A paper I wrote from my 2020 class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
The future of the borders between Israel and, possibly, a future Palestinian state is unclear and has been at the forefront of international debates for years. In 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israel took over the West Bank from Jordan and has been building homes on the Arab side since. Despite opposition from Palestinians, Israel wants to continue to maintain their military presence in the Jordan River Valley to defend against and prevent attacks from the East. However, the Palestinians, wanting to use the 1949 Armistice Lines, desire to create a new state that includes parts of the West Bank, Gazza, and East Jerusalem. The lines drawn in 1967 (the green lines,) are endorsed to be used to base peace negotiations and establish the borders by the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and the Obama Administration. The conflicting views of citizens, politicians, and international powers over the borders and settlements of Israel have dominated the area since 1967 and were further pushed into the spotlight due to the differing opinions of the Obama and Trump Administrations and their relationships with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister. By analyzing the Israeli settlement’s history, legality, and opposing views, a deeper understanding of the long-lasting conflict regarding the colonies, and the political forces driving both sides can be gained.
The West Bank is currently home to about 400,000 Israelis and 2.6 million Palestinians. Since 1967 (the exchange of land for peace,) Israel has built around 130 formal settlements in the West Bank, not including the smaller outposts being built without government authorization since the 90s. The Israeli settlements, located for security, economic, and ideological reasons, are preventing the development of a two-state system, impeding the creation of a Palestinian state with a shared border, and putting the settlements at the height of international criticism, but the settlers and right-wing Israelis believe the West Bank and East Jerusalem belong to the Jewish people. In 2016, the Israeli government continued with its plans for new construction in East Jerusalem, in a mostly Palestinian section of the town, despite the United Nations Security Council reprimanding Israeli settlements as an obstacle to peace. In the exchange of land for peace in 1967, after the war, the settlements established Israel’s control of the territories they were built on: the Jordan River Valley and along the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. Thus granting Israel control of the territories and the ability to use the land for trade, but the settlements and the land they occupy are still a subject of controversy. Referred to as Judea and Samaria, its biblical name, by Israel representing their believed birthright to the land, the West Bank, home to many settlements, is a mess of Palestinian towns and Israeli settlements, both wanting different things.
Dating back to 1967, the Israeli settlement movement originated when the Israelis conquered the land from Jordan. They quickly began establishing settlements on the land and were just as quickly met with controversy, further complicating the creation of a Palestinian state with a contingent border. From 1920 to 1967 there were no Israeli settlements on the territories, but even then, the land was not peaceful. In 1949, Armistice Lines were created ending the first Arab-Israel war, the lines from which the Palestinians believe the borders should be based. However, it is mutually agreed upon by most other powers that the Armistice Lines created in 1967 should be the basis for creating a two-state system: this line goes through the middle of the city of Jerusalem which would allow for both states to have the city as their capital, but the Israelis don’t want to share. Israeli settlements such as Ariel, which lies 13 miles inside the Green Lines, founded in 1977, deepen the Palestinian beliefs that Israel is establishing settlements to hinder the growth of a Palestinian state and block Arab settlements. This particular settlement lies between Nablus and Ramallah, impeding their connection. In 2002 Israel began the construction of a barrier, stretching more than 300 miles and not yet complete, which they claim holds no political purpose, but rather serves as a security measure. This poses a threat to the Palestinian people’s dreams of a viable state. The barrier is fought over every Friday due to the walls and fences cutting into Palestinian land in the West Bank and is seen as a land grab by the Palestinians. In Bilin, West Bank, a village between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, the battle is particularly intense due to the Palestinians losing valuable farmland to the barrier; however, after an appeal to the courts, the Israeli military was instructed to move the fence further from the village. Today, Israel has authority over 60% of the West Bank, and its settlements are seen as a violation of international law by many, but Israel argues that the Jewish people have occupied the land for thousands of years and were recognized by the League of Nations in 1922.
The Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank, according to the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, and the International Court of Justice violate the Fourth Geneva Convention which was ratified by 192 nations after World War II. It states that an occupying power cant’/shouldn’t “deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies,” and in 1998 led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court which considers such actions as war crimes. Israelis argue that because few recognized Jordan’s rule from 1948 to 1967 there was no legal sovereign power, rendering the aforementioned non-applicable: this was rejected by the International Court of Justice in 2004, where it was ruled the settlements and wall construction violated terms of International law. When Israel and Palestine signed the Oslo Accords in the 90s, they agreed the issue would be resolved by negotiations, but none have taken place for several years. Despite widely accepted views on the settlements being inconsistent with international law, in 2019, the Trump administration made a statement contradicting this and reversing the American policy endorsed by the Obama administration and many before. The Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, was pleased by Trump’s stance, but others, like Saeb Erekat the Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization, felt this was an attempt to “replace international law with the law of the jungle.” When the International Court of Justice began rendering Advisory Opinion for the legal consequences they found Israel’s actions contrary to international law and addressed the legal consequences for the Israelis impeding the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and that the Fourth Geneva Convention, concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was applicable. The continued expansion under Netanyahu is illegal and hinders the growth of a Palestinian state. Due to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the Israeli government is encouraging the transfer of a population by providing incentives for settlers to expand the settlements.
In December 2018, a United Nations Security Council resolution convicted the Israeli settlements across the West Bank and Jerusalem. Despite being condemned by the United Nations for years before this, Israel continued to drift from the idea of a two-state resolution to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict over the land. Obama supported the UN’s condemnation and was committed to the two two-state solution alongside British Prime Minister Theresa May who believed this “is the best way to a prosperous future.” After Secretary of State John Kerry critiqued Israeli policies, Trump publicly told Netanyahu to (essentially) ignore him (Kerry and Obama.) In 2019, the Trump Administration’s statement on the Israel-West Bank settlements contradicted the internationally accepted ideas and expressed their belief that the legality of individual settlements is up to the Israelis and Palestinians. The settlements have been historically condemned by the United States. The Carter administration declared them illegal, and the Reagan administration claimed they were not necessarily illegal, but ill-advised.
While it seems obvious why most favor a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state with contingent borders, as mentioned above, there are still some people and powers who don’t believe the Israeli Settlements are a problem or violation of international law. I think the Israeli pro-settlement argument is a bid for control and an attempt to grow at the expense of the Palestinian people. Currently, under the Trump administration and Netanyahu, it seems the ideal two-state solution will continue to be put off and settlements will continue to grow despite being contradictory to international law. The borders jut in ways that, to me, make it apparent they are for political, not security purposes like the Israelis want people to believe. The hypocrisy of these people is put on display throughout the development of the Israeli Settlements and the squandering of the Palestinian people. Why these two peoples who have both experienced so much hardship throughout history cannot come together to find a viable solution is childlike.
turnnoffyourmind
gummygunk
blakekathryn
jacobvanloon
