Good news (maybe) on the Arab-Israeli conflict! The Israeli government has announced that it will cut off all public funding and support for illegal Israeli settlement outposts in the West Bank.
Who Are the Settlers?
The settlers are right-wing Jewish Israelis who have built communities in the territories seized after the 1967 war, the Occupied Territories.
The UN has condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as a violation of international law. A 2005 resolution was passed that called for the “complete cessation of all settlement activities as a first step towards dismantling Israeli settlements”, “confiscating Jewish settlers’ weapons to prevent acts of violence by them”. The Israeli government’s reaction to the UN resolution was that Israel had been singled out while Palestinian violence had not been condemned. (UN condemns Israeli settlements)
Though the Israeli government would later remove settlers from Gaza, many still remained in the West Bank. “About 400,000 Jewish settlers live in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem – alongside more than four million Palestinians”. (UN condemns Israeli settlements)
The Israeli peace group, Peace Now, reported in 2006 that 40% of Israeli settlements were built on privately owned Palestinian lands and not state owned lands as the government claimed. In 1979, the Israeli High Court “forbade the establishment of settlements on privately-owned Palestinian that has been seized by Israel for military purposes”. (Settlements ‘violate Israeli law’)
A good majority of Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the international community, believe in a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. The settlements are a hindrance to such a peace deal. One of the founding members of Peace Now and famous Israeli author Amos Oz writes that the settlers, if they succeed, risk turning Israel into a monster like Belfast or South Africa. In giving a speech to a group of settlers, he says:
You threaten to boot Israel out of the union between Jewish tradition and Western humanism. As far as I am concerned, you threaten to push Judaism back through history, back to the Book of Joshua, to the days of the Judges, to the extreme of fanatical tribalism, brutal and closed. (In the Land of Israel)
Why Has the Israeli Government “Ended Support”?
Ministers point to the recent rise in settler violence and threats towards Israeli security forces. The head of the internal intelligence service, Shin Bet, said it was “very concerned” by the danger of Jewish extremists reverting to political assassinations. (Israel to end support of outposts)
Major General Gadi Shamni said diverting resources to deal with the settlers impaired the army’s ability to deal with militants. Palestinians have long claimed settler harassment and intimidation and that the Israeli government does nothing to stop them. The attacks on Israeli security forces have gone from a few individuals to hundreds. (‘Hundreds join’ settler violence) The Major General is quoted as saying:
The margins [in the settler community] are expanding, because they are enjoying a tailwind and the backing of part of the leadership, both rabbinical and public, whether in explicit statements or tacitly.
What Does the End of Government Support Mean?
That may be yet to be determined. About four years ago, a government report “detailed how a large number of outposts had been established with official collusion”. Though Prime Minister described them as a disgrace and part of an “evil wind of extremism threatening Israel’s democracy” , “not one significant outpost has been dismantled or shut down by his government”. (‘Hundreds join’ settler violence, Israel to end support of outposts)
My recent acceptance of a two-state solution demands that all Israeli settlements in the current Occupied Territories cease and desist. Here’s hoping that this is a step toward just that.
References
- Detailed map of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, January 2006. Produced by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – public UN source. Map Centre
- BBC News, “UN condemns Israeli settlements“
- BBC News, “Settlements ‘violate Israeli law‘”
- Oz, Amos. In the Land of Israel. Trans. By Maurie Goldberg-Bartura. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.,1983. (139)
- BBC News, “Israel to end support of outposts“
- BBC News, “‘Hundreds join’ settler violence“
Filed under: Arab-Israeli Conflict, International Law, Judaism, Peace and Conflict Resolution | Tagged: amos oz, east jerusalem, ehud olmert, gaza, illegal israeli settlements, israel, major general gadi shamni, occupied territories, palestinian territories, peace now, shin bet, two state solution, UNOCHA oPt, west bank
Surrealist, transitioning environmentalist, faux-liberal, wanna be artsy indie hipster, occasional self-hating Neo-Luddite, post-Orientalism constructivist, pro-theist agnostic(ish) Christian and Miami native gone rogue in DC.
This wasn’t even worth all the time you put into it. What Israel means by illegal outposts only represents a miniscule amount and will hardly have a positive impact on the living standards of the Palestinians. It will only give more political room for the Israelis to expand in their illegal settlement cities, like they did after they abandoned (and starved) Gaza.
Yeah I can figured it was a non-story after I did some more research. But I thought maybe it’d be worth it after all if just to talk about Israeli settlements. And hopefully lead to more writing about the conflict.
Anyone want to bet on whether or how long after Israel withdraws support there is a massacre of a Jewish settlement? I’ll further bet that after the massacre, there will be some tut-tutting, but most of the blame will be placed on the settlers for failing to leave.
If 40% of the settlements are illegal, that implies that 60% are legal, so this doesn’t address those. It also doesn’t explain whether that 40% is by number or population or area or what. That’s assuming the 40% number is correct, and my guess is Peace Now used the most liberal interpretation of private property possible in an area of the world where such records are tenuously maintained at best. It also doesn’t address whether any of those settlements were there before the supreme court decision or whether that decision was retroactive.
The whole pre-1967 borders thing has always struck me as a weird formulation. So you’re allowed to attack another country with the full intent to wipe them off the map, but if you fail and, in fact, end up losing ground, you get to call take-backsies? Is that really how it works?
What kind of behavior on both sides of a conflict are we encouraging with that kind of formulation? It seems like, by lowering the penalty for failed aggression, you make aggression more likely in the future. It also encourages a more total war on both sides, since you’re better off afterwards if there’s no one around from the other side to call take-backsies. I just can’t imagine that’s the kind of behavior we want to encourage.
Based on your definition of aggression, Gazans have the right to attack Israel, so does the West Bank. After all, what you are calling aggression with respect to the 1967 war was Nassirs call for a blockade of Israel, albeit Israel has even successfully blockaded Gaza through the air as well. The fantasy that the Arabs attacked Israel in 1967 ended on the 7th day.
All the settlements are illegal based on international law. If you really believe what you are saying, the United States has the right to build settlements in Afghanistan. Enjoy the weather.
To add to your massacre comment. 8% of Palestinian complaints have been addressed by the Israeli authorities. A number that even Vice Premier Ramon has described as apartheid.
No one is calling the Palestinians perfect. I am sure you can point out many acts that prove otherwise.
Legal bias
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1033864.html
Vice Premier using the word “apartheid”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1225199634856
I suppose kicking the UN forces out and massing 1000 tanks and 100000 troops on the border while closing the straits with calls in the previous months coming from all sides and promising the annihilation of Israel could have been innocuous. I don’t see how any responsible leader could have treated those actions as such though. If you’re going to play that kind of brinksmanship, you should be prepared for the other guys to take you seriously.
As far as my “definition” of aggression and that providing a rationale for attacks on Israel. Fine. Whatever. It’s usually fait accompli anyway, whatever rationalization is offered offered up. People are dead either way, and I don’t really care how you think my definition or idea of something or other acts as a justification that can be flung back in my face. Once you’ve gotten to that point, we’re already disagreeing on so many assumptions and preconditions to that statement that arguing at the endpoint is fruitless.
I don’t really get the Afghanistan thing. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you must, should, or will do it. But, yes, if a country was attacked and beat back the attacker, I think it could be justified in taking a buffer zone out of the attacker to discourage future attacks. That’s unlikely to come up for the US, given its location. Israel is not so lucky.
As far as the 8% thing, there’s not enough in that article for me to make a good judgement. It actually says only 8% result in indictment, not that they weren’t addressed. I don’t know what the indictment rate is at large or the nature of the complaints. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some favoritism going on though, just as I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many spurious complaints. I suspect it’s a mixture of both. Whatever the case, I certainly don’t see it as an excuse for a massacre, should one occur.
I agree on 67′. We could talk about that war, what set it off and whose fault it is for ages. That is what people have been doing since it happened. What I can’t agree with is your idea that returning occupied land through negotiations somehow opens the door for more wars.
You believe that the Israeli settlements are buffer zones? Civilians put on the front lines to protect the mainland? Interesting.
It is quite fascinating that what is enough for an Israeli political leader to call apartheid, simply doesn’t do it for you.
I don’t think anyone is trying to give excuses for massacres. I thought that comment was pointless. What the facts on the ground do show are violent settlers that have a long history of attacking Palestinians and stealing their livelihood. I could show you many articles on this but I am sure you will respond with claims of bias, unclear information and too many unknowns.
Again, does this mean Palestinians are all nonviolent peace activists? No.
Matt: Whatever the actions of the Palestinians, the settlements and the occupation are detrimental to the existence of Israel. Israel’s actions also threaten Israel, not because I think they invite attack, but because they are in contradiction to the values of a modern humanist Zionist and democratic society. Peace Now operates on the conviction that a two state solution must be enacted, even if the Palestinians were to miraculously decide they didn’t want their own state.
The data shows that the settlers are on 40% of privately owned Palestinian land. The settlements in general violate international law while that 40% violates Israel’s own laws about private property. You can download the report from reference article 3 in the original post. The confirmation that 40% of the settlements are violating the law comes from the Israeli government itself. Before you make any judgments on how Peace Now gathered this information you should read the report.