Legal writes for "Washington Post": The Israeli annexation is the culmination of American policy, not betrayal of it

The Washington Post published Wednesday an article for law professor at "Rutgers University - New Jersey" and human rights lawyer Nora Erekat, under the title "The annexation of Israel to the Palestinian territories will be the result of American policy, not betrayal of it" ".

The author began the article by referring to the formation of a "new national unity government in Israel, which is scheduled to govern for 36 months with the exchange of prime minister between Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party and Benny Gantz from blue and white, and that the agreement between them to operate an emergency government in order to focus in a way Special on the Covid Epidemic-19 - except for the possible vote to annex the territories of the occupied West Bank on the first of July. "

Erekat, author of "Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine" in her article, says: "What makes annexation an urgent process (for Netanyahu) reflects his desire to benefit from the" deal of the century "concluded with him by the Trump administration, which strengthens and legitimizes unilaterally all operations The Israeli seizure of Palestinian land over the past five decades, reinforces the idea of ​​containing the Palestinians in a series of 115 Bantustans, and refers to the irreversible death of a viable Palestinian state (on the lands of June 4, 1967), stressing that “while the seizure of Land by force is a war crime (according to international law), as it was considered g American Mike R. Pompeu foreign matter for Israel. "

The news of the imminent annexation bothered the liberal (Zionist) political establishment, where the Americans for Peace Now program acknowledges that this step would expose Israel’s intention to supervise a reality similar to the apartheid regime of apartheid, while the J Street response (Known to boast of being a lobbying organization for Israel advocating a two-state solution), which historically opposed directing any meaningful blame to Israel - including using economic pressure to achieve Palestinian rights through boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) - reluctantly accepting To the principle of linking American finance To Israel, by retreating (Israel) from annexation.

“The reality on the ground really reflects the de facto annexation of Palestinian lands. Trump and Netanyahu’s plan to formally annex it de jure, relies on (long) decades of harmful US policy in the region, including the bilateral peace process, which political politicians have built,” Nora Erekat explains. ".

She explains: "Since 1967, successive US administrations have insisted that the settlements are incompatible with international law and are incompatible with peace, while (these successive administrations) have provided substantial financial, diplomatic and military support to Israel without hesitation or conditions, enabling it to expand and consolidate its sprawling colonial settlement project Even the Carter Administration (1981-1981), which was responsible for developing the legal opinion of the US State Department in 1978 that civilian settlements in the Occupied Territories "are not consistent with international law," condemned Israeli actions only when Menachem Begin accelerated the expansion of settlements in 1977.

The writer says: “Continued and unimpeded American support includes diplomatic protection and immunity for Israel in the corridors of the international community. In accordance with the land-for-peace arrangement set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, the United States has placed international law as an obstacle to negotiations, and has used veto power in Security 43 times between 1967 and 2017 to protect Israel from international accountability. Even when the United States disassociates itself from the use of the veto, as the Obama administration did when it abstained from voting on Security Council Resolution 2334 (12/23/2016) condemning the settlements. , It guarantees p M the ability to implement the resolution on Israeli settlements. "

She noted that "just three months before the Security Council vote, that is, in the month of September of 2016, US President Barack Obama raised the level of US military funding to Israel from 30 billion dollars to 38 billion dollars over a period of 10 years."

The writer goes on to say: “As the only self-proclaimed mediator for peace, the United States only supports or promotes expansionist interests for Israel.” As Aaron David Miller, who served six US foreign ministers in Arab-Israeli negotiations, argues that the United States is working More similar to "Israel 's lawyer ... at the expense of peace negotiations."

She added, "Contrary to what political mediators want to believe, the" Deal of the Century "is the culmination of American policy. Likewise, the scheme of Israeli annexation reflects a regional reality that was heralded by the peace process.

The author explains: “60 percent of the West Bank lands that Israel seeks to annex are known as Area C (C), a judicial deduction invented by the Oslo II Agreement, which is the interim agreement of 1995. According to the World Bank, Area C contains ( A) On the majority of the natural resources of the West Bank, and it can generate up to $ 3.4 billion for the Palestinian economy, and since 1995, under the cover of peacemaking, Israel has steadily removed the Palestinians from Area C and exiled them to Areas A (A) and B (B) It expanded its settlement project in their place, and according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Stinian now have access to less than 1 per cent of the territory of Area C (c). "

The writer says: "Concern about Israel's imminent annexation of the West Bank is a correct position, but we should be honest about how we got here: The formal annexation is an expected result of decades of (US) absolute support for Israeli policies, and it is only a perjury. For the actual annexation of Israel by the Palestinian territories, as well as its current administration (the administration of Israel) of a separate and unequal apartheid regime. "

The author concludes by saying: "Calls for accountability from the liberal circles have come inexcusably late, but they should not now depend on the next step that Israel will take. Palestinians can tell you that the worst case scenario is what exists now, that they have no sovereignty in their state. They are not citizens of Israel, they are subject to permanent Israeli domination. Therefore, it is time to reprimand (and punish) Israel for its violations, by requiring American funding to conduct it at the minimum level, holding the responsibility for this result to the United States, and abandoning the American bilateral framework. An Israeli in sponsoring the peace process in favor of an international approach. "

التعليقات والاراء

اضافة تعليق