Few issues elicit such heated and often ill-informed opinions as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Having made several trips to the region (which in 2003 included working for five months), I have formed my own opinions on the issue, rooted, I hope, in international law, principles of justice, and common sense. This is the first in a series of articles I plan to post that will give witness to what life is like on the ground for Palestinians. Few Americans understand this well at all, which has been to our detriment and shame.
This post is meant to say just a few words about Israeli settlements in the West Bank. One simply cannot understand the conflict if he or she does not understand the issue of settlements. As B'tselem, Israel's respected human rights organization, writes, "Israel has established in the Occupied Territories a separation cum discrimination regime, in which it maintains two systems of laws, and a person's rights are based on his or her national origin. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa." (to read the entire statement, click here).
In driving through the occupied West Bank, one will find it difficult to travel more than a few minutes without sighting a Jewish settlement (the one above is called Rimmonim). Illegal under internal law, which states that an occupying power cannot move its civilian population into occupied territory, their establishment in the West Bank has happened at the expense of Palestinians, whose fields, grazing land, and homes have often been confiscated by military decree. Israel's policy is, to be blunt, a case of the powerful taking advantage of the powerless. B'tselem explains:
Israel has used a complex legal and bureaucratic mechanism to take control of more than fifty percent of the land in the West Bank. This land was used mainly to establish settlements and create reserves of land for the future expansion of the settlements.
The principal tool used to take control of land is to declare it "state land." This process began in 1979, and is based on a manipulative implementation of the Ottoman Lands Law of 1858, which applied in the area at the time of occupation. Other methods employed by Israel to take control of land include seizure for military needs, declaration of land as "abandoned assets," and the expropriation of land for public needs. Each of these are based on a different legal foundation. In addition, Israel has assisted private citizens purchasing land on the "free market."
The process employed in taking control of land breaches the basic principles of due procedure and natural justice. In many cases, Palestinian residents were unaware that their land was registered in the name of the state, and by the time they discovered this fact, it was too late to appeal. The burden of proof always rests with the Palestinian claiming ownership of the land. Even if he meets this burden, the land may still be registered in the name of the state on the grounds that it was transferred to the settlement "in good faith."
The settlement shown above is Neve Daniel, not far from Bethlehem. I took this picture while standing in the 100-acre plot of land belonging to a Christian Palestinian named Daoud (David) Nasser. The authorities had declared half his property to be "state land" in 1991, and Daoud is still, years later, tied up in court appealing the seizure. Again, under international law this settlement should not even be here; this land is not Israel, it is occupied territory. Yet hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians have been moved into places like this.
During the Oslo Process in the 1990s, Israel furiously expanded its settlement activity, expropriating more Palestinian land and increasing the settler population by more than 50 percent. Understandably, Palestinians did not interpret this as a gesture of good faith. And just this month, Prime Minister Olmert announced construction bids for another 690 homes in two settlements. Again, this is in complete violation of international law, and the ordinary Palestinian is affected by it in numerous ways. For example:
...In order to ensure the safety and freedom of movement of some 380,000 Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories facing frequent attacks by Palestinians, Israel has increasingly kept the 3,500,000 Palestinians who live there confined to specific areas, subjected to closures, curfews and other restrictions on movements effectively amounting to some form of house or town/village arrest. Disproportionate restrictions on movement have crippled the Palestinian economy and contributed to widespread poverty and the emergence of malnutrition. (source: Amnesty International)
Now is also a good time to point out that Israel's security wall/fence rarely follows the Green Line, the border between Israel and the West Bank. The line of dirt in the picture above, which is the wall under construction, cuts through the olive grove belonging to the Palestinian village of Anin. The settlement at the top of the photo is, again, illegally in the West Bank. But Anin is losing access to a large swath of its land so that the wall can protect civilians living on stolen land in violation of international law.
The issue of settlements is too broad to cover in this short a space, but it is critical to understanding the conflict. B'tselem is an excellent source of information about the impact of settlements and settlers. Their site covers mulitiple issues, including:
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 43
I think it is difficult for people to support the legitimacy of Israel's settlement policy once the facts are known; if they do, then they can't help but come across as supporting something terribly biased and unjust. Some perhaps would say "the Arabs have land all over the Middle East, so why can't they just go there rather than stay in the West Bank," but this kind of remark is ridiculous. People are attached to the land where they have a history, and anyone who evicts people from their land using twisted laws commits an immoral act. This is why 1948 was so traumatic for Palestinians, and why Israel's current policies in the West Bank continue to rub salt in their wounds -- and make new wounds.
I also posted two articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, if you would like to take a look.
http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/how_to_respond/settlements.asp?xflag=1
Saul, can you tell me why there was no such thing as a Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the 19th century?
I think issues need to be looked at both in isolation and as a whole. Your first lengthy comment reminded me, in both tone and spirit, of hardened Palestinians who justify wrongdoing (e.g., terrorism) by refusing to look at their acts in isolation, finding it easier to justify when they look at the whole. But whether the issue is suicide bombing or stealing land, one needs to be extremely cautious in arguing that an illegal and destructive act is justified because of "the whole."
I am very familiar with the settlement issue, having visited with dozens of organization involved with it, as well as visiting the homes of Jewish settlers and Palestinians who have lost their homes and land because of Jewish settlements.
I agree that Palestinians share blame in this conflict. But I disagree that they are at all to blame for Israel's settlement policy. For that I blame Israeli greed, the dehumanization of Palestinians, racism, and arrogant thinking. Many Jewish organizations have pointed out that settlements have made it virtually impossible for Palestinians to have a viable state now since they have cut the West Bank into an ugly patchwork.
In the West Bank, I believe Israel is the aggressor. You can't move several hundred thousand people into a land already populated by more than a million people, usurping their land rights in process, and not be an aggressor. You may think you are justified in aggressing, but you are clearly aggressing. To fail to see this is, I think, to be dangerously short-sighted. And it somehow fails to take into account the humanity of those people being harmed in the process: ordinary Palestinian, who are not some abstract concept but rather men, women, and children just like you and me.
I was asking about the "Palestinian-Israeli conflict", not random violent acts between Jews and Muslims. Why did it not exist before the 18th and 19th centuries? Why did we not hear of a war between Israel and Palestine then?
The settlements are illegal and the Israeli policies there are reprehensible at best in my view.
Thanks again Joel.
Kelly
Arab Caliphate Period 638–1099
Umayyad Period 638–750
After 634, the Caliphate (Islamic Empire) conquered the Byzantine Diocese of Palestine, calling it Filastin in Arabic name. Initially, the "Rightly Guided" caliphs, but soon the Umayyads did. The conquerors colonized Palestine, and over the centuries it acquired a Muslim, Arabic-speaking majority, through immigration, language shift and conversion.
Abbasid Period 750–1099
The Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads in 750.
In the 900s, the Fatimids, a self-proclaimed Shia caliphate, took control. In the next century, Seljuk Turks invaded large portions of West Asia, including Asia Minor and Palestine.
Crusader Period 1099–1244
After the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 CE, the Crusader Kingdom survived throughout Ayyubid Period until 1291 CE well into Mamluk Period, but here we will consider its peak period, until AD 1244.
Kingdom of Jerusalem Period 1099–1187
The proximate cause of the Crusades, following 1095, by the Christian European powers was the desire to reconquer the birthland and holy land of Christianity, which had been lost to the Islamic Arab invasion of the byzantine Roman empire in the 7th century. It was also to protect non Muslim lands from the 200 years of prior warfare from Muslims on all non Muslim peoples. The Christian forces established the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which lasted from 1099 until 1291, though Saladin reconquered the city of Jerusalem in 1187.
Ayyubid Period 1187–1244
Saladin conquers Jerusalem
The Ayyubid Sultanate, founded by Saladin, controlled Jerusalem and some but not all of the region until 1250, when it was defeated by the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt.
Mamluk Period 1244–1517
The Mamluk Sultanate ultimately became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, in the wake of campaigns waged by Selim I in the 16th century.
