Daines ignores Israel's violations of international law

Last week, I received two communications on the Middle East from Sen. Steve Daines’ office — an email message from the senator and a phone call from his aide.

The phone call dealt with the negotiations for progress on the two-state solution for Palestine and Israel. Sen. Daines’ aide indicated that the senator places all the blame on the Palestinian Authority for the breakdown of the negotiations, citing the PA’s application for participation in the International Criminal Court. President Obama’s conclusion was different — that is was the constant “drumbeat” of Israeli settlement construction on occupied land that made negotiations impossible.

I trust that the senator realizes that Israel is on the wrong side of international law with regard to its policies in the occupied territories. The 4th Geneva Convention deals with military occupation and wars of conquest. Basically the convention outlaws wars of conquest, and consequently requires that occupied land should not be incorporated into the conquering country. It further stipulates that any military occupation should be short, and that the conquering country cannot transfer people into the occupied lands.

In the preemptive “Six Day War” of 1967, Israel conquered parts of Syria, Egypt and Jordan, the latter being what is known as the West Bank. Since that time (nearly 50 years) Israel has occupied the West Bank militarily, and 50 years is not short a short time. The land, according to the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, was to be the basis of a Palestinian State, but Israel has never come close to allowing such a state to be established. Since 1967 Israel has transferred half a million Jewish settlers into the occupied territory, and seriously infringed upon commerce and travel by Palestinians in the West Bank by establishing Israeli-only roads that Palestinians cannot even cross.

In addition, in another war of conquest in 1947-48, Israel forced 750,000 Palestinian residents of Israel to become refugees in the West Bank and Gaza. According to UN Resolution 194, refugees have the right of return to their original homes. Israel has categorically refused this right to all Palestinian refugees.

The Oslo Accords were intended to establish a framework for the negotiation of a two-state solution, with the temporary division of the West Bank into areas A, B and C. The largest area, C, would be under complete Israeli military control, until security arrangements could be worked out between the two entities. The current Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as early as 2000, made it quite clear in public statements that it was his intention to make all of Area C necessary for Israeli defense purposes, and therefore eventually a part of Israel. He has been deliberately pursuing this goal since becoming prime minister, and clearly seeks to remove all Palestinians from Area C and to confine them to the Bantustan-like areas A and B.

The Palestinian Authority made sweeping concessions in the negotiations of the Oslo Accords. They have lost more than half of the land promised them by the UN in 1947. Further compromise will leave them with an untenable state. Israel considers all colonized parts of the West Bank to be part of Israel, and shows no intention of compromise. 

The United States stands firmly with Israel, providing a significant amount of the arms used by Israel to maintain the 50-year-old occupation, and voting against (and therefore vetoing) a recent U.N. Security Council resolution declaring the Israeli settlements illegal (as they are under international law).

Where can the Palestinian Authority go for justice? Only to the International Court of Justice, which will recognize the international laws that Israel and the United States choose to ignore. What would you do if you were in their shoes, Sen. Daines?

The senator’s letter to me indicates that he shares fully the assertions concerning Iran made by Prime Minister Netanyahu in his recent address to the U.S. Congress. Sen. Daines seems convinced that Israel would be under some kind of existential threat from a nuclear-armed Iran, and that sanctions, and the threat of attack by the U.S. or Israel is the way to remove the possibility of this threat. 

I support President Obama’s approach to agreement through negotiations. Let’s be clear — neither negotiations nor sanctions will permanently preclude Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. However, the more threatened and isolated the government of Iran feels, the more intense will be its pursuit of a nuclear capability. 

Mr. Netanyahu says, “All responses are on the table.” “All” would include the use of atomic weapons, of which Israel is well known to possess a large number. Is that what you want, senator?

I would prefer to consider Iran’s behavior, rather than what a former president was purported to say. Iran has not fought a war of conquest for about 400 years. Its only military engagement in the past 100 years was the eight-year Iraq-Iran war, initiated by Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In my travels to Iran in 2008 and 2009, I encountered warm friendship and hospitality, and an admiration for the United States. Furthermore, the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside of Israel is in Iran, and research shows that in the Middle East, Iran is the most welcoming to Jewish people. 

I believe that if the United States negotiates with Iran and Israel in good faith on this issue, we can reach a workable arrangement.

 Neff is a resident of Whitefish.