RON WEISER

THERE is nothing like a debate on “the settlements” to stir passions or to allow false ideological sloganeering to override reality.

There are no such things as “settlements” per se. To Hamas and Fatah, Tel Aviv is a settlement. To Yossi Beilin, Mitzpei Yericho is a settlement.

However, for the vast majority of Israelis — and assuming that in our discussion we are using this term for any Jewish towns over the Green Line — there are what I referred to in my previous blog and many times elsewhere, settlements within the consensus and settlements on which there is either less of a consensus or no consensus.

The consensus settlements are the large blocks containing the overwhelming majority of the settlers, almost exclusively in fact initiated by Labour governments and about whose future there is no doubt in the minds of the vast majority of Israelis across the spectrum.

These settlements will be part of the State of Israel once borders are finalised as far as the consensus is concerned.

There is also no doubt that in Israel, the consensus is that within these settlements “natural growth” is right and proper.

It is this specific aspect of the settlement enterprise that has put Israel on a rocky road with the US President Barack Obama and his Jewish advisers.

Obama’s inability to understand the enormous difference between the consensus settlements and the rest is mirrored by some here as well.

To attempt to use Ehud Barak in a debate against “natural growth” in these settlements is to grossly misrepresent him, largely I assume or hope, out of sheer ignorance.

To note just two points on Barak:

First, Irving Moskowitz, a well known and somewhat controversial philanthropist of many settler enterprises, called Ehud
Barak the “Father of Ras El Amud” in the late 1990s.

This East Jerusalem suburb is the key suburb to blocking any possible future division of Jerusalem. That is, Jewish
settlement in Ras El Amud is a potential deal breaker in determining the real possibility of a “Two-State Solution”.

No other settlement activity of Moskowitz’ is on a par in terms of its political ramifications.

It was Ehud Barak after Netanyahu et al had continually refused to allow Moskowitz to build there, who allowed the Jewish settlement venture in Ras El Amud to proceed.

Another moment for pause by the way, for those who understand Israel superficially and enjoy resorting to the slogans of “left” and “right” — and then purport to represent Israel’s views on political matters without understanding that the age of the traditional ideological divides is largely over.

I am on the record many times back in 2001 stating that Ariel Sharon would withdraw from Gaza. People stuck in the left/right paradigm believed it would never happen.

The same is true today in regards to Bibi Netanyahu, if he perceives that the rewards — either nationally or politically — will justify in his mind, a similar move.

Secondly, at Camp David in 2000 as Prime Minister, Barak offered the Palestinians a State whilst retaining a small segment
of the West Bank.  A very specific segment of the West Bank indeed.

He refused to cede the areas that contain the major settlement blocks and the overwhelming majority of settlers.

The simple truth is that these major settlement blocks are so far within the consensus that they are not even regarded as settlements in mainstream debate.

So when people like Barak refer to the need to remove some settlements, he is never referring to the major settlement blocks nor the vast majority of settlers, which for him are already a given as part of Israel proper.

Therefore not understanding his context and terminology leads firstly to a misunderstanding and secondly a misrepresentation by people pushing their own agendas.

Of course there must be debate, but in society we generally establish boundaries.

Recently we all applauded the court action in regards to Fredrick Tobin in Adelaide. Does that mean we oppose free speech?

It means that we believe that free speech is a right to uphold within certain goal posts. That with free speech also comes responsibility.

In regards to the Australian Jewish community’s position on Israel’s policies there are two issues.

The debate within the community and then the leadership’s presentation of policy.

There is plenty of room for discussion, dissent and variance of views for the debate to take place and it generally does.

There is much room for diversity within the parameters of the consensus. And the consensus is very wide but begins with assumptions about Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, about Israel being a democracy etc.

Generally the debate is had when either a “right wing” or “left wing” government is in power and the other group is in opposition and their views are then mirrored here and elsewhere.

However we rarely if ever feel the need for debate on a particular policy when there is a broad consensus across the Israeli political spectrum such as there is on the natural growth within the large settlement blocks.

Until the advent of J-Street, a clear and precise consensus in Israel generally meant a consensus in the Diaspora amongst mainstream Jews as well.

Not because anyone shut debate down, but because of broad agreement and the obvious nature of self-evident truths.

Now J-Street is not pushing Labour’s view or Kadima’s view or any well supported view in Israel at all. They are working against the policy of both the Government and the major party in Opposition which is quite unprecedented. So on whose behalf is J-Street arguing.

To reiterate, there is no serious debate in Israel on the consensus settlements; there is no serious strategic debate in Israel on natural growth within those consensus settlements.

There is a debate on the best way to not make this a stumbling block in Israel-US relations and on what temporary actions may be needed.

Jews pushing against the broad understandings in Israel are peddling nothing more than their own political influence to the detriment of Israel’s welfare.

Strategically the paradigm shift is that on most external issues the major parties no longer exclusively represent a “left” or a “right”.

After all we see a Likud/Labour coalition today in government with a Labour President.

Ideologically we have a national unity government with the opposition Kadima party being completely in step with the Government on its objectives, if not its modalities.

The differences today are tactical — on how to achieve the consensus objective.

It is these tactical differences that differentiate to some limited degree, the left from the right. Although not always as one might think.

Is it really better to have no insight into the issue, to quote people such as Ehud Barak without having a clue as to his context and actual intentions and then to use such fallacies to try and make a case for unaccountable individuals pushing their own personal policies in contradistinction to the consensus view in Israel? That is what is happening today in the United States.

And we do not want to bring that here.

As but one example of how poorly Obama is perceived in Israel — and make no mistake, the issue of the consensus settlements is front and centre to this — a Smith Research Poll conducted last week for the Jerusalem Post found that only 4% of Israelis said that Obama was pro-Israel and fully 86% stated that they thought Obama was either pro-Palestinian or neutral.

Now in terms of presenting a policy or carrying out hasbara.

One method is a free for all. This is madness and a recipe for failure.

Does anyone seriously believe that a procession of different people to an Australian Prime Minister for example, presenting alternate indeed opposing views on a particular and specific Israeli policy direction, can be a successful formula for engendering understanding of Israel’s position.

On the contrary, it is highly damaging and only results in the general political leadership being able to take unpalatable positions whilst claiming that they have significant Jewish support — al la Obama and J-Street.

The other and only rational method, and this is so much easier in the case of the natural growth of the consensus settlements where there is across the board agreement in Israel, is a co-ordinated approach around a central and clear policy. Indeed this is the only sensible way.

Failure to do so will only lead us back to the fiasco of the Ashrawi Peace Prize.

Leadership is difficult and leadership is earned and leadership is elected and leadership is accountable — it is not self-appointed.

Those who through ignorance, design or self-delusion about their role in representative leadership fail to understand both the need for a consensus and the need to present a united carefully considered position by the leadership, do not assist us in any way.

Mixed messages, especially on consensus issues, have no chance of success.

They will only allow the general community and political leadership in Australia to misread the vast bulk of the Australian Jewish community.

Dr Ron Weiser is immediate past president of the Zionist Federation of Australia and a committee member of the board of governors of the Jewish Agency (Sochnut).