Flaws, Fallacies, and Faux-Peace

"Settlers Who Long to Leave the West Bank"
A6, Friday, 11/14/08
By Ethan Bronner

The article focuses on highlighting the numerous Jewish residents who are willing to leave the West Bank in support of a Two-State Solution with the Palestinians. According to Bronner, many of them are unable to do so because they cannot sell their homes for a reasonable price given the declining real estate values in the area. In this regard, he presents a proposed governmental initiative, "One Home," led by the left-wing Meretz Party, which would allocate funds to purchase the homes of settlers who are willing to relocate to Israel "proper" (within the 1949 Armistice Lines, also known as the "Green Line").

Positively, the article does two things. Firstly, it breaks from the common, all-encompassing demonization of the settlers as extremists that seek to subjugate the Palestinians (although one does not need to desire to leave the West Bank in order to be a 'moderate' settler). Secondly, it does something to differentiate between the settlements to the West of the security barrier - perhaps the more 'reasonable' settlements - to the settlements that are not included within it to the East.

Nevertheless, some of the premises of the article are deeply flawed. One of central assumptions of the article is that "the vast majority of settlers vow never to abandon the heart of the historic Jewish homeland." While many Jews, including those living outside the West Bank, feel a very strong attachment to this historic land where a great number of the events of the Old Testament took place, Bronner makes a careless generalization.

He ignores the great numbers of Israeli Jews who live in some of the largest West Bank settlements for economic and other non-religious reasons in places such as Ma'aleh Adumim, a de facto 'suburb' of Jerusalem, and Ariel, further up North. His statement would have been more accurate in relation to those settlements to the East of the security barrier. Even then though, this weak generalization would be contradicted by the statement of Avshalom Vilan, a Meretz Parliamentary member: “Half the settlers beyond the barrier are ideologically motivated and do not want to move. But about 40 percent of them are ready to go for a reasonable price.”

A second failed premise upon which this article operates, given its exclusive focus on Israeli actions, is that there is a willing peace partner in Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party. Bronner continues the fallacy that Israel needs to further strengthen Fatah (largely debunked by Natan Sharansky in The Case for Democracy) and that "The [Palestinian] authority is trying to convince the Palestinian public that two states are possible." The latter statement is bad comedy given the lack of evidence that the PA is preparing the groundwork for a peaceful resolution with Israel. In fact, the PA has continued incitement against Israel and has been generally uncompromising, even threatening a return to the old paradigm of the one-state solution.

Overall, this piece underscores the NYT's position that Israel should withdraw to the now sacrosanct Green Line (including even long-standing Jewish neighborhoods in 'East Jerusalem') and even more problematically, implies that a future Palestinian state will be devoid of any Jewish population. If the Palestinian leadership would be unable to accept any Jewish presence within its borders, what would it intimate about such a Palestinian government or the nature of that peace? Such a government would doubtfully be pluralistic or democratic, which bodes ill for Israelis and Palestinians alike.