Miriam,
Not only do I not hold out hope for the Democratic Party, in part due
to the fact that it is no longer the Party of the Working Class, but I
hold out little hope for democracy and freedom of speech in these 50
United States.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/29/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For all of you to whom I sent blind copies of this, what the author writes
is one of the reasons that I hold out little hope for the Democratic party.
Miriam
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire
Published on
Thursday, December 29, 2016
by
The Progressive
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire
by
Stephen Zunes
President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013. (Photo: The
Israel Project/cc/flickr)
Here's one way to look at it: The United States was the only country in the
fifteen-member U.N. Security Council that did not support a resolution
passed last week criticizing Israel for continuing to expand illegal
settlements in the occupied territories.
On the other hand, the Obama administration refused to veto the
resolution-for which it is now drawing fire from both Republicans and
Democrats. This opposition has come despite the resolution also calling on
both the Israeli and Palestinian governments to prevent violence against
civilians, condemn and combat terrorism, refrain from incitement, and
comply
with their obligations under international law.
The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupied territories
simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that such settlements are
illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention-to which both
Israel and the United States are signatories-bars any occupying power from
transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies." The United Nations, through such measures as Security Council
Resolutions 446, 452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly recognized that the West
Bank, including East Jerusalem, constitute territories under foreign
belligerent occupation and that Israel's settlements policy is in violation
of this critical international treaty.
A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice also
confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status and the
illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the World Court
enjoined
the United States and other signatories of the Fourth Geneva Convention to
"ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law."
Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in 1978 and
never repealed, states that "the establishment of the civilian settlements
in those territories is inconsistent with international law."
But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
illegality
of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and Democratic
administrations, recognizing that the settlements make establishing a
viable
contiguous Palestinian state impossible, have opposed expansion on the
grounds that it is "an obstacle to peace." "The U.S.-backed peace plans put
forward by former CIA director George Tenet and the Mitchell Commission
called for a freeze on Israeli settlement activities, as did the
much-vaunted "Road Map for Peace," which both the Bush and Obama
administrations repeatedly stressed was necessary to resolve the conflict.
Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from blocking the
U.N.
resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling irresponsibility.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that the
resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize Israel," declared
that
"Our unified Republican government will work to reverse the damage done by
this administration, and rebuild our alliance with Israel."
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, claimed
Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And Senator Ted Cruz,
Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying out a "systemic agenda to
weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with the
resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be different" after
January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to Israel, David
Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the Israeli-Palestinian
peace
process, Jason Greenblatt, are both outspoken supporters of the Israeli
settler movement.
Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional Democrats
have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama Administration.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senate Democratic
leader, called it "extremely frustrating, disappointing, and confounding"
for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution. Representative
Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was "extremely disappointed by
this action," insisting it was "wrong and unjust" to criticize Israeli
settlements and for "delegitimizing Jews' ancient and historic connection
to
the land."
Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad Sherman,
Democrat of California, referred to it as "an unfortunate change in U.S.
policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat of
Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and "completely unacceptable."
These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama is not
simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political pressure. Moderate
pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace Now joined a wide
range of liberal groups in successfully lobbying the administration to not
veto the resolution.
And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of Democrats. A
recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority of Democrats believe
that
the United States should oppose Israeli settlements in the occupied
territories, 60 percent believe the U.S. should support economic sanctions
or tougher measures, which even the Obama administration has ruled out.
And
more American Jews support the Obama administration's recognition that
Israeli settlements are bad for Israel that those who support them.
It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not only be
willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human rights and
international law, they are also willing to ignore their constituents who
support such principles. As a result, there will be little in the way of
checks and balances to deter Trump from his dangerous foreign policy
agenda.
C 2016 The Progressive
Stephen Zunes
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, December 29, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. #NotNormal
. #NoDAPL
. Bernie Sanders
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire
Published on
Thursday, December 29, 2016
by
The Progressive
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire
by
Stephen Zunes
. 1 Comments
.
. President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013. (Photo:
The Israel Project/cc/flickr)
. Here's one way to look at it: The United States was the only country
in the fifteen-member U.N. Security Council that did not support a
resolution passed last week criticizing Israel for continuing to expand
illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
. On the other hand, the Obama administration Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid. to veto the resolution-for which it is now drawing
fire
from both Republicans and Democrats. This opposition has come despite the
resolution also calling on both the Israeli and Palestinian governments to
prevent violence against civilians, condemn and combat terrorism, refrain
from incitement, and comply with their obligations under international law.
. The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupied
territories simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that such
settlements are illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention-to
which both Israel and the United States are signatories-bars any occupying
power from transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the
territory it occupies." The United Nations, through such measures as
Security Council Resolutions 446, 452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly
recognized that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, constitute
territories under foreign belligerent occupation and that Israel's
settlements policy is in violation of this critical international treaty.
.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017https://secure.actb
lue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017
A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice also
confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status and the
illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the World Court
enjoined
the United States and other signatories of the Fourth Geneva Convention to
"ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law."
Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in 1978 and
never repealed, states that "the establishment of the civilian settlements
in those territories is inconsistent with international law."
But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
illegality
of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and Democratic
administrations, recognizing that the settlements make establishing a
viable
contiguous Palestinian state impossible, have opposed expansion on the
grounds that it is "an obstacle to peace." "The U.S.-backed peace plans put
forward by former CIA director George Tenet and the Mitchell Commission
called for a freeze on Israeli settlement activities, as did the
much-vaunted "Road Map for Peace," which both the Bush and Obama
administrations repeatedly stressed was necessary to resolve the conflict.
Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from blocking the
U.N.
resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling irresponsibility.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that the
resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize Israel," declared
that
"Our unified Republican government will work to reverse the damage done by
this administration, and rebuild our alliance with Israel."
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, claimed
Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And Senator Ted Cruz,
Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying out a "systemic agenda to
weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with the
resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be different" after
January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to Israel, David
Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the Israeli-Palestinian
peace
process, Jason Greenblatt, are both outspoken supporters of the Israeli
settler movement.
Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional Democrats
have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama Administration.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senate Democratic
leader, called it "extremely frustrating, disappointing, and confounding"
for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution. Representative
Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was "extremely disappointed by
this action," insisting it was "wrong and unjust" to criticize Israeli
settlements and for "delegitimizing Jews' ancient and historic connection
to
the land."
Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad Sherman,
Democrat of California, referred to it as "an unfortunate change in U.S.
policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat of
Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and "completely unacceptable."
These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama is not
simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political pressure. Moderate
pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace Now joined a wide
range of liberal groups in successfully lobbying the administration to not
veto the resolution.
And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of Democrats. A
recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority of Democrats believe
that
the United States should oppose Israeli settlements in the occupied
territories, 60 percent believe the U.S. should support economic sanctions
or tougher measures, which even the Obama administration has ruled out. And
more American Jews support the Obama administration's recognition that
Israeli settlements are bad for Israel that those who support them.
It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not only be
willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human rights and
international law, they are also willing to ignore their constituents who
support such principles. As a result, there will be little in the way of
checks and balances to deter Trump from his dangerous foreign policy
agenda.
C 2016 The Progressive
