Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.41.71.142 (talk) at 01:36, 28 July 2002. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Israel has constructed numerous Jewish urban settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, disputed territories much of which is under Israeli military control. Most were constructed on the sites of Arab communities destroyed by Jews in 1947-1948 . As of November 2000, over half a million Israelis lived in illegal settlements on the West Bank, Gaza and Golan, according to the CIA World Factbook

Israel's settlements have been recognised as illegal under international law, specifically the fourth Geneva Convention, by every government, including the US and European governments. Their legality is disputed by Israel. A map of Israeli settlements as of 2002 can be seen here:

Israel's illegal settlements have proven to be a major stumbling block in the peace process, severely distorting the Israeli government's non-negotiatble final offer at the Camp David talks in 2000. A map showing that offer may be found here:

Background

Palestinians sometimes prefer to use the word "colonies" for these Israeli enclaves, although unlike the traditional concept of overseas colonies, they are in most cases only several miles away from their "metropoles".

The majority for the land currently taken by settlements was either vacant and belonging to the state (from which it was leased) or bought from 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 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.

Although the settlements themselves only amount to a few percent of the territory, Palestinian claim that the presence of the settlements has severe implications on their lifestyle. Firstly, surrounding territories are typically under the control of the settlements, bringing the total area under Israeli control to what the Palestinians and the Israeli organization B'Tselem claim to be 40% of the land. Also, settlments 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, passsing over the highways can only be done at special check points. This practice separates communities and is a source of continuing humiliation and anger among ordinary Paliestinians struggling to make a living.

On the other hand, as Israel claims, much of this separation originates in the terrorist tactics assumed by the Palestinian side during the recent Intifada; thus, most of the checkpoints appeared and roads were closed, after the Palestinian militants (in particular, belonging to Fatah) conducted a series of drive-by shootings of settler cars, while Palestinian structures and trees are removed in most cases because they were being used by gunmen for road-side ambushes.

International and Legal Issues

Often, the Fourth Geneva Convention, which explicitly forbids an occupying country from moving its citizens into the territory, has been used 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.

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.

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

Israel also 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.

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.

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. 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 recent poll conducted by Peace Now indicates that up to two-thirds of the settler population will 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.

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.