Jewish--Palestinian conflict is full of catch words: peace, terror, occupation, apartheid, Zionism, antisemitism, settlements, refugees, right of return and others. Everybody uses them as emotionally charged weapon against the opponent. Although most are used with historical, social, legal, and religious thin dressing, logical and rational arguments are almost impossible. Perhaps the only manner to conduct a dialog, is by taking a view of a particular group, illogical as it may seem, and attempt to draw a conclusion from its consequences. Let us consider occupation. Almost nobody remembers that after Arab countries and Palestinians had launched a war against Israel to protest the UN resolution 181 of November 1947, the West Bank became a part of Jordan. Nobody complained that Jordan occupied a land of somebody. Was it an occupier? In 1967 Egypt and Jordan launched again a war against Israel. Jordan lost the West Bank. How exactly Israel became an occupier of a land the status of which had not been defined? Nobody knows, but for the sake of argument let us assume that Israel is indeed the occupier of the West Bank.
The Jewish settlements in the West Bank are considered by Palestinians, governments of many countries, and even some Israelis "illegal." Furthermore, they are seen as chief, or at least very important, obstacle to peace. Settlements, as any issue on which the parties disagree is an obstacle to peace, however it is not among the first in any list of priorities. Issues such as end of conflict, refugees and right of return, security and many others are much more important in the sense that without solving them a peace can never be achieved and proceeding to other issues before this is done seems useless. The area of the settlements is only few percent of the total area considered. If Israel decides to evacuate them tomorrow the peace would not draw closer. In fact, there may be another war, similarly to what happened after retreat from Gaza and Lebanon. Be that as it may, emotions created by settlements soar high. For the sake of argument let us assume them to be illegal and the first issue of the day.
The question whether "settlements" as a general term are legal or not, has nothing to do with the right of an individual, who built his or her house, by legal permission, namely that of the military commander of the occupier, on land bought from a private owner or the government. The State of Israel, by its natural right and or by that of being the the occupier can transfer the land to Palestine or Jordan, but it lacks the authority according to international law, or even more so by the principle of human rights to force an individual owner to move to a new location. A settler, if he or she so desire, can stay in their home, irrespective of the country in which they reside, unless they choose by their own free will to live elsewhere.
The Palestinian state, certainly if it wishes to become a part of international community, cannot claim ethnic cleansing as its existence principle. It makes no logic for it to claim cultural affinity to Arabs in Israel, while insisting that Palestine must be Judenrein. UN resolution 181 declared both the Jewish and Arab states as places where Arab and Jewish minorities respectively are living, each with full citizenship rights.
The parties may negotiate border adjustments if they desire to so, but such adjustments do not alter the rights of individual inhabitants. The human right principle allows them to stay in their homes irrespective of which state rules them.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה