The myth of Israel's illegal settlements

National Post ^ | 12/30/09 | David M. Phillips

[PoliticalEthics]

The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty has been rendered against settlement policy. There can be no doubt that this avalanche of negative opinion has been deeply influenced by the settlements’ unpopularity around the world and even within Israel itself. Yet, while one may debate the wisdom of Israeli settlements, the idea that they are imprudent is quite different from branding them as illegal. Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion — as some have done — this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself.

These arguments date back to the aftermath of the Six-Day War. When Israel went into battle in June 1967, its objective was clear: to remove the Arab military threat to its existence.

[antiRepublicrat]

Uti possidetis , as you possess. In modern days, there is a big difference between the legitimacy of territory taken in an offensive war (Iraq taking Kuwait) and Israel legitimately pushing back the attackers beyond its own borders while defending itself in order to provide some buffer territory. Israel conquered the area, so Israel has the right to build whatever it wants. It is now, and should be forever, Israeli land.

[PoliticalEthics]

Yes. That is so true.

[Talisker]

Excellent summation article, thanks for posting.

[PackerBoy]

bookmark