UN No. 2334, which demanded that Tel Aviv immediately stop settlement activities in the West Bank, the problem of the occupied Palestinian territories remains unresolved. Of the 3 million people living in the West Bank today, including East Jerusalem, approximately 20% are Israeli citizens. And this number continues to grow. TASS recalls the history of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories and explains why the actions of the UN and the international community cannot put an end to expansion and the conclusion of a peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians.
How it all began
From 1922 to 1948, what is now Israel and Palestine was under the British Mandate. However, then, against the background of the aggravation of the Arab-Jewish conflict in this territory, it was decided to divide the lands, creating two states: Israel for the Jews and Palestine for the Arabs. On November 29, 1947, the newly created United Nations (UN) adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, and the creation of the State of Israel was proclaimed on the end of its mandate, May 14, 1948.
However, Israel's neighbors, the Arab states, who viewed the emergence of this country as another manifestation of European colonial policy, were dissatisfied with this decision. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen declared war on Israel. It lasted until 1949, and during this time Israeli troops managed to occupy more territory than provided for in the original UN plan. During peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine, a ceasefire line was drawn. Green paint was used to draw it, so the border was called the “green line”. Subsequently, the so-called separation barrier ran along its contour - a 703-kilometer fence separating Israel from the West Bank.
The fragile ceasefire lasted until 1967, when the Six-Day War broke out. In the short period from June 5 to 10, Israeli troops captured not only the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, but also East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. Israel was faced with the question of what to do with the West Bank:
annex him, by granting Israeli citizenship to the 1.1 million Arabs living there at the time;
return back under the control of his enemy - Jordan;
allow local residents create their own autonomous state - Palestine.
This issue has become the subject of widespread debate in Israel. Many citizens viewed the victory in the Six-Day War as a sign that Jews were destined to reclaim the territory where the history of the Jewish people began - we are talking about Judea and Samaria, which makes up most of the West Bank. Amid these discussions, thousands of Israelis began to move into the West Bank without any permission from the state or international organizations. However, it was no longer possible to stop them, and from then on any political discussions about the ownership of the West Bank had to take into account the Israeli presence in these territories.
The UN called the settlements illegal, which was recorded in 1979 in the corresponding Security Council resolution No. 446, which read: “Israel’s policy and practice of establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab occupied territories since 1967 has no legal basis and represents a serious obstacle to the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East." As a result, two points of view regarding settlements emerged: the Israeli one, according to which Jews are only moving to previously uninhabited lands that they conquered during the war and are of great spiritual significance to them; and international, according to which Israel is expanding and colonizing territory that does not belong to it.
Divide and populate
In subsequent decades, more and more branches of government in Israel began to support settlement of the West Bank, mobilizing public opinion on their side. The country's Ministry of Construction, together with the Ministry of Defense, developed and implemented a plan for the development of the region, one of the main points of which was the creation of road infrastructure to connect settlements into one transport network. Thus, from several scattered settlements, the Israeli settlers became an institutionalized group, fully supported by Tel Aviv. Of course, this state of affairs did not suit the Palestinians, who protested against expansion, including using force.
To end the violence, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, US President Bill Clinton and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, a document that established Palestinian self-government and divided the West Bank into three zones:
A, where Palestine has full political and military control (this is approximately 19% of the West Bank);
B, where Palestine has political but not military control (22%);
C- a zone under full political and military control of Israel (59–60% of the territory). It is in Area C that Israeli settlements are located, connected to the rest of the country by a road network. Water and mineral resources are also concentrated there, as well as the most suitable land for agriculture. Palestinians have limited access to all these resources, which greatly impacts their economic potential.
Another wave of resettlement sentiment swept the country in August 2005, when Israel evacuated 8.5 thousand Jews from Gaza and the northern part of the West Bank (northern Samaria). As the number of settlers grew, the infrastructure in the colonized territories also improved: new houses and schools, hospitals and even their own university appeared. In the 50 years since Israel gained control of the West Bank in 1967, Israel has built some 120 settlements in the area. They are considered one of the main obstacles to the resumption of the peace process. In addition to these 120 settlements, there are about 100 more illegal, even according to the Israeli authorities, outposts and buildings in the West Bank, which occupy a total of 800 hectares of private Palestinian land and represent 4 thousand housing units.
The current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also consistently taking steps to continue the construction of settlements in the Palestinian territories. This is also why he reacted so emotionally to the UN resolution demanding that Israel immediately stop settlement activities. “According to the information we have, this resolution was, without a doubt, initiated by the Obama administration, which stood behind the scenes, prepared the language and demanded its adoption,” the prime minister said. “The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel from this conspiracy at the UN, but also entered into it behind the scenes." At the vote on December 23, 2016, the document was supported by 14 members of the UN Security Council, including Russia (the US representative abstained from voting).
American factor
After the 2016 resolution, Israel stated that it would not comply with the provisions of the UN resolution: settlement activities would continue, and existing settlements would not be evacuated. Prime Minister Netanyahu promised to do “everything possible to ensure that Israel is not harmed by this shameful resolution.” In particular, it was announced that the country would reconsider its relations with the UN: first of all, regarding the size of Israel’s contributions to the UN and the activities of its units in the country. According to the Israeli publication Haaretz, the first concrete act of reaction to the resolution was the cancellation of the visit of Ukrainian Prime Minister Vladimir Groysman to Israel (Kyiv also supported the resolution).
Much in the future will depend on the behavior of Israel's main ally, the United States. The anti-settlement resolution was passed during the administration of President Barack Obama, whose relationship with Netanyahu was frosty. The White House explained the decision to abstain from voting at the UN by saying that Netanyahu’s settlement policy did not lead to progress in the negotiation process.
Donald Trump is considered to be a supporter of a more pro-Israel position: even during the election race, he promised to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, whose status within the UN is disputed by the vast majority of Islamic countries. The views of Trump and the current leadership of Israel also coincide in the fact that they both have mistrust regarding the Iran nuclear deal (the Israeli prime minister spoke in the US Congress in March 2015 against the agreement on the Iran nuclear program, which was promoted by the Obama White House). At the same time, Trump intends to make peace in the Middle East by resuming negotiations between Israel and Palestine. UN sanctions, according to the politician, hinder the peace process.
"Yesterday's big defeat for Israel at the UN will make peace negotiations much more difficult. It's sad, but we will get there anyway."
Settlement activity received a new impetus after Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state on December 6, 2017. Just a month later, the human rights organization Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) reported that the Planning Committee of the Israeli Civil Administration in the West Bank, a special agency of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, had approved plans for the construction of 1,122 apartments and single-family houses in 20 settlements, and also published tenders for the construction of 651 housing units in the West Bank. In addition, the Israeli government announced its intention to legalize the status of the illegal settlement outpost of Havat Gilad in the West Bank in response to the January 9 killing of its resident Rabbi Raziel Shevach.
So it is possible that under the “pro-Israeli” President Donald Trump, the expansion of the Palestinian territories will continue with renewed vigor, which means that the conclusion of a peace treaty will be delayed again.
"Deal of the Century"
The road map for a Middle East settlement (or the “deal of the century,” as the Americans call it) states that the US administration approves the annexation of large Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank and Jerusalem. At the same time, according to available data, Netanyahu proposed to include 15% of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, Trump insists on only 10%. The White House intends to officially unveil these plans by April. On Tuesday, February 20, the United States notified the UN Security Council that a draft Palestinian-Israeli settlement was under development.
In the meantime, there are fierce international discussions surrounding the situation with Israeli settlements. In January 2018, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley accused the Palestinian leadership of not being sufficiently committed to a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In response, the official representative of the State of Palestine in negotiations with Israel, Saeb Erekat, demanded that she “shut up<...>and realize that the problem is the Israeli occupation and the policy that it [Israel] will continue to pursue." To this, the US permanent representative to the UN stated that she would continue to "tell the harsh truth", the meaning of which: only the path of compromise that allowed Egypt and Jordan making peace with Israel in 1994 and returning its occupied territories would lead to a resolution of the conflict.
However, the intransigence of positions prevents the achievement of this compromise. The Palestinians are ready for a minor exchange of territories with Israel, but at the same time they demand full recognition of the state with its capital in East Jerusalem. The Israelis are not going to cede the occupied territories, and also reject the possibility of dividing Jerusalem. According to the special coordinator of the Middle East peace process, Nikolai Mladenov, the situation is aggravated by the fact that the negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians are unequal, since the latter are under military occupation.
In these conditions, Russia could play a mediating role between all parties to the conflict, Nabil Shaath, adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, is convinced. But, according to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, Russia does not have a ready-made recipe for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Moscow believes that Israeli settlement activity in the Palestinian territories is illegal, and the chances of achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East are becoming less and less every day.
Arthur Gromov
So, as Carrie threatened during negotiations with Netanyahu in 2013, we are being declared apartheid. This time it was done by the New York Times. Reason: The Likud party advocated for the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria to formally come under the control of a civil administration, instead of a military administration. What is apartheid about?
According to anti-Semites, and also according to some American Jews who voted for Obama and Clinton, the Jewish settlements of Judea and Samaria are occupied Palestinian territory. Acquiring territory unilaterally, not on the basis of a delimitation agreement, is illegal.
The removal of the Jewish settlements of Judea and Samaria from the control of the army would mean the formal annexation of the territory of the Jewish settlements. Yes, that's right, I agree with that! We have the legal right, and even the obligation, to annex the territory of Jewish settlements. But why do we have such a right? And why is the transfer of Jews from Judea and Samaria, which anti-Semites are seeking, illegal?
Regarding settlements, our enemies (and even some of our friends and neutrals) refer to the 4th Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory. They claim that Israel violated the Geneva Convention, that Jews were in the West Bank illegally, living there illegally, giving birth and raising children illegally. That the houses of the settlers should be destroyed, and they themselves should be evicted from those cities and villages where most of them were born and raised.
In fact, the requirement of the 1949 Geneva Convention cannot be applied to the West Bank and Gaza during the period from 1967 to 1994, because this territory could not be considered occupied during that period.
In 1967, Israel liberated the West Bank from Jordanian occupation and entered into a ceasefire agreement with Jordan. The demarcation line was established along the Jordan River. We did not take this territory from the Palestinians, but only expelled the Jordanian army, which occupied the West Bank from 1948 to 1967. In 1992, Jordan formally declared “disengagement” from the West Bank, and in 1994 entered into a peace treaty with Israel, according to which the border between the two states was established at the Jordan River. This is the legal border between Israel and Jordan.
When Jews settled in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the state of Palestine did not yet exist. This state was created after the Oslo agreements in 1994. All of the above means that from 1967 to 1994, Israel was the sole legal owner of the entire territory of the West Bank and Gaza. Accordingly, Israeli citizens had the right to settle in this territory, and did not violate any laws. But it was during this period that all the Jewish settlements of the West Bank and Gaza were created. The land on which the Jewish settlements are located was owned by the State of Israel. Settlements were not created on lands that were privately owned by the Arabs.
Let’s say that the West Bank and Gaza during this period could be called a colony, but certainly not occupied territory. By the way, although this seems a ridiculous anachronism, the status of a colony is even today considered legal according to the UN Charter. Of course, this status is undesirable and should be stopped at the first opportunity. This opportunity presented itself when Israel entered into agreements with Egypt at Camp David.
In 1980, Palestine was given autonomous status. This Palestinian autonomy existed from the Camp David Accords to Oslo. Of course, autonomy cannot be considered an occupied territory, the state has the right to station troops on its territory, and settlers do not violate the requirements of the Geneva Convention, especially since they mostly settled there before the creation of autonomy.
The Israeli government believes that this autonomous status continues to this day, but I do not agree with this approach. An autonomy that wages war against the “mother” state in order to destroy it, and which is recognized by the majority of states in the world, and is in fact more independent in its actions than Israel, is in fact an independent state. It's time to recognize the fact of Palestinian independence. The question is, within what boundaries?
The Palestinian state was created by Israel in 1994 under the Oslo Accords. Whether we like this agreement or not, there has been no other agreement between Israel and Palestine. Any court that undertakes to resolve the dispute between Israel and Palestine will have to rely on these agreements. By the way, the Arab brothers of the Palestinians, who occupied the West Bank and Gaza from 1948 to 1967, did not allow the creation of a Palestinian state, although they could have done so. All the more obvious is the ingratitude of the Palestinians, who bite the hand of the giver and even try to kill him.
International law considers as legal the border that the parties established in the last agreement that they both signed. In our case, this is the Wye Plantation Agreement of 1998. This means that the border between Israel and Palestine was established by the Wye Plantation Agreement of 1998. The agreement was signed by Benjamin Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat. According to this agreement, area "C", where all the Jewish towns and villages of Judea and Samaria are located, remained under the jurisdiction of Israel, while areas "A" and "B" became the state of Palestine.
According to international law, it is this last of all demarcation that defines the only legal border between Israel and Palestine. Therefore, Israel has the legal right to annex ENTIRE territory of Zone C, and even more so that small part of this zone that is occupied by Jewish settlements, which we call Judea and Samaria. This is the answer to the question about the right to annex zone “C”.
Moreover, even if we agree with our enemies that in the pre-Oslo period Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, and illegally established Jewish settlements there, the Oslo agreements legalized all settlements in area “C”, while all settlements in area “A” and "B" were demolished during the "separation".
En.m.wikipedia.org - International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia
The Wikipedia article mentions numerous anti-Semitic UN resolutions that label Jewish settlements “illegal.” It is striking that this article makes no mention of the Oslo Accords at all. If you recognize the independent Palestine created by the Oslo process, how can you not recognize the Palestinian agreement with Israel? “Unanimous” UN resolutions are illegal and contradict both the UN Charter and international law. These resolutions only expose the anti-Semitism of the UN. Undoubtedly, the Oslo Accords legalized Jewish settlements located in Area C, and all settlements established in the occupied Palestinian territory (Areas A and B) were destroyed in 2005, during the “disengagement”.
It seems that Ariel Sharon conceived the “disengagement” precisely with the goal of finally and indisputably legalizing Jewish settlements, and unilaterally fulfilling the terms of the Oslo agreements. Sharon “died” at the very beginning of the process that he initiated, and his heir turned out to be so weak that he was unable to carry out Sharon’s plan. Well, now it is obvious that there is no other way, we must today remember this plan and implement it.
Today, the Palestinians refuse to negotiate peace with Israel on mutually acceptable terms; the Palestinian people vote for Hamas, which demands the destruction of the Jews. Hamas is making practical preparations for a war to exterminate Jews, and does not hide it. This military-political group is preparing to join Iran’s aggression aimed at the genocide of Jews.
Since the Palestinians do not want to live in peace with us, but are trying to destroy us at the hands of foreign anti-Semites, we have the right to unilaterally implement the Oslo Accords. That is, recognize the independent state of Palestine in the territory designated as zones “A” and “B”, and annex zone “C” (Judea and Samaria), which, according to the agreement, remained under Israeli control.
In 2001, Israel actually occupied Palestine during Operation Protective Wall. This was a forced step; the Palestinians literally forced Israel to occupy Palestine, abusing their newly created state for the purposes of terrorist aggression. The only people to blame for this occupation are the Palestinians and their anti-Semitic patrons. By occupying Palestine in self-defense, Israel is not violating the UN Charter or any international law.
On the other hand, the racist demands of the Palestinians to “cleanse” Jews from Areas A and B were fulfilled during the “disengagement” of 2005. The existing Jewish settlements in Area A (Gaza and the West Bank) were destroyed, resulting in Palestine becoming Judenfrei. So from this point of view, Israel does not violate the requirements of the 1949 Geneva Convention. So, from the point of view of international law, the occupation of Palestine (zones “A” and “B”) began in 2001. There is not a single Jewish settlement left in this territory. Therefore, we cannot be accused of violating the Geneva Convention in the (truly) occupied territory of Palestine.
Territory “C” (Judea and Samaria), where all the Jewish settlements are located, cannot be considered occupied territory, because we control it according to the Oslo Treaty, legally. One way or another, Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are legalized by the Oslo agreements and do not violate the requirements of the 1949 Geneva Convention. Personally, I believe that this entire zone should be annexed and Israeli citizenship should be granted to all its inhabitants, Jews and Arabs. If this territory is not annexed, it will remain in the status of a colony, which causes criticism not only from our enemies, but also from our friends.
Gaza could be considered occupied territory since 1993, when the Oslo Accords were concluded. As we know, all Jewish settlements in Gaza were created before Oslo, and did not violate the Geneva Convention. However, in 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and the Jewish civilian population was forcibly evicted. In Gaza, as in Judea and Samaria, Israel has never violated the requirements of the Geneva Convention.
So, Israel has never violated the Geneva Convention anywhere. Jewish settlements were founded legally and continue to exist to this day legally. From the point of view of international law, settlers are “pure”. All demands for the eviction of Jews from Judea and Samaria are illegal. Economic sanctions and other forms of persecution of settlers are illegal. European or Irish sanctions are illegal. BDS is a movement that encourages breaking the law.
Yes, Israel has refrained from formally annexing the West Bank and Gaza for two reasons.
First, the people of Israel did not want to create a state in which almost half of the citizens (Palestinians) would be enemies.
Secondly, throughout its history, the State of Israel has strived for peace based on compromise. When the Palestine Liberation Organization agreed to negotiate peace, Israel negotiated the Oslo Accords and created a Palestinian state. It is not our fault that the Palestinians violated these agreements and used the Palestinian state created by the Jews to try to exterminate us. Today, the majority of Israelis vote against “peace now” because the Palestinians do not want peace. If the Palestinians agree to peace, the Israelis will accept peace even under difficult conditions.
Contrary to anti-Semitic claims, Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria have not violated any international or Israeli laws, and they should have all the human rights that are due to any other people. And including the right to live in their own houses, built in full compliance with any laws. The demands of anti-Semites, which were also joined by some Jews, are immoral and illegal.
All Israelis, all Jews and, in general, all honest people have a moral obligation to protect the Jews of Judea and Samaria, to achieve recognition of their legal rights, including the right to live in their own homes on their own land. No to economic sanctions, no to BDS - this is what any honest and sensible person must say.
The only “legitimate” reason for the ethnic cleansing of Judea and Samaria from Jews, which all anti-Semites refer to, does not stand the test of logic and law. In fact, the only reason for the denial of human rights to Jews, including the right to live at home in Judea and Samaria, is racist anti-Semitism. The demand to forcibly remove Jews from their homes is real apartheid.
Why can't Palestinians live peacefully with Jews in Gaza and the West Bank as part of an independent state of Palestine? Why do they demand that Jews be evicted or killed, so far in Judea and Samaria (FATAH's demand), and then throughout Israel (Hamas' demand)? And why do supposed anti-apartheid activists (the New York Times, John Curry, the European Parliament and many others) support the racist Palestinian demand for the ethnic cleansing of Jews? Why did the Irish Parliament ban the import of goods produced by Jews in Judea and Samaria? This law actually implements the most real anti-Semitic apartheid! It is the Palestinians who demand and achieve apartheid, with widespread support from anti-Semites.
From a moral point of view, the Jews of Judea and Samaria are the best part of the Jewish people. They tried to populate as much land as possible not for their own enrichment, but for the sake of those Jews who needed refuge from persecution and possible genocide. The defeat of the settlers in effect means that the idea of a sanctuary state for Jews has already failed. Jews of Europe, Latin America, the USA and other countries who want or want to leave these countries, in particular because of the pro-Islamic, anti-Israel, “pro-Palestinian” policies of the elites, will have to find a more reliable and spacious refuge, than Israel. Israel has already played its role to the best of its ability, and the question of creating another, alternative Jewish state of refuge needs to be raised.
Now the settlers themselves need our protection and solidarity, and it is our responsibility to protect them. In counterbalance to BDS, we need to create a global solidarity organization that will explain to ourselves and the whole world how immoral apartheid is, of which the Jews of Judea and Samaria became victims. If annexation of settlements helps protect the Jews of Judea and Samaria from betrayal and persecution, then long live annexation! In this case, annexation is legal and morally justified.
It is the Palestinians who leave us no other choice. The idea of exchanging territory with Palestine, in particular the idea of “Judea and Samaria in exchange for the Encirclement of Gaza,” cannot be implemented today because Gaza is controlled by Hamas, which resolutely refuses any compromise. Since the Palestinians leave us no choice, we must annex the settlements of Judea and Samaria unilaterally. But this means that we must place the rest of Area C under effective Palestinian civilian control, otherwise the area will remain a colony.
Http://aaronblog.co/2018/02/aparteid-i-anneksiya/
The purpose of this list is to provide basic information about Israeli outposts in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). Contents 1 A Bayt a Adom (Havat Yishuv a Daat) ... Wikipedia
This article is about the Middle East region. For the musical group, see Gaza Strip (band). Coordinates: 31°26′00″ N. w. 34°23′00″ E. d. / 31.433333° n. w... Wikipedia
Check neutrality. There should be details on the talk page. Palestinian National Authority, PNA (Arabic: السلطة الوطنية ا ... Wikipedia
Hebrew Wikipedia
Wikipedia has articles about other people with this last name, see Epstein. Alec D. Epstein ... Wikipedia
Check neutrality. There should be details on the talk page. This term has other meanings, see Ariel ... Wikipedia
It is proposed to rename this page to Cities of the Palestinian Territories. Explanation of the reasons and discussion on the Wikipedia page: To rename / April 18, 2012. Perhaps its current name does not correspond to the norms of modern Russian... ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Israel (meanings). State of Israel מדינת ישראל Medinat Israel دولة إسرائيل Daulat Isra’il ... Wikipedia
The Israeli Knesset in its first reading passed a law legalizing Jewish settlements in the West Bank, built without the sanction of the Israeli government. From the point of view of international law, such actions are a violation, since the land on which they are built is the territory of the future Palestinian state.
As a rule, the construction of such settlements begins with a few huts, but after some time they expand significantly, receive protection from the Israeli army, provide electricity, gas and water and introduce more centralized management, although they formally remain outside the legal framework. However, the Palestinian leadership regularly accuses the Israeli government of condoning and actually encouraging the construction of such settlements. Currently, about 800 thousand Israeli citizens live in them, approximately 350 thousand of whom live in settlements that do not have official registration. The situation is complicated by the fact that settlements are scattered throughout almost the entire territory of the West Bank (which in Israel is called “Judea and Samaria”), which makes the creation of a unified political state much more difficult.
The bill to legalize the settlements was jointly developed by deputies from the ruling Likud party, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and their colleagues from the ultra-conservative Jewish Home party. The reason was a trial in the Supreme Court, which ordered the demolition of the settlement in the city of Amona, in which more than 40 Jewish families live on Palestinian soil, by December 25.
“For those who still don’t understand: this law gives the green light to the annexation of territories,” Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition Zionist Union party, wrote on Twitter about the adoption of the law, which, despite the votes of her party, passed with 58 votes against 50. - Welcome to the state of two nations."
The state of two nations in Israel is usually called an option in which the territory of the state of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are united into one state, and its residents receive equal rights, regardless of their nationality and religion. Although there is some support for this option, most Israeli political parties reject it, adhering to the formula of a “Jewish state” in which Jews play a leading role.
Most countries, including the United States, consider Israeli settlements illegal. Some observers believe that the settlement law was passed in such a hurry not because of the proceedings over the fate of Amona, but because of Barack Obama's intention to introduce a resolution to the UN Security Council banning the construction of new settlements.
Although the bill needs to go through several more readings for the bill to enter into legal force, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who voted for the law along with her Jewish Home party, has already asked the Supreme Court to “reconsider its position,” since after the parliament’s decision “ the rules of the game have changed." According to estimates by the leader of the Jewish Home, Naftali Bennett, the law will help legalize from 2 to 3 thousand settlements, which are home to about 15 thousand people. Theoretically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could refuse to sign the law at the last moment, but such an outcome is extremely unlikely, given that it was he who gave the Cabinet of Ministers the order to develop it.
In Palestine, the legalization of settlements has caused expected disappointment: one of the leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hanan Ashrawi, called it a “mockery of the law,” adding that it is a direct violation of international law and a blow to the peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
“The illegal Israeli occupation is helping to steal Palestinian lands, both public and private,” Ashrawi said. “This law allows for the expansion of settlement projects [implying the creation of an independent Palestine] and at the same time gives Israel the opportunity to further expand into the territories of historical Palestine.” .
Despite protests, the Israeli Knesset passed a law legalizing settlements in the Palestinian territories. Critics believe that even after creating two states, the conflict cannot now be resolved.
-
More than two hundred settlements
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Is there a chance for reconciliation?
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Demolition of Amona
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Barricades and riots
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
New refuge in Ofra
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Forced demolition in Ofra
-
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
More than two hundred settlements
According to the human rights organization Betselem, between 1967 and 2013, 125 official Israeli settlements and outposts and about a hundred illegal ones were created in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Israeli authorities have occupied 35 percent of East Jerusalem for settlement construction.
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Is there a chance for reconciliation?
A new Jewish settlement is being built in the Har Homa area, located between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Palestinian representatives say Israel's settlement policies are ruining the chances of a two-state solution to the protracted conflict and impeding a peace settlement. The international community has also criticized settlement construction.
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Israel confiscates private lands
The construction of settlements was prohibited on lands that were privately owned by Palestinians. The new law legalized, after the fact, settlements built in Palestinian territories “through ignorance or at the initiative of the state.” Land owners are provided with compensation or the provision of an alternative site. The Palestinian Authority does not allow land to be sold to Israel under threat of death penalty.
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Demolition of Amona
The new law does not apply to those Jewish settlements that must be demolished by court order. However, it was with the help of this law that proponents of the settlements hoped to prevent the forced eviction of residents of Amona, a settlement in the West Bank whose residents have been in conflict with the Israeli authorities since 2005. 40 families were forcibly evicted, and then demolition began.
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Barricades and riots
The Israeli Supreme Court ordered the demolition of Amona at the end of 2014. The demolition dates were repeatedly postponed. Until the last moment, members of right-wing groups and settlers opposed the evacuation of residents and the destruction of the settlement. Many of those opposed to the demolition of Amona came here from other places specifically. In turn, the Palestinians vehemently protested against maintaining the settlement.
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Settler conflict with Palestinians
Settlers from Amona believe that the West Bank, occupied by Israel during the Six Day War in 1967, is the land promised to the Jewish people by God, as evidenced in the Torah. Today, about 600 thousand Israelis live in settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Clashes occur again and again between Jewish settlers and Palestinians.
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
New refuge in Ofra
In total, approximately 4,000 apartments for Jewish settlers were built illegally on land owned by Palestinians. This is a total of 16 settlements and outposts. They must either be forcibly demolished or legalized according to the adopted law. Many of the displaced settlers of Amona found new refuge in the nearby settlement of Ofra.
Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories
Forced demolition in Ofra
But even in Ofra itself, which has existed since 1975, not all buildings were erected on a legal basis. Therefore, nine houses built on private Palestinian land must be demolished by March 5, 2017. The Ben Shushan family was also among those who would have to leave their home.
See also:
Watch video 00:50
