Why do Israeli settlements exist at all ?

[chequita guevara]

The RoR is a negotiating point, something to be traded away for something substatial on Israel's part. This is likely the purpose of the settlements, though the purpose of the settlements around Jersusalem was to be able to annex the whole of Jerusalem.

[Az]

The RoR is a negotiating point, something to be traded away for something substatial on Israel's part.

Right. Ask the average palestinian if he thinks so.

[chequita guevara]

One thing about the RoR. As incomes go up, birthrates fall. If Israel doesn't treat Pals as 3rd and 4th rate citizens, but includes them fully in Israeli life, their birthrate will fall, since only foolish middle class people continue to have so many kids that they fall into poverty.

Anyway, if the two-state solution isn't implimented soon, it's like to be replaced by a demand for annexation. Already a sizable amount of Palestinians (17% or 25%, can't remember which) want annexation to Israel, and that's with no parties advocating such a solution. Ultimately, Palestine and Israel will be united in one country. It's just a matter of how and when.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel

The RoR is a negotiating point, something to be traded away for something substatial on Israel's part.

Right. Ask the average palestinian if he thinks so.

The average Palestinian isn't sitting at the negotiation table.

Anyway, in private Geneva Plan, they've already given it up. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eva/index.html

The Geneva accord (the name honors its Swiss sponsors) takes up where the Taba talks ended inconclusively in January 2001. Consequently, it aims to resolve the three most contentious issues of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the pillars of the conflict -- namely, borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. It seeks to break the deadlock by moving directly to the final status, without complicated interim steps. Its conflict-resolution formula demands an Israeli withdrawal from much of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the pre-1967 lines, to create a demilitarized Palestinian state; land swaps to fully compensate the new state for those West Bank settlements not dismantled (about half), which will be annexed to Israel proper; a division of Jerusalem, including its holy sites, along ethnic and religious lines; and a "recipe" of choices for refugees, assuming that most will remain in their "hosting" Arab countries or will settle in the new Palestinian state.

[Az]

Erm, I don't see what you quoted in the link....

In any case, I've yet to want to see agreement. The rumors surrounding it vary a lot.

[lord of the mark]

Why do settlements exist at all (other then the ones Israel wants to keep, mainly dense ones near the green line)

1. The Israelis and Pals have not yet made a deal to give them up
2. The Israelis are not willing to give them up without a deal

This may seem flippant, but addresses an ambguity in Spiffors original post - is he asking why Israel has not given them up in negotiations, or why they have not withdrawn from them unilaterally?


The answer to 1 goes to negotiations history and strategy. The Barak offer at Taba gave up almost all of the settlements made other than near the Green Line - with the exception of Ariel. That was rejected, not so much for Ariel, but for reasons related to Jerusalem and the right of return - or according to some, cause Arafat simply didnt want peace. Certainly there was no Pal counterproposal.

Should Israel make an offer that gives up all the settlements not along the green line? That is a matter of some contention in Israel, IIUC. In fact some Israeli Labor party leaders have come to just such an agreement with some Pal leaders? Will the Pals settle for this in real negotiations? I think many Israelis would like to see the Pals make a proposal, instead of always putting the Pals in position to judge an Israeli proposal - a different negotiation dynamic. OTOH, I suspect that most Israelis would worry less about such negotiating considerations if they had a negotiating PARTNER they could trust. As long as Arafat is in power, and is in position to undercut any Pal PM, I think the Israeli center will see any concessions in negotiations as a formula for disaster - the Pals will pocket the concessions, and then fight if they dont get further concessions.

Why has Israel not withdrawn unilaterally? Had Labor remained in power, it is quite possible they would have. They would have built a fence and withdrawn - though they would have kept settlements like Ariel, as bargaining chips to eventually get a bilateral deal. Likud has opposed such unilateral withdrawl, pointing to the withdrawl from Lebanon - which they claim, by showing weakness, in fact encouraged the intida. They also have suggested that the real threat comes from Palestinian rockets and missiles, which a wall could not stop - ergo there can be no withdrawl without a deal, and as long as there is no withdrawl, there is no benefit to eliminating settlements. They have done what no one expected - attempted to BOTH build a wall AND stay in the settlements - at considerable cost in resources.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The average Palestinian isn't sitting at the negotiation table.

