The settlers' only chance
By Yair Sheleg
Haaretz, January 11, 2004
Among the Jewish majority in Israel, agreement is emerging not to allow the settlement project in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip to lead Israel into the binational situation. The implication of such a scenario in the fairly near future is, of course, the loss of the Jewish majority. All the surveys show that a clear majority (even a "Jewish majority," for those who insist on one) today supports the evacuation of most of the settlements as part of a peace agreement. A large proportion of the public is even ready to accept their unilateral evacuation.
Therefore, those who would like this settlement project to continue - the settlers themselves and their supporters - are left with only one course of action: to shape a solution that will differentiate between the cessation of Israeli rule in the areas of Yesha (Judea-Samaria-Gaza) and the continued existence of the settlements there. To put it simply: to make possible the existence of Jewish settlements in an area that will be under Palestinian rule.
According to this thrust, Israeli citizens will be able to reside in the Palestinian state, just as the Israeli Arabs will be offered the possibility of choosing Palestinian citizenship. The two countries will be able to choose whether to create a meta-federative framework, in order to facilitate the ties between them. In any event, it's important that, even within a framework of that kind, the boundaries between the countries be well defined, so as to prevent a Palestinian slide into the area of Israeli sovereignty in a manner that will endanger the Jewish majority there.
This line of thought was put to the Israeli public as far back as the Oslo accords negotiations, though the Palestinian murderousness in the past few years of the confrontation suppressed support for ideas of this kind. The question is whether it is right to yield to murderousness, and because of it, uproot tens of thousands of people from their homes.
It's clear Palestinian agreement will be needed to implement a plan along these lines. The historical paradox is that it is the left-wing camp, the original camp of dialogue, that can choose the unilateral option to shape the solution it is proposing (even if it does not view the unilateral approach as a preferred option). In contrast, it is precisely the right-wing camp that, in order to realize its vision of settlement - even if not the vision of sovereignty, which has turned out to be impossible - needs dialogue with the Palestinians.
Why should the Palestinians agree to this form of solution? Firstly, because it is clear that the political threat of resistance to withdrawal by the settlers and their supporters is the central factor preventing Israel from making Palestinian independence a reality. Secondly, because in a solution of this kind, it is easier for Israel to offer the Palestinians a state with borders as close as possible to the lines of 1967, whereas the track of uprooting settlements will oblige a smaller Palestinian state. On the other hand, it's clear the unilateral withdrawal must be present in the background as a warning that not under all circumstances will the status quo continue and that Israel will not allow itself to be dragged into the binational solution.
For Israel's part, it would be well advised to propose, indeed to demand, that the settlements remain intact, for a number of reasons. To begin with, it will make it easier for us to forgo control of parts of Yesha, while avoiding the dangers posed by a binational state. True, this scenario holds out a certain risk in the form of creating a mix between the countries and their citizens, but at least for now, the risk seems reasonable compared to the commitment urged by the settlers, to which all Israeli governments since 1967 have given their backing. It also holds out a prospect of averting the national trauma that will be entailed in the evacuation of tens of thousands of people.
The settlers, for their part, have to understand that consent to live in territory not under Israeli sovereignty is the clear condition for the possibility of remaining in their homes. In the present situation, in which Israeli society has tired of ruling in Yesha, the expectation is not only that they give their tacit consent to this solution, but that they lead it and enter into a dialogue with the Palestinians to work out the details of such an arrangement.
If the settlers refuse to accept this idea, as they have every political plan for a generation, they will have no one to complain to if, with deep regret but with an even deeper sense of necessity, a large portion of their project is lopped off.
