Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold’s latest piece for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs explores historical legislation governing settlements and questions whether settlement growth, including natural, really remains the crux of disagreements between the United States and Israel. He asserts that due to the small amount of land occupied by settlements, the issue really represents a U.S. desire for Israeli withdrawal from the territories to enact the two-state solution. However, the strategic placement of settlements often fortifies certain areas for Israel, such as Jerusalem, that would result in considerable disputes once a two-state solution becomes possible. The amount of territory occupied by settlements does not represent the problem, but rather the location of settlements. Notably, Gold writes:
“Given the fact that the amount of territory taken up by the built-up areas of all the settlements in the West Bank is estimated to be 1.7 percent of the territory, the marginal increase in territory that might be affected by natural growth is infinitesimal. Moreover, since Israel unilaterally withdrew 9,000 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the argument that a settler presence will undermine a future territorial compromise has lost much of its previous force.
The U.S. and Israel need to reach a new understanding on the settlements question. It is clearly an overstated issue in the peace process. Legally and diplomatically, settlements do not represent a problem that can possibly justify putting at risk the U.S.-Israel relationship. It might be that the present tension in U.S.-Israeli relations is not over settlements, but rather over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank that the Obama administration envisions.”
