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?
Follow me on Twitter
I say Clegg’s a Hypocrite – Jihad Jenny traduces israel and – yes – Jews on a regular basis yet she is still in his party – it happened again last night:
http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/jihad-jenny-strikes-again-cleggs-deliberate-vandalism
If Sick Nick had his way there would be no Israel at all – he suggested an arms embargo …
Hypocrite is one of the nicer words I’d use about Clegg!
I agree with you entirely, Jonathan, but would go even further – not only is Clegg a hypocrite, but he’s also ignorant, and needs to educate himself before spouting off.
I agree with you wholeheartedly Chas. There are inherently nothing wrong with the settlements and contrary to leftist propaganda they are NOT illegal. The problem is, as with many issues that surround Israel, we have allowed those who wish to commit genocide against the Jewish State to create the discussion. This includes especially the Israeli political left. They used the settlement issue to try to garner European and NGO monies while trying to remain in power against the “right.” They have done more to harm Israel than any other group. It is time to change that.
I say 3 words: Sinai, Gush Katif.
In other words, if Israel feels that it is worth it, people will be evacuated from their homes.
If, as is increasingly obvious since the evacuation of Gush Katif, such an action will a) not result in peace but be perceived as a sign of weakness which encourages further territorial demands b) put an even greater number of Israeli civilians at risk, then there can be no justification for uprooting people from their homes and livelihoods.
I agree with all of that and they are points I’ve often made.
Yet such an argument is still be seen as evasive as it doesn’t take a position on the legitimacy/desirability of the settlements per se, and doesn’t justify the continued construction of new ones.
First of all, I think it’s vital to remind people why Judea & Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights became Israeli in the first place. Respectively it was because Jordan, Egypt and Syria set out on a war of annihilation which they lost. Had they not gone down that route (and again in ’73), all of those areas would still be under the control of those three countries and nobody would be talking about ‘Palestinian land’ or even a Palestinian state – as was the case between 1948 and 1967.
This is perhaps going to sound tough, but in my view there is an important broader message here than just Israel. If the world sees fit to reward the accomplices of countries which instigated a belligerent action rather than having them accept and learn that there is a price for losing a war they chose to declare, then that sends a very negative message as far as world stability is concerned. If there is no price to pay (and indeed rewards are given) for belligerent aggression, then war is much more likely.
To make it perfectly clear, I do support the establishment of a (peaceful) Palestinian state on part of Judea & Samaria and Gaza, but not because it is ‘Palestinian land’ – it isn’t. However, I think it is the only viable solution to a very complicated problem.
Why build settlements? Well let’s begin by accepting the fact that for Hamas and many others, ALL Israeli towns and cities are ‘settlements’, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, Sderot and Tiberias. So if we asked them where we could build and live the answer would be no-where and if we agree not to build in certain places, then how can we justify building in others? After all, Hamas & co. never tire of telling us that all of Israel is ‘occupied Palestinian land’.
Secondly, as someone who comes from the agricultural background of the kibbutz movement (or ‘working settlements’ as they are termed in Hebrew), I firmly believe that we cannot justify holding land unless we use it, cultivate it and love it.
Thirdly, the settlements also have a security function. They are a buffer between a belligerent army and the heartland of Israel. I’m glad to be able to say that things have been relatively quiet in my kibbutz for many years now, but that was not always the case. In the 90s we used to have terrorist infiltrations of the border fence 3 or 4 times a month. Part of our reason for being here is to hold the fort until the army gets here.
It is also very important to make it clear that in fact no authorised new settlements have been built over the ‘green line’ for donkey’s years. The building which does occur is within the existing municipal boundaries.
Finally, I’d like to mention the subject of time. It is ironic to say the least that people like me who have been living in a certain place for nearly 30 years can be considered candidates for imminent eviction.
As far as I’m aware, no court in Nick Clegg’s UK would remove a person from their home after such a long time, regardless of how they came to be there.
beautifully and articulately said!
just one problem, Judea and Sameria, as well as Gaza (not relevant anymore) with the exception of Yerushalaim, were never made a part of Israel they way the Golan Heights were.
Beautifully put, agree with every word!
We need to start articulating loudly and at every opportunity that we have just as much right to live in Judea & Samaria as any Arab. In fact our claims are stronger.
This is all very well, but you don’t seem to have heard of the “salami technique” favoured by the Arabs. “Palestine” is not so much a place as a Muslim ideology that requires a perpetual state of war. Giving away ever more parts of Israel only feeds its unsatiable desire for never ending conflict. It’s time we put to rest the fallacy of a “just and peaceful settlement of two people’s living side by side”.
Look at Saudi Arabia, where there are no Jews. There they project their Jew hatred onto Shiite Muslims who are called Jews and treated as such. Saudis are taught that Shiites are not Muslims and that Shiism is a conspiracy from the Jews, and so Shiites are worthy of death (paraphrased).
So you see, it’s not about land, but rather about hatred. And to nicely prove the point the Mufti of Jerusalem came out with a call for the murder of Jews just the other day. In his defense he said that he was only quoting the words of his beloved prophet. All the land in the world will not quench their hatred.
The sites of the Jewish so called settlements shouldn’t matter if Hamas/Fatah are serious about peace as there would be no reason why the Jews who live there shouldn’t become Palestinian Jews just as Israel has Muslim Israelis. But of course that will never happen firstly as Abbas has vowed that not a single Jew will live ina sovereign Pally state and Hamas has a charter that calls for a genocide of all Jews. Spit really doesn’t matter what misinformation there might be, the fact is that we are looking at a Jew free region if Israel is fool enough to get into bed with these Jew haters
‘Vandalism’ Perhaps Nickyboy Clegg thinks that the average ‘Jewish settler’ is a skinhead
It was a headline-grabbing choice of words.
The general sentiments he expressed were to please the people he was speaking alongside, similar to David Cameron’s ‘Gaza prison camp’ statement in Turkey.
yes and at israel’s expence
Well,if you’re speaking of getting off the fence regarding settlements,have you ever thought of taking your own advice?
I read through this and was none the wiser as to what you actually think about settlements.
“potential justifications” almost sounds like you know they can’t be justified and yet you are unwilling to say so….
It must be tough being a propagandist.I don’t envy you at all Chas!
Chas said: “I have no inherent quarrel with the settlements nor the settlers.” Your reading comprehension is obviously lacking.
But it’s not the same as saying he supports the settlements and he wishes to see more of them in the occupied territories, is it Brad?
If you want a career as a professional pedant may I suggest that you brush up on your comprehension of written text.
The current acceptance of “the settlements” as THE problem came about when the Obama Administration pushed this lie. If you already believe that the USA is fully in Israel’s corner, then of course such a criticism carries enormous weight; no further thought is necessary.
We are witnessing the (morbidly fascinating) application of the propaganda principles of Goebbels being carried out by western leaders. The world’s “free” press carries the message, unwittingly in many cases. One cannot fight it because layers of falsehoods have become beliefs; deconstruction is possible only via formal debate but there’s too little opportunity for that.
In any case, I think that the human desire for a scapegoat is what’s driving things now and those doing it are impervious to reason.
I think you are spot on. And the ease with which clegg and co pick up the narrative without the wit or reason to truly understand the history and the issues is truly staggering
Israel has legal title to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Jerusalem dating back to 1920. The San Remo Resolution of 1920 and the mandate over Palestine given to Britain, later ratified by the League of Nations in 1922, granted this land as the exclusive area for developing the Jewish National Home. Initially it included Jordan.
San Remo converted the Balfour Declaration into a binding, internationally recognised legal obligation to facilitate a Jewish national home. It has been described as the Magna Carta of Israel.
So allowing Jews to settle in a land to which they have not only legal title but also a profoundly long lasting historical connection is not illegal and hardly in my view immoral. The next time that people declare the settlers to be illegal violators of Palestinian land, ask them for proof that the Palestinians have legal title to the West Bank (they don’t).
Also point out that it is only the Jews with the long lasting historical claim to this area and that they always, always envisaged living alongside the Arab communities when the Jewish state was created. (Even the right wing Jabotinsky insisted that Arabs be part of a nascent Jewish state with full rights).
However, given the way in which the conflict has panned out over the last 3-4 decades and the clear consensus among Israelis that they will have to evacuate much of the disputed territories, one can perhaps question the ‘political’ wisdom of settlement policy. That is a different matter.
Are settlements the totemic issue that western leaders assume they are? When Israel vacated settlements in Gaza, did this lessen or increase the hostility in Gaza? You know the answer to that one. So if an Israeli government were to do the same in the West Bank, might there not be a very similar result?
Settlement activity is a convenient excuse for the failure of the peace process. But it is just that, an excuse. Clegg and Cameron have simply swallowed whole the cocktail of lies and ignorance that characterise the Palestinian position. And shame on them both.
Wonderful!
Let’s not forget too, that Article 80 of the UN’s founding charter requires the UN to recognize all previous resolutions of the League of Nations as binding. Thus every resolution attacking Israel for settling her own land is in violation of the San Remo Agreement and her own founding charter! Of course that was all before oil politics corrupted it.
“Settlements” has become a dirty word. “Settlers” have become an enemy.
