article

Israeli settlements are communities built by and for Israeli Jews in areas that Israel captured following the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in:

  • The West Bank, which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority;
  • East Jerusalem, now incorporated within the municipal borders of Jerusalem (not recognized internationally) ***, and
  • the Golan Heights, which is de facto annexed to Israel.

Settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip but were abandoned as part of Israeli withdrawal from these areas.

All Israeli settlements in areas captured during the Six-Day War have been characterized as illegal by the United Nations Security Council International Court of Justice *," target="_blank" >a position held by a majority of UN member states [http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/e29f7195c53cdda905256729005035e4?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,ES-10%2F6 but not by all international law scholars.

Although the Israeli policies toward these settlements have ranged from active promotion to removal by force, their continued existence and status is since the 1970s one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Terminology

Many settlement related terms are themselves controversial. They include:
  • Settlement or community: there is broad agreement that the term settlement implies that these are recently established places, and therein lies the controversy. Although many Israelis concede that the term "settlement" is apt for these reasons, others argue that these are re-established communities, built on Jewish towns and villages that were vacated by force as late as 1948 or much earlier. They also point out that these are highly dissimilar places (see below), and that using one term is misleading.
In Hebrew, the common term for the Israeli settlements outside the Green Line is hitnakhluyot (Hebrew: התנחלויות; singular - hitnakhlut or hitnakhalut, התנחלות). This term is broadly used in the media and in public, although some think it has acquired a derogatory shade in recent years. Settlers are called mitnakhalim (Hebrew:מתנחלים; singular - mitnakhel, מתנחל). The settlers themselves and their right-wing sympathizers prefer the term yishuvim (יישובים; singular - yishuv, יישוב) for settlements and mityashvim (Hebrew: מתיישבים; singular - mityashev, מתיישב) for settlers, which are more neutral, as they also refer to settlements inside Israel proper. Some think these terms are a euphemism.

In Arabic, the term for settlements is mustawtanaat (Arabic: المستوطنات) and settlers are mustawtineen.
  • West Bank or Judea and Samaria: the term "West Bank" dates from the time that Jordan controlled the area in question (1948-1967), but is still by far the most common name used in the English-speaking world and by international organizations such as the UN. The terms "Judea" and "Samaria" (English for Yehuda and Shomron) are historical terms that relate to the political geography of the Roman-era Jewish dominion in the area. Palestinians strongly object to the terms Judea and Samaria, the use of which they deem to reflect Israeli expansionist aims. Among Palestinians, the specific area is referred to as 'the West Bank', but is commonly known as 'Palestine' or part of the Palestinian territories.
  • "Occupied" or "disputed" or "territories": the legal status of the areas is a much debated question (see below) and drives the choice of qualifier for them.

Historical timeline

The cease-fire agreement following the 1967 Six-Day War left Israel in control of a number of areas captured during hostilities.

Original Israeli policy at that time was to deny any Jewish settlement of these areas or even Jewish resettlement of specific locations where Jews had resided up until the 1948 Arab-Israeli War such as the Jewish villages listed in this List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war such as Kfar Etzion. Many attempts were made by Gush Emunim to establish outposts or resettle former Jewish areas, and the Israeli government forcibly evicted these settlements in the beginning. However, in the absence of peace talks to determine the future of these and other disputed territories, Israel implemented different policies on their use and did not enforce the original ban on settling.

  • The municipal borders of Jerusalem were extended in 1967 to include all of the old city as well as other areas. Residents within the new municipal borders were offered the choice between citizenship (subject to a few restrictions) or permanent residency if they wished to retain their Jordanian passports. This annexation has not been recognized by any country.
  • The Golan Heights were under Israeli military administration until 1981, when Israel similarly extended its law there, granting permanent residency and ID cards and Israeli citizenship eligibility to the residents. This annexation was also not recognized by most countries.
  • The Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank outside of Jerusalem were put under Israeli military administration. Residents were not offered citizenship or residency, though they typically had de facto work permits within Israel and freedom of travel.

In the absence of a final peace settlement, the continued Israeli administration of areas captured in 1967 is in itself subject to continuing international concern and criticism. However, it is the establishment of Israeli homes and communities in those areas that most often generates condemnation.

Israel evacuated her citizens from the Sinai and demolished their homes when the area was returned to Egypt pursuant to the Camp David Accords.

In 2005 the settlements of the Gaza Strip were evacuated just before the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from this area.

On March 8, 2005, Israeli Government's Sasson Report (after former head of the State Prosecution Criminal Department Talia Sasson) revealed that officials in the ministries of defence and housing, and the settlement division of the World Zionist Organization, spent millions of shekels from state budgets had been secretly diverting millions of shekels to build West Bank settlements and outposts that were illegal under Israeli law.

Settlement types and locations

For detailed map of settlement locations see Settlement Locations

The Jewish population in the areas held since 1967 live in a wide variety of centers:

  • Self-contained towns and small cities with a stable population in the tens of thousands, infrastructure, and all other features of permanence (e.g. Ma'ale Adummim, Modi'in Illit, Ariel).
  • Jewish neighborhoods adjacent to Arab neighborhoods in the same city (e.g. Hebron and East Jerusalem).
  • Suburbs to other population centers, especially Jerusalem (e.g. Gilo), and the Sharon area (e.g. Karnei Shomron).
  • Settlement blocs (e.g. Gush Etzion, the vicinity of Ariel, the Shechem/Nablus area).
  • Frontier villages such as those parallel to the Jordan River.
  • Residential outposts, consisting of campers, trailers, and even tents; these are often referred to as "wildcat" outposts (see the Sasson Report below).

Most of these are the result of new construction; but some are based on Jewish communities that were abandoned in 1948 or earlier. Newly constructed developments are largely on hilltops, at some distance from Arab villages, towns, and camps which are typically found in valleys. **

Re-established recent Jewish communities

Some of the 323 settlements were established on sites that had been inhabited by Jewish communities during the British Mandate of Palestine. In the case of Hebron, an association comprised of some descendants of pre-1929 Jewish residents of Hebron published a 1997 statement dissociating themselves from the present settlers in Hebron, calling them an obstacle to peace. *.

partial listing only

  • Jerusalem – various surrounding communities and neighborhoods, including Kfar Shiloah - settled by Yemeni Jews in 1882, Jewish residents evacuated in 1938, settled again in 2004
  • Gush Etzion communities - established between 1943-1947, destroyed 1948, reestablished beginning 1967
  • Hebron - Jewish presence since biblical times, evacuated 1929 (because of massacre), resettled in 1967
  • Kfar Darom - established in 1946, evacuated in 1948, resettled in 1970, evacuated in 2005 as part of the withdrawal of the Gaza Strip.

Population

Except for areas that were effectively annexed in Jerusalem and the Golan, Israeli citizens and others can only move to areas captured in 1967 with the authorization of the Israeli government. According to various statistics, the population distribution can be estimated:

Jewish population 1948 1966 1972 1983 1993 2004 2005
West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) 480 (see Gush Etzion) 0 800 22,800 111,600 231,800
Gaza Strip 30 (see Kfar Darom) 0 700 * 900 4,800 8,000 0
Parts of Jerusalem annexed in 1967 300 (see Atarot, Neve Yaakov) 0 9,200 75,000 130,000 177,000
* including Sinai

According to Israeli government statistics, just under 400,000 Israelis lived in territories captured during the 1967 war as of November 2000. Since the Oslo Accords 1993, the settlers' number on the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) has doubled, from 115,000 to 230,000.

Motivations for settlements

Complicating this issue, a number of reasons are cited from both sides for the establishment of settlements.
  • Palestinians argue that the policy of settlements constitute an effort to pre-empt or even sabotage a peace treaty that includes Palestinian sovereignty, and claim that the settlements are built on land that belongs to Palestinians [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4141484.stm.
  • Prior to the eruption of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the late eighties, even until the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1994, Israeli governments on the left and right argued that the settlements were of strategic and tactical importance. The location of the settlements was primarily chosen based on the threat of an attack by the bordering hostile countries of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt and possible routes of advance into Israeli population areas.
  • Supporters of the settlements argue that the settlements are of strategic and tactical importance to Israel's security.*****
  • Many Israelis, assert the historical Jewish connection to at least some of the areas in dispute, arguing that their claim is at least equal to that of the Palestinians.
  • Most religious Jews, assert the biblical Jewish connection to the areas in dispute, arguing that their claim to build is equal to the biblical Jewish connection to the other areas in Israel.

As it turns out, the settlers themselves have varying reasons for choosing to reside where they do. While some live in the territories out of religious and/or political idealism and the lower price of rural real estate, others were attracted by tax incentives that were given, in general, to Israelis living in rural, periphery areas, but these were revoked entirely in 2003. **

Legal background

Land ownership

Israel claims that the majority of 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, arguing that there is nothing illegal about acquiring land in these ways. Further, Israel argues that these lands were conquered in a defensive war and are held legitimately as reparation. However, the recent use of the Absentee Property Law to seize Arab land in East Jerusalem without compensation has been criticized both within and outside Israel *.

