ISSUE BRIEF 01.23.20 The Trump Administration’s Statement on Israeli Settlements: Legal Status and Political Reality

Gilead Sher, Isaac and Mildred Brochstein Fellow in Middle East Peace and Security in Honor of Yitzhak Rabin Daniel Cohen, Intern, Center for the Middle East

Since 1978, U.S. policy has generally held limits flexible negotiations and hinders a in variable levels of consistency that Israeli successful and nuanced political process.4 settlements in the West Bank contravene However, the potential for the new U.S. international law, and at the very least policy to incite dangerous consequences present an obstacle to peace. On November represents a major spoiler to any eventual 18, 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Michael peace process. Pompeo announced a reversal of the policy, This brief will assess the consequences stating that “the establishment of Israeli of the Trump administration’s new civilian settlements in the West Bank is settlement policy, particularly within the not, per se, inconsistent with international context of past legal arguments and the law.”1 The Palestinians received this news stances of six previous U.S. presidential as another act of hostility by the Trump administrations— i.e., those of Jimmy Carter, administration toward them,2 as it followed Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill a series of pro-Israel decisions in the recent Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. past, including the relocation of the U.S. Pompeo’s statement is misguided, not embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, because of its legal-political determination, the recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the but because of what it threatens to induce: Golan Heights, a cut in U.S. financial support further gridlock between Israelis and for the Palestinians, and the cessation of U.S. Palestinians, potential Israeli annexation of contribution to the United Nations Relief and the West Bank (as has been proposed by Work Agency for Palestinian Refugees. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu The legal significance of Pompeo’s numerous times5, 6), and a dangerous Israeli announcement is secondary to its impact decline into a single state that all but on the political situation on the ground and eliminates the Zionist enterprise.7 the international arena. Despite resolutions The authors suggest that the Israeli by international bodies regarding the government must not abide by foreign Israeli presence in the West Bank, the interference in its affairs, from allies and 1993 Declaration of Principles (Oslo I)3 has adversaries alike, but must instead prioritize addressed Israeli settlements as an issue for its own security and prosperity, predicated final status negotiations, along with other on an eventual two-state-for-two-people core issues, namely Palestinian refugees, paradigm. Regardless of attempts by the security arrangements, and the status Trump administration to predetermine the of Jerusalem. To a degree, the Pompeo outcome, Israel should endeavor to secure statement aligns with the Israeli perspective: a democratic national home for the Jewish preoccupation with the settlements people within secure boundaries alongside RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // ISSUE BRIEF // 01.23.20

a viable, demilitarized Palestinian state. Israeli Counterarguments Starting traction toward a reality of two A primary counterargument is that the GCIV distinct political entities would be best does not apply to the Israeli occupation served by a proactive, phased, systematic of the West Bank because this convention approach to preserving the conditions for only applies to post-war occupation of “the a two-state solution through the gradual territory of a High Contracting Party.”13 creation of a two-state reality. According to this reasoning, the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply since LEGAL ARGUMENTS REGARDING the West Bank was not a sovereign territory ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS of any state—though Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, the act was never International Arguments formally recognized by the international community.14 However, at times Israel, The consensus international argument holds along with the Israeli Supreme Court, has that Israeli civilian settlements in the West justified its own military operations in the Bank are illegal under international law, a West Bank under the principles of belligerent position held by the UN Security Council and occupation, contrary to the claim that the General Assembly, the UN’s International West Bank is not occupied territory.15 Court of Justice (IJC), and the International A second argument holds that Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).8 These Article 49(6) only prohibits forcible, not institutions argue that Israeli settlements voluntary, relocation of Israeli civilians to violate Article 49(6) of the Geneva West Bank territory. Morris Abram, U.S. Convention relative to the Protection of ambassador to the UN in Geneva and one Civilian Persons in Time of War—also known of the drafters of the GCIV, has explained as the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV)9— that this provision was a response to Nazi which states that an occupying power “shall Germany’s coercive eviction of German not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian Jews to occupied territories for the purpose population into the territory it occupies.”10 of mass extermination in death camps.16 Most recently, the International Criminal Though Israel argues voluntary settlers Court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, are excluded from this provision, United said that there is a basis for proceeding Nations Security Council Resolution 446 and with an investigation into Israeli crimes other UN resolutions maintain that Article allegedly committed in the Palestinian 49(6) categorically applies to West Bank territories, adding: “Despite the clear and settlements.17 enduring calls that Israel cease activities in Third, Israel has argued that settlements the Occupied Palestinian Territory deemed in the West Bank are permitted under Article contrary to international law, there is no 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations with indication that they will end. To the contrary, respect to the Laws and Customs of War on there are indications that they may not only Land. Article 55 recognizes the occupying continue, but that Israel may seek to annex state as an “administrator and usufructuary these territories. Numerous reports reflect of public buildings, real estate, forests, and concerns of a potential de jure annexation. In agricultural estates belonging to the hostile August and September 2019, Prime Minister State.”18 According to Alan Baker, a former Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to annex large legal advisor to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign parts of the West Bank if re-elected.”11 Affairs, while local residents’ private rights of While typical legal arguments, as well as ownership must be strictly protected, Israeli non-legal political standpoints, cite Israel’s West Bank settlements on public land are rights and responsibilities under the GCIV permitted insofar as settlers are prohibited as the basis for absolute restriction on all from assuming ownership rights.19 settlement activity in occupied Palestinian Israel’s attorney general has recently territory, some legal scholars contend responded to an opinion issued by the Office this consensus opinion elides important of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International considerations particular to the Israeli case.12 2 THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S STATEMENT ON ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS: LEGAL STATUS AND POLITICAL REALITY

Criminal Court (ICC) as follows: “Israel’s Israeli settlements in the West Bank presence in the West Bank is fully in and the 12 Israeli neighborhoods in East accordance with international law: Israel Jerusalem, however, remain a constant point gained control over the territory in an of friction in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict act of lawful self-defense; it applies the and in the international arena at large. The humanitarian provisions of the international combined population of Israeli settlers in the law of occupation (despite its principled West Bank and East Jerusalem residents has position that they do not apply de jure); and reached over 600,000. According to Israel’s it has repeatedly expressed its commitment Central Bureau of Statistics, the population to negotiate with the Palestinians this state of West Bank settlers is 427,800, while the of affairs. As recognized in the agreements Yesha Council (an umbrella council for West already concluded between Israel and the Bank settlement leadership) database shows Palestinians and Security Council Resolution 448,672.21 Additionally, the organization 242, the withdrawal of Israeli armed B’tselem cites the Israeli population within forces and the determination of secure East Jerusalem at 209,270.22 In the West and recognized boundaries is a matter for Bank, there are over 250 settlements, of peace negotiations between the parties. The which 132 were established by the Israeli continued exercise of authority by Israel in government, while an additional 121 illegal this territory, pending such negotiations, is settler outposts have been independently thus consistent with applicable international constructed.23 Together, these communities law and existing bilateral agreements. Any account for 4% of Israel’s total population. claim that Israel’s presence in the West Bank While much of the international amounts to ‘unlawful occupation’ is thus community views all territory beyond the without any merit.”20 pre-1967 borders to be under the same rules of occupation, Israel considers Jerusalem to be its undivided capital and does not regard THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF the population within the current municipal SETTLEMENTS boundaries of Jerusalem—including East During the 1967 Six-Day War—in which Jerusalem—as settlers. Soon after capturing Israel was attacked by five Arab states, East Jerusalem in 1967, the government supported by eight additional ones— extended Israeli jurisdiction over the area. Israel seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai A decade later, the Israeli Knesset enacted Peninsula from Egypt, the Golan Heights “Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel from Syria, and East Jerusalem and the in 1980,” establishing Jerusalem as the 24 West Bank from Jordan. Though Israel “complete and united” capital of Israel. built settlements in all of these territories, Practically speaking, there is a crucial no settlements have flourished like those distinction among many Israelis and past in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In U.S. administrations between legitimate 1979, the entirety of Sinai was returned to or accepted settlements and illegitimate Egypt, 6,000 settlers were uprooted, and outposts. It is tacitly understood in Israeli- all Israeli settlements in the territory were Palestinian negotiations that the settlement dismantled as part of the Egypt-Israel peace blocs that house the largest numbers treaty under Prime Minister Menachem of settlers—together, they currently Begin. A quarter of a century later, in 2005, represent 75% of Israeli settlers—and that Israel fully disengaged from the Gaza Strip are adjacent to the June 4, 1967, “Green and withdrew 8,500 Israeli settlers under Line” will eventually be annexed to Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Only ~20,000 in consideration for land swaps. The other people live in the 32 settlements in the ~100,000 remote settlers in the heart of Golan Heights, an area much less politically a future Palestinian state will either be contentious in light of the sparse non- relocated to Israel’s boundaries or eventually Jewish population there and the lack of any live under Palestinian sovereignty. U.S. Israeli-Syrian political engagement. administrations, namely those of Clinton and 3 RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // ISSUE BRIEF // 01.23.20

George W. Bush, have long recognized this 605 in 1987, both of which reaffirmed as a necessary political consideration in the the applicability of the GCIV to territories debate over settlements. occupied by Israel after 1967.29 In 1988, the U.S. voted in favor of UNSCR 607, which again THE EVOLUTION OF PAST U.S. reaffirmed that “the Geneva Convention ADMINISTRATIONS relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable The Carter Administration to Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967.”30 While William Scranton, the U.S. representative to the UN during the The Bush, Clinton, and Bush Administrations Ford administration, called Israeli civilian resettlement in the occupied President George H.W. Bush took a much territories “illegal under the [Fourth firmer stand against settlements than the Geneva] Convention,”25 the U.S. policy on Reagan administration. Under the first Bush settlements was not consolidated until 1978, administration, the U.S. supported UNSCRs when Herbert Hansell, a state department 681, 726, and 799, all of which referenced legal advisor, submitted a formal legal the applicability of the GCIV to Israeli opinion on the issue. What became occupied territories.31 In 1991, Bush refused known as the “Hansell Memorandum” to issue Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees, concluded that Israel’s settlement policy is which had previously been promised, until “inconsistent with international law.”26 Until Israel halted settlement construction in the Pompeo’s November 2019 repudiation of the West Bank and Gaza. Despite much backlash memo, the U.S. State Department had never from Israel and the U.S. pro-Israel lobby, officially disputed Hansell’s determination. Bush ultimately won the dispute, a process However, other U.S. administrations have that led to the 1991 Madrid Conference.32 dealt with the political issue of settlements Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. in evolving ways to achieve their foreign Bush (Bush 43), on the other hand, both policy objectives. made important distinctions between the settlements that would eventually become The Reagan Administration sovereign Israeli territory in any negotiated agreement (i.e., large settlement blocs Two weeks after his 1981 inauguration, adjacent to pre-1967 lines) and remote President Ronald Reagan told the New settlements situated farther from the Green York Times that “I believe the settlements Line. Both recognized in principle that any [in the West Bank]—I disagreed when the negotiated two-state agreement between previous administration referred to them as Israelis and Palestinians would include Israeli illegal, they’re not illegal. Not under the UN annexation of some of the settlements, due resolution that leaves the West Bank open to facts on the ground. to all people—Arab and Israeli alike, Christian Clinton recognized as much in his alike.”27 In the same interview Reagan did, 2000 guidelines for Israeli-Palestinian however, call settlements “ill-advised” and permanent status negotiations (known “unnecessarily provocative.”28 as the Clinton Parameters), while Bush The specific UN resolution that Reagan 43 wrote in a 2004 letter to Israeli Prime said “leaves the West Bank open to all people” Minister Ariel Sharon that “In light of new has never been identified. This interview has realities on the ground, including already been used to justify some interpretations existing major Israeli populations centers, that the Reagan administration had a it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome more favorable view toward settlements of final status negotiations will be a full and than most U.S. administrations. However, complete return to the armistice lines of though the Reagan administration avoided 1949.”33 Like all U.S. presidents, Clinton and calling settlements illegal outright, the Bush 43 criticized Israeli settlements as an administration abstained from—thus, did impediment to peace.34, 35 Nevertheless, not veto—UNSCR 592 in 1986 and UNSCR 4 THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S STATEMENT ON ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS: LEGAL STATUS AND POLITICAL REALITY

both administrations made a clear involved since 1967. As Yale University law political distinction between “acceptable” professor Eugene Rostow and other legal settlements that will eventually become part scholars have clarified, this wording carefully of Israel, and all others. avoids specific geographic prescriptions for Israeli withdrawal.40, 41 Moreover, in 1969, The Obama Administration U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers noted that pre-1967 boundaries were “armistice During the Obama years, the U.S.-Israel lines, not final political borders” and that relationship was fraught with tension related UNSCR 242 “neither endorses nor precludes to the settlements. Though Obama stopped the armistice lines as the definitive political short of calling the settlements illegal— boundaries.”42 opting instead to deny the settlements’ “legitimacy”36—he staunchly opposed the settlements as threats to the two-state THE IMPACT OF POMPEO’S solution. In 2009, Netanyahu agreed to a STATEMENT 10-month freeze on settlement construction to advance peace talks with the Palestinians. Though U.S. administrations have framed At the end of this period in 2010, however, Israeli settlements in very different ways, no Netanyahu refused Obama’s request to former administration in the last 40 years extend the moratorium on settlement has formally overturned the 1978 Hansell construction in the interest of ongoing Memorandum, which established the State negotiations.37 Obama’s confrontational Department position that Israeli settlements approach ultimately failed to rein in Israeli in occupied territory are inconsistent settlement construction, while it reduced with international law. Regardless of flexibility for a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian presidential statements on the matter, all negotiation process. U.S. administrations since 1978 have tacitly The constant friction between Obama adhered to the internal policy that the and Netanyahu culminated shortly before settlements are more or less illegal. Obama’s exit from the White House, when Pompeo’s announcement in November the U.S. abstained from UNSCR 2334 in is the first internal State Department 2016. The resolution affirmed that “the rejection of the Hansell Memorandum on establishment by Israel of settlements in record. However, as he noted, the Israeli- the Palestinian territory occupied since Palestinian conflict will not be adjudicated 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal by legal decisions, but rather by political validity and constitutes a flagrant violation negotiation. Thus, the true threat of under international law.”38 Whereas the two Pompeo’s announcement is its likelihood previous U.S. administrations attempted to to exacerbate conditions such as the remain flexible in practice to the ultimate Israeli-Palestinian deadlock, settlement judgment regarding the settlements, entrenchment in the West Bank, and the Resolution 2334 all but predetermined that potential for annexation. two-state negotiations must operate on the As a result of Pompeo’s “historic” basis of Israeli withdrawal from all territories announcement, Netanyahu has advanced a occupied after 1967. bill to annex the Jordan Valley,43 a prospect In contrast, UNSCR 242—which has that has also been a negotiation token in historically formed the foundation for coalition talks between the Likud and Blue & Israeli-Arab negotiations—specifically White parties.44 This is another political boon calls for the “withdrawal of Israel armed to Netanyahu from the Trump administration, forces from territories occupied in the with the real potential for the annexation recent conflict.”39 Critically, Resolution 242 of West Bank territory—which would have demands Israeli withdrawal from “territories” a disastrous effect on hopes for a two- rather than “the territories,” an omission state solution and or a negotiated political that has had a significant role in framing the resolution to the conflict. assumptions and expectations of all parties 5 RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // ISSUE BRIEF // 01.23.20

The change in U.S. policy also has the potential to harm Israel’s standing among ENDNOTES U.S. Democrats in Congress. A few days after 1. TOI Staff, “Full Text of Pompeo’s Pompeo’s statement, over 100 Democratic Statement on Settlements,” Times of House members released a letter criticizing Israel, November 19, 2019, https://www. 45 the decision. As support for Israel becomes timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-pompeos- increasingly politicized in Congress, the statement-on-settlements/. Trump administration’s decision to reverse 2. Arshad Mohammed, Matt Spetalnick, 40 years of U.S. policy on settlements will and Humeyra Pamuk, “U.S. Backs Israel only increase the partisan divide, threaten on Settlements, Angering Palestinians and Democratic support for Israel, and aggravate Clouding Peace Process,” Reuters, November the controversies in the U.S. Jewish 18, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/ community. article/us-israel-usa/us-backs-israel-on- Importantly, Israel is currently bound settlements-angering-palestinians-and- as a signatory of the 1993 Declaration of clouding-peace-process-idUSKBN1XS2BF. Principles, which affirms that settlements 3. “Declaration of Principles,” Israel and borders are among the issues that can Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1993, https://mfa. only be determined via permanent status gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/ 46 negotiations. Moreover, the settlement declaration%20of%20principles.aspx. issue has been at the heart of controversy 4. Pnina Sharvit Baruch and Michal within Israeli society and political parties. Hatuel-Radoshitzky, “Are They Legal or Thus, the long-term future of settlers in the Not? Pompeo’s Announcement on the Israeli West Bank and a final Israeli-Palestinian Settlements,” Institute for National Security territorial arrangement must be an Israeli Studies, November 24, 2019, https://www. domestic decision, either proactively and inss.org.il/publication/are-they-legal-or- independently initiated in the absence of a not-pompeos-announcement-on-the- valid partner, or preferably, mutually agreed israeli-settlements/. upon in negotiations. 5. David M. Halbfinger, “Netanyahu Such a decision must remain unaffected Vows to Start Annexing West Bank, in by the statement of a foreign government, Bid to Rally the Right,” New York Times, but rather requires an internal consensus built April 6, 2019, https://www.nytimes. through public and political discourse, and com/2019/04/06/world/middleeast/ perhaps a referendum or a privileged majority netanyahu-annex-west-bank.html. vote in the Knesset. Israel’s leadership and 6. Noa Landau and Yotam Berger, U.S. administrations should endeavor to “Netanyahu Says Israel Will Annex Jordan preserve the conditions for an eventual two- Valley If Reelected,” Haaretz, September state-for-two-people negotiated agreement 10, 2019, https://www.haaretz.com/israel- and create in the interim a reality of two news/.premium-election-netanyahu- distinct national entities. Instead, the Trump israel-annexation-west-bank-jordan- administration has facilitated the incremental valley-1.7829604. erosion of a future borderline between Israel 7. Gilead Sher and Daniel Cohen, The and a future Palestinian state by endorsing Repercussions of Partial or Full West Israeli settlement expansion and promoting Bank Annexation by Israel (Houston: Rice its legality. University’s Baker Institute for Public Much like the Palestinians’ failure to Policy, September 2019), https://www. attain statehood by unilaterally advancing bakerinstitute.org/research/repercussions- their cause through international fora rather partial-or-full-west-bank-annexation- than via negotiation with Israel, Pompeo’s israel/. statement will neither change the situation 8. Stephanie Nebehay, “U.N., Red Cross on the ground nor bring the parties closer to Say Israeli Settlements Are Still Unlawful,” a negotiated resolution. Reuters, November 19, 2019, https://www. reuters.com/article/us-israel-usa-un/

6 THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S STATEMENT ON ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS: LEGAL STATUS AND POLITICAL REALITY

un-red-cross-say-israeli-settlements-are- article/the-legality-of-israels-settlements/. still-unlawful-idUSKBN1XT1DB. 20. Office of The Attorney General of 9. Alan Baker, “The Settlements Issue: Israel, “The International Criminal Court’s Distorting the Geneva Convention and the Lack Of Jurisdiction Over the So-called Oslo Accords,” Jewish Political Studies ‘Situation in Palestine,’” December 20, 2019. Review 23, no. 3/4 (2011): 32-39, http:// 21. Tovah Lazaroff, “Settler Growth Rate www.jstor.org/stable/41575858. Stagnant for Third Year in a Row,” Jerusalem 10. “Convention (IV) relative to the Post, October 3, 2019, https://www.jpost. Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of com/Israel-News/Settler-growth-rate- War. Geneva, 12 August 1949,” International stagnant-for-third-year-in-a-row-603641. Committee of the Red Cross, 2019, https:// 22. “Statistics on Settlements and Settler ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e7 Population,” B’Tselem, January 16, 2019, 6c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898 https://www.btselem.org/settlements/ c125641e004aa3c5. statistics. 11. “Prosecution Request Pursuant to 23. “Population Data,” Peace Now, 2019, Article 19(3) for a Ruling on the Court’s https://peacenow.org.il/en/settlements- Territorial Jurisdiction in Palestine,” watch/settlements-data/population. International Criminal Court, December 20, 24. “Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of 2019, https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/record. Israel,” The Knesset, 1980, https://www. aspx?docNo=ICC-01/18-9. knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_ 12. Marty Lederman, “Assessing the eng.htm. New U.S. ‘View’ on the Legality of Israeli 25. “Excerpts From Scranton’s U.N. Settlements in the West Bank,” Just Speech,” New York Times, March 25, 1976, Security, November 19, 2019, https://www. https://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/25/ justsecurity.org/67343/assessing-the- archives/excerpts-from-scrantons-un- new-u-s-view-on-the-legality-of-israeli- speech.html. settlements-in-the-west-bank/. 26. “United States: Letter of the State 13. Ibid. Department Legal Adviser Concerning 14. Lederman, “Assessing the New U.S the Legality of Israeli Settlements in the ‘View.’” Occupied Territories,” International Legal 15. “1967 Meron Opinion,” SOAS Materials 17, no. 3 (1978): 777-79, http:// University of London, 2019, https://www. www.jstor.org/stable/20691910. soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources/. 27. “Excerpts from Interview 16. Dore Gold, “U.S. Policy Change with President Reagan Conducted on Israeli Settlements: A Long Awaited by Five Reporters,” New York Times, Correction,” Jerusalem Center for Public February 3, 1981, https://www.nytimes. Affairs, November 19, 2019, http://jcpa. com/1981/02/03/world/excerpts-from- org/article/u-s-policy-change-on-israeli- interview-with-president-reagan- settlements-a-long-awaited-correction/. conducted-by-five-reporters.html. 17. Lederman, “Assessing the New U.S 28. Ibid. ‘View.’” 29. Lederman, “Assessing the New U.S 18. “Convention (IV) Respecting the ‘View.’” Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its 30. “Resolution 607,” UNSCR, 1988, Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/607. and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 31. Lederman, “Assessing the New U.S October 1907,” International Committee of ‘View.’” the Red Cross, 2019, https://ihl-databases. 32. Eric Cortellessa, “How ‘Lonely Little’ icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/195. George H.W. Bush Changed the US-Israel 19. Alan Baker, “The Legality of Israel's Relationship,” Times of Israel, December 2, Settlements: Flaws in the Carter-Era Hansell 2018, https://www.timesofisrael.com/how- Memorandum,” Jerusalem Center for Public lonely-little-george-h-w-bush-changed- Affairs, November 21, 2019, http://jcpa.org/ the-us-israel-relationship/. 7 RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // ISSUE BRIEF // 01.23.20

33. “Letter From President Bush to www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Netanyahu- Prime Minister Sharon,” National Archives approves-Jordan-Valley-annexation-bill- and Records Administration, April 2014, after-US-changes-policy-608333. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives. 44. TOI Staff, “As Unity Talks Falter, gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-3. Details of Proposed Pact Show Annexation, html. 30 Ministers,” Times of Israel, December 34. Rebecca Trounson and Norman 3, 2019, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ Kepster, “In Escalation, Clinton Calls Israeli as-unity-talks-falter-details-of-proposed- Settlement Policy Obstacle to Peace,” Los pact-show-annexation-30-ministers/. Angeles Times, December 17, 1996, https:// 45. Eric Cortellessa, “106 Democratic www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996- House Members Decry White House’s 12-17-mn-9968-story.html. Softened Stance on Settlements,” Times of 35. Rory McCarthy and Allegra Stratton, Israel, November 23, 2019, https://www. “Bush Criticises Settlements on Israel Visit,” timesofisrael.com/100-democratic-house- Guardian, January 9, 2008, https://www. members-decry-white-houses-softened- theguardian.com/world/2008/jan/09/usa. stance-on-settlements/. israelandthepalestinians. 46. “Declaration of Principles,” Israel 36. “Text: Obama’s Speech in Cairo,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs. New York Times, June 4, 2009, https:// www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/ politics/04obama.text.html. 37. Helene Cooper, “U.S. Urges Israel AUTHOR to Extend Settlement Moratorium,” New Gilead Sher is the Isaac and Mildred York Times, September 10, 2010, https:// Brochstein Fellow in Middle East Peace and www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/ Security in Honor of Yitzhak Rabin at the middleeast/11diplo.html. See more issue briefs at: Baker Institute. He is also a senior researcher www.bakerinstitute.org/issue-briefs 38. “Resolution 2334,” UNSCR, 2016, at the Tel Aviv Institute for National Security http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/2334. Studies, where he heads the Center for This publication was written by a 39. “Resolution 242,” UNSCR, 1967, researcher (or researchers) who Applied Negotiations. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/242. participated in a Baker Institute project. 40. Eugene V. Rostow, “The Drafting Wherever feasible, this research is Daniel Cohen is a research intern in the reviewed by outside experts before it is of Security Council Resolution 242: The Baker Institute Center for the Middle East. released. However, the views expressed Role of the Non-Regional Actors,” Faculty He is an undergraduate at Rice University herein are those of the individual Scholarship Series, 1993: 489-503, studying linguistics and Jewish studies, with author(s), and do not necessarily https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_ represent the views of Rice University’s a concentration in Arabic and Islamic texts. papers/1978. Baker Institute for Public Policy. 41. Eugene Kontorovich, “Resolution 242 © 2020 Rice University’s Baker Revisited: New Evidence on the Required Institute for Public Policy Scope of Israeli Withdrawal,” Chicago Journal of International Law, 2015: 127- This material may be quoted or 150, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to cfm?abstract_id=2534179. the author and Rice University’s Baker 42. Joseph S. Spoerl, “Understanding Institute for Public Policy. Resolution 2334: Did the Obama Administration Betray Israel at the Cite as: UN?,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Sher, Gilead, and Daniel Cohen. 2020. March 14, 2017, https://jcpa.org/article/ The Trump Administration’s Statement on Israeli Settlements: Legal Status and understanding-resolution-2334-obama- Political Reality. Baker Institute Report administration-betray-israel-un/. no. 01.23.20. Rice University’s Baker 43. Lahav Harkov and Tovah Lazaroff, Institute for Public Policy, “Netanyahu Approves Jordan Valley Houston, Texas. Annexation Bill After U.S. Changes Policy,” Jerusalem Post, November 19, 2019, https:// 8