Amos Oz, one of Israel's best known writers, claims that the current Palestinian-Israeli war is actually two wars -- an "unjust" war against Israel and the Jews to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state in an "Arab Palestine" and the Palestinian people's "just" war for an independent state worthy of the name. Conversely, Israel is also fighting two wars -- a just war to defend its right to exist, accepted in its integrity and security in the Middle East, and an unjust and futile war to perpetuate its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the Jewish settlements located there.
There are about 220,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza, excluding the approximately 190,000 people living in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem that extend beyond the pre-1967 border of the old, divided Jerusalem. Despite the <
Israeli state support for expanding settlements is substantial. In the last 10 years, settlements received annual subsidies equal to roughly 920 euros (US$1,088) per capita, while the development towns have received 575 euros and Arab communities in Israel 430 euros. State funds finance 50 percent of housing costs in the settlements, compared to 25 percent in Israel.
What is the objective of this policy of expansion in the occupied territories? Why have settlements been established even in areas most densely populated by Palestinians? Those territories that were to be used after the 1967 war as bargaining chips in exchange for recognition of Israel and peace are now permanently occupied in order to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state with the sovereignty and territorial continuity necessary for a small but autonomous state. In reality, the territories are an extension of Israeli sovereignty; the army is there to protect the settlers and to assert Israel's de facto sovereignty over them.
But the occupation has produced malignant effects: restrictions on freedom of movement, daily harassment and humiliation, road blocks. As a result, the occupied territories have become an obstacle to peace and, paradoxically, a threat to the very security of Israel, its citizens, and its soldiers. Israelis cannot dominate another people and live in a democratic state in keeping with Zionist ideals unless they "free" themselves of the territories and aim at the coexistence of two states with recognized borders and good neighborly relations.
Given magnitude of settlement and the power of vested interests, a forced evacuation of the occupied territories is unthinkable. But any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, will call for a first phase of evacuation of the at least 50,000 to 60,000 people living in the more distant and scattered settlements. Three years ago, then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak proposed a possible solution for approximately 150,000 settlers -- combining some of the large settlements into contiguous blocks and annexing them to Israel along with the sprawling suburbs of Jerusalem, with Israeli land handed over to the future state of Palestine in exchange.
But it is unlikely that the Palestinians would accept such a solution. So some kind of system of incentives must be devised to encourage a large portion of settlers to repatriate and to allow for the continued presence of the others in the territories while respecting Palestinian sovereignty. This will be easier for those settlers who moved to the territories for pragmatic reasons (subsidized housing, the quality of suburban life, tax incentives), because they are basically commuters, with a lifestyle that is not much different than if they were living in Israel.
Today, with the terrorist attacks along the roads and the insecurity, and tomorrow, with the establishment of a Palestinian state, these settlers will probably want to return to live within Israel's borders. Perhaps, in a future of peaceful coexistence and open borders, there could even be Jewish communities with autonomous administrations in the territories, just as there are such Arab communities in Israel now: the Jews that stay on would be foreign residents in the Palestinian state and subject to its laws.
But the settlers driven by a nationalist-religious ideology, devoted to the myth of a "Great Israel" and convinced that they are fulfilling the biblical dictate of repossessing the sacred land, will oppose evacuation. They will nevertheless have to submit to the democratic decisions of their government.
How much would such repatriation cost? Let's make a rough estimate. If 60 percent to 70 percent of settlers were willing to return to Israel, this would amount to 130,000 to 150,000 people or approximately 25,000 to 30,000 families. On the basis of the average price of a home in Israel (approximately 280,000 euros per family), one could estimate a total cost of 7 billion to 9 billion euros.
Within the framework of an overall settlement of the conflict, a number of countries could contribute to this sum -- the US and the EU countries, as well as Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. By purchasing the settlers' homes, they could then hand them over to Palestinian refugees settling in the future state of Palestine.
Giorgio Gomel is an economist and a founder of the Martin Buber-Jews for Peace Group.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS