Israel - A Settler-Colonial State ?
Discussions of Israel's establishment involve complex historical, political, and emotional dimensions. Different parties have different narratives, and the terminology used carry specific ideological connotations.
In 1973 Maxime Rodinson, an independent Marxist scholar and expert on the Middle East, placed the history of Zionism and Israel in the perspective of European expansion and colonialism in the Third World and upholded the view, accepted by most Arabs, that Israel is indeed a `colonial-settler state' imposed by force on an unwilling Palestinian population.
Algeria had a complex history with elements of colonialism that may be characterized as a colonial settler state. Algeria was a French colony from 1830 to 1962. During this period, the French established control over the territory, leading to significant social, economic, and political changes. The colonization of Algeria involved a settler population of French and other European settlers.
The European settlers in Algeria, known as Pieds-Noirs [literally "black feet", as they were regarded as having dirty feet due to working in agriculture], played a prominent role in the colonial administration and economy. However, the settler population in Algeria did not achieve the same demographic dominance as in some other colonial settler states. Algeria gained independence from French colonial rule in 1962 after a protracted and often violent war of independence. The struggle for independence was led by the National Liberation Front (FLN), and it involved various anti-colonial movements.
The process of decolonization in Algeria involved the repatriation of the Pieds-Noirs to France following independence. The departure of the settler population was a significant aspect of the end of French colonial rule in Algeria. Algeria experienced European settlement during the colonial period, and the characterization of Algeria as a colonial settler state is nuanced. Unlike some settler colonial societies where European settlers established a permanent and dominant presence, the colonial period in Algeria involved significant conflict and ultimately led to the departure of the settler population.
It is challenging to provide an exact number of Pieds-Noirs who left Algeria, as estimates vary, and historical records may not be precise. By one estimate, Immediately following the Evian peace accords of March 1962, 1,200,000 pieds-noirs left Algeria for France [a tenth of the toal population of nearly 12,000,000]; many with little more than a suitcase. By another estimate, about 800,000 Pieds-Noirs of French nationality evacuated to mainland France, while about 200,000 remained in Algeria. This mass migration became embedded in pied-noir memory as “the exodus,” a term with quasi-religious connotations. This substantial number of Pieds-Noirs chose to leave Algeria in the aftermath of independence due to various factors, including political changes, insecurity, and the desire to return to France. The exodus of the Pieds-Noirs significantly impacted the demographic and cultural landscape of Algeria. Only some 30,000 Europeans were still in the country in 1993.
When he wrote the book "Israel: A Colonial-Settler State?", memories of Algeria were fresh in mind, and the Six Days War of 1967 had just ended, with Israel gobbling up the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, territories they occupy to this day. Maxime Rodinson, using the tools of scienctific Marxism, explained in this book how the settler state- and racist - nature of the Zionist project could only lead to perpetual war.
Examining the Zionist colonization of Palestine, Maxime Rodinson explains that Israel's formation was part of the pattern of 19th and 20th century colonial conquest. The Zionist movement received active support from the major imperialist powers and-like other colonialist movements-employed a nationally exclusive, racist ideology to justify the subjugation of native farmers and workers.
The characterization of Israel as a "colonial-settler state" is a subject of debate and depends on one's perspective. Different people and scholars may have varying opinions on this matter. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 occurred in the aftermath of the British Mandate for Palestine. The establishment of Israel involved Jewish immigration and settlement, and it was accompanied by conflicts with the Arab population in the region.
The Zionist movement, which sought a national homeland for the Jewish people, played a significant role in the establishment of Israel. Critics argue that the Zionist movement can be viewed as a form of settler colonialism, involving the migration and settlement of a group of people in a territory. The establishment of Israel resulted in the displacement of a significant number of Palestinian Arabs, leading to the Palestinian refugee issue. Critics argue that this process is akin to colonial-settler dynamics, where the indigenous population is displaced by settlers. From the perspective of many Israelis, the establishment of Israel is seen as the realization of self-determination for the Jewish people and a response to historical persecution. They reject the characterization of Israel as a colonial-settler state.
But attempts to present Jewish settlement in West Bank territory (ancient Judea and Samaria) as illegal and "colonial" in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case. Jewish settlement in the territory of ancient Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is often presented as merely a modern phenomenon. In fact, Jewish presence in this territory has existed for thousands of years and was recognized as legitimate in the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Jewish people's ancient homeland.
After recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and "the grounds for reconstituting their national home", the Mandate specifically stipulated in Article 6 as follows: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use".
Some Jewish settlements, such as in Hebron, existed throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule, while settlements such as Neve Ya'acov, north of Jerusalem, the Gush Etzion bloc in southern Judea, and the communities north of the Dead Sea, were established under British Mandatory administration prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, and in accordance with the League of Nations Mandate.
Many contemporary Israeli settlements have actually been re-established on sites which were home to Jewish communities in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people's deep historic and abiding connection with this land - the cradle of Jewish civilization and the locus of the key events of the Hebrew Bible. A significant number are located in places where previous Jewish communities were forcibly ousted by Arab armies or militia, or slaughtered, as was the case with the ancient Jewish community of Hebron in 1929.
For more than a thousand years, the only administration which has prohibited Jewish settlement in these areas was the Jordanian occupation administration, which during the nineteen years of its rule (1948-1967) declared the sale of land to Jews a capital offense. The right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and the private legal titles to the land which had been acquired, could not be legally invalidated by Jordanian occupation - which resulted from their illegal armed invasion of Israel in 1948 and was never recognized internationally as legitimate - and such rights and titles remain valid to this day.
In short, the attempt to portray Jewish communities in the West Bank as a new form of "colonial" settlement in the land of a foreign sovereign is politically motivated. At no point in history were Jerusalem and the West Bank subject to Palestinian Arab sovereignty. At issue is the right of Jews to reside in their ancient homeland, alongside Palestinian Arab communities, in an expression of the connection of both peoples to this land.
