Orit is Israel Rising's regional and threat analyst. She has a degree from IDC in Middle East Diplomacy and has served both intelligence related activities for the IDF as well as advised privately for firms doing business in the region.
Obama bend over backwards trying to defend his support for UN Resolution 2334, claiming “I think has a legitimate interest in saying to a friend, ‘This is a problem,'” referring to the growing communities built in Judea and Samaria. Obama has been opposed to Jews living in their historic homeland since the beginning of his Presidency. His extreme action at the end of his Presidency is a parting shot and culmination of what is considered the most antagonistic American administration to the continuing presence of Jewish communities beyond the 1948 Armistice lines.
Transcript, via CBS:
Steve Kroft: A few weeks ago you allowed the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank. It caused a major fallout between the United States and Israel. Was it your decision to abstain?
President Barack Obama: Yes, ultimately.
Steve Kroft: Why did you feel like you had to do that?
President Barack Obama: Well, first of all, Steve, I don’t think it caused a major rupture in relations between the United States and Israel. If you’re saying that Prime Minister Netanyahu got fired up, he’s been fired up repeatedly during the course of my presidency, around the Iran deal and around our consistent objection to settlements. So that part of it wasn’t new. And despite all the noise and hullabaloo– military cooperation, intelligence cooperation, all of that has continued. We have defended them consistently in every imaginable way. But I also believe that both for our national interests and Israel’s national interests that allowing an ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that could get worse and worse over time is a problem. And that settlements contribute. They’re not the sole reason for it, but they’re a contributing factor to the inability to solve that problem. And–
Steve Kroft: And you wanted to make that point?
President Barack Obama: Not only did I want to make that point. We are reaching a tipping where the pace of settlements, during the course of my presidency has gotten so substantial that it’s getting harder and harder to imagine an effective, contiguous Palestinian state. And I think it would have long-term consequences for peace and security in the region, and the United States, because of our investment in the region, and because we care so deeply about Israel, I think has a legitimate interest in saying to a friend, “This is a problem.” And we’ve said it– look, it’s not as if we haven’t been saying it from Day One. We’ve been saying it for eight years now. It’s just that nothing seemed to get a lot of attention.
Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been tried in the New Zealand court of public opinion and found to be illegal. Waikato Professor of Law, Alexander Gillespie, recently declared in the NZ Herald that “There is no question in international law that these settlements are illegal.” Similarly, many of the mainstream media articles written on the subject, as well as the slogans and placards of anti-Israel activists, refer simply to “illegal settlements”. We hear this refrain time and again.
UN Security Council resolution 2334 stated that the establishment of settlements “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”.
However, despite the certainty with which these claims are made, there is very considerable evidence and analysis to suggest that it is not correct to label settlements as illegal.
In legal terms, the West Bank is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations – and indeed both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have committed to this principle….“Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Northwestern University Professor of Law, Eugene Kontorovich has outlined the legalities of Israeli settlements, which explains why Gillespie is so grossly mistaken:
Here is a summary of some key legal points, which Gillespie and others have overlooked:
Israel has the strongest historic and legal claim to the land
UN Resolution 242 did not call for withdrawal from all “occupied territories”
Settlements may not be in breach of the Geneva Conventions
Israeli courts have ruled that some settlements are illegal
These points are elaborated below.
Israel has the strongest historic and legal claim to the land
Adopted by the League of Nations, the 1922 resolution recognised the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”. It called for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes” – this included the land West of the Jordan river (i.e.what is commonly referred to as the West Bank).
Shortly thereafter the League of Nations and Great Britain decided that the provisions for setting up a Jewish national home would not apply to the area East of the Jordan River.Transjordan was created for the Arabs with 75% of the original land administered under the mandate. Transjordan eventually became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
According to Gillespie, the Israeli settlements are on “territory which they acquired by military force in 1967 and never returned”. The suggestion is that Israel, through an act of aggression, took the land from the Palestinians, to whom it must be returned. However, at that stage Arab Palestinian national identity was still in its infancy. There had never been a self-governing Arab Palestinian state. How could the land then be “returned” to them?
