More than 100 Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to US Secretary Mike Pompeo, expressing “strong disagreement” with the State Department’s new policy and urged him to “reverse this policy decision immediately.”
by Israel Kasnett, ISRAEL HAYOM ,
A girl holds an Israeli flag on a hilltop in Maaleh Adumim, near Jerusalem | Photo: Reuters
The announcement last month by US Secretary Mike Pompeo that Israeli settlements are not illegal was either warmly welcomed or hotly rejected, depending on how you interpret international law.
Indeed, recently 107 Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Pompeo expressing “strong disagreement” with the State Department’s new policy and urged Pompeo to “reverse this policy decision immediately.”
Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, said that Pompeo “did a great service for Israel and for truth by stating that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not illegal.”
“And it is unfortunate,” he added, “that there are some members of Congress who want to second guess him,” referring to the Democratic lawmaker’s letter. For his part, Gold sent a letter to each of those lawmakers explaining why Pompeo’s decision was correct.
The change in policy was allegedly timed to counter the European Union’s decision to label goods made in Judea and Samaria, as well as to reverse the previous administration’s stance, which viewed the settlements not only as an obstacle to peace but actually illegal.
As such, how subjective is international law and could the decision be reversed by a future president, especially a Democrat?
Gold said that the Trump administration’s view of settlements helped to provide a different interpretation of international law.
“I thought it was very important to put on the table the issue of the improper application of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the case of Israel,” Gold said. “International law is a subject where people do interpret way of norms differently. That is simply the way it works.”
He added that the decision made during former-President Jimmy Carter’s administration to declare the settlements a violation of international law “was wrongheaded.”
Taking it a few steps further, Gold said the basis of claiming that the settlements are illegal came from the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which said that a state occupying territory in war cannot move the population out of the occupied territory, and, secondly, that it cannot move its own population into the territory in question.
“In Israel’s case,” he said, “both statements are irrelevant.”
What has bothered him, in particular, was that the idea that an occupying power cannot move its population into occupied territory came from the actions of Nazi Germany, which moved its Jewish population into places like Poland for purposes of extermination.
“So somebody has the nerve to say that Israelis who have voluntarily moved into the West Bank are violating an international law that was based on a completely different situation?” he asked incredulously. “Comparing what Israel does in the West Bank to what Nazi Germany did in Poland to the Jews of Germany is something I find repulsive.”
Gold said he felt it was important to send the letters because “if you don’t say anything, it will continue.”
‘A solution on how to move forward’
Pnina Sharvit-Baruch of the Institute for National Security Studies said it is necessary to move away from the arguments over who is right or wrong, and instead to “find a solution on how to move forward.”
She said she fears that a future US Democrat administration might not just go back to the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush kind of ambiguity when they said settlements are “an obstacle to peace.” Instead, it might return to the Obama policy of saying settlements are illegal.
Since international law is often interpreted differently, are people simply propagating their own subjective views?
“Almost any legal question is often the issue of different interpretations,” said Sharvit-Baruch, “and settlements are no different than any other legal question, especially with regard to international law.”
“An argument can be made – and it is not baseless to say – that the settlements are not necessarily illegal,” she said. “The case of why Palestinians have a right to this territory is not a clear-cut question. Even if they have the right of determination, there is still no clear-cut legal answer as to what territory this right applies to because the Green Line of 1967 is not a border.”
She said the main point is that the two sides, and even the wider Arab world, previously agreed that the topic of settlements and borders is an issue that needs to be negotiated and that it is not supposed to be determined in court.
Sharvit-Baruch said that by declaring the settlements a violation of international law, the Obama and Carter administrations were “very unhelpful.”
“Those who insist on discussing it in legal terms,” she emphasized, “are doing a disservice to any kind of peaceful settlement to the conflict.”
Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.
@ David melech:
Yes, it was signed by Harding and then they voted again and Coolidge signed it on Sept 21, 1924. http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=100
@ David melech:
@ Sebastien Zorn:
June 30 1922 both houses of Congress recognized L of N mandate.
1924 Dec 3 was to define the rights of the 2 countries and their respective nationals in Palestine. Known as the Anglo American convention on Palestine 1924. And ratified Dec 3 1925.
@ David melech:
PDF format text of Anglo-American Treaty. Dec. 3, 1924 http://www.alliedpowersholocaust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1924-Anglo-American-Convention.pdf
Wrong date wrong product.
@ David melech:
It was 1924, according to the record, and named “The Anglo -American Treaty”. I’ve written about it here many times. My understanding was that it was irrevocable and was unanimous, then signed by Harding, and when he suddenly died, re-signed into U.S. law by President Coolidge. You may be interested to know that Woodrow Wilson also thoroughly endorsed it after close examination, although unofficially. This was not long before he got his stroke. And before it became the British Mandate.
So if trumps policy can be reversed then why not the 1923 both houses of Congress vote on accepting L of N mandate, Churchills give away of eastern Israel, 48 blue line, 67 green line, Oslo, Wye river, the election of a non born u s pres. all be reversed?
I saw an interview with a representative of the Jewish communities of Yesha and he said it takes years just to plan much less build new communities which takes even more. How does that make any sense?
Just as Reagan reversed Carter and Obama reversed Reagan, Trump can be reversed. Trump and Netanyahu know this. We have at least 5 more years (with Trump’s reelection) to make it irreversible by putting facts on the ground and calling Judea and Smaria our own. No more should we acknowledge that our claim to these lands are “disputed claims”. They’re ours, period.
Needless to say, a future U.S. administration can reverse the decisions of any previous administration – of whatever party. Israel certainly cannot allow this to determine its own policies and interests.
Rather than depending upon the goodwill of particular politicians, we must loudly – and at every opportunity – proclaim the legal and historical basis for our claim to
this land. Equally, we must refute the claims of the so-called Palestinians – with proof!
The dems can quite easily reverse trumps cabinet ruling at the same time rule that the hare did beat the tortious, prove yeti is alive and well and living on mt Washington, pres Lincoln wore a tall hat to keep his rabbit warm.
@ EDDYDEE:
Another view: UK, the EU and the US Dems are reflecting the consequences of their deeds and actions against “Palestinian” Israel. The first 2-state was illegal, so consider what it says of the continuing wrongs. Calling a 3-state as a 2-state is more than poor maths. The Balfour Pledge must be restored with apologies and compensation: it alone caused the Holocaust.
Ironically, the Geneva Convention, particularly that clause, essentially closed the barn door after the horses have already fled. It’s never been applied to anybody except wrongly to the Jews, who were the chief victims that led to its passing in the first place! Same thing happened with Resolution 242 and “territories” instead of “the” “territories.” And the claims that the Oslo accords promised more than they actually did to the pals or that they were not conditioned upon good behavior, i.e. peace, as was Res. 242.
Yes, obviously and scarily. Any administration can do whatever it wants, especially if the Deep State which is enduringly anti-Israel, is behind it.
A modern day example of illegal occupation 1990 Iraq entered Kuwait and tried to move Iraqis onto stolen land. This was in violation of Geneva convention.
I dislike even thinking this, but the right to do this or do that and be CORRECT
is , in effect, what was stated by Theodore Roosevelt.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick”
Now who rules ,is the carrier of the biggest stick.
Not the USA ! In a short time it will be ISLAM !
No ,you say? Look around the world, who is ,not slowly, invading?
scary !
Eddie