The Trump Administration’s Statement on Israeli Settlements: Legal Status and Political Reality
By Gilead Sher, Daniel Cohen
Since 1978, U.S. policy has generally held in variable levels of consistency that Israeli settlements in the West Bank contravene international law, and at the very least present an obstacle to peace. On November 18, 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announced a reversal of the policy, stating that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.” The Palestinians received this news as another act of hostility by the Trump administration toward them, as it followed a series of pro-Israel decisions in the recent past, including the relocation of the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, a cut in U.S. financial support for the Palestinians, and the cessation of U.S. contribution to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian Refugees.
The legal significance of Pompeo’s announcement is secondary to its impact on the political situation on the ground and the international arena. Despite resolutions by international bodies regarding the Israeli presence in the West Bank, the 1993 Declaration of Principles (Oslo I) has addressed Israeli settlements as an issue for final status negotiations, along with other core issues, namely Palestinian refugees, security arrangements, and the status of Jerusalem. To a degree, the Pompeo statement aligns with the Israeli perspective: preoccupation with the settlements limits flexible negotiations and hinders a successful and nuanced political process. However, the potential for the new U.S. policy to incite dangerous consequences represents a major spoiler to any eventual peace process.
This brief will assess the consequences of the Trump administration’s new settlement policy, particularly within the context of past legal arguments and the stances of six previous U.S. presidential administrations— i.e., those of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Pompeo’s statement is misguided, not because of its legal-political determination, but because of what it threatens to induce: further gridlock between Israelis and Palestinians, potential Israeli annexation of the West Bank (as has been proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu numerous times5, 6), and a dangerous Israeli decline into a single state that all but eliminates the Zionist enterprise.7
Read the full article as published on Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy brief - Click here