To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

Palin's Common-Sense Ignorance (or Indifference) on Settlements

Palin_in_Israel_March2011.jpg

...there is nothing common-sense about Palin's comments during her recent visit to Israel, where she reportedly
criticized President Obama for objecting to Israeli settlement expansion, suggesting that settlement construction is simply a local Israeli "zoning issue."

-------------------------------

A lot of people like to make fun of Sarah Palin and her "I-can-see-Russia-from-my-house" foreign policy credentials. Palin's defenders will no doubt argue that these are just cheap shots from "elites" who overlook Palin's common-sense, call-it-like-she-sees-it approach to understanding the world. But there is nothing common-sense about Palin's comments during her recent visit to Israel, where she reportedly criticized President Obama for objecting to Israeli settlement expansion, suggesting that settlement construction is simply a local Israeli "zoning issue." Palin also implied that Obama's settlement policy is something unique to his administration and that a truly pro-Israel president would not criticize Israel on this matter.

These comments are totally disconnected from facts, history and any understanding of U.S. interests. Indeed, they appear to reflect an almost willful ignorance or an inability to understand the settlement issue and longstanding U.S. policy on related to it.

In Palin's defense, it is true that the settlement issue can seem complicated, fraught as it is with history, religion, ideology, politics, dates, annoyingly complicated maps and statistics, and of course a heavy dose of hasbara. Bearing all that in mind, now seems like a good time to review some Settlements 101-style facts that Palin and other would-be presidents and pundits would do well to note:

Israel has never annexed the West Bank.
The West Bank is not considered by Israel to be part of sovereign Israel. The Israeli High Court of Justice and the Israeli military refers to it as an area held under "belligerent occupation."

The West Bank is under military rule. Inside Israel, people's lives are governed by laws passed by the Knesset and enforced by the relevant authority of the government of Israel. In the West Bank, total authority is vested in the Israeli Ministry of Defense (Palin might understand this better if the analogy is drawn to the role of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq - but in this case the provisional authority has been in place for 43 years and isn't making any preparations to leave).

"Zoning" in the West Bank is overtly political and discriminatory. There is nothing normal about Israeli decisions in the West Bank pertaining to land use. Since 1967, such decisions have never reflected the actual needs of the indigenous population, as would be expected of any responsible authority. Rather, such decisions have consistently reflected the interests and goals of Israel's ideologically-driven settler movement, which aspires to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state and whose more messianic elements actively seek to displace the indigenous population in order to fulfill their vision of "Greater Israel."

Land-use statistics paint a stark picture.
The simplest land-use facts bear this out: Since 1967 (when there were no Israelis living in the West Bank), Israel has, through various means, taken control of around 60% of the land in the West Bank. Most of this area has been handed over for the use of the settlers. As a result, today there are around 296,586 settlers in the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem), as compared to 2,275,982 Palestinians. But while the settlers represent only 13% of the population in the West Bank, they have obtained exclusive control and use of more than 40% of the land (this number does not include roads and other infrastructure built exclusively or primarily for their use), including vast swathes of land located deep inside the West Bank, far from the so-called settlement "blocs".

The implications of settlements are not simply local. Settlement construction in the West Bank is not merely a local "zoning issue." It carries with it serious political ramifications for both Israel and the United States (not to mention the Palestinians). Foremost among these, it directly undermines the chances of ever achieving peace and the two-state solution - and without a two-state solution, Israel's existence as a democracy and a Jewish state is in jeopardy. Likewise, settlements and the damage they do to peace efforts undermine the credibility of U.S. leadership, with negative implications for U.S. foreign policy efforts in the region and beyond - a point recognized and articulated by top U.S. military officials.

U.S. policy, regardless of president or party, has been to oppose settlements. It appears Palin is laboring under the misapprehension that President Obama has struck new policy ground in opposing expansion of Israeli settlements. The historical record categorically and emphatically proves this is not the case. Here are some examples of how previous administration's viewed the issue:

* President Ronald Reagan, speech delivered 9/1/82: "The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated."

* President George H.W. Bush, March 3, 1990: "My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it's firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that's our strongly held view. We think it's constructive to peace--the peace process--if Israel will follow that view. . . ." (In 1992 President George H.W. Bush took the unprecedented step of linking the provision of $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Israeli settlement policy, reflecting his recognition that settlements were so detrimental to U.S. interests as to justify using an extraordinary assistance package as leverage to convince Israel to change its policy.)

* Secretary of State James Baker, 5/23/91: "Nothing has made my job of trying to find Arab and Palestinian partners for Israel more difficult than being greeted by a new settlement every time I arrive," Mr. Baker said during testimony before the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on foreign operations. "I don't think that there is any bigger obstacle to peace than the settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an enhanced pace." [...]

* President Bill Clinton, 1/8/2001: "...the Israeli people also must understand that they're creating a few problems, too; that the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise."

* President George W. Bush, 4/4/02: "Israel also must recognize that such a state needs to be politically and economically viable. Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognize boundaries consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338."

* President George W. Bush, 6/24/02: "...consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop...the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338..."."

* President George W. Bush, 1/3/08: "U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday called Israeli settlement expansion an 'impediment' in revived peace efforts and urged the Jewish state to meet its pledge to dismantle unauthorized settler outposts..."

Sarah Palin's suggestion that settlement expansion is merely a local Israeli "zoning issue" discloses a total ignorance or indifference to all that is involved in Israel's settlement enterprise and all that it means for U.S. interests in the region and beyond.

Her insinuation that the Obama Administration's opposition to settlement expansion is a new policy discloses the same extraordinary ignorance or a delusional denial of history - on display, it would appear, solely for the purpose of scoring cheap political points.

And what is disclosed by Palin's cavalier suggestion that a truly pro-Israel president would break with four decades of U.S. policy - policy embraced by Republican and Democratic presidents alike - to support Israel continuing its reckless and self-defeating policy of expanding settlements? One thing: a notable absence of foreign policy "common sense."