| Revision as of 09:38, 11 July 2002 view sourceUriyan (talk | contribs)1,634 edits Added more Israeli positions← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:46, 19 July 2002 view source LK~enwiki (talk | contribs)145 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ==== Legal Issues ==== | ==== Legal Issues ==== | ||
| These settlements have been declared to be illegal by the ] (Resolution 446), and Israel has been asked by that resolution to cease further settlement activity. Since resolution 446 was not made under Chapter VI or VII of the ], Israel argues that it is purely an advisory request, and chose not to fulfill it. The issue of the legal status of resolutions of the UN Security Council not made under Chapters VI or VII of the Charter is controversial in international law -- some accept Israel's argument, others reject it, and consider the resolution to be legally binding on Israel. | These settlements have been declared to be illegal by the ] (Resolution 446), and Israel has been asked by that resolution to cease further settlement activity. Since resolution 446 was not made under Chapter VI or VII of the ], Israel argues that it is purely an advisory request, and chose not to fulfill it. The issue of the legal status of resolutions of the UN Security Council not made under Chapters VI or VII of the Charter is controversial in international law -- some accept Israel's argument, others reject it, and consider the resolution to be legally binding on Israel. Others point to the Fourth Geneva convention which explicitly forbids an occupying country to move its citizens into the territory. | ||
| The settlements have on several occassions been a source of tension between Israel and the U.S. In 1991 there was a clash between the Bush administration and Israel, where the U.S. delayed a subsidized loan in order to pressure Israel not to proceed with the establishment of settlements for instance in the Jerusalem-Betlehem corridor. Jimmy Carter has repeatedly said that the settlements consitute a major obstacle to peace. The current Bush administration, while generally being supportive of Israel, has said that settlements are "unhelpful" to the peace process. Generally, these U.S. efforts have at most temporarily delayed further expansion of Israeli settlements. It should also be noted that U.S. public opinion is divided, with many strongly supporting the Israeli position. | The settlements have on several occassions been a source of tension between Israel and the U.S. In 1991 there was a clash between the Bush administration and Israel, where the U.S. delayed a subsidized loan in order to pressure Israel not to proceed with the establishment of settlements for instance in the Jerusalem-Betlehem corridor. Jimmy Carter has repeatedly said that the settlements consitute a major obstacle to peace. The current Bush administration, while generally being supportive of Israel, has said that settlements are "unhelpful" to the peace process. Generally, these U.S. efforts have at most temporarily delayed further expansion of Israeli settlements. It should also be noted that U.S. public opinion is divided, with many strongly supporting the Israeli position. | ||
| Israel claims that the territories in question are not claimed by any other country (both ] and ] withdrawing their claims to these lands as parts of their peace agreements with Israel). Therefore Israel opposes the territories' definition as "occupied", and denies the de-jure applicability of the ]s to them. Palestinians retort that Jordan withdrew its claims so that a Palestinian state could be established there -- not for Israeli settlements. To that, Israel replies that the stance of both Jordan and Egypt on this issue was that it was to be resolved bilaterally by Israel and the Palestinians. | Israel claims that the territories in question are not claimed by any other country (both ] and ] withdrawing their claims to these lands as parts of their peace agreements with Israel). Therefore Israel opposes the territories' definition as "occupied", and denies the de-jure applicability of the ]s to them. Palestinians retort that Jordan withdrew its claims so that a Palestinian state could be established there -- not for Israeli settlements. To that, Israel replies that the stance of both Jordan and Egypt on this issue was that it was to be resolved bilaterally by Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians argue that the settlements are a unilateral act, not a bilaterally agreed act. | ||
| Israel also points out that in the ], the Palestinians accepted at least the temporary presence of Israeli settlements; therefore the violent attacks carried out by Palestinians against settlements are not only wrong because of settlers' being civilians, but also are in fact breach of a mutual agreement put down in the form of Oslo Accords. Some moderate Palestinians agree that terrorist activities are unacceptable. However, all but a tiny majority support terrorist attacks against civilian settlers, in spite of the fact that they are entitled to life as any other person, under international law. | Israel also points out that in the ], the Palestinians accepted at least the temporary presence of Israeli settlements; therefore the violent attacks carried out by Palestinians against settlements are not only wrong because of settlers' being civilians, but also are in fact breach of a mutual agreement put down in the form of Oslo Accords. Some moderate Palestinians agree that terrorist activities are unacceptable. However, all but a tiny majority support terrorist attacks against civilian settlers, in spite of the fact that they are entitled to life as any other person, under international law. | ||
| The Palestinians argue that Israel has violated the Oslo Accords by continuing to expand the settlements after the signing of the accords; Israel argues that it has not constructed new settlements, but rather made improvements to or expanded settlements already existing, in order to accomodate "natural growth". Palestinians claim that such "natural growth" settlements often are established well away from any previosuly existing settlements. The Palestinians and other Arab states also accuse Israel of attacking refugee camps and villages in an attempt to scare off Palestinians and claim the land as theirs. It should be noted, however, that the vast majority for the land currently taken by settlements, was either vacant and belonging to the state, from which it was leased, or bought fairly from Palestinians. | The Palestinians argue that Israel has violated the Oslo Accords by continuing to expand the settlements after the signing of the accords; Israel argues that it has not constructed new settlements, but rather made improvements to or expanded settlements already existing, in order to accomodate "natural growth". Palestinians claim that such "natural growth" settlements often are established well away from any previosuly existing settlements. The Palestinians and other Arab states also accuse Israel of attacking refugee camps and villages in an attempt to scare off Palestinians and claim the land as theirs. It should be noted, however, that the vast majority for the land currently taken by settlements, was either vacant and belonging to the state, from which it was leased, or bought fairly from Palestinians. Many argue that vacant land was typically belonging to Palestinians who had fled or was communal land, that is belonging collectively to an entire village. That practice had been recognized by the Ottoman, British and Jordanian rulers. However, the Israeli government used the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a reason to seize it. This practice has been sharply attacked by B'Tselem, the Israeli humans rights organization. | ||
| Israel further points out that the armistice agreements in effect at the time of the 1967 ] were violated by the Arab states when they declared war, rendering the existing cease fire lines meaningless. Thus there is no effective border between Israel and the former Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territories within the former Palestine mandate, and that the settlements are not placed on occupied territory. This view is not accepted de-jure by the international community, although de-facto, the current consensus is that there should be new borders, defined by multilateral negotiations (see ]). | Israel further points out that the armistice agreements in effect at the time of the 1967 ] were violated by the Arab states when they declared war, rendering the existing cease fire lines meaningless. Thus there is no effective border between Israel and the former Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territories within the former Palestine mandate, and that the settlements are not placed on occupied territory. This view is not accepted de-jure by the international community, although de-facto, the current consensus is that there should be new borders, defined by multilateral negotiations (see ]). | ||
| Israel previously also had settlements in the Sinai, but these where withdrawn as a result of the peace agreement with Egypt. Most proposals for achieving a final settlement of the Middle East conflict involve Israel dismantling a large number of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza strip; but most settlement proposals have also involved Israel being allowed to retain settlements near Israel proper and in East ] (the majority of the settler population is near the Green Line), with Israel annexing the land on which the settlements are located. This would result in a transfer of roughly 5% of the West Bank to Israel, with the Palestinians being compensated by the transfer of a similar share of Israeli territory (i.e. territory behind the Green Line) to the Palestinian state. Palestinians complain that the land offerred in exchange is situated in the Judean desert, while the areas that Israel seeks to retain are considered to be among the West Bank's most fertile areas; to this Israel replies that if the current Green line is fully retained, Israel would have at some points no more than 17 kilometers from the border to the sea, which is widely considered an immense security risk. For more details about the issues at stake, see ]. | Israel previously also had settlements in the Sinai, but these where withdrawn as a result of the peace agreement with Egypt. Most proposals for achieving a final settlement of the Middle East conflict involve Israel dismantling a large number of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza strip; but most settlement proposals have also involved Israel being allowed to retain settlements near Israel proper and in East ] (the majority of the settler population is near the Green Line), with Israel annexing the land on which the settlements are located. This would result in a transfer of roughly 5% of the West Bank to Israel, with the Palestinians being compensated by the transfer of a similar share of Israeli territory (i.e. territory behind the Green Line) to the Palestinian state. Palestinians complain that the land offerred in exchange is situated in the Judean desert, while the areas that Israel seeks to retain are considered to be among the West Bank's most fertile areas; to this Israel replies that if the current Green line is fully retained, Israel would have at some points no more than 17 kilometers from the border to the sea, which is widely considered an immense security risk. However, this is an issue that is separate from the discussion of settlements. For more details about the issues at stake, see ]. | ||
| See on this issue. | See on this issue. | ||
Revision as of 11:46, 19 July 2002
Israel has constructed numerous Jewish urban settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, disputed territories much of which is under Israeli military control.
Many are new communities, others were constructed on the sites of Jewish communities destroyed by Arabs in 1929, 1947, and 1948.
