Policy Update in the Midst of the Cease-fire
June 22, 2001
prepared by the Israeli Consulate in SF

Why settlements are not the problem

There is a great deal of confusion on the issue of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many people are of the opinion that the settlements are the major cause for the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

This opinion stems from myths and false presentations propagated primarily by the Palestinian Authority. Realizing the truth about the settlement issue, knowing the facts - where they are located, their raison d'etre as well as their security dimension - is imperative if one is to have a firm grasp on understanding the complexity of the region.

One of the most common misconceptions about the settlements is the amount of space they take up in the disputed areas. Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority would have you believe that Jewish settlements incorporate a large percentage of the territories. The truth is that the actual built areas of the settlements account for merely 1.5% of the land in question. Additionally, the Government of Israel, in its policy guidelines and statements, has already agreed not to build any new settlements, or outside previously built up areas, and has stated on numerous occasions that it is willing to address the issue of settlements within the context of permanent negotiations, as stipulated in the Oslo Accords.

This leads to a second point that is often overlooked. During the negotiations at Camp David and later on in Taba, Israel offered a compromise on the territorial aspect, including the future of many settlements, that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority deemed acceptable. If these agreements had been signed, Israel would have dismantled many settlements, where 30% of the population live and concentrate Jewish communities into three blocks, which Israel would hold on to. Israel would have then compensated the Palestinians for their territorial loss with territory from within Israel proper. It has been expressed quite explicitly that the two major sticking points in the negotiations were Jerusalem and the Palestinian right of return. Looking at the comments made by both sides following negotiations, there is little to no mention of the settlements even being a problematic issue. Why is it that the Palestinians took an issue on which there was a compromise and turned it into the rallying cry for their war against Israel?

The Palestinians have been searching for an issue for which they could garner international support as a reason for pursuing a path of violence. At the beginning, the Palestinians said the main issue was Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. They called upon the world to support them in their quest for a capitol in Jerusalem, and the world did support them. The only problem was Israel did too.

The Government of Israel went out of its way to offer a solution that would allow both Israel and the Palestinians a capitol in Jerusalem and access to the holy sites in Jerusalem. When the Palestinians rejected these solutions and began to lose world support, they had to find another issue fast.

The next "reason" for the violence was the Palestinian right of return. Chairman Arafat decried Israel for causing the refugee problem and insisted that all refugees be allowed to return to not only a future Palestinian state, but Israel proper as well. Again, Chairman Arafat and the Palestinians looked to the world for support, but the world realized that the fulfillment of this request would mean the end of the Jewish state. So again the Palestinians had to find a "new" reason for their violence and terrorism that the world could support, and they decided on the settlements.

Chairman Arafat and the Palestinians have painted the settlers as militant, aggressive occupiers. Those families who live in these communities do not want war, they are ordinary people who earn their living and seek calm and security. Like every other Israeli, the people in the settlements just want to be able to live in a peaceful, stable environment, and are willing to make sacrifices to do so. The settlements are not an obstacle to peace, and the people who live there should not be targeted by assassins.

Unfortunately the manner in which the Palestinians present the issue to the international community has allowed the settlements to become a popular scapegoat. In fact some elements have come to accept the equating of settlements with terrorism, as if there is some level of moral equivalency. One should not accept this demagogic rhetoric. When did living in a house achieve the same ethical standing as blowing up 21 teenagers? The fact is that one is completely independent of the other. Terrorism is a heinous, vicious crime against innocent people. A house, even if it is in a disputed area, is in no way an attack on a person or people. There should be zero tolerance to violence. There is no excuse for terrorism.

The focus now should not be the settlements or any other excuse for violence, but first and foremost how to make the violence stop. Through shootings, mortars and terrorism, the Palestinians are not only undermining the current cease-fire, but also destroying the possibility of two states living in peace. Only when the Palestinians put their effort into stopping violence and maintaining the cease-fire everywhere, will the two sides be able to begin working towards a compromise

Attempts at undermining Israeli democracy

The BBC has recently aired a program devoted to whether Prime Minister Ariel Sharon should be indicted for war crimes for the 1982 Sabra and Shatilla massacre of Palestinian refugees by Lebanese militias. The show comes at a time when a Belgian court begins considering whether Sharon can be brought to trial for his involvement in the matter.

Attempts to hold Prime Minister Sharon responsible for war crimes are outrageous and malicious. There should be no hesitation in strongly condemning these endeavors to undermine the character of the Israeli Prime Minister and by the same token, Israeli democracy itself. We have no apology to make. Prime Minister Sharon is the democratically elected leader of Israel.

The very idea of determining whether Ariel Sharon is a war criminal is irresponsible and reflects a clear willingness to initiate hate and hostility toward Israel. Making the assumption that the Israeli people chose a war criminal as their Prime Minister is not acceptable. There is no need to remind that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that democratically elects its representatives. No one has the moral high ground to undermine a nation's democratic electoral choice.

The claim itself does not have any legal ground. One should remember that Israeli and American justice systems have already investigated Sharon's responsibility in the Sabra and Shatilla tragedy. We take pride in our legal system. An Israeli inquiring body, the Kahan Committee and the United States Court of Appeals (in a decision in a suit opposing Ariel Sharon against Time magazine) both found that Mr. Ariel Sharon was not responsible for the massacre.

Israel views with extreme gravity the attempts at interfering with its democracy. The process that consists of launching slandering accusations is a dangerous one and leaves the door open to tremendous excess.

Internationalization of the conflict

It is now a well-defined strategy by the Palestinian Authority to strive for an internationalization of its conflict with Israel. The Palestinian leadership's latest attempt at by-passing direct dialogue with Israel and involving external elements in the region has come in the form of a request for the deployment of a UN monitoring presence to protect Palestinian civilians.

An international monitoring force is not needed in a situation where the only way to restore calm is for Palestinian gunmen to stop shooting.
Besides, the Palestinians will find protections in the agreements that they have signed with Israel since the beginning of the Oslo process in 1993. In multiple documents agreed to by both parties throughout the peace process, the Palestinians have committed themselves to stopping from resorting to incitement, violence and terror. The best guarantee for quiet and security will be found when Palestinians start implementing their existing commitments.

Following the bombing of the Dolphinarium discotheque two weeks ago, the Palestinians have, for the first time since violence erupted, agreed in principle to a cease-fire. Its implementation has been less than satisfying - 5 Israelis have been killed in the last few days in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and shooting incidents are happening by the dozens on a daily basis throughout the territories. However, the definite drop in violence proves that the PA leadership has control over terrorist elements.

It is incumbent on the PA Chairman Arafat to apply a zero tolerance policy when it comes to Palestinian violence. Israelis, whether they are in Palestinian-controlled areas or in Israel itself can, under no circumstances, be targeted. When terror stops completely, Israel will return to the negotiating table. When the time comes, the Israeli Government's policy will be no different than the one it has successfully applied in the past with the full endorsement of the US: differences should be settled by the parties themselves.