Last week I addressed a United Nations Security Council meeting on “Israeli Settlements.” Because I knew other speakers, experts and diplomats would address the illegality of Israeli settlements, the economic and human rights impact on the Palestinian people, and the stated design of the entire settlement enterprise to eliminate the possibility of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state, I focused my remarks on my government’s role in enabling Israel’s settlements and its complicity in Israel’s violations of international law. This may seem like harsh language, but when nothing is done to stop an activity that violates international law, contributes to human rights abuses and presents a clear danger to peace, then I don’t know any other way to describe American actions.
During the past 50 years, there has been a steady erosion in US policy towards Israeli behaviour in Palestinian lands. Successive American administrations’ attitudes towards Israeli settlements have gone from passive acquiescence to outright acceptance. Even when some presidents expressed opposition to Israeli settlements, they took no concrete action to stop them. The net result has been that the settlement population in the occupied territories grew from 50,000 during the Carter administration to 620,000 Israeli settlers today.
In 1976 the Ford administration was firm in its support of the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, which governs the behaviour of an occupying power, to Palestine. President Jimmy Carter was equally firm on this matter. He even sought a formal legal opinion from the State Department legal adviser who determined that settlements were, in fact, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
US adherence to international law regarding settlements ended with President Ronald Reagan. Reagan was neither a student of law nor policy and when tackling complex matters in interviews, sometimes made awkward pronouncements based on his vague recollection of policy talking points. One particularly sloppy example occurred during his first week in office. When asked about Israel’s planned expansion of settlements, he said “As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there...they’re not illegal. Not under the UN resolution that leaves the West Bank open to all people – Arab and Israeli alike.” Though sloppy, this statement became US policy.
Reagan’s successor, George H W Bush was firmly opposed to Israeli settlements, even withholding, as a penalty, Congressionally-approved loan guarantees from Israel. Still, Bush never called settlements illegal, instead terming them “obstacles to peace.”
President Clinton, who inherited the Oslo Accords, continued a similar approach to settlements.
While expressing concern with settlement expansion, the George W Bush administration often took positions which enabled their growth. For example, he acceded to Israel’s effort to distinguish between “legal” settlements and “illegal” outposts, insisting that the latter be removed (they were not), while only paying scant attention to the former.
President Barack Obama made repeated efforts to end settlement expansion. In his 2009 Cairo speech, Obama said, “the US does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace... it is time for these settlements to stop.” Despite this, little changed and eventually Obama officials also began speaking of existing settlements as “realities” that would eventually be annexed by Israel with Palestinians being compensated with unspecified “land swaps.”
It was President Donald Trump who delivered the final blow to the US position on settlements. Under his leadership, settlements are not only legal, they aren’t even “obstacles to peace.” When Israel announces new construction, there’s nary a peep from the State Department. And while we haven’t seen “the ultimate deal,” most likely this administration will bless Israel’s retention of all settlements it has constructed.
At this point, an international strategy must be developed to confront Israel and the backing it receives from the US. What is at stake is not only the human rights of a beleaguered Palestinian nation, but the viability of international law and fabric of civilised world order.