In 2013, introducing the new Tayloar and Franics scholarly journal "Settler Colonial Studies", editor Lorenzo Veracini wrote "settler colonial studies aims to contribute to the consolidation of a new scholarly field. This process requires that colonial and settler colonial phenomena be analytically disentangled. They have generally been seen either as entirely separate, or as different manifestations of colonialism at large. Neither stance, however, allows a proper appraisal of settler colonialism in its specificity. In contrast, in this introduction to this new scholarly journal, I suggest that colonialism and settler colonialism should be understood in their dialectical relation. On the basis of this distinction, in the second part of this introduction I reflect on the need to develop dedicated interpretative tools capable of sustaining an approach to the decolonisation of settler colonial formations.""
Separately, Lorenzo Veracini wrote : "At first (until the 1960s), ‘settlers’, ‘settlement’ and ‘colonisation’ are understood as entirely unrelated to colonialism. The two do not occupy the same analytical field, pioneering endeavours are located in ‘empty’ settings and the presence and persistence of indigenous ‘Others’ is comprehensively disavowed. In a second stage (until the late 1970s), ‘settler colonialism’ as a compound identifies one specific type of diehard colonialism, an ongoing and uncompromising form of hyper-colonialism characterised by enhanced aggressiveness and exploitation (a form that had by then been challenged by a number of anti-colonial insurgencies). During a third phase (from the late 1970s and throughout the first half of the 1980s), settler colonialism is identified by a capacity to bring into being high standards of living and economic development. As such, settler colonialism is understood as the opposite of colonialism.... beginning from approximately the mid-1990s, ‘settler colonial studies’ as an autonomous scholarly field could then consolidate."
Kim Bullimore wrote 04 August 2017: "Settler colonial societies are a distinct type of imperialist formation, which are premised on the racist elimination of the indigenous population through various means, including ethnic cleansing, genocide and/or assimilation. Unlike other forms of colonialism that centre on the exploitation of resources, settler colonialism is primarily concerned with the control of territory and the elimination of the indigenous population in order to replace it with a settler population. As the late Australian academic and leading settler-colonial theorist, Patrick Wolfe, notes: “settler colonialism destroys to replace”. ... Today, Israel remains an expansionist settler colonial state. In the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem, Israel continues to steal Palestinian land and ethnically cleanse Palestinians in order to build illegal Jewish-only colonies". This piece appeared in "Reg Flag", a pulicaton of the Socialist Alternative, Australia’s largest Marxist revolutionary group, which states its "goal is to overthrow capitalism" through "a revival of revolutionary working-class socialist movement".
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) states "Colonialism is the practice of a foreign state or group of people exercising control over another country or area. Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism in which settlers create societies that are distinct from the indigenous population and seek to control land and resources and establish their own economy and system of governance.... Settler colonialism can be used to describe what has taken place in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, the US and Canada, and, some argue, what France attempted but ultimately failed to achieve in Algeria."
Gershon Shafir noted in 2016 "Israel, begotten through colonization, consequently,was fashioned as a colonial project. In this, Israel is not different from Australia, Argentina, the United States or South Africa. What makes Israel unique is that it is a belated, 19th-century, settler colony and even more so, that it continues the colonization through which it was formed into the late 20th and early 21st centuries."
Colonialism is characterized as “settler” when driven by the logic of elimination of the indigenous character of the colonized land. Acts of subjugating and displacing its indigenous people and replacing them with its nationals is the hallmark of settler-colonialism, and a war crime under the Rome Statute. Discussions around Palestinian self-determination were once limited to the debate concerning the future of Palestine and its people, as part of the decolonization struggle. The Middle East peace process that started in the early 1990s has altered this, giving the impression that the realization of Palestinian self-determination was being achieved via statehood. Exercising the right to self-determination in the form of a politically independent State in all of the occupied Palestinian territory would be a minimum requirement of justice for the Palestinian people.
Israel’s occupation is illegal and indistinguishable from a “settler-colonial” situation, which must end, as a pre-condition for Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination, the UN’s independent expert on the occupied Palestinian territory said on 27 October 2022. “For over 55 years, the Israeli military occupation has prevented the realisation of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, violating each component of that right and wilfully pursuing the ‘de-Palestinianisation’ of the occupied territory,” said Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, in her report to the UN General Assembly. Special Rapporteurs like Ms. Albanese, are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation. The positions are honorary, and experts are not paid for their work.
In a tragic irony, Palestinians experienced an entrenching settler-colonialism at a moment in history when the rest of the world was slowly progressing towards decolonization. Worldwide, national resistance movements, symbolically enabled by the United Nations, challenged their colonizers and succeeded in ending their rule. The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory continues to be addressed predominantly, and sometimes exclusively, through three main approaches:
-
(a) Humanitarian approach. The grave economic and humanitarian conditions generated by a violent occupation are addressed as a (chronic) humanitarian issue that needs to be managed, rather than a political issue to be solved according to international law; Israeli violations are largely addressed with the aim of “improving” certain aspects of life under occupation;
(b) Political approach. The question of Palestine is often framed as a “conflict” between opposing parties that can be resolved through negotiations. Accordingly, ending the occupation will come about only through a “negotiated peace agreement”; then the humanitarian and economic emergencies in the occupied Palestinian territory will be resolved;
(c) Economic development approach. In recent years, seekers of a solution have insisted on a framework that hinges on developing the Palestinian territory and artificially sustaining its economy without providing a political solution addressing the root causes of the “conflict”, including the numerous violations of Palestinians’ rights and freedoms. The aim of this approach is to resolve conflict by promoting businesses and creating opportunities that accompany growth and sustainable development, not through the fulfilment of fundamental human rights.
The proponents of these approaches seem to believe that the occupation will end when the parties, starkly unequal in power, are able to achieve a negotiated solution. In recent years, a number of reputable scholars and organizations have concluded that systemic and widespread discriminatory Israeli policies and practices against the Palestinians amount to the crime of apartheid under international law. But the apartheid framework presents some limitations, since with few exceptions, the scope of recent reports on Israeli apartheid is primarily “territorial” and excludes the experience of Palestinian refugees.
The Albanese report calls for “a paradigm shift”, which entails moving away from the narrative of “conflict” between Israelis and Palestinians, and recognition of Israel’s “intentionally acquisitive, segregationist and repressive settler-colonial occupation.”
The Israeli occupation is illegal because it has proven not to be temporary, is deliberately administered against the best interests of the occupied population and has resulted in the annexation of occupied territory, breaching most obligations imposed on the occupying Power. Its illegality also stems from its systematic violation of at least three peremptory norms of international law: the prohibition on the acquisition of territory through the use of force; the prohibition on imposing regimes of alien subjugation, domination and exploitation, including racial discrimination and apartheid; and the obligation of States to respect the right of peoples to self-determination. By the same token, Israeli occupation constitutes an unjustified use of force and an act of aggression.
Prompted by the decolonization movement that spread from the late 1950s through the 1970s, the right to self-determination was universally codified in 1966 with the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This implies the right to resist alien domination, subjugation and exploitation that may impede the fulfilment of this right.24 In 1977, this was spelled out in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, in which people’s fight “against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination” was recognized.
The General Assembly also clarified that the territory of a State could be neither “the object of military occupation” nor “acquisition by another State” resulting from the threat or use of force. This was reinforced in 1974, when, in defining “aggression”, the General Assembly prohibited the “use of armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity”.
The Special Rapporteur's report asserts the Israeli occupation violates Palestinian territorial sovereignty by seizing, annexing, fragmenting, and transferring its civilian population to the occupied territory. The occupation furthermore “endangers the cultural existence of the Palestinian people”, said the UN rights office press release summarizing the report, by erasing or appropriating symbols expressing Palestinian identity and violates Palestinians’ ability to organise themselves, free from alien domination and control, by repressing Palestinian political activity, advocacy and activism.
“This is, in essence, proof of the intent to colonise the occupied territory, and manifests Israel’s policies of domination through the “strategic fragmentation” of the occupied territory,” the expert said. The international community’s political, humanitarian, and economic approach towards resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict, have failed without exception, the report notes. “These approaches conflate root causes with symptoms and serve to normalise Israel’s illegal occupation instead of challenging it. This is immoral and renders the regulatory and remedial function of international law futile,” Albanese said.
The report calls for “a paradigm shift”, which entails moving away from the narrative of “conflict” between Israelis and Palestinians, and recognition of Israel’s “intentionally acquisitive, segregationist and repressive settler-colonial occupation.” Albanese urged the international community to formally acknowledge and condemn the settler-colonial nature of the Israeli occupation. She also demanded an immediate end to the illegal occupation, and call on Israel to withdraw its military personnel and support for Israeli civilians in the colonies. She cautioned all States against making Israeli withdrawal subject to negotiations between Israel and Palestine. “Meaningful discussions on a political solution for Palestine can only begin when the illegal occupation is dismantled once and for all,” the expert said.
The Zionist counter-argument is that calling Israel a colonial settler state is a distortion. It is saying they are alien to the Middle East. The population of a colonial settler state generally speaks a language not native of the region, and generally practices a faith previously unknown to the region, in form or in doctrine. Not only do the Jews of Israel adhere to a faith that is born in the Middle East, but they adhere to the oldest faith in the Middle East still in practice today. They do speak not a colonial language, but a middle Eastern language: Hebrew, a language that probably predates most other middle Eastern languages still spoken today.
So where else should Jews establish a state but in the Middle East, where they once had a state? A colonial population has the mother land to return to. The Israelis have nowhere else to go; they returned to Israel to escape persecution both in Europe and in the Arab world. The question of Israel is therefore one of fairness. If there are dozens of countries with a Christian particularity or a Christian majority, and dozen others with a Moslem particularity or a majority, then Zionism stands for the right of Jews to have one country on earth with a Jewish particularity or majority.
The Anti-Defamation League argues "Jews, like Palestinians, are native and indigenous to the land. The Land of Israel is integral to the Jewish religion and culture, the connection between Jews and the land is a constant in the Bible, and is embedded throughout Jewish rituals and texts. The Europeans who settled in colonies in the Middle East and North Africa were not indigenous or native to the land in any way. From the time of the exile the religion, language, culture, holidays, rituals, liturgy, and history of the Jews are permeated with a yearning for a return to the Land of Israel. No colonialists came to a homeland and revived the ancient tongue they had spoken there....
"Both inside and outside Israel there is much criticism of Israel’s settlement policies in the West Bank. But ascribing the term “settler colonialism” to such activity is also a distortion. Should a mutually negotiated two-state solution establish a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel, it will likely encompass most of the West Bank, but such an outcome does not negate the spiritual, historical, and cultural connection to that land, that Jews cherished for millennia.
"Some critics call for Israel’s dissolution or allege that Zionism itself is inherently nefarious by simplistically pointing to the fact that Zionist leaders in the late 19th and early 20th centuries used variations of the word “colonial” or “colonize” to describe their actions to build the yishuv (the pre-1948 Jewish infrastructure). But the use of such terms only signified an effort to promote Jewish immigration to the Jewish people’s historic homeland, establish communities and fulfill the universal right of self-determination. Zionist leaders did not view their actions as identical – ethically or practically – to the European settler colonial projects of that time.
"Bottom line: the pre-state Zionist movement and later the State of Israel may certainly be criticized for missteps and particular policies. But ascribing the term settler colonialism to Jewish self-determination and statehood is inaccurate. And linking Israel to historical actions that the international community has rightfully renounced often serves as part of the effort to chip away at or negate Israel’s legitimacy."
The characterization of the United States as a "colonial settler state" involves historical, political, and sociological perspectives. The United States has a colonial history that involves the arrival of European settlers, colonization, and interactions with indigenous peoples. The colonization process resulted in the displacement and marginalization of Native American populations. Some scholars use the term "settler colonialism" to describe situations where settler communities establish a new society on the land, often leading to the displacement and marginalization of indigenous populations. From this perspective, the United States is seen as having elements of settler colonialism. The history of the United States includes the displacement of Native American tribes, often through forced removals, treaties, and other means. This history is complex and has resulted in lasting impacts on Native American communities.
Discussions on whether the United States is a colonial settler state may vary among scholars, historians, and indigenous communities. Different perspectives exist, and interpretations of historical events can be influenced by one's viewpoint. The historical legacy of colonization and settler colonialism continues to have social, economic, and political implications in the present. Issues related to land rights, sovereignty, and cultural preservation are ongoing concerns for many Native American communities. In academic and social discourse, discussions about the United States often involve acknowledging its colonial past and its impact on indigenous populations. The terminology used can depend on the specific context and the focus of the discussion.
Joseph Massad, professor of modern Arab politics and the history of ideas at Columbia University, is considered one of the most important thinkers who worked on dismantling the Orientalist and colonialist narratives that fuel both Western thought and Zionism , over the past two decades, through his sober academic writings that highlighted the importance of the issue. The Palestinian Authority, and the extent to which the West and the Israeli settlement project seek to perpetuate the war on Palestine and the Palestinians. Among these books we find “The Permanence of the Palestinian Issue,” “Colonial Influences: The Making of National Identity in Jordan,” “Islam in Liberalism,” and “Lust for Arabs.”
This is what made the writings of Professor Joseph Massad of great importance, in light of what followed the “ Al-Aqsa Flood ,” or what became known as what came after October 7, 2023, according to Western narratives, in which the Israeli occupation state and its supporters around the world lived moments of disruption. Balance and fall of the narratives of power and occupational hegemony that were promoted in the Western context and believed in the Arab world.
The writings of thinker Joseph Massad were distinguished by their digging into the roots of the Palestinian issue, dismantling the settlement project, probing its depths and searching for the roots linking it to the European colonial project that the world witnessed, and linking the organic relationship between Israeli settlement and Western occupation.
Professor Joseph Massad’s interaction does not stop there. Rather, he explored the depths of the Palestinian resistance and the lessons that to be learned from it, to be learned from the movement of history that witnessed other resistances that resisted the foreign occupation, whether in its successes or failures.
Al-Jazeera: Although what Gaza has been witnessing all these days is a real crime in which the Israeli occupying state violates all international norms and laws by committing “ genocide ” against the Palestinians, there are those who believe that there is a “historical process” that governs the scene between the colonizer and the colonized, repeated throughout history. The Gaza scene is evidence of this. Do you agree with this opinion? And why?
Massad: Yes, this is true. We always need to emphasize that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must be placed in the context of the settler colonial history of Europe and the United States in the colonized world as a whole, that is, in the Americas, and in Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia, of course.
"I believe that the entire history of the Zionist movement, its racism, and its settlement activity from the early 1880s to the present day is an integral part of the European settlement process and efforts in “non-white” countries. Therefore, when we present an analysis of the developments taking place in the Palestinian and Israeli arenas, we must consider these developments. From the perspective of the historical perspective of European colonialism, which became known as the "Third World".
"It is also no secret that there is an export of the “demonization” discourse to the Palestinian side as a whole in order to create a narrative that justifies the cold-blooded “extermination” of the Palestinian people in Gaza under the eyes of the world. How did the “demonization” discourse appear and what is its relationship to the culture of occupation and settlement? How did the accusation of "anti-Semitism" become a weapon to protect Zionism?
"I believe that this discourse began early, especially since some of the Jewish settlers in Palestine who came from Ukraine and southern Russia in the early 1880s had suffered from anti-Jewish movements by European Christians and anti-Semites, and when they came to settle Palestine, they did not have The idea that their settlement act might generate resistance against them, so they sought to legitimize their settlement presence by linking settlement resistance to a rejection of them as Jews, so since then two currents were formed within the Zionist mentality, one of which was completely consistent with itself, I believe, when it declared that “everyone who faces any "A Jew in the world, regardless of the reasons, is an anti-Semite."
"This trend was renewed after the establishment of Zionism in Palestine during the British Mandate at the end of World War I, especially after Britain’s invasion of Palestine in late 1917. Then we find in the 1920s that all resistance to the establishment of settlement and the continuation of Zionism in Palestine was responded to by Zionists with socialist tendencies at that time. It targets them as Jews, and reminds them of some of the anti-Semitic massacres that were committed against them in Europe.
"Since the 1920s, a discourse has been established that views the resistance that opposes the ongoing settlement in Palestine as a form of “anti-Semitism,” instead of viewing it as a resistance movement to colonialism, which constituted propaganda and Zionist political propaganda. This is the discourse that crystallized in the 1930s with the rise of Nazism in Germany, and a more serious and strict approach was taken by the Zionists, as they insisted that their settlement of Palestine and their violence against the Palestinians is not the real engine of Palestinian resistance. Rather, they claimed that the engine of resistance is the Palestinians’ hatred of Jews as Jews and “anti-Semitism,” and not the Palestinians’ hatred of the colonists and settlers.
"This approach continued after the “settler colony” represented by “Israel” was established in 1948, especially with the “state speech” that considered the late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s refusal to cooperate and bargain with Israel as stemming from his anti-Semitism, to the point of accusing him of Nazism in the 1950s. Before the tripartite aggression.
"We also find the emergence of this discourse again in the second half of the 1960s towards the Palestinian resistance, stating that this resistance targets them because they are Jews and not because they are settlers and colonizers of their homeland. In the early 1970s, the Israeli government decided to adopt a more serious and effective approach, during a conference that brought together some American Jewish organizations in Israel, where former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban (who descended from a family that settled in South Africa and whose original name was Aubrey Solomon) confirmed that the new strategy of propaganda To confront the left-oriented objection in the West to settlement and colonialism policies, he believed that hostility to Zionism should be equated with anti-Semitism.
"Abba Eban decided that criticism coming from some political leaders in Western societies should be viewed as a “new anti-Semitism,” and accordingly, this approach has been adopted since the early 1970s by Israel in order to stigmatize any opposition or resistance to Israel as drawing from a source. “Antisemitism,” which has led us today to exacerbate this discourse, especially in the past four decades, and the West has become a partner of Israel after this approach was adopted by it as well by defining Arab and Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonialism and settlement as stemming from “hostile” origins. Anti-Semitic, if not Nazi.
"But on the other hand, since the 1950s, we have noticed the presence of some Israeli critics of specific policies of the Israeli government, describing their government as committing Nazi acts. This continued in the 1950s, and we find it being raised again after the “Sabra and Shatila massacre” in 1982, and during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon within 4 years (1978). - 1982), but on the other hand, we found the Palestinian side, represented by at least the “Palestine Liberation Organization” from the early 1970s until the early 1980s, which included Yasser Arafat’s speech at the United Nations in 1974, adopting an approach in solidarity with all Jewish victims of anti-Semitism and Nazism.
"The Palestine Liberation Organization compared the persecution of Palestinians by a settler-colonial force, characterized by an approach based on racial and ethnic segregation, to the situation of the Jews during the Holocaust, and accordingly the PLO was laying wreaths on the anniversary of the Holocaust or the memory of the ghetto uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II. Second, in honor of the Jews who suffered from fascism, just as the Palestinians suffer today from the fascism of the Zionist regime, according to the rhetoric of the Palestine Liberation Organization at that time.
"So there are two speeches, both of which denounce the other as a Nazi and a racist, but the difference here is that the Israeli and Zionist discourse always stigmatizes the Palestinian people as a whole as Nazis, while the Palestinian side is keen to focus its condemnation on the Israeli regime (and Zionism) as they carry a racial, fascist, and Nazi ideology. Without necessarily linking it to the Jewish people, despite the fact that most opinion polls since the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation show us that the overwhelming majority of Israelis, an estimated 98%, believe that the bombing and killing carried out by Israel in Gaza is not enough."
Al-Jazeera: Israel presents itself to the world as one who defends “Enlightenment thought” and “Western civilization” from the “barbarism” of Arabs and Palestinians, and markets its genocide in Gaza as a war of “good against evil.” Is this a settler-colonial discourse as well?
"Massad: It is true that this discourse and approach is old European colonialism dating back to the 19th century, where we find many examples of European colonial settlers using a completely similar discourse, especially when Britain used it to justify its occupation of Egypt when it considered the resistance to be barbaric, and that Britain represented civilization, which we also find in France’s insistence. However, its colonization of Algeria or Tunisia is part of the civilizational campaign carried out by France in the lands of “barbarians” and “savages.” We find that this proposition was used when Europe occupied the Americas in the pre- Enlightenment and post-Renaissance era, where the indigenous people of the Americas were called “Red Indians” and described as “savages.” Therefore, they should have been killed and eliminated in the name of European civilization and civilization.
"Zionist discourse, from its beginnings, sees itself as being based on the defense of Western civilization. For example, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl, in 1896, when he published his book “The State of the Jews” (Der Judenstaat), insisted that the Jewish state to be established in Palestine would be a barrier between European civilization and barbarism. Asian, if we do not say that he also means “Arab and Islamic barbarism,” as we find Chaim Weizmann, head of the World Zionist Organization and the first president of Israel, saying words similar to what Herzl said in the 1920s and 1930s, stating that the Zionist movement represents “light” while the Palestinians represent "Darkness", and therefore what we hear today since the beginning of the brutal attack on the Palestinian people in Gaza is nothing but a continuation of the same Zionist discourse, the roots of which we have explained.
"I must point out here that Zionism is not innovative in its ideas, as it borrowed most of its ideas from European Christian settlement movements. For example, the claim that European Jews want to “return” to Palestine, which is their homeland, given that they are descended from the ancient Hebrews, this idea is imaginary and wrong, and has become Some Arabs think it is true without being aware that European Jews embraced the Jewish religion as Europeans and were not Hebrew immigrants from Palestine to Europe. They are not descended from the ancient Hebrews like European Christians who converted to Christianity, and they did not come from Palestine where Christianity arose as a religion before converting to Europe. she has.
"France also insisted that its occupation of Algeria in 1830 was the “return” of the Romans to their Roman lands, and considered that the Arabs and Berbers were the settlers who should be expelled from Algeria. The Italians also used the same rhetoric when they occupied and committed their crimes against the Libyan people when the Italian invasion of Libya began in 1911. ; The Italians insisted that they were the heirs of ancient Rome and that Libya was Roman land that must be recovered and “returned” to it, and that the inhabitants of Libya at that time were nothing but settlers of Roman land.
"These European claims completely apply to Zionism, which still claims that the origins of the Jews go back to Palestine two thousand years ago, and that the Arabs and Palestinians are the settlers of Palestine. Here, even if we accept these false allegations that historians have refuted and confirmed their falsity, we must confirm that Palestine was not settled before. Arabs and Muslim conquerors. On the contrary, no more than 4,000 Arabs came to Palestine after the Islamic conquests, and most of those in Palestine were the original inhabitants of Palestine who existed before the Islamic conquest, and who embraced Islam gradually over time. The Zionists’ argument that the Arabs Christians and Muslims are nothing but settlers, which is just a blatant lie, and again, even if we assume that, this does not legitimize Zionism to come after two thousand years to monopolize a land that is not its own, expel the Palestinians from it, and steal their homeland from them.
"In addition, there was an idea that European Jews represented European civilization, unlike the indigenous people, who represented brutality, barbarism, and ignorance, which represented “darkness.” Therefore, their rejection of the “enlightenment” that the Europeans brought to them justifies the occupation policy according to their perspective, and accordingly we find again that most Zionist foundations depend on the same European Christian settlement and colonial foundations that lent the Zionists most of these concepts, including that indigenous peoples do not have the “right to defend themselves” because they do not know their way to civilization, and therefore, according to their claim, they do not possess any “right,” in the civilizational sense. The modernist refers to the word “right,” especially “legal right,” as defined by the post-Enlightenment era in Europe, while the colonizer has the “right of conquest.” According to this “right,” the colonizer has the right to occupy any land, especially if the people of this country have failed to develop it culturally, according to the claims of the colonial thesis. Of course, what the Zionist movement is doing by erasing Palestinian history, especially agricultural history and professional history, is an embodiment of the colonialism thesis.
"According to the perspective I explained, which links the Zionist movement to the colonial and settler legacy in the world, can it be considered that the resistance in Palestine, in turn, benefited from the history of resistance movements and their legacy in confronting colonialism? Or is she creative in resisting it in a new way?
"In my belief, the resistance in Palestine depends on the history and legacy of popular resistance, whether in Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, or in South Africa, or resistance to imperialist colonialism after World War II, as happened in Vietnam and Korea. The Palestinian resistance also drew from Failed resistance experiences in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, when most of the popular resistance was eliminated, despite its weak continuation until now in the United States and South America, due to the genocide committed against the indigenous peoples in these regions.
"I also believe that the approach of the Algerian revolution is considered the closest revolutionary model for resistance in Palestine, because there is a coincidence between the French occupation of Algeria and the Zionist and British colonization of Palestine at least since 1917. Accordingly, the coincidence of the two occupations for some periods made the Palestinian resistance benefit from its Maghreb counterpart.
"I believe that the Palestinian resistance, whether in the 1950s or later, when the Palestinian liberation movements were established, was drawing on and learning from the experiences of the resistance movements generated by the peoples whose lands were occupied, and I believe that one of the most important lessons that was finally absorbed by the Palestinian resistance movement represented by Hamas and Jihad . Islamist and other resistance movements, represented by the necessity of the resistor forcing the occupying forces to fight him according to the standards and tools of the resistance, and not according to what the colonizer decided, meaning that the resistance realized that war based on the colonizer’s data is considered a losing war, so the colonizer must fight wars or battles that are imposed on The colonizer adopts strategies that he had not previously considered, which confuses him and causes him to make strategic mistakes, and the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation can be included in this.
"Perhaps the most famous defeat among the British defeats at the hands of the resistance forces was the one they suffered in the late 19th century at the hands of the army of the Zulu Kingdom in the Battle of Isandlwana in South Africa in January 1879, where the Zulu army of 20,000 soldiers armed with light weapons was able to After the defeat of the heavily armed British army, and as a result of the fear of the government of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli that a Zulu victory would encourage other colonized peoples across the British Empire to resist, the British set out to re-conquer Zulu land in July 1879 with a much larger military force, which sacked their capital. Ulundi, demolished it and razed it to the ground. They also exiled the Zulu king outside the country, and the British did not hesitate to kill 10,000 Zulus, even though this cost them the loss of 2,500 British soldiers.
"We find something similar happening in the name of defending what is called "Western civilization", in 1965, two months before the white settlers declared the "independence" of Rhodesia, which expressed itself through massacres of the indigenous population at the hands of the white settlers.
"In a similar context, in 1896, the Italians, who had established a settler colony in Eritrea, decided to invade Ethiopia to occupy more territory, but were humiliated and defeated by the Ethiopian army led by the Abyssinian Emperor Menelik II. Thousands of Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Italian soldiers were killed in the “Battle of Adwa,” which deepened Italy’s sense of humiliation before its European counterparts, but its revenge waited for the fascist regime to come to power. Mussolini avenged Italy for the defeat of the "Battle of Adwa" when he invaded Ethiopia in 1935. He committed massacres in which 70,000 Ethiopians were killed, turning Ethiopia into a settler colony.
"We also find this in Sudan when the army of the Sudanese leader Muhammad Ahmed bin Abdullah, known as the Mahdi, liberated Khartoum from the British colonialists and defeated their forces in January 1885, but as a result of concern over the defeat suffered by Italy in Adwa, the British decided to invade Sudan in In 1896, they captured Khartoum in 1898 after killing, wounding, and capturing more than 30,000 Sudanese.
"The North Vietnamese also humiliated France in 1954 in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, which immediately prompted the Americans to take control of the war, and they killed millions in the following two decades throughout Southeast Asia. However, the United States was also defeated in Vietnam and Cambodia, but after killing... 5 million people in the region.
"So there are many examples that show that the European powers felt humiliated and humiliated, especially since they saw themselves as the “superior” and “supreme” race and civilization, because of their defeat by an “inferior” race according to the racist science of race that Europe created in the 19th century, and these experiences were important from which they benefited. The Palestinian resistance to making the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation a surprise to the Israeli occupation, because their racism and feeling of “racial superiority” did not allow them to imagine the possibility that the Palestinians, who are “racially inferior to them,” according to their racist claim, would initiate the attack, defeat the Israeli army, and occupy military bases. Israeli, and to breach the wall of the prison called “Gaza,” in which Zionism and the State of Israel detained them for 17 years. The resistance approach wanted to force Israel to deal with the Palestinian resistance according to the approach of the resistance itself, and not according to what Israel imposes on the Palestinians in reality."
Occupied Territories
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu frequently stated his intent for Israel to annex parts of the West Bank. Israeli officials reportedly were considering various annexation scenarios, including partial or phased annexation of West Bank areas. Possible U.S. support for annexation could be based on elements of President Trump’s January 2020 plan for IsraeliPalestinian peace, otherwise known as the Vision for Peace.Many scholars and practitioners argue that annexation is contrary to international law.39 To support their views, they cite sources such as the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,40 the United Nations Charter, and various U.N. Security Council resolutions. Additionally, existing IsraeliPalestinian agreements (the Oslo Accords of the 1990s) provide for resolving the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip via negotiations. In contrast, after Israel’s 1967 capture of the West Bank, while its government accepted some responsibilities for the territory and its inhabitants in line with the Geneva Conventions, it has asserted that the West Bank is “disputed territory” rather than “occupied territory,” and that building civilian settlements or applying Israeli law in the territory does not violate international law. Various U.N. Security Council resolutions have condemned certain actions by Israel in territories it captured in 1967. U.N. Security Council Resolutions 478 (1980) and 497 (1981), respectively, affirmed that the Knesset laws effectively annexing East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were violations of international law (see “How might Israel’s treatment of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights serve as models for West Bank annexation?” below). U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, adopted in December 2016 with the United States as the lone abstention, stated that settlements established by Israel in “Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,” constitute “a flagrant violation under international law” and a “major obstacle” to a two-state solution and a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”
In 1969, the Lyndon Johnson Administration’s permanent U.N. representative states that, under the Geneva Conventions, Israel is bound to keep the territory it occupied in 1967 as intact and unaltered as possible. The Ford Administration’s permanent U.N. representative says that “substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories” is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. During the Carter Administration, the State Department’s legal adviser writes a letter to two subcommittees of the House International Relations Committee concluding that the Israeli establishment of civilian settlements in occupied territories is inconsistent with international law. President Carter said that his Administration does not think that settlements are legal, and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance called them illegal.
In various statements, President Reagan said that settlements are “not illegal” but also “not helpful.” George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker said that the Administration does not consider settlements to be illegal, but to be an obstacle to peace. President Clinton said that the settlement enterprise was inconsistent with Israel’s commitment to negotiate a final-status solution with the Palestinians.
Obama Administration Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Administration saw no change to the fundamental conclusion of the State Department legal adviser’s 1978 letter that settlements are inconsistent with international law. President Trump's Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announced in 2019 that the United States will no longer recognize the conclusion from the 1978 letter that Israeli settlements are per se inconsistent with international law.
Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo Accords signed between 1993 and 1999, Israel transferred to the newly created Palestinian Authority (PA) security and civilian responsibility for the main many Palestinian-populated areas of the West Bank as well as the Gaza Strip. In addition to establishing the PA as an interim government, the Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into three areas with one fully managed by the PA (Area A), another fully administered by Israel (Area C), and a third with shared control (Area B) until a permanent agreement could be reached Since 1994, the PA has administered parts of the West Bank under its control, mainly the major Palestinian population centers and areas immediately surrounding them (Area A). Roughly 60% of the West Bank (Area C) remains under full Israeli civil and military control, impeding Palestinian movement and trade of people and goods throughout the territory.
The Israeli government argues that attempts to present Jewish settlement in ancient Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as illegal and "colonial" in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case. Jewish communities in this territory have existed from time immemorial and express the deep connection of the Jewish people to land which is the cradle of their civilization, as affirmed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and from which they, or their ancestors, were ousted. Israel has consistently taken the position that the areas of the West Bank and Gaza cannot be considered as occupied territories under international law. Nonetheless, Israel has undertaken to comply with the humanitarian provisions of the Law of Occupation in its administration of the territories.
The prohibition against the forcible transfer of civilians to territory of an occupied state under the Fourth Geneva Convention was not intended to relate to the circumstances of voluntary Jewish settlement in the West Bank on legitimately acquired land which did not belong to a previous lawful sovereign and which was designated as part of the Jewish State under the League of Nations Mandate. Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian Agreements specifically affirm that settlements are subject to agreed and exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the outcome of peace negotiations, and do not prohibit settlement activity.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) prohibits the transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), was drafted immediately following the Second World War and as a response to specific events that occurred during that war. It has been charged that the establishment of settlements by Israel in the administered areas violates article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and, in particular, paragraph 6, which provides that: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. Quite apart from the question of whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure to territory such as the West Bank over which there was no previous legitimate sovereign, the case of Jews voluntarily establishing homes and communities in their ancient homeland, and alongside Palestinian communities, does not match the kind of forced population transfers contemplated by Article 49(6).
It is clear from both the full text of article 49 and from its title, "Deportations, Transfers, Evacuations", that the full provision is directed against the forcible transfer of civilians with a view to protecting the local population from displacement. Oppenheim-Lauterpact confirms that the prohibition is intended to cover "cases of the occupant bringing its nationals for the purpose of displacing the population of the occupied territory" (Vol. II, 7th. ed., p. 452).
This understanding of the provision is underscored by its historical context. Drafted only four years after the end of the Second World War, the provision was intended to deal with forced transfers of population like those which took place in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. The authoritative ICRC commentary states clearly that paragraph 6 was intended to "prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonise these territories" (Commentary: IV Geneva Convention ed. Pictet (1958), p. 283). Accordingly, the movement of individuals to these areas is entirely voluntary. While the settlements themselves are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, they do so in practice.
As Professor Eugene Rostow, former US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs has written: "the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there" (AJIL, 1990, vol. 84, p.72). The provisions of Article 49(6) regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory should not be seen as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been forcibly ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership.
In this regard, it should be noted that Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, and subject to appeal, which is designed to ensure that no communities are established illegally on private land.
Just as the settlements do not violate the terms of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, they do not constitute a "grave breach" of the Fourth Geneva Convention or "war crimes", as some claim. In fact, even according to the view that these settlements are inconsistent with Article 49(6), the notion that such violations constitute a "grave breach" or a "war crime" was introduced (as a result of political pressure by Arab States) only in the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, to which leading States including Israel are not party and which, in this respect, does not reflect customary international law.
In legal terms, the West Bank is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations - and indeed both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have committed to this principle. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on the historic Jewish connection to, and long-time residence in this land, its designation as part of the Jewish state under the League of Nations Mandate, and Israel's legally acknowledged right to secure boundaries, but also on the fact that the territory was not previously under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain claims to this area. It is for this reason that the two sides expressly agreed to resolve all outstanding issues, including the future of the settlements, in direct bilateral negotiations to which Israel remains committed.
The bilateral agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians, and which govern their relations, contain no prohibition on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, it is specifically provided that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, reflecting the understanding of both sides that this issue can only be resolved alongside other permanent status issues, such as borders and security. Indeed, the parties expressly agreed - in the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement of 1995 - that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis and that the settlements are subject to exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.
Neither of the agreements in force between Israel and the PLO as of 1996 - the Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement - contain any provision prohibiting or restricting the establishment or expansion of Israeli settlements. Similarly, none of the other agreements between the two sides, now superseded by the Interim Agreement, contained such a provision. At various stages during the negotiations over these agreements, requests were made by the Palestinian side to include such a provision. Israel, however, opposed the inclusion of such a provision, pointing out that Israeli policy in this regard had already been established in a number of decisions by the Israeli Government, and explaining that it was not prepared to undertake any commitment beyond these unilateral Government decisions.
The Declaration of Principles does provide, in Article V, that the issues of settlements and Israelis are among a number of issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. Article IV provides that the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council covers "West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for those issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations." Accordingly, not only is there no restriction on settlement activity during the interim period, but the Council has no jurisdiction over settlements or Israelis. Settlements and Israelis remain under exclusive Israeli authority throughout the interim period.
Finally, the suggestion has been made that settlement activity is prohibited by the Interim Agreement, which provides in Article XXXI.7: "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations." The building of homes has no effect on the juridical status of the area. The prohibition on changing the status of the areas is intended to ensure that neither side takes any unilateral measures to change the legal status of these areas (such as by annexation or a declaration of statehood) pending the final status talks. Moreover, since the provision applies to both sides ("Neither side..."), were it to prohibit building, it would prohibit the construction of homes for Israelis and Arabs alike. This is not only impractical but also clearly not what was envisaged by the Interim Agreement, which contains provisions dealing with planning and zoning, on the assumption that building is to continue throughout the interim period. Were this prohibition to be applied to building - and given that the provision is drafted to apply equally to both sides - it would lead to the dubious interpretation that neither side is permitted to build homes to accommodate for the needs of their respective communities until permanent status negotiations are successfully concluded.
In this regard, Israel's decision to dismantle all settlements from the Gaza Strip and some in the Northern West Bank in the context of the 2005 Disengagement Plan were unilateral Israeli measures rather than the fulfilment of a legal obligation.
Israel's actions relating to the use and allocation of land under its administration are all taken with strict regard to the rules and norms of international law. All such actions are under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice which is accessible to any aggrieved resident of the areas. Although the Hague Regulations, in Article 52, permit the administering authority to requisition private property for reasons of military necessity, Israel does not requisition private land for the establishment of settlements, even where there is military justification.
Where land is not subject to private ownership, Article 55 of the Hague Regulations provides that the administering authority is permitted to utilize such public land and to enjoy the "usufruct". Indeed, there is a positive duty which obliges the authority to take possession of public property in order to safeguard it pending the final determination as to the status of the territory concerned. Felichenfeld in "The International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation" (1942) (at page 55) observes that the right to enjoy the usufruct includes the right to lease or utilize public lands or buildings, sell the crops, cut and sell timber, and work the mines."
Contrary to allegations frequently made in this regard, Israel does not expropriate any private land for the purpose of establishing settlements. Settlements are only established on public land after an exhaustive investigation has confirmed that no private rights exist in the land in question. The process of investigation includes an appeals process, through which any individual claiming rights in the land can object. Decisions of the Appeals Board and any declaration that land is state-owned can also be appealed to the High Court of Justice.
While Israel has indicated its willingness to compromise during peace negotiations, there are still those who insist on the absolute end to all Jewish presence in the West Bank (after Israel voluntarily disengaged from the Gaza Strip) and an unqualified return to the erratic 1948 cease-fire lines that existed prior to the 1967 Six Day War. There are no provisions in any of the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians that require a withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries. There are no geographic imperatives that sanctify the 1967 lines. There certainly is no logic to enshrining an inadvertent boundary that existed for less than 19 years.
The 4 June 1967 lines of the West Bank were not based on historical fact, natural geographic formations, demographic considerations or international agreement. The pre-1967 boundaries were based instead on the armistice lines demarcated on the basis of the position of armies in the field after the 1948 War of Independence. Accordingly, the 1949 Armistice Agreement explicitly refrained from defining them as final political borders. These lines merely reflected the relative positions of the Jordanian/Iraqi and Israeli military forces at the end of the War.
Several months after the 1967 Six Day War, the international community adopted UN Security Council Resolution 242, the seminal UN decision on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The resolution acknowledged the problematic nature of the 1967 lines - which had left Israel with a "narrow waist" of 9 miles - and recognized Israel's need for "secure and recognized boundaries". The Security Council specifically dismissed the Arab demand for a text that required Israel to completely return all the territory it acquired during the 1967 conflict, calling only for Israel's "withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict," not from "all the territories" or even from "the territories". Subsequent peace negotiations have addressed solutions that include compromises on the borders between Israel and a potential Palestinian state. Even the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, stated in his last address to the Knesset before his assassination in 1995, that Israel "will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines."
This position reflects both the changes that have occurred on the ground over the past four decades, as well as the problematic nature of the original lines. Major Israeli population centers now existing in the West Bank, mostly concentrated in settlement blocs, are located close to the 1967 lines. The forced deportation of their residents, rather than the rationalization of the border, would not be countenanced by the Israeli population, and would create an insurmountable challenge to any Israeli government.
The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
