Dani Dayan | The New York Times |
Maale Shomron, West Bank
WHATEVER word
you use to describe Israel’s 1967 acquisition of Judea and Samaria —
commonly referred to as the West Bank in these pages — will not change
the historical facts. Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation
in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of
Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these
territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is
therefore unassailable. Giving up this land in the name of a hallowed
two-state solution would mean rewarding those who’ve historically sought
to destroy Israel, a manifestly immoral outcome.
Of course, just because a
policy is morally justified doesn’t mean it’s wise. However, our
four-decade-long settlement endeavor is both. The insertion of an
independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan would be a
recipe for disaster.
The influx of hundreds of
thousands of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and
elsewhere would convert the new state into a hotbed of extremism. And
any peace agreement would collapse the moment Hamas inevitably took
power by ballot or by gun. Israel would then be forced to recapture the
area, only to find a much larger Arab population living there.
Moreover, the Palestinians
have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution.
The American government and its European allies should abandon this
failed formula once and for all and accept that the Jewish residents of
Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere.
On the contrary, we aim to
expand the existing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and create
new ones. This is not — as it is often portrayed — a theological
adventure but is rather a combination of inalienable rights and
realpolitik.
Even now, and despite the
severe constraints imposed by international pressure, more than 350,000
Israelis live in Judea and Samaria. With an annual growth rate of 5
percent, we can expect to reach 400,000 by 2014 — and that excludes the almost 200,000 Israelis living in Jerusalem’s newer neighborhoods. Taking Jerusalem into account, about 1 in every 10
Israeli Jews resides beyond the 1967 border. Approximately 160,000 Jews
live in communities outside the settlement blocs that proponents of the
two-state solution believe could be easily incorporated into Israel.
But uprooting them would be exponentially more difficult
than the evacuation of the Gaza Strip’s 8,000 settlers in 2005.
The attempts by members of the Israeli left to induce
Israelis to abandon their homes in Judea and Samaria by offering them
monetary compensation are pathetic. This checkbook policy has failed in
the past, as it will in the future. In the areas targeted for evacuation
most of us are ideologically motivated and do not live here for
economic reasons. Property prices in the area are steep and settlers who
want to relocate could sell their property on the free market. But they
do not.
Our presence in all of
Judea and Samaria — not just in the so-called settlement blocs — is an
irreversible fact. Trying to stop settlement expansion is futile, and
neglecting this fact in diplomatic talks will not change the reality on
the ground; it only makes the negotiations more likely to fail.
Given the irreversibility
of the huge Israeli civilian presence in Judea and Samaria and
continuing Palestinian rejectionism, Western governments must reassess
their approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They
should acknowledge that no final-status solution is imminent. And
consequently, instead of lamenting that the status quo is not
sustainable, the international community should work together with the
parties to improve it where possible and make it more viable.
Today, security — the
ultimate precondition for everything — prevails. Neither Jews nor
Palestinians are threatened by en masse eviction; the economies are
thriving; a new Palestinian city, Rawabi,
is being built north of Ramallah; Jewish communities are growing;
checkpoints are being removed; and tourists of all nationalities are
again visiting Bethlehem and Shiloh.
While the status quo is
not anyone’s ideal, it is immeasurably better than any other feasible
alternative. And there is room for improvement. Checkpoints are a
necessity only if terror exists; otherwise, there should be full freedom
of movement. And the fact that the great-grandchildren of the original
Palestinian refugees still live in squalid camps after 64 years is a
disgrace that should be corrected by improving their living conditions.
Yossi Beilin, a left-wing former Israeli minister, wrote a telling article
a few months ago. A veteran American diplomat touring the area had told
Mr. Beilin he’d left frightened because he found everyone — Israel, the
Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — content with the
current situation. Mr. Beilin finds this widespread satisfaction
disturbing, too.
I think it is wonderful
news. If the international community relinquished its vain attempts to
attain the unattainable two-state solution, and replaced them with
intense efforts to improve and maintain the current reality on the
ground, it would be even better. The settlements of Judea and Samaria
are not the problem — they are part of the solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment