Myths
and Facts - Settlements
MYTH
“Israel has no right to be in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are
illegal.”
FACT
Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — since ancient
times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the
territories in recent decades was during Jordan's rule from 1948 to
1967. This prohibition was contrary to the Mandate for Palestine adopted
by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a
Jewish state, and specifically encouraged “close settlement by Jews on
the land.”
Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are
“illegal.” Stephen Schwebel, formerly President of the International
Court of Justice, notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize
and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also
observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal,
security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again
from that territory.1
According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for
Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives
Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow
noted, "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967
"until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved,"
Rostow wrote.2
MYTH
“Settlements are an obstacle to peace.”
FACT
Settlements have never been an obstacle to peace.
* From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the
Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.
* From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic
settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to
negotiate peace with Israel.
* In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater
settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to
Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally,
Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part
of the agreement with Egypt.
* One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months,
hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace
process. But none would.
* In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements
were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the
territories was growing.
* Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the
Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent.
This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo
accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.
* In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of
settlement, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the
conflict.
Settlement activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forced the
Palestinians and other Arabs to reconsider the view that time is on
their side. References are frequently made in Arabic writings to how
long it took to expel the Crusaders and how it might take a similar
length of time to do the same to the Zionists. The growth in the Jewish
population in the territories forced the Arabs to question this tenet.
"The Palestinians now realize," said Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, "that
time is now on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and
create facts, and that the only way out of this dilemma is face-to-face
negotiations."3
Many Israelis nevertheless have concerns about the expansion of
settlements. Some consider them provocative, others worry that the
settlers are particularly vulnerable, and have been targets of repeated
Palestinian terrorist attacks. To defend them, large numbers of soldiers
are deployed who would otherwise be training and preparing for a
possible future conflict with an Arab army. Some Israelis also object to
the amount of money that goes to communities beyond the Green Line, and
special subsidies that have been provided to make housing there more
affordable. Still others feel the settlers are providing a first line of
defense and developing land that rightfully belongs to Israel.
The disposition of settlements is a matter for the final status
negotiations. The question of where the final border will be between
Israel and a Palestinian entity will likely be influenced by the
distribution of these Jewish towns. Israel wants to incorporate as many
settlers as possible within its borders while the Palestinians want to
expel all Jews from the territory they control.
If Israel withdraws toward the 1967 border unilaterally, or as part of a
political settlement, many settlers will face one or more options:
remain in the territories, expulsion from their homes, or voluntary
resettlement in Israel. The impediment to peace is not the existence of
those settlements, it is the Palestinians' unwillingness to accept a
state next to Israel instead of one replacing Israel.
MYTH
“The Geneva Convention prohibits the construction of Jewish settlements
in occupied territories.”
FACT
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people
of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a
result of a war. The intention was to insure that local populations who
came under occupation would not be forced to move. This is in no way
relevant to the settlement issue. Jews are not being forced to go to the
West Bank and Gaza Strip; on the contrary, they are voluntarily moving
back to places where they, or their ancestors, once lived before being
expelled by others. In addition, those territories never legally
belonged to either Jordan or Egypt, and certainly not to the
Palestinians, who were never the sovereign authority in any part of
Palestine. "The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in
every way to the right of the local population to live there," according
to Professor Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political
Affairs.4
As a matter of policy, moreover, Israel does not requisition private
land for the establishment of settlements. Housing construction is
allowed on private land only after determining that no private rights
will be violated. The settlements also do not displace Arabs living in
the territories. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every
Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced
to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been
built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near
Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave.
“Settlements in various parts of the so-called occupied area... [were]
the result of a war which they [the Israelis] won.”
— U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld4a
MYTH
“Israel is provocatively settling Jews in predominantly Arab towns, and
has established so many facts on the ground territorial compromise is no
longer possible.”
FACT
Altogether, built-up settlement area is less than two percent of the
disputed territories. An estimated 80 percent of the settlers live in
what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem and
Tel Aviv. These are areas that virtually the entire Jewish population
believes Israel must retain to ensure its security, and even President
Clinton indicated in December 2000 should remain under permanent Israeli
sovereignty.4b
Strategic concerns have led both Labor and Likud governments to
establish settlements. The objective is to secure a Jewish majority in
key strategic regions of the West Bank, such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem
corridor, the scene of heavy fighting in several Arab-Israeli wars.
Still, when Arab-Israeli peace talks began in late 1991, more than 80
percent of the West Bank contained no settlements or only sparsely
populated ones.5
Today, approximately 225,000 Jews live in roughly 150 communities in the
West Bank. The overwhelming majority of these settlements have fewer
than 1,000 citizens and several have only a few dozen residents.
Analysts have noted that 80 percent of the Jews could be brought within
Israel's borders with minor modifications of the "Green Line."
MYTH
“Israel must evacuate all Jewish settlements before a final peace
agreement can be achieved with the Palestinians.”
FACT
The implication of many settlement critics is that it would be better
for peace if the West Bank were Judenrein (empty of Jews). This idea
would be called anti-Semitic if Jews were barred from living in New
York, Paris or London; barring them from living in the West Bank, the
cradle of Jewish civilization, would be no less objectionable.
Any peace settlement would inevitably permit Jews who preferred to live
outside the State of Israel under Palestinian authority to live in the
West Bank — just as Arabs today live in Israel. No Israeli government
would be expected to enforce the kind of policies instituted by the
British by which large areas of Palestine were declared off-limits to
Jews.
MYTH
“At Camp David, during Jimmy Carter's presidency, Israel agreed to halt
the construction of settlements for five years. Within months, Israel
had violated the accords by establishing new settlements on the West
Bank.”
FACT
The five-year period agreed to at Camp David was the time allotted to
Palestinian self-government in the territories. The Israeli moratorium
on West Bank settlements agreed to by Prime Minister Menachem Begin was
only for three months. Begin kept this agreement.
Israel's position on the matter received support from an unexpected
source: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who said: "We agreed to put a
freeze on the establishment of settlements for the coming three months,
the time necessary in our estimation for signing the peace treaty."6
The Palestinians rejected the Camp David Accords and therefore the
provisions related to them were never implemented. Had they accepted the
terms offered by Begin, it is very likely the self-governing authority
would have developed long before now into the state the Palestinians say
they desire.
MYTH
“U.S. loan guarantees provided Israel with billions of dollars from
American taxpayers that was used to build settlements in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip to house Soviet Jews.”
FACT
Since 1989, approximately one million Jews have immigrated to Israel.
The majority, roughly 80 percent, have come from the former Soviet
Union. Israel must provide these immigrants with food, shelter,
employment and training. The task is even more challenging when it comes
to absorbing Jews from relatively undeveloped countries like Ethiopia,
who often must be taught everything from using a flush toilet to how to
withdraw money from a bank. To meet these challenges, Israel has
invested billions of dollars. In addition, the American Jewish community
has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars through the United
Jewish Appeal’s Operation Exodus campaign and other philanthropies.
Still, the task was so daunting, Israel turned to the United States for
help. To put the challenge in perspective, consider that the United
States — a country of 250 million people and a multi-trillion dollar GNP
— admits roughly 125,000 refugees a year. In 1990 alone, nearly 200,000
Jews immigrated to Israel.
The United States led the Free World in helping secure the freedom of
Soviet Jews. Since 1972, Congress has appropriated funds to help
resettle Soviet Jews in Israel. Since 1992, $80 million has been
earmarked for this purpose.
After the Soviet Union opened its gates, the trickle of immigrants
became a flood — immigration from that country skyrocketed from fewer
than 13,000 people in 1989 to more than 185,000 in 1990. Israel then
asked for a different type of help. The United States responded in 1990
by approving $400 million in loan guarantees to help Israel house its
newcomers.
Guarantees are not grants — not one penny of U.S. government funds is
transferred to Israel. The U.S. simply cosigns loans for Israel that
give bankers confidence to lend Israel money at more favorable terms:
lower interest rates and longer repayment periods — as much as 30 years
instead of only five to seven. These loan guarantees have no effect on
domestic programs or guarantees. Moreover, they have no impact on U.S.
taxpayers unless Israel were to default on its loans, something it has
never done. In addition, much of the money Israel borrows is spent in
the United States to purchase American goods.
When it became clear the flood of refugees was even greater than
anticipated, and tens of thousands continued to arrive every month,
Israel realized it needed more help and asked the United States for an
additional $10 billion in guarantees.
In 1992, Congress authorized the President to provide guarantees of
loans to Israel made as a result of Israel's extraordinary humanitarian
effort to resettle and absorb immigrants. These guarantees were made
available in annual increments of $2 billion over five years. While the
cost to the U.S. government was zero, Israel paid the United States
annual fees amounting to several hundred million dollars to cover
administrative and other costs.
Under existing guidelines, no U.S. foreign assistance to Israel can be
used beyond Israel's pre-1967 borders. Moreover, to underline
dissatisfaction with Israel’s settlement policies, the President was
authorized to reduce the annual loan guarantees by the amount equal to
the estimated value of Israeli activities in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip undertaken the previous year.
Thus, as the table indicates, the State Department determined that
Israel spent just under $1.4 billion for settlement activity from
1993-1996. The President was authorized, however, to rescind deductions
when making the funds available to Israel was in the security interests
of the United States. President Clinton used this authority in the last
three years of the program, so the actual reduction in the amount of
guarantees available to Israel was $773.8 million.
The money related to settlements also had nothing to do with the new
immigrants, none of whom were forced to live in the territories. In
fact, only a tiny percentage chose to do so.
By all measures, the U.S. loan guarantee program was a huge success.
Israel used the borrowed funds primarily to increase the amount of
foreign currency available to the country’s business sector and to
support infrastructure projects, such as roads, bridges, sewage and
electrical plants. The guarantees also helped Israel to provide housing
and jobs for virtually all of the new immigrants. Unemployment among
immigrants, which peaked at 35 percent, has dropped to 6 percent,
roughly the same rate as for the rest of the population.
Besides contributing to Israel's success in absorbing immigrants while
maintaining economic growth, the loan guarantee program also sent a
strong message to the private international capital markets about the
confidence the U.S. has in Israel's ability to bear this potential
economic burden. Consequently, Israel's credit rating was upgraded and
Israel can borrow hundreds of millions of dollars in international
financial markets on its own.
MYTH
“Israel has no right to build homes in Har Homa because it is part of
Arab East Jerusalem and is yet another settlement project that will
impede peace.”
FACT
Building in Har Homa represents the last phase of a larger municipal
housing plan for the city of Jerusalem begun in 1968. The entire area of
Har Homa is less than 460 acres. When the project began, it was
completely vacant and is not adjacent to any Arab population.
The original decision to go forward with construction on Har Homa was
made by Labor Prime Minister Shimon Peres in 1996; construction did not
proceed because the issue was tied up in Israeli courts. The Israeli
Supreme Court rejected appeals by both Jewish and Arab landowners and
approved the expropriation of land for the project. The expropriations
were undertaken on the basis of the fundamental common law principle of
eminent domain, allowing governments to expropriate land from private
owners for public use. Most of the land — 75% — was expropriated from
Jews.
The construction plan was approved by the Netanyahu government after the
Court's ruling to address a severe housing shortage among both Arabs and
Jews in Jerusalem. The project will ultimately include 6,500 housing
units, as well as schools, parks, public buildings and commercial and
industrial zones. Construction plans for 3,015 housing units in 10 Arab
neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be implemented simultaneously with the
Har Homa project.