Ottomon Period 1517-1917
In 1516 the Ottoman Turks occupied Palestine. The country became part of the Ottoman Empire. Constantinople appointed local governors. Public works, including the city walls, were rebuilt in Jerusalem by Suleiman the Magnificent in 1537. Napoleon of France briefly waged war against the Ottoman Empire (allied then with Great Britain). His forces conquered and occupied cities in Palestine, but they were finally defeated and driven out by 1801. Turkish rule lasted until World War I.
And than in 1917 the infamous Balfour Declaration in 1917 to "favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" while respecting the rights of the indigeneous majority.
As for the legality of settlements, international law is clear that an occupying power cannot build civilian homes on occupied territory. Period. Now, I understand that some people will argue that the West Bank is not occupied territory, but most people find this to be a dubious contention. My understanding is that most settlements were built by taking land from Palestinians who were powerless to stop the actions of an occupying power. The few cases were land may have been purchased from Palestinians are very much exceptions to the rule. But in either case, international law forbids an occupying power from building on the land in this manner.
I will not take the time to explain why I disagree with your understanding of 1998 and following. But I will say this: if one believes that an Israeli has a right to live on land he has "legally" purchased in the West Bank, how much more do the 700,000+ Palestinians of 1948 (and their many descendents) have a right to live on land in what is now Israel, for which so many of legal title. Israel has done a phenomenally poor job of addressing the grievous wrong it did to the local population in 1948. And it is entirely hypocritically to demand your "rights" while refusing to even acknowledge the rights that so many Palestinians had to the land they were expelled from. It
Saul - Israel has clearly said that it will NOT do in the West Bank what is has done in Gaza. It is a lot easier to remove 6,000 settlers from Gaza than it is several hundred thousand from the West Bank. Israel has no intention of removing most of these settlements, particularly ones like Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim. Indeed some settlements it erroneously calls neighborhoods, using language to mask the fact that they are built illegally on occupied territory.
As for the legality of settlements, international law is clear that an occupying power cannot build civilian homes on occupied territory. Period. Now, I understand that some people will argue that the West Bank is not occupied territory, but most people find this to be a dubious contention. My understanding is that most settlements were built by taking land from Palestinians who were powerless to stop the actions of an occupying power. The few cases were land may have been purchased from Palestinians are very much exceptions to the rule. But in either case, international law forbids an occupying power from building on the land in this manner.
I will not take the time to explain why I disagree with your understanding of 1998 and following. But I will say this: if one believes that an Israeli has a right to live on land he has "legally" purchased in the West Bank, how much more do the 700,000+ Palestinians of 1948 (and their many descendents) have a right to live on land in what is now Israel, for which so many of legal title. Israel has done a phenomenally poor job of addressing the grievous wrong it did to the local population in 1948. And it is entirely hypocritically to demand your "rights" while refusing to even acknowledge the rights that so many Palestinians have to the land they were expelled from.
For now I'll reply to one thing: I actually do spend time writing and speaking about injustice and oppression in other places too. My focus is not just on Palestine. However, having lived in the region off and on over several years and seen with my own eyes the suffering of people - both my Isreali friends who have lost ones and my Palestinian friends who have been tortured, killed, and dispossessed -- I have a special interest there. I've lived in villages where settlers come down to urinate in Palestinian wells, destroy their crops, harrass their children. I've seen shoulders abuse elderly women. I myself have been threatened with death by a soldier who feared I photographed him doing something he knew damn was wrong. These experiences burn into your soul and prompt you to speak out.
Also, on a less personal leve, I think Americans have a responsibility to focus especially on Israel/Palestine, given that Israel receives more of our tax payer dollars than any other country--more than all of sub-Saharan Africa, in fact. This is why I think it is alright for Israel to be put under closer scrutiny. If we didn't give Israel any money or arms, I'd agree that we would be unfair in focusing on it more than other places.
1. One of the mistakes of the Oslo Accords, I think, was that Arafat agreed to "negotiate" with Israel about several things which shouldn't have been negotiable. According to international law and UN resolutions, Israel should withdraw from land occupied in 1967 and pull out the up to 400,000 settlers it has moved in there. Negotiations should have been over HOW Israel would finally comply with international law, not to what EXTENT it would comply with the law. So I think that to believe that Palestinians are the one's who were being unreasonable and didn't take a good deal when they had one is to have bought into the Israeli narrative too much. Given that Arafat in the 1990s agreed to recognize the Jewish state was in itself a huge act of compromise on the part of Palestinians, given that Israel came into existence only be uprooting so much of the indigenous population.
2. I don't think any "slack" should be given to Israel over the 1948 refugees. I understand that people are displaced during war, but a lot of those displaced during 1948 were evicted from their towns and villages by Jewish terrorist organizations (Stern Gang, Irgun) and other armed groups. In the force marches that followed (e.g., read up on the town of al-Ramla) people dropped dead from heat and exhaustion, and around 750,000 Palestinians had their world turned upside down to make way for a Jewish state (the only way Israel could be both a democracy and a Jewish state was to ethnically cleanse the bulk of the local population - Ben Gurion and others said this). This is part of the ugliness of Israel's birth, Saul: it was born, in large part, by viciously, consciously enacting a policy of removing the local population who had a RIGHT to live on that land. (Again, to read more about this, see the Sandy Tolan article I've linked to on one of my September 21 comments). A mature state acknowledges its wrong-doing, but Israel has consistently brushed the issue of ethnic cleansing under the rug.
3. A key difference between the request of Native Americans regarding land and Palestinians regarding land is that the Palestinians demanding their land back are STILL ALIVE. It is a fresh experience for them, Saul, and it stings the soul to be powerless to get back that which was wrongfully taken from you. How can a Palestinian embrace a Jewish state given how that state came into existence? The amazing thing is that so many Palestinians have indeed been willing to do this! Again, when Palestinians officially recognized the State of Israel in the 1990s, that was a huge -- and generous -- step.
5. Israel did indeed accept the partition plan because they knew it was a good deal, and that it was a start. Ben Gurion declared to his cabinet that they would take what they could get now, then take more (e.g., parts that the UN were giving to the proposed Palestinian state] later once they were in a position of greater strength.
6. Concerning the eviction of Palestinians to make way for the Jewish state: "We still do not properly appreciate what kind of enemy we are now nurturing outside the borders of our state," the agricultural minister, Aharon Cizling, warned in a cabinet meeting [in the late 1940s]. "Our enemies, the Arab states, are a mere nothing compared with those hundreds of thousands of Arabs [that is, Palestinian refugees] who will be moved by hatred and hopelessness and infinite hostility to wage war on us, regardless of any agreement that might be reached…." (The Lemon Tree, 94)
7. I'll conclude simply by saying that I do not think all wrongs done in the past can be righted. And so my heart breaks for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who languished in exile for decades, remembering their beautiful homes, their orchards and fields, the graves of their forefathers, and everything else that was now in Israel. It breaks my heart that Israel destroyed more than 400 Palestinian towns and villages to erase the memory of so much of Palestinian presence in the land, and that only the person who knows what he is looking for (e.g., cactus fences that grow seemingly in the middle of an empty field in the Galilee) will know where these communities once were -- communities that were full of life and love, that were just as attached to the land as any Jewish emigrant is.
I believe strongly that Israel has a lot of owning up to do, and that to even say "I'm sorry" would go a long way. But I also know the prospect of publicly acknowledging how the state came into existence horrifies Israeli leaders, because it will be to admit that the state, while founded on many good reasons, came into existence at the brutal expense of people who already lived there. Things like this are much easier to confess once a century or two has gone by…and all the wronged people are long dead.
One day in the generations (perhaps three generations?) to come, as the Arab-Israeli population continues to expand, it will be impossible for Israel to be both a democracy and Jewish. Then Israel will have to make a choice: to give up some of its Jewish character so as to be a more inclusive state where Arabs are not second-class citizens, or to be an overtly apartheid state. The future issues will only get more interesting!
It is very hard to understand, so I'm glad you are doing a bit at a time. I look forward to reading more.
Again, thanks you
(Also, the links and photos are wonderful.)
Saul, there's not much point in arguing about this. Joel has already made his point clear that he HAS seen both sides of this situation... BOTH sides of atrocities.
This is probably one of the best articles I've read about the situation in years.
I highly suggest reading the poetry of Aharon Shabtai and Taha Muhammad Ali. That will explain everything clearly