understanding the settlements

UNDERSTANDING
THE SETTLEMENTS
A PRIMER
The David Project
We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement
against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli
settlements… the goal is clear: Two states living side by
side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with
true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent
Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the
occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential
of the Palestinian people.
– US President Barack Obama, UN Address,
September 23, 2009
Settlement activities embody the core of the policy of colonial military occupation of the land of the Palestinian
people and all of the brutality of aggression and racial
discrimination against our people that this policy entails.
This policy, which constitutes a breach of international
humanitarian law and United Nations resolutions, is the
primary cause for the failure of the peace process, the
collapse of dozens of opportunities, and the burial of the
great hopes that arose from the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993 between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel to achieve a just peace that
would begin a new era for our region.
– Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas,
UN Address, September 23, 2011
The attempt by many to describe the Jews as foreign colonialists in their own homeland is one of the great lies of
modern times…the connection between the Jewish people
and the Land of Israel cannot be denied. The connection
between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied. The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000
year ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem
today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.
– Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
AIPAC Address, March 23, 2010
derstanding to the discussions taking place on this contentious topic.
Additionally, we hope that this primer helps correct a
common misunderstanding which depicts the settlements
as a monolithic entity. That fundamental error contributes
to the confusion and misunderstanding associated with
an already complicated issue. In the course of the text
we examine the characteristics of the many communities
referred to as “settlements” and try to shed light on the
geographical and demographic differences, as well as the
unique political ramifications associated with each type.
We are aware that some will find our language troubling;
the questions of whether the region west of the Jordan
River should be called by its biblical name of Judea and
Samaria or by the modern term ‘West Bank,’ and whether
the Jewish neighborhoods in the area should be called
‘towns,’ communities, or ‘settlements’ highlight just
some of the potential pitfalls we face when discussing
this hotly-debated issue. For the sake of clarity and brevity this primer will use the terms ‘settlement’ and ‘West
Bank’ with the acknowledgement that these are ideologically loaded terms and they will not satisfy everyone. Our
appendices include a Glossary of Terms used throughout
the primer, as well as suggested readings, maps, and a
short history of land ownership in modern-day Israel. It is
our hope that this document will provide a solid basis for
a discussing a topic that is often considered too challenging or uncomfortable.
KEY QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
What is a settlement? Where
do they come from?
Historic Overview
INTRODUCTION
The issue of Israeli settlements has generated intense
public debate on campuses, in communities and in the international arena, reflecting a broad consensus that these
communities are an obstacle to peace. Though often presented or discussed in simplistic terms, this is an extremely complex topic that requires greater nuance and context.
While we cannot answer every question or address every
claim, the goal of this primer is to explain the diverse
types of communities, providing depth, history and un-
2
The term “settlements” is used by the international community to describe the towns, cities, villages, and outposts built in the territories acquired by Israel in the 1967
War between Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. The
term is also used to describe neighborhoods of eastern
Jerusalem which have seen new construction and growth
over the past 60 years.
The root of the modern settlement issue can be traced
back to the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel, Egypt,
Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. Before 1967, the area around
Israel was divided along the 1949 armistice lines which
resulted from the first Arab-Israeli war, or Israel’s War of
Understanding the Settlements
Independence. As a result of that war, Israel gained more
territory than initially proposed by the 1947 UN Partition
Plan. Egypt gained control over the Gaza Strip and Jordan
annexed the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem (although
only Britain and Pakistan recognized its annexation).
The political situation in the region, tense at best in the
years following Israel’s establishment, deteriorated
drastically in 1966 and 1967. Clear verbal threats of
war against Israel from multiple Arab leaders including
Egyptian president Gamel Abdel Nasser set the regional
climate. In May of 1967, Nasser evacuated UN peacekeepers from Sinai and blockaded the Straits of Tiran in
a move designed to cut-off Israeli sea access to the east.
Hundreds of thousands of Arab forces massed on Israel’s borders and the potential for war grew dramatically.
After diplomatic efforts failed to end the standoff, Israel
launched a preemptive strike against Egypt. Six days later, Israel had defeated the allied armies of Egypt, Syria,
and Jordan (and an expeditionary force from Iraq). The
Six-Day War resulted in new territorial gains for Israel:
the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Gaza Strip
and Sinai from Egypt. Some in the Israeli government
viewed the acquired land as “bargaining chips” for future
recognition and peace negotiations between Israel and its
Arab neighbors. Others treated them as permanent gains,
resulting from a war of self-defense, as well as from the
historic connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. The captured areas increased Israel’s territory while
also providing a security buffer between Israel and its
hostile neighbors.
As a result of the Six-Day War, approximately 1.1 million
Palestinians came under Israel’s control. Of the territories
captured in the war, 600,000 Arabs lived in the West Bank,
70,000 in eastern Jerusalem and 350,000 in Gaza. Additionally, another 200,000 Palestinians fled to Jordan during and after the war. Palestinians living in the West Bank
and Gaza were placed under direct Israeli military control
while retaining limited autonomy over local issues such
as religious or municipal affairs. Many West Bank Palestinians retained their Jordanian citizenship and connections. The majority of Palestinians formerly under Egyptian control in Gaza lived in refugee camps that continued
to be administered by the UN. Palestinians living in eastern Jerusalem were eventually placed under Israeli civilian control and given a special status under Israeli law.
Many Palestinians found low wage jobs in both Israel and
the territories, and as a result grew more interconnected
with Israel. However over time, a strengthening of Palestinian national identity occurred as dissatisfaction grew
1967 Borders, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
with Israel’s military control and the inability of the Arab
states to defeat Israel. Eventually, this led to protests,
civil disobedience and terrorism directed against Israel.
Origins of Settlement Policy
There was a significant debate within the Israeli government regarding proper administration of the territories;
settlement in the Golan, West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai
did not begin immediately. Rather, it involved discussion, planning, and agreement among various factions
of the Israeli government. Ultimately, the Israeli government instituted a plan developed by Defense Minister
3
The David Project
Yigal Allon and created a line of strategic settlements in
the Jordan Valley. Most of these settlements fell under
government (led by the Labor party) auspices, with the
Israeli government and military planning and funding
construction and maintenance. Over time, these settlements were transformed into secular, civilian settlements.
In 1977, Menachem Begin and the Likud party came to
power and encouraged Israeli settlement in the territories
through government subsidies, both in the West Bank
as well as in Gaza. Whereas before 1977 there were
approximately 4,500 settlers living in these areas, there
were approximately 16,000 by 1981. These strategically
Gaza and West Bank Disengagement, Israel Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
planned settlements were opportunities for Israel to protect its core while also changing the face of the area’s
landscape: Likud encouraged “maximum Jewish presence” throughout the disputed territories for increased
security, to maintain the territorial gains, and to assert
Jewish rights and connection to the land.
In addition to the establishment and growth of settlements
throughout the West Bank, Gaza and Sinai, neighborhood
construction in the areas immediately surrounding Jerusalem began along the 1949 armistice lines as well as over
the lines themselves. The Jerusalem construction was designed to unify the city under Israeli control; it was also
considered pragmatically necessary to accommodate the
city’s growing population. Arab neighborhood construction, in the eastern, northern, and southeastern sections of
the city, was also prevalent and was designed to integrate
the Arab neighborhoods into the reunified Jerusalem.
4
Understanding the Settlements
Where are the settlements
located?
The following sections address the key locations of past
and current settlements: the Gaza Strip and the West
Bank. It should be noted that, following the 1979 peace
agreement with Egypt, Israel disengaged from the Sinai
Peninsula, evacuating Yamit and the surrounding settlements. Approximately 4,000 Israelis were removed, some
forcibly, from their homes in the Sinai.
The Gaza Strip
The Gaza Strip came under Israeli jurisdiction following the 1967 War. Over the next 30 years, Gaza became a security and strategic concern for the Israeli
government, ultimately resulting in the September
2005 unilateral disengagement. Approximately 8,500
settlers were forcibly evacuated from 25 settlements.
There had been a Jewish presence in Gaza dating back to
before the fall of the Second Temple, although Jews had
been expelled from their communities during the 1948
War. Settlements had been constructed and reconstructed
following the 1967 War, with three main clusters, one in
the northern tip of the strip, Netzarim in the center, and
the largest concentration in the Gush Katif bloc in the
southern section of the Strip. As part of the disengagement, Israel dismantled all Gaza settlements, as well as
four West Bank settlements and the joint Israel-Palestinian Erez Industrial Zone. Many of the settlers removed
from the Gaza Strip still have no permanent housing. Following the disengagement, Palestinians elected Hamas, a
group designated as a terrorist organization by the United
States, the European Union, and Israel, to administer the
Gaza Strip. The election of Hamas has led to increased
security concerns for Israel, as rocket and mortar fire
intensified. This violent aftermath left many Israelis reconsidering the wisdom of the Gaza pullout, while also
complicating the discussions about potential withdrawals
from areas in the West Bank.
The West Bank
As noted above, the area known as the West Bank came
under Israeli jurisdiction following the 1967 War. Settlement activity in this region began in the years following mainly for security reasons (Allon Plan) and
later increased significantly for ideological purposes.
The number of settlements continued to increase
in the 1980’s, as did opposition to their existence
from Arab, Palestinian and other world leaders.
The early 1990’s brought an increased focus to Israeli
presence in the West Bank as the Israeli-Palestinian
peace process gained momentum with the Oslo Accords.
These Accords were created as a framework for future
negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians that
would resolve the paramount issues, with an eventual
goal of separate Israeli and Palestinian entities. Signed
by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Palestinian
Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, and
US President Bill Clinton, the Oslo Accords indirectly
addressed the issue of settlements; they called for Israeli withdrawal from certain areas of the West Bank
and Gaza Strip and created the Palestinian National
Authority (PA) as a provisional governing authority
for the Palestinians in those areas. The overall status of
the settlements was to be determined in five years during the final status talks on several paramount issues.
The 1995 follow-up to Oslo, “Oslo II,” delineated the territories of the West Bank into three areas: A, B, and C.
Areas A and B are controlled by the PA, while Area C
falls under Israeli jurisdiction. Area A is marked by major Palestinian cities, towns, and highly populated areas,
while Area B is home mainly to smaller Palestinian villages. Israel operates security in PA-controlled Area B,
and also retains control of Area C. According to Oslo II,
there are no prohibitions or restrictions regarding Israeli
settlement build-up or construction in Area C, which is
home to Israeli settlements and military installations, and
which (with the exception of Jerusalem) does not contain
major Palestinian population centers.
Despite early optimism, the Oslo process
never
achieved its initial aims. Though negotiations continued with successive Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the
final status of the West Bank is yet to be determined.
While no new Israeli settlements have been built in
the West Bank in more than a decade, the population has increased as existing settlements have grown.
Today, Israeli settlements remain in various parts of the
West Bank. There are approximately 300,000 Jewish
settlers, with Israeli settlements and military installations making up approximately 3% of land in the West
Bank area. In the region surrounding Jerusalem, many
areas considered “settlements” are neighborhoods in
Jerusalem that have grown organically as the city itself
has expanded in size and population. While no new
settlements have been constructed since 1993, the expansion of the communities’ footprints (with population growth often necessitating an increase in construction and land) has garnered international criticism.
5
The David Project
Jerusalem
Successive Israeli governments (and mainstream Israeli
opinion) have treated construction in Jerusalem differently from the settlements in the West Bank as the city enjoys a different status according to Israeli law (and Jewish
religious observance). Israel officially annexed the territory of eastern Jerusalem in 1980 and Jordan relinquished
its claim on the city in 1988. Because Jerusalem was annexed and unified into the borders of the State of Israel,
any building that takes place within the municipal boundaries of the city is considered by the Israeli government
to be acceptable within its rights and obligations (despite
counter arguments waged by other international parties).
From 1948-1967 Jews were forbidden by Jordan from
living in or visiting the eastern parts of the city, including
the entire Old City and its holy sites. Jews often constituted the majority population of the city, and have been
the majority since the 1880s, aside from this 19-year period. The most current population statistics for Jerusalem
show that Jews make up about 65% of the total population of the city while Arabs comprise the remaining 35%.
Also significant is the growth rate of the Arab population
which is nearly double that of the Jewish population, a
factor that will surely complicate already contentious discussions about the city.
A major debate currently surrounding the status of Jerusalem involves the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods in the
city. Palestinian leaders see this growth as an obstacle to
the creation of a contiguous Palestinian capital in the city
which they view as a necessity in any future peace deal.
Who are the settlers?
The settlers are not a homogeneous group of individuals,
despite often being depicted as uniformly radical. Rather,
they are individuals with diverse worldviews, who have
varying reasons for choosing to live in the West Bank.
To understand the Israelis who make the West Bank their
home, it is necessary to examine the settlement movement through the framework of Zionist ideology, focusing on mainstream and religious Zionism. The goal of
secular Zionism had been to establish a democratic, Jewish state founded on the principle of self-determination.
The rabbis of nineteenth century Eastern Europe had distanced themselves from the Zionists, who were largely
secular and who were seen as almost sacrilegious in their
attempts to bring about a return to Israel on a human, not
divine, timetable. However, when the State of Israel was
founded in 1948, many religious Jews saw the state itself
as performing a religious mission in bringing about Jew-
6
Areas A, B, and C, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
ish sovereignty in the land of Israel. In 1967, when the
Israelis regained control of Judea and Samaria, the cradle
of Jewish civilization and history, many religious Jews
connected even more to the idea of heavenly redemption
through a return to their holy land. To the religious, the
land of Israel was central to Zionism; it was a mitzvah - a
divine commandment - to settle on the land.
In 1974, the Gush Emunim or “block of the faithful,” was
created and comprised religious Zionists devoted to the
land of Israel, not necessarily to the state. Today, their descendants maintain that Jews have sovereignty throughout
Understanding the Settlements
Etzion, south of Jerusalem, where Jewish residents were
murdered in 1948, is not seen as a “settlement” to many
Israelis, but rather as an area with a significant Jewish
history that has been restored.
What are the differences
among the settlements?
Settlements are not monolithic, but rather distinct entities
with varying characteristics based on location, size, population and history. With these differences come unique
political challenges that will shape future discussions.
Today, there are approximately 300,000 Israeli “settlers”
in the West Bank, equivalent to 4% of the Israeli population. The communities contained in the disputed territories can be categorized along four major types: urban
suburbs, settlement blocs, frontier villages, and outposts
Much of the contention regarding the settlements is based
on the location of these communities. (Certain communities may fit in one or more categories.)
Urban Suburbs
Post 1967 Jerusalem, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Judea and Samaria; they build new outposts regardless of
Israeli security concerns or issues of legality. The radical
religious Zionists believe they are fulfilling a divine mandate that goes beyond the democratic state. The religious
remain a small but vocal minority; today, approximately
100,000 to 130,000 West Bank residents are religious Zionists, approximately two percent of Israel’s population.
Indeed, the vast majority of Jewish West Bank residents
are secular or observant Jews, many of whom see themselves as suburbanites: people who, in seeking a higher
standard of living, moved their families from Jerusalem
or Tel Aviv to places like Ma’ale Adumim, where apartments and homes are less expensive (partially due to
government subsidies) and the quality of life is higher.
Other Israeli residents see themselves as having returned
to Jewish towns and cities that had existed in Judea and
Samaria before the 1948 War, where Jews had lived and
been killed or expelled by hostile Arabs. The area of Gush
The most significant settlement growth and development
has occurred in the suburban areas in the Jordan Valley (in the West Bank), close to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Towns and cities like Ma’ale Adumim fall into this category. The proximity of Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem (a
distance of five miles) makes it an attractive community
for Israeli commuters, who are able to achieve a higher
standard of living with less expensive housing costs than
in Jerusalem. The community contains both secular and
observant Israelis, with many recent immigrants, including a significant number from the United States. During
final status negotiations, many believe that Israel will
maintain sovereignty over these suburbs as there is little
political support for evacuating communities that are essentially contiguous with major Israeli metropolitan areas
that contain large populations (Ma’ale Adumim boasts a
city population of approximately 40,000).
Bloc Settlements
The term “bloc settlement” references larger, more urban
settlements as well as the cluster of smaller townships surrounding the main urban center. In the West Bank, the largest settlement blocs are Ariel and Gush Etzion, all of which
contain core communities surrounded by smaller villages.
The Gush Etzion bloc, located immediately south of Jerusalem, has been home to Jews since the 1920s, while
the Ariel bloc has been in existence since the settlement
movement of the 1970s. Ariel is the fourth largest settle-
7
The David Project
ment in the West Bank, home to a city population of about
20,000, with another 11,000 residents scattered throughout
the bloc’s townships. The Gush Etzion bloc’s population is
a diverse mix of secular and national-religious Israelis; its
22 settlements contain approximately 70,000 individuals.
Ariel’s population is also a mix of secular and nationalreligious Israelis. In final status agreements, Israel hopes to
and expects to keep the settlements immediately adjacent
to the 1949 armistice lines. However, there is concern regarding settlements further away from the borders, including the Ariel bloc, which is located about 31 miles from
Jerusalem and protrudes more deeply into the West Bank.
Many Palestinians view these boundaries as obstacle to
one day creating a continuous Palestinian state.
It should be noted that in letters exchanged with Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004, President George W. Bush
noted that, “in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers...” the
American government did not expect a complete return to
the 1949 boundaries. Successive Israeli leaders have cited these statements to support the continued existence of
these communities under Israeli control.
Frontier Villages
Settlements in largely underdeveloped areas are often referred to as “frontier villages” or “outlying settlements.”
These settlements are mostly located along the Jordan
River, and tend to be populated by ideologically-motivated
Israelis, Religious Zionists, and Orthodox Jews, although
there are certainly secular Israelis among them. Mechora
and Hamra, established in the early 1970s, are populated
by Israelis focused on finding a balance between ideology
and quality of life. Both villages are small, with populations totaling approximately 122 and 91 individuals,
respectively. These settlements, along with the outposts
(defined below), because of their distance from urban centers and low population density, may be areas that Israel is
willing to concede in future negotitations. Details released
from previous offers, including those from Camp David in
2000 and Taba in 2001, suggest that Israel was willing to
leave these areas as part of a peace deal.
Outposts
Small, fledgling communities constructed throughout the
West Bank are often described as “outposts” in the media
and in political discourse. Outposts, making up approximately 1% of Israeli settlements, are commonly divided
into two distinct categories: unauthorized and illegal. Unauthorized outposts have been built on Israeli state land in
the West Bank, generally between the years 1991-2004, and
have never been legalized by the Israeli government. Ille-
8
gal settlements have been constructed on privately-owned
Palestinian land. There are approximately 100 such outposts, generally populated by ideologues, as in the example
of Skali’s Farm, a hilltop outpost home to 20 individuals.
It is important to understand that many of the unauthorized
settlements were initially the building blocks for planned
settlements under the Council of Jewish Communities in
Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip (an umbrella group
formed to promote Jewish settlement in the West Bank and
Gaza), as well as under the regional councils. The settlers
followed a common approach to construction throughout
Israel: build first, apply for permits later. However, the Israeli government gradually decreased the number of permits available for settlements in the 1990s. By 1999, the
Israeli government was no longer authorizing the creation
of new settlements and by 2004, permits were no longer
available for new settlement construction. Official settler
leadership ceased new construction at this point, although
civil services for existing unauthorized outposts continued.
Settlers in these unauthorized communities often continued
to expand and grow within their outpost communities.
Under the 2002 Road Map, the Israeli government
pledged to dismantle all outposts constructed after March
2001. Discussions between the government and the settlers over evacuation, relocation, and limited authorization began. An incident in 2006, in which settlers and
Israeli soldiers sparred over an attempt to dismantle the
Amona outpost, has made the Israeli government wary
of evacuation and dismantling. The past several years
have seen right-wing ideologues settling in new outposts
throughout the West Bank, outside the auspices of the settler councils in the region. These new groups build with
cheap construction materials that can easily be used to
build and rebuild small shacks. The Israeli government
has dismantled many of these new outposts, which continue to be rebuilt.
What’s the big deal about
settlements?
The following sections address the key issues associated
with the settlements: the religious and historical context,
legal issues and other arguments for and against the
settlements. The areas in question are the heartland of
Jewish history and divine promise. It is helpful to have
an understanding of this in order to discuss the common
allegation that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. International law is not one authoritative
body, but rather a complex assortment of international
treaties and legal opinions which are open to various and
contradictory interpretations. This section will address
Understanding the Settlements
the historic background of the Jewish people’s connection
to the land of Israel, the legality or illegality of the settlements and several other issues related to the settlements
such as Security, Economy and Human Rights.
Jerusalem and Judea & Samaria in
Historical & Religious Tradition
Jerusalem has always been the focal point of Jewish political and religious yearning. It was the geographical and
spiritual center of the Israelite Kingdom and the site of the
Holy Temple to which Jews made pilgrimages three times
a year. King David established his kingdom from Jerusalem – in fact one of the names for Jerusalem is the ‘City
of David.’ The spiritual core of Judaism is centered on
Jerusalem. The bible provides the landscape as a backdrop to Jewish rituals, calendar, pilgrimages and celebrations which all took place at the Temple in Jerusalem. The
desire to return to Zion (Jerusalem) is central in Jewish
prayers and beliefs and is both an abstract ideal and a practical desire to bring about a messianic age of redemption.
