| On Israeli ‘moratorium,’ U.S. has taken sides |
| Updated 9/24/2010 11:21 AM | Comments 31 | Recommend 27 | E-mail | Save | Print |  |
|
||||||||||
As a former professor of constitutional law, President Obama is undoubtedly familiar with the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which posits that prosecutors cannot benefit from evidence obtained through an illegal search.
Thus it is somewhat surprising that his administration appears to be advocating a “fruit of the poisonous tree” strategy to resolve the emerging impasse over Israel‘s continued settlement of Palestinian land, an issue threatening to stymie tenuous Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations launched amid much fanfare earlier this month.
On Sunday, Israel’s self-declared 10-month “moratorium” on settlements is set to expire. Despite Secretary of State Hillary Clinton erroneously reasserting recently that the “moratorium” constituted an “unprecedented decision,” Israel’s colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian land continued apace during the last 10 months. The so-called “moratorium” included only new construction starts in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, and did not apply to already-approved construction, infrastructure projects, or settlement expansion in occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem.
As limited as it is, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is refusing to extend the misnamed settlement “moratorium,” while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to walk away from the negotiating table if it is not continued. Whether the talks persist or break down, one thing is clear: Palestinians paradoxically will still be expected to negotiate statehood with Israel while Israel — with the full support of the United States in the form of $3 billion per year in military aid — continues to gobble up the territory designated for a Palestinian state.
A dangerous game
To forestall a breakdown of this charade, into which Obama, Clinton, and Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell have already invested so much political capital, the Obama administration appears to be playing a dangerous game to massage these seemingly irreconcilable positions.
Although not yet an officially declared policy of the United States, its contours emerge from hints emanating from Clinton during the most recent round of negotiations. On her way to Egypt on Sept. 13, Clinton said, “We recognize that an agreement that could be forged between the Israelis and the Palestinians on actions that would be taken by both sides that would enable the negotiations to continue is in the best interests of both sides. This has to be understood as an effort by both the prime minister and the president to get over a hurdle posed by the expiration of the original moratorium in order to continue negotiations that hold out the promise of resolving all the core issues.”
And how would she propose the parties jump this hurdle? “I think there’s a lot of ways to get to the goal. Remember, the goal is to work toward agreement on core issues like borders and territories that would, if agreed upon, eliminate the debate about settlements, because some areas would be inside Israel and some areas would not be inside Israel. So I think that there are obligations on both sides to ensure that these negotiations continue.”
In other words, the difference can be bridged by arm twisting the Palestinians to agree up front on the land that Israel will annex, permitting unfettered colonization, in exchange for the privilege of continuing negotiations in the ever-dimming hope that some crumbs will eventually get tossed their way in the undetermined future. Call this policy “Annexation First, Mini-Statehood Maybe Later.”
Endorsing illegal actions
Not only is this policy grossly unfair to the Palestinians, who have watched as Israel has relentlessly colonized the West Bank and East Jerusalem for the past 43 years, it also contradicts more than 30 years of official U.S. policy and attempts to put a stamp of approval on Israel’s patently illegal behavior.
A 1978 State Department legal memorandum — still official U.S. policy — concluded that “the establishment of the (Israeli) civilian settlements in those (Palestinian) territories is inconsistent with international law.” The State Department’s reasoning was based on Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which states quite explicitly that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
Pursuing a strategy whereby Israel reaps the fruit of its own poisonous tree at the outset of negotiations reveals just how evenhanded a broker the United States really is. If the United States is incapable of supporting an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on principles of human rights and international law, then it should recuse itself from the proceedings.
Josh Ruebner is the National Advocacy Director of the U..S Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and a former analyst in Middle East affairs at Congressional Research Service.