Settlements

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Permanent settlements in occupied territory are a crime against humanity. They are not a bargaining chip. Now in the spectrum of international crimes they are not high. They are not genocide, or even ethnic cleansing. They are sort of ethnic cleansing's ugly little brother.

Unfortunately there is not a good word to describe the phenomenon. Forced immigration is accurate, but not very catchy. There are some medical analogies for unwanted foreign organisms (use your imagination) that are accurate, but they sound extreme, and are not helpful.

Furthermore the issue is somewhat abstract. In a neighborhood where survival depends on a reputation for brutality, abstract considerations get lost easily.

Obama had it right when he pointed out that Israel could have all the natural growth it wanted once it negotiated final borders. It is reasonable to hold this negotiation with the PA, in exclusion of Hamas, since only the West Bank border is in dispute. It is entirely possible that an Israel under an imposed constraint of this nature would finally find it in its own economic interest to negotiate. What other motivation does it have? The desire to avoid suicide bombers? The US should impose such a constraint.

At the least, we should not oppose a unilateral UN resolution deploring settlements. In the past we have opposed resolutions on the grounds that unilateral was inappropriate. This time it seems appropriate. If we do not deplore crimes against humanity, we are facilitators and bear responsibility.

If we wish more Muslim leaders would stand up and declare terrorism to be immoral, we as supporters of Israel should stand up and declare settlements immoral.