In August 2005, the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharonevacuated 8,600 Jewish settlers from 21 communities in the Gaza Strip and transferred control of the territory to the Palestinian Authority. Nearly two decades later, right-wing parties in Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition are arguing for a return to Gaza, blaming the 2005 disengagement for Hamas’ subsequent military buildup that culminated in the October 7 attack. 2023.

Resettlement efforts are gaining momentum within Netanyahu’s coalition. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said: “We have an unmissable historic opportunity to establish a new and true Middle East where west of the Jordan (river) there is room for one and only one national entity: the State of the Jewish people. .”

These positions appear to resonate with a significant portion of the Israeli public. According to an Israeli Channel 12 poll,nearly 40 percent of Israel’s Jewish populationnow supports Gaza resettlement.

The establishment of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip began after the 1967 war. Today, more than 500,000 settlers… about 5 percent of Israel’s population – reside in the occupied West Bank. The existence of these settlements constitutes one of the thorniest and most controversial issues separating Israel and the Palestinians.

International law considerstransfer of civilian populations to occupied territoriesa violation of the Geneva Convention, a positionreaffirmed by the International Court of Justicethis year as well asUnited Nations General Assembly in September .

A year after the start of the current war, Netanyahu has not formulated any plans for the future governance of Gaza. Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip have caused the deaths of more than 42,000 Palestiniansaccording to the Gaza authorities, and the displacement of a significant number of civilians. The war seems to continue with no end in sight until “total victory” is achieved.

The history of U.S. policy toward Israeli settlements reveals significant shifts within administrations, ranging from strong opposition based on international law to tacit support.

US-Israeli relations can be considered unique in the annals of international relations. Israel is a small country, heavily dependent militarily, economically and diplomatically on a superpower. Yet he managed to avoid or repel significant pressure from the United States that could have forced him to change course in his conflict with the Palestinians.

Explanations for this anomalous relationship abound, including geopolitics, ideology, religion, domestic politics and the considerable influence of pro-Israel lobbies. Although each administration had its own ideological compass and foreign policy agenda, the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a major concern shared by all.

President Lyndon Johnson set the tone in September 1968, while the settlement project was still in its embryonic phase,warning that“Israel must persuade its Arab neighbors and the world community that Israel has no expansionist plans on their territory. » His State Department has explicitly cited the Geneva Convention to oppose colonization activities.

The Nixon administration maintained this position. He stressed that “Israel, as occupier of the territories seized in 1967, is bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

The administration of President Jimmy Carter took a categorical position. He stated unequivocally that the settlements were “illegal and an obstacle to peace.”

Significant political change occurred under President Ronald Reagan, whodeclared in February 1981: “I didn’t agree when the previous administration called them illegal, they’re not.”

President George HW Bush maintained Reagan’s approach while expressing opposition to settlement expansion. Secretary of State James Baker said in 1991 that although the settlements posed “a serious obstacle to peace,” the administration no longer considered them illegal.

President Bill Clinton focused on the Oslo peace process while expressing concerns about settlement expansion. In a1996 letter to Netanyahuhe warned that settlement growth could “halt progress made by the peace process.”

In his April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President George W. Bush acknowledged that the significant number of Jewish settlers already residing in the West Bank had created a fait accompli. Recognizing the permanence of the main settlement blocs in the West Bank constitutes another break with previous American policy.

However, under President Barack Obama,the United States abstained in December 2016when the Security Council approved Resolution 2334, declaring that the settlements “had no legal validity.”

THEThe Trump administration, on the other handmoved its embassy to Jerusalem and explicitly rejected the illegal nature of the settlements under international law. Trump also recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights – still considered by the international community to be occupied Syrian territory.

The Biden administration has returned to a bolder stance against the settlements. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in February 2024 that the settlements are “incompatible with international law.” Biden also took unprecedented steps, imposing sanctions on settler groups involved in violence against Palestinians.

Over six decades, American positions on the colonies have ranged from “illegal” to “not illegal,” from “impediment to peace” to “illegitimate.” Yet no administration, regardless of its position on their legal status, has succeeded in persuading Israel to stop their construction.

If rebellious Netanyahu proceeds with Gaza resettlement, Trump will have to balance his campaign promises to Jewish and Arab Americans. On the one hand, he presents himself as a “great protector” of the State of Israel. On the other hand, during a meeting with the local Muslim and Arab community in Michigan, he declared: “We have to end all this,” referring to the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, “we want peace. We want to have peace on earth.

Would Trump view Gaza resettlement differently from West Bank settlements, which he considered legal during his first term?

According to theIsrael TimesTrump told Netanyahu that he expects Israel to “end the war in Gaza by the time he returns to power.” Trump hopes to expand adherence to the Abraham Accords, signed during his presidency in 2020. He will face a resounding veto from the Arabs if Israel refuses to end the war and does not completely withdraw from Gaza.

Additionally, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan recently reaffirmed Riyadh’s position that there will be no normalization of “ties with Israel without Palestinian state.”

What seems certain is that America’s inconsistent approach, coupled with its reluctance to exert pressure on Israel, has impaired its ability to serve as an effective peace broker. This will probably persist.

Yehuda Lukacs is Associate Professor Emeritus of Global Affairs at George Mason University. He is the author of the upcoming book, “Op-Ed: Reflections on War and Peace in the Middle East and Beyond. »