BICOM

Key Points 

• Reports in the Israeli press last week triggered speculation regarding a possible imminent evacuation of illegal outposts. The report claimed that a united command on the model of those established in the build up to the disengagement from Gaza in 2005 has been established.
• Under the provisions of the Road Map, issued in 2003, Israel elected to remove all outposts established since March 2001 (the date of the Mitchell Report). A government commission has since determined that there are 26 such outposts.
• At the present time, under pressure from the US over settlements in general, it appears that there is a growing willingness among the Israeli leadership to take decisive steps regarding the outposts. However, the government is understood to want to link this with real steps toward normalization on the part of key Arab states toward Israel.
• The relatively small number of people actively involved in the construction of the outposts should not obscure the fact that determined opposition, both public and political can be expected to meet any attempt to dismantle them. This opposition, however, will not be sufficient to cause the collapse of the government.
• The Gaza Disengagement of 2005 remains the best proof of the fact that once the political will is there, Israel can carry out evacuations of settlements in an efficient and comprehensive way.

Introduction

A series of articles in the Israeli media last week suggested that the Israeli authorities were planning to carry out the evacuation of numerous settlement outposts, which Israel has pledged to remove, in a single operation. According to the reports, a special combined police and IDF command has been established to oversee this operation.[i] The reports were apparently from political sources in the Prime Minister’s office. They were denied by spokesmen for the government and the security forces. However, whether or not there are in fact plans to evacuate the outposts in a single day, the issue of their evacuation is giving rise to an intense political struggle in Israel, as the government attempts to muster the political will and the ability to remove the outposts, and the supporters of the settlement movement organize to prevent this. At the present time, it appears that there is a growing willingness among the Israeli leadership to take decisive steps regarding the outposts. However, the government is understood to want to link this with real steps toward normalization on the part of key Arab states toward Israel.[ii] This document will look into the issue of the outposts and will attempt to assess whether an imminent move by the government in this regard looks likely. 

What are outposts?

Settlement outposts are areas of Jewish settlement in the West Bank which were established ad hoc by settlers without government approval, and therefore in contravention of Israeli law. Usually, such outposts contain small populations of young people and young families, and are established at some distance from existing, government-approved settlements in the West Bank. The entire population of the outposts does not exceed around 1200 people, living for the most part not in permanent housing units, but in tents and mobile homes.   

Under the provisions of the Road Map, issued in 2003, Israel elected to remove all outposts established after March 2001, the date of the Mitchell Report. A government commission has since determined that there are 26 such outposts. This figure has been disputed, with some organizations claiming that the real number of settlement outposts is around 100. According to a recent report issued by the Peace Now organization, 80 of the 100 outposts it names were built entirely or partly on privately-owned land (that is, land belonging to individual Palestinian residents of the West Bank). 16 of the outposts are located entirely on privately-owned land.[iii] These figures, however, are disputed by pro-settlement groups.

Why has the issue attained prominence?

The Obama Administration has chosen to focus on the issue of a settlement freeze.  Because of the general return to prominence of the settlement issue, the issue of outposts has also re-emerged as a subsidiary matter. The nature and extent of a settlement freeze has been under discussion by the Israeli government and the US administration in recent weeks, with agreement said to be close. The issue of outposts and their evacuation has become part of this wider discussion. 

In recent weeks, a series of statements by Israeli officials have suggested that a removal of the 26 outposts that Israel has committed to dismantle could be imminent. Strategic Affairs Minister and former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon told reporters last month that Israel, as a state of law, would not allow ‘illegal settlement activity’. Prime Minister Netanyahu, for his part, has directly linked the issue of the outposts to the need to preserve Israel’s strong alliance with the US, particularly given the urgency of the Iranian threat. He told the Likud Knesset faction in this regard that ‘I identify the danger and that’s why I am willing to take unpopular steps, such as evacuating outposts. The Iranian threat is above everything. There are things on which you have to compromise.’ [iv]

So far, two outposts have been evacuated, both near Kiryat Arba, in the Hebron area.  The outposts, Givat Avichai and the Federman farm, were evacuated without violence and serious resistance.[v]  However, should larger scale removal of outposts be attempted, the possibility of clashes between supporters of the settlers and the security forces – along the lines of the scenes witnessed during the evacuation of Amona in 2006 – would come onto the agenda. The outpost of Amona, located in the northern West Bank, was the scene of considerable violence when the government of Ehud Olmert attempted to remove nine homes placed at the outpost. Thousands of demonstrators arrived at the area in a major show of strength by the settlement movement. 200 people were injured in the subsequent clashes, including 80 members of the security forces.

