23 nov 2019
Failing to issue a statement denouncing the US stance regarding the legality of settlements, all members of the United Nations Security Council — except the US — rejected Washington’s decision to no longer consider settlements a violation of international law. Four European nations said the move hindered peace efforts.
The UN Security Council, on Wednesday, overwhelmingly opposed the recent US policy shift on Israeli settlements, Al Ray reports.
The council’s monthly meeting on the Middle East came just two days after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US would no longer consider Israeli settlements to be a violation of international law, reversing a US policy consensus that has lasted four decades.
Vatican announced that US decision to consider Israeli settlements in West Bank as legal, threatens the peace process and stability in the region.
The Swedish Churches Association criticized the decision, calling for a two-state solution.
Special Coordinator for the UN, Nickolay Mladenov, opened the council meeting expressing ”regret” over the US decision and reiterating a December 2016 UN council resolution stating that settlements were ”a flagrant violation under international law.”
Prior to the meeting, the UK, France, Germany, Belgium and Poland also released a joint statement calling on Israel ”to end all settlement activity, in line with its obligations as an occupying power,” saying such activity ”erodes the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace.”
The chief Palestinian delegate at the UN, Riyad Mansour, was also at the meeting and took a jab at the US decision, saying Donald Trump’s administration had again made “another illegal announcement on Israeli settlements in order to sabotage any chance to achieve peace, security and stability.”
Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said that the EU have to recognize the Palestinian state after the US announcement:
“Recognizing Palestine as a state is not a favor or an authorization, it is the right of Palestinian people.”
Days of Palestine further reported that, on Thursday, the British Foreign Office said that its position regarding the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank did not change.
A spokesperson for the Foreign Office said that the United Kingdom’s stance, vis-à-vis settlements, was clear — mainly that they are “illegal” under the international law.
The statement stressed that the settlements represent an obstacle to peace and the two-state solution. The spokesperson urged Israel to end its settlement expansion policy.
The UN Security Council, on Wednesday, overwhelmingly opposed the recent US policy shift on Israeli settlements, Al Ray reports.
The council’s monthly meeting on the Middle East came just two days after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US would no longer consider Israeli settlements to be a violation of international law, reversing a US policy consensus that has lasted four decades.
Vatican announced that US decision to consider Israeli settlements in West Bank as legal, threatens the peace process and stability in the region.
The Swedish Churches Association criticized the decision, calling for a two-state solution.
Special Coordinator for the UN, Nickolay Mladenov, opened the council meeting expressing ”regret” over the US decision and reiterating a December 2016 UN council resolution stating that settlements were ”a flagrant violation under international law.”
Prior to the meeting, the UK, France, Germany, Belgium and Poland also released a joint statement calling on Israel ”to end all settlement activity, in line with its obligations as an occupying power,” saying such activity ”erodes the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace.”
The chief Palestinian delegate at the UN, Riyad Mansour, was also at the meeting and took a jab at the US decision, saying Donald Trump’s administration had again made “another illegal announcement on Israeli settlements in order to sabotage any chance to achieve peace, security and stability.”
Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said that the EU have to recognize the Palestinian state after the US announcement:
“Recognizing Palestine as a state is not a favor or an authorization, it is the right of Palestinian people.”
Days of Palestine further reported that, on Thursday, the British Foreign Office said that its position regarding the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank did not change.
A spokesperson for the Foreign Office said that the United Kingdom’s stance, vis-à-vis settlements, was clear — mainly that they are “illegal” under the international law.
The statement stressed that the settlements represent an obstacle to peace and the two-state solution. The spokesperson urged Israel to end its settlement expansion policy.
Al Mezan Center For Human Rights published a press release stating that the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC), the Palestinian Coalition for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ADALAH), and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO) condemn as a gross misrepresentation of international law.
The recent statement by the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mike Pompeo, that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) are “not per se inconsistent with international law.”
Secretary Pompeo’s unwarranted statement is premised on a calculated misrepresentation of well-established and recognized international law, with the intention of rubber-stamping Israel’s unlawful acquisition of territory in the West Bank through the use of force, and prolonged military occupation, in flagrant disregard of principles of international law.
PHROC, ADALAH, and PNGO urge the United States, and the international community, to recognize the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, to take immediate action to prevent the proliferation of the illegal Israeli settlements and annexation of the Jordan Valley, through the implementation of effective countermeasures.
