Recent Trends in Settlement Growth
(August 2004)
The growth rate of settlements in the West Bank varies rapidly from one settlement to another. While some experience extremely high growth rates, others are below average and some have even experienced negative growth rates. Mapping the growth rates of the settlements reveals an interesting 'migration' phenomenon. Simultaneously, settlements that are located far from the projected security barrier have low growth rates and even negative ones, while settlements located on the borderline of the projected route have very high growth rates. This trend nurtures the notion that the settlement movement is strategizing and concentrating power and resources in what will become the centers of resistance. This notion is reinforced by the below-average growth rates in settlements already surrounded by the barrier, and the high growth rates in the settlements located on holy sites.
What Are the Trends in Settlement Growth?
The disengagement plan is the most significant political process happening. As such, it bears the most influence on the life and actions of Jewish settlers in the West Bank. While stage A of the construction of the security barrier was completed in July of 2003, the building of its remaining route is being constantly challenged by international criticism, Israeli supreme-court decision, and many pending suits against it in the Israeli Justice System. The route of the security barrier, to say the least, has not yet been determined and is likely to continue being the center of the political struggle in Israel in the near future. At stake is the very existence of each and every settlement. Ending-up on the wrong side of the fence most likely means future abandonment of the settlement. In this reality, the following are the main trends in settlement growth:
I. Low and Even Negative Growth Rates in "Remote" Settlements -
The "remote" settlements are those located in areas that cannot be geographically included in the route of the security barrier. While the total number of settlers, excluding East Jerusalem, increased from 223,539 in June 2003 to 235,591 in June 2004 averaging 5.39 percent, the "remote" settlements grew much slower. Kokhav Hashahar and Rimmonim with the combined population of 1,930 in June 2003, for instance, are located North-East of Jerusalem, at the heart of the Samarian ridge. Kokhav Hashahar grew 1.84 percent and Rimmonim grew at a negative rate of -0.35 percent. Shavei Shomeron, located just North-West of Nablus lost 2.48 percent of its population in the last year. Other examples from "remote" settlements include: Ganim with 1.21 percent growth, Hallamish with 2.23 percent, Almog with - 4.26 percent, Enav with -3.31 percent, Hamra with -7.1 percent, Hermesh with -4.85 percent, Migdalim with 0.73 percent, Roi with -5.85 percent, and many more. All are beyond the reach of the security barrier.
II. High Growth Rates in "Borderline" Settlements -
"Borderline" settlements are those located near the projected route of the security barrier, typically in the more controversial areas. High-growth "Borderline" settlements are concentrated around several settlement blocks. Some are in the projected route of the security barrier and some are just adjacent to it from the East. In the Ariel Qedumim block, for example, Qiryat Netafim with 9.97 percent growth, Revava with 9.53 percent and Peduel with 13.46 percent growth are inside the projected Ariel Block. Kfar Tapuah with 18.54 percent growth is adjacent to the block from the East. Gush Etzion is another example for a cluster of "borderline" settlements included in a projected yet contested portion of the barrier. These include Betar Illit with 11.22 percent growth, El'azar with 12.91 percent, Migdal Oz with 13.47 percent, Rosh Zurim with 9.23 percent, Neve Daniyyel with 8.88 percent and Bat Ayin with 8.76 percent growth. Almost every single settlement in Gush Etzion grew about double of the total average rate.
In the Jerusalem area, high growth "borderline" settlements include: Geva Binyamin with 12.06 percent, Kokhav Ya'aqov with 13.32 percent and Psagot with 7.9 percent growth. All of these settlements while not included in the projected barrier plan, are adjacent to it on the North-East side of Jerusalem.
Etz Efrayim, located inside of the projected route and at the end point of Stage A of the security barrier, experienced a growth rate of 20.03 percent in the last year. Mevo Horon, included in the projected route, grew by 16.91 percent.
III. Low Growth Rates in "Spotlight" Settlements -
Traditionally, there are several settlements that attract international attention; some for conflict related reasons, some for their location and some for their size. Those settlements are the symbol of Israel's occupation in the eyes of the Palestinians. As such, they became the focus of international attention and monitoring. The "spotlight" settlements experienced lower than average growth rates in the last year. In the Ariel block, Ariel grew only by 0.63 percent and Qedumim experienced 3.7 percent growth. In Gush Etzion, the growth rate of Efrat was 3.44 percent. North of Jerusalem, Giva'at Ze'ev, which was the focus of the Israel Supreme Court ruling, grew by only 1.22 percent.
