I don't see how this could possibly be a good thing.
There are many different kinds of settlements, from communities in the Jerusalem suburbs, to historic Gush Etzion, to the pogrom making settlers in Hebron. Ariel Sharon had a plan to unilaterally incorporate the larger communities into Israel, and exclude other outposts.
Analysts and journalists have come to different solutions regarding settlements/communities of Jews on the other side of the Green Line. Many American and Israeli analysts and commentators believe it is unrealistic to require a complete withdrawal to the Green Line because of the historic nature of many of the communities on the other side, and also and especially for security reasons.
However, the Israeli government does not have official and coordinated policies for settlement creation, expansion, and the demarcation of a possible border with the West Bank. In fact, there is no agreement in Israel that there will ever be a border between Israel and the West Bank. When there is a government policy regarding settlements, settlers trample over it and the government makes minor, and ineffective gestures to police its citizens.
At the moment, it appears that the Green Line is a potential border for only the Arab League and the Israeli left, while most Israeli and Western commentators believe that a negotiated border is preferred in the two state solution scenario. Some Palestinians believe in using the Green Line as a starting point for negotiations over an eventual border, but plenty of other Palestinians view Tel Aviv as an illegal settlement.
Israel has yet to define the future of its relationship with the Palestinian people. Settlement expansion is not necessarily bad if it follows the negotiated border/ two state solution plan and occurs within settlements that will one day be fully separate from a Palestinian state. However, the Israeli government shows no indication that settlement expansion will do anything aside from harm the possibility for future peace.
The Israelis don't have to define their border. They can continue to believe that creating settlements will effect future border demarcation with the Palestinians, or will justify never creating a border and incorporating all of the West Bank into Israel. They can continue to hope that the Palestinian Authority will remain in disarray and incapable of negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian people. However, this will not only alienate the world, it will redefine the state of Israel to be something that most Israelis and Zionists do not recognize.
The United States and the international community support a two-state solution. Even if the Israeli government does not, building settlements will only damage Israel's relations with its allies.
Marc Lynch brought up a similar thing a few weeks ago... eventually settlements will reach a point where the two-state solution becomes impossible. What do we do then? How do we prevent it from getting to that point?
Those appear to be really difficult questions to answer.
The Likud position on Palestinians is about at American treatment of the Indians, circa 1910. It isn't exterminationist (although I wouldn't be so generous to the parties to Likud's right). Likud represents a polity that covets the Arabs' (Indians') land, and feels whatever rights the Arabs might hold in real property are trumped by Manifest Destiny and righteous retribution for the terrorist depredations of Geronimo Arafat. [Note: is there a reason I can't get the <Strike> tag to work?]
As a practical matter, it would be simpler to let the Arabs govern themselves, within strict limits, in their shrinking reservations, which, in an irrelevant distinction, would be mostly urban as opposed to the American rural. Arabs could provide local color, tourist restaurants, and, who knows, in 100 years the American-derived Israeli settlers could feature Little League baseball between the Kiryat Arba Hezbollahs and the Ariel Hamas.
Charles, I couldn't agree more. Israel needs to stop building homes in the settlement areas TODAY, and simply mothball the partially build homes until some kind of resolution is 'settled'.
I have zero problem with the Administration nailing them to the wall on this issue, (actually, reading it, that's not true - the more isolated Israel is, the less restrained they will feel) and see the Israeli stance on this as being unsupportable (just like I did in 2003.
Marc
The big fear of stopping settlements is Amona . Many settlers will fight to ensure that they are not moved. Unless Israel wants to shoot at(or gas) they're own, some of these settlements will not be evacuated. Politically: a military response on settlements could destroy Israel.
These settlers clearly believe that the land is "granted by God" and will do anything to fulfill God's promise. The questions is: how far will these settlers go to defend "God's will"?
I think the settlers are gambling that the state will simply back down, and I think they have the odds on their side. But what happens if the state does not? Hopefully, they will submit to authority, but I have a nagging feeling that the confrontation would only grow worse....
So I have a question or two, related to this. Granted that the settlements aren't helpful to a two state solution. Neither was dismantling the Gaza settlements helpful to a two state solution.
Is a two state solution really practical?
If so, how? Because the history of the attempt is not hopeful.
If a two state solution is not practical, what other options are there? Obviously, genocide is an option (a terrible one) for either side, and seems to be the preference of most Palestinians and some Israelis. Are there any reasonable options? I, frankly, don't see any, which means that the situation will persist as it is indefinitely. I don't know of anyone, other than possibly the Palestinian leadership making money and getting power off of the situation as it is, who think that's a good thing.