Israeli policies in the OPT, including the de facto annexation, the denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the existence of segregation amounting to an ‘apartheid’ system, are all violations of basic norms of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and are considered internationally wrongful acts of a serious nature which elicit third state obligations under international law.
Read the full document here [pdf]
The recent statement by the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mike Pompeo, that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) are “not per se inconsistent with international law.”
Secretary Pompeo’s unwarranted statement is premised on a calculated misrepresentation of well-established and recognized international law, with the intention of rubber-stamping Israel’s unlawful acquisition of territory in the West Bank through the use of force, and prolonged military occupation, in flagrant disregard of principles of international law.
PHROC, ADALAH, and PNGO urge the United States, and the international community, to recognize the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, to take immediate action to prevent the proliferation of the illegal Israeli settlements and annexation of the Jordan Valley, through the implementation of effective countermeasures.
Israeli policies in the OPT, including the de facto annexation, the denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the existence of segregation amounting to an ‘apartheid’ system, are all violations of basic norms of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and are considered internationally wrongful acts of a serious nature which elicit third state obligations under international law.
Read the full document here [pdf]
More than 120 U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen have sent an urgent letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, urging him to reverse his decision to considering Israeli settlements in the West Bank legal, the Palestinian News and Info Agency (WAFA) reported.
“This announcement, following the administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem outside of a negotiated agreement… severely damaged prospects for peace, and endangered the security of America, Israel, and the Palestinian people,” the letter read, adding: “As annexation [of the West Bank] and the United States’ approval thereof would destroy prospects for a two-state solution and lead to a more entrenched and possibly deadlier conflict, this decision erodes the security of both Israel and the United States.”
The signatory Congressmen and Congresswomen said the move, which came in the aftermath of the U.S.’ closure of the Palestinian mission in Washington, its Consulate in Jerusalem, and the halting of aid to the West Bank and Gaza, has discredited the United States as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The letter continued, “We write to express our strong disagreement with the State Department’s decision to reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, by repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are “inconsistent with international law.”
“U.S. administrations from both parties have followed the 1978 guidance because settlement expansion into the occupied West Bank makes a contiguous Palestinian state inviable, jeopardizing Israel’s future as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people,” added the letter.
The Congressmen and Congresswomen further stated that the State Department’s unilateral reversal on the status of settlements, without any clear legal justification, “has offered an implied endorsement of settlements, their expansion, and associated demolitions of Palestinian homes.
In addition, one day after the Department’s decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to advance a bill to annex the Jordan Valley.”
“This State Department decision blatantly disregards Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which affirms that any occupying power shall not “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
In ignoring international law, this administration has undermined America’s moral standing and sent a dangerous message to those who do not share our values: human rights and international law, which have governed the international order and protected U.S. troops and civilians since 1949, no longer apply.”
The letter concluded, “If the U.S. unilaterally abandons international and human rights law, we can only expect a more chaotic and brutal twenty-first century for Americans and our allies, including the Israeli people.”
“This announcement, following the administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem outside of a negotiated agreement… severely damaged prospects for peace, and endangered the security of America, Israel, and the Palestinian people,” the letter read, adding: “As annexation [of the West Bank] and the United States’ approval thereof would destroy prospects for a two-state solution and lead to a more entrenched and possibly deadlier conflict, this decision erodes the security of both Israel and the United States.”
The signatory Congressmen and Congresswomen said the move, which came in the aftermath of the U.S.’ closure of the Palestinian mission in Washington, its Consulate in Jerusalem, and the halting of aid to the West Bank and Gaza, has discredited the United States as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The letter continued, “We write to express our strong disagreement with the State Department’s decision to reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, by repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are “inconsistent with international law.”
“U.S. administrations from both parties have followed the 1978 guidance because settlement expansion into the occupied West Bank makes a contiguous Palestinian state inviable, jeopardizing Israel’s future as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people,” added the letter.
The Congressmen and Congresswomen further stated that the State Department’s unilateral reversal on the status of settlements, without any clear legal justification, “has offered an implied endorsement of settlements, their expansion, and associated demolitions of Palestinian homes.
In addition, one day after the Department’s decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to advance a bill to annex the Jordan Valley.”
