Just as the broader Arab world is in the midst of an extraordinary time of transition, Palestinians living under occupation sense that the techtonic plates of history are moving. Adam Shatz offers thoughtful essay about the shifts in strategy and practice that he encountered in a recent visit to the West Bank.

Shatz discovers pockets of creative thinking, and quite a lot of skepticism about the two-state mantra even as the PA aims to gain United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state (the quest for which may be more valuable before the fact rather than afterwards).  A few excerpts follow, but the essay (which runs 19 pp.) deserves a full reading:

"[On the security apparatus established by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad with lots of help from the U.S. and to the satisfaction of Israel:]  It is an extraordinary arrangement: the security forces of a country under occupation are being subcontracted by third parties outside the region to prevent resistance to the occupying power, even as that power continues to grab more land. This is, not surprisingly, a source of considerable anger and shame in the West Bank. The question is whether Palestinians will grow exasperated enough to confront the Sulta."

 .........

"[On the al-Nakba demonstrations of May 15, 2011:]  The PA had no part at all in the main event of the day: an unprecedented march to the border by thousands of Palestinians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Occupied Territories, co-ordinated by activists on Facebook and Twitter. At least a dozen people were killed by Israeli soldiers, but more than a hundred succeeded in crossing into the Druze town of Majdal Shams in the Golan, including a 28-year-old man called Hassan Hijazi, who made it all the way to Jaffa, his ancestral city, travelling there on a bus with Israeli soldiers who had no idea they were sitting next to a ‘security threat’; he turned himself in to the Israeli police after visiting his grandparents’ house. A spectacular enactment of the drama of return, shown live on TV news broadcasts, the crossings electrified people in the West Bank. ‘For 63 years, Israel has tried to un-nation us, to turn us into West Bankers, Gazans, East Jerusalem residents, “Israeli Arabs” and refugees, but on Nakba day we were united,’ Husam Zomlot said."

..........

"Palestinians inside Israel, like Palestinians in the West Bank, are learning the effectiveness of mass, non-violent mobilisation; young people in particular are starting to communicate with people in the Occupied Territories and in neighbouring Arab countries, using Facebook and Twitter to organise themselves. People who a few years ago were admirers of Sheikh Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, are now saying that they ‘don’t need his rhetoric of resistance because they have discovered their own power and their own voice’."

The plates of U.S. policy in the Middle East are beginning to shift as well.  Zvi Ba'rel ruminates on the possibility that the U.S. may soon be talking to Hamas.  Recall that since the Hamas electoral victory of 2006 the U.S. has devoted considerable diplomatic, financial and military energy to marginalizing Hamas.  The effort has failed profoundly, as demonstrated by the steps toward PA-Hamas reunification, steps made possible by the toppling of Husni Mubarak.

Also of note: a report by the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams that reportedly addresses the violent Israeli response to the May 15, 2011, al-Nakba demonstrations.  The report was distributed early this week by Ban K. Moon, the Secretary-General, to the members of the Security Council.  Williams notes that on the Israel-Lebanon border 7 unarmed demonstrators were killed by the Israeli army and 111 were wounded.  The demonstrators were attempting to cross the border.  Israeli soldiers shot the demonstators on Lebanese soil, it should be added. Special Coordinator Williams is appropriately critical of Israel's excessive use of violence.  I have not yet been able to get a complete copy of the report.  When I have a copy, I will post it here.  Israeli officials are in a tizzy about the chutzpah of the U.N. official that he would use the most "the moral army in the world" of using unnecessary deadly violence as opposed to non-lethal crowd control measures.

Israel's colonization of occupied territory: You say illegal, I say illegitimate, let's call the whole thing off

http://pfcmc.com/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10178.doc.htm
Headline USA Today: "Clinton says Israeli settlements are illegitimate, not illegal*"
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, February 18, 2011:

"I think it is absolutely clear to say, number one, that it's been American policy for many years that settlements were illegitimate** and it is the continuing goal and highest priority of the Obama administration to keep working toward a two-state solution with both Israelis and Palestinians."

Amb. Susan Rice, February 20, 2011: 

"Yes, for over four decades it has been U.S.  policy to oppose settlement activity.  We view it as illegitimate and corrosive to the peace process.  I made that point clearly in our statement after the vote."

 According to Merriam-Webster:

*Illegal: "not according to or authorized by law"
**Illegitimate: "not sanctioned by law"


[How should the U.S. respond to its impudent clients, namely Israel and the PA?  In the case, of the PA, despite the personal request of the U.S. President, Mahmoud 'Abbas insisted on going forward with the doomed resolution.  As for Israel, it merrily continued it illegal colonization of occupied territory.  Michael Lame suggests punishing both parties by chopping financial aid.]

Still a con--Barak may offer 3 month "freeze"

3 month freeze would exempt 2,000 buildings: "Yediot Acharonot correspondent Shimon Schiffer reports, in the name of government sources, that the proposed freeze would not include the approximately 2,000 construction projects currently underway." Similar gestures also need to be seen for what they are, namely cons to string along gullible U.S. politicians.

Such gestures fit in with the favored tunes of the last 16 years, such as the idea that the occupied territories are "disputed territories", whereas what Obama's demand for a settlement freeze is implicitly premised on the judgement that Israel's colonization of the occupied territories is "illegitimate" (the word he evoked in Cairo). It is easy to condone the actions of a friend when the status of land is disputed, but it is hard to condone it when it is a question of right and wrong, licit vs. illicit.

Meantime, the contradictions between the position of the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration are proving hard to paper over. A previously planned meeting between Bibi and George Mitchell has been postponed. No doubt, the last thing Netanyahu wants right now is to remind Israeli voters how out of step he is with Israel's superpower benefactor and protector.

A smart U.S. policy will continue to avoid extended discussion of the yawning gap between the two governments. Instead, quiet as a whisper cues loudly signal U.S. displeasure to finely tuned ears.

Added: And 50 more homes approved for former residents of "illegal" illegal settlements.

Meantime, Wapo's Jackson Diehl believes Obama has painted himself into a corner and that he should "end the spat" with Israel. After all, he concludes, its only over a "handful of apartments". This is the sort willful distortion of reality that has helped to rationalize tacit U.S. support for Israel's colonization of the West Bank. .

How serious is Obama about freezing Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank?

As the linked article explains, freezing settlement growth will require much more than identifying violations of Israeli commitments or gaps in Israeli reporting. It remains to be seen if the U.S. president is ready for the tough political battle he will have to wage in order to impede Israel's colonization of the West Bank.

What is obvious is that the present Israeli government will not cooperate with the U.S. to stop settlement growth. The article suggests that initial steps to remove unauthorized illegal settlements (as opposed to illegal settlements) would likely bring down the present government and thereby permit the formation of a coalition centrist government under Netanyahu. That scenario presumes that Netanyahu will resolve to move against unauthorized settlements, which is most unlikely.

As I have noted here before, the trope of Netanyahu's pragmatism and opportunism may be true in the general realm of Israeli politics, but the idea that he is willing to cooperate in the long term freezing and even reduction of settlements in order to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel is illusory. Therefore, an appropriate if unstated goal for U.S. policy should be to look forward to Netanyahu's exit from the Prime Minister's office not the prolongation of his stay.

See this related article about Netanyahu pressing on with settlements. And this one about archeology in the service of colonization in East Jerusalem.

Illegal Israeli settlements: Important secret report leaked to Haaretz

Introduction:

"Just four years ago, the defense establishment decided to carry out a seemingly elementary task: establish a comprehensive database on the settlements. Brigadier General (res.) Baruch Spiegel, aide to then defense minister Shaul Mofaz, was put in charge of the project. For over two years, Spiegel and his staff, who all signed a special confidentiality agreement, went about systematically collecting data, primarily from the Civil Administration.

"One of the main reasons for this effort was the need to have credible and accessible information at the ready to contend with legal actions brought by Palestinian residents, human rights organizations and leftist movements challenging the legality of construction in the settlements and the use of private lands to establish or expand them. The painstakingly amassed data was labeled political dynamite.

"The defense establishment, led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, steadfastly refused to publicize the figures, arguing, for one thing, that publication could endanger state security or harm Israel's foreign relations. Someone who is liable to be particularly interested in the data collected by Spiegel is George Mitchell, President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, who came to Israel this week for his first visit since his appointment. It was Mitchell who authored the 2001 report that led to the formulation of the road map, which established a parallel between halting terror and halting construction in the settlements.

"The official database, the most comprehensive one of its kind ever compiled in Israel about the territories, was recently obtained by Haaretz. Here, for the first time, information the state has been hiding for years is revealed. An analysis of the data reveals that, in the vast majority of the settlements - about 75 percent - construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued. The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police
stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents."

60 Minutes

This is a sober, thoughtful and informed segment on the fading prospects for a two-state between Israel and Palestine.  The report puts the lens precisely where it should be, namely on the illegal Israeli settlements and how they thwart the achievement of a sensible solution.  

If President Obama is serious about reaching a solution, then there is no escaping the need for a tough U.S. stance on the settlements.  It has been nearly 18 years since a U.S. president (George H.W. Bush) was willing to take that sort of tough stance.

The timing of the 60 Minutes report could not have been more helpful for George J. Mitchell as he leaves for the region.  60 Minutes is consistently one of the most-watched shows in America.

If you care about this issue, then I suggest you contact the show to tell them your opinion about the broadcast.  You can be sure they will be hearing plenty from the right-wing Israel lobby.  There are comment forms on the page, but an old-fashioned snail letter or even a postcard can have much more impact because it takes a bit more effort on the viewer's part.

Mr. Leslie Moonves, President and CEO

CBS Television
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019

Olmert states more clearly than ever that the colonization of the West Bank must end for the sake of peace, and he is right

Olmert says Israel must withdraw from West Bank for peace - Los Angeles Times

Settlers prepare to resist and attack.

Gershom Gorenberg is one of the best informed critics of the settlement policy. He reminds us that Israel violated international law by expropriating Palestinian land and converting it to private use.

Rice on her seventh pathetic trip since November 2007 to Israel-Palestine

Quite aside from the fact that Israeli politics is obviously absorbed with life after Ehud Olmert, the Secretary of State's tepid criticism of Israel's unrelenting colonization of the West Bank is simply embarrassing. Can she possibly think that her admonitions make a bit of difference? Israeli political leaders are quite used to such comments, which are in the same league as winks and nods. If Bush and Rice are serious, and I mean not simply saying they are serious but intent on seeing progress in the negotiations, then their barks need to accompanied by some bites.
When the President, even the Secretary of State, is willing to adopt a forceful position opposing settlements, underlining how U.S. aid facilitates their construction, demanding that Israel close the "illegal settlements" (albeit a redundancy) as they long ago promised, and emphasizing that the U.S. is ready to start discussions with Israel over a plan to relocate most of the colonists to within the 1967 borders of Israel, then you will know that they are being serious.
Until then it is just a waste of jet fuel, and yet another exercise in wane diplomacy by an official who is only slightly less disappointing than the president she serves.

FT.com / World / Middle East - Rice criticises Israel settlement surge

Added:

New Peace Now report on settlements.

Rice in Ramallah, August 26, 2008.  

What did Bush promise Israel in 2005? Or did he?

The illegal settlements in the West Bank

Not since George Bush Sr. has a U.S. president alluded to the illegality of Israel's colonization of the West Bank under easily understood international law. Since then, Clinton and Bush Jr. have either treated the West Bank territory as "contested" (Clnton) or actually attempted to legitimate them (Bush Jr.).

Nothwithstanding presidential rhetorical manuevering, the core fact remains: the settlements fly in the face of the Geneva Convention. As this article notes, this is precisely what Israel's leaders were told by their own lawyers.

Israel's Tragedy Foretold - New York Times: "Leaders deceived not only the country's citizens, but themselves. So begin national tragedies. Here is one critical example. In early September 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was considering granting the first approval for settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights, conquered three months earlier in the Six-Day War. An Arab summit meeting in Khartoum had rejected peacemaking. The prime minister believed that the Golan and the strip of land along the Jordan River would make Israel more defensible. He also wanted to re-establish the kibbutz of Kfar Etzion near Bethlehem, which had been lost in Israel's 1948 war of independence. The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked 'Top Secret,' Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally, 'My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.'"

U.S. rolls over again on Israeli settlements