Settlements Will Remain an Obstacle to Peace

The U.S. secretary of state has stated that the matter of settlements must not be an obstacle to resuming peace negotiations. This means that things will remain as they are: The Palestinian faction will abandon their condition of settlement freezing, and the Zionists will continue constructing settlements.

It is absurd that the Palestinians would abandon their settlement freezing condition after having gone through a long and bitter ordeal with the Israelis in pointless negotiation rounds that achieved nothing. During all this, settlement building persisted, further encroaching on Palestinian lands, destroying hope of a sovereign Palestinian state and undermining the idea of a two-state solution.

It is true that Israel considers settlements to be a basis of its prejudiced colonial doctrine; since the founding of Israel, settlements have been a regular method of taking over additional Palestinian territory. Indeed, they have taken over almost 78 percent of Palestine and have divided settlements on the remaining territory, which is around 22 percent. So on what area of Palestinian land will the state of Palestine actually be? How is a two-state solution possible? The U.S. is playing a rather contradictory role regarding the settlement building, for it considers it unlawful while simultaneously taking an encouraging stance in the U.N. Security Council by using its veto power against a majority condemning settlements in February 2011.

If the U.S. really were to embrace the two-state solution idea and the establishment of a Palestinian nation, then it must force the Zionists to halt their settlement building. It is well within America’s ability to do this if it so wished, given that it holds all the power cards in its hand. However, it dissociates itself from exerting any pressure on Israel, particularly on the subject of settlement building. Several years ago, the U.S. presented Israel with some very attractive military, economic and political incentives in exchange for a partial and temporary freeze of settlement building. This did not successfully dissuade Israel from continuing its prejudiced colonial policy; the U.S. exerted no further pressure on Israel, proving that it will not take an objective and serious stance toward settlements. Rather, it gives Israel free rein to continue its colonial agenda and thus destroy the idea of a Palestinian state and the two-state solution.

The settlements are an obstacle to peace and will remain so as long as Israel continues to construct settlements that encroach upon Palestinian land. It is absurd for the Palestinians to enter negotiations while this encroachment is going on. The U.S. must realize that stopping settlements is a condition for the success of the two-state solution it espouses and that any continuation of settlements is detrimental to that idea. The U.S. secretary of state himself affirmed that the two-state solution idea will come to an end within two years if the opportunity to achieve peace is not seized.

Perhaps Kerry’s statement came as a push to both factions to enter negotiations that allow for achieving a two-state solution; however, this statement ignored the fact that the problematic factor here is the settlements, which is what will bring an end to the two-state solution. Halting the settlements is a necessary condition for successful negotiations and for the U.S.-backed, two-state solution idea. Thus, halting settlements is the correct starting point for any serious negotiations; Israel cannot be given free rein to continue its colonial agenda and its increasing takeover of Palestinian lands.

It would appear that the U.S. is aware of these facts, but it looks the other way in deference to the Zionist perspective, which considers settlements to be the principle axis of its colonizing doctrine. The U.S. pressured the Palestinians to back off on the settlement freezing condition. This pressure is misplaced, as it should be directed toward Israelis, whose persistence represents an insurmountable obstacle to peace and to the realization of the two-state solution.

This pressuring of the weaker link in the equation signifies acceptance of the Zionist settlement policy and with it acceptance of further encroachment on Palestine — coercing the Palestinians into negotiations covers for the settlement policy, while simultaneously improving the Zionist image by promoting them as being advocates for peace. Meanwhile, the settlements continue, which is in and of itself a war crime against Palestinian rights.

Kerry’s stipulation that settlements must not be an obstacle to resuming peace talks is in line with the Zionist perspective of rejecting the freezing of settlements as a condition for entering negotiations. Thus when the U.S. attempted to dissuade the Palestinians from making settlements a condition for negotiations, it was backing the Zionists and the continuing spread of settlements that will put an end to the idea of a Palestinian nation.