IV. Low Growth Rates in "Fenced In" Settlements -
With the completion of stage A of the security barrier in July 2003, several settlements were physically incorporated in the West side of the barrier. These "fenced in" settlements have experienced low growth rates in the following year. They include Alfe Menashe that grew by 1.49 percent, Elqana with -1.2 percent, Oranit with 3.34 percent, Shaqed with -1.74 percent, Sal'it with 2.7 percent and Sha'are Tiqva with 1.11 percent. There is one exception to this trend and that is the Hinnanit - Tal Menashe settlement, which grew beyond the average growth rate.
What Explains the Latest Trends?
The distinct diversity in settlement growth and the emerging patterns discussed indicate that this is not a random phenomenon. What can explain these trends? Is it a natural response to political realities? Is there an invisible hand guiding and strategizing? Following are several possible explanations of the recent trends in settlement growth.
I. Natural Response to Political Realities -
The first possible explanation is a natural response to political realities. Political dynamics flow from the establishment of the barrier, as it becomes Israel's provisional border . The publication of the projected route of the security barrier and the subsequent public debate, made it clear to the residents of "remote" settlements that they are out of the reach of the barrier; they will end-up in the 'wrong' side of the fence. Under these circumstances, it seems only natural that settlers in remote sites will be moving out of those settlements.
While appearing as a likely explanation when focused on the low growth rates in "remote" settlements, this explanation falls short on two levels. First, the ideological making of the population in those settlements is highly risk-acceptant when it comes to security. Their risk level did not change much in the last year. Second, even if those settlers decided that the risk is too high, they would have moved back to Israel proper, "fenced-in" settlements, or at least settlements that are clearly inside of the projected route of the security barrier. The data suggests otherwise. Instead of high growth in those 'safe' locations there is very slow growth, and the high growth actually exists at the "borderline" settlements instead.
II. Existence of an Invisible Guiding Hand -
The second explanation of the trends in settlement growth is the existence of a guiding hand. Whether it is the hand of the Yesha council (the council of Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district) or the one of the Israeli government, it appears that there is a strategizing force guiding the 'migration' in the West Bank. This strategy follows several guidelines that explain the trends.
First, 'you cannot win it all'. Political pressure is soon to mount on settlements to be evacuated. Since not all of the settlements can be 'saved,' a need for a concentration of power emerges; priorities have to be set. "Remote" settlements should be sacrificed, according to this thinking, in order to save the "borderline" settlements. This explains the low growth rate in "remote" settlements and the very high rates in "borderline" settlements.
Second, "borderline" settlements that should be strengthened are those located where the projected route of the barrier is challenged by the Israeli Supreme Court and the International Community, and slightly to their East. To be specific, the Ariel Block settlements should be strengthened since the future of the security barrier route in this area is constantly challenged. Furthermore, Kfar Tapuah, East of Ariel should be reinforced too as a possible expansion of the block. The same logic applies to Gush Etzion. In Jerusalem, the adjacent settlements of Geva Binyamin, Khohav Ya'akov and Psagot are possible expansion for the route of the barrier in that region.
Third, in order to avoid detection and international pressure, "spotlight" settlements should maintain low to average rates of growth. For that reason Ariel is growing by only 0.63 percent, while the rest of the block is growing much higher. Similarly, Efrat is growing by only 3.44 percent while the rest of Gush Etzion is averaging about three folds. Giv'at Ze'ev, included in the route of the barrier is keeping a low profile by growing only 1.22 percent.
Fourth, there is no reason to invest in "fenced-in" settlements. Where the barrier is already built and it incorporates the settlements, it is a waste of resources to invest. These settlements have already been 'won'. This explains the low growth rates of Sal'it, Elqana, Alfe Menashe, Oranit, Shaqed and Sha'are Tiqva. This guideline becomes even clearer when considering the case of Etz Efrayim. Stage A of the fence ends between the neighboring settlements of Sha'are Tiqva and Etz Efrayim. The former is "fenced -in" and the latter is yet to be fenced and hence a "borderline" settlement. Unsurprisingly, Sha'are Tiqva grew by only 1.11 percent, while Etz Efrayim grew by 20.03 percent.
What Does the Future Hold?
If a natural response to political realities is the reason behind the trends of growth, then the future will show additional reduction in the size of "remote" settlements, and a decline in "borderline" settlement growth. However, if an invisible guiding hand is behind the migration in the West Bank, the existing trends will persist and even increase. Furthermore, if a strategizing organization is behind those trends, then the map created by drawing the growth rates of the settlements reveals the future centers of resistance of the settler movement.
Click here for more Israeli-Arab Conflict...