Right now the legal status of the West Bank is defined as “belligerent occupation.” The United States State Department, as well as the United Nations, refer to it as an occupied territory. Both entities, along with the European Union, consider Israeli settlements built on occupied territory to be illegal. No lesser authority than the Security Council has formally decided that allowing continued settlement violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Do these policy statements accurately reflect reality? If that is the goal, then the US, UN, and EU should withdraw their disapproval and acknowledge Israel’s sovereignty over the West Bank. Unencumbered settlement construction should allowed. Such a policy is the only honest representation of the international community’s intentions. It is now well over 40 years after Israel annexed East Jerusalem and occupied the West Bank. It has by now become clear that no government or organization with the influence to seriously dispute Israel’s authority actually does.
If we assume that the majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank would disagree with this change in policy, who is there willing to advocate their interests? Obama’s half-hearted protests say that he is politically unable orunwilling to oppose a strong Israeli government. If anything his and Netanyahu’s current suspension on new construction has reignited political support in Israel for settlers. The EU surely responds to the conflict with enough outrage, but their opposition seems to have been no more forceful than university students boycotting Israeli-grown avocados.
The UN has responded in much the same way, but without even Europe’s naïve humanist fervor. One can cite any number of non-binding resolutions that condemn Israel’s stance toward its occupied territories. Though again one finds the seriousness of force nowhere in these documents.
To be sure, western groups are not the only ones who advertise themselves as patrons of the Palestinian cause. At times Egypt, Syria, and Iran have all purported to champion it. Egypt has fought a handful of wars with, politically opposed, and eventually became allied to Israel. The net effect of the entirety of their efforts has been zero. Syria would prefer to posture diplomatically and rattle the saber while they are in fact not influential enough with Israel even to regain their own Golan Heights.
Iran presents an interesting character to the Palestinian people. Ahmadinejad has clearly zeroed in on Israel as an enemy of the Islamic Republic. One of his commonly cited reasons is the way Israel has treated the land and people it occupies. However, one does not need to be a middle east expert to detect Iran’s alternative motive. Right now it is a rising power in the middle east, and opposing Israel, the currently dominant power, is a natural and predictable move. Siding with the Palestinians is a tactic for expanding its own power. The worry is whether the Palestinians will suddenly lose their champion if supporting them ceases to serve Iran’s interests.
The basic truth is that Israel is a powerful and influential nation. No one is willing to shoulder the political and economic risk that goes along with resisting them. This is especially true when it means allying oneself with a group as impoverished and practically impotent as the Palestinians. There is no economic or political incentive to siding with them—only human incentives, and one can see how much weight that has carried.
Therefore, what one sees in the present situation in the West Bank is not an intractable problem, or urgent international conflict. It is the consensus that the entire international community has tacitly agreed to. And there is no evidence it will be changing soon.
