Settlement activity in Jerusalem is the cornerstone of the entire settlement process given the Holy City's stature among Jews in Israel and the world over. Indeed, settlement construction receives as much condemnation by Palestinians as by segments of the Israeli population - including the Peace Now group. Moreover, most countries find in the issue a flagrant violation of the provisions of international legitimacy.
Israel's adamant refusal to stop settlement building ignores a host of UN resolutions stripping the process of legitimacy and calling for ending such activity. UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 446 (1979) stressed that settlement activities and bringing Israeli people to live in the Palestinian land was void of legitimacy, while UNSC resolution 465 (1980) went further to call for dismantling existing settlement blocks. Over the period preceding the 1990s -signalling the start of peace negotiations - the UN General Assembly had passed a host of resolutions denouncing the Israeli attitude in this regard.
Strikingly, settlement building remained a constant Israeli policy regardless of who comes to power -Likud or Labour. Most governments perceive it to be a red line that should not be crossed under any circumstances. Not only does settlement represent one of the pillars of Zionism, but "there can be no Zionism without settlement activities and no Jewish State could survive without the land of the Arabs being confiscated and enclosed"- to use the words uttered in 1972 by former Knesset member Yesheayaho Ben Fort and quoted by Yediot Ahranot.
When peace process was kick-started in 1991, there were about 75,000 settlers. The number increased to 95,000 on the eve the 1993 Oslo Agreement. The period from 1993-1996 witnessed a rise of 50 per cent and the number rose to 147,000 under Labour Party.
Indeed, it was thought that the start of peace process would usher in a halt to settlement construction. In his message inviting the Palestinians to attend the Madrid Conference in 1991, former Secretary of State James Baker stressed that settlement building contradicted the very essence of peace. But those words held no real substance because from the day the Hebrew State was establishment, settlement activity has been at the heart of the Israeli policy regardless of the identity of the coalition in power.
At the outset of peace negotiations, the Palestinian delegation raised the issue on the grounds that the Israeli policy in this respect violated UNSC resolutions -including resolution 242- and expected to have a negative impact on the course of negotiations. Yet the Israelis were adamant in refusing the Palestinian demand while the US stood short of pressurising them into accepting a freeze of settlement activity.
Over the early 1990s, although the extent of settlement building was reduced, the activity never stopped. When the then Prime Minister Yitzak Shamir (Likud) took office, the settlement construction acquired a new momentum as seven new blocks were founded. Up to 2000, consecutive Israeli governments implemented a constant policy of land seizure and settlement expansion. According to the reports released by Peace Now, the number of settlers in the West Bank and the Gaze Strip stood at 200,000 in 2002.
Judaisation of Jerusalem
Since the signing of the Oslo Agreement, Israeli governments spared no effort to Judaise the eastern parts of Jerusalem and dash any hopes of establishing a viable Palestinian state. Accordingly, higher numbers of Israelis were brought to reside in east Jerusalem. At present, there are about 247,000 Israelis living in this area against 310,000 Palestinians.
In tandem with the Judaisation of Jerusalem, settlement expansion in the West Bank continued unabated. A report by Peace Now indicates that settlement building in 2008 increased by 60 per cent compared with the previous year. The report shows that many new housing units were built in Modi'in Illit and Beit Aries colonies. As for settlement outposts - i.e. those erected without the approval of the Israeli government - none of them was dismantled. After pledging to dismantle the Migron outpost and evacuate its settlers, the Israeli government reneged on its promise and increased the settler units there. On the whole, not a single outpost was dismantled in 2008.
Who evacuate settlers?
The prevailing sentiment in Israel is that to attempt to evacuate great numbers of settlers is tantamount to engender a deep rift in Israeli society. It is widely believed that dismantling colonies would meet armed resistance and civil disobedience. The great majority of the Israeli public should therefore be won to the case of evacuating colonies if the process is to be carried out without exacerbating civil strife.
Yet the fact that the Israeli public does not have a unified position over the issue is a good sign as it leaves the door open for resolving this dilemma. Actually, some settlement blocks are seen as crucially important from a religious and security viewpoint - hence these constitute the major problem. Significant as they might be, other blocks are thought of as representing a posing a security challenge for the Israeli government has to guarantee the safety of their settlers should they insist to stay there. In a poll conducted in 1994, almost 45 per cent of respondents called for evacuating colonies located inside or close to Palestinian densely-populated areas. In the following year, these rose to 50 per cent. Worthy of mentioning in this context is that a consensus supporting all settlement activities has never been attained. In 1990, those who voiced no reservation to settlement building were 31 per cent of the Israeli population. Some 26 per cent rejected the process altogether while less than 50 per cent stood somewhere between the two positions.
American stance
The US declared stance is that settlement activity is a stumbling block in the way of peace. Washington never indulged, however, in a debate over the legitimacy of settlement construction from an international law perspective. Compared with previous US administrations the Obama one seems more firm as it uses strongly worded statements opposing settlement construction and calling for a total freeze of the process. President Obama, his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and his envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell used all available occasions to express their position in this regard.
The intransigent position on the part of the Israeli premier Binyamin Netanyahu remains the major challenge facing Obama's pursuit to halt settlement construction. As for the right-wing coalition in power, it supports the Prime Minister on the grounds that the US stance places the Israeli interests in jeopardy. The Knesset's position is no less adamant as chairman Reuven Rivlin provided full support to Netanyahu's stance. Rivlin said that building more settler units in Maali Adomim is crucial to keep Jerusalem a unified city.
Shas chairman Eli Yishai joined the chorus and confirmed that settlement activity is an Israeli internal affair that no foreign power is allowed to meddle with. Observers find in the Israeli position a fundamental challenge to the US pursuit. Everything, however, depends on the Obama administration's persistence in opposing the Israeli attitude. In fact, the file has to be transformed into a US-Israeli -rather than a Palestinian Israeli - issue if this dilemma is to be resolved.
*Researcher at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies