UNDERSTANDING THE SETTLEMENTS

A PRIMER

The David Project

2

We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that Amer-ica 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 co-lonial 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 Declara-tion of Principles in 1993 between the Palestine Libera-tion 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 co-lonialists 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 de-nied. 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

INTRODUCTIONThe issue of Israeli settlements has increasingly become one of contention, confusion and confrontation garner-ing significant attention, and even outright condemna-tion, around the world. With Mahmoud Abbas’ bid for upgraded Palestinian status at the UN successful, the settlements have once again come to the forefront of in-ternational discussions. In response to the Palestinian UN bid, as well as the recent attacks by Hamas that sparked Operation Pillar of Defense, the Israeli government has announced that it intends to move forward with plans for

further settlement construction. There are plans in place for 3,000 new housing units in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Israeli government also intends to move forward with zoning plans for an area known as E-1, a 4.6 mile stretch of land between Jerusalem proper and Ma’ale Adumim, a suburban settlement home to over 30,000 Israelis. The plan is contentious, as many world leaders believe that the expansion of settlements into this area is an attempt to bypass a two-state solution and to prevent the eventual founding of a contiguous Palestin-ian state. A spokesperson for the French government has stated that, “…[the settlement enterprise] is illegal in all its forms. They are illegal in the view of international law, harm the trust necessary for a renewal of negotiations and are an obstacle to a just peace based on a two-state solu-tion.”

Is this portrayal of Israeli settlements, including new planned construction in E-1, accurate? Are the settle-ments really the “primary cause for the failure of the peace process?”

It is not our intention to provide those answers here; rather, we seek to explain and contextualize the Jewish communities in the West Bank, to provide history, depth, and understanding to the discussions taking place on high school and college campuses throughout North America so that individuals can develop their own informed opin-ions. We also hope that this document helps correct a common misunderstanding, which depicts the settlements as monolithic. In the course of this text, we examine the characteristics of these communities and try to shed light on their geographical and demographic differences.

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 complexities we face when discussing this hotly-debated issue. For the sake of clarity and brev-ity, this primer will use ‘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 contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the college and high school students we work with on a daily basis, providing solid answers to often-asked questions.

Understanding the Settlements

3

KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

What is a settlement? Where do they come from?Historic Overview

The term “settlements” is used by the international com-munity to describe the towns, cities, villages, and out-posts 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 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 peace-keepers 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 Isra-el’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 lat-er, 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 (includ-ing 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 Is-rael. 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. Addi-tionally, another 200,000 Palestinians fled to Jordan dur-ing 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 Palestin-ians retained their Jordanian citizenship and connections.

1967 Borders, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The David Project

4

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 east-ern Jerusalem were eventually placed under Israeli civil-ian 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 Pal-estinian national identity occurred as dissatisfaction grew 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 govern-ment regarding proper administration of the territories; settlement in the Golan, West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai did not begin immediately. Rather, it involved discus-sion, planning, and agreement among various factions of the Israeli government. Ultimately, the Israeli gov-ernment instituted a plan developed by Defense Minister 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 settle-ments were transformed into secular, civilian settlements. In 1977, Menachem Begin and the Likud party came to power and encouraged Israeli settlement in the territories

Gaza and West Bank Disengagement, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Understanding the Settlements

5

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 planned settlements were opportunities for Israel to pro-tect its core while also changing the face of the area’s landscape: Likud encouraged “maximum Jewish pres-ence” 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 Jeru-salem began along the 1949 armistice lines as well as over the lines themselves. The Jerusalem construction was de-signed to unify the city under Israeli control; it was also considered pragmatically necessary to accommodate the city’s growing population. Arab neighborhood construc-tion, 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.

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 settle-ments. Approximately 4,000 Israelis were removed, some forcibly, from their homes in the Sinai.

The Gaza StripThe Gaza Strip came under Israeli jurisdiction follow-ing the 1967 War. Over the next 30 years, Gaza be-came 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 disengage-ment, Israel dismantled all Gaza settlements, as well as four West Bank settlements and the joint Israel-Palestin-

ian Erez Industrial Zone. Many of the settlers removed from the Gaza Strip still have no permanent housing. Fol-lowing 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 re-considering 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. Set-tlement activity in this region began in the years fol-lowing 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 Is-raeli 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 dur-ing the final status talks on several paramount issues. The 1995 follow-up to Oslo, “Oslo II,” delineated the ter-ritories 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 ma-jor Palestinian cities, towns, and highly populated areas, while Area B is home mainly to smaller Palestinian vil-lages. 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.

The David Project

6

Despite early optimism, the Oslo process never achieved its initial aims. Though negotiations contin-ued 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 popula-tion has increased as existing settlements have grown. Today, Israeli settlements remain in various parts of the West Bank. There are approximately 300,000 Jewish set-tlers, 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 Jerusa-lem that have grown organically as the city itself has ex-panded 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.

JerusalemSuccessive Israeli governments (and mainstream Israeli opinion) have treated construction in Jerusalem different-ly from the settlements in the West Bank as the city en-joys a different status according to Israeli law (and Jewish religious observance). Israel officially annexed the terri-tory of eastern Jerusalem in 1980 and Jordan relinquished its claim on the city in 1988. Because Jerusalem was an-nexed and unified into the borders of the State of Israel, any building that takes place within the municipal bound-aries 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 liv-ing 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 com-plicate already contentious discussions about the city.

A major debate currently surrounding the status of Jerusa-lem 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 move-ment through the framework of Zionist ideology, focus-ing on mainstream and religious Zionism. The goal of secular Zionism had been to establish a democratic, Jewish

Areas A, B, and C, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Understanding the Settlements

7

state founded on the principle of self-determination. The rabbis of nineteenth century Eastern Europe had dis-tanced 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-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 through-out 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 man-date 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 Zi-onists, 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 them-selves 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 apart-ments 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 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, pop-ulation 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 popu-lation. The communities contained in the disputed terri-tories 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 communi-ties may fit in one or more categories.)

