Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| A new USA policy on Israeli settlements |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2013-08-19
Everyone who seeks a just and lasting Israeli/Palestinian peace bemoans the USA’s refusal to say that Israel’s settlements are illegal and to demand the clear juridical response to that illegality—removal of settlers and of settlements buildings. Even just this summer, we’ve: The settlements are, indeed, formally illegal (or violations of Fourth Geneva Convention). Read the very short UNSC 465 (1980) and read the very long 2004 ICJ (International Court of Justice) decision on the (illegality of) the WALL where it is within occupied territory. Read them here. The illegality of the settlements is, in a sense, a purely “formal” “illegality” since no court has power to enforce this “law” and the USA firmly rejects saying in public that the settlements are illegal and the USA also, therefore, prevents the UNSC from seeking to enforce the law. THAT SAID — one could argue (perhaps even accurately) that the USA originally overlooked the illegality of the settlements because the settlements were said to be “negotiating chips” which would speed up a successful peace negotiation based on UNSC 242 (1967). However, now — as 46 years have gone by and 10% of Israeli Jews now live within occupied territories in a blatant two-laws-for-two-peoples apartheid system, it is clear that such a USA scheme to ignore the law in order to promote a “just and lasting peace” was either misguided originally or became misguided as it was progressively seen not to work. After 46 years peace is farther away that it could have been in 1967 or 1980. Or 1990 or 2000. A MODEST POLICY PROPOSAL So, if the USA should in fact make a sea-change and actually become interested in promoting peace (and not incidentally interested in promoting the rule of law), the USA should CLAIM the fig-leaf of an original intent to overlook the law in favor of peace and say that, as matters now stand, this particular 46-year episode of lawlessness didn’t work, and now it is time to ENFORCE THE LAW (by requiring removal of all settlers and destruction of all settlement buildings,[1] including both residences and all other buildings built for settler use) and to do so BOTH in service of international law and also of peace, because looking “down the barrel” of a required removal of all settlers and destruction of all settlement buildings, Israel could be expected to negotiate in good earnest. ----------- [1] Note that the ICJ 2004 advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the wall declared it the responsibility if Israel to remove the wall—and the responsibility of all other countries to require Israel to do so. This model strongly suggests that the proper legal consequence of the illegality of the settlements is removal of settlers and removal/destruction of settlements. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |