“An Israeli Perspective: Can the Settlers be Evacuated?”
by Uri Avnery

Overview:

The Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories are a key stumbling block to peace, yet every Israeli government since 1967 has furthered settlement construction with all available means. Such a prolonged campaign would have been impossible if it did not express the inherent aims of the Zionist movement: to take possession of as much land as possible and settle Jews on it. Despite international law expressly forbidding settlement by occupying powers in captured territory, dozens of laws and military decrees have been employed to further this endeavor.

The Strategy Behind Settlements:

The Israeli settlements were built according to a well thought out strategic plan designed to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. This plan envisioned allowing, at most, a group of disconnected Palestinian enclaves, each surrounded by settlers and soldiers. As a result, Palestinian homes were demolished and trees uprooted because they obstructed the plan. About 200,000 settlers currently reside in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Another 200,000 Israelis are estimated to inhabit settlements in the Jerusalem area.

Settlers began to move into the Occupied Territories soon after the 1967 war—from within Israel, the United States, Europe, Africa, and elsewhere—on land confiscated from Palestinians. The hard core consists of messianic religious fanatics of the Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful). Others are opportunists who wish to obtain a beautiful villa at little expense. These opportunists, however, have become increasingly a part of the ideological extremist camp as they try to justify their presence.

In order to create an economic base, several “industrial parks” were located near the settlements. Established enterprises could sell their properties in Israel, inexpensively obtain land in the industrial park, receive generous government subsidies, and employ Palestinian workers for wages much lower than those paid in Israel. In the settlement economy, Palestinians are not entitled to a minimum wage, annual vacations, severance pay, or other rights protected in Israel.

Still, the costs of maintaining the settlements are high. Examining government expenses on settlements outside of the Jerusalem area—including the infrastructure, bypass roads, and the army units for their defense—Gush Shalom experts have calculated that each settler costs Israeli taxpayers about $125,000 annually.

The peace proposals of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak were formulated around the layout of the settlements. Barak proposed the annexation of Israel settlement blocs containing 80 percent of all settlers, most likely in the framework of territorial swaps. As no authoritative maps were produced, various figures have been tossed about, some Israelis claiming that only 5 percent of the West Bank would be annexed, while others speak of 10 to 12 percent. Palestinians generally cite a figure closer to 25 percent or more, because Barak did not take account of the Palestinian land already annexed to Jerusalem and the land designated to remain under prolonged Israeli military occupation without outright annexation.

Can the Settlers Stay?

While many settlers have proclaimed their willingness to risk their lives, and those of their children, to prove their steadfastness, nobody knows how many have quietly moved back to Israel. Those choosing to stay have expressed dismay at the lack of support from the Israeli public, causing them to feel increasingly isolated. Many Israelis see the settlers as a strange sect of religious fanatics.

Some argue that since a million Palestinians are Israeli citizens, some tens of thousands of Israeli settlers could remain in a future Palestinian state as law-abiding citizens or foreign residents. Yet this scenario is unlikely to work. The hard core of the settler movement went to the Occupied Territories for the express purpose of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state or to evict the Palestinians altogether. It is inconceivable that they would opt to live peacefully under Palestinian rule. For the Palestinians, the settlers are a symbol of occupation, oppression, and humiliation—a constant reminder of a hostile presence. Palestinian leaders have indicated that they do not object to the presence of individual, law-abiding Israelis in a Palestinian state; however, the settlers are a different matter.

Some Israelis fear civil war if the settlers are forcefully removed. The settlers are heavily armed and are an integral part of the Israeli army’s operations. No Israeli government has dared to evacuate a settlement from the West Bank or Gaza (except tiny outposts established as provocations). Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin did not even dare remove the handful of settlers in Hebron after settler Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Muslim worshippers in a Hebron mosque.

A strong government, a solid peace agreement, and the support of a large majority of Israelis will be needed to justify a forceful removal. In such circumstances, opposition would shrink to a fanatical hard core, which would pose no real threat to Israel. This is what happened on a much smaller scale when the Begin government forcibly removed settlers from the northern Sinai. Then-Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon oversaw that operation. Perhaps another analogy can be drawn from the Algerian War of Independence. More than a million French settlers, some of whom had lived in Algeria for generations, fled the country within weeks after liberation. The colonists tried to mount armed opposition, but in the face of hostile public opinion, their opposition faltered.

Possible Solutions:

Once an Israeli government comes to the conclusion that peace must be based on the coexistence of two states side by side, with a border based on the Green Line, the settlement problem will necessarily be solved along the following lines: A territorial swap would redraw the borders in both directions, perhaps in both parties’ interest. This would allow for the continued existence of some of the larger settlements near the pre-1967 border, i.e., the neighborhoods inside annexed Jerusalem, which are by now inseparable from the city landscape (Gilo, French Hill, and others). Settlements such as Ma’aleh Adumim, outside Jerusalem, must be dealt with like other settlements.

In return, Israel would relinquish land adjoining Palestinian territory; this land could be used for the settlement of returning Palestinian refugees. Such a swap was said to have been found acceptable during the negotiations between Barak and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. Some Israelis have proposed annexing the strip of Palestinian villages on the Israeli side of the Green Line (“the Little Triangle”) to the Palestinian state. The Palestinian citizens of Israel living there, however, have objected, perhaps because their standard of living, while lower than the Israeli average, is higher than the average in the Palestinian territories. Also, they have long-established ties to the Israeli economic, political, and social systems. Another possibility is to annex uninhabited territory along the Gaza Strip known as the “Halutza dunes” and/or south of the Hebron area to a future state of Palestine. These desert areas are not equivalent to the agricultural land of the settlements, yet they could be used for housing purposes.

As for Jerusalem, former U.S. President Bill Clinton suggested that the Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas already annexed by Israel become part of Israel. In return, Israel would agree to turn over all of Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods, including the Haram al-Sharif, to the Palestinians. All other settlements must be evacuated.

Generous compensation will have to be paid by the state to assist settlers in building a new life in Israel. Some of the more fanatical settlers will return to their countries of origin, but most will become citizens in Israel. In return for compensation, the settlers must leave all buildings and installations intact as part of Israeli reparations and for use in absorbing returning Palestinian refugees. Israel must acknowledge their right of return in principle and afford the refugees the choice either to return or to accept compensation. All refugees will be given, as a matter of course, Palestinian citizenship, including the right to settle in the state of Palestine. An agreed upon number must be allowed to settle in Israel.

Uri Avnery is an activist and founder of Gush Shalom. The above text may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the author and to the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine. This Information Brief does not necessarily reflect the views of the Palestine Center or The Jerusalem Fund.

This information first appeared in Information Brief No. 74, 6 April 2001.