Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:08, 19 September 2002

(The neutrality of this article is disputed.)

Since 1967, Israel has constructed numerous Jewish urban settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, disputed territories much of which is under Israeli military control. Some of the settlements were established on the spots of Jewish communities destroyed by Arabs in 1929 and 1947, while most are new.

The settlements have been declared illegal under international law by numerous parties, including the US and European governments. Their legality is disputed by Israel.

As of November 2000, a bit less than 400,000 Israelis lived in settlements on the West Bank, Gaza, Eastern Jerusalem and Golan, according to Israeli government statistics. A map of the Israeli settlements as of 2002 can be found here. Since the Oslo Accords 1993 the settlers' number on the West Bank and Gaza has almost doubled, from 115,000 to 200,000.

International and Legal background

Often, the Fourth Geneva Convention, which explicitly forbids an occupying country from moving its citizens into the territory, has been claimed by the Palestinians as a legal defense. Israel, in return, argues that West Bank and Gaza do not constitute occupied territories in the full sense of the word, and hence deny the de-jure applicability of the Geneva conventions to them. This view is not supported by most other countries. In particular, the USA, the UK, the EU and the United Nations have explicitly stated that they consider the Fourth Geneva Convention to be fully applicable .

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. Resolution 465 (1980) declared that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, constitutes a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Since resolutions 446 and 465 were 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.

Israel 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 the current consensus is that there should be new borders, defined by multilateral negotiations (see UN Security Council Resolution 242).

Israel also points out that the territories in question were never legally a part of Jordan and Egypt, these countries' control over them after the 1948 Arab Israeli-War being internationally declared illegal. Moreover, Israel claims that the territories are no longer even claimed by these countries (both have withdrawn their claims 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.

Israel further 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.

Political Issues

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, while public opinion outside the U.S. and Israel often strongly opposes the settlements.

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 previously existing settlements, and have far exceeded the actual natural growth of those settlements. 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.

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. A poll conducted by Peace Now in July 2002 indicates that up to two-thirds of the settler population would agree to evacuate, provided that it is done as a result of a democratically-made and accepted decision by the Israeli government.

Most proposals for final settlement 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.

The settlements

The main controversy is around the great majority of the settlements, which stand on land that was not in Jewish hands prior to the Six-Day War.

Israel claims that the majority for the land currently taken by the new settlements was either vacant, belonging to the state (from which it was leased) or bought fairly from the Palestinians.Many argue, however, that vacant land had either belonged to Palestinians who had fled or was communal land, that had belonged collectively to an entire village. That practice had formed under Otmanian rule, although the British and the Jordanians have unsuccessfully tried to stop it since the late 1920s.

The Palestinians and B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, claim that the Israeli government used the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a reason to seize it. Altogether, around 50% of the areas West Bank and Gaza (total of about 6,200 sq. km.) are under Israeli control. Of them, however, only about 4% are taken by settlements, the rest being empty. About 3 sq. km. of Palestinian-owned olive trees were destroyed by Israel as a part of the seizures.

Palestinians sometimes prefer to use the word "colonies" for these Israeli enclaves. Many agree that the term is inappropriate since unlike the traditional concept of overseas colonies, the settlements are in most cases only several miles away from their "metropoles". Others feel that the word is appropriate as it highlights the nature of the enclaves.

At least some of the land now used by settlement has been lawfully acquired and held by Jews, who were expelled by Arabs in the 1929 riots and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The Jewish Quarter of Hebron and the Ezion Block, west of Bethlehem are two such cases. The reclamation of abandoned property has not been declared unlawful by the international community, and is not likely to be in the future.

Although the settlements themselves only amount to a few percent of the territory, their impact is much greater than this figure might suggest. Firstly, surrounding territories are typically under the control of the settlements, bringing the total area under Israeli control to 40% of the land, according to B'Tselem. Also, settlements are connected by highways accessible to Israelis only. Palestinians claim that their property (such as houses or olive groves) have been damaged or destroyed when building these roads. Finally, in many cases, passing over the highways can only be done at special check points, which are controlled by the IDF. This practice separates communities and is a source of continuing humiliation and anger among ordinary Palestinians struggling to make a living. As a result, Palestinians claim that settlements severely restrict their freedom.

Israel claims that much of this separation originates in the terrorist tactics assumed by the Palestinian side during the Second Intifada. Most of the checkpoints appeared, and roads were closed, after Palestinian militants (in particular, belonging to Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades) conducted a series of drive-by shootings of settler cars, while Palestinian structures and trees are removed in most cases, as Israel says, because they were being used by gunmen for road-side ambushes. Palestinans claim they were erected well before the Intifada and the the purpose has always been to encircle and encroach Palestinian territory.

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.