Settlements and Boundaries

A draft resolution is circulating in the UN Security Council that would condemn Israel for continuing construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And a group of former U.S. diplomats is urging President Obama not to veto the resolution. The draft resolution, as now written, states that "Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace."

On the surface the resolution might not seem ominous, but if the U.S. joins with others in condemning Israel, it will be the first time our country will have allowed such a resolution to go through the Security Council. Israel would indeed be standing alone against the rest of the world.

To me the resolution is hypocritical, since settlement construction is not a major obstacle to lasting peace. Let me explain why I believe this is so.

Since 2000 virtually everyone has recognized that the "1967 borders" will not be the final borders of any future Palestinian state. Such borders are not required by UN Resolution 242, passed after the Six-Day War. And the different peace proposals floated over the past decade have recognized that the final borders will be altered slightly, allowing Israel to incorporate a number of the settlements into its final boundaries and providing borders that are more secure.

But aren't the sheer number of settlements being built creating a major barrier to peace? That is, isn't Israel creating a greater problem by continuing to build throughout the West Bank--making it even more difficult to define final borders? A new study by The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy would suggest that the answer is no. The report, "Imagining the Border: Options for Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Territorial Issue," suggests the settlement problem is not the issue many are making it out to be. Annexing just 4.73% of the pre-1967 West Bank would allow Israel to incorporate 80% of these settlers into the country without forcing them to relocate. And by ceding a comparable amount of land to the Palestinians, Israel could provide opportunity for Palestinian expansion in the crowded Gaza Strip and as well as in other areas of the West Bank. The study provides specific maps detailing three different options that could be the basis for such a settlement.

So instead of pushing to condemn Israel for expanding settlements that will almost certainly become part of Israel anyway, wouldn't it be more sensible for the Palestinian Authority to resume negotiations to resolve these final boundary issues? Sadly, in the Middle East decisions don't always follow common sense.

If you want to be better informed on what's possible, I urge you to follow the link above and download the report. You will be impressed by its common-sense approach to the issue of establishing boundaries that could be acceptable to both sides. Other issue wold still remain, but this report represents the kind of approach the Palestinians and Israelis ought to be taking to resolving these issues. Let's hope the UN resolution fails and that negotiations again become an option.

Is Israel to blame?

Leaders around the world are blaming Israel for the breakdown of the most recent peace talks. Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian legislative council, voiced the opinion of most European and Arab leaders when he told Al Jazeera, "If the US, being the only country that is monopolising control of the talks, is failing to pressure Israel to abide by what was written in the road map and what the international community demands - which a complete freeze to settlement activities - then there is no peace process and the reason for this is Israel."

So is Israel really to blame?

Let's look at the facts.

On November 25, 2009, Israel imposed a 10-month moratorium on all West Bank settlement construction to help move the peace talks forward. The moratorium did not include Jerusalem. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said at the time, "Regarding Jerusalem, our sovereign capital, our position is well known. We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital."

After delaying for nine months, the Palestinian Authority finally agreed to begin direct negotiations. But 30 days later Israel's moratorium expired, and settlement construction resumed. The Palestinians walked away from the negotiations, and the U.S. began feverishly looking for ways to bring them back to the table.

The U.S. offered incentives to both Israel and the Palestinians if they would return to the talks. In exchange for a 90-day extension to the settlement moratorium Israel would receive U.S. assurances that they would not be pressured for any additional extensions and would be protected against any adverse actions against them by the U.N. Initial reports also hinted the U.S. would give Israel additional advanced fighter jets, but those reports turned out to be somewhat inaccurate. (Israel would need to pay for the airplanes.)

Netanyahu indicated his willingness to impose the additional 90-day moratorium if Obama's guarantees were put in writing. But the Palestinians chose to changed their conditions for resuming talks. A resumption of the previous moratorium was no longer sufficient. Now the moratorium on building needed to be extended to include Jerusalem. Israel refused, the "peace talks" totally collapsed...and nearly everyone is blaming Israel.

Was Israel to blame for wasting the first nine months of the initial 10-month moratorium? No, it was the Palestinians who didn't come to the negotiating table. Did Israel change the understanding regarding the extent of a second moratorium once a deal was almost complete? No, it was the Palestinians who demanded additional restrictions.

It seems to me the Palestinians are the ones who are doing everything possible to scuttle the negotiations. Perhaps we need to ask if they were ever really serious about reaching a deal in the first place.

The Wall: A Symbol of Exclusion...or Protection?

Drive around Jerusalem—or many other parts of Israel—and you will soon come face-to-face with one of the most visible symbols of the current Middle East crisis. In most areas the “wall” is really just a high-tech fence, while in others it is a massive concrete barrier that cuts across the countryside like a giant scar. (This picture, taken near Bethlehem, visualizes the imposing nature of the barrier in some places.)

But is this fence/wall a symbol of racial apartheid and exclusion . . . or is it a symbol of protection against an implacable foe? The fact that a fence/wall is being built is undisputed; but the purpose for the structure is hotly debated. The Palestinians call it the “racial segregation wall” or the “apartheid wall,” while most Israelis call it the “security fence” or “separation fence.”

