June 29, 2009
Who Is In Breach Of International Law: Israel--Or The US?
Caroline Glick makes a compelling case that not only is Israel not in
breach of signed agreements--or international law--on the issue of
settlements,
the US is breach of both international and domestic law.
On the issue of Israeli settlements and international law, Glick makes a number of points:
- Israel
has never signed an agreement whereby a Jewish community can be
characterized as "illegal," and therefore has no legal obligation to
forbid their expansion
- Both former prime minister Ariel
Sharon's chief of staff Dov Weisglass and former president George W.
Bush's deputy national security adviser for the Middle East Elliott
Abrams have gone on record that when Sharon agreed to limit the
building of Jewish communities in the West Bank--not including Jerusalem--in accordance with the Road Map, he did so based on explicit understandings with the Bush administration.
- The
approval of the Road Map was a cabinet decision--not an international
agreement. Therefore, the Israeli government has no legal obligation to
advance it, and can legally abrogate Israel's acceptance of the Road
Map by calling for another vote.
- The Road Map does not
have the force of international law: Glick writes "Although it was
adopted by the Security Council, it was not adopted as an
internationally binding document under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Consequently, Israel has no international legal obligation to end
Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem."
- As
a signatory to the 1976 International Convention for Civil and
Political Rights, which prohibits all forms of discrimination against
people on the basis of religion and nationality, Israel cannot
discriminate specifically against Jews who wish to build homes on
legally controlled lands in Judea and Samaria. The convention is a
binding treaty, which trumps the Road Map, which is non-binding.
- In
response to the claim that Jewish communities located beyond the 1949
armistice lines are illegal because of the Fourth Geneva Convention
from 1949, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts
of its population to the occupied territory--there has long been a
dispute among legal authorities if this applies to the West Bank. Even
assuming that it is applicable, Prof. Avi Bell from Bar-Ilan University
Law School explains that "The Fourth Geneva Convention does not purport
to limit in any way what individual Jews may or may not do on their
legally held property or where they may or may not choose to live."
On
the other hand, Caroline Glick demonstrates how the policy of the Obama
administration towards the Palestinian Arabs is itself in violation of
both international and domestic US law.
The key is the UN Security Council binding
Resolution 1373, passed by authority of Chapter VII. It commits all UN member states:
- to "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts."
- to "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts or provide safe haven" to those that do.
In
light of the stipulations of UN Resolution 1373, a number of actions of
the Obama administration become questionable according to international
law:
- In 1995, the US State Department put Hamas on
its list of terrorist groups--and the actions taken by the Obama
administration thus put the US in breach of both international and US
law. Since the US has or is in the process of transferring $300 million to Gaza through USAID,
which based on past experience has ended up in the hands of Hamas--the
transfer of these funds constitute indirect assistance to Hamas and are
prohibited by Resolution 1373 and US law.
- The US
pressure on Israel to open passages between it and Gaza and limit
travel restrictions--putting Israel at risk of facilitating the
movement of Hamas terrorists and thereby supporting them is also a
breach of Resolution 1373, which states that all states must "prevent
the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border
controls."
- The US is pressuring Israel to allow cement
to be imported into Gaza to rebuild the Hamas infrastructure and
transfer money into Hamas-controlled banks while the Obama
administration has pledged $900 million to rebuild Gaza. In addition, Dan Diker reported in a study published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,
PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad has admitted that the US-financed PA
continues to pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists. All of this is in
violation of Resolution 1373 which requires all states to "ensure that
any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or
perpetuation of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is
brought to justice."
- Obama's apparent attempt to
facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian government including
Hamas legitimizes that terrorist group and would both aid a designated
terrorist organization and help provide it with a safe haven, in
violation of Resolution 1373
- By meeting with
representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is suspected of
providing material support to Hizbullah--a designated terrorist
organization, Obama was arguably illegally providing indirect
assistance to Hizbullah, which is in breach of Resolution 1373 and US
law.
