Settelments

From Peacewiki

Current revision as of 21:45, 4 May 2006

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) [1][2][3], 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 [4] [5] and the International Court of Justice [6], a position held by a majority of UN member states [7] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Historical timeline

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

• From Jordan, Israel gained control of the entire western bank of the Jordan River, including parts of Jerusalem previously controlled by Jordan - East Jerusalem, and the West Bank.
• From Egypt, Israel gained control of the entire Sinai peninsula up to the Suez Canal, and the Gaza strip.
• From Syria, Israel gained control of most of the Golan Heights, since 1981, administered under the Golan Heights Law.

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.

[edit] 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, in 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. [8][9]

[edit] 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. [10].

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 2004Template:Fact
• 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.

[edit] 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:

^* 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.

[edit] 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 [11] [12].
• 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.[13][14][15][16][17]
• 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. [18][19]

[edit] Legal background

[edit] 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 [20].

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. Template:Fact

[edit] 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 [21]).

[edit] 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, <ref>"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.</ref> <ref>"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.</ref> <ref>"...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.</ref> <ref>"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.</ref> <ref>"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.</ref> <ref>"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.</ref> 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.[22] The Security Council itself takes great care to make the distinction in its resolutions. Template:Fact

International human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also denounced the settlements as illegal[23][24], though the Anti-Defamation League has argued that they are legal. <ref>How to Respond to Common Misstatements About Israel: Israeli Settlements, Anti-Defamation League website. URL accessed April 10, 2006.</ref>

Some legal scholars <ref>FAQ on Israeli settlements, CBC News Online, February 26, 2004. URL accessed April 10, 2006.</ref> (including prominent international law expert Julius Stone, <ref>Pomerance, Michla. The Legality of the Iraq War: Beyond legal pacifism, The Review, April 2003. URL accessed April 11, 2006.</ref> <ref>International Law: Blaming Big Brother: Holding States Accountable for the Devastation of Terrorism, 56 Oklahoma Law Review 735, __ __.</ref> 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.