“This State Department decision blatantly disregards Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which affirms that any occupying power shall not “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
In ignoring international law, this administration has undermined America’s moral standing and sent a dangerous message to those who do not share our values: human rights and international law, which have governed the international order and protected U.S. troops and civilians since 1949, no longer apply.”
The letter concluded, “If the U.S. unilaterally abandons international and human rights law, we can only expect a more chaotic and brutal twenty-first century for Americans and our allies, including the Israeli people.”
22 nov 2019
The United Kingdom urged Israel, on Thursday, to halt its “counterproductive” settlement expansion, declaring that it is illegal under international law, The Palestinian News and Info Agency (WAFA) reported.
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office reiterated its position, after U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo stated, that the Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank were legal, and do not contradict international law.
“The position of the U.K. on settlements is clear. They are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace, and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. We urge Israel to halt its counterproductive settlement expansion,” the Foreign Office published on its website.
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office reiterated its position, after U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo stated, that the Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank were legal, and do not contradict international law.
“The position of the U.K. on settlements is clear. They are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace, and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. We urge Israel to halt its counterproductive settlement expansion,” the Foreign Office published on its website.
21 nov 2019
by Richard Falk
Despite the US administration's announcement to the contrary, there is no question as to the unlawfulness of Israel's settler encroachment
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made headlines around the world this week in announcing that the US had shifted its position, and no longer viewed Israeli settlements as a violation of international law.
In one of the stupider public statements of our time, Pompeo explained that “arguments about who is right and wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace”. It is stupid, first, because there is no genuine argument about the unlawfulness of the settlements; until the US spoke out of turn, Israel was alone in defending their legality.
More definitively, the role of international law is to regulate the proper behaviour of sovereign states - not to make peace by negating the law’s relevance, which truly seems a cheer for the law of the jungle.
'Reality on the ground'
Pompeo removed any doubt about this when he justified the shift by admitting that the US “recognised the reality on the ground”. In plainer language, lawless behaviour can become lawful if sustained long enough by force - a logic that not only defies international law, but is contrary to the core legal commitments of the UN Charter.
Particularly in the area of peace and security, international law can be somewhat ambiguous. Opposing positions can be reasonably maintained, resolved by either an authorised tribunal or by practice sustained over time.
The establishment of settlements on occupied Palestinian territory, however, is an example of an issue upon which it is not possible to make a responsible argument in support of legality.
The unlawfulness of the settler encroachment has been pointed out repeatedly by informed observers as the biggest single obstacle to peace, and the most vivid and unabashed Israeli defiance of international law.
So, has Washington given Israel its blessing to do whatever it wants in the future regarding settlements - and for that matter, in the entirety of the occupied West Bank? After all, if the White House now endorses Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights in Syrian sovereign territory, the West Bank may be thought of as small potatoes.
The clarity of international law on the issue of Israeli settlements arises in part from the unusual fact that they have been formally declared illegal by the most authoritative sources of international guidance. Several key examples illustrate this international consensus.
Consensus of illegality
Firstly, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an occupying power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. This important provision of international humanitarian law is universally understood as prohibiting the establishment of Israeli settlements on any part of the occupied Palestinian territories.
If Israel was complying with international law, it should have ceased settlement activity and dismantled what had been built in the years after the 1967 war.
Instead, Israel continued building, at an accelerated pace, advancing the lame rationale that Israelis should be able to live wherever they wish in Palestine.
Israel does not even view the areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank where settlements exist as being “occupied” in a legal sense, viewing this as part of the “promised land”.
Secondly, the International Court of Justice in 2004 strongly reaffirmed the unlawfulness of Israel’s settlement construction in occupied territory - and with a 14-1 ruling, the court showed a highly unusual degree of unity.
The court pointed out that the separation wall was built so as to put on the Israeli side 80 percent of the settler population, noting in passing that the settlements were established in violation of applicable law. Israel refused to comply with this conclusive judgment, emphasising its “advisory” character.
Thirdly, in December 2016, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2334, deeming by a vote of 14-0 that the settlements had no legal validity. The US abstained from the vote. The resolution noted that the settlements constituted “a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”. It stressed exactly the opposite point to the one made by Pompeo.
Geopolitical significance
No country can, by its decree, influence the legal status of Israeli settlement activity. What Pompeo declared was a shift in the political position of the US government. It is legally insignificant, but geopolitically significant.
The Trump spin room sought to minimise the shift by recalling that Ronald Reagan, while president, once indicated off-the-cuff that he didn’t think the settlements were illegal - but as is not so often noted, he went on to suggest that settlement expansion was “unnecessarily provocative”.
More relevant was the exchange of letters by former US President George W Bush and former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004, in which they agreed that any viable peace deal with the Palestinians would allow the settlement blocs along the border to be incorporated into Israel.
Again, such a side agreement was without legal legs, representing nothing more than a geopolitical pat on Israel’s back - but it was a good indicator of what Israel and the US would demand in future peace negotiations.
What makes the Pompeo statement different is its positioning in relation to other controversial Trump moves and its whitewashing language, which gives Israel an incentive to move ahead with annexation. This is another instance of US overreach.
Final nail in the coffin
Palestinian resistance remains strong, as the Great March of Return along the Gaza-Israel fence illustrates, and global solidarity initiatives are gathering strength - a reality that Israel seems to acknowledge, by defaming its nonviolent opponents as antisemites.
The new settlements rhetoric continues the pattern established by the Trump administration: repudiating the international consensus on key issues bearing on the rights and duties of states.
The highlights of this pattern in the Palestinian context have included moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, endorsing Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights, and now, sidelining as irrelevant the illegality of Israel’s settlements.
This step has been condemned in diplomatic circles as a final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. It moves the political compass towards a one-state outcome, with the likelihood being Jewish dominance and Palestinian subjugation in a state structure that increasingly looks and behaves like an apartheid regime.
Is this, then, the endgame of the Palestinian struggle? I think not. Palestinian resistance and the global solidarity movement will be telling the world a different story.
This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.
Richard Falk
Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. In 2008 he was also appointed by the UN to serve a six-year term as the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.
Despite the US administration's announcement to the contrary, there is no question as to the unlawfulness of Israel's settler encroachment
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made headlines around the world this week in announcing that the US had shifted its position, and no longer viewed Israeli settlements as a violation of international law.
In one of the stupider public statements of our time, Pompeo explained that “arguments about who is right and wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace”. It is stupid, first, because there is no genuine argument about the unlawfulness of the settlements; until the US spoke out of turn, Israel was alone in defending their legality.
More definitively, the role of international law is to regulate the proper behaviour of sovereign states - not to make peace by negating the law’s relevance, which truly seems a cheer for the law of the jungle.
'Reality on the ground'
Pompeo removed any doubt about this when he justified the shift by admitting that the US “recognised the reality on the ground”. In plainer language, lawless behaviour can become lawful if sustained long enough by force - a logic that not only defies international law, but is contrary to the core legal commitments of the UN Charter.
Particularly in the area of peace and security, international law can be somewhat ambiguous. Opposing positions can be reasonably maintained, resolved by either an authorised tribunal or by practice sustained over time.
The establishment of settlements on occupied Palestinian territory, however, is an example of an issue upon which it is not possible to make a responsible argument in support of legality.
The unlawfulness of the settler encroachment has been pointed out repeatedly by informed observers as the biggest single obstacle to peace, and the most vivid and unabashed Israeli defiance of international law.
So, has Washington given Israel its blessing to do whatever it wants in the future regarding settlements - and for that matter, in the entirety of the occupied West Bank? After all, if the White House now endorses Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights in Syrian sovereign territory, the West Bank may be thought of as small potatoes.
The clarity of international law on the issue of Israeli settlements arises in part from the unusual fact that they have been formally declared illegal by the most authoritative sources of international guidance. Several key examples illustrate this international consensus.
Consensus of illegality
Firstly, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an occupying power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. This important provision of international humanitarian law is universally understood as prohibiting the establishment of Israeli settlements on any part of the occupied Palestinian territories.
If Israel was complying with international law, it should have ceased settlement activity and dismantled what had been built in the years after the 1967 war.
Instead, Israel continued building, at an accelerated pace, advancing the lame rationale that Israelis should be able to live wherever they wish in Palestine.
Israel does not even view the areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank where settlements exist as being “occupied” in a legal sense, viewing this as part of the “promised land”.
Secondly, the International Court of Justice in 2004 strongly reaffirmed the unlawfulness of Israel’s settlement construction in occupied territory - and with a 14-1 ruling, the court showed a highly unusual degree of unity.
The court pointed out that the separation wall was built so as to put on the Israeli side 80 percent of the settler population, noting in passing that the settlements were established in violation of applicable law. Israel refused to comply with this conclusive judgment, emphasising its “advisory” character.
Thirdly, in December 2016, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2334, deeming by a vote of 14-0 that the settlements had no legal validity. The US abstained from the vote. The resolution noted that the settlements constituted “a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”. It stressed exactly the opposite point to the one made by Pompeo.
Geopolitical significance
No country can, by its decree, influence the legal status of Israeli settlement activity. What Pompeo declared was a shift in the political position of the US government. It is legally insignificant, but geopolitically significant.
The Trump spin room sought to minimise the shift by recalling that Ronald Reagan, while president, once indicated off-the-cuff that he didn’t think the settlements were illegal - but as is not so often noted, he went on to suggest that settlement expansion was “unnecessarily provocative”.
More relevant was the exchange of letters by former US President George W Bush and former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004, in which they agreed that any viable peace deal with the Palestinians would allow the settlement blocs along the border to be incorporated into Israel.
Again, such a side agreement was without legal legs, representing nothing more than a geopolitical pat on Israel’s back - but it was a good indicator of what Israel and the US would demand in future peace negotiations.
What makes the Pompeo statement different is its positioning in relation to other controversial Trump moves and its whitewashing language, which gives Israel an incentive to move ahead with annexation. This is another instance of US overreach.
Final nail in the coffin
Palestinian resistance remains strong, as the Great March of Return along the Gaza-Israel fence illustrates, and global solidarity initiatives are gathering strength - a reality that Israel seems to acknowledge, by defaming its nonviolent opponents as antisemites.
The new settlements rhetoric continues the pattern established by the Trump administration: repudiating the international consensus on key issues bearing on the rights and duties of states.
The highlights of this pattern in the Palestinian context have included moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, endorsing Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights, and now, sidelining as irrelevant the illegality of Israel’s settlements.
This step has been condemned in diplomatic circles as a final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. It moves the political compass towards a one-state outcome, with the likelihood being Jewish dominance and Palestinian subjugation in a state structure that increasingly looks and behaves like an apartheid regime.
Is this, then, the endgame of the Palestinian struggle? I think not. Palestinian resistance and the global solidarity movement will be telling the world a different story.
This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.
Richard Falk
Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. In 2008 he was also appointed by the UN to serve a six-year term as the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.
|
|
In a sharp rebuke to the Donald Trump administration, the 14 other UN Security Council members on Wednesday strongly opposed the Us announcement that it no longer considers Israeli settlements to be a violation of international law.
They warned that the new American policy undermines a potential two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The council’s monthly Mideast meeting, just two days after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement, was dominated by strong reactions to the new American policy from countries representing all regions of the world that said all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. |
|
|
Only Israel’s UN ambassador, Danny Danon, who is not a council member, spoke in support of the US position, saying it “rights a historical wrong.” He flagrantly called the criticism an “obstacle to peace” that is “preventing direct negotiations” between Israelis and Palestinians.
|
Head of Hamas’s political bureau Ismail Haneyya has described the new US position on Israeli settlements as a serious political massacre that provides cover for the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people.
In a press release on Wednesday, Haneyya said that such US position represented diabolical partnership with the Israeli occupation and an alliance against the Palestinian people’s right to their land, holy sites and the future of their generations.
The Hamas official also called the position “a continuation of the American steps that targeted the constants of the Palestinian cause, especially Jerusalem and the refugees.”
“Our Palestinian people will not surrender to these political and bloody massacres and will continue to uphold their rights, defend them and remain steadfast in the face of these political and military offensives,” he said.
In a press release on Wednesday, Haneyya said that such US position represented diabolical partnership with the Israeli occupation and an alliance against the Palestinian people’s right to their land, holy sites and the future of their generations.
The Hamas official also called the position “a continuation of the American steps that targeted the constants of the Palestinian cause, especially Jerusalem and the refugees.”
“Our Palestinian people will not surrender to these political and bloody massacres and will continue to uphold their rights, defend them and remain steadfast in the face of these political and military offensives,” he said.
