T. Belman. Abrams assumes that the Kerry framework is the only game in town (’67 lines plus swaps). He wrongly assumes that all settlement blocs will remain in Israel and focuses on the growth of the Jewish population outside the blocs i.e., east of the fence. Kerry’s proposal suggested about 75% of the Jews east of the ’67 lines would remain in Israel and thus at least 150,000 Jews would have to be evacuated. According to his numbers only 93,000 would have to be expelled. But even this number he admits would present huge problems. Obviously double that number would exponentially increase the problems. One other point that should be noted is that no one has listed which settlement blocs we are talking about. For the peace camp including the US Administration, to have any success at all in acheiving a two-state solution, it must abandon the ’67 lines plus swaps formula and work toward Israel keeping 10% of the land. This means putting enormous pressure on the PA. But as we know, this is not about to happen.
Keep in mind that the Obama Admin recently said that if Israel abandons the TSS, then the US will abandon Israel at the UN.
Eric Yoffee commented on this article in his Haaretz op-Ed, This right-winger’s about-face on settlements might inspire Netanyahu to stop building. He claims that Elliott Abrams admits that settlements do indeed make it harder for Israel to reach a two-state solution and goes on from there. I will leave it to you to critique Yoffie’s conclusions.
By Elliott Abrams and Uri Sadat, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, APRIL 16, 2015
For the first time in over 15 years, Israel may soon form a coalition government that is composed solely of right-wing factions. This could have major implications for settlement expansion. After all, both of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s previous governments (2009–2013 and 2013–2015) included center-left parties that opposed settlement expansion outside areas that—according to past negotiations and in any realistic future peace accord—would end up as part of Israel. That is, his governments allowed population growth to expand freely in the major settlement blocs that Israel is expected to keep, but they constrained growth in the smaller settlements beyond Israel’s security barrier, which would likely be part of any future Palestinian state.
In the years to come, though, the United States might have to contend with a new policy. During Netanyahu’s past six years as prime minister, his settlement policy has been the subject of great controversy and contradiction. On the one hand, the United States and Europe frequently criticized the policy as expanding Israeli presence in the West Bank. On the other, right-wing constituencies in Israel lashed out at Netanyahu for doing the exact opposite—implementing a “quiet freeze” policy that effectively halted Israeli construction outside of Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs.
Netanyahu’s policy allowed him to enjoy the best of both worlds—but also suffer the worst of them. On the positive side for Netanyahu, constant critiques by the international community (because there was considerable construction in East Jerusalem and the major blocs) solidified his position as the irreplaceable leader of the Israeli right leading up to his reelection. Meanwhile, his constraints on construction beyond the security fence kept alive the option of a two-state solution and encouraged peace hopefuls, such as State Secretary John F. Kerry, to stay engaged. On the negative side, Netanyahu’s equivocation bought him the distrust and scorn of many, in Israel and abroad, on the left and right. As a result, he is surprisingly unpopular for someone who just won a solid reelection victory.
In truth, it turns out to be remarkably difficult to discern what is actually going on outside the blocs. Although even The New York Times acknowledged that settlement expansion under Netanyahu was relatively restrained, the Times, like many others, failed to distinguish between expansion that is taking place within the major settlement blocs and construction in settlements that are beyond the fence.
To get our own sense of the numbers, we looked at data from Israel’s recent (March 17, 2015) elections, which suggest a slow but steady increase in settler population beyond the security fence. Specifically, when Netanyahu entered office in February 2009, there were 36,476 eligible Israeli voters living in the 72 Israeli townships outside the fence. By March 2015, that number had grown to 46,659, showing a 27 percent increase. Given that, according to a recent census, the median age of Israelis living in Judea and Samaria was 18, we estimate that the actual number of residents in those towns is approximately twice the number of voters—meaning 73,000 in 2009 and 93,000 in 2015, an increase of about 3,300 per year. (The census provided only regional population aggregates, combining small settlements and major blocs.)
