Alan
Baker, Attorney, Ambassador (ret')
P.O.B.
182, Har Adar, Israel 90836
The
Hon. James Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State,
The
State Department,
Washington
D.C.
November
8, 2013
Dear
Secretary Kerry,
After
listening to you declare repeatedly over the past weeks that "Israel's
settlements are illegitimate", I respectfully wish to state, unequivocally, that
you are mistaken and ill advised, both in law and in fact.
Pursuant
to the "Oslo Accords", and specifically the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement
(1995), the "issue of settlements" is one of subjects to be negotiated in the
permanent status negotiations. President Bill Clinton on behalf of the US, is
signatory as witness to that agreement, together with the leaders of the EU,
Russia, Egypt, Jordan and Norway.
Your
statements serve to not only to prejudge this negotiating issue, but also to
undermine the integrity of that agreement, as well as the very negotiations that
you so enthusiastically advocate.
Your
determination that Israel's settlements are illegitimate cannot be legally
substantiated. The oft-quoted prohibition on transferring population into
occupied territory (Art. 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention) was, according to the
International Committee Red Cross's own official commentary of that convention,
drafted in 1949 to prevent the forced, mass transfer of populations carried out
by the Nazis in the Second World War. It was never intended to apply to Israel's
settlement activity. Attempts by the international community to attribute this
article to Israel emanate from clear partisan motives, with which you, and the
US are now identifying.
The
formal applicability of that convention to the disputed territories cannot be
claimed since they were not occupied from a prior, legitimate sovereign
power.
The
territories cannot be defined as "Palestinian territories" or, as you yourself
frequently state, as "Palestine". No such entity exists, and the whole purpose
of the permanent status negotiation is to determine, by agreement, the status of
the territory, to which Israel has a legitimate claim, backed by international
legal and historic rights. How can you presume to undermine this
negotiation?
There
is no requirement in any of the signed agreements between Israel and the
Palestinians that Israel cease, or freeze settlement activity. The opposite is
in fact the case. The above-noted 1995 interim agreement enables each party to
plan, zone and build in the areas under its respective
control.
Israel's
settlement policy neither prejudices the outcome of the negotiations nor does it
involve displacement of local Palestinian residents from their private
property. Israel is indeed duly committed to negotiate the issue of
settlements, and thus there is no room for any predetermination by you intended
to prejudge the outcome of that negotiation.
By
your repeating this ill-advised determination that Israel's settlements are
illegitimate, and by your threatening Israel with a "third Palestinian
intifada" and international isolation and delegitimization, you are in fact
buying into, and even fueling the Palestinian propaganda narrative, and exerting
unfair pressure on Israel. This is equally the case with your insistence on a
false and unrealistic time limit to the negotiation.
As
such you are taking sides, thereby prejudicing your own personal credibility, as
well as that of the US.
With
a view to restoring your own and the US's credibility, and to come with clean
hands to the negotiation, you are respectfully requested to publicly and
formally retract your determination as to the illegitimate nature of Israel's
settlements and to cease your pressure on Israel.
Respectfully,
Alan
Baker, Attorney, Ambassador (ret'),
Former
legal counsel of Israel's Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Former
ambassador of Israel to Canada,
Director,
Institute for Contemporary Affairs, Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs,
Director,
International Action Division, The Legal Forum for Israel
Copy:
H.E.
Daniel B. Shapiro, US Ambassador to Israel,
71
Hayarkon Street, Tel Aviv, Israel 63903
________________________________________________________
Kerry:
Stay home
Prof.
Efraim Inbar
U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry warned of a return to Palestinian violence and
Israel's isolation if the faltering peace talks between Israel and the
Palestinians ultimately fail. This is a typical leftist Pavlovian response to
the impasse in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that is over a decade old. Such
thinking reflects primarily in the frustration that the optimistic evaluations
that the conflict can be ended quickly remain unfulfilled and the absence of a
learning curve.
There
is definitely a possibility that the Palestinians, in particular the radical
forces, will return to violence. Actually, they try to kill Israelis all the
time and we see no more terrorist attacks only due to the work of the Israeli
security organs. Yet, the likelihood of massive organized violence by the
Palestinian Authority is small. Rocking the boat endangers too many vested
interests of the Palestinian ruling class. The PA leadership has probably
registered the heavy price paid by the Palestinians during their terrorist
campaign at the beginning of the 21st century as a result of the Israeli
countermeasures.
Moreover,
even if the Palestinians miscalculate once again and go for a third intifada,
Israel's capability to contain terrorism and other modes of civilian struggle is
high. The Israeli army can be trusted to meet all challenges successfully. Most
important, a large majority of Israelis believe that the Palestinian demands,
such as Jerusalem and the "right of return," are the obstacles for peace. This
large consensus about Palestinian intransigence allows for significant social
mobilization and resilience in protracted conflict. Israelis will go once more
to war with a feeling that "ein breira" (there is no choice) and are likely to
win that engagement as well.
Large
parts of the hypocritical world may indeed see Israel as the culprit for the
failure of the negotiations and for a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence.
But such negative attitudes do not necessarily lead to international isolation.
Public statements and the voting record of states at the U.N. -- an ineffective,
morally bankrupt organization -- are not indicative of the true nature of
interstate relations.
National
interests dictate state actions, and in most cases bilateral relations with
Israel are hardly affected by the ups and downs in the peace talks with the
Palestinians. For example, India and China, rising powers, have expanded their
bilateral ties because it is their interest to engage a successful state such as
Israel. Nowadays, when the Iranian threat dominates the region, Arab Sunni
states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, exasperated with American
behavior, are in the same strategic boat with Israel. Generally, the Middle
East, nowadays in the throes of a colossal political, social and economic
crisis, is hardly paying attention to the Palestinian issue. In the Caucasus and
in Central Asia, Muslim Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are friendly to
Israel.
Moreover,
isolation of Israel is unlikely because of the large existing reservoirs of
support for Israel in many quarters. Canada and Australia are ruled by
governments most responsive to Israeli concerns. Even in West Europe, concerns
about Muslim immigration and foreign aid put the Palestinians in a problematic
spot. Above all, two-thirds of Americans consistently favor Israel over the past
two decades, which is translated into Congressional support. The U.S. is
Israel's most important ally and even the Obama administration has maintained
the strong support and cooperation in the military sphere.
But
the Obama administration does not understand the Middle East. The Kerry threats
are just another facet of the American misguided foreign policy adopted by the
Obama-Kerry team. An American foreign policy that supports the Muslim
Brotherhood, estranges its traditional Arab allies such as Egypt and Saudi
Arabia, allows Iran to get closer to the bomb, believes Assad's promise to give
up its chemical weapons arsenal, sees in Turkey's Erdogan a great friend of the
West, and insists that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be ended in nine
months is dangerous and does more damage that good. Similar complaints about
U.S. poor political judgment are abundantly voiced by America's friends in Asian
and East European capitals.
It
is the enemies of the U.S. that rejoice in President Barack Obama's foreign
policy and that relish in America's perceived decline in world
affairs.
Ironically,
at this historic juncture, even an isolationist America would be a better
alternative for those that want the good guys to win. Therefore, dear President
Obama, do us a favor, save some money and keep Kerry at home.
Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic
Studies, is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow
at the Middle East Forum.
No comments:
Post a Comment