A majority of the Israeli public do not identify with the outposts, and would utterly reject any violence against security forces attempting to remove them. Nonetheless the demonstration at Amona was widely understood as an attempt to deter any subsequent attempt by the government to remove outposts. Such scenes may well be repeated if the Netanyahu government attempt to dismantle the 26 outposts which it is committed to remove.

Opposition to outpost evacuation

The relatively small number of people actively involved in the construction of the outposts should not obscure the determined opposition, both public and political, which could be expected to meet any attempt to dismantle them.  The National Union party, which has 4 MKs, is the party most associated with the settlement movement. National Union MKs Aryeh Eldad and Uri Ariel are the most vociferous opponents of the evacuation of outposts on the political stage. They consider that any removal of outposts is a prelude to a larger-scale dismantling of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.  However, there are also Likud MKs who will publicly oppose any dismantling of outposts. The Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is likely to mobilize thousands of demonstrators who will seek to prevent the dismantling and to re-establish the outposts after they are dismantled.

There is no danger of the Netanyahu government falling as a result of the removal of outposts. What is being discussed is the participation in demonstrations of some thousands, backed up by passive support in the national religious community and to a degree among a broader right-wing constituency. However, the potential exists for widespread civil disobedience. One of the tactics being adopted by extremist supporters of the outposts is to carry out acts of retribution against the local Palestinian population in response to attempts to remove outposts. For example, a group of settlers from Yizhar near Nablus recently carried out an arson attack on Palestinian-owned olive trees in response to the removal of an outpost near Yizhar.

Of course, such acts are not approved of by the Yesha Council, or the MKs of the National Union. There are different shades of opinion among the settlers. Yizhar is part of a group of settlements in the Nablus area which are noted for their particularly hard-line positions. Still, the presence of individuals willing to carry out acts of this kind means that any attempt at a comprehensive removal of outposts will not pass without significant opposition. 

Is a large scale evacuation imminent?

Among last week’s media reports on this issue was a story in Ha’aretz claiming that a specially established command had already carried out its first exercise to simulate the simultaneous evacuation of a number of outposts. The army later denied that this command has been created. The evidence for the carrying out of the exercise appears convincing. Such preparations do not, however, mean that a large-scale evacuation is immediately imminent. 

Since this week sees Tisha B’av, a day of lamentation in the Jewish calendar commemorating the destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem and other tragic events in Jewish history, there will be no major evacuation of outposts in the next few days. A number of knowledgeable Israeli sources believe that an evacuation would be unlikely at any point during the summer. This is because the school recess means that a large number of young people are immediately available for mobilization to resist the evacuations. It is therefore more likely that if a large scale evacuation of outposts were to take place, it would be in the autumn.

Sources suggest that the Israeli government wants to link decisive measures on the outposts with real steps on normalization toward Israel on the part of key Arab states. It should be remembered that the current government does not have a natural inclination to clash with the West Bank settlers as a public. Nevertheless, large-scale evacuations of outposts are possible if the government deems it in its interest to carry these out. 

Conclusion

According to media reports, Israel and the US are understood to be close to a deal on the nature of a settlement freeze acceptable to both sides, including a commitment on the dismantling of outposts. The supporters of the settlement outposts can mobilise a determined opposition to resist attempts at evacuation, but most Israelis are likely to support the government if it sets out to dismantle outposts. As a result, Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition is unlikely to collapse as a result of removing outposts. However, it could be put in danger by larger-scale moves against West Bank settlements. A move against the outposts could be used to convince the Obama administration of the government’s seriousness to act on the issue of settlements, in a way which would be less likely to put Netanyahu’s coalition in danger. For all these reasons, it is possible that a major attempt to dismantle illegal settlement outposts could take place in the course of this year. However, this may also depend on significant gestures in the direction of normalization by key Arab states. 

---

 

[i] Anshel Pfeffer and Jonathan Lis, “Police set up special unit ahead of mass outpost evacuation,” Ha’aretz, 22 July 2009,  www.haaretz.com

[ii] Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, “US, Israel inch closer to deal on settlement freeze,” Ha’aretz, 27 July 2009, http://www.haaretz.com

[iii] Ari Shavit, ‘Outposts for blocs,” Ha’aretz, 10 July 2009.  http://www.haaretz.com

[iv] ‘Israel will give up outposts for US deal on Iran,” Agence France Presse, 26 May 2009  http://www.alarabiya.net

[v] “Two unauthorized outposts dismantled near Kiryat Arba,” Jerusalem Post, 27 May 2009  http://www.jpost.com