Peace Now Settlements in Focus - Vol. 3, Issue 5: Settlements and the Annapolis Peace Process

[Note: This [December 2007] edition of Settlements in Focus does NOT address the controversy over new tenders recently issued by the Government of Israel for the construction of 307 new units in Har Homa, a settlement located in southeast Jerusalem. We will cover this issue in detail in an upcoming edition. For further reading at this time, we recommend the December 12th lead editorial in Ha'aretz, as well as Akiva Eldar's December 10th column in Ha'aretz.]
With respect to Olmert's "bold" commitment to not build new settlements, this commitment is nothing more than a reiteration of a policy that is more than a decade old. In 1996, the Israeli government declared that Israel would establish no new settlements, and subsequent governments have repeated this commitment. Since the original declaration, the debate has focused not on the establishment of new settlements, but rather on the question of expansion of existing settlements, with Israel arguing that existing settlements should be allowed to continue to expand via "natural growth" and the Palestinians and the international community arguing that such growth was not "natural" and should not be permitted. It should be noted that Phase I of the Roadmap explicitly requires Israel to stop all settlement expansion, including expansion due to "natural growth." (For an excellent discussion of the controversy over "natural growth and what it does or does not mean, we recommend this 2001 analysis by Geoffrey Aronson, of the Foundation for Middle East Peace).

Although Israel has officially committed itself to a "no new settlements" policy for more than a decade, on the ground Israel has unofficially established around 100 new settlements which are illegal even from the Israeli point of view. The story of the establishment of these "illegal outposts" – which are in effect proto-settlements – was told in the report prepared at the request of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon by attorney Talia Sasson. For details of that report, see: http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&fld=343&docid=2012&pos=0

A real "no new settlements" policy should mean not only refraining from establishing new settlements, but also dismantling all of the new settlements that have sprung up in the form of illegal outposts. Unfortunately, thus far there is no evidence that this is what Olmert means by his commitment.

"Freezing settlements" means halting ALL construction activity. This has not happened. It means stopping the bulldozers, including those operating in the "settlement blocks" and/or west of Israel's security barrier. While these latter areas may be within the so-called Israeli national consensus and may well become part of Israel in the future, at this point they are part of the area whose status must be resolved through negotiations, not through continued Israeli efforts to put houses and people on the ground. Any other definition of a settlement freeze is not serious. Any other definition will be exploited by settlers and their advocates to continue construction, and any other definition will signal to the Palestinians and the world that Israel is not sincere about negotiations.
In short, the government of Israel continues to support the settlement enterprise actively, through public investment, construction, and approvals, but also passively, by failing to enforce the law to any meaningful degree.

Produced by Hagit Ofran, Peace Now and Lara Friedman, Americans for Peace Now

full text