Comment / West Bank settlements are good for peace

"So until there is a permanent status agreement, only Jewish settlement activity can be enough of an incentive to make the Arabs, like Sadat, hurry up and seek peace, because their losses will multiply the longer they wait" This article sadly confirms Israel's MO of occupation and land theft to bring the other side to the bargaining table. How about peace, is that not enough of an incentive for the two parties?

Well done, Haaretz! Right on target as usual, Prof Raphael! If only there are many more sensible folks out there like you, who has such clear vision and foresight! Land or settlements for peace, not in Israel, nor any part of the world, where aggression, terrorism, and self-destruction is encouraged and held in high esteem, will ever work!!! Wake up folks!! It is a fanantic religious war! It's world dominion these aggressors are after, first with Israel the Jews, then the rest of the other faiths with the rest of the world! See it? Israel will always be a "problem", and so will the rest of the world who will not succumb to terrorism and aggression. I agree absolutely with Eitan #33; #38, #81, #90, #95, and all those who have clear minds!

"The Palestinians should also be forced to freeze." (Zev) Freeze what, exactly? Their settlement activity, perhaps, in the midst of the occupied and stateless Jewish people? Zev, why did you leave us guessing?

If this is what you really believe, that we Jews will always be a problem to the world, no matter what we do or don't, then you cannot escape the only logical conclusion: Israel-the-state has no future, for Zionism, - whose ultimate goal was (has nobody told you yet?) to bring an end to the the abnormal situation you just described - was the worst and most tragic mistake of the Jewish people in modern times. I know this is what some Jews believe, mainly in Bnei Brak and Mea Shearim. Are you one of them? Are you trying to tell me that Herzl and Ben Gurion were nothing but two charlatans? "The peace process, if successful, will integrate the State of Israel into a web of normal relations with its surroundings and with the international political system." From "The Goals of Zionism Today", by Eliezer Schweid, 20 Aug 2001. www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/

On the contrary, the settlements could be the best thing for the Palestinian economy. Why would they want to kick out 100,000 of the most productive people in their future state of Palestine? These people provide crucial income to the local Palestinian construction workers and if the Palestinians can get their act together and declare their state, taxes as well. If Muslims and Christians can live in Israel, why not Jews in Palestine?????

At last Professor Israeli has so eloquently stated what the majority of Israel has known for some time. Maybe now it's time for all to remove the blinders and see the truth for what it is. Most of the readers seem to agree !

Give me a break!

In the words of my teenage daughters ... yeah, right

Whenever you read or watch an interview with settlers, they explicitly state that the settlements are part of their strategy to AVOID a peaceful political settlement with the Palestinians. You even hear the phrase, "War Now." And now this person is posturing as though he believes settlements are good for peace, when anyone including him knows that they are the self-conscious primary obstacle. I love this. I love that the supporters of land theft are feeling so exposed that they are resorting to this level of self-deceptive confabulation as they watch their US paymaster begin to show signs of change. Those who actually support Israel, as opposed to supporting thuggish settlement policy which is harmful to all parties including Israel, are waiting with cautious optimism to see the US take further steps to force Israel to accept a genuine negotiated settlement.

"...horribly racist"? How can Jews and Arabs be racist against the other when Jews and Arabs are the same race, related, close languages, passing as each other always? Racism is clearly defined as the type of prejudice based on difference in race. Have you been in the U.S. long enough to open an English dictionary?

"Oh God, how can a Jew be so dimwitted as to believe that the world`s problem will never become, one day, ours too?" With Judaism inspiring yet contradicting billions of Christians and Muslims, how can a Jew be so dimwitted not to see we will never cease being a world problem, no matter what we do or don't do?

Well, not really, but because i don't live in the middle east, but I am well-read about what is going on there and I can understand the frustration of the Palestinians battered constantly by the well-oiled and well-financed Israeli propaganda machine. Be assured, the plight of the Palestinians is being heard. The Israelis are not wholly wrong in everything they advocate, but they are all-powerful and can and do crowd out any other perspective. Peace will clearly require a more even-handed US policy which I think (I certainly hope) Obama is providing. But be advised, powerful, ingrained forces are marshaling against him.

Continued illegal Jewish Colonies defeat any real possibility of the Palestinians actually having land which is worthwhile to build an economy.

Well, if Israel is going to hang on to the territories, I imagine the author will support citizenship for the residents, no? What are the alternatives?

Again and again I understand why chutzpa(h) has become part of Hebrew, the Jewish language.

I agree 100%. Its the same thing I've been saying. There is no incentive for the Palestinians to make peace unless what they think is their land is being eaten slowly away. Israel has been mistaken in slowing down settlement for many years now. Once the number of Jews over the cease fire or green line start to increase by 5 or 10% per year the Palestinians will make a deal.

Raphael Israeli is the Israeli version of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Michelle Bachman combined! 1- Settlements are built on land forcefully confiscated from non-Jewish native owners (title deed-holders) and given to Israeli Jews (politics aside). Any non-Jew who dares to resist this action, even non-violently, is shot by the Israeli army. If this is "peaceful", then so was the expulsion of Jews from Hebron in 1929. 2- The Gaza withdrawl sob-story again. The 'professor' claims that Israel left Gaza. Please read this factual analysis (Israel doesn't dispute any of this) and explain how Israel "left" Gaza. (google: btselem gaza control. Click 1st link) 3- Palestinians are not Egyptians and Palestinians are not the "brethren" of other "Arabs" no matter how much the pro-occupation crowd thinks so. Israelis, and Arabs living in dictatorships, might be indoctrinated to believe this myth (each for their own reasons), but from a solely Palestinian perspective, it's nonsense.

Even if the illegal settlements wasn't an obstacle to peace, they still have to go because they are criminal.

"It is Jewish land. The world does not agree but that is their problem." (ombudsman) Oh God, how can a Jew be so dimwitted as to believe that the world's problem will never become, one day, ours too?

Who says Israelis don't have a sense of humor!Lets hear more from Raphael the comic. Why doesn't Israel take som Jordanian and Egyption territory while its at it-that would also, following Raphael's logic, further the peace process.

So, If I understand him well, he is saying that the Palestinians lost their land because of their "aggression" towards the zionist colonists. So between 29 November 1947 'till 1`15 may of 1948 the zionists were silently enduring the attacks of Palestinians on the zionist colonies. I call that a real distortion of history. Wasn't it the other way around? That jewish gangs were attacking peacefull Palestinian villages and cities, remember plan Dalet, which resulted untill 15 May of 1948 already in the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of 350.000 Palestinians. Not true??? Read the publications of the newe israeli historians, Illan Pappe and Benny Morris. For me there is only one conclusion: Raphael Israeli is professor at the Jeruzalem University where they develop fairy tails in the Chutzpah section.

Would it be acceptable for Israel to give up 5% of its land, notably in areas chosen by the Palestinian side? In addition to the illegality of the settlements under international law, the policy of settling civilians in what is officially considered a war zone is irresponsible.

When the settlements are part of the State of Palestine, then these people will be an important part of the economic structure of the country. They will bring jobs to the locals and provide taxes to the new nation. As long as security is in place - and it is much better now than before - this can be a framework for lasting peace.

Full of straw man arguments and non sequiturs. "the formula that removing settlements equals peace is laughable and baseless" No one to my knowledge ever made the argument. Clearly though if one is negotiating the division of a cake it would appear to be axiomatic, [or at least logically consistent] that the cake should not be eaten by one of the protagonists whilst its division is discussed. The Sadat analogy is also misplaced. Israel had very little ideological commitment to the development of the Sinai or Gaza, neither of which bore anything but a tenuous and fleeting role in so called *biblical history*. Had Sadat been negotiating the West Bank he might still be alive today for he would surely never have secured an agreement. Then again the author proposes that the withdrawal from the strategically and economically untenable Gaza, [made deliberately without conferring any legitimacy on Fatah by consulting them on its implementation] was a magnanimous gesture by Israel! Symptomatic of its desperate desire for peace. Dov Weisglass [architect of withdrawal] explanations not withstanding. "The significance of the plan is the freezing of the peace process," Dov Weisglass told Haaretz newspaper, adding the US had given its backing. Palestinian statehood, refugees and the status of Jerusalem had effectively been dropped off the agenda, he said. So the expert on Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history is above all a master of misinformation, non sequiturs and delusions. I imagine he is also quite adept at Chinese Puzzles. Setting them, that is.

