23 December 2012By Stephen Lendman
It's America's accustomed role. It's longstanding. It
lets Israel get away with murder and much more.
Washington's support permits Israel to commit repeated
crimes of war, against humanity, slow-motion genocide,
and countless other human and civil rights abuses too
grave to ignore.
America stands defiant. Israel's worst crimes are
generously funded and backed. Security Council
resolutions condemning Israel are blocked.
Israel spurns various measures passed. Washington's
support assures impunity.
Israel's lawless settlement construction demands world
community action. It's long past time for measures
with teeth to stop it. International law is clear and
unambiguous. Israeli settlements are illegal. Fourth
Geneva's Article 49 states:
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as
deportations of protected persons from occupied
territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or
to that of any other country, occupied or not, are
prohibited, regardless of their motive."
Israel spurns all international laws with impunity.
Moshe Dayan once said, "They don't like this policy,
but we shall do it whether they like it or not."
Other Israeli officials made similar comments. Current
ones have likeminded views. Israel does what it wants
regardless of international law, world opinion, and
other considerations. Only its own matter.
Settlement construction continues unabated. Thousands
of new units were announced. A previous article
discussed them.
World condemnation followed. Sanctions, isolation,
and/or other meaningful measures with teeth never
follow rhetoric. Colonizing Palestine continues
unabated.
Washington nominally opposed Israeli settlement
construction until February 1981. In April 1980, Jimmy
Carter said America's "position on the settlements is
very clear. We do not think they are legal."
In March 1980, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance told the
House Foreign Relations Committee that:
"US Policy toward the establishment of Israeli
settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal
and has long been a matter of public record."
"We consider it to be contrary to international law
and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the
Middle East peace process."
"Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva
Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in
judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State
Department for many, many years, to be…that
(settlements) are illegal and that (the Convention)
applies to the territories."
Earlier US administrations concurred. In March 1976,
Ford's UN ambassador, William Scranton, said:
"Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian
population in occupied territories, including East
Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot
be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future
negotiations between the parties on the locations of
the borders of states by the Middle East."
"Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by
my government as an obstacle to the success of the
negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel
and its neighbors."
In July 1969, Nixon's permanent UN representative,
Charles Yost, said:
"The expropriation or confiscation of land, the
construction of housing on such land, the demolition
or confiscation of buildings, including those having
historic or religious significance, and the
application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the
city are detrimental to our common interests in"
Jerusalem.
"The United States considers that the part of
Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the
June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is
governing the rights and obligations of an occupying
Power."
"Among the provisions of international law which bind
Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the
provisions that the occupier has no right to make
changes in laws or in administration other than those
which are temporarily necessitated by his security
interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or
destroy private property."
"The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva
Convention and international law is clear: the
occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and
unaltered as possible, without interfering with the
customary life of the area, and any changes must be
necessitated by the immediate needs of the
occupation."
The Johnson administration expressed similar views. It
said nothing should "prejudice the search for" peace.
"By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in
the occupied areas the GOI (government of Israel) adds
serious complications to the eventual task of drawing
up a peace settlement."
"Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas,
whether or not in settlements which are under military
control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva
Convention."
Reagan changed US policy. Defying international law he
claimed settlements are "not illegal." They're merely
"ill-advised" and "unnecessarily provocative."
Future presidents sustained his policy. Legal issues
aren't addressed. Rhetoric substitutes for policy.
Israel does what it pleases. It knows it has full US
backing.
On February 18, Washington alone vetoed a Security
Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement
construction.
Resolution language called colonization "illegal." It
denounced settlements as an "obstacle to peace."
It demanded that "Israel, as the occupying power,
immediately and completely ceases all settlement
activities in the occupied Palestinian territory,
including East Jerusalem and that it fully respect its
legal obligations in this regard."
Over 120 UN Member States co-sponsored the measure. It
urged all parties to negotiate in good faith for
peace.
It called for the "intensification of international
and regional diplomatic efforts to support and
invigorate the peace process towards achievement of a
comprehensive, just and lasting peace."
