Will Democrats Finally End Their Support For West Bank Settlements? (Part 2)

By Stephen Zunes, AlterNet. Posted June 9, 2009.

When the Bush administration -- along with Russia, the European Union and the United Nations -- put together a three-part "Road Map" for Israeli-Palestinian peace in 2003, the first phase included a series of obligations by both sides, such as an end to Palestinian violence, Palestinian political reform (including free elections), Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian Authority areas reconquered since 2000, and a freeze on the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, "including natural growth of settlements."

In response, the majority of House Democrats wrote President George W. Bush insisting that rather than a pushing for a de-escalation through reciprocal and simultaneous measures, U.S. policy should insist that ending Palestinian violence and the establishment of a new Palestinian leadership should be placed "above all" Israeli responsibilities, such as freezing the expansion of settlements.

When Bush declared in March 2003 that "settlement activity in the occupied territories must end," he was denounced by Pelosi, who said she was "seriously concerned about the timing, tone and effect of the president's statement."

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders' criticism of Bush's call for a settlement freeze appeared to be based on their insistence that the Palestinians alone were responsible for implementing the first stage of the Road Map, essentially arguing that unless and until every act of violence against Israelis ends and the militias of Hamas other extremist groups are dismantled, Israel has no obligation to freeze the settlements.

Throughout the peace process, congressional Democrats have ignored the fact that just as the Palestinians have an obligation to end terrorism regardless of whether Israel stops expanding its settlements, Israel is obliged to end the expansion of settlements regardless of whether the Palestinians end all terrorism.

Nor have they seemed to recognize that it is the expansion of settlements that has markedly contributed to so many Palestinians giving up on a diplomatic route to a two-state solution and embracing Hamas and other radical groups instead.

When prominent Democrats have dared raised concerns about Israel's settlements policy, they have been roundly denounced by the party's congressional leadership. This is particularly true when the criticism has centered on the way it has created an apartheidlike situation on the West Bank through the development of Jewish-only towns and Jewish-only highways accessible only to Palestinians with special passes to do certain menial labor.

Even former President Jimmy Carter is not exempt. Pelosi and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean denounced the Nobel Peace Prize winner's opposition to these Israeli policies, insisting that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party." Rather than address the legitimate concerns, leading Democrats -- including a spokesperson for the Obama campaign -- have falsely claimed that Carter's position was that Israel was an apartheid state.

Carter makes clear in his book, Palestine: Peace of Apartheid, that he is talking about the situation in the West Bank, not Israel itself. Carter correctly notes that despite some discrimination against Israel's Arab minority, Israel is a democracy and does not practice apartheid within its internationally recognized borders and that he was only referring to the situation created by Israel's illegal West Bank settlements.

Yet, in order to distract Americans from taking seriously Carter's concerns about Israel's settlements policy, the Democratic Party leadership has chosen to not only distort his position but to even shun him, such as when they took the unprecedented step last year of denying a former president a podium at his party's national convention.

The Separation Barrier

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a senator of New York, visited a number of these Israeli settlements, refusing to acknowledge their illegality or even the fact that they were in territory recognized by the international community as being under belligerent occupation. During a photo opportunity at settlement of Gilo in 2007, she claimed, while gazing over the massive wall that separates Palestinians from settlers and which bisects what used to be vineyards that had helped sustain nearby Palestinian communities, "This is not against the Palestinian people. This is against the terrorists."

In July 2004, the International Court of Justice -- with only the U.S. judge dissenting (largely on a technicality) -- determined that Israel's construction of the separation barrier outside Israeli internationally recognized borders (those prior to the June 1967 war) was illegal.

The idea of a physical barrier between Israel and the new Palestinian state that would emerge from the occupied territories was originally promoted by Israeli moderates as a means of securing Israel from attack after the withdrawal of Israel's occupation forces.

See more stories tagged with: war, israel, peace, foreign policy, palestine, west bank, barack obama, un, gaza

Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and chairman of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a senior policy analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »