Bayh's retirement means trouble for 2010 midterms

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently reiterated the long-held Israeli stance that some Israeli settlements would always remain a part of Israel regardless of negotiations with the Palestinians and the possible formation of a Palestinian state. The aforementioned negotiations have stalled, with the Palestinians demanding a full cessation of settlement construction as a precondition to talks. It is possible that the Palestinians were emboldened to make this demand after President Barack Obama called for a complete halt on settlement construction in May of last year.

Though initially not giddy over the idea, Netanyahu did take a step towards compromise by calling a 10-month halt to new settlement construction. The Palestinians, however, deem this measure insufficient because it does not extend to disputed territories in East Jerusalem and because construction that is already underway is allowed to continue.

The settlements originally came about in the aftermath of the 1967 war. A pre-emptive Israeli air strike into Egypt ignited the war, launched in response to Egypt's mobilization of its army, the army's subsequent deployment along the Egyptian-Israeli border, and the forced withdrawal of a UN Emergency force—ordered by former Egyptian President Gamal Nassar—which had been serving as a buffer between the two countries.

The conflict would pit Israel against Egypt, Jordan and Syria over the course of six days. Israel would emerge victorious, and its spoils of war would be the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The Palestinian-held West Bank and Gaza had previously been under the boot of Egyptian and Jordanian occupation and were now occupied by Israel. East Jerusalem was the only territory that was formally annexed, but in spite of that, Israel encouraged its citizens to establish settlements not only in East Jerusalem, but also in the other territories as well.

Though occupation of the Palestinians has ended, many settlements remain in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. About 500,000 Israelis (out of a population of approximately 7.5 million) live in East Jerusalem and the West Bank today. Israel had settlements in Gaza as well, but dismantled them in 2005.

As for Golan Heights, the Israeli position here is what makes the question of the settlements in general so very problematic. Netanyahu and his governing coalition, while not referring to the territory as annexed, have stated that they view retaining hold of it as a strategic necessity. And this is why there will always be some settlements, because the retention of many of them, according to the Israeli military, is a national security imperative.

It is perhaps worthy of note that the Israeli army's investigation into whether certain settlement blocs are strategically necessary or not could very well have been biased, and that there has not, as far as I know, been a separate, independent investigation into the matter.

However, we should also keep in mind that Israel is really a tiny country, so it is certainly not out of the question that a small and insignificant-looking piece of land might very well be crucial to its defensive capabilities. Furthermore, it would not be prudent to overlook certain realities: the hostile international climate Israel existed in when it began the process of settlement construction (and, to an extent, still does exist in), Palestinian terrorist attacks into Israel leading up to the outbreak of the 1967 war, and the continued use of terrorism since then by some Palestinians, both in the form of rockets and suicide bombers. Still, this justification worries me, because it is a "the end justifies the means" argument, and, of course, if we're going to be completely objective here, there's no reason why Israel's end should supersede the end of any other country or people.

So is Israel in the right or in the wrong on the question of settlements? Should the complete dismantlement really be off the table? I do believe that the occupation and seizure of bits and pieces of occupied land are wrongs perpetrated against the Palestinians by the Israelis. While violent actions are carried out by extremists on both sides, actions such as occupation and settlement building have impacted and continue to impact the whole of Palestinian society—in a very real way, Israeli actions amounted to punishing the many for the crimes of the few and, if anything, served to further galvanize anti-Israeli sentiment.

That said, it is difficult to say whether another country would have acted differently under the same circumstances. And if the UN force had merely done their job and held their ground in 1967, there might not have ever been settlements in the first place.

But meting out blame for past failures is easy to do. Finding solutions is infinitely more difficult. In terms of getting the parties talking again? Either drop preconditions or have both sides renounce violence and have Israel bring settlement construction to a complete halt for the duration of the negotiations. In terms of resolving the settlement problem once and for all? For those ruled absolutely necessary, the Israelis could offer to compensate the Palestinians either in the form of land or money. The UN, for their failure in all this, could offer to match Israeli compensation, one to one, along with the promise of increased aid. Perhaps not an ideal solution, but, then again, we don't live in an ideal world.