Why The US Should Veto A UN Resolution On The Legality Of Israeli Settlements

The latest Palestinian ploy to avoid the concessions associated with real negotiating is to go before the UN and have them condemn Israeli settlements as illegal.

Supporting a UN resolution to condemn the settlements--and requesting Obama not to veto--is a letter signed by "an array of concerned policy commentators and practitioners, academics, and former government officials".

The letter reads in part:

The settlements are clearly illegal according to article 49 of the Fourth Geneva convention - a status recognized in an opinion issued by the State Department's legal adviser on April 28, 1978, a position which has never since been revised.

That official US legal opinion describes the settlements as being "inconsistent with international law". US policy across nine administrations has been to oppose the settlements, with the focus for the last two decades being on the incompatibility of settlement construction with efforts to advance peace. The Quartet Roadmap, for instance, issued during the Bush presidency in 2003, called on Israel to "freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth."

Indeed, the US has upheld these principles, including their application to East Jerusalem, by allowing the passage of previous relevant UNSC resolutions, including: UNSCRs 446 and 465, determining that the settlements have "no legal validity"; UNSCRs 465 and 476, affirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva convention to the Occupied Territory; UNSCRs 1397 and1850 stressing the urgency of achieving a comprehensive peace and calling for a two state solution; and UNSCR 1515, endorsing the Quartet Roadmap.

At this critical juncture, how the US chooses to cast its vote on a settlements resolution will have a defining effect on our standing as a broker in Middle East peace. But the impact of this vote will be felt well beyond the arena of Israeli-Palestinian deal-making - our seriousness as a guarantor of international law and international legitimacy is at stake.

America's credibility in a crucial region of the world is on the line - a region in which hundreds of thousands of our troops are deployed and where we face the greatest threats and challenges to our security. This vote is an American national security interest vote par excellence. We urge you to do the right thing.

Joshuapundit offers the following points to rebut the letter:

• Article 49 refers to 'the Occupying Power'--which does not apply to the situation: There has never been a country called 'Palestine' that owned the area in question. Instead, the area was illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948, with no countries other than UK and Pakistan recognizing Jordanian sovereignty over the area. A state of war existed continuously from 1948 - 1967 during which time Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, was defeated and has since given up all claim to the area -- including Jerusalem. Bottom line: there is no occupying power since the area was disputed and never officially a part of any country.
  
  
• The article states that "the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." If Israel was the Occupying Power, it would have the right to transfer large numbers of the population in the interests of security after Arafat's War against Israel's civilians.
  
  
• President Bush provided assurances to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, modifying The Quartet Roadmap, calling on Israel to "freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth"--as a condition of Israel signing on to the Road Map.
  
  
• Construction by Israel or the 'Palestinians' was never an issue in any peace negotiations until President Obama explicitly made it an issue, at which point Abbas had no choice but adopt that position as his own.
  
  
• UN Security Resolutions 446 and 465 that the settlements have "no legal validity, UNSCRs 465 and 476 applying the Fourth Geneva convention to the disputed area, UNSCRs 1397 and 1850 on the urgency of achieving a comprehensive peace -- and calling for a two state solution and UNSCR 1515 endorsing the Quartet Roadmap--all of these are not Chapter VII binding resolutions and thus have no force under International Law.
  
  
• The UN resolutions quoted consistently one-sided and fail to take into account that Jews were forcibly deprived of their legally purchased property not only in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem but all over the Arab world in the period after 1948.
  
  
• If the fourth Geneva Convention was not invoked against Jordan in that country's illegal occupation and forcible removal of inhabitants, why should it be invoked against Israel?
  
  
• The UN is now dominated by the 52 member Organization of Islamic Conference and other Muslim countries and has a historic bias against Israel and Zionism.
  
  
• The US endorsement of such a resolution would severely impact US credibility, as such an endorsement would violate both the Oslo Accords and the Road Map, both of which the US is a signatory to.
  
  
• The claim that adhering to those agreements would endanger US security ignores the fact that if Israel were to magically disappear tomorrow, nothing would change: Iran would still be seeking nuclear weapons, fomenting terrorism and aiding and abetting our enemies. Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Abu Sayef, Jama'al Islamiah, the Taliban, Lashkar e Taiba and other bad actors in this part of the world would still exist and still be a threat to US security.

Also check out Israel Matzav, who writes about the letter by Herbert Hansell that is referred to as being the official undisputed US position--and points out that in fact the Hansell letter has been disputed.

Senator Gillibrand and 16 of her colleagues wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton, urging that the US oppose the proposed Palestinian resolution:

A resolution of this nature would work against our country's consistent position, which has been that this and other issues linked to the Middle East peace process can only be resolved by the two parties negotiating directly with each other. Between November 2009 and September 2010, the government of Israel imposed a settlement freeze as a goodwill gesture, yet the Palestinians refused to negotiate until the very last month. Attempts to use a venue such as the United Nations, which you know has a long history of hostility toward Israel, to deal with just one issue in the negotiations, will not move the two sides closer to a two-state solution, but rather damage the fragile trust between the

Jennifer Rubin believes the Gillibrand letter is an indication that Obama will oppose the resolution:

Now, do we think the signatories to Gillibrand's letter, including prominent Democrats, would have taken this step without some clear indication from the administration as to which way it was leaning?

Take it to the bank: Obama will veto the U.N. resolution, signaling once again that an American president cannot follow the agenda of the far-left (in this case joined by a hodge-podge of Republican Israel bashers who've been out of power for a generation) and expect to protect America's vital interests.

We will find out soon enough if Rubin is right.

Technorati Tag: Israeli Settlements and Fourth Geneva Convention.