Why Does Washington Refuse to Denounce the Settlements in the Security Council?

In the shadow of hastened Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank, the Palestinian representatives have prepared a draft resolution on the settlements. It has in principle gained the support of most members of the Security Council, with the exception of the U.S.

We must ask, why does Washington refuse to denounce the settlements in the Security Council? The answer to this question requires us to stop and consider a number of issues that are linked to this subject.

First: The Settlements are a gross violation of international law and a war crime

The Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab lands represent a gross violation to international law and one of the many war crimes that the occupying powers have committed. This fact has been proven by international conventions, international and regional organizations and the governments of most of the countries of the world. International conventions, especially those pertaining to international humanitarian law, apply to the settlement of the occupied lands and explicitly incriminate Israel. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 clearly criminalized such settlements in Article 49.

The criminality of such acts is also established in the text of Article 85 of the First Protocol of 1977, the supplement to the 1949 convention. This article considers such settlement activities a gross violation of international law and, in accordance with the protocol, these violations are tantamount to war crimes. This protocol was developed at the insistence of Arab nations and the non-alignment bloc for a response to Israel’s eagerness to build settlements in occupied Arab lands in 1967. This position was strengthened even more with the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 1998, which became active in 2002. This violation is listed with the war crimes that are addressed by the 8th article of the Court’s statutes. It should be noted that Israel refused to approve the Court’s charter due to the perceived value of the settlements.

For its part, the UN and its primary bodies have established that the Israeli settlements in occupied Arab lands are a violation of international law. This position has been reinforced by regional organizations, humanitarian rights foundations, and most countries of the world. Furthermore, the settlements in the occupied lands constitute a violation of the charters of international law for human rights.

Second: The State of Israeli Settlements in the West Bank

Studies and reports pertaining to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank indicate that the number of settlers in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, has exceeded half a million in more than 440 separate settlements. This figure has increased by more than 40 times in the period between 1972 and 2011. These throngs of settlers, which have devoured a huge expanse of Palestinian lands, have led to the partition of the West Bank into eight isolated cantons that are linked by tunnels and bypass roads. The studies and reports also emphasize that the settlements are growing at a high rate, especially in recent years, and have not stopped at all. Further, the settlements have become a priority of successive occupying governments, who have allotted large sums of money for their development as well as other incentives and forms of support. If the situation continues in this way, the West Bank will become a completely divided geographic sector and the future establishment of a Palestinian state will be impossible.

Third: The Inability of the Security Council to oppose the Settlements

It is clear that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab lands represent a gross violation of international law and a war crime. This means that it is an international crime — one that does not simply threaten the original owners of the land, but rather the whole of the international community. The continued settlement activities threaten the peace and security of the citizens of the world. Based on this, the Security Council, as the primary body charged with maintaining peace and security, must assume the task of opposing these dangerous activities in accordance with the powers entrusted to it, specifically by the seventh chapter of the Charter.

Here we should stop and see how the Security Council has dealt with the Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab lands. In reality, since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, the Security Council has published only three resolutions regarding the settlements between the years 1979-1980. These resolutions are Resolution 446 published March 22, 1979; Resolution 452 published July 20, 1979; and Resolution 465 published March 1, 1980. The reason for so few resolutions has been America’s political support for Israel in the Security Council, which is represented in the use of the veto, or the threat of its use, against any proposed resolution regarding the settlements in the occupied Arab lands. There are many examples of this, such as in 1995 and 1997 when the U.S. opposed a resolution to condemn the settlements.

The U.S. has also threatened on more than one occasion to use its veto power against any resolution presented to the Security Council. We hear such talk repeated these days, especially after the Palestinian delegation has formed a draft resolution that it hopes to present to the Council in the coming days. Despite the fact that many countries on the Council have supported the draft, Washington continues to threaten to use its veto power to kill the resolution.

In the three resolutions of the Security Council, we find that the Council has emphasized a number of the important issues.

1. The policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

2. Israel, as the occupying power, must abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind its previous measures, and desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.

3. The settlements represent a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (August 12, 1949) in regards to the protection of civilians in a time of war.

4. The need to address the issue of existing settlements and the need for measures to ensure the protection of confiscated property.

5. The need to consider measures to protect private and public property as well as natural resources, without exception.

In Resolution 446 of March 22, 1979, the Council formed a commission to study the settlements in the occupied Arab lands, and provided it with the necessary facilities to carry out its duties and present its report to the Council by early July 1979. As a result of its study, the commission found that:

“The Israeli government is still pursuing its systematic and relentless process of colonization of the occupied territories, and there is a relationship between the establishment of Jewish settlements and the expulsion of the Arab populace. In implementing its settlement policy, the Israeli government resorts to repressive means. The settlement policy has led to radical and harmful changes to the social and economic system in the daily lives of the Arab populace as well as causing profound geographic and demographic changes in the occupied territories. These changes constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.”

The Council agreed to these recommendations in Resolution 452 of July 20, 1979. Though the Council had not been able to publish any more than these three resolutions during the period of the occupation, it strongly emphasized the illegitimacy of the settlements that Israel established in the occupied Arab lands.

Fourth: Background on the U.S. position

As we have shown, the U.S. has been behind the Security Council’s inability to oppose the Israeli settlement activities in the occupied Arab lands. The U.S.’s position is based upon the assertion that the Security Council is not the appropriate venue in which to discuss the settlement issue. In their view, the solution to this issue lies in bilateral negotiations between the concerned parties. This position, which the U.S. adopted in the ‘90s, represents the radical transformation that has occurred in Washington’s perception of the settlements. Until 1980 (when the Security Council published the three resolutions), the U.S. considered the settlements illegal and violations of international law. After that, the American position began to change, especially with the Reagan presidency in the ‘80s, adopting a policy of unconditional support for Israel and during which, according to the American administration, the settlements became legal.

The American position has developed even more so since the ‘90s, as represented in Washington’s official agreement to settlement construction. After the Oslo Accords, the U.S. adopted a dangerous position built on the notion that the settlements did not constitute an obstacle in the path to peace, but rather a mere “complicating factor.” Since that time the American position has coincided with the Israeli position, especially in regards to distancing the UN on central issues such as the settlements. They believe that these issues concern only the involved parties, not the international community, and should be addressed in bilateral negotiations. Washington’s position has led to a rather dangerous result in that the Security Council has not been able to address the settlement issue.

This leaves us with two choices. The first would require submission to the American-Israeli position, which would mean ultimately conceding the remaining occupied Palestinian lands. The second requires an active Arab movement, whether in the UN or otherwise, to oppose these dangerous criminal activities not simply by demanding a freezing but rather by applying international legal responsibility, both criminal and civil. We have the International Criminal Court and the right to demand that a special international court be established in addition to other choices, including demanding that the countries of the world fulfill their legal obligation toward international conventions, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.