Lords of the Land
The War over
Israel's Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-2007
by Idith Zertal and Akiva
Eldar
New York: Nation Books, 2007. 531 pp. $30.
Reviewed by
Moshe Dann
Middle East Quarterly
Spring
2009, pp. 84-85
http://www.meforum.org/2140/lords-of-the-land
Disagreements about the legitimacy of Israeli settlements,
their effect on Israeli politics, and whether they are "obstacles to
peace" are hotly-debated questions. A fair-minded and accurate discussion
of the issues would be welcome. But Zertal, a historian at University of
Basel, and Eldar, a columnist at Ha'aretz, authors of Lords of
the Land, offer only a one-sided perspective to such questions as: How
did Israel's settlement movement attract such overwhelming support across
ideological and party lines, and what has been its impact on Israeli
society?
The authors did little original research, instead relying on
select left-wing newspaper articles, secondary sources, and tendentious
reports. A book written on the premises of such material predictably
blames Israel for almost everything. The authors argue that settlements
are the primary cause of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians,
have undermined the rule of law, have subverted the democratic
decision-making process in Israel, and "have brought Israeli democracy to
the brink of an abyss."
Their book presents three major arguments: First, settlers
tricked every Israeli government into acceding to their demands; second,
settlers "stole Palestinian land" in the West Bank and Gaza; and third,
Israel's "occupation" of these territories is illegal. The first charge is
a conspiracy theory; the second and third rely on distortion and
misinformation. Ironically, their arguments are often self refuting.
"The settlements," the authors contend, "flourished not only
with the authorities' seal of approval but also with official
encouragement and at the government's initiative." Yet, they themselves
document the democratic and transparent process: budgets that were
approved, allocated, and accounted properly; money spent to help citizens;
banks that lent mortgages; residents who paid taxes, and municipal
services provided. Everything was done legally, which explains why no
criminal charges have ever been brought against anyone who assisted
settlement-building.
All Israeli governments have supported settlements—which
were permitted by the Oslo accords—because these reflected an Israeli
consensus and, at least initially, enjoyed the backing of U.N.
resolutions: U.N. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) demanded only
that Israel "withdraw from territories" it conquered—deliberately omitting
"the" to indicate Israel's right to settle in those territories.
By cherry-picking sources, Zertal and Eldar ill portray the
nuance of the Israeli debate. Although the authors insist that "a majority
of the country" is against settlements, recent polls show that 54 percent
of Israeli Jews back settlements. Few would abandon settlements and return
to the Green Line (the 1949 border), the "two-state solution."[1]
The authors' condemnation of settlements as violations of
international law is based on the Fourth Geneva convention, which states
that "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of
protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the
Occupying Power or to that of any other country … are prohibited … The
Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies."[2] Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states
that it applies "to cases of partial or total occupation of the territory
of a High Contracting Party." But the West Bank and Gaza were not the
territory of a High Contracting Party, so the convention is not
applicable. Jordan's occupation of the West Bank was invalid under
international law, as only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized it. And
while Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip, it never laid claim to the
region.
More problematic is the authors' charge that Jews "stole
Palestinian lands," in reference to territory captured by Israel in 1967.
This includes vast areas of "state land," unclaimed and designated as such
under Ottoman/Turkish, British, and Jordanian rule. Palestine was never a
sovereign, independent entity; the concept of a Palestinian people did not
exist until quite recently. To suggest the entire West Bank is Palestinian
accepts at face value a maximalist Palestinian claim that is not grounded
in international law.
Using incomplete sources and unverified Arab claims, Zertal
and Eldar wrongly state that most Israeli settlements were built on
"private Palestinian land." A typical example of such inaccuracy was Peace
Now's claim that 85 percent of Maale Adumim, a settlement a few kilometers
east of Jerusalem, was built on private Palestinian land. Reported as fact
by all major media at the time, the official figure turned out to be less
than 1 percent.[3] Most Arab claims
cannot be substantiated or verified.
Likewise, Zertal and Eldar mischaracterize the parameters of
the debate over so-called outposts, relatively new hilltop settlements.
Despite Zertal and Eldar's blanket characterization of illegality, nearly
all of the hundred or so sites are within the legal boundaries established
by the government for communities. Moreover, it appears that authorization
and approval were implicit when government ministries and public
institutions including the Israel Defense Forces were involved.
Israel's repossession of its ancient homeland is unique in
history. It did not acquire territory belonging to another country and,
therefore, has not violated international law. Arabs were not dispossessed
in 1967; Jews were allowed to build communities, significantly, in areas
that had once been Jewish (e.g., Gush Etzion, Jerusalem, Hebron) and in
areas many of which have biblical significance (e.g. Shilo, Bet El,
Shechem/Nablus). The integrity of the state of Israel and the right of
Jewish settlement, included in U.N. resolution 242, has been amply
defended. The settlement issue, moreover, was never included in any
negotiated agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Lords of the Land feeds the neurosis of Palestinian
victimhood, a mindset that fuels terrorism and prevents the development of
any positive alternatives. Promoting the notion that Jews "illegally
occupy" and "steal Palestinian land" supports a libel that legitimizes
terrorism and provides an excuse for genocide. Why, then, such hostility
to Israeli settlements?
Blaming Israel for Palestinian terrorism and the failed
peace process is irrational. Giving Palestinian terrorism political,
economic, and social dimensions attempts to make sense out of the absurd,
to explain what is so profoundly anti-human. Unable to accept terrorism,
Zertal and Eldar transform the ideological and theological onslaught
against Jews and a nominally Jewish state into a simpleminded dispute over
land: land-for-peace and the two-state-solution.
Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in
Jerusalem and a former assistant professor of history at the City
University of New York.
[1] Maagar Mochot poll,
Jan. 21-22, 2009.
[2] "Convention
(IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,"
Article 49, Geneva, Aug. 12, 1949
[3] The New York Times, Mar. 14, 2007. Related Topics: Arab-Israel conflict &
diplomacy, Israel
Moshe Dann |
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment