Memorandum: Impact of Israeli settlements on the Peace Process

Importance and Reach of the Issue

Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have become the key impediment to the rehabilitation and successful completion of the Peace Process. Addressing the issue of settlement growth is the pre-requisite for re-engaging the formal negotiating process and will govern the discussions once this process has begun anew. Quite simply: this issue is everything. It is so crucial because settlement expansion undermines the integrity of a Palestinian state - the goal of the Peace Process. (This is the “two-state solution” often heard in the reporting and discussion of this issue.) By continually expanding into the Palestinian territories, Israel is allowing the borders of a future Palestinian state to exist in name only. This, of course, is unacceptable to the Palestinians and the sole reason both they and the U.S. administration seek an agreement to halt expansion as a pre-requisite to re-engaging the Peace Process.

            Without a formal agreement (or the diplomatic equivalent thereof) on the settlement issue the U.S., who is leading the negotiating process, will have effectively conceded too much to Israel. By re-engaging the Peace Process without this agreement the U.S. is sending the message to Israel that its current operations are sanctioned. As negotiations begin Israel will almost certainly increase its expansion into Palestinian territories. They are currently doing so with both pressure from President Obama and persistent violence from the Palestinians most proximate to these settlements. If they are granted a seat at the negotiating table with this action continuing unabated the Peace Process will be futile. After all, if settlements proliferate while negotiations to stop that proliferation are under way the entire process loses credibility and becomes ineffectual. Lastly, Israeli settlers use violence in their expansion campaign while affected Palestinians use violence to repel it. Violence has compounded the settlement issue and has made the Peace Process anything but peaceful. As each settlement is constructed and further bouts of violence appear on the nightly news negotiations are set back. Urgency is imperative.

A Brief Background

            The settlement issue has its roots in the aftermath of the Six Day War. After the war’s completion Israel gained control of a number of areas (via the cease-fire agreement) captured during the operations. Among these were the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Initially, Israel did not expand into these territories. In fact, as settlers attempted to relocate into these areas the Israeli government forcibly evacuated them and destroyed infrastructure that went up during their occupation. However, subsequent years saw no advance in the discussion of what to do we these quasi no-man lands. In response, Israel ceased its restrictions and enforcement of settlement expansion. The result has seen settlers totaling over 280,000 in the West Bank and over 190,000 in East Jerusalem today.

            In 2005, following what was called the Unilateral Disengagement Plan, four settlements in the West Bank (and all settlements in the Gaza Strip – another contested territory) were dismantled following forced evacuations. What was heralded as progress in the Peace Process belied settlement expansion in East Jerusalem. By 2008, even with the land concessions made three years earlier, net settlement expansion was positive. Recognizing the reality on the ground, President George W. Bush (and before him President Clinton) sought to limit settlement expansion by defining specific boundaries in which current and already planned settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank could grow into. While this seemingly advanced the Peace Process it ignored another reality on the ground: That Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a newly formed state. For a multitude of reasons, not least of which involves the logistics of relocating these relatively entrenched settlements, parts of both East Jerusalem and the West Bank would retain Israeli control in any likely peace agreement. To compensate for this, different tracts of land would be allocated to the Palestinians. That brings us to the Peace Process today.

The Latest Developments

The current Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, has become fairly recalcitrant on this issue; Because of this the Peace Process today is in flux. President Obama is seeking an immediate end to settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. In what would prove to be a major diplomatic error, Obama presented this wish using the term “restrain” instead of “freeze”. Though President Obama meant the latter, Netanyahu took his phrasing at face value, claiming he knows the difference between the two terms and their respective calls to action. Because of the President’s language Netanyahu can claim he is abiding by the administration’s wishes, as the definition of restrain can be applied both narrowly and broadly in scope.

Obviously, defining it broadly benefits the Israelis. Unfortunately, this sets the U.S. administration’s efforts to advance the Peace Process back considerably. Further, Netanyahu continuously contradicts himself in the public debate on this issue. At times he claims a two-state solution is absolutely untenable. Other instances present a somewhat discernible acceptance of a Palestinian state and the necessary concessions to get there. This wavering puts the U.S. administration in a bind. They cannot move forward with negotiations until an agreement on settlement expansion has been reached. But, depending on the day, Benyamin Netanyahu implies this to be either ignorant or impossible. In either case, progress is elusive. The U.S. is entirely dependent on changing the Israeli Prime Minister’s mind. The latest set backs were just over a month ago however, leaving the Peace Process once again in flux. Without moving forward on the settlement front that’s where it will stay.


Key Conclusions:

• ·      The settlement issue is the primary impediment to the re-engagement of the Peace Process
• ·      Any agreement on settlement expansion that would be sufficient to continue the Peace Process will most likely not be sufficient enough to finish the Peace Process.
• ·      Time is not on the United State’s side; the logistics of moving settlements as expansion increases will be used to Israel’s advantage.
• ·      The U.S. is dependent on Benyamin Netanyahu’s decision on settlement expansion.