Elliott Abrams is a
senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations. This piece is reprinted with permission and can be found on
Abrams' blog "Pressure Points" here.
This may seem to be a simple question, but efforts to answer it show that it is actually complex. For one thing, what's a "settlement"? What are the "major blocs"? How many Israelis live in the major blocs and how many in smaller settlements beyond the security fence? Are those settlements growing?
This may seem to be a simple question, but efforts to answer it show that it is actually complex. For one thing, what's a "settlement"? What are the "major blocs"? How many Israelis live in the major blocs and how many in smaller settlements beyond the security fence? Are those settlements growing?
I tried to answer those questions in an article entitled
"The Unsettled Question," published this week in Foreign Policy. Oddly
enough, both the settler movement and the Palestinian Authority have
often exaggerated the numbers -- for different and indeed opposite
reasons. The article is an effort to find the facts upon which policy
arguments should be based.
The bottom line:
Settlements beyond the security fence are indeed growing in population,
and considerably faster than Israel's population. In the years I
examined (with Uri Sadot, the co-author), Israel's population grew about
6 percent but these settlements grew about 17%, if the data we used --
based on electoral rolls -- is accurate. Roughly 80,000 Israelis appear
to live now in settlements in the West Bank that are not typically
viewed as areas Israel would keep under the terms of the most likely
final status agreements. Whether it is in Israel's interest for that
number to grow is, of course, a hotly debated policy matter. As we state
in the article, "If the guiding Israeli principle remains a two-state
solution, partition of the West Bank, and separation from the
Palestinians, it is especially hard to see the logic in allowing further
blending of the populations."
But whatever one's
policy views, information is useful. As Uri and I end the article, "It
is hard to come up with hard numbers, and we acknowledge the limitations
to our methodology. But the very fact that facts are hard to come by is
significant: Transparency won't end the debate on settlement expansion,
but it would make that debate better informed and far more
intelligent."
From "Pressure Points" by Elliott Abrams. Reprinted with permission from the Council on Foreign Relations.
From "Pressure Points" by Elliott Abrams. Reprinted with permission from the Council on Foreign Relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment