|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2015-09-17
© 2015 Peter Belmont
Sam Bahour writes at 972mag.com that Obama should move the Israeli/Palestinian peace process along by recognizing Palestine as a state (a state whose territory is completely occupied by Israel). What a wonderful idea! It would be refreshing, to say the least, if President Obama took this advice.
But although recognizing Palestine would be wonderful, President Obama’s remaining time in office is so short that more is needed, and needed immediately, if he wants to make more than a purely symbolic gesture.
So as a next step, after recognition of Palestine, President Obama should state clearly to America and to the world that the Israeli settlement project—and due to its longevity, Israel’s occupation itself—violate the spirit and/or the letter of international law, must end, and must end soon.
To make this happen, President Obama should point out that, since Israel has made it abundantly clear that it will neither end its occupation nor roll back its settlement project unless forced to do so, he promises not to veto a UNSC resolution with appropriate enforcement sanctions which calls for removal of the Israeli settlers, for removal (dismantling) of the settlements, for an end of the occupation, and for an end of the blockade and siege on Gaza.
This would be a major change in US policy and would need to be explained.
Indeed, America’s long refusal to take these clearly necessary steps also requires explanation.
I suppose the best explanation for the long American refusal to enforce international law in this matter is that for many years we believed that Israel was sincere about wanting peace and thought that pressure on the Palestinians would bring peace—and so we even helped Israel apply pressure on the Palestinians. But Israel clearly did not want even an imposed “peace”. Now, at long last, recognizing the futility of past policy, the USA adopts the policy of removing Israel entirely from all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This of course includes the occupied part of Jerusalem. (President Obama would not be wrong to seek as well to end settlement—if not the occupation—of Syria’s Golan Heights. Israel’s settlements there are also illegal.)
Nothing I have proposed above is equivalent to “throwing Israel under a bus”. Nothing I propose aims at taking from Israel anything it is entitled to keep. And nothing I propose would necessarily reverse the flow of money and weapons which for decades the USA has lavished upon Israel.
Under the laws of war, Israel was never entitled to treat occupied territory as its own to do with as it pleased. Israel’s settlement project is overreach pure and simple. And the enormous expense of the settlements and roads has been a gamble by Israel—against the possibility that international law would someday be enforced—that Israel should not be allowed to win.
And since the USA has repeatedly asked Israel to stop building settlements, the USA should not agree to foot the bill for dismantlement of settlements or resettling of the Israeli settlers within pre-1967 Israel.
Moreover, since international law conceives of military occupation as a temporary management of territory captured during a war, a management to last only until a peace treaty is signed, Israel also was not entitled to treat the occupation either as long-lived or as permanent, which by its costly construction of highways and cities it has clearly done.
But if President Obama agrees with the goals set forth above, he must also realize that time is short. President Obama should take the recommended steps immediately but should not do so as “head of the Democratic Party”.
This would leave each candidate for president in 2016, including all Democrats, to decide whether to support his new policy, denounce it, or temporize. As a “lame duck”, President Obama has no “coat-tails” and should not worry about candidates who might like to ride on them.
Any candidate who opposes these steps would—presumably—have to explain why he opposes them and how, in his or her view, requiring Israel to live in compliance with international law instead of in violent and near-permanent violation of it harms Israel or its military security. I don’t think any explanation they could make would pass the “laugh test”.
But since many in America’s political class would oppose these proposals, it is well to note that the acts recommended above could all be done unilaterally by President Obama. None requires Congressional approval or action.
Time is of the essence here. As I understand it, everyone seeking nomination by a major party declares him or herself to be a friend of Israel. These people are unlikely to do what must be done if elected, and are even less likely to support these policy changes before the 2016 election.
One look at the Republicans’ toadying up to Israel—and seeking campaign money from the Adelsons and AIPACs of this world in consequence—is enough to explain why.
The present time, after President Obama’s achievement of the historic “Iran deal” offers an opportunity for real peace-making that may not recur for a generation.
And wouldn’t it be wonderful for President Obama to achieve, now, the “just and lasting” peace envisioned in UNSC 242 (1967) and so long and so unnecessarily delayed, largely by American refusal to seek to enforce international law.
|
