An objective analysis of the evidence will change attitudes to Israel in Middle East

Betty Purcell’s heartfelt advocacy on behalf of the Arab population in the West Bank is clearly genuine, she describes how “as a teenager, I planned to go and work on a kibbutz, believing that Israel was building an equal and fair society.

My recent experience in Palestine has horrified me, seeing what that society has become” (Letters, 12 November).

Ms Purcell describes her experience of a recent trip with a conviction that would move the most hardened heart, if it was all true, however, her information is based on a diffuse amalgamation of unverified reports from a number of non-objective Christian organisations.

This is a common tactic from Israel’s numerous adversaries, who assert that settlements are an obstacle to peace, yet when incisively examined, the evidence leads to a different conclusion.

From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.

From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs showed no interest in making peace with Israel.

In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat went to Jerusalem.

One year later, Israel froze settlements, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process.

But none would.

In another Camp David summit in 2000, Ehud Barak offered to dismantle most settlements and create a Palestinian state in exchange for peace, and Yasser Arafat rejected the plan. Israel also proved willing to dismantle settlements in the interest of peace.

During the Camp David negotiations with Egypt, all of the issues had been resolved, but one remained, Sadat’s insistence that all settlements in the Sinai be removed.

However, Israel did just that in 1982, providing compensation to residents for the loss of their homes, farms and businesses that ranged from $100,000 to $500,000 (Jerusalem Post, January 8, 2004).

Nevertheless, a small group of settlers in the town of Yamit refused to leave and Sharon had the army literally drag them out of their homes to comply with the terms of the agreement with Egypt.

Another charge is that settlements are “illegal”.

The United States has never adopted this position and legal scholars have noted that a country acting in self-defence may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Moreover, the occupying power may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory. According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank.

The resolution “allows Israel to administer the territories” it won in 1967 “until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved,” Rostow wrote in The New Republic (October, 1991).

During the debate on the resolution, he added, “speaker after speaker made it clear that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ [1949] Armistice Demarcation Lines”. While this does not make the lives of West Bank Arabs any easier, it surely for any objective person, offers a different analysis to Ms Purcell’s.

Dr Kevin McCarthy

Kinsale

Co Cork