RESPONSE: SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK AND THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION
PARTNERS FOR PEACE: HOPE FOR ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

University of British Columbia Journal for International Affairs
By Julian Ross Markowitz
2012 Edition

Editor’s Note: We asked two UBC students – Julian Markowitz and Abdurrahman Mihirig – who have been advocates for each side of this issue to respond to Emelie Peacock’s article: "Settlements in the West Bank." Abdu, who is the Vice President of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights at UBC, is also a senior editor of the journal.

Ms. Peacock’s essay prophesies a grim future for Jews and Palestinians. She suggests that the hope for sovereignty, safety, and national self-determination are terminally jeopardized by Israel’s actions. By placing the blame squarely on the Jewish state, Peacock ignores an important concept: peace takes two. The real impediment is the Palestinian leaders’ refusal to accept living side-by-side with Israel, and renounce terrorism.

Peacock incorrectly identifies the settlements as the principal obstacle to peace (they are not – terrorism is_, naively advances an argument for a one state solution, mischaracterizes Jews as foreign settles (there has been a continual Jewish presence in the area for tree thousand years), and radically understates the opportunity for the creation of a viable Palestinian state through good faith negotiation. 

Israel has shown great willingness to make painful concessions for peace. In contrast, Hamas clearly states in their founding charter that any compromise with Israel is an affront to Islam. 24 hours after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, Arab armies invaded vowing to destroy the nascent state, and capture the entire area. This ideology has not changed.

It is a grace mistake to identify the settlements as the central issue preventing a peaceful resolution. In 2006, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in a good faith concession. Immediately following the withdrawal, terrorist groups including Hamas launched thousands of rockets against Israeli towns from Gaza. These terrorist assaults continue to this day.

Indeed, much of what Peacock falsely identifies as the trappings of settlement are, in reality, responses to terrorism. Suicide bombers are stopped at security checkpoints, thus providing security for Jews and Palestinians; secure road systems are a direct response to terrorist attacks on Israeli motorists.

The security fence, which Peacock refers to as “the key physical impediment to the creation of a viable Palestinian state,” is a barrier that keeps terrorists out of Israel. Here Peacock’s fallacy of causation is clear: she identifies the security fence as a barrier to peace, not the terrorism that necessitated its construction. She portrays a fence, the most quintessentially defensive measure, as an act of offence. Incidentally, the fence has drastically reduced suicide bombings; yet, bombings are still regularly attempted in areas beyond the safety it provides.

Israel’s security apparatus is, to be sure, a lugubrious necessity. It is inconvenient for Israelis and Palestinians burdensome for security personnel, and costly for the government to maintain. Nevertheless, it is the bulwark against terrorist aggression that ensures the safety of all the region’s residents.

The grossly disproportionate emphasis placed on settlement is a deliberate attempt to conceal the true obstacle to peace. Indeed, the built-up areas of Israeli settlements over approximately 1.7 percent of the West Bank, and are close to the major Israeli cities.

Today, 98% of the Palestinians live under the control of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, or the Hamas government in Gaza. Clearly, the minuscule Israeli presence in the disputed areas (settlement) is not the impediment to Palestinian statehood.

Moreover, the so called ‘settlements’ are, in fact, thriving communities with opportunity for Jews and Palestinians alike. Every time Israel stops construction as a step toward negotiation, the Palestinian contractors and laborers in those areas suffer from lack of work.

Only with Palestinian leaders’ acceptance of the state of Israel, only with their renunciation of violence and terrorism, and only with their commitment to serious negotiation can there be hope for peace.

Julian is the StandWithUs Emerson Fellow for Vancouver, BC.  He was the President of the University of British Columbia’s Israel Advocacy Club from 2009 to 2010.  Since 2009, he has been the Spiritual Chairman of the Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity’s Beta Chi Chapter.