Thank you for sharing your threat of one state solution whereby Jews will eventually be outnumbered and ______? Go ahead and fill in the blank. "In fact, most Palestinians are not really infatuated with the two-state solution..." Thank you for your honesty. You say what Jews have been waiting to hear. And that is that the Pals do not want to live side-by-side with Jews. The Pals would prefer "the one-state solution whereby Israel would cease being a Jewish state." It's all your words Khalid. Thanks for that.

I don't think that Raphael is asking too much of us. All he is asking is to consider a short time line of activity, and look at the facts. Is that so hard?

Based on this analogy this then means that a Nuclear armed Iran would be good for peace.

All of you always blame the Palestinians for everything, always crying that Israel wants peace and the terrorist "Pals" or "Palis" are to blame for everything... but reading your horribly racist comments only goes to show over and over again that you guys have absolutely no moral superiority in this conflict. Set aside that most of you are not Israeli citizens and are pontificating from afar: when you advocate "Jewish supremacy" and expulsion of Palestinians to that crap-hole Jordan, or propagate the "Arab brethren" myth, or all of that good stuff, you're basically admitting that this whole conflict is about dog-eats-dog. That's all it is. But to claim that you have even an iota of moral standing on your side is ridiculous.

How did that happen?

This guy is a professor? The idea that the illegal settlements (most recent UN vote 170-6 that they are illegal) are helping peace, rather than the single most difficult obstacle to peace in this troubled region, is as bonkers as believing Stalin was really a humanitarian. Pity his students.

Allegra you are wrong. since 2007 a very import influx of Immigrants are arriving in Israel, they come from France, England, Argentina, Venezuela, etc. The setlements are for Jews not arab pals. thus the birth factor is not important, on the other hand they (pals) want a one state solution, this way yes, they will have a majority eventually since they reproduce themselves like rabbits

Bravo for such a true article.There is nothing new under the sun. history repits itself many times. Arabs beleived and still belive that Israel one day will just pack an leave tjose setlements. Arabas never worked for their countries, they were handed to them by politics, such as Jordan, Saudiarabia, Lebanon, etc. I agree Gaza is a prime sample of "apeasment politics such as the one England tried with Germany" for what? Israel gave up Gaza with houses, bussineses working and active greeneries and for waht. Gazans destroyed them and became bases for their rockets to atack Israel. It was a great idea from Ariel Sharon expecting to achieve peace, the true reality is Hamas, Palestinian arabs( there are Jewish Palestinians to) are not interested in forging peace, they will always find a reason not to accept it, why?. because this way they will keep the masses under their control and at the same time make money and have POWER among their ""brothers"

... but you can't make peace. Peace is just a matter of not pulling the trigger or dropping the mortar shell down the tube. The Pal style is to keep a war going at so low a level, that the world gets used to it. But there was a war, nevertheless, ever since (and because of) the withdrawal from Gaza. The war pretty much ended in January, although the exact rate of "acceptable" fire is being calculated, and will slowly rise to whatever Israel will accept. Peace in the sense of USA-Canada, Norway-Sweden, or England-Scotland will never happen, thanks to Muhammad and his Koran. Good article, by the way.

that nicking other people's property will get Peace to this region. How silly can you get? Friday we saw on Aljazeera how peaceful protesters, and Reporter Jackie Rowlands got bombarded with tear gas, just for asking that their lands are not being confiscated.

Unlike the Sinai the WB is a home of 2.5 million Pals. Israel has 2 options; give land for the creation of a Palestinian entity, or give them Teudat zehut. It is as simple as that, the world will not allow this Apartheid to continue for much longer.

"Israel has a right to have settlements in the West Bank under UN Security Council Resolution 242." (Jochai Rubinstein) In your imagination only. If our settlements are legal, which is much disputable, it is surely not under Res. 242. See under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security _Council_Resolution_242 and tell us where you find any basis for your claim. One thing is clear: It was certainly unwise - to say the least - to built permanent settlements on occupied land, for our own religious fanatics' benefit only, amidst a foreign, stateless and hostile population, as if it had tacitly consented to stay forever our silent and obedient subjects. Of this folly, we will all, and for a long time, be paying the price.

what do they care if we are obliterated?the european continent has its own history with us. do not let outsiders decide our fate.we have to stay in our strategic depth that is the jewish heartland of judea.