- US military assistance to the Lebanese military,
which has been shown to be influenced by Hizbullah is also possibly in
breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.
- Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook wrote in The Jerusalem Post
last month that the US is financing the construction of a Palestinian
computer center--which is named for Fatah terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who
led the 1978 bus bombing on Israel's coastal highway in which 37
civilians, including 12 children and US citizen Gail Rubin, were
murdered--yet the 2008 US Foreign Operations Bill bars US assistance to
the Palestinians from being used "for the purpose of recognizing or
otherwise honoring individuals who commit or have committed acts of
terrorism."
Glick concludes:
Obama,
the former law professor, never tires of invoking international law.
And yet, when one considers his policies toward Israel on the one hand,
and his policies toward illegal terrorist organizations on the other,
it is clear that Obama's respect for international law is mere
rhetoric. True champions of law in both Israel and the US should demand
an end to his administration's contempt for the US's actual - rather
than imaginary - legal obligations.
It is time to hold Obama accountable for his claims about international law.
Posted by daledamos at June 29, 2009 10:22 AM
Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
If the US was as scrupulous in its observance of international law as its insistence Israel do so, its position would carry with it a measure of integrity. To most Israelis, under the circumstances outlined by Caroline Glick, the US appears as a hypocrite and a bully determined to get his own way, not because the facts and fairness are on his side but because he will allow nothing to stand in his way of pushing the little guy around. That is why Israelis are increasingly deaf to repeated US importunings on the settlements.
The story notes that what Israel is offering falls far short of the Administration's absolutist position there must be a comprehensive freeze. If the US is willing to climb down, I imagine something along those lines will happen. As I said, its a non issue and I don't think Obama and Clinton care if homes are built or roads are repaved within the limits of existing settlements. Its not going to mean the end of the world if they US has to live with less than what they want. The rational minds in the Administration will take what Israel is offering and declare victory and move on.
You may be right--or the US will push for further concessions.
Now that the US has drawn a line in the sand, if it makes a concession on the demand, it is going to risk all that Arab goodwill that the Obama administration is trying to build up by appearing to have caved.
Daled, exactly right. Its not about Israel. Its about building "street cred" with the Arab World and the US is not going to throw that away by backing down on its position. The Obama Administration is guided by a worldview that doesn't accept what is reasonable to outside observers and they have no reason to soften it to accommodate reality. The truth is that regardless of the settlements, the US under Obama wants and needs to distance itself from Israel.
when israel tried to annex the golan heights the UN declared israels claim 'null and void'
same thing happened when israel tried to annex all of jeruselam the UN declared israels claim 'null and void'.
no matter how much you say otherwise israel is clearly in brech of international law as the World Court recently stated. both the illegal settlements and the security [aparthied] wall have both been condemned by the World Court as 'illegal' according to international law. everything else is just an opinion and it doesn't change the fact that the World Court has ruled them as 'illegal'and the UN will not accept israel annexing arab land.
Who’s territory exactly is being occupied? Before Israel was in control, Jordan occupied the west bank which is actually Judea and Samaria. Only two countries, England and Pakistan recognized Jordan’s occupation. In 1967 Jordan along with other Arab nations initiated a war against Israel and Israel gained Judea and Samaria along with Gaza, the Golan Heights, the Sinai which has since been given back to Egypt. So how does gaining territory in a war of self-defense constitute an “occupation” of that territory and considering the territory was never a sovereign entity to begin with? Again I ask who’s territory is being occupied here?
And I also ask again why you support the creation of a racist, apartheid state of palestine?
About the false claim of "illegal" settlements:
Eugene Rostow, the late U.S. legal scholar and diplomat who played the leading U.S. role in negotiating 242, wrote in 1991 that:
[T]he Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip … has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors … the Jews have the same right to settle [in the West Bank] as they have to settle in Haifa.