FAYETTEVILLE — Are we going to see any progress toward a solutionto the Israeli-Palestinian impasse?
President Obama's special Middle East envoy,George Mitchell, has been pushing for agreement to resume formal peace talks and met with leaders in the region this week.
Outwardly, at least, a major stumbling block to any agreement is the issue of Israeli housing settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
There are those who say that settlements are really not a key issue and some who suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using the settlements as a negotiating ploy. However, symbolically and in physical reality, the settlements are an issue.
Both the Obama administration and the Palestinians have said there should be a total freeze on settlement construction. Netanyahu's government said earlier it will authorize construction of hundreds of new homes in the West Bank. This would be in addition to the 3,000 housing units already under construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. It is estimated that there are about 500,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, though like everything else related to this subject there is dispute about the actual numbers.
For the Obama administration, Middle East issues are among a number of international concerns and domestic dilemmas to contend with. But the ongoing divisions between Israel and the Palestinians have broad ramifications and are an important part of the mosaic of international relations.
Any consideration of this issue must start from the premise that Israel enjoys considerable support from and strong ties with the United States. However, on the question of the settlements, a series of American presidents and administrations, some more than others, have been critical of Israel's actions.
Jimmy Carter was president when the issue of the settlements first came up. The man behind the Camp David Accords, the Israeli-Egyptian treaty, remains an outspoken critic of the settlements and a thorn in the side of Israel. Only recently, Carter and a group of "elders," including several prominent international figures, visited the region. Carter said that a total freeze of settlement expansion is the key to any acceptable peace agreement or positive responses toward Israel from Arab nations.
President Reagan in 1982 called for a settlement freeze and said that further settlement activity was "in no way necessary for the security of Israel." President George H. W. Bush was especially strong in opposing new settlements. President Clinton said that Israel should understand that the settlements were an impediment to a peace agreement. And President George W. Bush, although at times ambivalent, said "Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop."
For their part, the Israeli governments over the years have repeatedly agreed to halt settlement activity, but, whether it is a matter of semantic differences or duplicity or simple disagreement, that hasn't happened. Some Israeli officials have insisted that there have been no new settlements, just expansion of existing ones.
One American political figure very much at odds with the U.S. position is former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee. He says it is wrong to press Israel on the settlements issue. On a recent visit to east Jerusalem, Huckabee said the United States should not be "telling Jewish people in Israel where they should and should not live." Huckabee, a frequent visitor to Israel, opposes a two-state solution, a goal supported by the Obama administration and the preceding Bush administration. It also has broad international backing. Prime Minister Netanyahu has, with certaincaveats, also endorsed a two-state solution.
Also on Huckabee's agenda was a visit to Hebron, the historic city which provides a vivid example of the conflictbetween Israelis and Palestinians and the issue of settlements. Hebron, the city of Abraham, is a site of religious significance to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Some of my ancestors lived in a small community in Mississippi called Newhebron, named after the biblical city, as were a number of towns around this country. As a result of that connection, I developed an interest in knowing more about the original Hebron, a city with nearly four millennia of history.
In 1978, I had my first opportunity to visit the West Bank and see this ancient city. It was quickly apparent that Hebron was in many respects an epicenter of tension and conflict, with deeply felt divisions, driven by history, over what the future of the city should be. In 1978, settlements were beginning to blossom in the area, notably a large Israeli residential development, Kiryat Arba, just outside Hebron. Israel had captured the West Bank area in the 1967 war and Hebron's historical significance made it a prime focal point for those who wanted to reclaim what they considered to be rightfully theirs.
Over the years it has been the scene of violent outbreaks and lingering bitterness. A settlement with some 800 Israelis is in the heart of this city of 170,000 Palestinians, and protecting the settlers has been very costly for the Israeli government. Meanwhile, curfews and limitations imposed by Israeli security have contributed to drying up of much of the commerce within the city, with more than 1,800 Palestinian shops closed in recent years.
The continuing tensions over Hebron as well as Jerusalem are indicative of the complexities and strongly held convictions that make finding a path to peace and a possible two-state solution so difficult. Many believe those complexities have been intensified by the ongoing settlement activity, which the Palestinians and much of the rest of the world consider to be illegal under international law, which prohibits an occupying power from moving people into such territory. Israel has maintained that the area is "disputed," rather than occupied. However, the expansion of Israeli settlements is seen by many Palestinians as visible evidence that Israel is not serious about a peace agreement and that they won't have the opportunityto build a viable state of their own.
Any agreement by Netanyahu to limit settlement activity may be linked to reciprocal action by Palestinians and Arab states, what negotiators call "confidencebuilding measures."
Strong supporters of Israel argue that the problem isn't the settlements, but a long pattern of Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel's right to exist. Others say that Israel and the United States should be much more concerned with cooperating on contending with what they see as the looming threat of Iran rather than being preoccupied with the settlements. And this week Israel turned some of its attention to an angry rejection of the U.N. report that was highly critical of the role of both Israel and armed Palestinian groups, notably Hamas, in last winter's Gaza war.
However, President Obama says he is committed to pushing ahead for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and there is little doubt that reining in the settlements will be a critical element if there is to be significant progress toward meaningful agreement.
Hoyt Purvis is a journalism and international relations professor and served as press secretary to Sen. J. William Fulbright, foreign/defense policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, and as chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. His column appears on Sundays.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 09/20/2009