The world seems to miss the point. These are people who have built homes in towns and villages (even the odd Kibbutz or three) that are, at least in the main part, state sponsored.
Israel as a state believes in them and supports them, and even the Israeli left wing are beginning to see that handing disputed (rather than the USA’s and UK’s favourite word of “Occupied”) territories over to the ‘Palestinians’ is nothing but a backfiring gimmick.
It’s time that when we utter or hear or read the words “settler” or “settlement”, instead of recoiling in horror or hiding in embarrassment, we should feel a sense of Zionist and Jewish pride.
Pride in people who in a world that is becoming more and more selfish still have the strength to believe in doing what’s good for the wider community , pride in people who still have a vision for the future, pride in people whose entire lives are lived to support a stronger Israel.
And that can only be good for all of us.
Nick Clegg, on the other hand, has nothing to be proud of, nor anyone who’s proud of him.
Good post Chas and judging by the response, you’ve hit a nerve.
I agree with most of what you say about the settlement issue, and combined with Jeremy’s really useful sets of additional facts, I don’t see why this can’t be expanded and developed.
It really is time as you suggest, to get off the fence and to have in place a cogent reasoned argument to explain the settlements so that they are understandable by the ordinary man or woman in the street.
We need to divest them of the sinister identity that they’ve been invested with by the PA’s and of course our own dear media and media types like Clegg, who in reality,is an awkward irrelevance. Come the next election, where will he be?
I very much like Jeremy’s argument about legal title and I really think it should be employed as a standard, reasoned response to nonsense by ignorant individuals or nonentities like Clegg.
OK, so you are in your kitchen and would quite like to go and sit in your lounge. Some foreigners have already been allowed to take over your conservatory and are now whinging that the lounge is theirs too. So now you are supposed to defend and justify going to sit on your own sofa in your own lounge? Just because the Arabs, the UN, the Guardian and Nick Clegg try to set the agenda, does not have to define the Israeli response. Israel should stop reacting to the lies in the terms set by the liars and start acting. Do we believe that, in some way, the liars arguments actually have some merit? No? Then let Israelis speak and act accordingly. It is your land, go live in it.
The problem is that Israel has been trading “land for peace” without actually achieving peace for a long time. Given that’s the situation, the current strategy seems to be allow (or at least don’t prevent) settlements on hill-tops (and “Eastern Jerusalem”, though a lot of that is actually south of Jerusalem).
Eventually, once an agreement is actually possible, some of that land will be given up to the Palestinians, in exchange for OTHER pieces of that land. Specifically, the pieces of that land Israel must keep are Jerusalem, and enough to make defensible borders for the nation of Israel.
THAT is the two-state solution that gives Israel defensible borders and the Palestinians a nation of their own. But that time is not now. Right now, there’s no Palestinian leadership willing to accept a deal on that basis. Finding that leadership could take another 25 years.
Meanwhile, the settlements allow a unilateral ad-hoc two-state solution that both sides can live with, though with a lot of complaining and weekly rockets from Gaza.
Oh, and whatever Israel does, short of suicidal capitulation, will be seen by a majority of nations in the world as objectionable. So they certainly shouldn’t make decisions on THAT basis.
Who is this Nick Clegg?
Nobody seems quite sure anymore…
Danny Ayalon on Nick Clegg’s statement:
“I think it was unfortunate, I think it was gratuitous, I think it was ill-informed, I think it was somewhat irresponsible.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4177102,00.html
This is a very difficult issue, and I agree that it’s not one that should be ignored, but should be discussed. When I say discussed, I mean we shouldn’t just shout our claims and complain when the world doesn’t listen; instead, we need to consider the position of the other side as well as our own.
There are a lot of places in the area now called the West Bank that hold great historical and religious significance to the Jewish people. I can’t help but think of the momentous pearls of Jewish history in these places. Abraham walked these lands, and was promised all of it. Jacob built an alter in Bet El. Joshua captured Jericho. King David reigned in Hevron for seven years. And apart from any of that, no matter what your political views are, it’s heartbreaking to see people being torn away from their homes.
I don’t buy the argument that ‘the Palestinians aren’t a people’, or that ‘they never had sovereignty in the land’; it’s just a petty way of justifying to ourselves our own arguments, of preaching to the converted. The fact is that the Palestinians need a place to live just like we do – and no, our Arab neighbours can’t just absorb them, because they have national aspirations and there will not be peace until those aspirations are fulfilled. We also can’t provide for all of them in our own Jewish State because the State will simply lose its Jewish identity at some point if the demographic trends continue, and they will.
