By: Chas Newkey-Burden On: 17 January 2012
Nick Clegg’s description of Israeli settlements as ‘vandalism’ was, even by the standards of his bonkers commentary on Israel, a moment of great farce. Whatever your view of the settlements, no definition of the word ‘vandalism’ fits the motivation or reality of even the most hardline West Bank settlers.
Clegg’s subsequent assertion that new settlements create ‘facts on the ground’ that decrease the prospect of a two-state solution is harder to argue with. Not least because a significant number of Israeli settlers proudly confirm that they are indeed thus motivated.
Ariel Sharon, an original champion of the settlement movement, told the settlers they needed ‘to grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours’. He also described the new neighbourhoods as ‘facts on the ground’.
I have no inherent quarrel with the settlements nor the settlers. I do think, though, that many of us who support Israel can improve the way we explain them to the world.
There are a number of potential justifications for them, including strategic, tactical, cultural and historical ones. More of us need to get off the fence and either enthusiastically make these cases, or come-out and oppose settlements.
At the moment we all too often fudge the issue, merely parroting that it is not the settlements that are the obstacle to peace, but Palestinian rejectionism. This evasive line of argument is not cutting any ice in the court of public opinion.
When we dodge the issue, we effectively present settlements as the embarrassing member of the Israeli family. In which case we cannot be surprised when the world increasingly sees them as a bad thing.
What say you?