On March 22, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that Israel would be taking control of 10 km. of land previously not under its authority in the West Bank – the disputed territory the world calls the “West Bank.”Smotrich announced, “While there are those in Israel and the world who seek to undermine our right over the the West Bank area and the country in general, we are promoting settlement through hard work and in a strategic manner all over the country.”
This announcement largely escaped mainstream and even Israeli media but was highlighted by Arab media outlets around the world.
As The Washington Post reported, “If Israel confiscates land around Jerusalem, all the way to the Dead Sea, there will be no future for a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem,” said Hamza Zubiedat, a land rights activist for the Ramallah-based Ma’an Development Center. “This is where a Palestinian capital was supposed to be located, according to the American and European talks.” While Zubiedat’s reaction wasn’t factually accurate, it speaks to the Palestinian objection to Israeli expansion in the West Bank.
The American government strongly objects to Israeli building in the West Bank.
American long-held policy was not to state an opinion on the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Former president Donald Trump changed American policy, maintaining that settlements weren’t inconsistent with international law. Current US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reversed American policy and declared that Israeli settlements are inconsistent with international law. Secretary Blinken recently said, “Our administration maintains a firm opposition to settlement expansion, and in our judgment, this only weakens – and doesn’t strengthen – Israel’s security.”
Settlement legitimacy
The Israeli government maintains that settlement building is legal and encouraged. Israeli prime ministers from the Left, including David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin, to the Right, including Menachem Begin and Benjamin Netanyahu, considered the West Bank historic Jewish land. It is as much part of the land of Israel as Tel Aviv and Netanya – if not even more.
the West Bank are considered the heartland of historic Israel. Israel’s long history on the land, its intrinsic connection to the region, and the absurdity of claiming that Jews are prohibited to live somewhere simply because they’re Jews, lends legitimacy to Israeli expansion of settlements. No excuse nor justification needs to be given for Israeli settlements, just as none is given in response to Arabs who claim Jews can’t live in Jaffa or Tel Aviv.
The US government and the European Union (EU) see a larger issue in rebuilding settlements than international law. The Americans believe the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the two-state solution. This plan envisions an Israeli and a Palestinian state living side by side, in peace. Settlements are built on the land the global community envision being a Palestinian state. In their estimation, Jewish settlements forestall, and could eventually end the possibility of implementing the two state solution. Many accuse Israel of building settlements specifically to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
In 1937, the British Peel Commission offered a two-state solution, and the Arabs rejected the idea. The Arabs did so again in 1947 with the United Nations Partition Plan. In subsequent years, the Palestinians rejected countless offers of autonomy or statehood if they would end the conflict by signing a peace deal with Israel.
Never ones to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, the Palestinians have rejected every peace deal offered by Israel.
They have had plenty of chances to establish an independent Palestinian state, but their intransigence has prevented it. It seems the Palestinians aren’t interested in their own state alongside a Jewish state, they prefer a Palestinian state that takes the place of the Jewish state.
Palestinian inflexibility isn’t the only problem plaguing the two-state solution. Not only do Palestinians refuse to negotiate peace with Israel, but they also utilize terrorism as a method of obtaining their political objectives.
Contrary to a narrative popularly pushed by Western leaders and media, Palestinian terrorism isn’t just conducted by the extremists in Palestinian society. Terrorism has the support of Palestinian leadership and the people. Leaders incentivize terrorism through programs like “pay for slay”; teachers encourage violence by using examples of terrorism in their classrooms; and society as a whole sends a clear message by naming streets, schools, and municipal buildings after terrorists.
Palestinians expect the world to cater to their demands, reverse 75 years of history, and create a Palestinian state along the borders the United Nations set in 1947. They imagine they can refuse to negotiate for peace and move to terrorism and there won’t be any consequences to their position. Their assumptions are irrational and unrealistic. The Palestinians have had multiple opportunities to create an independent state for themselves and have passed up on each and every opportunity for peace. Their rejectionism has consequences.
It is time the world addressed Palestinians honestly. Instead of talking about a two-state solution and a “revamped” Palestinian Authority, it’s time the world told Palestinians they have given up the chance of a state.
Their adoration of death, violence, and terrorism has defeated their aspirations for an independent state. They must give up their insistence on a state “From the river to the sea,” and even in parts of it, and work towards a peaceful negotiated settlement with Israel. Further terrorism and intransigence will only make life worse for them, going forward.
Until the world is ready to have this honest conversation with the Palestinians, they will continue to hold onto their unrealistic demands and increase their terrorism.
The writer is a certified interfaith hospice chaplain in Jerusalem and the mayor of Mitzpe Yeriho, Israel. She lives with her husband and six children.