Anyway, in private Geneva Plan, they've already given it up. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eva/index.html

The Geneva accord (the name honors its Swiss sponsors) takes up where the Taba talks ended inconclusively in January 2001. Consequently, it aims to resolve the three most contentious issues of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the pillars of the conflict -- namely, borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. It seeks to break the deadlock by moving directly to the final status, without complicated interim steps. Its conflict-resolution formula demands an Israeli withdrawal from much of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the pre-1967 lines, to create a demilitarized Palestinian state; land swaps to fully compensate the new state for those West Bank settlements not dismantled (about half), which will be annexed to Israel proper; a division of Jerusalem, including its holy sites, along ethnic and religious lines; and a "recipe" of choices for refugees, assuming that most will remain in their "hosting" Arab countries or will settle in the new Palestinian state.

Theyve "given it up" in "quasi-negotiations" with a non-government of Israel. Prior to 1999 there was a plan agreed to by Israeli Yossi Beilin and I think, either Nabil Shaath or Saed Erekat. When it came to official negotians between Barak and Arafat a more generous Israeli offer was rejected. Is it worth pursuing negotiations along these lines - yes, I think so. Is it still problematic having Arafat in power - yes, I think so. Does Sharon need to respond to this possibility - yes, I think so. Does Labor have to explain how theyd deal with the personal obstacle of Arafat - yes I think so.

[Edan]

I remember reading an article that proposed evacuating all the settlements that weren't dense or by the greenline and replacing them with IDF soldiers - making them easier to defend and easier to evacuate when (if?) a deal is reached.

[Edan]

DP

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Edan
I remember reading an article that proposed evacuating all the settlements that weren't dense or by the greenline and replacing them with IDF soldiers - making them easier to defend and easier to evacuate when (if?) a deal is reached.

If the IDF soldiers stay in their barracks, don't have "security zones" kilometres around the barracks, don't have Pal-forbidden roads to access them, and restrain to shoot at any kid coming to play in the area, then sure.

However, if these troops aren't discreet, they're gonna continue to stir hate, to be shot at and killed, to kill Palestinians and to bulldoze Palstinian homes

[Zylka]

On one side of the political spectrum - They're a negotiating piece to be discarded whenever the Pals are serious about peace. On another, they are Israel's glorious campaign to eventually settle and re-take all of Palestine; at this rate somewhere near the year 14450AD

The Pals have settlements in Israeli territory as well, by the way.

[Odin]

Those settlements are from religious nutheads who think it is thier god-given right (literally) to control that land. They probably want NW Jordan too because "God gave it to them" in the Bible. I think those settlers should be fair game for palestinians, sinse they are illegal by international law, they should be able to kick them out. Unfortunatly the UNSC would Never be able to enforce it because the US would veto, as usual, to please jews here in the states for the next election.

[GePap]

Today there are probably as many Jews as Arabs between the Jordan and the Med, with an increaing number of neither due to israeli immigration and worker policies. In 50 years the populations will likely be the same percentages as in 1947.
Every day that goes on is a day in which the idea of a Jewish democratic state between the Jordan and the Med. becomes more difficult to maintain. Even if the Pals continue to be the ones to suffer most in this situation (and perhaps becuase of it), at this rate, they will be the ones who will win, perhaps fulfilling the speech goven by rabin in 1967 comparing Israel to the Crusader kingdoms, undermined not on the battlefield but simply swallowed and assimilated.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Doesn't look like their official position is to take over Israel to me

The official PLO position seems to be to currently talk out of both sides of their mouth.

The current PLO Charter (the theoreticly binding consitutional document for the PLO) still officially states the following.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit...

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence...

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

While a big deal was made by the PLO about how they revised the charter in 1996, this is not actually the case.

The PNC [Palestinian National Council] did not actually amend the Covenant, but instead approved in principle that changes would be made, without specifying which clauses would be changed, in what manner, or by what date...

This decision fails to meet the obligations laid out in Article XXXI (9) of the Oslo II accords in two respects. First, the actual amendment of the Covenant has been left for a future date. As of now, the old Covenant, in its original form, remains the governing document of the PLO, and will continue in this status until the amendments are actually approved. In legal terms, there is a sharp difference between calling for something to change and actually implementing the changes.

Second, the decision does not specify which clauses will be amended. In a legal opinion released on April 8, 1996, Peace Watch stated that if the PNC chooses to annul specific articles in the Covenant, it would have to adopt "a detailed list of amendments to particular articles in the Covenant." Israel's position when the Oslo accords were signed, which was reiterated subsequently, is that the PNC must amend all the clauses which deny Israel's right to exist or support the armed struggle against the Jewish state. According to various assessments, this understanding would require the removal of anywhere between 10 and 28 of the Covenant's 33 clauses. Palestinian officials, on the other hand, have spoken of changing far fewer clauses, and the PNC decision leaves open the question of which articles will be amended.

http://www.iris.org.il/pncvote.htm

As of this date, the primary components of the PLO still have the old version of the charter on the books. Clearly the old version is not compatible with a two state solution.