Blessing Jewish Settlements

Why do many Jewish people insist on continuing to build homes in the West Bank, which Israel was left in control of after the 1967 war?

Because the Bible so instructs them.

On the sabbath this week, Jews read in synagogue the following:

Widen the place of your tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of your habitations, do not spare; lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes.

For right and left shall you prevail, and your seed shall inherit nations and repeople desolate cities. (Isaiah 54:2-3)

Yet, Israel last November announced a complete freeze on building in Jewish communities in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Not even construction to accommodate natural growth is allowed. And who says Israel refuses to make painful concessions to its enemies?

It is also remarkable that the current Israeli government, to its credit, is turning scripture into policy by announcing a new initiative, described recently in the Jerusalem Post, to offer incentives to Israeli "yordim" who've left the country to live elsewhere to get them to return home.

They say Jewish settlements are an impediment to peace. Actually, active settlement expansion can help achieve peace sooner by showing Israel's enemies that time is not on their side -- that their only hope of halting Jewish expansion is to return to peace talks sincerely ready to compromise.

US Double-Standard Hits Home

Why is it that Israel must not build new apartments for Jewish residents of its capital city, while Palestinians not only are allowed to but praised for building an entire new city in the disputed West Bank?

President Obama, in November, said Israel's construction of 900 new apartments in a Jewish section of East Jerusalem -- annexed by Israel as part of its capital city after the 1967 war -- could invite Palestinian violence. He said the new housing risked "embittering Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous."

Meantime, Palestinians are being praised for building 6,300 housing units in an entirely new city dubbed Rawabi, five miles north of Ramallah, on the West Bank, whose final status is still subject to negotiations. The city eventually will have schools, a hotel, a shopping center, health clinics, and up to 40,000 residents. Palestinian and Israeli officials, and foreign investors, among them Jews, maintain the city is critical to nurturing a Palestinian middle-class, which probably will be important to weening Palestinians away from violence and toward co-existence.

But why cannot Israel build on land it acquired in a defense war? Why the double-standard allowing only Palestinians to build, in areas not yet legally theirs? The European Union, Americans, United Nations, and others who have challenged the legality and propriety of Israeli construction ought to be held to account for their biased opposition.

Fearing Negotiations, Palestinians Add a Precondition

Palestinian leaders are afraid to restart peace negotiations with Israel because they want to avoid being pressured to make concessions to Israel. That's mainly why Israel agreed to a 10-month settlement construction freeze -- because it called the Palestinians' bluff and knew they wouldn't reciprocate anyhow.

Now that Netanyahu has taken steps like the freeze, eased travel restrictions on goods and people in the West Bank, and accepted in principle a two-state solution, to avoid negotiations Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is adding new preconditions to renewed peace talks. In a speech to the PLO Central Committee in Ramallah -- which is meeting to extend Abbas's term in office rather than hold elections in the West Bank and Gaza, where Hamas is in control and could poll well -- Abbas now says that Israel's agreeing to specific borders beforehand is a precondition of renewed negotiations, whereas before he only called for a settlement freeze.

This is obstructionism and the world community -- and especially the Obama Administration -- should call him out on it and insist that the Palestinians relent and reciproate Israel's goodwill. If they refuse, the world community ought to withhold from the Palestinian Authority legitimacy and financial support.

White House Wrong on Israeli Housing Construction

The municipal government of Jerusalem this week approved the construction of 900 new apartments in the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo. After the 1967 war in which Arab states tried again to eliminate Israel, Israel was left in control of all of Jerusalem, including the area where Gilo now sits. (Note: The Washington Post misleadingly called the apartments “homes,” which conjures up an image of a huge swath of land dotted with 900 single-family houses and white picket fences when, in fact, the Gilo construction is much more limited in its footprint.)

Unfortunate for the Arabs, they tried to defeat Israel by war and lost. Usually, to the victor go the spoils, but not, it seems, when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. Instead, Israel is expected to give away its hard-won assets for empty promises and, if it’s lucky, cold peace.

Also unfortunate for the Arabs, the Israelis now have a government that understands the illogic of this approach and has no intention of yielding, to them or to the White House, the Jewish state’s right to build apartments for Jews on land on which Jewish blood was lost while defending the state.

In the history of time, no authority over Jerusalem has ever guaranteed religious access as much as Israel has - a fact that objective observers cannot deny. Sure, once in a while, intelligence of planned unrest forces security closures. But there is no doubting that Arab authorities enjoy and exercise wide latitude in managing sites important to the Muslim faith. (In fact, unchecked Arab construction on the Temple Mount which threatens sensitive antiquities there suggests Arab authorities enjoy too much autonomy, but that’s a subject for a future article.)

The point is: sharing control over Jerusalem with the Arabs is unnecessary. They have 22 of their own Arab countries, including control of religious sites Mecca and Medina. Mentioned only as the “remote place” in their Koran, Jerusalem is of low religious significance, and Arab demands to control at least part of the city are baseless and unreasonable. The United States should join Israel in continuing to resist such demands in perpetuity.

Instead, Barak Obama’s White House has it all wrong. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the Jerusalem municipality’s decision to build in Gilo: “At a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations [between Israel and the Palestinians], these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed.”

Israel’s actions make it “more difficult” because the White House allows them to, by giving Palestinians cover for refusing to negotiate.

Instead, Gibbs ought to have said: “Israel has announced plans to build new housing for Jews in Gilo in order to accommodate the natural growth of families who, understandably, need more space to live. Israel won the land in Gilo in a defensive war and, obviously, as a consequence, has an absolute right to build there….”

Gibbs would continue: “If the Arabs aspire to control parts of Jerusalem, they had better get their act together soon before their hoped-for piece of the pie shrinks any further. The Palestinians ought to come to the table, in good faith, ready to make substantive concessions to Israel in order to forge a lasting peace. Maybe then, Israel will voluntarily curtail construction. The Palestinians shouldn’t miss another opportunity.”

Israeli settlement and other housing construction for Jews is only a “problem” for the so-called “peace process” because the Arabs and this White House make it so. The fact of the matter is that robust Israeli construction, 1) demonstrates to the Palestinians that time is not on their side and 2) would hasten the pace of, and not obstruct, negotiations toward a final peace settlement if that really were the Palestinians’ ultimate goal.

Update: Defending Nadav Tamir

Well, recalled Israeli Consul to Boston Nadav Tamir had his proverbial day in court today with the Director-General of Israel's Foreign Minister, Yossi Gal.

Gal reportedly told Tamir essentially what we argued yesterday -- that Tamir's criticisms, even if warranted, should have been passed to Jerusalem through proper channels.

Tamir will keep his job. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman will keep whatever goodwill he may have had with the Foreign Ministry's staff. Imagine the internal backlash he would have had to endure had he fired Tamir.

Tamir's apology for his lapse in judgment and his impending return to Boston will, effectively, close this matter, but the underlying public debate Tamir raised about whether it is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's, and not US President Obama's, policies that are causing friction in US-Israel relations will continue to fester.

Obviously, we see Obama's hasty and ill-advised shift of attention to Israeli settlements and general misunderstanding of the intransigence and deep-seeded hostility of Israel's enemies as the cause of the downward spiral in US-Israel relations. Israel -- and, in particular, Netanyahu, who delivered a speech embracing qualified Palestinian statehood and continues to negotiate in good faith with US envoy George Mitchell over settlements -- ought to bear no responsibility for the tensions.

Media Faults Obama on Israel Policy

Voices criticizing President Obama's policy toward Israel are increasing. Anyone interested in developments in US-Israel relations and the Israel-Palestinian issue must drop everything and read the following three referenced items:

On July 30, the Washington Post published an outstanding editorial arguing Obama's very public anti-settlement stance and general hostility toward Israel may backfire.

This followed an equally stellar piece in the Jerusalem Post by Isi Leibler calling on American Jews who voted for Obama to cash in their chits and demand a more understandable approach to Israel from the White House. (They should also, by the way, beg forgiveness from us American Jews who knew better and voted McCain.) Among Leibler's points: none other than the Zionist Organization of America was excluded from a White House meeting about Israel between Obama and American Jewish groups at which the ZOA's defense of Jewish housing in Jerusalem and the West Bank could otherwise have been heard. Shamefully, no other group reportedly presented such a perspective.

Finally, the Australian reminded anyone who needed to be reminded -- which excludes the MiddleEastContrarian -- that reformed Palestinian leadership "mature enough" to confront terrorism -- and not Jewish settlements -- is the key to Israel-Palestinian peace.

Obama/Biden: Right Turn on Israel

After blowing way out of proportion U.S. opposition to Israeli settlements policy and redirecting world attention from Palestinian reform efforts, where it ought to be, the White House is now starting to head in the right direction on Israel.

Over the weekend, Vice President Biden said Israel has a "sovereign right" to decide for itself whether a military strike on facilities associated with Iran's nuclear weapons program is in its national security interests.

Israel “can determine for itself as a sovereign nation what is in its best interest,” Biden said. "If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice."

Later, asked to respond to Biden's comments, President Obama, while traveling abroad, insisted the U.S. had "absolutely not" given Israel the proverbial "green light" to attack Israel but that "We can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are."

It is important that the U.S. continue to publicly recognize Israel's prerogative to determine for itself what, if any, actions are necessary to ensure its security and to assist Israel in any way possible to help provide security.

Not an Encouraging Start

Ok, here is my letter to President Obama advising that all this high-level attention to Israeli settlement policy is a very, very bad idea:

June 3, 2009

Hon. Barak Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President:

Regarding your initial forays into Middle East peace-making, predominant attention to Israeli settlement policy is ill-advised and will prove counter-productive.

