http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/04/13/Opinion/Opinion.24512.html
The settlement folly
By Naomi Chazan, Jerusalem Post 04/13/2001
(April 13) - The Sharon government's decision to issue tenders for 700
new housing units in the West Bank is ill-advised, untimely, and
foolhardy. In a situation of escalating violence and growing concern
over the spread of terrorism, the announcement of the expansion of
settlements cannot but add fuel to the fire of the conflict.
International condemnation, easily anticipated, has been swift and
harsh. The European Union states have uniformly denounced the policy
initiative. The Bush administration, to date mild in its criticism of
the new Israeli government, has called the plan an act of provocation.
France went further, suggesting that the Sharon government is now
openly exhibiting its true and dangerous colors. The Palestinian
Authority has called once again for international intervention. Not
only the opposition within Israel, but also some key personalities in
the coalition, have questioned the move.
Some reasons have been offered to explain why Housing Minister Natan
Sharansky, who spearheaded the decision, chose this time and this
political climate knowingly to invite the ire of key actors in the
region. Perhaps he thought that his policy statement would go
unnoticed in the present turmoil. Maybe he wanted to pacify right-wing
elements, thus garnering favor amongst groups supportive of his
electoral rivals. Or, it is possible that he counted on popular
sentiments to downplay this act.
It is much more probable, however, that Sharansky, with the backing of
Sharon, knew exactly what he was doing. The expansion of settlements
flaunts Israeli control over the territories and signals the desire to
extend the occupation. The settlement enterprise is, and always has
been, at the core of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis;
its perpetuation obstructs any real progress towards its mitigation.
Government efforts to deflect the sweeping denunciation sound feeble
in these circumstances. To suggest that the building of new housing
units falls within the present government's guidelines, which include
a halt on the construction of new settlements, is at best
disingenuous. The addition of new neighborhoods to existing sites,
often at some distance from their center, is to promote settlement
under another heading. Coalition agreements cannot be used to justify
policy since they are patently part of the problem.
Equally unconvincing is the resort to "natural growth" to explain new
building. There are least 9,000 empty housing units across the Green
Line today. The market in these areas is so depressed that those
wishing to leave cannot find buyers. Natural growth relates to people,
not to houses or settlements, which are the result of conscious
decisions.
It is hardly surprising that the Sharon government has therefore
fallen back on the excuse that all it is doing is continuing the
policies of its predecessors. Indeed, the more that 160 settlements
established since 1967 were created with the compliance of all the
governments in office and frequently with their active support. The
state has provided funding, tax incentives, superior services,
protection, and legal backing to the well-organized and political
influential settler movement. During the three years of the Netanyahu
administration, 42 new sites were established, a full 30 during the
last six months of its tenure. The Barak government was no better,
approving the construction of over 2,000 housing units in the past
year alone.
Just because previous governments backed settlement growth is hardly
justification for its continuation, especially now, when every Israeli
location in the territories has become the object of Palestinian fire.
Most settlements are fast becoming a security risk of the highest
order. Their defense continues to exact an enormous price in people
and resources for reasons that can no longer be upheld.
This is why the claim that the construction of more housing in Ma'aleh
Adumim and Alfei Menashe falls within the national consensus is
patently false. Even if many believe that these urban areas will
remain under Israeli sovereignty in any future peace agreement, to
imply that there is unanimity on this issue is simply misleading. No
topic has divided Israelis or dictated political alignments more
sharply than the settlement question.
There has never been a national consensus on this subject, and no such
consensus is conceivable.
Settlements were constructed, and are now being expanded, to achieve
three main goals. First, for religious-nationalist ideologues, they
are the fulfillment of their visions of a Greater Land of Israel.
Second, they have been purposely positioned to separate major
population clusters in order to prevent Palestinian territorial
integrity both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And third, their
upholders have consistently used settlements as a means of thwarting a
viable peace agreement.
Any hope for peace depends on disengagement, which has both a human
and a territorial dimension. Each additional house makes it more
difficult to achieve this objective.
Settlements today are fast becoming, more than ever before, a
military, economic, political and moral liability. Instead of
focusing on their fortification, the government should be honest with
itself and its citizens and acknowledge that most, if not all,
settlements will eventually be dismantled.
Pessah began with an act of folly: the government's decision to
increase housing in the settlements. The holiday can still end with a
symbolic act of courage: the removal of the tiny and fanatically
provocative Jewish settlement in Hebron. Such a step would enhance the
prospects of attaining what settlements preclude: the beginning of
some understanding between Israel and its neighbors in the hope of
creating a livable future for all.
(The writer is a Meretz MK and deputy speaker of the Knesset.)