As Political Science Professor Miriam Elman wrote in 2016:
Jordan unlawfully invaded and annexed Judea and Samaria [in 1948]. In 1967, Israel ended this illegal occupation in a war of self-defense, taking control of the territory. This suggests that it’s actually Israel which has a strong claim of sovereign title to the territory, by virtue of its having retaken the area from an unlawful Jordanian presence. The case of Israel is unique because there’s no prior instances where a new state’s territory was immediately occupied. But Israel has valid claims to legal title of the West Bank, and now legally holds it.”Miriam Elman
Resolution 242 meant a negotiated agreement based on the resolution’s principles rather than one imposed upon the parties – and this has also been the longstanding policy of New Zealand. The withdrawal from occupied territories was also linked to the “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the recognition that “every State in the area” has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”.
Settlements may not be in breach of the Geneva Conventions
Another argument used by many to try and ‘prove’ that the settlements are illegal was also proffered by Gillespie when he claimed “The rule, very clear since the Geneva Conventions were created in the wake of the atrocities of World War II in 1949, is that the populations of occupied territories shall not be forced out and the occupying power shall not transfer its own civilians into the territory it possesses.”
It has been argued that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the settlements for a number of reasons. One is that, as outlined above, Israel has the best legal claim to the land and is not an occupying power. Another is that the land was captured in a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1949. However, a 1999 resolution was unanimously passed stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the “occupied territories”.
Kontorovich has compared the situations of several ongoing occupations with settlement policies; Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and the Russian occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, in order to determine whether the Israeli settlements are in breach of the Geneva Conventions.
Clear patterns emerge from this systematic study of state practice. The allowed practices are significantly inconsistent with “conventional wisdom” concerning the Geneva Conventions, specifically Art. 49(6) to which Gillespie referred:
First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations.
Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so.
Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought.
Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.”Eugene Kontorovich
It seems that there are evidently double standards in the application of the Geneva Conventions and is the only state to have resolutions passed against it requiring the removal of civilians. Either the settlements are in breach of the Geneva Conventions – and then so are many other conflicts where the word “illegal” is not invoked – or the Israeli settlements are like many other disputed territories – not actually illegal.
Further, when the issue of legality was actually tested in the court of law, the occupation of Judea and Samaria by Israel was found to be unequivocally legal under international law. The Court of Appeal of Versailles issued this ruling in 2013, following a suit brought by the Palestinian Authority against Jerusalem’s light rail – because it was built by French companies. The Palestinian case, built primarily on reference to the Geneva Conventions was dismissed.
Israeli courts have ruled that some settlements are illegal
Despite the arguments above, there have been non-binding United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions that call Israeli settlements illegal (in addition to some legal scholars and armchair critics). This does not remove any questions about the actual legalities but it has put pressure on the Israeli legal system.
Unlike its neighbours. Israel is a liberal democracy with an independent judiciary and a stringent rule of law. The Supreme Court has ruled on many controversial issues to ensure the law is upheld, including that of settlements. Every aggrieved inhabitant of the disputed territories, including Palestinian residents, can appeal directly to this Court. Ministers of the Israeli Parliament have tried recently to introduce bills that would legalise some “outpost” settlements (those built without proper permits), but the Attorney General of Israel has warned that the legislation would not be defensible in court.
Israel’s courts have ruled that some building activity, by Arab, Jewish, Bedouin, and others, is illegal. Most recently, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged a crackdown on illegal Jewish settlements and helped negotiate a peaceful resolution to removing settlers from the village of Amona, stating that the law on illegal construction “must be egalitarian. The same law that necessitates the evacuation of Amona, necessitates the evacuation of illegal construction elsewhere in our country”.
The Israeli courts have also ruled that some settlement activity is legal – when there are appropriate permits in place and the law is being followed, building is allowed. However, when there are individuals or groups who wish to unilaterally take land and claim it as their own, the courts step in. That is how the law should work.
You don’t need to be a professor of law to know that there are few legal issues so black and white that they can be answered with a “there is no question” or “everyone says so”. Contrary to Gillespie and others’ superficial statements, the question of the legality of the settlements is a complex one, which cannot be summed up as “all settlements are illegal”. While the Security Council can make recommendations, it is not a court of law. Rather, the evidence shows that there is considerable room for debate on this question.
Lev HaOlam, the Israel based movement that connects thousands of Israel supporters around the world to Judea and Samaria through monthly packages was represented in the wide spread demonstrations today in Paris, France against the “Peace” Summit.