Opponents dispute at least one of these bases, saying that vacant land had either belonged to Arabs who had fled or was communal land, that had belonged collectively to an entire village. That practice had formed under Ottoman rule, although the British and the Jordanians have unsuccessfully tried to stop it since the late 1920s.

B'Tselem (an Israeli NGO) claims that the Israeli government used the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as an excuse to seize it. Altogether, around 42% of the area of the West Bank (total of about 2,400 km²) is controlled by Israelis.

Legal status of the territories

Although all areas in question were captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has treated them in three different ways:
  • "East Jerusalem" - Jerusalem and its surroundings were envisioned as an international area under UN administration in the 1947 partition plan. In 1948, Jordan captured and annexed the eastern half of Jerusalem, while Israel captured and annexed the west. Following the war in 1967 Israel annexed the eastern part, together with several villages around it.
  • The Israeli Golan Heights Law of 1981 applied Israel's "laws, jurisdiction and administration" in the Golan Heights, which were captured from Syria in 1967, but Israel has not stated that it has annexed the area.
  • The Gaza Strip and West Bank, a section of the areas awarded by the UN to a prospective Arab state of Palestine, remained in Arab hands while the rest of that area was taken by Israel. The former was administered by Egypt while the latter was annexed by Jordan.

The annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights Law have both been deemed illegal by the UN Security Council (resolutions 267 and 497 respectively), and have not been recognized by other states.

Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt (removing all Israeli settlements and returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egyptian sovereignty), and Jordan (returning small sections to Jordanian sovereignty); there are currently no peace treaties governing Israel's borders related to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Israel therefore asserts that the armistice lines (known as the Green Line) of 1949 have no other legal status.

Palestinians object to this view as the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was not to alter the status of any territories coming under Israeli control during the hostilities of 1967 (article 3(2) of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty *).

Legal status of the settlements

See also International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict

The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been described as illegal by the UN Security Council many times, for example in resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471. These resolutions were made under Chapter VI, not Chapter VII, of the United Nations Charter; Chapter VI resolutions relate to "pacific settlements of disputes" between parties, have no enforcement mechanisms, and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law, "The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?, The Economist, October 10, 2002. "There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war, The Guardian, November 25, 2002. "...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black, The New York Times, February 25, 2004. "There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, September 24, 2002. "There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective.

There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on February 4, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2003. "There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here? (Microsoft Word document), Greenpeace position paper on Iran. and Israel has chosen not to heed them. Vera Gowlland-Debbas, a professor of Public International Law, has argued that Security Council resolutions outside of Chapter VII should also be considered legally binding upon member states.* The Security Council itself takes great care to make the distinction in its resolutions.

International human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also denounced the settlements as illegal*," target="_blank" >though the Anti-Defamation League has argued that they are legal. [http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/how_to_respond/settlements.asp?xflag=1 How to Respond to Common Misstatements About Israel: Israeli Settlements, Anti-Defamation League website. URL accessed April 10, 2006.

Some legal scholars FAQ on Israeli settlements, CBC News Online, February 26, 2004. URL accessed April 10, 2006. (including prominent international law expert Julius Stone, Pomerance, Michla. The Legality of the Iraq War: Beyond legal pacifism, The Review, April 2003. URL accessed April 11, 2006. International Law: Blaming Big Brother: Holding States Accountable for the Devastation of Terrorism, 56 Oklahoma Law Review 735, __ __. and Eugene Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School) and others, have argued that the settlements are legal under international law, on a number of different grounds.

Arguments based on the Fourth Geneva Convention
There are two disputes regarding the Fourth Geneva Convention: whether the convention applies to the territories in question and whether the Convention forbids the establishment of Israeli settlements. Article 2 concerns the applicability of the Convention whereas article 49 concerns the legality of population transfers. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are. Gerson, Allan. Israel, the West Bank, and International law, Routledge, Sept 28, 1978, ISBN 0714630918, p. 82.Roberts, Adam, "Decline of Illusions: The Status of the Israeli-Occupied Territories over 21 Years" in International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 64, No. 3. (Summer, 1988), pp. 345-359., p. 350

