Settlements

More proof that we need to cut Israel loose.

End this alliance that has benefited us almost nothing and benefited them immeasurably.

"Shocking?"

I think in this case, if you are shocked, then you haven't been paying attention.

What's shocking to me is that Kevin Drum is the only person at MoJo who noticed that there was a massive bombing campaign and ground invasion of the Gaza ghetto following several months of preventing basic necessities from reaching the population.

I guess MoJo writers and editors are not love thy neighbor leftists

Good to know!

Is Aaron David Miller the guy who said, "Do as I say, not as I did?" Because he sure sounds like that guy.

thanks for the LiveStation.org info, Nepeta.

I'm ambivalent about Israeli settlement in the occupied territories and not at all a supporter of the settler mentality.

But I do think the settlements serve a positive purpose. Brzezinski, no particular friend of Israel's, recently outlined what he thought the ultimate outcome would need to look like. In reality the terms he proposes have been obvious for either 20 or 40 or 60 years depending on how you want to think about it. So why aren't we there yet?

In my view a big part of the problem is the Palestinian belief that time is on their side. This isn't irrational. From a logical perspective, they only have to win once. From an historical perspective, they drove the Crusaders out after 100 or so years. From a demographic perspective, their population is growing much faster.

However it is very difficult to negotiate with someone who believes time is on his side, because his perception will be that the longer he waits, the better the deal will be for him. The only way to get such a party to settle sooner rather than later is to try to find ways to change the dynamic, i.e., to change his perception that time is on his side. That's what settlements do. They put in place a dynamic under which the sooner the Palestinians come to terms, the better the deal will be for them, and the longer they wait, the worse.

So I don't agree with Miller's (or your) premise. Explain to me how settlements hurt the chances for peace. They upset the Palestinians? Of course they do -- they remove what they view as one of their key bargaining tools, time.

larry, take a look at this map from 2002 showing the area that had come under the control of Jewish "settlers" and the Isreali military machine in the West Bank since the 1967 war, which was actually started by Israel with a Pearl Harbor style sneak attack on Arab air fields, if you want to do the research.

http://btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.jpg

What exactly do the Palestinians have to "negotiate"?

Their final capitulation, surrender, and loss of land they've owned and inhabited for hundreds of years?

These aren't "settlers" we're talking about. They're thieves, tresspassers, and war criminals.

Go back and look at the map that the UN approved when it created the state of Israel in 1948. Israel was much smaller and separated by Arab areas, because the UN tried to give the areas with mostly Jewish population to the Jews and the areas with mostly Arabs to the Arabs.

Did the Arabs accept that? No, they declared war on Israel with the intent of destroying it. They lost, and they have lost every war since. When you start and lose wars, there are consequences, one of which is the loss of land.

If it wasn't for the world's love of oil, and the blackmail power that gives the Arabs over the West, the Arabs would have made peace with Israel long ago. Instead, they continue to refight the 1948 war, secure in the knowledge that the world's love of oil means they will never have to say "We lose."

@ DBL

If it wasn't for the world's love of oil, and the blackmail power that gives the Arabs over the West, the Arabs would have made peace with Israel long ago

Maybe not. Consider this: If it wasn't for the world's love of oil, and the blackmail power that gives some Arabs over the West, many people really would not care to subsidize the Israeli military or look the other way while the State of Israel does some rather stupid (if not immoral) things.

Cycledoc & Eazy E, as I said in my original posting, I'm nevertheless ambivalent about the settlements, and I'm not at all ambivalent about the motivations of many of the settlers -- I don't agree with them.

That said, it isn't clear to me that they are in any way an impediment to negotiating a peace agreement. I think Keith G sums up that argument pretty well -- namely, that settlements make the Palestinians feel angry and hopeless, and therefore radicalize them. There's probably some truth to this. But is it enough to prevent the Palestinians from being able to negotiate a deal -- which, among other things, would prevent any further settlement activity on their land? I'm not so sure about that.

So the point remains, the assumption that the settlements are a huge obstacle to serious negotiations is not simply to be taken as a given, as Kevin and the folks he references have done.

By the way, this is the same reason the Israelis are not building the separation wall on the 1948 Armistice line. That would have told the Palestinians that the same deal was always available, no matter how long they dragged their feet in getting to it. That's simply counterproductive to serious negotiations.

Larry,

I guess my point of view is that the settlements are a continuing opening/poking of an old wound. It's possible they are a positive feature in demonstrating the need to come to peace now. I think what they do is keep the old leaders and ways from dying out.

Let the old leaders and terrorists die out. Let the new kids grow up with their iPods and see a more interconnected world and what could happen with a peaceful, two-state solution.

But I really do appreciate your insights.

It's sort of hard to imagine an equally important topic on the Palestinian side never even being raised with its top leadership, isn't it?

Really? I hope you meant that as some very, very dry sarcasm.

DBL, I somewhat disagree. I am not saying that there are no (spiritual, cultural, moral etc.) reasons. I would stipulate that Israel was muy important to the US during the Cold War and had a near equal significance with the rise of the independent minded petro states in the unstable Middle East. And in fact, Israel has done (through its military and intel efforts) some of our dirty work for us. A cold, hard, financial sense is important, but not everything.

Dilan, I wouldn't use the word punishment (and didn't above). I'm not talking about building a settlement on Palestinian land as retaliation for, say, a missile attack or suicide bombing.

As for the possibility that this policy creates perverse incentives for right-wing Israelis -- it might. On the other hand the Israeli government has shown that it can prevent settlements or even dismantle them when it's necessary to do so (for example in the evacuation from Gaza).