John Kerry’s statement that settlements are illegitimate–
Let me make it clear: The policy of the United States of America with respect to all settlements is that they are illegitimate, and we oppose settlements taking place at any time, not just the time of the peace process.
–has opened up new lines of questioning about US foreign policy. From the State Department briefing yesterday, with spokesperson Jen Psaki. Starting at minute 50, once again note that several reporters press Psaki on settlements, though Matt Lee of AP leads the questioning.
Matt Lee, Associated Press: Is it correct that – is that correct, that all settlement activity is illegitimate?… Does the United States believe that all Israeli settlement activity along – and we can include in that East Jerusalem construction – is all of it illegitimate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, our position on Jerusalem has been clear and has been consistent for some time, which is that we believe it is a final status issue in terms of the discussion of that – of Jerusalem, right? That is part of the discussion. We have, of course, expressed concerns about construction in East Jerusalem….
QUESTION: Okay. So you do not regard the construction in East Jerusalem as illegitimate. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I just stated what we – what our longstanding position has been on construction…
Lee: Okay. So in terms of illegitimacy then, this legitimacy issue, are existing settlements illegitimate in the eyes of the Administration in the West Bank? Settlements in the West Bank that currently exist now, are they illegitimate, meaning that they should not be part of Israel once there is a peace agreement?
MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, the question of borders will be worked through and is part of the discussion that will take place and will be ongoing in the weeks and months ahead.
QUESTION: So are existing settlements illegitimate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we have concerns about ongoing continued settlement activity.
Lee: Okay. Do you understand that there’s a serious problem here? Because if you talk about – if all you’re prepared to say is that you don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity, you are only calling illegitimate settlements that have not been announced, settlements that are, say, a twinkle in the Housing Minister or whoever’s eye. Once they are actually announced or built, you stop calling them illegitimate, and they – and you start saying that that’s a – that’s something to be decided between the parties. Okay?
MS. PSAKI: Well, this has been our position for a number of years.
Lee: That’s – well, right. But, and I’m surprised that no one, and especially me, has picked up on this before, because you have essentially – you don’t oppose settlements at all, because once they’re built or once they’re announced, once plans for them – plans to build them are announced, you’re not opposed to them anymore, because it’s something for the parties to decide whether they’re legitimate or not.
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly it will be – a big part of the discussion will be that process moving forward.
Lee: Right. Do you understand the problem? Do you understand the —
MS. PSAKI: I understand what you’re conveying, Matt. I’m happy to talk back with our team and see if there’s any more clarification we can provide.
Lee: Okay. So tell me, am I wrong in thinking that the United States has no position at all except that it is to be decided by the parties on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of settlements that exist in the West Bank today?
MS. PSAKI: I believe you are wrong, Matt. We’ll get you some more clarification.
QUESTION: — in fact, your longstanding position, going back all the way to 1967, and through George Herbert Walker Bush when he was representative at the United Nations, and on to Andrew Young, and on and on and on, that the settlement, that Jerusalem – East Jerusalem, the West Bank, all territory occupied is contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and any alteration stands contrary to that, that you will not support. That is your position, not to reconcile yourself to the facts on the ground, as has been suggested.
MS. PSAKI: Duly noted.
QUESTION: Given the fact that those new settlements were announced just in the last, what, 24 hours or so and the peace talks went forward, what is it that you pledged, promised to the Palestinians to keep them from walking out?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, it was a decision made by both sides to return to the negotiating table. Obviously we’re playing a facilitating role, but there was a belief by both sides that this was an important time to move forward and to work through to have these direct negotiations. Beyond that, I’m not going to peel the curtain back on any specific discussions.
It hardly matters how many settlers there are now. There is no difference between their settlements and Tel Aviv.
It’s all going to be up for grabs.
The Aug13 statement by JK is 100% clear: the USG views the settlements as illegitimate. Period. Past, present, future.
At 49:30 of yesterday’s vid, the bald gentleman ran the discussion back to 1978 and Carter’s characterization of the settlements as illegal. Who cares what Carter said 35 years ago? We only have to go back 2 days to JK’s “illegitimate” characterization. Illegal, illegitimate. No difference.
So I don’t get this dance between Psaki and Lee. I don’t see Lee’s point or problem and I don’t get Psaki refusing to repeat what her boss said 2 days ago. Lee seems to miss the point that the issue is not what Psaki thinks or believes, it is what the Secretary says, and that is crystal clear. Who cares what Kerry’s minions think? These reporters do the same thing with Carney. It’s like they think that whoever is at the podium is the person running the country and so they want to get him/her to commit to what his/her personal beliefs are.
The point Lee should have pressed is: Given that it is the USG’s position that all settlements are illegitimate, what has USG done on the ground to penalize GoI for building past illegitimate settlements and what has it done to prevent future ones? If nothing, why? That is the only question, not USG’s characterization of the settlements.
I don’t know who is the more annoying, Lee or Psaki. Neither one is serving the public in a competent manner. They both need a good bitch-slapping, IMO.
As for Obama/Kerry – I am hoping that their position that the announcement of new settlements should not affect the talks means that when the 1948 border is once again enforced, all those Southern California aliyah Jews are going to be forced out of their new West Bank homes or will start paying rent to Palestinian land-lords.
So let them keep building. After all, they’re paying Palestinians to build settlements that will someday be owned by Palestinians. If you build a garage on my property knowing it is my property, it becomes my garage, thank you very much.
This is humilating, why arent these people better prepared, they know they are wrong and have to come up with twisted replies to all these questions.
“Lee: Okay. So in terms of illegitimacy then, this legitimacy issue, are existing settlements illegitimate in the eyes of the Administration in the West Bank? Settlements in the West Bank that currently exist now, are they illegitimate, meaning that they should not be part of Israel once there is a peace agreement?”
Lee expresses one of the principal USA/Israel party-lines, namely, that the ONLY SUBJECT worth talking about is the arriving at a “peace treaty” — that’s what it means when he asks, all unthinking, “are they illegitimate, meaning that they should not be part of Israel once there is a peace agreement?””
What the USA/Israel wish us all to forget is that international humanitarian law makes them illegal IRRESPECTIVE OF PEACE DEVELOPMENTS, DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE OCCUPATION (just as the ICJ said the WALL was illegal) and part of the legal consequence of that illegality is, in my view, to echo the ICJ on the WALL and demand (with UNSC 465) that the settlers be expelled from OPT (and Golan) and the settlement buildings be destroyed/removed. What happens in a peace treaty is fully independent of the legal consequences of the illegality of the settlements and the wall.
Lee should ask, next time:
‘Netanyahu adviser: Evacuating settlements is a fantasy’
Zvi Hauser tells Haaretz that the time has come to understand that there will not be mass evacuation of settlers.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.541830
Zvi Hauser, one of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu closest and most trusted advisers, has told Haaretz that forcing 150,000 settlers to leave their homes in the West Bank is “a fantasy” and has warned that any government that agrees to do so risks polarizing Israeli society.
Yet another cat escapes the bag…