Yes, Israel IS our home, and we should of course defend it. But keeping the West Bank and its muslim population under our control, has been proved to be the least effective way to do the job. Since Oct 1973, Yom Kippur, we never clearly won any war - and in our case, not winning is losing. And the reason for that should be clear to anyone with a brain: Time is long past when an Army clashing, not with another Army, but with a foreign and stateless people, could bring a definitive military solution. "We have not yet freed ourselves from the mindset of an occupier facing the occupied, unable as we are to relate to the Palestinians as an independent entity with its own national considerations. Our decision makers must be constantly reminded that Mahmoud Abbas is no quisling nor collaborator." " ... an agreement can only be achieved between two sovereign parties, Israeli and Palestinian. And it can result only from fair negotiations." Shlomo Gazit, retired Major General, first Chief (appointed by Moshe Dayan) of "The Unit for the Coordination of Operations in the Territories". Later promoted to head of the Israeli Military Intelligence. Served as President of the Ben Gurion U in Beersheva, for eight years. Since 1988, a member of the staff of Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at TAU. www.geocities.com/keller_adam/gazit.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Gazit

The author lays out the issue: How to get the Palestinians to agree to peace(two states) in deeds, not words. The Olmert gov't offered a sharing of Jerusalem, a withdrawal of 95% of the West Bank and exchange of land for the rest, a land bridge from Gaza to WB. It was turned down. If continued settlement(the Palestinians seeing their land taken away) would force the Palestinians to a peace deal it would have worked already. Continued settlement will ultimately give the Palestinains what they want and are waiting for - one state. No, the only solution is to withdrawal behind the wall and wait for a generation of Palestinians serious about peace.

The Palestinians could make exactly the same argument, namely that only "violent resistance" will force Israel to make the necessary concessions for peace (a case that Hamas was able to make quite successfully in the past). So either both "settlements" and "terrorism" are good for peace..... ....or neither of them. I would very much tend to believe the latter one....

So if the Palestinians were to unambiguously recognized the State of Israel as a Jewish State, would Raphael Israeli support the dismantlement of all of the settlements and a complete withdraw to the pre-six day war lines for the sake of a total Peace. If Syria were to follow, then would he support the dismantlement of settlements on the Golan Heights and a withdrawal to the international boundary for the sake of "real Peace" with Syria? Please answer. I am waiting...

All indications over the past nearly a century have suggested that it has never been peace that the Arabs have sought; it has been rather a way or ways to ensure that no independent Jewish political entity of any sort is created in Eretz Israel (Land of Israel), and once Israel came about the goal has been to annihilate it, be it in one-fell-swoop or in stages. The "settlement" issue, from an Arab perspective has little to do with "settlements", i.e. villages and towns populated by Jews, and have everything to do with categorically any Jewish municipality, let alone state, that exists between the River and the Sea. If they really wanted peace they would accept the Jewish people's right to be, to exist in its own nation-state of Israel as called for by international organizations and bodies since at least 1917, but they refuse to accept even the existence of a Jewish people, let alone its right to its own independent state.

Do you understand Khalid Amayreh, the journalist, just how foolish your peace offer is? You, in your writings demand the 1967 borders and an unlimited return of millions of Palestinians into Israel proper such that the Jewish majority in Israel will disappear resulting in 2 Palestinian Muslim states. You threaten that if Jews don't agree to this the whole area will become just one Palestinian Muslim state. You have the nerve to come here and criticize Jewish offers of a Palestinian and Jewish state. Why would any Jew be interested in your peace offer?

The settlements per se have not prevented negotiating in the over the parameters of a peace agreements. Repeating the inept claim about Israel's readiness to return "95%" of the land blah,blah, blah is irrelevant not the least because it is patently bogus. It is not the negotiation over peace agreement but the implementation of the by now clear prerequisite conditions of peace agreement that impede reaching peace in the future. If the author believes that continued settlement activity "is good" for the prospects of peace with the Palestinians then perhaps he also believes that enemas are good for treating a malignant bowel obstruction.