Founded by activist Nati Rom more than three years ago, Lev HaOlam supports countless artisans, craftsmen, and pioneers in Israel’s Heartland by buying their products and making them available to thousands of customers.
While the passing of the controversial UNSC Resolution 2334 on the eve of Christmas and Hanukkah went under the radar of many, a number of world leaders have spoken out. Even members of Obama’s own party are appalled at the stance taken by the United States; UK Prime Minister Theresa May has rebuked John Kerry for focussing on Israeli settlements; and Australia, a country without a seat at the Security Council, has called the resolution “one-sided” and “deeply unsettling”. However, New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English is yet to comment, despite repeated calls for him to do so.
Fifteen countries sit on the United Nations Security Council. On 24 December 2016 (NZT), when resolution 2334 was adopted, half of the ten non-permanent members were considered “Free” democracies by the UK based Economist Intelligence Unit.
New Zealand had the highest Democracy Index of all fifteen nations, yet joined Venezuela (a “Hybrid regime”), Senegal, and Malaysia (both “Flawed democracies”) to co-sponsor the text prepared by Egypt (“Authoritarian”).
Regardless of how democratic a country is, the votes at the UNSC are cast by individual representatives who may not be fully supported by the citizens they represent. There are suggestions that New Zealand Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, did not seek cabinet approval before sponsoring or voting for the text. There is also evidence to suggest the United States colluded with the Palestinians and Egypt to formulate the text of the resolution, despite US denial.
We do not believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex… The [UK] Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community”Theresa May
Russia was another country that voted for the resolution but, after the vote, issued a statement criticizing the way it was brought to the Security Council, in a surprise move just a day after Egypt pulled its own proposal on the matter. The Russian statement said
Our experience shows convincingly that a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is only possible through direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis without any preconditions.”Russian government
I don’t think it’s helpful to prejudge the settlement issue if you’re trying to get a negotiated solution. And by deeming the activity as a war crime, it’s unlikely to engender a negotiated solution.”Julie Bishop
We expect further support for the Palestinians’ righteous cause of ending the occupation.”Fawzi Barhoum
While all these leaders have spoken out, Kiwis wait. Even though New Zealand co-sponsored the text and voted for the resolution, Kiwis wait for comment from their leaders. Despite protests, a letter to the Prime Minister and petitions, concerned New Zealanders wait for a response from their Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister used Facebook to make the following comment concerning the guilty verdict in the Elor Azaria case:
This is a difficult and painful day for all of us – first and foremost for Elor Azaria and his family, IDF soldiers, many citizens and parents of soldiers, myself included.
I call on all Israeli citizens to act responsibly toward the IDF, its commanders and staff. We have one army which is based our existence. IDF soldidealers are our sons and daughters, and they must remain beyond any dispute.
I support giving amnesty Elor Azeria.
Whether out of sincere conviction that a great injustice was done or a shrewd populist move, the Prime Minister has with one statement dismantled the leftwing of the country. The entire media except for rightwing sites, attacked Azaria from the start. The incessant interest to smear an innocent soldier was part of the left’s game plan to hold the IDF hostage. The problem is that most of the country has sons and daughters in the IDF and this could have happened to them. By Bibi being able identify with them, he has given energy to what will be seen in years to come as a movement to take back Israel from the judicial tryaranny it now finds itself in.
Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), and Dean Heller (R., Nev.) are pushing forward with a bill that will effectively freeze State Department funding until the US embassy is moved to Jerusalem.
“Jerusalem is the eternal and undivided capital of Israel,” Cruz said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s vendetta against the Jewish state has been so vicious that to even utter this simple truth—let alone the reality that Jerusalem is the appropriate venue for the American embassy in Israel—is shocking in some circles.”
“But it is finally time to cut through the double-speak and broken promises and do what Congress said we should do in 1995: formally move our embassy to the capital of our great ally Israel,” Cruz said.
The legislation forces the White House to identify Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which they have refused to do. The bill will freeze a big portion of the State Department’s funding until it completes the relocation.
Although surprisingly quiet after UNSC Resolution 2334 was passed, the Congress has been quietly planning its political attack against the UN and the Obama Administration after being sworn in tomorrow.
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., plans to introduce a “sense of the Senate” which will issue a rebuke of the United Nations. The formal condemnation resolution could one of countless measures the Congress is planning against the U.N. by in response to the Security Council resolution
“I am committed to working with both Republicans and Democrats to make sure we stand with Israel and that the United Nations cannot be used as a forum to create policies that hurt our nation and its allies,” Moran said Friday.
