U.S. President George Bush spoke about ending the occupation — meaning the Israeli occupation — of lands seized in the 1067 war. He said, however, that this occupation should be ended — but through negotiation….through “a negotiated settlement”, he said.
Here’s what Joshua Landis wrote about this in his blog, Syria Comment: ” ‘Negotiated Settlement’ rejects international law and the 1967 borders and accepts the concept of a solution based on the balance of power between Israelis and Palestinians, which is very lopsided in Israel’s favor. It means Palestinians will have to accept further land loss. Many were hoping that Bush would backtrack on his previous promise to Israel that it would not have to return to 1967 borders and could keep settled parts of the West Bank [n.b. Landis is referring here to the 14 April 2004 letter from Bush to Ariel Sharon]. Bush did not backtrack. Instead he seemed to confirm his previous promise by not mentioning 242. Here is the key paragraph [of Bush's statement]: ‘The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin — bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel’s security’.”
Landis wrote, in his blog post, that “Bush’s words will probably be the most important aspect of the conference. We all want to hear him take ‘possession’ of the peace process. He did not do this on Monday. Instead, he repeated the standard pablum of the last 7 years. Bush’s speech cannot be read as promising for Syria. Syria was not mentioned. The stress was on Democracy – Democracy as a precondition for any concessions to Palestinians. The only concrete offer of help Palestinians was Washington’s offer to support democratic ‘capacity building’. Bush avoided any mention of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which is the basis of international law and has been the starting place of all previous peace efforts…”
Joshua Landis’ comments are posted here.
Ian Williams wrote recently, in the Comment is Free section of The Guardian, that “three years ago George Bush abrogated international law and almost 40 years of American foreign policy by declaring that because of ‘new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it [was] unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949′. In other words, if a thief hangs on to the property long enough, he gains title. It is an interesting, but not persuasive, gloss on international law …”
Ian William’s comment on the Bush letter dated 14 April 2004 to Ariel Sharon is here.
A “Joint Letter to Negotiating Parties” by Al Haq and other Palestinian civil society 0rganisations, dated 26 November 2007, and published on UmKhalil’s blog today, states that “Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention … establishes: ‘Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory‘. This provision seeks to address the obvious imbalance of power between the occupied and the occupier in any negotiation process. It recognises that an Occupying Power can, by virtue of its occupation, seek to legally validate through ‘negotiation’ the unilateral imposition of facts on the ground that violate international humanitarian law and harm the civilian population … “.
The Al Haq letter to the negotiating parties at the Annapolis conference is posted on UmKhalil’s blog here.
Still, it was the first time that George Bush used the word “occupation” in respect of this terrible, miserable Israel-Palestinian situation.
It was also the first time in a very long time that any ranking American official used the term.