This article is brilliantly clear, concise and totally accurate. Much can be said on this subject historically, but it would come down to the information contained in this artice. Well Done!

"As long as settlements are an obstacle to peace, peace is in our hands to accomplish." (Michael) Yes indeed. It is in our hands. But settlements ARE an obstacle to peace. Why? Because settlements built amidst a foreign, stateless and hostile people necessarily entail occupation, and no one has ever heard about an occupied people having made its peace with the occupier. Not in modern time.

There's something funny about saying the more we wait to make peace, the more Israel has to gain because we will have more and more (Palestinian) land and the Palestinians will accumulate losses. I have had the opportunity to speak to some Palestinians and some Arabs. The way they see it is: they have everything to gain by wiating because they have so many children as compared to the Israelis that israel will mathematically be drowned in a few decades. They also point out the fact that a country deprived of peace no longer attracts immigrants - Americain Jews remain in the USA for instance. In the end, we're all waiting and having no peace.

and intends to keep it that way. Build the land to the hilt!

So the settlements are good for peace because the encourage the Palestinians to compromise. Well, then, here's another good idea. The world community should finance the building of Palestinian homes in West Jerusalem and legal Israel proper. This might encourage Israel to compromise.

Both the UN Security Council and The International Court of Justice in the Hague have determined on multiple occasions that Israeli West Bank settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention and are illegal. Israel is also violating agreements which it signed (Oslo,Road Map, Wadi-Araba). Every year since 1989 the UN General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled "Peaceful Resolution to the Palestinian Question"It basically requires Israel to comply with existing resolutions against it (currently there are 65). The vote on the resolution was 164 to 7 against Israel.Your policies will guarantee at some point severe world economic sanctions.

A rare article that hits the nail on the head. Without the "threat" of settlements, the Arabs have no reason to seak peace.

As long is settlements are the obstacle to peace, peace is in our hands to accomplish. If however peace has to do with the arab's sense of things it is no longer up to us- a painful thought to consider.

without them the Arabs will have no reason to settle.

Just as settlements and evictions may force Palestinians to beg for peace, so suicide bombs may force Israelis to beg for peace. Such terrible logic... but Prof. Raphael, logic only works when applied to both sides, not just one side. This article (and many of the comments) shows that many Israelis think Palestinians are little puppies who can be trained to behave properly - that is, the way Israel wants them to behave. That is not 'peace'. Peace will respect Palestinians as people with intelligence, jobs, families, hope, and pride. For instance, peace will allow Palestinians to have their own airport like any sovereign state.

root of the Arab Israeli conflict. Everything else is a symptom of the conflict, including the "settlement" issue. Demand of the Arabs to accept Israel's right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people, a principle pronounced by the international community as early as 1917, i.e. Balfour Declaration, reiterated by the League of Nations in 1923, and finally voted on by the United Nations in 1947. Only when the Arabs accept Israel's right to be, to exist as the nation-state of a people, of the Jewish people, which has been the concesus worldwide since the early part of the 20th century will we be able to bring about peace to the region.

Why worry about "peace" at all?

Strange new formula for peace. What's mine is mine, and what's your's, is mine and your's.

I'm no supporter of settlement,but"expressions of ethnic cleansing".Is that what Arab settlemet did to the Berber in Moroco algeria, and Tunisia.Is that what happened with the Curds?Arabs have settled many places with the power of the scimitar.Was that all ethnic cleansing?.

The Israeli voter said loud and clear no to 67 borders! The Israeli public DOES want peace VERY much and is willing to pay a price but going bk to 67 borders is not even an option. The likud solution is the correct and fair solution. yes to Palestinian self rule including sovereignty/flag/passport/free border crossing in Jordan. Arab leadership must pay the price for their colossal errors, starting the 48, 67 and 2000 wars and adamantly refusing compromise and peace. The arabs can solve the refugee problem in all the other arab countries. the arabs have endless amount of land and petro-$$. The PA state can include all the main arab population centers in the WB - It can and will have land contiguity and it can even include some arab neighborhoods near Al-kuds(jerusalem). It could even include some of the arab centers on Israel side (um el facham). It must be demiliatarized again because of what the PA did with the arms in 2000-04.

Maybe i don't agree on all in this article,but with the most importent point i agree. If the Palestinians wish to have a state was stronger than their wish to destroy a state, they would have had a state in 1948,49,50,51,52,

your argument sounds like sophistry.we are building in judea because it is ours.it is jewish land.we are not building for utopian reasons.the world does not agree but that is their problem.

It was a natural development after 1967. Spiritual euphoria and patriotism led to the wave of"pioneers".To day settlement are good chip to bargain with,but good for peace?.

Israel has a right to have settlements in the West Bank under 1967's UN Security Council Resolution 242 It is better to be wise, than to be right

There is, actually, an argument to say that true peace can only come at the height of suffering and when both sides have been brought to their knees. Buy the key is the "both". The good professor's prescription, taken to the logical conclusion is that we need death on the streets of Tel Aviv and the full weight of the occupation in the West Bank before the Israeli and Palestinian populations will take the necessary risks to end the conflict. He may well be right. But it's a pretty depressing and hopeless prognosis.

I was at first convinced. Then I thought - we HAVE built settlements in the Golan - didn't bring about peace. We HAVE built settlements in the West Bank - FAR MORE than we ever built in Sinai - didn't bring about a rush for peace. And what settlement building was Jordan afraid of, to make peace with us? Your entire argument is flawed.

One way or another it becomes clear that Palestinians will only accept Palestinian Muslim states with no Jewish Israel.They hint otherwise just to get concessions from Israel and the West.(money,freezing,withdrawals). So, it becomes important that an Israeli government that wishes to settle, does so with a plan and not in a helter-skelter way.

We have absolutely no interest in making "peace", when as recent decades have clearly proven, every "peaceful" concession amounts to more bloodshed, and increased international condemnation. To the dismantlement of gush katif: the expulsion of over 10,000 people from their homes, and the destruction of entire communities- the militant left paid no heed. Instead, you continue to bay for our blood. I'd like to thank people like you for doing so. It has taught us to, as you pointed out, act first and foremost in accordance with our own interests, and build and live as we see fit. Bring on the boycotts.

...just common, simplistic rightist's ideas. Haaretz's blogs are far ahead of him.

A one sided freeze is racist and is demanded to allow the Palestinians to buy time while they build and have no intention of making peace with a Jewish Israel.

"Peace requires tangible contribution from everyone, not just Israel." (Charlie) Your idea of Egypt and Jordan giving up part of their sovereign land so that Israel could declare sovereignty over occupied territories stinks.

This would be true if Abbas and Hamas were trying to create their own state. They are not. They want to create a single Arab dominated state and the settlements' continued growth will allow that to happen.

The root cause of the Arab Israeli conflict has always been the total refusal of the Muslim-Arabs to accept the legitimacy of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people, the nation-state of a people whose very roots are and have been during the past nearly 4,000 years Eretz Israel (later to be named "Palestine" by outside forces). The Muslim-Arab orchestrated war-of-attrition-through-terror against the Jewish community of the country commenced as early as 1920, long before Israel came into being, long before the Six-Day War of 1967 and long before the establishment of "settlements" in what until then was a territory "cleansed" - by the Muslim-Arabs - of its former Jewish residents. The question that is: Why not demand of the Muslim-Arabs, for the sake of peace, to accept the Balfour Declaration of 1917, confirmed by the League of Nations in 1923, and finally accepted by the United Nations in 1947, calling for the establishment of a "Jewish state" in Eretz Israel??!!

From the perspective of the left and the media, settlers have become the ultimate Other, mainly because of the ideological threat that they, religious Zionists and anyone who identifies with them poses to those who pride themselves on an absence of ideology. The settlers ? in the path they have chosen, in their faith and even in their appearance ? represent the exact opposite: values, traditions, solidarity and, yes, hope for the future of the Jewish people. That is their sin, and that is their reward. As to justice and Arabs : http://xrl.us/otaij

This is a spiritual war and always has been. The religion of peace, (actually the religion of slavery), trys to replace the Jews as Hashem's chosen people, in the eyes of the goyim. Therefore the Arabs will never make peace unless they believe that they will lose territory. They build illegally but insist Jews quit building. They decieve and lie in wait then cry crocodile tears when their schemes are exposed. Only when they believe that the prophecy that Israel will occupy from river to sea will they begrudgingly accept Israel on its own land.