The thing is, we can’t go on like this. The wars that have been forced on us have cost us so many tens of thousands of lives. A large amount of young people, who no longer feel any connection to the Zionist dream, are leaving Israel for the promise of a better life in Europe or the US, where their children won’t be forced to join the Army. A major selling-point in property is whether it comes with a bomb shelter. After living this way for sixty four years and more, Israelis have become used to this constant state of impending warfare as if it’s totally natural. Don’t they deserve to know that this isn’t the case?
We need to come to a settlement with the Palestinians, whether we like it or not, because the status quo is maintained at a price – the lives of Israeli citizens (and yes, Palestinians too). An agreement can’t just be superficial. Handing over land to them will be very painful, but sadly even that won’t be enough. I want to live to see the day when our relations with the Palestinians can be as easy as those between the UK and Ireland. I want a full economic, strategic and political alliance – because friendly neighbours don’t go to war against each other. We can’t ignore the settlements issue and hope there can be peace without it, because there won’t. To make peace we will need to give something of ourselves, to compromise, and it will hurt. But it must be done.
I don’t make this point lightly. I say ‘it will hurt’ – and anyone who doesn’t feel that pain isn’t the right person to be making the decision to give them the land. But someone needs to do it, and the sooner that happens, the more lives will be saved.
I, like you, would love to see a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict of the sort that was offered to Arafat in 2000/1 and to Abbas in 2008. But while that has been the consensus in Israel across the mainstream political spectrum for at least a decade, it is not something that is simply and solely in Israel’s gift to achieve – it has to be negotiated in good faith with the other side on the assumption that they want the same thing too.
Unfortunately, everything about the current Palestinian – and wider Arab/Muslim – scene shows that that is not the case and that it is therefore impossible to achieve a peace deal at the current time. When you look at what is being said about Israel and the Jews by both the elites and ‘the street’ day in day out on TV, radio, newspapers, and school textbooks, it is clear that the dominant ideology in the Palestinian territories and the wider Middle East is one of complete rejection of Israel’s right to exist expressed in antisemitic terms. Those who do not agree with this line, even if they are the silent majority, have to shut up out of fear, and any leader who argued against it would either not get anywhere or end up like Sadat.
This situation, the age of Islamism, is likely to last for twenty or thirty or forty years like the era of Arab nationalism before it. In response, one of things Israel needs to do is make a distinction between those small bits of the WBank that are crucial to its security and which it will keep in the event of a peace deal in 25 or 50 or 75 yrs time and the majority which would be given up in such circumstances. Then it should engage in a slow process of evacuating settlements from the latter areas, with proper financial incentives for the residents to do so, while maintaining a military presence there indefinitely for security reasons. Settlements in areas that will never be given up, however, most of which are just over the Green Line and to the West of the security fence, should be annexed. Israel will then have to sit out the age of Islamism in the hope that eventually genuine moderation will emerge so that a peace deal can be done.
Unlike other territorial/community disputes(Cyprus is one nearby example)Israel’s is fundamentally linked to the clash of Western civilisation with Islamofascism. That is why it is morally perverse for ‘liberals’ to side with ‘Palestinians’and not Israelis – regardless of where the latter live. Admittedly, the power of the Arab/Muslim world would make such thinking rational in electoral/financial terms.
Off the fence and colours to the mast. It appears that a significant number of significant Zionists have accepted a two state solution based on some kind of further withdrawal and/or land swap. I am not one of these. Such a plan does not accord with the prophecies of Scripture. I accept the Word of their author. He has blessings in store for the Arabs, but they do not include the covenant land. He said it, I believe it, that settles it.
I disagree with your premise that pointing out settlements are not the issue is dodging the issue. The Palestinian leadership would love to make the debate be about the settlements. This approach puts Israel supporters on the defensive. Arguing that it is Palestinian intransigence that is stopping peace, and the fact that withdrawal leads to attacks, and the settlements are a red herring puts the Palestinian leadership on the defensive.
Stan
I think the settlements ARE a bad thing, but I also believe that Arab/Palestinian rejectionism is the primary obstacle to peace, and always has been, with Israeli settlement of the West Bank merely a sideshow and an excuse that is trotted out to mask the rejectionism of the other side. Of course, that doesn’t alter the fact that the settlements were not only wrong, but worse, a foolish mistake with long-term consequences.
The “settlements” are on ISRAELI land Judea and Samaria.
The Arab Muslims rebranded by Arafat and the KGB as ‘Palestinians” are usurpers and squatters.
Joel, have you really not noticed that whenever the Arabs get more land from Israel, more Israelis are murdered???
