Why Do Settlements in the West Bank Not Hinder Peace?

Controversy surrounding the settlements in the West Bank is a persistent topic in discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Often, the focus is on how these residential communities hinder the possibility of peace. However, the reality is more complex and nuanced than commonly portrayed. Let's delve into the specifics.

The Legal and Strategic Context

The Israeli settlements in the West Bank, often referred to as Area C, do not necessarily act as an obstacle to peace. Area C, where most of these settlements are located, is under full Israeli control and constitutes only a fraction of the total West Bank population. According to data, less than 300,000 Palestinians reside in these areas, many of whom hold Israeli work permits. In contrast, over 3.2 million Palestinians live in Area A and B, regions where no Jews can reside or enter on a regular basis.

Historical Context

A historical perspective further clarifies the nature of the divisions. Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, there were no Israeli settlements in the West Bank, yet tensions were high. The fedayeen attacks, which began in 1948, were the primary obstacle to peace in that era. Similarly, in 1973, when the number of Israeli settlements was minimal, the Arab-Israeli conflict again erupted into war. Clearly, the presence of settlements was not the defining factor in these conflicts.

Current Challenges

The real challenge to peace lies with extremist groups such as Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, PFLP, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad. These groups have consistently and systematically obstructed a peaceful resolution. For instance, the on-going attacks and incitements aimed at Israelis greatly hinder reconciliation efforts.

Supply and Demand: The Logic Behind Settlements

The argument that settlements are a hindrance to peace often overlooks the practical considerations. The construction of settlements in Area C is driven by the logic of supply and demand. Since Area C is not within the pre-1967 borders of Israel and has been designated as an area for Israeli control, it makes sense to build communities there. It is also worth noting that tensions often arise when Palestinians return to their lands and homes, which suggests that the issue is more complex than the mere presence of settlements.

International and Domestic Perspectives

The legal framework surrounding settlements is also under intense scrutiny. The concept of "International Law" is often seen as inconsistent and selectively applied. For instance, the Geneva Conventions, which are frequently cited to declare settlements illegal, are interpreted in ways that are considered arbitrary and unrealistic. Moreover, many of the world’s major powers, including Western nations, do not adhere to these stringent interpretations of international law.

Settlements in Context

The very notion that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law is contested. Tel Aviv, founded in 1909, is an example cited by Palestinians themselves — if they don't consider Tel Aviv a settlement, why should we? This challenge to the legality of labeling Israeli settlements as such underscores the need for a broader re-evaluation of the legal framework.

The Broader Picture

Finally, the persistence of the conflict and the ongoing hostilities indicate that settlements alone are not the primary obstacle to peace. The global community, including the United Nations and the European Union, must also take a more nuanced and balanced approach when addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The focus should be on de-escalating violence and fostering a genuine dialogue between all parties involved.

It is crucial to recognize that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a comprehensive approach that considers the historical, political, and social dimensions of the conflict. While settlements and territorial disputes are important, it is the involvement of extremist groups and the broader international context that pose the biggest challenges to peace.