Topic: Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories
Country: Syria
Delegate Name: Patrick Awtrey
School: Forest Hills Central High School
Although the Israeli presence in the Eastern Mediterranean has been a concern since the 1940s, the Zionist regime began to impose its biggest threat to the region beginning several decades later with the establishment of settlements in its occupied territories. During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel defeated a coalition of Arab forces to acquire Eastern Jerusalem and West Bank from Jordan, Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from the Syrian Arab Republic. Although each territory was adversely affected by the aftermath of this conflict, Israel proceeded to forcibly expel 131,000 Syrians residing in the Golan. These and the descendants of these refugees (which now total over a million) have since been barred from returning, and the 7,000 who remained have been forced to bear the ongoing Zionist intrusion. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Israel seized additional Syrian territory and relinquished it shortly thereafter to humiliated natives who returned to find their villages utterly destroyed. In 1981, Israel annexed the portion of the Golan which had remained occupied and imposed its legal jurisdiction throughout it, a move that has been unanimously invalidated by the international community (Security Council Resolution 497). This has not been the most troubling development of all, however. Since 1967, more than 20,000 Israelis have constructed and inhabited over 40 illegal settlements in the Golan territory, and they continue to expand with the backing of the Israeli Land Department and the encouragement of top Israeli officials. In doing so, Israelis are destroying the territory’s history and exploiting its natural resources (Israel relies on the Golan for 1/3 of its water supply). Israelis settlers are also inspiring clashes between themselves and the natives who have been discriminated against and deprived of civil rights, tax equality, and equal distribution of natural resources. Though all Egyptian territories have long since been returned, Israel continues to pursue similar policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where over 500,000 settlers collectively reside today.
Reassuringly, the world’s nations have deplored these devastating actions (albeit, with the exception of the Zionist regime itself). The framework for negotiations between Israel and its neighbors was established in 1967 with the passage of Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the “respect and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area and the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Thus, the ultimate goal of the United Nations is to resolve disagreement over claims to territory by regional entities. As recognized by Security Council Resolution 446, passed in 1979, this goal has been completely undermined by Israeli settlements. Resolution 446 “determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Arab territories have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the middle east;” it also goes on to reaffirm the 4th Geneva Convention, which forbids an occupying power from 1) altering the legal system within an occupied territory, and 2) resettling its own civilian population within an occupied territory. Furthermore, the Convention establishes the right of return for all residents in the case that they are deported. Israel has acknowledged both of these resolutions and the Geneva Convention, and its own Supreme Court has ruled that its settlement policies are illegal. Despite this, Israeli officials have repeatedly violated all statues in regard to each of its occupied territories. In Israel’s defense, Zionists claim that the Convention’s provisions do not apply during peacetime, which they believe has been upheld by their policy of occupation. On the contrary, Israeli occupation has been the primary cause of regional instability, and the Convention explicitly applies during all instances of occupation regardless of whether or not peace has been achieved. Israeli officials have also attempted to exploit numerous loopholes that would render themselves exempt from the jurisdiction of the Convention, which, according to a 1993 report approved by the Security Council, has been incorporated into international customary law. In light of this, they are eligible to be tried by the International Criminal Court.
Resolving the settlement issue has been accepted as a prerequisite for peace, but the failure of successive Israeli administrations to treat the issue seriously has stunted progress and prevented peace from being attained. Though Bashar Al-Assaad, Palestinian officials, and Israeli officials have repeatedly indicated their willingness to negotiate with one another, Israel has consistently refused to follow-through. Likewise, sentiments expressed on the larger issue of occupation, which is dependent on the issue of settlement, have met a similar fate. Almost every time bilateral negotiations have commenced, Israel coordinates a further expansion of settlement. Even as last month’s most recent attempt to negotiate commenced, Israel announced a new plan to construct 20,000 homes in occupied territory. Though Netanyahu’s nullification of this plan was mildly reassuring at best, the ordeal was degrading to all parties involved. This was not the only occurrence, however. Earlier this year, Israel released Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the approval it claimed to have received for settlement construction, yet this had never been agreed upon.
Even if Israel were to follow through with negotiations, the only solutions that it would be willing to entertain are tragically flawed. Israeli officials have considered withdrawing from all occupied territories with the exception of its settlements, yet this divisive scheme would not address the goal of attaining peace. In order for Palestine and Syria to have viable and contiguous states, settlements must be dismantled; Jewish enclaves cannot exist within the territories after they have been given up. Israeli concerns over security are also unfounded. The settlements, which began as military outposts but are now entirely residential, serve little strategic purpose and are a liability if anything. Additionally, in regard to Israel’s frequent demand for diplomatic recognition on behalf of Syria, official diplomatic ties are irrelevant given our willingness to cooperate.
Syria believes that the United Nations has enormous potential, if not a responsibility, to assist the Arab world with its plight. In order to fully resolve the issue of settlement within Israel’s occupied territories, Israel must completely and entirely evacuate all settlements within the Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Although this would be a very expensive and complicated project for Israel to undertake, the 2005 withdraw from Gaza proved that such is possible. Once the Jewish population has been fully expelled, reparation must then be made for all native villages destroyed since 1967, and all refugees must be guaranteed the right of return along with their families. So long as Israel continues to occupy these territories, all inhabitants must be provided with civic equality, tax equality, and equal distribution of water. If Israel does not comply (a possibility that has precedent), the United Nations ought to recommended to that ICC that it place on trial all Israeli officials responsible for the defiance. Once ground has been made on this issue, it would finally be constructive to refer the bigger issue of occupation to a future session of the United Nations for continued discussion.
In light of the numerous resolutions pertaining to this topic that have been passed by the United Nations, we expect the full support of the global community. Though Israel will resist any effort made to dismantle the settlements and reclaim the territory to which the Jewish population has considered itself entitled, it will have troubling gaining support; few nations and political leaders are willing to support such an erroneous prerogative. Although the United States is historically inclined to side with Israel, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and other top officials have expressed a desire for Zionist concession. Of course, we still plan to collaborate extensively with Iranian delegates on this issue, and delegates from Arab countries that Syria is currently at odds with will no doubt find common ground on this issue as well.