Urban SuburbsThe most significant settlement growth and development has occurred in the suburban areas in the Jordan Val-ley (in the West Bank), close to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Towns and cities like Ma’ale Adumim fall into this cat-egory. 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

Post 1967 Jerusalem, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The David Project

8

observant Israelis, with many recent immigrants, includ-ing 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 es-sentially contiguous with major Israeli metropolitan areas that contain large populations (Ma’ale Adumim boasts a city population of approximately 40,000).

Bloc SettlementsThe term “bloc settlement” references larger, more urban settlements as well as the cluster of smaller townships sur-rounding the main urban center. In the West Bank, the larg-est 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 Jerusa-lem, 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 settlement in the West Bank, home to a city population of about 20,000, with an-other 11,000 residents scattered throughout the bloc’s town-ships. 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 national-religious Israelis. In fi-nal 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. Suc-cessive Israeli leaders have cited these statements to support the continued existence of these communities under Israeli control.

Frontier VillagesSettlements in largely underdeveloped areas are often re-ferred to as “frontier villages” or “outlying settlements.” These settlements are mostly located along the Jordan River, and tend to be populated by ideologically-moti-vated 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 cen-ters 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.

OutpostsSmall, fledgling communities constructed throughout the West Bank are often described as “outposts” in the media and in political discourse. Outposts, making up approxi-mately 1% of Israeli settlements, are commonly divided into two distinct categories: unauthorized and illegal. Un-authorized 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-gal settlements have been constructed on privately-owned Palestinian land. There are approximately 100 such out-posts, 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 Is-raeli government gradually decreased the number of per-mits 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. Discus-sions between the government and the settlers over evacua-tion, 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 disman-tled many of these new outposts, which continue to be rebuilt.

Understanding the Settlements

9

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 in-ternational 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 the historic background of the Jewish people’s connection to the land of Israel, the legality or illegality of the settle-ments and several other issues related to the settlements such as Security, Economy and Human Rights.

Jerusalem and Judea & Samaria in Historical & Religious TraditionJerusalem has always been the focal point of Jewish po-litical 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 Jerusa-lem – 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 back-drop to Jewish rituals, calendar, pilgrimages and celebra-tions 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 prac-tical desire to bring about a messianic age of redemption.

When the Jews were exiled and their access to Jerusa-lem 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, en-tombed 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 Jew-ish 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 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,

David and Solomon’s Kingdoms, 1077-997 BCE, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The David Project

10

Rebecca and Leah) and the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) are believed to be buried in the Tomb of the Patri-archs 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 his-torical 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.

Legal IssuesArguments 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 Pro-tection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”). The 4th Ge-neva 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 trans-fer 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 Is-raeli 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 at-tempt 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 con-trary 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 Occu-pied Palestinian Territory.” This ruling starts with an un-derstanding that the British Mandate for Palestine was de-signed to create a state for Palestinians. It rejects 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 inter-preting the Geneva Conventions in an opposite way, but also by citing past agreements and obligations. The Brit-ish Mandate encouraged Jewish immigration to the re-gion 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 ar-gument 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 re-gime, 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 negoti-ations. 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 recog-nized 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.

Understanding the Settlements

11

  According to former legal advisor to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Alan Baker, regarding the responsi-bilities 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 juris-diction pending the outcome of permanent status nego-tiations, there is no specific provision either restricting planning, zoning, and continued construction by either party, of towns, settlements, and villages or freezing such construction.”

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 SettlementsThough the legality issue remains at the forefront of the de-bate, there are numerous other issues associated with the set-tlements, and more expansively, Israeli control over the West Bank. These range from the security the land provides as buf-fer zone to Israel to economic considerations for all parties. Policymakers also have to take into account the moral and so-cial 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 Israe-lis living in these communities wield considerable clout making it difficult for leaders (especially those from right of center par-ties) 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 view-points and positions. Despite the attention this issue contin-ues to receive, the likelihood that a satisfactory, agreed-upon resolution will develop in the near future remains slim.

CONCLUSIONDebates 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 en-gage in more thoughtful and nuanced discussions about this issue.

One vital point that can contribute to the ongoing discus-sion 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 po-litical ramifications to Israelis and Palestinians alike.

We hope that the information and additional context provid-ed in this document provides the foundation for meaningful conversations and additional learning.

The David Project

12

APPENDIX I: GLOSSARY

Areas A/B/CFollowing 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 PalestineEstablished 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 DisengagementA 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 LineThe 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.

HamasHamas is an Islamic Palestinian terrorist organization that was formed in 1987 by more militant members of the Pal-estinian 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 AccordsSigned in August, 1993, the Oslo Accords established the framework for a negotiated two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

Partition PlanIn 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 com-mittee 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 As-sembly 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.

Understanding the Settlements

13

APPENDIX II: ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Articles01. 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.

Books14. 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, 1800-1948. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2001.

The David Project

14

Websites20. 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

Maps23. 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 Documents28. 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 Texts32. 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

Understanding the Settlements

15

APPENDIX III: LAND ISSUES IN THE LEVANTLand 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 ever-evolving 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 own-ership 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 Brit-ish 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 pro-hibitive 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 ef-fectively 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) pur-chased 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 Agree-ment, 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 com-mitted 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 Pal-estine 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 retain-ing 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.

• 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.

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 in-depth 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.

P.O. Box 52390 Boston MA 02205617-428-0012 • info@davidproject.org

www.davidproject.org