When the Jews were exiled and their access to Jerusalem was restricted, they maintained a longing to return to
their holy city for millennia, never losing their connection
to the city. Jerusalem also has attained significance for
Christianity and Islam. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher
also sits within the walls of the Old City and is believed
by Christians to be the site where Jesus was crucified, entombed and resurrected. The Al-Aqsa mosque, according
to Muslim tradition is the place from which Mohammed
ascended to heaven, and the Dome of the Rock shrine on
the Temple Mount, on or near the site of the ancient Jewish Temple, were established around the year 700 CE.
This inter-connectedness of the three major monotheistic
religions has contributed, and continues to contribute, to
the controversy surrounding control over the holy city.
In addition to Jerusalem, much of the West Bank is within
the biblical area known as Judea and Samaria, the heartland of Jewish life and culture and the landscape for many
of the stories in the Bible. Judea is first referenced in the
book of Joshua. From that time until the present, the name
Judea has been consistently used to describe the territory
from Jerusalem south along the Judean mountain ridge
line, extending from the mountains to the Dead Sea. The
hill country north and west of Jerusalem has been known
as Samaria since the days of Jeraboam, the first king of the
Kingdom of Israel. Among the significant places for the
Jewish people in these regions are the cities of Hebron,
Bethlehem, Shechem/Nablus, Beth-El and Shilo.
Bethlehem features prominently in stories from Jesus’s life
and is considered a holy city in Christianity. Bethlehem also
David and Solomon’s Kingdoms, 1077-997 BCE, Israel
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
carries significance for the Jewish people as the burial site of
the Matriarch, Rachel. Her tomb in Bethlehem is a holy site
that is often visited today. The rest of the Matriarchs (Sarah,
Rebecca and Leah) and the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob) are believed to be buried in the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, which was purchased by Abraham in order
to bury his wife, Sarah, after her death. Hebron is mentioned
78 times in the Bible and was the first capital of the Davidic
Kingdom before the capital was moved to Jerusalem.
The city of Shechem in northern Samaria has important
historical connections as well. Jacob and his sons were
camped at Shechem when Joseph’s brothers sold him
into slavery. Years later when the Jewish people returned
from Egypt after years of slavery, Joseph’s bones were
buried in Shechem. Joseph’s tomb in Shechem is visited
and revered by people of many faiths.
9
The David Project
Legal Issues
Arguments surrounding the legal status of the settlements,
and overall Israeli presence in these territories, generally
rest on three main documents. The first is the 4th Geneva
Convention signed in 1949; the second is UN Security
Council Resolution 242 drafted after the Six-Day War in
1967, and the third is the International Court of Justice
ruling in 2004 which deemed Israeli settlements illegal.
4th Geneva Convention (August 12, 1949)
The first common argument advanced for the illegality of
settlements is that they are a violation of the 4th Geneva
Convention, specifically article 49 (“Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”). The 4th Geneva Convention was convened in the aftermath of WWII
to address cases where civilians had no protection against
the Nazi occupation of Europe. The last line in the article
says that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory
it occupies.” This is the line that is most often cited by
those who claim that the Israeli settlements violate the
Convention because of financial incentives given by the
Israeli government to citizens moving to the territories.
Additionally, even if the convention does not technically
apply (as the legal status of the land prior to the conflict
was murky), international law precludes solving territorial
disputes by force. Therefore, according to this argument,
since the territories were occupied as the result of a war,
settlement construction in those captured areas is illegal.
UN Security Council Resolution 242
(November 22, 1967)
This resolution, passed just a few months after the end of
the 1967 Six-Day War, among other things, calls upon Israeli armed forces to withdraw “from territories occupied
in the recent conflict.” Opponents of the Israeli presence
there have argued that the settlements are an Israeli attempt to change the character of the disputed territories
in Israel’s favor, thereby making withdrawal less likely.
This change to the pre-1967 status quo is not only contrary to UNSC Resolution 242 but also to the spirit of the
Geneva Convention, the argument reasons.
International Court of Justice Ruling (2004)
In 2004, the International Court of Justice (a main UN
body) offered a non-binding opinion in a case called “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory.” This ruling starts with
an understanding that the British Mandate for Palestine
was designed to create a state for Palestinians. It rejects
10
the idea that Jews have any right to the land of Israel and
makes no mention of Jewish self-determination. Accordingly, if the premise is that the land belongs to Palestinians and not to Jews, then any Jewish building on ‘occupied’ land is illegal.
Supporters of Israel’s presence in the West Bank claim
that international law actually supports the existence (and
even expansion) of these communities, not just by interpreting the Geneva Conventions in an opposite way, but
also by citing past agreements and obligations. The British Mandate encouraged Jewish immigration to the region without limitation. Additionally, since the territories
beyond the Green Line were captured by Israel in a war
of self-defense, they are not considered occupied. The argument that Israel’s settlements are a violation of the 4th
Geneva Convention has been disputed by scholars who say
that the convention does not apply to territorial disputes
between Israel and Palestinians for the following reasons:
Israelis and Palestinians have established a special
regime, as per the Oslo Accords, which is set up in
such a way that all issues between the two groups,
settlements included, will be evaluated and solved
through negotiations. This framework sets out no
specific provisions restricting planning, zoning or
building by either party.
The convention applies only to the occupation of
“territory of a High Contracting Party” to the convention. Neither Israel, nor any other country, has a recognized legal claim to the territory. Therefore, they
are not territories of any High Contracting Party and
the convention does not apply to Jewish settlement.
According to the International Committee of the Red
Cross, the 4th Geneva Convention only applies to cases
in which a population is coerced into being transferred.
No Israelis were forced to move beyond the Green
Line and no Palestinians living beyond the Green Line
were forced to leave after Israel gained control.
According to former legal advisor to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Alan Baker, regarding the
responsibilities of an occupying power to the occupied: “In this framework, when referring to the rights
and duties of each party in the territory that remains
under its jurisdiction pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations, there is no specific provision
either restricting planning, zoning, and continued
construction by either party, of towns, settlements,
and villages or freezing such construction.”
Understanding the Settlements
Why are so many people upset about the possibility of construction in E-1?
Settlement construction in area E-1 would, critics assert, prevent the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from having
direct access to Jerusalem in a future Palestinian state. This section addresses current controversies surrounding settlement growth
and the evolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in international forums.
In early December 2012, the Israeli government announced plans for increased construction of 3,000 housing units in sections of
east Jerusalem and the West Bank. In addition to new housing units, plans are being considered for construction in area E-1, a small
plot of land (roughly 4.5 miles) between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim. Construction in E-1, first addressed by Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and designated as part of Ma’ale Adumim, has been discussed by the Israeli government at various times
over the last 20 years. Rabin’s government, however, did not begin residential construction in E-1, and subsequent prime ministers,
including Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Benjamin Netanyahu, had promised the United States that no construction in the area
would take place. This recent Israeli announcement is thought to be a reaction to Palestinian unilateral actions at the United Nations.
Some critics have argued that building in E-1 would make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible, preventing the Palestinian cities
of Ramallah and Bethlehem from direct access to Jerusalem. However, Elliot Abrams, who headed the Near East desk in President
Bush’s National Security Council, stated that “there are two ways to solve the problem. Build a road that is east of Ma’ale Adumim
…between Ma’ale Adumim and the Jordan River. Or there’s a road that goes between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim. So build an
overpass or build an underpass.” Regarding the larger issue of borders, Zvika Kreiger, contributing editor at The Atlantic and a senior
vice president at the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace noted, “…there are no objective criteria for what actually
constitutes a workable, realistic Palestinian state.”
The creation of an access road around Ma’ale Adumim’s eastern side would provide Palestinians access to eastern Jerusalem
from other parts of the West Bank. Furthermore, as noted earlier, any future borders of a Palestinian state would most likely need
to account for the large settlements, like Ma’ale Adumim, and a system of access or bypass roads would be necessary. While
politically complicated and perhaps provocative, new construction in this area would not by nature prohibit the establishment
of a contiguous Palestinian state, nor should it automatically be considered an obstacle to peace. (Updated December 2012)
Other Issues Related to the Settlements
Though the legality issue remains at the forefront of the debate, there are numerous other issues associated with the settlements,
and more expansively, Israeli control over the West Bank. These range from the security the land provides as buffer zone to
Israel to economic considerations for all parties. Policymakers also have to take into account the moral and social implications
of the Israeli presence in the West Bank and the impact they have on both Palestinians and Israelis.
It is also important to note that the settlements created a new political dynamic in Israel. Political parties representing Israelis living in these communities wield considerable clout making it difficult for leaders (especially those from right of center parties) to
agree to territorial concessions in these areas.
Of course, answers to these difficult questions will continue to challenge leaders and activists from all different viewpoints
and positions. Despite the attention this issue continues to receive, the likelihood that a satisfactory, agreed-upon resolution
will develop in the near future remains slim.
CONCLUSION
Debates about Israeli settlements in the West Bank (and previously in Gaza) have raged for decades and the controversy seems likely
to continue absent a major breakthrough in peace negotiations. As these often heated discussions continue on campus, in communities
and in the political arena, it becomes increasingly necessary to engage in more thoughtful and nuanced discussions about this issue.
One vital point that can contribute to the ongoing discussion is worth repeating. The settlements are not a monolithic entity
and cannot be viewed as such. Each settlement, and settlement type, has unique characteristics based on history, geography
and demographics, and each one poses unique political ramifications to Israelis and Palestinians alike.
We hope that the information and additional context provided in this document provides the foundation for meaningful
conversations and additional learning.
11
The David Project
APPENDIX I: GLOSSARY
Areas A/B/C
Following the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel withdrew its military rule from certain areas of the West Bank as it became
divided into three administrative divisions. Area A is under full Palestinian civil and administrative control. Area B
is under Israel security control, but Palestinian administration. Area A and B contain an overwhelming majority of
the Palestinian population in the West Bank, but a minority of the land of the West Bank. Area C is under full Israeli
control and includes a majority of the land and all of the West Bank settlements.
British Mandate for Palestine
Established in 1920 at the San Remo Conference, the mandate covers portions of the former Ottoman province of
Syria and was placed under administrative control by the British. In 1922, the British divided the Palestine Mandate
into two administrative areas; Palestine, which came under direct British control and open to Jewish immigration,
and Transjordan, which was ruled by the Hashemite family. The British continued to administer Palestine until the
mandate ended in 1948.
Gaza Disengagement
A highly controversial policy initiated by former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in which Israel evacuated all
Jewish settlements and military presence in Gaza and four settlements in the northern West Bank. The evacuation was
completed in September 2005.
Green Line
The Green Line refers to the 1949 Armistices Lines agreed upon by Israel and her Arab belligerents – Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon and Syria. The name derives from the green ink used to draw the lines. Since the 1967 Six Day War, the
Green Line has been used to delineate the territory between areas administered by the Israeli government and those
areas administered by the Israeli military or Palestinian Authority.
Hamas
Hamas is an Islamic Palestinian terrorist organization that was formed in 1987 by more militant members of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas’ ideology is based on Islamic fundamentalism with the goal of the destruction
of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic Palestinian state. Hamas has killed thousands of Israelis through rocket
attacks, suicide bombings and guerilla warfare. Currently, Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and has a close relationship
with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.
Oslo Accords
Signed in August, 1993, the Oslo Accords established the framework for a negotiated two-state solution between
Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
Partition Plan
In 1947 as Great Britain was relinquishing its mandate over Palestine, the United Nations sent a special committee to
Palestine to observe and make recommendations to the General Assembly about what to do with the land. The committee voted unanimously to grant Israel independence and recommended partitioning the land into a Jewish and an
Arab state with Jerusalem remaining under a special international regime. On November 29, 1947 the General Assembly accepted the partition plan. The plan was also accepted by the Jewish community in Palestine but rejected by
the Arabs who intensified their attacks on the Jewish community until Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948.
12
Understanding the Settlements
APPENDIX II: ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Articles
01. Abrams, Elliott.“The Settlement Obsession.” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2011.
02.Baker, Alan.“Israel’s Rights Regarding Territories and the Settlements in the Eyes of the International
Community.” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 18 September 2011: Vol. 11, No.16: 65-74.
03.Baker, Alan. “The Settlements Issue: Distorting the Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords.” Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs, 5 January 2011: Vol. 10, No. 20.
04.Greenberg, Samara.“Reassessing Israeli Settlements.” Pajamas Media,12 July 2009.
05.Klein, Menachem. “Jerusalem as an Israeli Problem – A Review of Forty Years of Israeli Rule Over Arab
Jerusalem.” Israel Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2: 54-72.
06.Lazaroff, Tovah. “Settler Affairs: Running for the Hilltops.” The Jerusalem Post, 25 June 2009.
07.Makovsky, David.“Gaza: Moving Forward by Pulling Back.” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2005: 52-62.
08.Makovsky, David.“Settlements and Swaps: Envisioning an Israeli-Palestinian Border.” The Washington
Institute, January 2011: 1-30.
09.Mead, Walter Russell.“Settling Zion.” The American Interest, 25 March 2010.
10. Meridor, Salay.“The Jews of the West Bank and Gaza and the Peace Process.” Research Notes: The Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, 3 November 1997: 1-6.
11. Phillips, David M. “The Illegal-Settlements Myth.” Commentary Magazine, December 2009.
12. Rostow, Nicholas. “Are the Settlements Illegal?” The American Interest, March/April 2010.
13. Michael J. Totten. “Between the Green Line and the Blue Line: Can a Jerusalem Divided Stand?”City Journal,
21.3 Summer 2011.
Books
14. Ateek, Naim Stefan. Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation. New York: Orbis Books,
1989.
15. Reich, Bernard. A Brief History of Israel. New York: Checkmark Books, 2005.
16. Shindler, Colin. A History of Modern Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
17. Stein, Kenneth. The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press, 1984.
18. Wasserstein, Bernard. Divided Jerusalem: The Struggle for the Holy City. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2002.
19. Kark, Ruth and Michal Oren-Nordheim. Jerusalem and Its Environs: Quarters, Neighborhoods, Villages, 18001948. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2001.
13
The David Project
Websites
20.B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, http://www.btselem.org/
21. International Committee of the Red Cross, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600056
22.Israel Central Bureau of Statistics 2011, http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/hodaot2011n/11_11_101e.pdf
Maps
23.Peace Now - http://peacenow.org/map.php
24.Geneva Initiative - http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/static-maps/
25.Dennis Ross’s maps from Camp David – http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm, http://www.fmep.org/maps
26.Washington Institute for Near East Policy, David Makovsky’s interactive maps - http://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2011/09/12/opinion/mapping-mideast-peace.html
27.MESH Maps - http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/03/west_bank_in_maps/
UN Documents
28.League of Nations Mandate for Palestine
29.The Charter of the United Nations
30.UN General Assembly Resolution 181
31. UN Security Council Resolution 242
Other Texts
32.Sykes-Picot Agreement
33.Balfour Declaration
34.British White Paper of 1939 (Peel White Paper)
35.Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreements
36.Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, September 13, 1993
37.The 4th Geneva Convention
14
Understanding the Settlements
APPENDIX III: LAND ISSUES IN THE LEVANT
Land ownership has always been a point of contention in the area of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel, often called the Levant.
From the era of the Ottoman Turks to current struggles over the disputed territories, the idea of “who owns what” has been everevolving and shaped by regional conflict in what is now known as modern-day Israel. The historical claims by Arabs and Jews to
the land of Israel, complicated by multiple wars and ongoing political theater, have recently brought the discussion of land ownership to the forefront of the international stage. In order to contextualize Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the
Gaza Strip, one must understand how the history of land ownership in modern times, first under the Ottoman Turks and the British Mandate, as well as the various wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors, has shaped the region and the political discourse.
Palestine was very much a backwater during the age of the Ottoman Empire (1517-1917 CE). The land itself was largely
underdeveloped, and the home of an uneducated and impoverished populace; the lack of a strong central government and
weak regional authority contributed to the area’s poverty. The population was predominantly Muslim Arab, although there
was a significant Jewish and Christian minority. The Ottoman system in Palestine was characterized by corruption and prohibitive taxation. Modern agricultural practices were discouraged, and a virtual feudal system existed.The Empire controlled
vast swaths of land, and desired control over even more;the Land Law of 1858 was an attempt by the Ottomans to assume
greater control and to limit private land ownership. The law itself ultimately failed; the Ottoman Empire was unable to effectively manage government-owned properties, and private land ownership by absentee landlords increased. The fellaheen,
Arab tenant farmers, were employed by the absentee landlords throughout Palestine. Fellaheen were subject to conscription
as well as high taxes; those that did own land were unwilling to register their property according to Ottoman processes, for
fear of prohibitive tax rates and government bureaucracy and corruption.The Ottoman Empire’s system of intricate laws
governing property and land development rights resulted in many fellaheen choosing to conduct business affairs, including
land transfers, outside of the Ottoman system. The fellaheen’s overall refusal to operate within the boundaries of Ottoman
law resulted in heavy debt to moneylenders, which contributed to the territory’s already high rates of poverty.
While there have always been Jews in Palestine, the populations of which were primarily concentrated in Jerusalem, Nablus/
Schechem, Hebron, Gaza, Tzfat, and the Galilee, a rapid increase in immigration began with the rise of the Jewish nationalist
movement, known as Zionism. Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe moved to Palestine with the goal of resurrecting the
Jewish spiritual, political and national home in Israel. Jews were already the majority in cities like Jerusalem and Tzfat, due
mostly to the immigration of religious Jews over the course of centuries. Between 1881 and 1914, approximately 75,000
Jews immigrated to Palestine.These new immigrants to Israel in the First (1882-1903) and Second Aliyah (1904-1914) purchased land from the absentee Ottoman landlords and began to build towns and farms throughout Palestine. The fellaheen,
who had worked this land, lost their primary means of employment as the landlords sold the farms to the returning Jews.
With the fall of the Ottoman Empire and transfer of control to the British Empire after World War I, political borders in
the region became even more nebulous. The Balfour Declaration, Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, Sykes-Picot Agreement, and Peel White Paper reflect a situation in which various powers vied for ownership of Palestine and its environs.
The French and British wanted to divide the land between their respective spheres of influence, while many Arabs expected
that they would gain control of the land. Additionally, Jews in Palestine and abroad expected the rebirth of the Jewish state.
Ultimately, British control of Palestine was recognized by the League of Nations, the United Nations’ precursor, as a
‘mandate’ which explicitly called for increased Jewish immigration and the creation of a Jewish national home. Many
British officials initially supported this policy, based on their government’s Balfour Declaration of 1917, which committed Britain to the creation of the national Jewish home. The publication of the Peel Commission’s White Paper in
1939, which recommended curtailing Jewish immigration, partially due to the British desire to deter Arab leadership
from siding with the Axis Powers, complicated land claims in Palestine. The United Nations’ decision to partition Palestine between Arab and Jew in 1947, with Jerusalem “internationalized” and the area now known as the West Bank
under Arab control, set off a civil war. Arabs attacked Jews; when the Jews declared the State of Israel in 1948, the
neighboring Arab states declared war on the re-established Jewish nation. The armistice lines divided Jerusalem and
expelled approximately 3,000 Jews from the eastern part of the city, including the area around the Kotel, the retaining wall of the Jewish Temple, as well as from their historic homes in the Gush Etzion bloc. The war helped to create
thousands of refugees, including approximately 700,000 Arab refugees and 800,000 Jews, including those expelled
from Arab countries in the years following the declaration of the State of Israel. The resulting armistice lines between
Israel and Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan became the de facto boundaries of Israel until 1967’s Six Day War.
15
The David Project
UNDERSTANDING
THE SETTLEMENTS
DISCUSSION GUIDE
As noted in the primer, the issue of Israeli
settlements continues to be one of the most
contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many individuals and groups often refrain from indepth conversations on this topic because of its
controversial nature. Our goal in producing the
primer was to provide a platform from which a
meaningful discussion could be held with a deeper
understanding of the nuances and complexities
of these communities. Additionally, we hope that
the following questions help foster constructive
conversations and thoughtful inquiry.
• Does it make sense to lump settlements into a single word or concept? Why or why not? • Some individuals suggest that settlements complicate negotiations and make a two-state
solution more difficult to achieve. What are their arguments?
• Some individuals argue that the settlements pose no obstacle to peace. What are their
arguments?
• It has been argued that increasing the settlement population in the major settlement blocs
does not serve as an obstacle to peace. On what basis is such a claim made? How would
settlement critics respond?
• Critics of these communities have argued that apart from the geographic problem posed
by settlements, the growth in the settler population in and of itself will make peace or
withdrawal more difficult to achieve. What is their reasoning?
• Palestinians say that settlement expansion has all but made a contiguous Palestinian state
impossible. What’s the basis of that claim? What arguments can be made to counter that
contention?
• How can (or do) these settlements/communities affect Israel’s future as a Jewish state and
democracy?
• Critics of the recent announcement from the Israeli government contend that construction in
E-1 could severely impact implementation of a two-state solution. Is this contention justified?
Why or why not?
For additional information about the settlements issue, please see Appendix II: Additional
Sources, in the primer.
P.O. Box 52390 Boston MA 02205
617-428-0012 • info@davidproject.org
www.davidproject.org