Of course, these are estimates. The true picture is not easy to discover. What is clear is that the population growth in settlements outside the fence seems to have outstripped national growth. If these trends continue, by the end of Netanyahu’s new term as prime minister, in 2019, the population in the settlements beyond the fence will have reached around 115,000.
Why this growth is happening is a puzzle, since there has been no deliberate policy or government push to expand settlements; on the contrary, there have been official constraints. The government has officially approved only 9,197 residential construction permits in the entirety of Judea and Samaria (i.e., the entire West Bank including the major blocs, excluding Jerusalem) in the six years since Netanyahu took office in 2009. Approximately two-thirds of those units approved were built inside the major blocs. That means only 500 or so units were approved each year for construction outside the settlement blocs.
How do 500 new units each year support 3,300 new residents? That’s not clear, but it appears that part of the explanation lies in local municipal policies. At the local level in the smaller settlements, families are encouraged to expand their existing homes with adjacent “rental units” that do not require formal government approval. These units are then handed out to young family members or members of the community. So in addition to the formal “housing starts,” there is informal construction that accommodates more people. And some of this increase is natural growth in the sense that the new residents are closely related family members of older residents.
If this description is right, it has several implications. First, the peace map isn’t really changing; contrary to common accusations, Israel isn’t expanding its hold on territory. The settlements are growing in population but not in physical dimensions. There are new units attached to older ones, not entire new neighborhoods being carved out of barren land. On the other hand, however, the population living outside the major blocs is growing by several thousand Israelis each year, which makes a future peace agreement more costly and more politically difficult as time goes by, because more Israelis would theoretically have to be forced or induced to move.
The interesting question now is whether Netanyahu’s next government will be able to continue this slow-growth policy (one might almost call it “benign neglect”), or will be pushed to make the prime minister shift gears.
The answer will depend on the identity of Netanyahu’s senior ministers. Control of the West Bank and settlement policy there falls mainly on the minister of defense and the minister of interior, two positions that pro-settler parties are seeking. Netanyahu and his likely coalition partners are still negotiating over all portfolios, and the ultimate result will have great bearing on the next government’s character. In any composition, however (save that of an unlikely unity government with Labor), a more permissive construction policy is likely both for ideological reasons and as part of an attempt to lower the price of housing throughout the country, a top agenda item in Israeli politics nowadays.
Netanyahu will have to choose among several policy options. He could try to maneuver and fend off international pressures for a few more years, kicking the can down the road. Given the chaos in the Middle East now, the dangers of Hamas and jihadist activity in an independent Palestine, and the refusal of the current Palestinian leadership to accept even the generous peace offer from then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008, an independent Palestinian state seems to most observers to be far off anyway. That would suggest a policy like the one Netanyahu has pursued for the last six years. Alternatively, he could yield to pressures within his right-wing coalition and permit faster growth of the small settlements beyond Israel’s security fence.
The United States, whose goal is the two-state solution, will have to adjust to either policy. Even at current population growth rates, the idea of over 100,000 Israelis living outside the major settlement blocs may render the Clinton parameters for a peace agreement increasingly irrelevant. The idea of evacuating every Israeli living beyond the security fence will seem increasingly unrealistic. The United States may be forced to move, then, from insisting on their removal to challenging the Palestinian insistence that every single one of them leave. That old idea that Palestine must be totally free of Jews has always been morally offensive; with every passing year it also becomes more and more impractical. It could gradually be replaced with the understanding that a certain number of Jews will remain as resident aliens if a Palestinian state is ever to be established. With 1.7 million Arabs living as full citizens in Israel, the idea of tens of thousands of Jews living in Palestine should not seem beyond consideration. Security arrangements for Israelis who voluntarily choose to live in a Palestinian state rather than move back to Israel would be immensely complicated, and in many eyes impossible. But the same can be said about any plan that would force tens of thousands of them leave their homes.
With no Palestinian state likely for the foreseeable future, much more attention should be dedicated to real life on the ground today: Hamas’ activities in Gaza, the performance of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions, the lack of democratic institutions and free elections, current security arrangements, measures to help the West Bank economy, for example. The sole focus on getting back to the negotiating table is at odds with reality in the Middle East.
