Monday, December 02, 2019

Can Congress Prevent Trump From Making The Situation In Israel/Palestine Worse?

>


Last week, Andy Levin (D-MI), one of Congress' foremost foreign policy experts, penned a very strong letter to the Trump Regime asking them to reverse their new position virtually encouraging an Israeli annexation of the West Bank by reversing 4 decades of bipartisan American policy towards the settlements. Levin immediately had 106 co-signers, all Democrats. Let's start with the letter itself:
The Honorable Mike Pompeo Secretary

U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C., 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We write to express our strong disagreement with the State Department's decision to reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank by repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are "inconsistent with international law." This announcement, following the administration's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem outside of a negotiated agreement; its closure of the Palestinian mission in Washington, D.C. and U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem; and its halting of aid Congress appropriated to the West Bank and Gaza, has discredited the United States as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, severely damaged prospects for peace, and endangered the security of America, Israel, and the Palestinian people.

U.S. administrations from both parties have followed the 1978 guidance because settlement expansion into the occupied West Bank makes a contiguous Palestinian state inviable, jeopardizing Israel's future as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people. The State Department's unilateral reversal on the status of settlements, without any clear legal justification, therefore has offered a tacit endorsement of settlements, their expansion, and associated demolitions of Palestinian homes. In addition, one day after the Department's decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to advance a bill to annex the Jordan Valley. As annexation and the United States' approval thereof would destroy prospects for a two-state solution and lead to a more entrenched and possibly deadlier conflict, this decision erodes the security o f both Israel and the United States.

This State Department decision blatantly disregards Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which affirms that any occupying power shall not "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." In ignoring international law, this administration has undermined America's moral standing and sent a dangerous message to those who do not share our values: human rights and international law, which have governed the international order and protected U.S. troops and civilians since 1949, no longer apply. If the U.S. unilaterally abandons international and human rights law, we can only expect a more chaotic and brutal twenty-first century for Americans and our allies, including the Israeli people.

Given these serious implications, we strongly urge you to reverse this po)jcy decision immediately.
Many of Congress' Jewish members, like Levin himself and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), John Yarmuth (D-KY), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) signed on, as did Muslims Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

Haaretz, and all the major Israeli newspapers, gave the letter major coverage, even if U.S. media generally didn't.
The letter is the latest example of the growing opposition within the Democratic Party to the alliance between President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly on the issue of settlements. Netanyahu promised during the previous Israeli election to annex parts of the West Bank to Israel; the Trump administraiton’s change of policy regarding the settlements was interpreted by politicians and leading analysts in Israel as a “green light” for such a step, despite denials from the White House that this was the administration’s intention.

Earlier this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. will no longer accept the legal opinion that settlements are illegal under international law, and will instead accept the position of Israel’s legal system on the subject. The announcement came at the height of political coalition negotiations in Israel on the formation of a government, and the Trump administration denied allegations that the timing was meant to help Netanyahu remain in power. 

Labels: , , ,

3 Comments:

At 10:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Congress able to block Trump? We'll never find out, because the Congress isn't paid to do so. The interests who pay them have a different agenda which requires that Trump not be inhibited in any way. They will get what they pay for.

 
At 8:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

@10:10

While I'd agree that this may be how it shakes out, your analysis is nonetheless rather simplistic. You make it sound as if every Democrat in Congress gets a regularly issued paycheck from corporate interests. What the party has discovered over the years is that corporate-friendly governance is the easier path - a compromised vision in which they feel they can accomplish some small, moderately decent things while not offending the moneyed class. Many of them buy into the Clintonian idea that collaborating with corporate interests is the only practical way to get things done. It's certainly the only way for them to maintain equity with Republicans as far as drawing money and support is concerned (AOC's great number of small donors is not something that the entire party could ever hope to replicate even if they all went full-court Progressive). They've watched while Republicans launched successful dog-whistle attacks against social programs - attacks which Dems are just plain BAD at countering. Dems are also aware that advocating on behalf of the poor (countering said dog-whistle attacks) generally translates into favoritism for blacks/Hispanics as far as many whites are concerned (regardless of their actual social status, very few American whites consider themselves poor or lower-class). The Democratic Party also seems to attract politicians with an aversion to fights unless fighting is absolutely necessary for the continued maintenance of their version of the status quo. That's why establishment Democrats launched impeachment proceedings on the Biden business and why they're also willing to fight the prospect of a Bernie Sanders run for the Presidency. Horrible as it seems, these strike Establishment Dems as NECESSARY fights.

So, both parties makeup (as far as elected officials goes) is more complicated than you acknowledge. Some Republicans really are about as close to Nazis as one can get without having a swastika tattooed onto one's forehead. Others are free-market devotees who have fully absorbed the more explicitly Darwinist aspects of Libertarian thinking. Crazy as it may sound to some, a lot of Republicans really do consider abortion to be a heinous sin. Others just conveniently use it as a vote-getter, etc.

 
At 9:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If progressives ever become the majority, then I will adjust my position to reflect your standards.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home