“I believe that we should annex the Har Homa neighborhood, a
neighborhood against which my movement fought a stupid campaign. Har
Homa has a territorial contiguity with the State of Israel. To say that
Har Homa disturbs the contiguity of the Palestiian territory, and to
turn this in to a possible cause for war is rubbish, it's stupidity.”
— Peace Now leader Professor Amiram Goldblum7
Nothing in any of the agreements signed between the Palestinians and
Israelis preclude building in Jerusalem. Both Prime Ministers Yitzhak
Rabin and Shimon Peres made clear they had no intention of refraining
from building in Jerusalem and never slowed down the pace of
construction in the capital. Different sides of the Israeli political
spectrum, including many Labor Party leaders, urged the Netanyahu
government to proceed with the Har Homa project.
The Palestinians have also claimed that Har Homa will isolate them from
the West Bank or limit their access to Jerusalem. When Har Homa is
completed, however, considerable areas of territorial continuity between
the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem and the Palestinian areas of
the West Bank will remain. Palestinians will also have the same access
to Jerusalem they presently enjoy.
MYTH
“The Mitchell Report made clear that Israeli settlement policy is as
much to blame for the breakdown of the peace process as Palestinian
violence and that a settlement freeze is necessary to end the violence.”
FACT
In November 2000, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell was appointed to
lead a fact-finding committee to investigate the cause of the "al-Aksa
Intifada" and explore how to prevent future violence. The report his
committee issued did recommend a settlement freeze — as one of more than
15 different confidence-building measures — but Mitchell and Warren
Rudman, another member of the committee, made clear that settlement
activity was in no way equated with Palestinian terrorism. They
explicitly stated in a letter clarifying their view: "We want to go
further and make it clear that we do not in any way equate Palestinian
terrorism with Israeli settlement activity, 'seemingly' or otherwise."
Mitchell and Rudman also disputed the idea that the cessation of
settlement construction and terrorism were linked. "The immediate aim
must be to end the violence....Part of the effort to end the violence
must include an immediate resumption of security cooperation between the
government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority aimed at preventing
violence and combating terrorism." They added, "Regarding terrorism, we
call upon the Palestinian Authority, as a confidence-building measure,
to make clear through concrete action, to Israelis and Palestinians
alike, that terror is reprehensible and unacceptable, and the
Palestinian Authority is to make a total effort to prevent terrorist
operations and to punish perpetrators acting in its jurisdiction."8
MYTH
“Anyone who defends settlements is rationalizing the perpetual
occupation of the Palestinian people and their land.”
FACT
While making a strong case for its right to the territories, the Israeli
government also acknowledges that Palestinians have legitimate claims to
the area and that a compromise can be reached through negotiations:
Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory
over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace
process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory
based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and
its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory
was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli
control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time,
Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims
to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to
conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a
compromise on this issue.9
In fact, in the 2000 negotiations at Camp David and the White House,
Prime Minister Barak reportedly offered to dismantle at least 63
settlements.10 The Palestinians rejected the proposal.
In 2004, Ariel Sharon proposed a plan to disengage from the Gaza Strip
and parts of the West Bank. That proposal also would lead to the removal
of a number of settlements. At the same time, Sharon has made clear that
large settlement blocs will remain intact. An estimated 80 percent of
the settlers live in what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities
such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Virtually the entire Jewish population
believes Israel must retain these areas to ensure its security, and that
they could be brought within Israel's borders with minor modifications
of the 1967 border.
Sharon singled out four specific settlement blocs that, by consensus,
will ultimately be incorporated into Israel, and it is evident why when
you take into account their populations: Ariel (16,000 in 2001 and now
closer to 30,000 when surrounding communities are included), Maale
Adumim (25,800 in 2001 and now closer to 40,000), Givat Zeev (10,500 in
2001), and the Etzion Bloc (15 communities with an approximate
population of 20,000). These four blocs include more than 40 percent of
the total Jewish population of the West Bank. It is inconceivable that
Israel would evacuate such large cities, even after a peace agreement
with the Palestinians, and Yasser Arafat grudgingly accepted at Camp
David the idea that the large settlement blocs would be part of Israel.
“Clearly, in the permanent agreement we will have to give up some of the
Jewish settlements.”
— Prime Minister Ariel Sharon11
MYTH
“The peace agreements Israel signed with the Palestinians prohibit
settlement activity.”
FACT
Neither the Declaration of Principles of September 13, 1993, nor the
Interim Agreement contains any provisions prohibiting or restricting the
establishment or expansion of Jewish communities in the West Bank or
Gaza Strip. While a clause in the accords prohibits changing the status
of the territories, it was intended to ensure only that neither side
would take unilateral measures to alter the legal status of the areas
(such as annexation or declaration of statehood).
MYTH
“The Red Cross has declared that Israeli settlements are a war crime.”
FACT
The Jerusalem representative of the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC), Rene Kosimik, on May 17, 2001, said, "The installation of
a population of the occupying power in occupied territory is considered
an illegal move, it is a grave breach. In principal it is a war crime."
Rep. Eliot Engel protested to the President of the ICRC, Jakob
Kellenberger, who replied, "The expression 'war crime' has not been used
by the ICRC in relation to Israeli settlements in the occupied
territories in the past and will not be used anymore in the present
context." He added, "The reference made to it on May 17 was
inappropriate and will not be repeated."12
“If settlement-building is now concentrated in areas that the
Palestinians themselves acknowledge will remain part of Israel in any
future peace agreement, why the obsessive focus on settlements as an
‘obstacle to peace?’”
— Yossi Klein Halevi13
MYTH
“Israel’s plan to link Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim is meant to sabotage
the peace process.”
FACT
In March 2005, Israel announced the intention to build 3,500 homes on a
strip of territory that has been declared state land between the
community of Ma'aleh Adumim and Jerusalem.14 The decision immediately
caused an uproar as Palestinian officials claimed it was “a kind of
terror against the peace process and against the Palestinian people” and
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said it was at odds with U.S.
policy.15
This is a good example of where it is important to understand not only
the politics of the issue, but the geography.
Ma'aleh Adumim is a settlement in the West Bank. It is also a suburb of
Israel's capital, barely three miles outside the city limits, a
ten-minute drive away. Ma'aleh Adumim is not a recently constructed
outpost on a hilltop; it is a 23-year-old community that is popular
because it is clean, safe, and close to where many residents work. It is
also the largest Jewish settlement in the territories, with a population
of 32,000.
Because of its size and location, it is understood by both Israelis and
Palestinians that Ma'aleh Adumim will not be dismantled or evacuated; it
will be part of Israel after a peace agreement is reached. That is why
the recently announced housing plan was conceived during Prime Minister
Rabin's term. The development was part of his plan to link all of the
large settlement blocs just outside Jerusalem's city limits.
To understand why the plan has the support of Israel's majors parties,
just look at a map. If Ma'aleh Adumim is not linked to Jerusalem, the
city would be an island. We hear a lot about Palestinian concerns about
the contiguity of a future Palestinian state, but the same principal
applies to the future boundaries of Israel.
Rendering of Clinton proposal showing Ma'aleh Adumim incorporated
in Israel without affecting the contiguity of a Palestinian state (dark
shading)*
Why should it be a problem for Israel to fill in the empty gap between
the city and this bedroom community? The corridor is approximately 3,250
acres and does not have any inhabitants, so no Palestinians will be
displaced. And why shouldn't Israel be able to build in and around the
city that the U.S. Congress said “should be recognized as the capital of
the State of Israel” and “should remain an undivided city”?
In his April 14, 2004, letter to Prime Minister Sharon, President Bush
acknowledged that Israel would incorporate some settlements inside its
borders:
In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing
major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the
outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return
to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a
two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.
Given that Ma'aleh Adumim is the largest of these population centers,
the decision to develop around the town seems consistent with the policy
expressed in Bush's letter. It is also consistent, incidentally, with
the Clinton plan.
Would the completion of the building project known as E-1 prevent the
creation of a contiguous Palestinian state? Again, a look at the map
shows that it would not. The security fence is being built roughly along
the Green Line, and around the major settlement blocs, such as Ma'aleh
Adumim, which are expected to be within the final negotiated borders of
the state. The area of the West Bank beyond the fence is contiguous.
MYTH
“Israel must dismantle all the settlements in the West Bank or peace is
impossible.”
FACT
When serious negotiations begin over the final status of the West Bank,
battle lines will be drawn over which settlements should be incorporated
into Israel, and which must be evacuated. In August 2005, Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon acknowledged that “not all the settlements that are today
in Judea and Samaria will remain Israeli.”
In Gaza, Israel’s intent was always to withdraw completely, and no
settlements were viewed as vital to Israel for economic, security, or
demographic reasons. The situation in the West Bank is completely
different because Jews have strong historic and religious connections to
the area stretching back centuries. Moreover, the West Bank is an area
with strategic significance because of its proximity to Israel’s
heartland and the fact that roughly one-quarter of Israel’s water
resources are located there.
The disengagement from Gaza involved only 21 settlements and
approximately 8,000 Jews; more than 100 settlements with a population of
roughly 250,000 are located in Judea and Samaria. Any new evacuation
from the West Bank will involve another gut-wrenching decision that most
settlers and their supporters will oppose with even greater ferocity
than the Gaza disengagement. Most Israelis, however, favor withdrawing
from small, isolated communities, and about half of the settlements have
fewer than 500 residents.
Approximately two-thirds of the Jews in the West Bank live in five
settlement “blocs” that are all near the 1967 border. Most Israelis
believe these blocs should become part of Israel when final borders are
drawn and Prime Minister Sharon has repeatedly said the large settlement
blocs will “remain in our hands.”
As the table shows, these are large communities with thousands of
residents. Evacuating them would be the equivalent of dismantling major
American cities the size of Maryland’s capital, Annapolis, Juneau,
Alaska, or Augusta, Georgia.
Ma’ale Adumim is a suburb of Israel’s capital, barely three miles
outside Jerusalem’s city limits, a ten-minute drive away. Ma’ale Adumim
is not a recently constructed outpost on a hilltop; it is a 30-year-old
community that is popular because it is clean, safe, and close to where
many residents work. It is also the largest Jewish city in the
territories, with a population of 27,300. Approximately 6,000 people
live in surrounding settlements that are included in the Ma’ale bloc.
Israel has long planned to fill in the empty gap between Jerusalem and
this bedroom community (referred to as the E1 project). The corridor is
approximately 3,250 acres and does not have any inhabitants, so no
Palestinians would be displaced. According to the Clinton plan, Ma’ale
was to be part of Israel.
The Gush Etzion Bloc consists of 18 communities with a population of
more than 42,000 just 10 minutes from Jerusalem. Jews lived in this area
prior to 1948, but the Jordanian Legion destroyed the settlements and
killed 240 women and children during Israel’s War of Independence. After
Israel recaptured the area in 1967, descendants of those early settlers
reestablished the community. The largest of the settlements is the city
of Betar Illit with more than 24,000 residents.
The Givat Ze’ev bloc includes five communities just northwest of
Jerusalem. Givat Ze’ev, with a population of nearly 11,000, is by far
the largest.
Modiin Illit is a bloc with four communities. The city of Modiin Illit
is by far the largest with more than 26,000 people situated just over
the Green Line, about 23 miles northwest of Jerusalem and the same
distance east of Tel Aviv.
Ariel is now the heart of the second most populous bloc of settlements.