Yet sooner or later, the question of how many Israelis live in the West Bank, and what future they will have, will return. Israel’s new coalition must be formed by early May, although policy toward the settlements may emerge more slowly—and, as we have seen, deciphering what’s actually happening on the ground in the West Bank won’t be easy. But it would help if all parties, including the U.S. and Israeli governments, spoke more candidly and more realistically about the realities, and the choices, that Israelis, Palestinians, and American policymakers now face.
An important issue is the census of Palestinians in J & S and the growing number of Jews in the same area.
Haaretz deliberately misread Eliot & Uri. When push come to shove, Il will defacto have more bodies in J & S no matter what the West wishes.
Nonsense or the UNGA would not have voted for partition.
Sounds good and would get plaudits here … BUT THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM!
The Problem is: Adolphe Cremieux (France), Lionel de Rothschild (Britain), Louis Brandeis (USA), Ezekiel Hart (Canada) etc.
All of these were Jews who were elected or appointed to high political office in their respective CHRISTIAN countries. They were not content to remain mere GUESTS in Christian lands, but exercised all the perogatives of full citizenship. In the case of Cremieux, and de Rothschild, they were quick to extend that citizenship, and its enfranchised rights, to all Jews within their realm. This is particularly true of Adolphe Cremieux who sought to get full French citizenship extended to all Algerian Jews, even though it was denied to Algerian Muslims – and Cremieux was successful. While Algerian Muslims were denied citizenship; … thanks to Cremieux, all Algerian Jews were given full French citizenship automatically. This head start for Jews lasted all the way to the end of French rule in Algeria.
Any community, in this case the Jewish community, which insists on full citizenship – not merely a guest status – cannot deny citizenship to others without looking like hypocrites.
THINK ABOUT IT!
The Guest theory will not sell. It is, by definition, anti-democratic, and would turn Israel from “the only democracy in the Mideast” to an ethnocracy, or a theocracy.
The better answer is found in two arrangements:
1) Write a republican constitution, where rights and responsibilities are defined, and where foundational civil structures are preserved against fickle democratic fads.
Under such a constitution, citizenship would be extended to all who accept the constitution. Professor Paul Eidelberg has suggested something along those lines.
2) Pay much of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria to leave.
That is the proper way to do it.
The reason Israel does not do it is because Israel refuses to thrash out a constitution where varying religious vs secular parties will be at odds with one another.
For ex: Should Sabbath Observance be required. If so, how strict? Buses can run on Sabbath?!
How much religious freedom to allow?
How about civil marriage?
And the real killer: Should army service or national service for three years be required for the voting franchise? Some Haredim will be furious at that. But it would have the benefit of disenfranchising many Israeli Arabs who would refuse national service. If it was handled equitably, no one could complain.
That is the way to properly do it.
The theory of disenfranchised GUESTS would only mark the world wide Jewish community for holding a double standard. That is not good.
@ Felix Quigley:
As I mentioned to my fellow Canook friend Yidvocate it never hurts to mention where the responsibilities should lie. Of course the U.N. is not going to come clean but it should still be stated and reminded to the masses how this fiasco began in the first place.
First of all – this is not the birth of Israel as a Jewish State. It is the re-birth. The Jews have a long history with Israel dating back to after we were taken out of Egypt. What happened to Pharoah? What happened to Pharoahs army?
We have been in exile for over 2000 years. Exile! Exile from what? Our homeland – where we can prosper as a people – and we already do!
Rome should be responsible too! That doesn’t mean that Rome is going to come clean. But it also doesn’t mean that Rome will never meet the power and wrath of our maker. I believe Rome will!
This is why I recommend paying the Arabs to leave instead.
Then the money can come from the U.N. They are the ones that did not do their job properly in 1948. It’s never too late to right a wrong.
TO DOVE by FQ
You have to be real otherwise you are talking for the sake of talking. The UN in 1947 was either totally Antisemitic or fast becoming Antisemitic. Probably lying behind that phenomenon which needs yet to be fully studied and nailed down were the factors of Christian World Antisemitism, Stalin’s Antisemitism and the Antisemitism inherent inside of Islam – but given new force by capitalism’s reliance on oil and on profit interests (like the Bush family) on the oil industry of the Arabs. So your point above is worse than useless. And when you say it is never too late to right a wrong you lose me entirely because this is not about morality. It is about what I say above. You are done a wrong, says Dove, it must be righted. Not so at all. It is this kind of thinking that has done such damage to Israel. It is also why others here who say that Israel should decide and act rather than be in any way a victim are so right. Being a victim is very dangerous. Dove (even the name chosen) is the perennial victim, it ooses out of her!
In relation to paying them to leave I believe that is a tactic, one tactic, there may be others, and it is not at all a strategy. (TO CA and MS)
The strategy in this case is what I propose and only I propose and that is that ONLY JEWS LIVE IN ISRAEL AND OTHERS WILL LIVE THERE AS GUESTS.
i do not think the full significance of this has yet dawned on most although I have spent time explaining it.
I remember having agreement with B Ross on this before, that this is not NOT AN ACTION and it is indeed an action (practice) and such a statement backed up in any way you want, massive education or just saying nothing, HAS THE GREATEST SIGNIFICANCE. (Sorry that sounds awkward but what I mean is that a statement of words is also an ACTION)
Above all that is a strategy and it is from that strategy that all tactics, which can be endlessly variable, should come from.
Like Yamit and against Ted I am tired of messing around with these cheap points. This that and the other but where does he really stand at any one point in time – it becomes infuriating.
The Balfour Declaration and San Remo is/are part of the history of the Jews. But place them in their historical context.
In the end they mean nothing at all if only one side does the fighting – the Arabs. And the Jewish leadership caves in and does not fight which happened when Weizmann accepted (of course he objected thus playing the victim). The weakest aspect of Herzl (great man who I respect hugely) was that tactically he relied on such as the British.
Why is the STRATEGY only Jews live in Israel? Answer is that humanity has not been able to put an end to lethal Antisemitism.
Until that time Jews live alone. Others like Irish or Arabs will be there as guests. And guests do not steal the cutlery from the host.
THAT is the strategy. There is only ONE!
I think Netanyahu will play the game but will not present a right-wing government. Why should he? To invite pressure? US Ambassador Shapiro said today that the US “will not support” resolutions against Israel, but he did not say that the US will veto such proposals. This is probably a good reason for Netanyahu to avoid a right wing government until January 2016. If I were Netanyahu, I would let the coalition negotiations to fail, let Herzog try to from a government – it matters not whather he succeeds or not. If Herzog succeeds, Netanyahu can take a well-earned vacation until January 2016, and then make a strong right wing coalition, and do what must be donw – in Judea and Samaria and in Iran.
@ Yidvocate:
First and foremost Israel belongs to Hashem. After what happened in Egypt Hashem led the Israelites to Israel. You know how the story goes. Hashem is going to make sure that Israel is restored, otherwise it makes Hashem out to be a liar. I am sure that Hashem is aware of what 2000 years of exile and a holocaust of 6 million can do to the Jewish heart – I believe that will be taken into consideration. 🙂
@ dove:
Indeed and guess what the source of that denial is? Wait for it,….ITS US! Israel denies it so why shouldn’t the goyim? Israel has adopted the pali-poser “narrative” the fiction and the lie. There is a well entrench principle in the Torah of midos kineged midos, meaning that G-d relates to us as we relate to Him and that’s what’s playing out in the world today. G-d gave us this land for our “chosen” purpose and to sanctify it by “walking in His statutes” and when we don’t acknowledge the gift and break His statutes, then we have no legitimate claim to this land and the goyim respond accordingly. At least that’s the way I read it.
@ Yidvocate:
It never hurts to keep restating where the responsiblity should be. Of course they won’t right a wrong and it will come back to bite them hard.
After more than 2000 years of exile we can’t expect it to be easy for us. There is a lot of denial that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. There is denial of biblical history.
Mark my words. Israel will be cleansed. If not by our hands…..then by Hashems. 🙂
@ CuriousAmerican:
What’s wrong with San Remo? It’s the international law foundation of our juridical rights to greater Eretz Yisroel and arguably Jordan!
Such rights are not vested in the State of Israel as they were created before the state and are vested in each and every Jew world wide alive today and to be born tomorrow. A right that can not be abrogated at least not legally.
Pay them to leave by all means and contrary to dove’s sentiment, I’d kick in bucks my self to make it happen as I don’t expect that den of inequity to foot the bill as it rightly should. But that has to be part and parcel of a wider plan which would involve making Israel even more Jewish so those detestable Arabs would want to take the money and run.
How is San Remo a “two edged sword”?
@ CuriousAmerican:
Then the money can come from the U.N. They are the ones that did not do their job properly in 1948. It’s never too late to right a wrong.
I would agree, which is why I suggest that Israel avoid using San Remo as its justification, since San Remo is a two edged sword.
This is why I recommend paying the Arabs to leave instead.
@ Ted Belman:
@ bernard ross:
Pls. Understand…. Since BB’s first term in Office the policy of the government Has been to hold onto the bulk of jewish settlement clusters and negotiating away the rest including Jerusalem. So the whole territory for peace process is about 7-10% of the Territory of Y&S and Jerusalem. Defacto Israel had long given up any rights or claims to Y&S and because we make no claims and have admitted publicly that e have no national rights to those territories our demands and claims revolve around security and protecting existing built up settlement as existing assets and offer territorial exchange for them….Advocates for Israel have been undermined by Israeli governments themselves. No existing Israeli politicxal party today is willing to go the wall for Y&S and Jerusalem. You are asking BB to protect jerusalem for Israel and thje Jews after he has already defacto ceded 90% plus of Y&S large parts of greater jerusalem and already given away Hebron our 2nd most Holy site???? LOL 😀
@ Ted Belman:
How odd you use the dead Oslo agreements to make debating points with that character. Oslo also had term limits for actuaslizing all parts of the agreements and these term limits where singed by both parties and the USA. Oslo had built in quid pro quo for each part on both sides and the Road Map agreement based it’s provisions and concepts on those terms. Abbas according to the PLO and PA charter is illegal as the elections have now been postponed for almost 6 years…. Any deal with an illegal government and executive has no legal base either. Surprised you still cite Oslo as a viable and enforceable legal and legitmate agreement.
Ted Belman Said:
True but I think you are parcing here allowing yourelf deniabiloity like with Gaza and Gush Katif. If you think Israel will accept such a deal OK maybe you are right and maybe wrong but you did not say that you personally were opposed if you in fact are and if so leaving the reader to assume and believe you are among those who would accept such a compromise. If you are in fact opposed then say so unambiguously. If you in fact brlieve that real peace is attainable with the Arabs then say so and if not say so. If you believe yes and if you believe the Arabs also want peace and will abide by any agreements then you have a case for possible compromise. Give em what they want then but if you don’t belive it then give em nothing and say so.
@ bernard ross: I did not suggest what we should strive for. I said if the peace camp wants to have any change for a deal they should offer us 10% of the land. Assuming that other aspects of the offer are favourable to Israel like demilitarization and an undivided Jerusalem, I believe that Israel would go for it. I did not say that we should go for it.
No democratic nation is required to enfranchise an enemy population that does not share the ethos of the nation it inhabits. Citizenship requires loyalty to the collective ethos, which the “Palestinian” Arabs, as a collective, will never have. If that’s apartheid then every democratic country is guilty of it, but only Israel represents a stark example due to the vast number of the enemy population. Even Caroline Glick acknowledges this in her new book and only suggests a path to citizenship for those Arabs, and there are some no doubt, that would in good faith swear allegiance to the Jewish state and have no ties to terror.
