The Foreign Service Journal, May 2003

require Israel to withdraw to its pre- Six-Day War borders failed. The boundary was to be negotiated so that the parties could feel safe and secure. In that context, it is not accurate to use the pejorative word “occu- pied” to describe Israel’s presence in the West Bank, for that term implies illegality on its part. Since both par- ties have ambiguous but serious claims to the territory, the more proper term would be “disputed,” as is used in reference to Kashmir and Cyprus, for example. Until the dis- pute is resolved, Israeli settlements in the West Bank have every right to be there. Following the Six-Day War, Israel encouraged and established settle- ments in the Sinai Desert and Gaza, previously captured and governed by Egypt, as well as in the West Bank, previously captured and gov- erned by Jordan. Religious groups did so pursuant to their belief that the Bible describes the Jewish pres- ence in Judea and Samaria — the Roman and Hellenistic terms for the West Bank area, respectively — as the cradle of Jewish civilization. The government of Israel did so to strengthen its defenses against future Arab invasions. Groups of Israelis did so to live in inexpensive rural surroundings. It is interesting to note that Israel agreed to withdraw its settlements from the Sinai as part of its peace treaty with Egypt. (It is reported that Egypt did not want Gaza.) The Israeli official assigned to close the settlements in the Sinai was Ariel Sharon, who did so in the face of right-wing criticism. Notwithstanding the often-repeated assertions by the “experts” in and out of the State Department that the Israeli settle- ments are a fundamental barrier to peace, it took three serious armed attacks by Arabs against Israel before Israel initiated its active set- tlement program. The Path Ahead Mr. Arnold concludes his article with a list of policy recommenda- tions for all parties to the conflict, most of which Israel accepted in the 1993 Oslo agreement and again at Camp David seven years later. I cer- tainly concur that negotiations, not suicide bombers and retaliations, are the path to peace. After all, diplo- macy has produced peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. Negotiations can and should lead to a workable accord that assures the integrity of both Israel and Palestine — if safe and secure boundaries for both countries can be established in accordance with the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Toward that end, there are many intelligent and responsible Palestinian Arab leaders (with whom American and Israeli officials have met) who M A Y 2 0 0 3 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 17 S P E A K I N G O U T There are many Palestinian Arab leaders who understand that establishing a state committed to democracy is the formula by which to achieve peace, dignity and economic health.