So why is the fence/wall being built?

Some claim the barrier is being built as a way for Israeli settlers to gobble up additional portions of land that rightfully belong to the Palestinians. But this view clashes with the historical facts.

The concept of a barrier was first suggested by Yitzak Rabin, the Israeli leader who was assassinated for trying to make peace with Yasser Arafat. Rabin proposed the idea of a separation barrier in 1992 after an Israeli teenager was killed in Jerusalem. Two years later, after a series of violent incidents in Gaza and the West Bank, Rabin stated more clearly his intentions for a barrier. “This path must lead to a separation, though not according to the borders prior to 1967. We want to reach a separation between us and them. We do not want a majority of the Jewish residents of the state of Israel, 98% of whom live within the borders of sovereign Israel, including a united Jerusalem, to be subject to terrorism.“ The purpose for the barrier—as envisioned by Rabin—was for protection, not apartheid.

Since the beginning of construction in 2003, there have been several changes to the exact route of the security barrier. As originally conceived, the barrier roughly paralleled the “Green Line”—the 1949 armistice line that divided Israel from the West Bank of the Kingdom of Jordan. However the barrier did diverge in several places to incorporate key Israeli settlements in the West Bank. These variations originally included about 7% of the land that was on the Arab side of the Green Line.

In 2004 the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that a portion of the route violated the rights of Palestinians and mandated that those portions be rerouted. In 2006 a new route was approved that left fewer Palestinians, and less West Bank land, on the Israeli side of the barrier.

So what do we need to know?

First, we need to realize that the 1949 armistice line (the Green Line) was not intended to be the final boundary for Israel. It was to serve as an interim border until a final peace treaty was reached. Unfortunately, no such treaty was ever signed.

Second, we need to realize that Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the 1967 Six-Day War, which began when three countries (Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) threatened to “push the Jews into the sea.” After the war Israel offered to exchange the land it had captured in exchange for peace with her Arab neighbors. That offer was rejected.

Third, we need to acknowledge that the fence/wall has imposed hardships on some Palestinians. Some private land was appropriated for the project. And the barrier has restricted access from the West Bank into Israel . . . and even between some villages in the West Bank.

Fourth, we also need to acknowledge that the barrier has resulted in a tremendous drop in terrorist attacks within Israel. Since the beginning of construction, terrorist incidents in Israel have almost been completely eliminated. This is Israel’s stated purpose for the barrier, and it seems to be working.

What’s the bottom line?

Simply put, the barrier is saving Israeli lives . . . but at the cost of making life more difficult for those living on the other side. So what can be done? Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident who later emigrated to Israel and entered politics, expressed the dilemma for Israelis and Palestinians.

Our government understood that there were three options to maintain an acceptable level of security for our citizens. The first was to wage a total war against Palestinian terror using weapons that would claim many innocent Palestinian lives. The second was to keep our reserves constantly mobilized to defend the country. The third option was to build the security fence. Had the Palestinian Authority become a partner in fighting terror, as it was obliged to do under all the agreements that it signed, none of these options would have become necessary.

I believe Christians need to respond to the current situation in two specific ways. First, we need to become better informed about the history and purpose for this barrier. To that end I recommend you click on the following links. For a Jewish perspective, read Israel's Security Fence. For a relatively neutral perspective, read Israel's West Bank Barrier. And to view the issue from a Palestinian perspective, read Denying Palestinians Free Movement. Read each article and decide for yourself which one best presents all the relevant facts.

Second, I believe we need to pray for the people who live on both sides of the barrier. Ask God to continue thwarting terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. And ask Him to give those designing and building the barrier a full measure of wisdom and compassion to construct it in a way that gives Palestinians the greatest possible freedom and ease of access within the West Bank.

Finally, remember this. The barrier is not being built to fence in the Palestinian people; it’s being constructed to keep out terrorists. And it is working—but at a great cost to many Palestinians with no connection to terrorism. Like Natan Sharansky, I blame the Palestinian Authority. Israel was forced to build the barrier because the Palestinian Authority failed to fulfill its promises to fight terrorism. I don’t blame Israel. One key role for government is to protect its citizens—and that’s why Israel finally decided to build the barrier.

The Power of Words

The cover story for the September 13 edition of Time magazine ("Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace") seemed shallow and biased. I felt Israel was being judged simply because its people seem to be trying to live normal lives. Israel's ambassador wrote a response that appeared as an op/ed piece in the September 15 edition of the Los Angles Times.

If you haven't seen either article, follow both links and read the stories. Then ask yourself why Time magazine chose to present Israel as it did.

Are there some in Israel who don't want peace with the Palestinians? Yes. Are there Palestinians who don't want to make peace with Israel? Certainly Hamas, among others, comes to mind. They have already attacked civilians on the roadways and shot rockets into Israel in an effort to derail the current peace talks.

To paint all Israel with a broad brush (as Time did on its front cover...and in the article) while failing to note the problem on the Palestinian side appears unfair and one-sided. What do you think?