I’m so sick of this moralistic revisionism that implies everyone except the Jews has a history, even when it’s fictional!! The Palestinians are Arab Muslims, some are Christian, but the jihad is carried out by Muslims and supported by their terrified Christian allies – when they’re not taking refuge in israel of course.
The “peace” the Muslims talk about is the “peace” of the Islamic conquerors knowing that the entire world is under their dominion. This is the “peace” of others’ surrender not a peace between two equal parties.
There is an obligation on allk truthful people to point out the fiction of the ‘palstinians”, whose only talent is appropriating everyone else’s culture – including the South African blacks under apartheid” because they have none of their own, except as professional refugees.
Chas, a (belated) welcome back! happy New Year.
Perhaps Clegg can explain why professional thugs deserve someone else’s country as their own state, especially when they want it Judenrein, Islamic, anti woman and antihomosexual.
Daniel Greenfield (SultanKnish.blogspot.com) expresses it very well here:
http://www.think-israel.org/sultanknish.whoneedspastate.html
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/09/28/the-state-of-endless-war-daniel-greenfield/
http://israelinsider.net/forum/topics/daniel-greenfield-not-just-an-invented-people-a-really-crude-clum
I’ve just come across Greenfield – his writing is very powerful.
Nick Clegg, Nick Clegg… sounds familiar but… oh no wait I got it, he’s that guy who won sap of the year award for the LibDem party instead of letting the conservatives to try and get on alone.
but okay seriously, and I’m completely against the settlements but they will not bring an end to the two states solution, there are plenty of things that could be done if actual peace is the real goal. a one state solution is a way in which Europe’s extreme left is trying to punish Israel with. in any case, supposing the settlements can’t be dismantled, completely or partially and it would seem “unfair” to the world that the Palestinians are getting less territory, they could always form a one state solution with Jordan and let me be clear here, keep what they do have and expand the territory for both countries, given that Arabs can live with Arabs since they don’t seem to have a problem doing that with Jews… maybe they could even find a new name for this union, perhaps one in Arabic for a change.
On a different note, this is (I think) a new Israeli TV commercial, about the Iran issue:
Love the ad – my Ivrit’s crap too but get the drift as well. Really reminds me of the UK Carlsberg ads in its style.
It’s a commercial for cable TV – with a tablet thrown in.
The four guys in the hijabs are popular comedians with a show of their own called ‘Asfoor’ and they’ve made a series of commercials for this cable company.
I think it’s hilarious but there’s a lot in there you probably have to be Israeli to understand.
For example, in the early 80s there was a plague of nasty little beetles here which, when you squashed them, emitted a horrible stink. If you were unlucky enough to get one in your mouth, the bad taste lingered for ages. They’re still around, but not in the numbers they were back then. Anyway, they became known colloquially as ‘Khomenis’, and that is why at the end when the guy squishes the bug on his neck, he says ‘Yuck – Khomeni’.
My hebrew is crap but i get the drift ..Funny
Well looks like the Israeli version of the ASA is more of a laid back organization than there british counterpart I wonder what Samsung think of it
Just another point, following on from Jeremy Havardi and BB Melman: Given that the Green Line is actually the 1949 Armistice Line, then it is pretty clear that when one side breaches the armistice, then the Armistice Line ceases to hold any legitimacy. And Jordan, previous occupier of the West Bank, entered into the Six Day War despite Israel pleading for them not to.
To equate the peaceful and useful establishment of a home (‘settlement’) with murderous, violent attacks is morally bankrupt. It is worth bearing in mind that the oldest Jewish locality in the world is Hebron, the site of the tombs of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah, whose Jewish inhabitants were liquidated by the Arabs in 1929. The very fact that Palestinian Arabs condemn the ‘Judaization’ of the Old City of Jerusalem without realizing the irony shows the gulf between the sides.
Mandate Palestine (both sides of it) was described at the time as being a “small notch” in the Middle East, allocated for a Jewish homeland. It’s about time Israel takes the initiative and claims it’s right to Mandate Palestine, maybe with some wiggle room to achieve a settlement.
The bottom line is that there is plenty of room and resources for everyone in the Middle East, but Arab regimes (new ones/old ones, it’s the same thing) have vested interests in perpetuating their stranglehold on power by persecuting anything that is not Muslim or that is the wrong kind of Muslim and the wrong kind of ethnicity, and female. And this is the reason for the “Israeli-Palestinian” smokescreen conflict. Because that is all it is, smokescreens and mirrors that distort history and international law, used to deflect criticism from the tyrannical nature of Arab regimes onto the international crime against humanity of settlements perpetrated by the Zionist entity, gladdly lapped up by their all too eager(and often closet antisemtic) Western partners in thrall to the oil barons.