Long ago the plan behind the scenes was 10 years for jews in outposts to make up their minds to become palestinians or move back to israel. In that way BB can honestly say he never forced Jews out. 😛 If this becomes the case then they would probably couple it with incentives for jews to move. Actions on the ground have not foreboded well for Jewish annexation of even C and the only one reaching to any power to effect that change was just neutered by BB, hence annexation of C is dead. dont bother with the non zionist religious sector in the coalition as they are only interested in the draft and their perks. They are their to replace the religious zionists.
I find this astounding, 10% is what all this trouble is about? whoever said the Jews were good negotiators:
a piece of land is in dispute(mainly area C),most is vancant… the usual solution coming to mind by disinterested parties is to divide the land equally… instead the arabs say they want all and the Jews only want 10%. Good luck with those goals, if you only ask for 10% you will get minus 10%..
@ CuriousAmerican:The Arabs in J&S are bound by Oslo which provides for a negotiated settlement, not a one state solution. Their only solution is to cut a deal with Israel. So far they have been intransigent, to their detriment.
Insisting on Oslo in no way diminishes Israel’s democracy. You keep strutting as the devil’s advocate. It gets tiring.
@ CuriousAmerican:Unauthorized doesn’t mean illegal. San Remo gave Jews the right to settle anywhere in what was then called Palestine. Unauthorized simply means that they don’t have planning permission. As for the Arabs, they don’t have a similar right. In fact Oslo restricted the Arabs in area C so when Arabs build there they do so in violation of the Oslo Accords.
It is obvious that there is NO WAY that Israel will ever remove Jews from the contested areas.
Too many Jews to remove. Israel barely evacuated Gush Katif. That was the last time an evacuation will every occur. Personally, I believe that was Israel’s goal all along – not saying it was wrong, but Israel never officially admitted it. Israel was stalling to buy time to populate Judea and Samaria above levels of retreat.
Israel succeeded.
So now that a two state solution is impossible – if it was ever possible – again, not saying that a two state solution was a good idea – what will Israel do to head off the increasing demands for one state with a vote for all?
Israel has won the first battle. No to two state solution.
Now Israel will face the more formidable battle: The One State Solution battle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgtf6gphVvg
This will be the real fight. Israel can stall on the two state solution, but Israel will have a very hard time claiming to be the “only democracy in the Mideast” while avoiding a one-state option.
You are lucky the Arabs are too stupid to press the issue, right now. Be grateful you are fighting Arabs.
But some Arabs are starting to press the one-state solution, and that will be a philosophically harder battle to win.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNwZxKKJK1w
A one state solution will be harder to refute, since it has the appearance of democracy.
It is exactly what the Arabs offered in 1947. They offered a one-state democracy in 1947 as an alternative to Israel.
Even Caroline Glick is suggesting a one state solution of sorts.
What is your view on that wording underneath the picture?
I know that most on Israpundit have a strong commitment to legality. So what is your view of “unauthorized outpost[s],” if they are Jewish.
I know how strongly you believe unauthorized Arab outposts should be dismantled.
Do you view all Jewish “outposts” to be legal by definition?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSn1BCpZz4s
AND
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeYjolyfRy4
As the Jewish population grows, any repetition of the Gush Katif disengagement will be politically, economically and logistically impossible.
It was easy for Israel to remove a small population within a small, self-contained region such as Gaza with minimal and disruptive effort. The challenges of removing a large population in a wider spread out region like Judea and Samaria would be hard to carry out.
Insistence upon the removal of every Jew from Judea and Samaria is simply unrealistic. Palestinian Arabs and the West are going to have to come to terms with the fact that Jews living beyond the 1949 lines are an immutable fact of life and their interests will have to be taken account in any future peace deal.
In other words, a Palestinian Arab state will have a Jewish minority just as Israel has an Arab minority. This requires a sea change in the Arab mentality.
That is not going to happen in the short term but in the long term peace might ultimately be possible.