Palestine's Permanent UN Observer, Riyad Mansosur,
said the Security Council failed to "uphold its
responsibilities."
"Our overarching goal remains to bring an end to the
Israeli colonization and occupation of our land and
its destruction of the two-State solution."
"We fear, however, that the message sent today may be
one that only encourages further Israeli intransigence
and impunity."
Israel's then UN ambassador Meron Reuben said "the
resolution should never have been submitted."
Rogue states make outrageous claims. With US backing,
they're free to violate international law with
impunity. Israel takes full advantage.
On December 19, Washington again expressed support. UN
Security Council members met in New York. Unofficial
discussions took place. They substituted for
condemnation with teeth. No resolution was proposed.
Fourteen members condemned Israel's latest
construction plans separately. They did so outside the
Council chamber. Comments followed their monthly
Middle East briefing.
Britain's ambassador Mark Grant read a joint
UK/German/French/ Portuguese statement, saying:
"Israel's announcements that it will accelerate the
construction of settlements send a negative message
and are undermining faith in its willingness to
negotiate."
"The viability of the two-state solution….is
threatened by the systematic expansion of settlements.
Settlements are illegal under international law and
detrimental to any international efforts to restart
peace negotiations and secure a two-state solution."
Eight Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) members made four
separate statements. Breaching international law was
stressed. India's UN ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri,
said:
"Consultations were held amongst (council) members
(and) an attempt was made (to see) if" America would
agree with others.
"But when we came to the conclusion (it) was not
likely to happen," council members made individual and
group statements. Doing so stopped short of voting on
a legally binding resolution.
Israel's UN ambassador Ron Prosor claimed Israeli
construction doesn't obstruct peace. Outrageously he
said:
"The planned construction is in neighborhoods that
will be part of Jerusalem and Israeli sovereignty
under any future agreement between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority."
"It is hypocrisy to call for Palestinian territorial
contiguity between Judea and Samaria and Gaza and in
the same breath also oppose Jewish territorial
contiguity between Ma'aleh Adumim and Jerusalem."
"Settlements are not and never have been the main
obstacle to peace. The real obstacle to peace is the
Palestinians' demand of return, their refusal to
recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the continued
terrorism and incitement against Israel."
"If the Security Council really wants to contribute to
the peace process, it must address these issues."
Ambassadors are paid to lie for their governments.
Prosor does it arrogantly.
On November 14, the Jerusalem Post quoted Likud
Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan calling
for annexation of Israel's lawless settlements.
After Palestine's UN status was upgraded, he called
for "immediate annexation" regardless of world
opinion. When asked whether Washington would react
angrily, he said both governments "don't always see
eye-to-eye" on policies.
Labor party MKs disagree. They criticized Netanyahu's
plan. MK Eitan Cabel spoke for others, saying he's
"continuing to cross red lines, and his hasty
decisions are leading us to international isolation
and difficult disagreements with our closest allies."
"Netanyahu's irresponsible declarations, motivated
mainly by a cynical election campaign at the expense
of the public, is leading us into a reality that harms
the crucial interests of the State of Israel, for one
goal: to change the social-economic agenda with
threatens how many seats he'll have in his pocket
after the elections."
A Final Comment
On December 20, Haaretz said constructing a new
Jerusalem highway through Beit Safafa divides the
village in two. It passes meters from homes.
Quality of life will be seriously compromised. Many
residents will be cut off from mosques, schools, and
other facilities. Areas accessed easily will be
blocked. Lengthy travel will be required to reach
them.
Days earlier, attorney Kais Nasser filed an
administrative petition to block construction. It
accelerated. Plans made years earlier proceed post
haste. They include confiscating Palestinian land to
facilitate Israeli colonization.
Residents are grievously harmed. They got no chance to
object. One spoke for others saying highway
construction will be another Separation Wall. "It's a
great injustice."
Israel calls the highway a major project with "high
economic value." Doublespeak duplicity claims harming
Beit Safafa residents helps them. Perhaps
dispossessing them entirely will benefit them most.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be
reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book
is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized
Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his
blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on
the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive
Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and
Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are
archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments