A Conflict Resolution for West Bank Settlements
Israel and Palestine have a long history of conflicts and disputes. The focus of their conflicts lies in the ownership of settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights. Both countries intend to claim ownership of these areas to the housing problem of their citizens. But there haven’t reached a consensus between these two countries due to their complex historical relations. Currently, Israel places its inhabitants in West Bank settlements even though Palestine and the international organizations keep condemning its illegal behaviors.
Since 1967 Six-Say War, Israel has owned the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights. Settlements were built in these regions for military outputs originally, then transferred into civilian habitats. The government carried out the “Drobles Plan” to establish large-scale settlements in the West Bank in order to prevent a Palestinian state with the excuse of security. Also, the housing price in West Bank Settlements was much lower than that in Israel. Thus, for the economic factor, the government would like to place citizens in these settlements to relieve the domestic housing pressure. Statistics show that until 2014, Jewish settlers has lived in more than 102 officially recognized settlements in the West Bank, and more than 380,000 Israelis has lived in these settlements. According to the Oslo II Accord, Israel wanted to limit the Palestinian power less than a state, simply an entity of residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Thus, the Israeli government arranged many military outposts in these settlements in order to supervise Palestinian citizens in these areas. However, since the establishment of Palestine in 2002, Israel’s use of settlements in the West Bank has been widely questioned and condemned. However, the establishment of a Palestinian state was well acknowledged in 2002. And military outposts established by the Israeli government were supposed to be dismantled. Nevertheless, few outposts were removed. Instead, more new outposts established. Both of these countries intend to claim ownership of settlements in the West Bank.
On one side, the international community supports Palestine and regards that Israel’s use of settlements in the West Bank is illegal. The United Nations has repeatedly regarded that this settlement violates the Fourth Geneva Convention which requires that the occupying country shall not place its citizens into the territory it occupies. Israel’s behaviors have violated Palestinian human and land rights. Thus, based on this law, the international community requires Israel to transfer its citizens out of these settlements. On the other side, the Israel government argues that all authorized settlements are entirely legal in its ownership and Israel’s behaviors are consistent with the international law. Israel doesn’t admit the Fourth Geneva Convention, saying that its provisions don’t suit for the practical situations regarding humanitarian issues. Israel keeps arguing that these settlements have serious security needs. The temporary use of land and buildings in these settlements mean to meet these security needs, which is permissible under the international law.
The resolution of this conflict is to negotiate a deadline for Israel to transfer its citizens out of settlements in the West Bank. Before Israel finishes the transfer, the international community and Palestine could impose economic and political pressures on Israel. The deadline aims at giving Israel enough time to adjust according to its practical situations, not a compromise to its harsh attitude. If there are really security needs in these settlements, Palestine and the United Nations could offer military help for Israel’s peaceful transition.
In order to implement this resolution, the United Union must organize negotiations with Israel. The focus is not to dispute whether Israel has the legal right to use settlements in the West Bank, but how long Israel needs to transfer its citizens out of those settlements and if there is any trouble to fulfill it. If Israel refuses to solve this conflict through negotiations, the United Nations and Palestine could refuse to admit Israel’s ownership of settlements in the West Bank and cut off economic cooperation and political connections. If Israel has practical concerns and troubles, like the security problem, the United Nations and Palestine could offer related assistances after negotiations.
A Conflict Resolution for Jerusalem
As is well-known to the world, Jerusalem is the sacred home to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Its religious value makes this city precious in the Muslim World. Both Israel and Palestine intend to claim this city as its capital, but neither of their claims is recognized by the international community. Their territorial conflict is especially intense in the ownership of this city.
Jerusalem has a long history being the center of fights in the Middle East, one of the oldest cities in the world. It is a holy place for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Both King David and King Solomon treated it as the center of the Jewish people according to the Bible. So Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, and attacked and captured many times in the long-term fight. In the history, Jerusalem was captured and recaptured by Perth, Byzantium, Rome, the Ottoman Empire, the United Kingdom, and Jordan successively. Israel captured the West Jerusalem during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and then captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the Six-Day War in 1967, as well as the surrounding territory. Israel has made it clear in the 1980 Jerusalem Law that Jerusalem is Israel’s undivided capital. All Israel’s government branches are located in Jerusalem. However, the international community refuses to admit Jerusalem as the legal capital of Israel and views East Jerusalem as the Palestinian territory. And Palestine has viewed Jerusalem as its future capital. Today, the ownership of Jerusalem becomes the core issue of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
On one side, Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital since 1949. And in 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law as one of its basic laws, in which Israel declared Jerusalem was its capital. Israel takes Jerusalem as its legal territory and settles all government branches there. The international community refuses to admit Jerusalem as the legal capital of Israel and treats the Jerusalem Law as a violation of the International Law. Though forced to move those government branches out in the 1990s, Israel still views Jerusalem as its legal capital. However, one the other hand, Palestine regards that East Jerusalem is its territory according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Palestine also claims Jerusalem as its capital due to the pre-1967 municipal borders.
The resolution for the Jerusalem is reaching a consensus of this territory by negotiations. Israel and Palestine signed the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles in 1993, regulating that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains to be decided by negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The best result for their negotiations is to cooperate in the governance of Jerusalem and promote mutual communications. The West Jerusalem could be used as the capital of Israel, and the East Jerusalem could be used as the capital of Israel. In order to acquire the recognition of the international community. These two countries must reach a consensus first then persuade the international community to accept their agreement. It is essential to make a compromise for the mutual benefit. Since both these countries intend to make Jerusalem their capitals, it is essential to clarify the boundary so that both countries could enjoy full sovereignty of its capital, the most important political center for a country. The long-term uncertainty of the capital is not beneficial for a country’s diplomatic and political development. Thus, for the mutual benefit, Jerusalem could be split into two parts and managed by these two countries respectively.
In order to implement this resolution, both Israel and Palestine should abandon their historical discriminations and work together for the future development. Their mutual goal is to get Jerusalem recognized by the international community as their respective capital for the political and diplomatic development. This goal should be the focus of their negotiations. If necessary, the United Nations could be asked to get involved in the negotiation to reach a recognized consensus.
A Conflict Resolution for the Wall
Israeli West Bank barrier, also known as “the wall,” is a separation barrier in the West Bank. It is built by the Israeli government in 2003 according to the 1949 Armistice Line. This line is around 700 kilometers long and separates around 10 % of the West Bank and 23,000 Palestinians from other territories. Israeli builds “the wall” for the security problem in the West Bank and the protection of local Israeli citizens. However, Palestine regards “the wall” as a barrier to mutual communication and a refusal of peaceful negotiations.
In 1969, Israel and Jordan signed the Armistice Agreement to define the Armistice Lines to cease the fire. After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel turns the Armistice Lines into the permanent borders for the Israeli security. Later, after Jordan was officially recognized as Palestine, Palestine claimed the West Bank as its territory. But Israel built “the wall” eastward from the Armistice Lines and divided the West Bank into two parts. Also, “the wall” separated some Palestinians from other parts of the West Bank and left them isolated. Israel claims its behaviors as the protection from its citizens from terrorism, but the unilateral decision incurs Palestine’s complaints and disagreements.
On one side, the Israeli government argues that “the wall” is built to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, especially after the Second Intifada period. Statistics show that “the wall” does make its expected effect reduce the terrorist attacks in the West Bank. There were 73 suicide bombings in the West Bank from 2000 to 2003, but there were only 12 from 2003 to 2006. And “the wall” was built according to the geological situation in order to protect its citizens from terrorism effectively. Thus, even though “the wall” doesn’t fully match with the Armistice Lines, it is reasonable for the protective function. The effectiveness of the barrier confirms Israel’s determination to keep this barrier as long as there are potential security threats in the West Bank. However, Palestine takes “the wall” as Israel’s refusal of peaceful negotiations and harmonious co-existence. The unilateral decision is an insult of Palestine’s authority, and the concern of terrorist attacks is simply an excuse to cover its reluctance of cooperation. “The wall” restricts Palestinians’ communication with Israeli people and makes it difficult for people of these two countries to cooperate with each other. Palestine argues that the decreasing number of terrorist attacks in the West Bank is not due to the construction of the barrier, but the increasing militants of these two countries. Palestine argues that Israel tries to limit Palestinians’ freedom, occupy more Palestine’s land, and impair Palestine’s economic development. The barrier causes great complaints and oppositions among the affected population, which increases the security threat instead of eliminating it.
The resolution of this conflict is to define a clear border through negotiations and encourage the mutual communication. The United Nations enacted Security Council Resolution 1544 in 2004 to require Israel to set the barrier within its territory under the international law and solve the security problem in accordance with its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. If the security problem is the main reason for the construction of “the wall,” then these two countries could come up with other methods to solve the terrorist concerns in the West Bank so that “the wall” could be dismantled. It is essential to define a clear border between these two countries to avoid any conflict related to the border problem. And any problem related to the boundary should be negotiated by both sides. It is illegal and immoral to make decisions unilaterally. The best resolution to solve terrorist problems is to promote mutual communications and understandings.
In order to achieve this resolution, Israel should take a cooperative attitude in negotiations. Palestine should stress the negative impacts of this barrier on Palestinians. If Israel keeps making decisions unilaterally, it will cause protests from the affected population in the West Bank, which increases the terrorist threat in this region. Israel should pay the debt of any violence related to its irresponsible behaviors. Palestine should assist Israel to solve its terrorist concerns. The United Nations could be asked to get involved in the negotiation to reach a peaceful consensus.