Wonderful piece of analysis of the hateful colonization program, from Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett at Foreign Policy, showing that Obama has accepted pro-Israel premises inherent in George W. Bush's doomed roadmap project:
the road map's most significant flaw comes in its third and final phase, where not a single word is presented regarding the parameters for resolving the "final status" issues — borders, Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees — at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We all know what these parameters are: 1967 boundaries will be the starting point for negotiating final borders, with the possibility of marginal and mutually agreed adjustments. Jerusalem will be shared as the capital of both Israel and Palestine, with special arrangements for the holy sites in the center of the Old City. Whatever arrangements are made to recompense and resettle Palestinian refugees, perhaps even with the theoretical acknowledgement of a "right of return," those arrangements will not be implemented in a way that threatens Israel's Jewish-majority character.
Without such final-status parameters, there can be no credible political horizon for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But their omission was no accident. Again, during 2002 and early 2003, Flynt Leverett argued vociferously within the White House that such parameters were essential. But President Bush and his senior national-security team believed them to be unfairly demanding of Israel, and refused to include them.
By explicitly declaring Israeli settlements illegal, Obama could have transcended this fatal flaw in the road map. If settlements are illegal, then no negotiating process grounded in international law could take any starting point other than the 1967 boundaries for negotiating final borders. Similarly, if settlements are illegal, then any negotiating process grounded in international law would have to start from the premise that all of Jerusalem cannot remain under exclusive Israeli control.
Related posts:
- Abunimah: Obama initiative cannot effect even minimal conditions for 2-state solution
- American Arab organization joins battle against tax-deductible-status of ‘charities’ helping illegal settlements
- An Israeli Reporter Prods Condoleezza Rice to Do Something About Illegal Settlements
- Flynt Leverett Calls Ken Pollack ‘Flat-Out Wrong’
- Is Obama going wobbly on settlements?
{ 10 comments }
The settlements are ONLY illegal as a state expropriation exercise. As developments (without racial screens), they are residences. Individuals that paid to live there, have the majority of title as basis to live there. To declare "the settlements are illegal" are to stand as judge and jury, thankfully something that Obama can restrain himself from. Sovereignty and title are different questions.
"State expropriation exercise"–Nazi Germany had quite a few of those, and therefore ended up occupying land, this under its lebensraum policy. Who dared to let a German child breathe in the air to which he or she was entitled by birth? German families need a place to grow naturally, as God intended on this green earth. Das ist alles. It's only NATURAL. All land title issues could easily be resolved by the objective and natural laws of Nazi Germany, as any good jurisprudence would. To declare such settlements illegal are to stand as judge and jury, thankfully something that a good leader can restrain himself from. Sovereignty and title are different questions.
Stick to accounting, because you obviously don't understand the law. If I receive stolen goods, even if I paid good money for them, and had no awareness they were stolen, those goods are not mine and I have no legal right to them. Legally, I could sue the one who fraudulently sold me the goods, but I have NO right to the goods themselves. Likewise, if I received title to a piece of property through fraudulent means, such as receiving title from someone who had no legal title to begin with, I have NO RIGHTS to that property. That property is NOT MINE. That is why title insurance is an element of all property exchange. The title insurance does not provide an absolute guarantee of title, but it does promise recompense if in fact the title is not clear, or was fraudulently transferred. I don't have any legal right to retain such a property, I only have a right to be monetarily compensated for the false title. Of course, the individual is expected to do some measure of due diligence as well. If I know that the goods or property are stolen and are being transferred to me illegally, then I too am liable under the law for receiving stolen goods or accepting false title. I do not get to benefit from my illegal activity. Everyone in Israel, with just a minimum of due diligence, knows that any title to land in the occupied territories is a false title, not truly enforceable except through a blatant Israeli disregard for the rule of law. Your statements: "The settlements are ONLY illegal as a state expropriation exercise." followed by "To declare "the settlements are illegal" are to stand as judge and jury." are just another perfect example of you failing your own reasoning. By your first statement you have violated your admonition in your second statement, appointing yourself "judge and jury" to declare what is illegal and what is not. Not only have you failed to recognize what you have done, you have done so in complete ignorance of what the law actually is.
Witty,how did you make it through accounting? I personally know it needs a lot of brains and reasoning.Depraved mind.
Until the US government officially designates the IDF a terrorist organization, the US Constitution is effectively shredded, and there will be no solution to the conflict over Palestine because the US will remain a dependent and intimidated client of the Israel Lobby: ACLU Misses Zionist Islamophobic Conspiracy.
The title to most of the settlements is imperfected, contested. Its not stolen goods because much of the original title is imperfected, contested. To assume that national character supercedes individual rights as far as who owns it, is THE fascistic argument, fascistic when it applies to Israel, fascistic when it applies to Palestine.
By conscientiousness.
By rigidly applying the question of "substance over form", NEVER being satisfied with the easy and pat answer. But, I doubt you've ever audited anything, so don't have a clue as to what questions are involved, how they are determined, and where ambiguous how they are reconciled.
I think the Leverett's thesis about the Roadmap is more revealing about them than it is about the past. After all, and as its very name denotes, the Roadmap was only *supposed* to be procedural map/route towards a negotiated settlement, not a settlement in and of itself. And yet the Leveretts say it should have established what they coyly call a "parameter" and what is in fact a fairly specific *substantive* concluding condition which is that the "1967 boundaries will be the starting point for negotiating final borders, with the possibility of marginal and mutually agreed adjustments." But what good would it have done to put in that concluding substantive condition in the Roadmap if Israel would have rejected it anyway? And if it *wouldn't *have rejected it then why is it a problem now? And if their point is that Israel would have accepted it then but not now, well then look at any number of other things that Israel previously agreed to that Netanyahu has changed now (such as newly insisting that Israel gets recognition as "the jewish" state): What would prevent Netanyahu from just changing that now too and reneging on that condition as well? (Either openly or otherwise.) Seems to me the Leverett's are just trying to get a knife into the Bush which is fine and dandy on any number of other counts but here is just speculative at best and silly at worse. What's much more interesting and revealing about their piece is just how far our U.S. political class will go to try to justify our continued involvement in this conflict for their fun and enjoyment. "See," we are constantly told (for some 40 years now), "if the U.S. had only made the porridge just a *little* hotter here, or just a *little* colder there we'd have had peace, and milk and honey would right now be flowing through the streets…." Baloney. It's all baloney. And the problem is that it's baloney that's peddled by both sides to serve their pretensions that they know what's best for someone else. On the one side it's being peddled by the pro-Israeli-partisans because continued U.S. involvement means exactly what it has meant over the last 40 years which is the maintenance of the status quo and the continued gobbling of Palestinian land by Israel, which they think is just dandy. And on the other side—the Leverett's—it's being peddled because *despite* the last 40 years they think the U.S. will somehow magically be able to reverse that 180 degrees and and force Israel to do what they think should be done. (Even if by continuing our involvement all it has really meant over those 40 years has been putting the Palestinians in an ever-worsening position.) So now we've got both sides simply seeking a continued arena within which to preen themselves, with neither not only being unable to tell us why we should continue our involvement when we don't have a shred of real national interest at stake, but when our continued involvement just decimates our credibility and interests not only with the arab/moslem world but with much of the rest of the world too. How lovely to have the entire world as one's sandbox on Uncle Sam's dime.
For once, you have a point. There is no point in wasting time with negotiations that put off the biggest sticking points until after the rest are worked out. Specific land areas are probably negotiable. Shared Jerusalem, Israel is unlikely to yield on, but not impossible. The "right of return" you describe, in fact anything short of "every Palestinian can move into Israel" has been consistently, and adamantly rejected by the Palestinians. A Palestinian leader who agreed to that would have the life expectancy of mayfly, in a vacuum. The Jews know they are dead if the "right of return" happens, so until the Palestinians back off on their demands, there is no chance of a peace deal.
Comments on this entry are closed.