According to the Mitchell Report, what the Palestinians think about the current situation:
"The Palestinian Perspective: For the Palestinian side, "Madrid" and "Oslo" heralded the
prospect of a State, and guaranteed an end to the occupation and a resolution of outstanding
matters within an agreed time frame. Palestinians are genuinely angry at the continued growth of
settlements and at their daily experiences of humiliation and disruption as a result of Israel's
presence in the Palestinian territories. Palestinians see settlers and settlements in their midst not
only as violating the spirit of the Oslo process, but also as an application of force in the form of
Israel's overwhelming military superiority, which sustains and protects the settlements.
The Interim Agreement provides that "the two parties view the West Bank and Gaza as a single
territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period."
Coupled with this, the Interim Agreement's prohibition on taking steps which may prejudice
permanent status negotiations denies Israel the right to continue its illegal expansionist settlement
policy. In addition to the Interim Agreement, customary international law, including the Fourth
Geneva Convention, prohibits Israel (as an occupying power) from establishing settlements in
occupied territory pending an end to the conflict.17
The PLO alleges that Israeli political leaders "have made no secret of the fact that the Israeli
interpretation of Oslo was designed to segregate the Palestinians in non-contiguous enclaves,
surrounded by Israeli military-controlled borders, with settlements and settlement roads violating
the territories' integrity."18 According to the PLO, "In the seven years since the [Declaration of
Principles], the settler population in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip,
has doubled to 200,000, and the settler population in East Jerusalem has risen to 170,000. Israel
has constructed approximately 30 new settlements, and expanded a number of existing ones to
house these new settlers."19
The PLO also claims that the GOI has failed to comply with other commitments such as the further
withdrawal from the West Bank and the release of Palestinian prisoners. In addition, Palestinians
expressed frustration with the impasse over refugees and the deteriorating economic circumstances
in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."
What the Mitchell Report says about the settlements:
"Settlements: The GOI also has a responsibility to help rebuild confidence. A cessation of
Palestinian-Israeli violence will be particularly hard to sustain unless the GOI freezes all settlement
construction activity. The GOI should also give careful consideration to whether settlements that
are focal points for substantial friction are valuable bargaining chips for future negotiations or
provocations likely to preclude the onset of productive talks.
The issue is, of course, controversial. Many Israelis will regard our recommendation as a
statement of the obvious, and will support it. Many will oppose it. But settlement activities must
not be allowed to undermine the restoration of calm and the resumption of negotiations.
During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In
international forums, the U.S. has at times cast the only vote on Israel's behalf. Yet, even in such a
close relationship there are some differences. Prominent among those differences is the U.S.
Government's long-standing opposition to the GOI's policies and practices regarding settlements.
As the then-Secretary of State, James A. Baker, III, commented on May 22, 1991:
Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process, on each of my
four trips, I have been met with the announcement of new settlement activity. This
does violate United States policy. It's the first thing that Arabs -- Arab Governments,
the first thing that the Palestinians in the territories -- whose situation is really quite
desperate - the first thing they raise when we talk to them. I don't think there is any
bigger obstacle to peace than the settlement activity that continues not only unabated
but at an enhanced pace.24
The policy described by Secretary Baker, on behalf of the Administration of President George H.
W. Bush, has been, in essence, the policy of every American administration over the past quarter
century.25
Most other countries, including Turkey, Norway, and those of the European Union, have also
been critical of Israeli settlement activity, in accordance with their views that such settlements are
illegal under international law and not in compliance with previous agreements.
On each of our two visits to the region there were Israeli announcements regarding expansion of
settlements, and it was almost always the first issue raised by Palestinians with whom we met.
During our last visit, we observed the impact of 6,400 settlers on 140,000 Palestinians in
Hebron26 and 6,500 settlers on over 1,100,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.27 The GOI
describes its policy as prohibiting new settlements but permitting expansion of exiting settlements
to accommodate "natural growth." Palestinians contend that there is no distinction between "new"
and "expanded" settlements; and that, except for a brief freeze during the tenure of Prime Minister
Yitzak Rabin, there has been a continuing, aggressive effort by Israel to increase the number and
size of settlements.
The subject has been widely discussed within Israel. The Ha’aretz English Language Edition
editorial of April 10, 2001 stated:
A government which seeks to argue that its goal is to reach a solution to the conflict
with the Palestinians through peaceful means, and is trying at this stage to bring an
end to the violence and terrorism, must announce an end to construction in the
settlements.28
The circumstances in the region are much changed from those which existed nearly 20 years ago.
Yet, President Reagan's words remain relevant: "The immediate adoption of a settlements freeze
by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed..."
Beyond the obvious confidence-building qualities of a settlement freeze, we note that many of the
confrontations during this conflict have occurred at points where Palestinians, settlers, and security
forces protecting the settlers, meet. Keeping both the peace and these friction points will be very
difficult."
usinfo.state.gov
IOW, the one thing that angers the Palestinians the most is Jewish settlements in the West Bank - and this has been the case for a couple of decades. So why do they continue? |