Other possible moves may include Senator Lindsay Grahm’s push to defund the United Nations. Although supported by a number of senators, Senate Republican Leadership has yet to support it openly.
Daniel Luria, executive director of Ateret Cohanim spoke with Fox News about John Kerry’s speech last week as well as Jewish life in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria.
The absence of government representatives in Parliament over this holiday period didn’t stop busloads of Kiwis from travelling to Wellington in order to send them a message.
We are protesting the outrageous resolution put forward by our Government and passed at the UN last week outlawing the rights of the Jewish People to live on their own historical homeland in the Land of Israel. We are ashamed of this evil decree (Resolution 2334) and will publicly condemn it with all who gather with us.”
Nigel Woodley
Others joined the Hastings group to fill out the approximately 200-strong crowd in the capital. In addition to this protest, more than 1,000 people have signed a letter to Prime Minister Bill English calling on him to condemn the actions of McCully. There have also been at least two other petitions against the resolution – “Keep the Israeli Embassy in New Zealand” and “Israel has my vote!”, each of which have over 1,000 signatures.
On Friday, Woodley stood under the Richard Seddon statue to speak to those gathered, flanked by two signs, one saying “Israel please forgive us” and the other saying “UN Resolution 2334 condemned”.
“The answer is not resolution, it’s negotiation.”
Nigel Woodley
A former Honorary Consul of Israel in New Zealand, David Zwartz, pointed out that Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully had broken a long-standing NZ policy of “even-handedness” in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, by co-sponsoring an anti-Israel resolution with two states (Venezuela and Malaysia) that did not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.
There has been no comment from the Prime Minister or McCully since the vote was cast, but other MPs have made their views known. Green Party Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, Dr Kennedy Graham, has fully supported McCully’s stance against Israel. Labour leader, Andrew Little, and Act Party leader, David Seymour, have also commented but neither would commit to supporting or condemning the affirmative vote. Little said that it would be a weird friendship if one of its conditions was to accept uncritically everything that the other did while adding that he respects Israel’s right to defend itself against hostile neighbours. Seymour made the following statement:
“I am pro Israel because I believe that democracy and individual freedom are more important than the will of the mob. As goes Israel, so goes freedom for us all. On the current topic you have to look at the resolution itself and the U.S. Ambassador’s speech to the Security Council. It is possible to be pro Israel and yet question the settlements. What is dumbfounding is why New Zealand chose to take a leading role. With the Saudi Sheep schmossle and now this, McCully can’t go fast enough.”
Despite voting for the resolution, the UK government has now rebuked Mr Kerry for focusing on the single issue of Israeli settlements and not the whole conflict in his latest speech. Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, has also spoken out against the bias, saying Australia would have opposed resolution 2334 because “in voting at the UN, the [Australian] Coalition government has consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel”.
In a show of solidarity with Sydney’s Jewish community, on Friday evening Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, attended the Shabbat Hanukkah service and spoke in support of Israel while wishing the community a Happy Hanukkah. Turnbull called resolution 2334 “one-sided” and “deeply unsettling”. Jews in New Zealand await comment from Prime Minister Bill English.
During his weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a stinging reprimand of the anti-settlement vote at UN Security Council. He asserted that “the Western Wall isn’t occupied territory,” and said he looked forward to working with the Trump administration when they take office next month.
“I share ministers’ feelings, anger and frustration vis-à-vis the unbalanced resolution that is very hostile to the State of Israel, and which the [UN] Security Council passed in an unworthy manner. From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed. This is, of course, in complete contradiction of the traditional American policy that was committed to not trying to dictate terms for a permanent agreement, like any issue related to them in the Security Council, and, of course, the explicit commitment of President Obama himself, in 2011, to refrain from such steps. We will do whatever is necessary so that Israel will not be damaged by this shameful resolution and I also tell the ministers here, we must act prudently, responsibly and calmly, in both actions and words. I ask ministers to act responsibly as per the directives that will be given today at the Security Cabinet meeting immediately following this meeting. I have also asked the Foreign Ministry to prepare an action plan regarding the UN and other international elements, which will be submitted to the Security Cabinet within one month. Until then, of course, we will consider our steps.”