|
|
Israeli Settlements: Integration and Reconciliation
By: Stewart Silverstein
Israel has been accused of systemically rooting out the Palestinian population by erecting settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Since 1967, the United Nations has issued numerous condemnations in response to Israel’s settlement-building policy. Lately, since the start of the second Intifadah, the settlement issue has been given a significant degree of attention, and continues to be a contentious issue.
Many critics of Israeli policy have gone so far as to say that the settlements are the root of the conflict with the Palestinians. Obviously, these critics need a lesson in the nature of the conflict. I think the first thing, which would need to be considered, is that, the settlements are not the main problem, and they can be used in a utilitarian sense to bring about reconciliation, through integration. However, to do this, we must first stop useless condemnations which lead to nowhere and begin drafting an effective plan to reconcile the two opposing sides. Of course, in this plan we must not rule out the existence of the settlements, nor should we advocate their dismantlement.
To do this, we must think purely in a realistic sense. The reality is that after 1967, the West Bank and Gaza were taken by Israel; whether or not we support this annexation is a different story. After this takeover, the government of Israel embarked on a settlement-building policy, which violated human rights guaranteed in many international conventions. With these violations came international pressure and condemnation, along with calls for a two-state solution.
Under the recent roadmap proposed by Bush, Israel is bound to dismantle some of these settlements. This requirement is simply impractical. The dismantlement of Israeli settlements will only cause more resentment, and will be an obstacle to reconciliation. We must realize that it will take more than driving out some of the settlers if we are to achieve reconciliation. The reason for this, is that Israeli settlements are simply not the root of the conflict.
So, what is the root of the conflict? I think many educated commentators on the Middle East would agree that terrorism is the single most significant factor when determining the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The consistent failure of the Palestinian Authority to effectively prevent terrorist acts is also a part of the root cause for the conflict. Instead of realizing this very transparent fact, critics of Israeli policy have looked to assign blame on the not-so-important settlements issue as a major cause of the conflict. As a result of this, the predominantly left-wing critiques of Israeli policy are fundamentally ungrounded. This is because the main cause of the issue, terrorism, is seen as the result of Israeli policy and hence dismissed as the major cause. Rather, the supporters of Palestinian self-determination have viewed Israeli policies as the main cause of the conflict.
As Nima Shirali, the brilliantly innovative co-founder of MERF has pointed out, it is simply not in the interest of the Palestinians to have acts of terror committed against Israel (Shirali, 2003). The reason for this is that it takes away from the prospects of having a state of reconciliation. The Palestinian side must also realize that the dismantling of settlements is impractical, improbable, and unfair. Despite what radical Islamic groups may say, two wrongs do not make a right. The expulsion of Israelis from the settlements is a very clear contradiction of what the Palestinian side (along with many leftist sympathizers) advocate. Instead of such radical, impractical measures, we should exploit the presence of the settlements to integrate the Israelis and the Palestinians, and to have reconciliation through tolerance of one another.
To do this, one of the first steps, which needs to be taken, is to educate the Palestinian population, as well as a significant portion of the Israeli population, that the settlements are not main problem. Both sides should be convinced that the presence of settlements can be used in a utilitarian sense. Through increased contact with one another and through communication, rather than through segregation, the settlements can bring about reconciliation.
Many would ask how we could have integration and reconciliation when Israel builds security fences to contain the Palestinians. Well, these measures are taken in response to terrorist activity against Israel, which are the result of the lack of education on how to attain a state of reconciliation. The onus is on the Palestinian Authority to prevent terrorism, rather than finding a scapegoat (i.e. the settlements), to claim that it is Israel, and only Israel, which is at fault.
|
1
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Stewart Silverstein
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
Nisreen Zain-Halai | Jul 13th, 2003
I found your article really interesting but I would like to point out that 'Palestinian terrorism' is the 'effect' of the settlements and the absolute violation of Palestinian rights; economic, human and social...Israeli settlements continue to be built on Palestine-owned land; how can a Palestinian be pacified and be told to live peacefully with an Israeli if his own home is bulldozed for further settlement creation....the Palestinian Intifidah began in 1987, whereas Israeli's started building settlements in 1967. Though the settlements are not the 'root' of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they are most definitely one of the most important reasons for the continued violance on both sides. This is not to say that the Intifadah is valid or my comments re-instate its credibility; I am against the use of the sword to solve problems, but sometimes, like it is in this case, they Palestinians have been forced to resort to violence, because diplomatic solutions and UN resolutions have not protected their basic rights.
Disappointment George Gardashian | Jul 15th, 2003
I agree with Nisreen. Have you at least lived in Israel to know this or in Palestinian territory at best? Let me tell you, having the land behind my house confiscated to make a road for settlements through lands we used to own was not exactly "uplifting". Let us look at Hebron with its 15,000 or so inhabitants and the illegal settlements' 400 or so settlers; the settlers get 85% of the water. I admire that you tried to be rather "fair" but I feel you are viewing all of this from the wrong angle. Take time to step into my shoes, which cannot take more than a few steps out of my door without having an Israeli soldier warn me that I could be shot for "maybe thinking of throwing stones".
FREEDOM! Ayman El Hakea | Jul 22nd, 2003
I salute you for your organised ideas and your focuesed thought... but it seems that your -writing is just focused on your point of view, with a full neglect of what 1,500,000,000 Arabs and Muslims around the globe may think. Objectivity requires more space to the opponent's point of view, therefore, I believe that your essay lacks objectivity. The simplest question that might be asked is: If Israel is the only state in the region that is prooved tp be nuclearly-armed state, and that is founded upon a land of others, as your opponent may believe, then why can't she accept a natural "reaction" from the people who did not only lost their lands, but their security, their children, their homes, and their cultural identity.
As long as the Israeli settlements including Israeli armed settlers exist inside the Palestinian occupied lands, the security of the palestinians will remain violated,and consequently, Israel shall not live in peace...
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