I ask you this...what incentive does Israel have to make peace if every year they delay peace is another year for them to expand their territory through more settlement construction??

"Abolishing West Bank settlements good for peace"

The logic of the article is the correct one. The arabs fought the jews even before the state of Israel was created. A San Marino republic would be the best option for the pals

To date the peace with Egypt is fragile and actually means Israel has peace with Mubarak only - he does not have his people behind him. Sadat's peace meant that all settlements went in return. No chance of that for the West Bank, so why should the Palestinians even consider anything but the status quo? What difference does it make to us anyhow. The IDF still manage to arrest Palestinians in Ramallah, Hebron and Bethlehem every night - what can we expect apart from more of the same?

And so are rockets from the arab resistance (or isn't now Lebanon free, while the west bank remains occupied?)

You say: "before 1967 there were no settlements, and no peace - unless, of course, you consider the communities within Israel "settlements," - the protest made by Jane Fonda and flows in canade aims exactly at that: Tel Aviv is a settlement. You say: "The Syrians and Palestinians believed they had nothing to lose if they maintained their refusal to negotiate, since their land would wait for them until they could graciously take it back from Israel and then attack again from these positions." This is the position of the Israeli Left wing in their willing to negociate at any price. The withdrawal from the Gaza strip with its human price (are settlers human?) is a proof. You say: "Anwar Sadat motivated to come to Jerusalem was his fear that settlements in the Rafah area and Sinai would grow into large cities that no peace agreement could remove." It was Itzhak Rabin's plan (future Price Nobel for Peace) to fulfill Herzl's dream of large jewish settlement in Northern Sinay.

A sensible article from Haaretz makes a nice change.

The danger is that it actually will spill over from settlements to towns and cities that can't be removed. Just look at Har Homa and Ma'ale Adumim.

Why do so few of them see the obvious?

Settlements in Sinai were not that hard to forcibly remove. Not so, settlements in the West Bank. Settlements in Sinai did not offer the prospect of demographically changing Israel into a state without a Jewish majority. Not so, the settlements of the West Bank. Sinai settlements might have been playing politics. West Bank settlements are playing with fire that may undermine the state. There is no comparison.

Wonderful post; George Orwell would be proud of you.

Thank you Ha'aretz for publishing a column predicated on logic, rationality and reason. Professor Israeli trenchantly observes what other columnist too often ignore: settlements are not, have never been, and never will be the issue. Removing the settlements today would only beget redoubled violence tomorrow. Such an action only incentives greater intransigence and violence from the Palestinians, vindicating that terrorism works. It is nothing more than wishful thinking that abandoning the large settlement blocks (which, like Sadat fretted, are now booming cities) would deliver peace.

That is the sad reality. Look at the entire "boycott" campaign originated by the Paleos and perpetuated by the so-called Left and their allies: It is an attempt to de-legitimize all of Israel. How else can one explain how a program about Tel-Aviv at the Toronto International Film Festival is subject of a "boycott" call by these types, because it is somehow "propaganda"(as if their nonsense is not propaganda. This whole settlement thing, while IMHO, was not a good Israeli govt. policy, from a pragmatic point of view, has morphed into something entirely different.

My first impression was that this article was perverse, in that creeping annexation thru settlement is a major irritant to the Palestinians, and now the US, and supposedly jeoprodizes the peace process itself. But there is an element of truth to it in that the Arab response to Israels very creation growth and thriving has been violence, denial, and an attempt to reverse the clock. Israel has built a succesful and vibrant society. with flaws and strengths ,while the Palestinians have wallowed in anger and hatred for decades. . Israel has a state, Palestinians should be building their own peacefully and constructively and Israel is the example of how to do it..

It has become axiomatic among those who consider themselves friends of the Palestinians that they are like blameless children, uncountable for any choice, action, or violence. Besides the offensiveness of this paternalistic and infantalizing attitude, it does nothing to further the cause of peace. This author is correct, the world and the Palestinians would be better off if they had to play by the same rules as every other actor, and were made to understand and could continue to suffer from their poor choices.