Legal Issues
These settlements have been declared to be illegal by the UN Security Council (Resolution 446), and Israel has been asked by that resolution to cease further settlement activity. Since resolution 446 was not made under Chapter VI or VII of the United Nations Charter, Israel argues that it is purely an advisory request, and chose not to fulfill it. The issue of the legal status of resolutions of the UN Security Council not made under Chapters VI or VII of the Charter is controversial in international law -- some accept Israel's argument, others reject it, and consider the resolution to be legally binding on Israel. Others point to the Fourth Geneva convention which explicitly forbids an occupying country to move its citizens into the territory.
The settlements have on several occassions been a source of tension between Israel and the U.S. In 1991 there was a clash between the Bush administration and Israel, where the U.S. delayed a subsidized loan in order to pressure Israel not to proceed with the establishment of settlements for instance in the Jerusalem-Betlehem corridor. Jimmy Carter has repeatedly said that the settlements consitute a major obstacle to peace. The current Bush administration, while generally being supportive of Israel, has said that settlements are "unhelpful" to the peace process. Generally, these U.S. efforts have at most temporarily delayed further expansion of Israeli settlements. It should also be noted that U.S. public opinion is divided, with many strongly supporting the Israeli position.
Israel claims that the territories in question are not claimed by any other country (both Jordan and Egypt withdrawing their claims to these lands as parts of their peace agreements with Israel). Therefore Israel opposes the territories' definition as "occupied", and denies the de-jure applicability of the Geneva Conventions to them. Palestinians retort that Jordan withdrew its claims so that a Palestinian state could be established there -- not for Israeli settlements. To that, Israel replies that the stance of both Jordan and Egypt on this issue was that it was to be resolved bilaterally by Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians argue that the settlements are a unilateral act, not a bilaterally agreed act.
Israel also points out that in the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians accepted at least the temporary presence of Israeli settlements; therefore the violent attacks carried out by Palestinians against settlements are not only wrong because of settlers' being civilians, but also are in fact breach of a mutual agreement put down in the form of Oslo Accords. Some moderate Palestinians agree that terrorist activities are unacceptable. However, all but a tiny majority support terrorist attacks against civilian settlers, in spite of the fact that they are entitled to life as any other person, under international law.
The Palestinians argue that Israel has violated the Oslo Accords by continuing to expand the settlements after the signing of the accords; Israel argues that it has not constructed new settlements, but rather made improvements to or expanded settlements already existing, in order to accomodate "natural growth". Palestinians claim that such "natural growth" settlements often are established well away from any previosuly existing settlements. The Palestinians and other Arab states also accuse Israel of attacking refugee camps and villages in an attempt to scare off Palestinians and claim the land as theirs. It should be noted, however, that the vast majority for the land currently taken by settlements, was either vacant and belonging to the state, from which it was leased, or bought fairly from Palestinians. Many argue that vacant land was typically belonging to Palestinians who had fled or was communal land, that is belonging collectively to an entire village. That practice had been recognized by the Ottoman, British and Jordanian rulers. However, the Israeli government used the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a reason to seize it. This practice has been sharply attacked by B'Tselem, the Israeli humans rights organization.
Israel further points out that the armistice agreements in effect at the time of the 1967 Six-Day War were violated by the Arab states when they declared war, rendering the existing cease fire lines meaningless. Thus there is no effective border between Israel and the former Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territories within the former Palestine mandate, and that the settlements are not placed on occupied territory. This view is not accepted de-jure by the international community, although de-facto, the current consensus is that there should be new borders, defined by multilateral negotiations (see UN Security Council Resolution 242).
Israel previously also had settlements in the Sinai, but these where withdrawn as a result of the peace agreement with Egypt. Most proposals for achieving a final settlement of the Middle East conflict involve Israel dismantling a large number of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza strip; but most settlement proposals have also involved Israel being allowed to retain settlements near Israel proper and in East Jerusalem (the majority of the settler population is near the Green Line), with Israel annexing the land on which the settlements are located. This would result in a transfer of roughly 5% of the West Bank to Israel, with the Palestinians being compensated by the transfer of a similar share of Israeli territory (i.e. territory behind the Green Line) to the Palestinian state. Palestinians complain that the land offerred in exchange is situated in the Judean desert, while the areas that Israel seeks to retain are considered to be among the West Bank's most fertile areas; to this Israel replies that if the current Green line is fully retained, Israel would have at some points no more than 17 kilometers from the border to the sea, which is widely considered an immense security risk. However, this is an issue that is separate from the discussion of settlements. For more details about the issues at stake, see Proposals for a Palestinian state.
See an unofficial Israeli position paper on this issue. See an official Palestinian position paper on this issue. An analysis by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter.