By Matt Underwood West Bank settlement plans, as Germany has firmly stated to Israel, are illegal. This is a straightforward assessment, and it reflects a long-standing international consensus that the construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank violates international law. It seems that even Germany, a nation committed to supporting Israel, has found this latest development to be a step too far. It’s a clear statement, but the implications and the reasons behind it are complex and deserve a closer look.
The announcement of the plan to build 3,400 housing units in the E1 area, strategically located between East Jerusalem and the settlement of Maale Adumim, has sparked this strong reaction. Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that this plan effectively “buries” the possibility of an independent Palestinian state, which provides some of the context as to why so many are upset. This is more than just building houses; it is seen as a deliberate move to make a two-state solution increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
The international community widely considers these settlements an obstacle to peace. They encroach upon Palestinian territory, fragmenting it and making a contiguous Palestinian state practically unviable. The legality of these settlements is not just a matter of opinion; it’s rooted in the principle that occupying powers are prohibited from transferring their population into occupied territories. This is why Germany, among other nations, is taking a clear stance, despite historical ties to Israel.
It’s worth noting that the Israeli government, for its part, often argues that it is acting in its own security interests. Some view the settlements as a necessary measure to protect Israeli citizens. However, the international community sees it as a violation of international law and as a key obstacle to achieving a lasting peace agreement. The government also often argues that land is simply part of the territory it controls, and it is free to zone and build as it pleases.
Some feel that Western nations, including Germany, need to recognize that they’re not the arbiters of what is right for the Middle East. They state that the countries in the Middle East have to determine what is best for them. Those nations, who have to live with the outcomes of a situation, are often overlooked as western nations impose their wills. There is an increasing sentiment that Middle Eastern countries should be given more power to self-govern.
Others question the fundamental basis for drawing the borders. The “green line,” which is often used as a reference point, stems from military lines established in 1948. Some consider that these lines do not represent a legitimate legal basis for boundaries. They argue that the settlements are a reaction to pressure from European countries. These groups believe that any actions that the Israeli government takes, are justified.
The debate, however, delves into more sensitive areas as well. The argument of whether the West Bank is inside Israel, or whether Israel is inside Palestinian land is a point of contention. Some argue that Israel’s territory is a refugee settlement, while the Palestinians are natives to the land. Some also suggest that the debate might result in the perception of ethnic cleansing. However, it is widely agreed that a peaceful existence does not require the expansion of West Bank territories.
Another point of view is that the push for Palestinian independence is made more difficult by the construction of settlements. Some also feel that if the Israeli government wants to rule the West Bank, the Palestinian people should be given the same rights as the Israelis. The sentiment here is that a lack of equal rights makes it harder for Palestine to become independent.
Regardless of the varying points of view, the issue boils down to fundamental principles. International law, the right to self-determination, and the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. The legal basis of the settlement plan can be found in the UN agreement in 1948 that says countries should not change their boundaries through military means. Therefore, Israel can’t expand its territory without going through a proper UN agreement. Ultimately, the goal is to arrive at a fair solution, and these settlements are clearly an obstacle to that.