=Article 2
= Article 2 extends the Convention to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties" and "all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party". Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Supporters of the legality of the settlements argue that the Convention itself does not apply, as the West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been part of a sovereign state since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, therefore do not meet the definition of "the territory of a High Contracting Party". Lacey, Ian, ed. International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (pdf) - Extracts from Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations by Julius Stone, Second Edition with additional material and commentary updated to 2003, AIJAC website. URL accessed April 10, 2006. Hollander, Ricki. BACKGROUNDER: Jewish Settlements and the Media, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, October 5, 2001. URL accessed April 12, 2006. Dann, Moshe. Legality of the settlements, The Jerusalem Post, May 22, 2001. Einhorn, Talia. The Status of Palestine/Land of Israel and Its Settlement Under Public International Law, Nativ, Volume 1, 2003. URL accessed May 19, 2006. This argument was articulated in 1971Slonim, S. (1998). Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy, 1947-1997. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, ISBN 9041112553, p. 211. by Israeli Attorney-General Meir ShamgarKretzmer, David (2002). The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories. SUNY Press. ISBN 0791453375, p. 33. (who also created the legal framework of the Israeli military government in the administered territoriesIsraeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed 20 April, 2006.) and presented by Moshe Dayan in a speech before the 32nd session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1977.Kretzmer, 2002, p. 34.

The International Court of Justice, in an advisory (i.e. non-binding) opinion to the UN General Assembly, argued that according to Article 2 of the Convention applies if “there exists an armed conflict” between “two contracting parties”, regardless of the territories status in international law prior to the armed attack. It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law (and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).

On 15 July 1999 a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention met at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva. It ruled that the Convention did apply in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.United Nations (2002). Yearbook of the United Nations, 2000. United Nations Publications. ISBN 9211008573, p. 421; p. 437. Statement of the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Geneva, 15 July, 1999. (PDF)

U.N. Security Council Resolution 446 refers directly to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and specifically insists that Israel desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup.

According to barrister and human rights activist Stephen Bowen, Israel’s argument was rejected by the international community "because the Convention also states that it applies 'in all circumstances' (Article 1), and 'to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict' (Article 2)."Bowen, Stephen (1997). Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9041105026, p. 29. Shamgar argues specifically against this point, stating:

There is no rule of international law according to which the Fourth Convention applies in each and every armed conflict whatever the status of the parties.... The whole idea of the restriction of military government powers is based on the assumption that there has been a sovereign who was ousted and that he was a legitimate sovereign. Any other conception would lead to the conclusion, for example, that France should have acted in Alsace-Lorraine according to rule 42-56 of the Hague Rules of 1907, until the signing of a peace treaty.

=Article 49
= Article 49 (1) insists that "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive" and Article 49(6) insists that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". According the commentary of Jean Pictet of the International Red Cross, this is intended to prevent the World War II practice of an occupying power transferring "portions of its own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories" which in turn "worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race". Pictet, Jean (ed.) Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Supporters of the legality of the settlements argue that even if the Convention did apply, it is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement. They point out Article 49(1) specifically covers "or mass forcible transfers" whereas the Israelis who live in the settlements have moved there voluntarily, and argue that settlements are not intended to, nor have ever resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians from the area. Rostow, Eugene. [http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal2.shtml Bricks and stones: settling for leverage; Palestinian autonomy, The New Republic, April 23, 1990. Israeli Settlements and International Law, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, 20 May 2001. URL accessed April 11, 2006. In addition, they state that the Geneva Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention. Since the Oslo Accords leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated later, proponents of this view argue that the Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and that there is no basis for declaring them illegal. Helmreich, Jeffrey. Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Volume 2, Number 16, January 19, 2003. What is the background of Jewish settlements in Palestinian Arab areas?, Palestine Facts website, 2006. URL accessed April 12, 2006.

Those who reject that view have a different reading of the article. They note that Pictet's commentary on Article 49(6) states "*he paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power." David Kretzmer, Professor of International Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has argued:

As paragraph 1 of Article 49 refers expressly to forcible transfers, it seems fair to conclude that the term "transfer" in paragraph 6 means both forcible and nonforcible transfers. This conclusion would seem to flow from the object of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is to protect civilians in the occupied territory, and not the population of the occupied power. From the point of view of the protected persons, whether the transfer of outsiders into their territory is forcible or not would seem to be irrelevant."Kretzmer, David. "The Advisory Opinion: The Light Treatment of International Humanitarian Law" in American Journal of International Law Vol.99 No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp.88-102, p.91.
US State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell, in a letter dated 1 April, 1978, has reached the same conclusion, noting that "1 of article 49 prohibits "forcible" transfers of protected persons out of the occupied territory; paragraph 6 is not so limited.""Letter of the State Department Legal Advisor, Mr. Herbert J. Hansell, Concerning the Legality of Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories", cited in [http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/2dfed17dc7dfae2a852563a9004c4055!OpenDocument Progress report - The human rights dimensions of population transfer including the implantation of settler prepared by Mr. Awn Shawhat Al-Khasawneh. He further argued that:
The view has been advanced that a transfer is prohibited under paragraph 6 only to the extent that it involves the displacement of the local population. Although one respected authority, Lauterpacht, evidently took this view, it is otherwise unsupported in the literature, in the rules of international law or in the language and negotiating history of the Convention, and it seems clearly not correct. Displacement of protected persons is dealt with separately in the Convention and paragraph 6 would seem redundant if limited to cases of displacement. Another view of paragraph 6 is that it is directed against mass population transfers such as occurred in World War II for political, racial or colonization ends; but there is no apparent support or reason for limiting its application to such cases.
The latter interpretation was adopted by the International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion, and 150 countries supported a (non-binding) General Assembly resolution demanding Israel to "comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion" *.

Arguments based on UNSC Resolution 242 and the British Mandate
Rostow and others further argue that UN Security Council Resolution 242 (which Rostow helped draft) mandates Israeli control of the territories, and that the original British Mandate of Palestine still applies, allowing Jewish settlement there. Rostow, Eugene. Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies, The New Republic, October 21, 1991. In Rostow's view
The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."
According to Rostow "the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there". American Journal of International Law, 1990, volume 84, page 72

Contrary to this view other legal scholars have argued that under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the only common sense interpretation of UNSC 242 is that Israel must withdraw from all of the territory captured in 1967, as any interpretation permitting the extension of sovereignty by conquest would violate the relevant governing principle of international law as emphasized in the preambular statement, i.e., "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" as established through the abolition of the right of conquest by the League of Nations following World War I. Furthermore, it is argued that UNSC 242 has binding force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter owing to its incorporation into UN Security Council Resolution 338 and that it is also binding on Israel and the PLO by agreement owing to its incorporation into the Oslo Accords. McHugo, John (2002). Resolution 242: A Legal Interpretation of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase With Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51, 851-882.

Additionally, as the international community considered the status of Jerusalem to be unresolved, even after 1967, and did not deem any part of the city to be Israeli territory, including that part held since 1948, UNSC 242 did not settle territorial issues between Israel and Palestine left unresolved by the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Quigley, John (2002). Palestine: The Issue of Statehood (pp. 37-54). In Silverburg, Sanford R. (Ed.). Palestine and International Law: Essays on Politics and Economics. McFarland & Company. ISBN 0786411910, pp. 50-51. Indeed, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and others have argued that, because of the disorder in Palestine at the time, the territorial framework of the 1947 Partition Plan did not come into effect in such a way as to ipso jure grant Israel sovereignty over the territory allocated to the Jewish state under that plan. Stone agrees with Lauterpacht's analysis, and his view that sovereignty was acquired through other means:

Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel. His view is that when the partition proposals were immediately rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression, those proposals could not, both because of their inherent nature and because of the terms in which they were framed, operate as an effective legal re-disposition of the sovereign title. They might (he thinks) have been transformed by agreement of the parties concerned into a consensual root of title, but this never happened. And he points out that the idea that some kind of title remained in the United Nations is quite at odds, both with the absence of any evidence of vesting, and with complete United Nations silence on this aspect of the matter from 1950 to 1967?… In these circumstances, that writer is led to the view that there was, following the British withdrawal and the abortion of the partition proposals, a lapse or vacancy or vacuum of sovereignty. In this situation of sovereignty vacuum, he thinks, sovereignty could be forthwith acquired by any state that was in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means.

Antonio Cassese disagrees with this analysis, arguing that whilst Israel's original occupation of West Jerusalem might have been carried out in an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, this did not confer legal title to the territory owing to the general prohibition in international law on the acquisition of sovereignty through military conquest. He further considers that "mere silence" could not constitute agreement by the United Nations to the acquisition of sovereignty by Israel or Jordan as a result of their de facto control of Jerusalem. Cassese concludes that "at least a tacit manifestation of consent through conclusive acts would have been necessary", whereas such relevant acts as did take place confirmed that no such consent to the transfer of sovereignty was given.Cassese, Antonio (1986). Considerations on the International Status of Jerusalem (pp. 13-40). In Kassim, A. F. The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1986. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9041103406.

Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights

Accounts that the presence of settlements in the West Bank has an adverse impact on the local population include:

Since the beginning of Al-Aqsa intifada, 41 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians in the Palestinian territories. 233 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians in the territories in the same period. (Note: according to Btselem, many of the Israeli civilians who were killed in the territories were not residents of the territories at the time, and as such would not be considered 'settlers'). The total number of Palestinians killed in the territories is over 3300, while the total number of Israelis is 458. The number of Israelis killed inside of Israel is 540, and the number of Palestinians killed in Israel is 58. *

Tensions, mistrust and accusations

The settlements have on several occasions been a source of tension between Israel and the U.S. President Jimmy Carter insisted that the settlements were illegal and unwise tactically, but President Ronald Reagan stated that they were legal, though he considered them an obstacle to negotations. 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-Bethlehem corridor. The current Bush administration has said that settlements are "unhelpful" to the peace process, that they violate United States policy and prejudges the outcome of future negotiations, although President Bush has put forward the view that major Israeli population centers needs to be taken into account when determining final borders. Generally, U.S. efforts have at most temporarily delayed further expansion of established Israeli communities in the territories. U.S. public opinion is also divided: the strongest support for the Israeli position can be found among evangelical Christians. Public opinion outside the U.S. and Israel strongly opposes Israeli settlement and expansion of communities in the territories.

Although the Oslo accords did not include any obligation on Israel's part to stop building in the "settlements", Palestinians argue that Israel has undermined the Oslo accords, and the peace process more generally, by continuing to expand the settlements after the signing of the Accords. Palestinians and others regularly accuse Israel of attacking refugee camps and villages in an attempt to scare off Palestinians and claim the land as theirs. Israel justifies these attacks by saying that it only fights against terrorist organisations, and if there were no terrorists, there would be no military operations.

Israel previously also had settlements in the Sinai, but these were 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.

Most Israeli and U.S. proposals for final settlement have also involved Israel being allowed to retain long established communities in the territories near Israel and in "East Jerusalem" (the majority of the settler population is near the "Green Line"), with Israel annexing the land on which the communities 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 this would legitimize what they see as an illegitimate land grab, and that the land offered in exchange is situated in the southern desert, whereas the areas that Israel seeks to retain are among the West Bank's most fertile areas, including major aquifers. Israel, however, sees the current "Green Line" as unacceptable from a security standpoint - Israel would have at some points no more than 17 kilometers from the border to the sea - which was an important motivation for the placing of these settlements. For more details, see Proposals for a Palestinian state.

Dismantlement of settlements

Given the dispute over the territories where the settlements were built, the issue of dismantling them has been considered. Arab parties to the conflict have demanded the dismantlement of the settlements as a condition for peace with Israel. As part of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, Israel was required to evacuate its settlers from the Sinai. The evacuation, which took place in 1982, was done forcefully in some instances, such as the evacuation of Yamit. The settlements were demolished, as it was feared that settlers may try to return to their homes after the evacuation.

During the peace process with the Palestinians, the issue of dismantling the West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements has been raised. Although never officially discussed in the Oslo Accords, many Israelis believed that a final status accord would require the dismantlement of at least some of these communities.

As part of the Disengagement Plan, Israel has evacuated the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, including all 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank, while retaining control over Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace. Most of these settlements have existed since the early 80's, some are over 30 years old, and with a total population of more than 10,000. There was significant opposition to the plan among parts of the Israeli public, and especially those living in the territories. American President George W. Bush has said that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements. *

Some Israelis believe the settlements need not necessarily be dismantled and evacuated, even if Israel withdraws from the territory where they stand, as they can remain under Palestinian rule. These ideas have been expressed both by people from the left (who see this as a possible situation in a two-state solution, and by extreme right-wingers and settlers [http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5EB5E1B3-B64F-43DF-A588-1C40FDDB0A83.htm that, while object to any withdrawal, claim stronger links to the land than to the state of Israel. Such ideas are not widely accepted in Israel, and most Israelis consider an evacuation of settlements inevitable in territories Israel withdraws from.

See also

References

Further reading

Arab-Israeli conflict | History of Israel

مستوطنات إسرائيلية | Israelische Siedlung | Colonie israélienne | התנחלויות | Israëlische nederzetting | Osiedla żydowskie | Еврейские поселения на Западном берегу реки Иордан и в секторе Газа | Paninirahang Israeli | מתנחל

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Israeli settlement".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world