In a strange way, I find myself agreeing with the US ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, when he said on Friday that it is "unrealistic" to expect the large settlements on the West Bank to be evacuated. It seems to me that Kurtzer is correct in identifying the permanence of Ma'aleh Adumim et al. However, the American diplomat was amiss in not drawing the logical conclusion from this.
The harsh reality is that the larger settlements on the West Bank, many of them now the size of small towns, will not be handed over in any future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. The even harsher reality is that, because these settlements will remain, there will be no peace deal.
There may be some cobbled together deal which the world will laud as "peace", but it will not hold if, like Oslo, it fails to address the settlement issue to the Palestinians' satisfaction.
When one considers the prospects for an historic compromise in the Holy Land, one is confronted by three huge problems: Jerusalem, the refugees and the settlememnts. In the case of the first two it is possible, in some future more positive atmosphere, to envisage a compromise. But on the third issue, that of the Israeli colonies, no resolution seems possible.
The future of Jerusalem is not an easy issue on which to compromise, not least because of the emotions engendered by ownership of the city among people far from Palestine. But still, with a large dose of goodwill, some sort of compromise could be achieved. Perhaps the Old City could become an international zone, or a sort of second Vatican. There is an interesting proposal that Israel could keep control of the Old City with the Christian and Muslim holy sites becoming Palestinian consulates.
If the Israeli governmnet could back down from its maximalist position on the city, and acknowldege that the Jewish narrative on Jerusalem is not the only one, then a deal could be struck. In the current political context, with the Likud in the ascendancy in Israel, this is impossible. But in the future, if Israeli public opinion were to shift to the left, it is, at least to me, imaginable.
The refugee issue is also highly complex, again because it impacts on people outside of Palestine itself, in the countries in which the exiles now live. The right of the 1948 refugees to return is an aritcle of faith for Arabs. Legally and morally, I have no problem with the idea that those driven from their homes during al-Nakbah (the Catastrophe) have a right to return to them. But politically this is unfeasible.
For Israel to agree to such a step would be demographic suicide for the only state in the world with a Jewish majority. As such, any future deal will have to put peace before justice. The Palestinians must realise that this is the case. The only way that the refugees will return en masse is in the wake of a conquering Arab army, and you don't see too many of them these days.
To compromise on this issue will be an excrutiating step for the Palestinians, but I still believe it can be done, as long as Israel takes steps to address the refugees' plight. This mean that Israel (and by Israel, I mean America), must pay compensation for the crimes of al-Nakbah to allow the refugees to settle in the states in which they now reside.
But, perhaps more importantly, it also means that Israel must acknwoledge, without reservation, what was done to Palestinian society in 1948. Let us have no more specious talk of Arab radio broadcasts. If the refugees are to live in exile in perpetuity, they at least deserve the truth.
As with Jerusalem, such a compromise is inconcievable in the current climate; I can't see Sharon saying mea culpa. This is a shame sicne the Bulldozer, along with Shimon Peres, is the last of the generation which carried out the ethnic cleansing all those years ago. If Israel does apologise in ten years time, it will be a new generation of leaders asking forgiveness for the sins of their fathers.
So far I have done mny best to be optimistic: the Israelis admitting their past sins, the Palestinians renouncing their right of return, both sides agreeing to share Jerusalem. This is heady struff. Yet even in my most determinedly upbeat mood, the settlement issue seems immune from solution.
From the Palestinians' point of view, the West Bank colonies simply have to go if their state is to have any meaning in terms of territorial contiguity and freedom of movement. A "state" among the settlements is no such thing, it is a collection of Bantustans cut off from each other and from the rural hinterland.
A deal which keeps the settlements would not be the fulfillment of Palestinain dreams, but rather the final admnission of defeat. Having been strikingly generous in 1988 by giving up 78% of their own country, morally, politically, we can not ask them to give any more. Even Abbas, praised in the West as a "moderate", does not envisage pecae with settlements.
So, it's simple then, the Israelis must swallow hard and leave the settlements? If only. When discussing the possibility of compromise on Jerusalem and the refugees, I pre-supposed the existence of a strongly pro-peace government in Tel Aviv. But even if such a government truly wanted to leave the West Bank, it couldn't.
There are over 250 000 settlers in the West Bank. If they are to be moved by force, and be assured that some will not go quietly, then who is to move them? The IDF, the same IDF whose ranks are filled with settlers, rightists and religious fundamentalists. The secular and leftist soldiers may be willing to remove the settlers, but their hawkish brothers in arms will not.
Any attempt to remove the settlements in toto leads, inevitably in my mind, to civil war in Israel. Observe the furious fight (I speak, I hope only metaphorically) which is currently raging over the Gaza settlers who number only 8 000 and reside in an area of no Biblical importance. The settlers may lose in Gaza, but they will still put down a marker for the future. "See how hard it was to get us out of Gaza. Don't even think about trying the same in Judea and Samaria."
Even my mythical dovish Israeli governmnet would balk at the unpayable price of removing the settlements: peace with my enemy for war with my brother.
So Kurtzer is correct when he says it is unrealistic to expect the settlements to be removed in their totality. But he, along with the rest of the Window Of Opportunity gang, needs to accept the corollary of this - that it is equally unrealistic to expect there to be peace if the settlements remain.