click here to jump to start of article
  • Torah Reading: Naso
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​

In Defense of 'Settlements'

In Defense of 'Settlements'

Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in Israel.


No one, including a president of the United States of America, can presume to tell me, a Jew, that I cannot live in the area of my national homeland. That's one of the main reasons my wife and I chose in 1981 to move to Shiloh, a so-called settlement less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem.

After Shiloh was founded in 1978, then-President Carter demanded of Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the village of eight families be removed. Carter, from his first meeting with Begin, pressed him to "freeze" the activity of Jews rebuilding a presence in their historic home. As his former information aide, Shmuel Katz, related, Begin said: "You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh and Hebron, and you haven't the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to reside wherever he pleases."

We now fast-forward to President Obama, who declared on June 15 in remarks at a news conference with Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, that Jewish communities beyond the Green Line "in past agreements have been categorized as illegal."

I believe the president has been misled. There can be nothing illegal about a Jew living where Judaism was born. To suggest that residency be permitted or prohibited based on race, religion or ethnic background is dangerously close to employing racist terminology.

Suppose someone suggested that Palestinian villages and towns in pre-1967 Israel were to be called "settlements" and that, to achieve a true peace, Arabs should be removed from their homes. Of course, separation or transfer of Arabs is intolerable, but why is it quite acceptable to demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the area? Do not Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in the state of Israel?

Some have questioned why Jews should be allowed to resettle areas in which they didn't live in the years preceding the 1967 war, areas that were almost empty of Jews before 1948 as well. But why didn't Jews live in the area at that time? Quite simple: They had been the victims of a three-decades-long ethnic cleansing project that started in 1920, when an Arab attack wiped out a small Jewish farm at Tel Hai in Upper Galilee and was followed by attacks in Jerusalem and, in 1921, in Jaffa and Jerusalem.

In 1929, Hebron's centuries-old Jewish population was expelled as a result of an Arab pogrom that killed almost 70 Jews. Jews that year removed themselves from Gaza, Nablus and Jenin. The return of my family to Shiloh -- and of other Jews to more than 150 other communities over the Green Line since 1967 -- is not solely a throwback to claimed biblical rights. Nor is it solely to assert our right to return to areas that were Jewish-populated in the 20th century until Arab violence drove them away. We have returned under a clear fulfillment of international law. There can be no doubt as to the legality of the act of my residency in Shiloh.

I am a revenant -- one who has returned after a long absence to ancestral lands. The Supreme Council of the League of Nations adopted principles following the 1920 San Remo Conference aimed at bringing about the "reconstitution" of a Jewish National Home. Article 6 of those principles reads: "The administration of Palestine ... shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands." That "land" was originally delineated to include all of what is today Jordan as well as all the territory west of the Jordan River.

In 1923, Britain created a new political entity, Transjordan, and suspended the right of Jews to live east of the Jordan River. But the region in which I now live was intended to be part of the Jewish National Home. Then, in a historical irony, a Saudi Arabian refugee, Abdallah, fleeing the Wahabis, was afforded the opportunity to establish an Arab kingdom where none had existed previously -- only Jews. As a result, in an area where prophets and priests fashioned the most humanist and moral religion and culture on Earth, Jews are now termed "illegals."

Many people insist that settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But that convention does not apply to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza district. Its second clause makes it clear that it deals with the occupation of "the territory of a high contracting party." Judea and Samaria and Gaza, which Israel gained control of in 1967, were not territories of a "high contracting party." Jewish historical rights that the mandate had recognized were not canceled, and no new sovereign ever took over in Judea and Samaria or in Gaza.

Obama has made his objections to Israeli settlements known. But other U.S. presidents have disagreed. President Reagan's administration issued a declaration that Israeli settlements were not illegal. Support for that position came from Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former president of the International Court of Justice, who determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria did not constitute "occupation." It also came from a leading member of Reagan's administration, the former dean of the Yale Law School and former undersecretary of State, Eugene Rostow, who asserted that "Israel has a stronger claim to the West Bank than any other nation or would-be nation [and] the same legal right to settle the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as it has to settle Haifa or West Jerusalem."

Any suggestions, then, of "freezing" and halting "natural growth" are themselves not only illegal but quite immoral.


This op-ed originally appeared in the LA Times.

July 5, 2009

Give Tzedakah! Help create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 19

(19) josef Baruhovic, January 14, 2016 7:28 PM

Israel have a right to expand a settlments

Israel is still fighting for his bold survival. and Izrael have a full right to protect his existance. And one way reason,is to expand a settlments. to other reasons are : historic back ground,and the Ballfur Declaration.

(18) Anonymous, January 1, 2014 12:55 AM

an Australian view on settlements

I would like to think I would have expressed my opposition to "liebensraum" the first time it occurred 70 years ago.Scary how people can espouse similar views again.All it does is convince me the settlements and whoever wants to stay should be part of a new Palestinian state

(17) Michal Evenari, September 11, 2011 7:50 PM

Yes, David Waldman is wrong.

How did this strange idea enter your head, that giving up half of Jerusalem or other parts of our land w o u l d b r i n g p e a c e ??? Is Gaza, where we behaved like that, now in any way peaceful when it comes to us??? Come on!

(16) Ita, July 9, 2009 4:59 PM

Gaza is proof that concessions don't do ANYTHING

#12, you are verrry misguided.. There will not be peace until all the palestinians are required to go to Jordan and are stripped of weapons. Hash-m is on our side, that's all we need!

(15) Anny Matar, July 8, 2009 9:49 AM


We have been slaves to world opinion what for? We have never heard the "world" finding us to be right, we always are in the wrong. How often did we Israelis think :Well "NOW" the world will admit that we had a right to respond to 8 years of constant bombarding. 8 Years!our children having to LIVE in shelters (not only run there ,for there wasn't enough time between the alarm and the rocket) they didn't see daylight nor did they breath fresh air!!! What does the world complain of now? THE ISRAELI DEATH TOLL IS LOWER THAN THE ARABS!!!! Well good for us!! We look after our population while Hamas uses them as human shields and after either we, unwillingly, kill them, THEY SHOUT BLOODY MURDER!!! It reminds me of the boy who killed his parents and asked for state support for orphans. Yes they shout bloody murder, peanuts Carter supports them, and Obama hasn't learned his lesson yet but the U.N. sends missions here to find out the damages they suffered. Tell me if any other nation at war throws leaflets warining the population that that specific area will be bombed!!! WELL WE DID. How much does once revolt help? It remains a drop in the sand, just as the outcry for Gilad Shalit falls on deaf ears. So what do we get for being slaves to them, Thanks Gos we have a new govenment which madde it clear to the world that WE HAVE RIGHTS TOO, AND MOSHE SAVED US FROM SLAVERY AND BROUGHT US TO THE LAND WHICH IS OURS -OURS- AND NO ONE ELSES !!!! AND WE ARE A FREE PEOPLE IN OUR LAND.

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment