Israel Position of the Settlements

Israel’s position of the settlements greatly depended on the position of the public. It stood that the existing settlements should not be brought down or destroyed in any agreement. It was permitted to evacuate or move some of the settlements if necessary only if it was a way of safeguarding. It is not known of the final negotiations of the Israel on their position of the settlements that the Israel government will be willing and able to make. Israel became reluctant in making the settlements status different (Abrams, P179). The Palestinians put pressure on Israel that they should dismantle the settlements. The Palestinians were very anxious creating situations and trying to push for the dismantling of the Israel settlements. Reaching an agreement between the Israel and the Palestinians on how the settlement should be handled came out to be extremely difficult.

In the end, it forced the Israel government to give permission for the implementation of the security to all the settlements by the Israeli military. Among those protected were the settlers and the Israeli citizens visiting the areas and territories that were under the authority of the Palestine. It was agreed that the Israel’s responsibility of offering external security should be relaxed with arrangements to negotiate with the Palestinians being cancelled (Abram, P 79). Analysis by some analysts argues that the issue on the settlements was left so wide hence deteriorating the status and conditions of the settlements. The Palestinians position of the Israel’s settlement went extremely opposite to that of the Israel. The Palestinians wanted and supported the dismantling of the Israeli settlements. Palestinians held that even after the dismantling, those that remained would fall under the authority of the Palestinians. The Palestinians have strongly opposed for any kind of expansion being made on the settlements or creation of any new settlements in Israel.

The issue of the settlements in Israel affects both the leadership of the Israel politically and the growth and development of the Israel economy (House of Commons, P99). Despite the resistance of the settlement expansion by the Palestinians, the expansion has not slowed down. Expansion of settlements has continued at a very high rate in the West Bank including in the East Jerusalem. There has been a relationship between the expansion of the settlements, the facilitation of the movement of settlers and the negative impacts that it has to the economy of the Palestinians and their development (House of Commons, P99). The ongoing expansion in the settlements has greatly supported the existence of the settlements leading to International peace being undermined.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry worked under policies that tended to freeze the expansion of the existing settlements. The first policy was that there should be no more expansion of the current settlements beyond where it has not been allowed (House of Commons, P99). Another policy was restricting any addition of new settlements. The land for construction of settlements was not to be appropriated. Finally, there was the cancellation of the incentives that were to be given to the residents of the existing settlements in the towns of Judea and Samaria. The spokesman of the ministry said that these policies would help the government fulfill the commitments of the Israel about the road map.

The policy that restricted expansion of the existing settlements beyond the allowed boundaries was followed with its reactions. This criteria, allowed for expansion of the settlements that existed geographically. It also increased the size of the settlements by several times. The existing settlements were made to handle more than a million settlers. The criteria also, play a part in Israel’s expansion of the master plan and facilitated the continuation of the construction. The policy that there was supposed to be no more new settlements appeared meaningless in terms of ending the constructions(House of Commons, P99). The term is used by the Israel government in its administrative reasons. It allowed Israel to continue construction in areas where there was the space and it was possible for expansion to take place. This would expand the settlements by several times settlements that existed.

The no appropriation of land for settlements permitted the government to exert pressure on the land which has been available by the military order but nit seized by the military. The policy also exerted pressure on the land that was initially for settlements, agricultural activities, and putting electric fence around the settlements that existed (House of Commons, P 100). The confiscated land had also been put aside for the construction of the wall that would result from the expansion of the settlements. The cancellation of the incentives to the residents of the settlements did not include the incentives that help in the growth and development of the Israel’s economy. The reason behind this is to attract new residents which the existing residents did not support. Other designed incentives were also not excluded so as to maintain the residency and invest within the existing settlements (House of Commons, P 100).

There is a position of the Israeli government that the current construction of settlements is not supported by the government in any way .This does not hinder the government from opposing such constructions on the settlements for several reasons. The first reason is that the government would mislead the settlers by saying that the construction is private. A private construction company can take part in the final stages. Though, the government is usually in control of each and every stage of the settlement process. The other reason is to approve the master plan and all aspects that are related to the construction. The government also gives financial incentives to enable the people to settle or invest within the settlement.

Research has shown there is an increase in the number of settlements in the West Bank. The government has justified the growth as a result of the population of the settlers massively increasing. Israel has never been an obstacle to the peace missions in the Middle East thus it has embarked on narrowing the options available in competing for the occupied territories(Jamal, P 23).Israel colonized Palestinians on their lands using a policy that enabled them establish settlements on the land and change the character of the Palestinians’ land. Israel became ignorant of the definition of borders and decided to extend their settlements past their border (Jamal, P24).The current prime minister of Israel who was in the very best position to influence the situation of the settlement had his claim. He claimed that the settlements strengthen the state of the security and justify the demand for the Israel to protect its boundaries.

In facilitating the Jewish settlement, the system used to plan operates vigorously and dwarfs the development of the Palestinian organizations (Jamal, P 25).This was done by rejecting the requests by the Palestinians to give them building permits. The requests are rejected in the name of the state does not allow construction in the area of the land that is relevant. The plan did not represent the needs of the Palestinians in the development of their populations. The system used in planning restricted them in preparing other plans. The planning system ordered for elimination of the West Bank as an area that is separate. In the same planning system, civil administration for the territories that had been occupied was establishment (Jamal, P 25).

The West Bank settlements were proposed to be frozen and those at Rafiah be retained as an agreement between Egypt and Israel (Bar-Siman-Tov, P120). The Israel prime minister recommended that he would never allow the settlements at Sinai to be dismantled. This was happened in the process of finding peace and legitimacy. The government claimed ownership of the entire land of Israel and declared that they could not allow any dismantling of the settlements in the Judea and Samaria. The government decided that they could not allow the Sinai settlements be touched in the pursuit of peace. It was put clear that there would be no peace talks with Egypt that would involve the Sinai settlements (Bar-Siman-Tov, P120).The prime minister stood by his position and claimed that the people of Israel opposed the dismantling of the Sinai settlements, and the freezing of Judea and Samaria settlements. He said that the settlements gave him the power to bargain in the negotiations.

The prime minister also rejected any attempt to freeze the West Bank settlements and any dismantling of the Sinai settlements. It had been suggested that residents be evacuated from the settlements as part of the peace initiative. Later the Israel government rejected the proposal in its response. There was to be no withdrawal from the West Bank settlements and nobody was to be evacuated from neither the Sinai settlements nor the airfields (Bar-Siman-Tov, P 122).They rejected any formula that could lead to the Palestinians proposal of determining their rights and running their state.

The United States of America supported the position of Egypt on the settlements in Israel. However, Begin as the prime minister of Israel stood firm and was not ready to give up on the settlements. He knew that the country would suffer great loss if the settlements were to be dismantled and people evacuated from the settlements. The settlements held large numbers of residents of Israel and it would not be easy to evacuate them all (Bar-Siman-tov, p 124).He made it clear that he would never sign any agreement that included the settlements in the peace talks by force.

Despite being optimistic of the Middle East crisis resolution, the process of finding peace failed. The Israelis had withdrawn from Gaza and there was expected to be some withdrawal from some parts of the West Bank. This was the main reason as to why people withdrew from the Gaza so as to accommodate those from the West Bank (Sherbok, P233).The Palestinians wanted to start claiming the land owned by the Israelites to be the land of a future Palestine. That, any land that was given to the Israelites would be compensated for an equal exchange of the land. The settlement posed a great problem for all the sides in the peace negotiation process. Israel decided to hold on keeping the main Israeli settlements in the East Jerusalem and the West Bank. If Israel became weak and withdrew from their position, then there would be a break up in the government coalition. The Palestinians have always liked that Israel left all the settlements just like they left those in Gaza. Though, the Palestinians have come to accept that not all the settlements would be evacuated. They believed that there were some which would be left but they would push for the minimum number of the settlements that would be left (Sherbok, P233).

Israel rejected the plea that the refugees from Palestine are allowed to go back to their homes. If the refugees returned back to their homes, then the state of Israel would be destroyed in terms of adjustment in demography. The Palestinians complained that they had the right to go back to their former homeland. It was so unfortunate that the right they claimed to have been only recognized through compensation. The Palestinians wanted Israel to withdraw from their land after Oslo 1 but they started finding it hard. They suspected the intentions of Israel and wondered why Israel continued expanding the settlements. There were no new settlements that were brought up but the expansion of the existing settlements almost doubled (Dowty, P1153).

The Israeli troops were withdrawn from the cities of Palestine but they remained controlling more than sixty percent of West Bank. Israel established several check points that the freedom of the Palestinians became limited (Dowty, P153).Travel became more difficult in Palestine more than before Oslo period when the West Bank was united. Israel refused to fulfill its promises of letting be free passage within Palestine, construction of airport and the release of Palestinian prisoners (Dowty, P 154).

Works Cited

Abrams, Nathan: Norman Porthoretz and Commentary Magazine. A&C Black, 2010.Print

Bar-Siman-Tov: Israel and the Peace Process 1977-1982. SUNNY Press, 2012.Print

Dowty, Alan: Israel/ Palestine. Polity, 2008.Print

Jamal, Amal: The Palestinian National Movement: Indiana University Press, 2005.Print

Parliament House of Commons, Britain: The Humanitarian and Development Situation in the       Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Stationery Office, 2008.Print

Sherbok, Dan: Introduction to Zionism and Israel. A&C Black, 2012.Print

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW