arab and Islamic masses and the continuing demonization of Jews. As far as many Arabs and Muslims are concerned, Israel is one big settlement that needs to be removed.
The Palestinian Authority is demanding that the UN Security Council condemn Israel for building in the settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods.
In a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the Palestinian Authority said that Israeli settlements were "illegal" and "destructive" to the peace process.
The letter was sent to Ban Ki-moon ahead of a meeting of representatives of the Quartet - the US, EU, UN and Russia - in New York to discuss ways of reviving the stalled peace process.
The Palestinian Authority, in its letter, also urged the Quartet to exert pressure on Israel to stop activities in the settlements or face being held fully responsible for "derailing" the peace process.
For the past two decades, the Palestinian Authority had been negotiating with Israel while construction in the settlements was continuing.
The construction did not seem to bother Yasser Arafat, who continued to hold peace talks with Israel even while the bulldozers were working in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
Arafat never demanded a full cessation of settlement activities as a pre-condition for pursuing the peace talks with Israel.
Abbas and his negotiators sat at the negotiating table with Israel even after they had threatened that the peace process would end if Israel built the new Har Homa neighborhood in east Jerusalem.
True, the Palestinian Authority under Arafat did sometimes voice opposition to Israel's policy of settlement construction. But that did not prompt them to boycott the peace talks.
Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, also did not seem to have a problem with the settlements during the first few years of his term in office.
Abbas continued to talk to representatives of the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert while settlements were being expanded and new housing units were being built in east Jerusalem.
Abbas cannot say that he was unaware of the construction, especially in light of the fact that from his office and home in Ramallah he could see the new houses in nearby settlements.
The issue of the settlements became a "major obstacle to peace" only when US President Barack Obama one day demanded that Israel freeze all settlement activities. Obama's demand embarrassed the Palestinian Authority, whose leaders rushed to endorse the call.
The Palestinian Authority leadership even took a step further by announcing that it would not return to the negotiating table unless Israel halted all settlement activities.
But then one morning President Obama abandoned the demand, leaving Abbas alone on a high tree. Now Abbas is searching for an honorable way to climb down the tree. He is hoping that the US Administration or the Quartet will provide him with the needed ladder.
But the real question that needs to be raised these days is whether settlements are the major obstacle to peace?
Abbas knows that the future of the settlements will be determined only through direct negotiations with Israel. He also knows that some of the settlements will stay in their place even after the signing of a final and comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians.
In 2005, Israel destroyed more than 20 settlements and evicted 8,000 Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip. The move did not leave an impression on the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, especially those affiliated with Hamas and radical groups in the Gaza Strip.
Hamas and its allies misinterpreted the disengagement from the Gaza Strip as a sign of weakness, not a goodwill gesture on the part of Israel.
Even if Israel tomorrow dismantled 90% of the settlements in the West Bank, who said that the Palestinians will take to the streets to sing the Israeli national anthem?
Settlements may be a problem, but they are certainly not the major obstacle to the peace process.
There are, meanwhile, many other major obstacles to peace. These include the rise of Islamists to power in the Arab world, the ongoing power struggle between Fatah and Hamas and the reality that the Gaza Strip has been turned into a center for global jihad and a front for Iran's extremist rulers.
The major obstacle to peace is the increasing radicalization of the Arab and Islamic masses and the continuing demonization of Jews. As far as many Arabs and Muslims are concerned, Israel is one big settlement that needs to be removed.
Another major obstacle to peace can be found in the irony that Abbas does not seem to have a mandate from his people to make any concessions to Israel. A president who cannot even visit his private residence in the Gaza Strip will never be able to deliver anything on any front.
Reader comments on this item
|Peace in the Middle East [74 words]||Leon Kushner||Apr 19, 2012 13:03|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.