The city is located just 25 miles east of Tel Aviv and 31 miles north of
Jerusalem. Ariel and the surrounding communities expand Israel’s narrow
waist (which was just 9 miles wide prior to 1967) and ensure that Israel
has a land route to the Jordan Valley in case Israel needs to fight a
land war to the east. It is more controversial than the other consensus
settlements because it is the furthest from the 1949 Armistice Line,
extending approximately 12 miles into the West Bank. Nevertheless,
Barak’s proposal at Camp David included Ariel among the settlement blocs
to be annexed to Israel; the Clinton plan also envisioned incorporating
Ariel within the new borders of Israel.
Most peace plans assumed that Israel would annex sufficient territory to
incorporate 75-80% of the Jews currently living in the West Bank. Using
the figures in the table above, however, it appears that Israel would
fall short of that demographic goal even if these six blocs were
annexed. The total population of these communities is approximately
160,000, which is roughly 64% of the estimated 250,000 Jews living in
Judea and Samaria. The expectation, however, is that roughly one-third
of the Jews living in other settlements will move into these blocs,
which would bring the total close to 80%, but still require Israel to
evacuate another 50,000 people.
In 1995, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said Israel would keep the
settlement blocs of Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev, and Gush Etzion. Prior
to the 2000 Camp David Summit, even Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat
said the Palestinians could accept Israel holding onto Ma’ale Adumim and
Givat Zeev.
At Camp David, Israel insisted that 80% of the Jewish residents of Judea
and Samaria would be in settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty.
President Clinton agreed and proposed that Israel annex 4-6 percent of
the West Bank for three settlement blocs to accomplish this demographic
objective and swap some territory within Israel in exchange.
Recognizing the demographics of the area, President Bush acknowledged
the inevitability of some Israeli towns in the West Bank being annexed
to Israel in his 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon. In his meeting a
year later with Palestinian Authority President Abbas, however, he
seemed to hedge his support by saying that any such decision would have
to be mutually agreed to by Israelis and Palestinians. Nevertheless, the
future border is likely to approximate the route of the security fence,
given the Israeli prerequisite (with U.S. approval) of incorporating
most settlers within Israel.
Would the incorporation of settlement blocs prevent the creation of a
contiguous Palestinian state? A look at a map shows that it would not.
The total area of these communities is only about 1.5% of the West Bank.
A kidney-shaped state linked to the Gaza Strip by a secure passage would
be contiguous. Some argue that the E1 project linking Ma’ale Adumim to
Jerusalem would cutoff east Jerusalem, but even that is not necessarily
true as Israel has proposed constructing a four-lane underpass to
guarantee free passage between the West Bank and the Arab sections of
Jerusalem.
Ultimately, Israel may decide to unilaterally engage from the West Bank
and determine which settlements it will incorporate within the borders
it delineates. Israel would prefer, however, to negotiate a peace treaty
with the Palestinians that would specify which Jewish communities will
remain intact within the mutually agreed border of Israel, and which
will need to be evacuated. Israel will undoubtedly insist that some or
all of the “consensus” blocs become part of Israel.
Notes
1American Journal of International Law, (April, 1970), pp. 345-46.
2New Republic, (October 21, 1991), p. 14.
3Washington Post, (November 1, 1991).
4American Journal of International Law, (1990, vol 84), p. 72.
4aUSA Today, (August 7, 2002).
4bHa’aretz, (September 13, 2001).
5Jerusalem Post, (October 22, 1991).
6Middle East News Agency, (September 20, 1978).
7Iton Yerushalaym, (June 8, 2000).
8Letter from George Mitchell and Warren Rudman to ADL Director Abraham
Foxman, (May 11, 2001).
9Israeli Foreign Ministry, "Israeli Settlements and International Law,"
(May 2001).
10Temporary International Presence in Hebron.
11Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Address to the Likud Central Committee,
(January 5, 2004).
12Jerusalem Post, (May 24, 2001).
13Los Angeles Times, (June 20, 2001).
14“Mofaz okays 3,500 housing units in Ma'aleh Adumim,” Jerusalem Post,
(March 20, 2005).
15Etgar Lefkovits, “Building controversy,” Jerusalem Post, (March 28,
2005).
From:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf22a.html
|
|