As demonstrated in Gaza, dismantling settlements or otherwise curtailing settlement activity is ineffective in assuaging Palestinian demands or encouraging Palestinians to compromise. Refocusing attention on Israel and settlements signals to Palestinians that the need for Palestinian reforms is less urgent. Though you may continue to highlight the need for such reforms, putting settlements first gives Palestinians an excuse to delay any actions of their own. Indeed, as Palestinian President Abbas recently told the Washington Post, he will not intervene with Arab leaders to encourage relations with Israel.

The Bush Administration was mistaken in taking a perceived quick path to victory in Iraq – that is, the military ouster of Iraq’s leadership – rather than the slower path of nurturing political change from within Iraq. Similarly, the longer but surely more effective way to reach a secure and lasting peace between Israel and Palestinians is to increase, not lessen, pressure on Palestinians for accountability, transparency, and counter-terrorism. Unfortunately, only after years of stagnation, and in the face of continued advancement and progress elsewhere in the world, will increasing numbers of Palestinians demand more effective leadership and recognize the need to make compromises for peace.

Your advisers are mistaken in calculating that focusing attention on settlements will win Arab support and Palestinian concessions. Rather, such a policy will only result in further Palestinian intransigence and expectations of more U.S. pressure on Israel. On the other hand, if you maintain focus and pressure on Palestinians to reform and meet their previous commitments, their leadership may not immediate oblige but the Palestinian people, in order to have a better life, will eventually demand of their leaders more reasonable policies. This is the proper, though admittedly more difficult, path to Middle East peace, and if none of your advisers have shared this perspective, then you ought to replace them or seek more diverse input.

Thank you for your time and attention.

It's Not the Settlements

In an editorial today, the Washington Post says that newly-appointed Middle East Envoy George Mitchell ought to make stopping Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank his priority.

Even setting aside for now the argument that Israel won the West Bank in a defensive war and "to the victor, go the spoils," we're a far ways away from even considering what should be the final disposition of the West Bank.

The existence of Israeli communities in the West Bank is not what is preventing peace. Rather, the problem rests, as it always has, with Palestinian intransigence and their unwavering commitment to Israel's eventual destruction.

Gaza offers all the proof necessary of this fact. In Gaza, Israel vacated every last settlement and settler, giving the Palestinians a chance to build their state and demonstrate their commitment to living in peace. They blew that chance. Instead, they elected Hamas, despite its history of blowing up busses and other civilian targets in Israel. Hamas thanked Palestinians by turning Gaza into a launching pad for a rocket war on Israel.

Considering that Palestinians squandered the opportunity in Gaza, the last thing that ought to be considered now is allowing them to squander another opportunity in the West Bank.

Until the Palestinians get their act together, throw out their terrorist leaders, and reject violence once and for all, may Israeli settlements and settlers be "fruitful and multiply." Maybe then, once Palestinians see this happening, they will reconsider and begin making the right choices. Until then, let them suffer and learn from their wrong ones.

Abbas's True Colors

The United States, and much of the rest of the world, often makes out Palestinian President Mahmous Abbas to be a "moderate" committed to peace with Israel. They do so because they want to see the "peace process" move forward, and for this happen, they have legitimized Abbas as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. But Abbas continues to demonstrate weak leadership when it comes to taking steps necessary to forge a lasting peace.

This weekend in Hebron, for example, on his first ever visit there since becoming Palestinian President in 2005, Abbas reportedly told Palestinians "Hebron is ours" and that every Jewish settler must leave Hebron for there to be peace.

If there were true peace, Jews and Palestinians would live alongside each other, without any forced relocations. To foster reconciliation, Abbas should instill in Palestinians coexistence with Jews, instead of advocating separation. He should publicly and repeatedly call upon Palestinians to bury the hatchet and welcome Jews as permanent neighbors and not for their ouster. Abbas's refusal to do so demonstrates, once again, that he is a coward, a failed leader, and that his true pursuit is the elimination of the Jewish presence from historic Palestine one part at a time.

It Ain't the Settlements, Stupid!

Just as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was packing his bags in London for his initial trip to the region as Quartet peace envoy - a foray which, like its predecessors (Mitchell, Tenet, et al.), undoubtedly will fail - Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was already steering him off-course. "Settlements," he announced, will have to go.

"Anyone living with some kind of dream detached from reality that we can keep all the territories, isn't making a correct assessment," Olmert said. "We will have to leave many areas there."

To make matters worse, on the very day Blair arrived, the IDF publicly confronted Jews who'd returned, in protest, to Homesh, one of four West Bank "settlements" forcibly evacuated with those in Gaza.

But as the Gaza withdrawal and its aftermath have proven to anyone willing to objectively consider the facts, the "settlements" aren't the issue and have never been. Jewish communities in Gaza are gone and so is the IDF from much of Gaza, aside from border crossings, yet violence not only has continued but escalated. Qassem rockets hit towns inside Israel almost daily and, last July, Hamas mounted a cross-border raid that netted an IDF soldier still held captive.

It ain't the "settlements," stupid! Rather, Israel's enemies want the whole thing -- all of what they consider historic "Palestine." Now, rather than have Blair focus on pushing serious reform of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, Olmert has given the Palestinians justification to point their fingers elsewhere.