The end of the peace process to the Palestinian mind is, among
other things, the termination of the Israeli occupation of the West
Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. At the same time,
Palestinians consider Jewish settlements in the territories as the
essence of occupation. Such a paradox makes it difficult to view
peace and settlements as compatible.
The Palestinians' concept that Israel's settlement policy is the
biggest threat facing the Palestinian people has its roots in
history: settlement was the primary means through which the Zionist
movement established the State of Israel in 1948 on that part of
Palestine it had appropriated by various ways.
Since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in
1967 and the beginning of Jewish settlement there, this historical
background gave rise to the collective feeling, among Palestinians,
that Israel's present settlement policy aims to turn a temporary
military occupation, which came as a result of a war, into an
irreversible historical fact. To the Palestinians, this is the
meaning of the settlement policy and this is what it also meant to
them at the start of bilateral negotiations in Washington (the
early 1990s) between their negotiating team and Israel. These
negotiations failed to achieve any result because the Palestinian
side insisted on the inclusion, in any agreement, of Israel's
commitment to end all forms of settlement expansion. It was only by
sidestepping this condition that it was possible, then, for the two
sides to reach and sign an agreement in the secret Oslo
negotiations.
Facts on the Ground
In the course of all the years of occupation, there were two
reasons for Israeli settlement activity. The first is basically
strategic, comprising security, religious, ideological and
historical considerations. The other reason is tactical and changes
according to the political situation and with the change of
government or ruling party. This is carried out for economic and
political ends.
It is clear that both major parties in Israel have implemented the
policy of settlement on strategic basis, but each one had different
tactical reasons. The expansion of settlements which took place
during Yitzhak Shamir's government when then-American Secretary of
State James Baker attempted to start the peace process rolling is a
clear illustration: the settlement expansion was meant to hinder
such a process.
Since the onset of the peace process, however, a new and important
reason for settlement expansion arose. This was to determine the
features of the interim and permanent solutions - which are
inseparable - through the establishment of facts by expanding
settlements or their infrastructure, especially the building of
roads and bypass roads.
Such a development in settlement policy has been accomplished in a
very obvious manner in the Jerusalem area, in order to predetermine
the issue of Jerusalem in negotiations in accordance with Israel's
political and ideological requirements. Similarly, the settlements
near or on the Green Line (1967 border) are there to force
rectification in that area in a final settlement. The same policy
was also used in parts of the West Bank with a view of separating
the major Palestinian population concentrations in order to hinder
their geographic and demographic contiguity and, hence, economic
integration. The intention is to influence the nature and essence
of the Palestinian entity in a final settlement. Such illegal
practices reflect the exploitation by Israel of a lack of balance
of power in the area, and the absence of a just and even-handed
mediator who would provide circumstances conducive to a just peace
in the future.
Losing the Chance
All this is not new. What is new, in my opinion, is the stage which
settlement activity has reached, or will reach by the end of
Netanyahu's mandate. The size and location of settlements will lead
to a situation in the West Bank whereby the possibility of
establishing the State of Palestine will have vanished.
Consequently, this closes the door on the option which the
Palestinians consider as the minimum requirement in a solution and
the only way which would bring them to accept the principle of
coexistence between the two peoples. This naturally means an end to
the opportunity for a peaceful settlement and a historic
reconciliation between the two peoples.
Instead of achieving the kind of final settlement which Israel
desires, the settlement issue might actually end all chances for a
solution, leading to a protraction of the conflict, as illustrated
by Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa). In other words, through its
settlement policy, Israel might now be wasting a historic
opportunity through either the short-sightedness and arrogance or
the ideology of some of its decision-makers.
To avoid any misconception, the onus of such a responsibility does
not lie on the shoulders of the Likud party alone. The Labor party,
and even most of the Israeli nation, will carry the blame if they
do not appreciate the strategic dangers inherent in the policy of
settlement to Israel's future and that of the region.
Israel seeks through settlement expansion to determine the future
of the occupied territories, but it overlooks the fact that the
future of this land is inextricably linked to that of two and a
half million Palestinians living there, as well as to that of
Palestinians living in the diaspora who regard it as their future
homeland. How, then, will the problem of these millions of
Palestinians be solved?
Alternatives
If Israel succeeds in blocking a solution based on the
establishment of a Palestinian State alongside the State of Israel,
and the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, the
Palestinians will find themselves forced to consider other
alternatives. They might opt for a solution which calls for one
state from the river to the sea - a binational state. It will not
be the solution of choice, but will be a natural development or a
de facto option.
The Palestinians had abandoned the notion of a binational state in
the middle of the seventies because they believed in the
possibility of a solution based on two coexisting entities. If by
the century's end they find this an unlikely development due to
Israel's settlement policy, they will have no other choice but to
revert to their past position. The conflict will then resume over
the right or rights over the whole land and not just over rights in
the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza.
Since peace and settlements are incompatible, at the end of the
day, Israel will have to choose between them. It might, however, be
too late to ask Israel to make the choice, for it would seem that
Israel has already done that and has shut the door in the face of
peace. So what is left now? Naturally, there are those who consider
a third option which falls between that of a single nation and that
of two states: the transformation of the temporary interim
self-rule into a permanent situation or solution. Some of
Netanyahu's advisors even assert they would not mind if the
Palestinians went ahead and called it a state.
No Apartheid
The reality of life in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in its
interim state and with the present existence of settlements is
reminiscent of apartheid. The experience of self-rule, so far,
points to the impossibility of making it permanent, not only
because, structurally, it has been designed on an interim basis,
but also because it is precisely its temporary nature which makes
it acceptable to the Palestinians. It does not provide the minimum
requirements for internal Palestinian stability in the national,
economic and security spheres. Furthermore, the so-called self-rule
or autonomy fails to tackle or solve the basic elements of the
conflict, such as the issues of refugees, the land and Jerusalem.
These problems will remain as pressing as ever, and the Palestinian
people will remain under foreign control, albeit sometimes
indirectly. Such a situation will precipitate an explosion of the
relations between Israelis and Palestinians, both on the political
and security levels.
In summary, accelerated Israeli settlement policy fails to respect
the minimum demands of the Palestinians and creates a reality
making impossible the achievement of peace between the two sides.
This might put an end to the present historic opportunity for
peace. What is more, it will move the conflict to a costlier and
more difficult stage, for both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.
There are undoubtedly people of vision in Israel who realize the
peril inherent in such a development and fight against the policy
of settlement. Unfortunately, at present, the majority seems to
ignore the dangers such a policy constitutes for the future of
Israel.