Settlements, US policy and the Geneva Convention

Israpundit ^ | Nov 4/09 | Ted Belman

[tedbel]

By Ted Belman

Hillary Clinton recently said,

"And the Obama Administration's position on settlements is clear, unequivocal. It has not changed. And as the President has said on many occasions, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

That may well be his position but it has not always been the position of the US and its presidents.

In 1995, The Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine and Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies co-hosted a June 2 symposium on "Settlements and Peace: The Problem of Jewish Colonization in Palestine."

Geoffrey Aronson of the Foundation for Middle East Peace traced the history of changing U.S. policy toward the settlements. Until 1980, American policy was based on four principles, not all of which were mutually compatible, Aronson noted. First, Washington declared that the Israeli settlements were illegal and violated international law. Second, settlement construction prejudiced the eventual outcome of future negotiations on the status of the occupied territories, according to the U.S.

At the same time, Washington agreed that once the settlements were built, they were not easily removed. Finally, American policymakers declared that the final disposition of existing settlements should be decided by the parties to the conflict, and was therefore a subject for negotiations.

Under Ronald Reagan, however, American statements ceased to refer to settlements as "illegal," calling them merely "obstacles to peace." Aronson said that despite his strained relations with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, George Bush also refrained from declaring the settlements illegal under international law.

[E Rocc]

Opposition to “settlements” in the West Bank was certainly the policy of both Bush Administrations, and Reagan proposed returning the WB to Jordanian sovereignty as part of a peace deal between Israel and Jordan. Those two nations are currently very much at peace.

[Eagles6]

Didn’t “commander zero” say that the US had no business interfering in a sovereign country’s business? (Except Israel and Honduras?)

[SJackson]

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

[SunkenCiv]

Under Ronald Reagan, however, American statements ceased to refer to settlements as "illegal," calling them merely "obstacles to peace." Aronson said that despite his strained relations with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, George Bush also refrained from declaring the settlements illegal under international law.