In August 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government evacuated 8,600 Jewish settlers from 21 communities in the Gaza Strip and transferred control of the territory to the Palestinian Authority. Nearly two decades later, right-wing parties in Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition are advocating for a return to Gaza, blaming the 2005 disengagement for Hamas’s subsequent military buildup that culminated in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack.
The push for resettlement is currently gaining momentum within Netanyahu’s coalition. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, declared: “We have a historic opportunity which cannot be missed to establish a new and true Middle East where west of the Jordan [River] there is room for one and only one national entity — the state of the Jewish people.”
These positions appear to resonate with a significant portion of the Israeli public. According to Israel’s Channel 12 poll, nearly 40 percent of Israel’s Jewish population now supports resettlement of Gaza.
The establishment of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip began after the 1967 war. Today, over 500,000 settlers — approximately 5 percent of Israel’s population — reside in the occupied West Bank. The existence of these settlements constitutes one of the thorniest and most contentious issues separating Israel and the Palestinians.
International law considers the transfer of civilian populations to occupied territories a violation of the Geneva Convention, a position reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice this year as well as the UN General Assembly in September.
One year into the current war, Netanyahu has not articulated any plans for Gaza’s future governance. Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip have caused the death of more than 42,000 Palestinians according to Gaza authorities, and the displacement of a significant number of civilians. The war appears to continue with no end in sight until a “total victory” is achieved.
The historical record of American policy toward Israeli settlements reveals significant shifts across administrations, ranging from strong opposition based on international law to tacit endorsement.
American-Israeli relations can be considered unique in the annals of international relations. Israel is a small country, highly dependent militarily, economically, and diplomatically on a superpower. Yet it has been able to avoid or rebuff significant pressure from the United States that could have forced it to change course on its conflict with the Palestinians.
Explanations for this anomalous relationship abound, including geopolitics, ideology, religion, domestic politics and the considerable influence of pro-Israeli lobbies. While each administration had its own distinct ideological compass and foreign policy agenda, the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict has remained an ongoing core concern shared by all.
President Lyndon Johnson set an early tone in September 1968, while the settlements project was still in its embryonic phase, warning that ”Israel must persuade its Arab neighbors and the world community that Israel has no expansionist designs on their territory.” His State Department explicitly cited the Geneva Convention in opposing settlement activity.
The Nixon administration maintained this position. It emphasized that “Israel, as occupant of the territories seized during 1967, is bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
President Jimmy Carter’s administration took a categorical stance. He stated unequivocally that settlements were “illegal and an obstacle to peace.”
A significant policy shift occurred under President Ronald Reagan, who declared in February 1981: “I disagreed when the previous administration referred to them as illegal, they are not illegal.”
President George H.W. Bush maintained Reagan’s approach while expressing opposition to settlement expansion. Secretary of State James Baker stated in 1991 that while settlements constituted “a serious obstacle to peace,” the administration no longer considered them illegal.
President Bill Clinton focused on the Oslo peace process while expressing concern about settlement expansion. In a 1996 letter to Netanyahu, he warned that settlement growth could “halt the progress made by the peace process.”
President George W. Bush’s April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recognized that the substantial number of Jewish settlers already residing in the West Bank had created a fait accompli. Recognizing the permanence of major settlement blocs in the West Bank constituted another departure from previous U.S. policy.
Under President Barack Obama, however, the U.S. abstained in December 2016 when the Security Council approved resolution 2334, stating that the settlements “had no legal validity.”
The Trump administration, in contrast, relocated its embassy to Jerusalem and explicitly rejected the settlements’ illegality under international law. Trump also recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights — still regarded by the international community as occupied Syrian territory.
The Biden administration has returned to a bolder position against settlements. Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared in February 2024 that settlements are “inconsistent with international law.” Biden has also taken unprecedented steps, imposing sanctions on settler groups involved in violence against Palestinians.
Over six decades, U.S. positions on settlements have ranged from “illegal” to “not illegal,” from “obstacle to peace” to “illegitimate.” Yet, no administration, irrespective of its stance on their legal status, has been able to persuade Israel to halt their construction.
Should a defiant Netanyahu proceed with resettling Gaza, Trump will have to balance his campaign pledges to Jewish and Arab Americans. On the one hand, he cast himself as a “big protector” of the State of Israel. On the other, while meeting with the local Muslim and Arab community in Michigan, he said: “We have to get this whole thing over with,” referring to the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, “We want to have peace. We want to have peace on earth.”
Would Trump view the resettlement of Gaza differently than the settlements in the West Bank, which he considered as legal during his first term?
According to the Times of Israel, Trump has told Netanyahu that he expects Israel to “wrap up the war in Gaza by the time he returns to office.” Trump hopes to expand membership in the Abraham Accords, signed during his presidency in 2020. He will face a resounding Arab veto if Israel refuses to end the war and does not fully withdraw from Gaza.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, has recently reaffirmed Riyadh’s position that there will be no normalization of “ties with Israel without a Palestinian state.”
What seems certain is that America’s inconsistent approach, coupled with a reluctance to exert pressure on Israel, has impaired its ability to serve as an effective peace broker. This will likely persist.
Yehuda Lukacs is an associate professor emeritus of global affairs at George Mason University. He is author of the forthcoming book, “Op-Ed: Musings on War and Peace in the Middle East and Beyond.”
Source link