Israel's security cabinet approves 19 new settlements in West Bank

The recent decision by Israel's security cabinet to approve 19 new settlements in the West Bank is a significant development with profound implications for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international law. This move, coming shortly after a United Nations report highlighted that Israeli settlement expansion has reached its highest level since at least 2017, intensifies an already complex geopolitical landscape.

To understand this, we must delve into the historical context. The West Bank, along with East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, was captured by Israel from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War. Since then, Israel has maintained control over these territories, which Palestinians envision as forming the core of their future independent state. International law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, considers these territories occupied and deems the establishment of civilian settlements by an occupying power illegal. UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the aftermath of the 1967 war, called for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" in exchange for peace and secure borders, forming the bedrock of the "land for peace" principle.

What happened is a continuation of a long-standing Israeli policy, albeit with increased intensity. The approval of 19 new settlements means the allocation of land, resources, and infrastructure for the expansion of Israeli communities beyond the 1967 Green Line. These settlements are often seen by Palestinians and the international community as an impediment to a viable two-state solution, as they fragment Palestinian land, restrict Palestinian movement, and alter the demographic and geographic character of the occupied territories.

Key stakeholders involved are numerous. **Israel**, particularly its security cabinet and the ruling coalition, sees these settlements as vital for security, historical, and religious reasons, and as a way to assert sovereignty over disputed land. The **Palestinian Authority (PA)**, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, vehemently opposes these expansions, viewing them as a violation of international law and a direct assault on their aspirations for statehood. The **United Nations** consistently reaffirms the illegality of these settlements and calls for their cessation. The **international community**, including the European Union and many Arab nations, generally condemns settlement expansion, though the **United States** has historically had a more nuanced and often supportive stance towards Israel, occasionally even legitimizing some settlement activities. **India**, historically, has supported the Palestinian cause and a two-state solution, while simultaneously strengthening its strategic partnership with Israel.

This development matters significantly for India. India’s foreign policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has evolved. Traditionally, India has advocated for an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, aligning with the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) principles. This stance is rooted in India's own anti-colonial struggle and its commitment to international law and justice. However, in recent decades, India has also cultivated a robust strategic partnership with Israel, particularly in defence, technology, and agriculture. This balancing act – known as 'de-hyphenation' – means India maintains separate and independent relations with both nations. The continued expansion of settlements complicates this delicate diplomatic balance. Instability in West Asia directly impacts India’s energy security, trade routes, and the safety of its large diaspora in the region. India's adherence to international law and its aspiration for a greater role in global governance mean it cannot ignore violations of international norms.

The future implications are stark. The approval of new settlements further erodes the viability of a two-state solution, making the contiguous and independent Palestinian state envisioned in peace proposals increasingly difficult to achieve. This could lead to increased frustration and potential for conflict, undermining regional stability and efforts towards normalization, such as the Abraham Accords. It also challenges the authority of international law and institutions like the UN, potentially setting dangerous precedents for other occupied territories globally. For India, it necessitates a careful recalibration of its diplomatic strategy to protect its national interests while upholding its principled foreign policy.

While there are no direct Indian constitutional articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, India's foreign policy is guided by principles enshrined in **Article 51 of the Indian Constitution**, which mandates the State to "promote international peace and security; maintain just and honourable relations between nations; foster respect for international law and treaty obligations; and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration." This article underscores India's commitment to international law and peaceful resolution, making the issue of illegal settlements particularly relevant to India's global standing and diplomatic efforts.