This is a guest post by Matt Hill
Supporters of Israel usually defend the occupation of the West Bank on one or more of four main grounds.
First, some claim that keeping hold of the territory is a security necessity. Since Israel is a small country (9 miles wide at its narrowest point), the occupation, according to this view, is needed in order to give it ‘strategic depth’ or to provide a buffer against a possible ground invasion from the east.
Second, some argue that Israel has tried its utmost to end the occupation by attempting to hand it over at negotiations like Camp David and Annapolis, but that the Palestinians don’t actually want their own state based on the 1967 lines because it would mean accepting Israel’s right to exist. Therefore, Israel is compelled against its own will to continue the occupation.
A third argument bases Israel’s claim to the West Bank, curiously, on human rights. According to this view, there’s no guarantee Jews would be allowed to live safely under a future Palestinian state. Since Jews should be allowed to live anywhere in their ancestral homeland, the only way to protect this right is by occupying the West Bank and maintaining settlements there.
Finally, there is the religious argument: the land belongs to Israel, or the Jewish people, because God said so in the Bible. This was the justification used by many of the original settlers, who believed settlement of ‘Judea and Samaria’ was part of an inexorable historical process that would lead to the coming of the Messiah. But it’s not one you hear often in the liberal media, where supporters of Israel tend to use the first three.
These thoughts occurred to me while reading a story in Haaretz today. With the Dead Sea coastline receding, Israel has registered 35,000 newly uncovered acres as ‘state land’, rejecting a legal petition from Palestinians for ownership. The land is in the West Bank, and therefore falls under the laws of the occupation. Palestinians had wanted to build a tourist resort in the area, but Israel will now be able to allocate the land to settlements or Israeli companies.
Harry’s Place readers tend to base their arguments for the continuing occupation on broadly liberal grounds. So I’m interested to know how supporters of Israel at this site view acts like this, and whether they affect your overall view of the occupation. Why did Israel take this step? Was it necessary on any of the grounds mentioned above? Do supporters of Israel understand why some people object to this kind of thing?
