A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Settlements and Logic

When the subject is Jewish settlement of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, logic and reason usually disappear. This applies both on the extreme Israeli (and pro-Israel Jewish) right, as well as among the Israeli (and Jewish) left, and most of the world.

There are many manifestations of this. Here's one that became apparent in a conversation that I had yesterday with a modern Orthodox person with left-wing sentiments on the question of Israeli retention of disputed territory.

This person made clear that he sees nothing sacred about the Green Line (Israel's armistice line following the 1948-49 War), and that he therefore rejects the notion that settlement of territory captured in '67 was inherently illegitimate.

However, he is adamantly opposed to the settlement of Gaza, much more than the post '67 expansion of Jerusalem and the settlement of Judea and Samaria. Indeed, he described settlement in Gaza as "colonialist."

His reasoning: There are very few Jews (approximately 9000) in Gaza, and since they are so outnumbered by Arabs, the entire project there is immoral and indeed "colonialist."

Now, there may be good reasons to oppose settlement in Gaza, and to argue that it was a mistake from the outset. But to call settlement in a particular area immoral and colonialist specifically because relatively few participated in settlement there strikes me as absurd. Would Jewish settlement of Gaza have been more moral if 900,000 Jews had moved there, instead of 9000? My guess is that it would have been seen by Palestinians as much more colonialist, as a takeover of the entire Strip instead of (mainly) just a relatively small block of settlements on the southern tip of Gaza.

Nevertheless, despite the logical absurdity of the position that the fewer people who settle, the more illegitimate such settlement is, this in fact is the prevailing view among Israelis, and indeed much of the world.

Thus, in areas settled by Israel in which many Jews live, the "settlements" quickly became seen as normal Israeli towns. The best example is Ariel. It's fairly deep into Samaria, but because it has about 20,000 residents, most (correctly or incorrectly) insist that it must permanently be part of Israel.

In contrast, with several exceptions, most of the Gaza settlements are just outside the Green Line. Indeed, Amram Mitzna, Labor's candidate for Prime Minister in the 2003 election, told Haaretz last year that he disagreed with Ariel Sharon's plan to dismantle the northern Gaza settlements of Dugit, Alei Sinai and Nissanit, since they are right next to the Green Line and do not encroach on Arab villages or towns.

Similarly, the tiny settlement outposts are seen as nuisances that should be dismantled. This conveniently overlooks that almost all of the large settlements, including Maaleh Adumim, where 30,000 Israelis live, started off modestly in a similar manner.

Even President Bush has indicated that the reality of "major Israeli population centers" beyond the '67 borders "must be taken into account" in a final status agreement.

The point being made, fairly or not, logically or not, is that becoming a major population center provides at least some legitimacy to a settlement, while strategic location and even proximity to the Green Line and/or to Arab areas have been rendered almost meaningless.

In other words, it's all about demography.

This has far-reaching implications for settlement in post-'67 Jerusalem and Jerusalem's suburbs, as well as in Gush Etzion, western Samaria, and the Golan Heights. These are the areas that the large majority of Israelis want to retain and in which Israel currently has a demographic advantage. Since a final status agreement - if one ever is reached - likely will not be achieved for many years to come, it is essential to maintain Jewish growth in these areas and to limit Arab growth.

With regard to the Golan, only about 18,000 Jews live there, and the population has had limited growth since Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir left office, suggesting that, despite Israel's 1981 annexation of the Golan, Israel's recent governments - both Likud and Labor - do not want the Golan to become a "major Israeli population center".
posted on 6/22/2005