The entire argument in this article is erroneous. The settlements, which are expressions of ethnic cleansing, have become the main obstacle to peace. The continued proliferation of these hateful symbols of oppression will not make the Arabs succumb to the fait accompli. It will make them demand the one-tate solution whereby Israel would cease being a Jewish state. In other words, If Israel thinks Nablus and Jenin and Hebron are disputed territories, we too will view Tel Aviv and Safad and Haifa as disputed territories as well. In fact, most Palestinians are not really infatuated with the two-state solution, which is ostensibly dead, at least clinically. Rafaeli is a fanatical right-wing jingo-wingo who thinks that Arabs are to be coerced and bullied. As such his intellectualism is shallow. Well, I have some bad news for him. Time is not working in Israel's favor.

Everyone knows the 95% fallacy. One look at the map and one can see the checkerboard of a state offered...the era of tricks is over...

Great analysis, I totally agree with its premise and conclusion. I am just surprised that Haaretz allowed such sensible article to be printed.

Opinions?

Yep, there's nothing like the prospect of losing even more territory than they already have lost to motivate the Arabs to finally agree to a permanent and reasonable peace instead of some temporary, half-assed tahadiyeh or hudna. It would have been a different matter if the Palestinians had accepted statehood back in 1948, but they unwisely didn't so now they're going to have to accept what they can get for a state before it shrinks down to the size of San Marino.

The settlements provoke more anger among the local Palestinian and international community. Our soldiers spend more time in the reserves and as a result many are demoralized for serving in occupied territory ruling another people. In addition Israel spends large amounts of money building and maintaining settlements that should go to Dimona and other development towns in the Negev and the Israeli Arab villages. Does ISrael believe that they can build and build and if a peace settlement comes about, Uncle Sam will pick up the tab to sweeten the deal?

it is amazing how the Israel's lie the lie and they belive it, and then they ask and wants the whole world to belive it, anf get made if they do not. Setlements are illegal, there is nothing or but about it. so now they belive that setelemnts are good for peace. amazing.

This analysis is correct and should be the basis of Israeli action. However, the article fails to articulate the legitimate claims to the land now held by Israel and it lacks creative thinking in crafting a political solution to the problem--as in Egyptian and Jordanian land being dedicated to a newly formed Palestinian state. If these states care so much about their Arab brethren and about the "peace process", let them step up and make the significant contribution that seems to be the only thing that matters to the Arab world--land acquisition. Think how much a bit of Sinai added to the Gaza area could contribute to the over-crowding there. Peace requires tangible contribution from everyone, not just Israel. Yet, Israel only receives lip service and seemingly irrelevant "gestures" from the Arab world that make no significant imprint on the process.

making facts on the ground in opposition to peace is the zionist way to steal more land and avoid peace....the old formula is rapidly changing cause you haven't gained any ground in any of the wars you have provoked since '67 and the next one the arabs win and you lose land...make peace now and save your country and humiliation

Israel-Jordan: the agreed upon WB border was set to be the Jordan river. The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994. Jordan still keeps on her books laws against Jewish settlement, but there are no laws against Arab settlement, except that "palestians" are not defined as Arabs. Maybe as some angelic beings ?

I couldn't agree more.

It is painful to read articles which suggest that the author has not kept up with developments. When Raphael wakes up, he will find that Israel has actually signed agreements(Madrid, Oslo, Road Map etc) which acknowledge Palestinian eventual sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza. Does it make sense to build settlements which, assuming Israeli good faith, cannot belong in a new Palestine? Or are the Israelis saying that they have no intention of fulfilling signed agreements. What the world is awaiting is for Israel to be forced to comply. Sanctions have been enforced against several countries around the world which have dared to defy world opinion. Why not Israel?

Someone with brain in his head writing for Haaretz

I never thought i would live to see the left-wing Haaretz publish an accurate story about the conflict and the true issues and reason for the conflict. I compliment Haaretz for finally publishing a good article. I agree with everytyhing in the article and hope that when the truth is told peace will have a chance. i believe in peace and pray for peace but it must be a real peace. Otherwise, we are just playing into the muslims hands and giving them land that they can not win themselves in war. THis is our home and we should defend it. I am proud to be Israeli and love my country and land and hope that the truth wins so there can be real peace.

Even the Israeli left seems to have figured about what the Israeli right has been saying for 40 years.