Does Palestine have a future? USA - Israel relationship – addendum.

I believe that at this point certain details pertaining to this subject need some additional clarification:

1.    Let’s make it clear, the right of Israel to exist, and the Israelis to live in peace and prosper is undeniable.  No one can question that right.  Like no one can deny or question the same right in case of Palestine and the Palestinians.

2.    When President Obama called for the Two-State solution, that permanent borders should be based on the pre-1967 borders, he didn’t ask for anything extraordinary.  These borders were warranted by the Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.  UNSR 242, passed in November 1967, calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” (referred to the Six-Day war of 1967).

3.    The International law may be confusing for many, as any other kind of law is for non-lawyers.  It’s interpretation given sparingly by the politician like Michelle Bachman, or other ‘eagles’ of the Republican Party are in most cases not only “slightly distorted and bent” to fit their agenda, but flatly WRONG.

Researching the subject, recently I came by, an essay by Anthony D’Amato (*1). ANTHONY D'AMATO is the Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law, where he teaches courses in international law, international human rights, analytic jurisprudence, and justice.
The title of the paper is: ISRAEL’S BORDERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW  (January 2007).

Let me bring a few excerpts from this paper:

“Abstract:   
Israel cannot obtain legal title to any territory by conquest. Thus Israel's borders were legally established by the United Nations Partition Resolution of 1947, which ended Great Britain's power as a trustee on condition that an Arab State and a Jewish State would be established with borders as demarcated in the text of the resolution. Those borders remain the legal boundary of the State of Israel.”

point 8:    “(…) As far as the Israeli settlements are concerned, they are clearly illegal; an occupying power has no right to engage in de facto annexation of portions of the occupied territory by way of population transfers.”

point 9:    “Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 above is the undeniable fact that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively interpreted by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, a successful campaign of self-defense cannot extend so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed.(…) The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181.”

4.    On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice (in Hague) ruled that the planned 425-mile barrier that slices into occupied Palestinian territory on the West Bank and annexes East Jerusalem is illegal under international law and should be torn down.
Norman Finkelstein in January 2008 in his lecture in Edinburgh (*2), UK, summarized the decision of the ICJ from July 2004:
“(…) On the question of Israeli borders the ICJ was unequivocal. Since, according to international law, land may not be acquired by force, and since Israel acquired land in Gaza and the West Bank this way, it is, ipso facto, illegal.  There is, therefore, in effect, no dispute regarding the disputed territories: international law is clear and straight forward – the land does not belong to the Israelis.  Therefore, following on from this judgment, Israeli settlers are settled on land that was obtained illegally, and are thus in flagrant violation of international law.  (…)”

5.    It leaves just on issue to be clarified – the role of the United States in the process leading to the creation of a viable, self-determined, contiguous, Palestinian State.
America and Israel are a long time allies, being also long time friends (if this word means anything in the international relationships).  Their interests in the stabilization in the Region are also very similar.  With one difference:  it is Israel, which receives the annual allowance, going on in Billions of Dollars from the USA… not other way around.
One would think, that a “friend” like the US could influence a “friend” like Israel, to comply with the international law, and finally allow this, tiresome for the whole World, feud to end peacefully, and permanently, with the benefit of all parties involved... 
Otherwise, our – American, friendly advice, and pressure is just an empty campaign slogan. 
Romans used to say: DURA LEX, SED LEX (harsh law, but it’s law).  

Shouldn’t we expect one of the “World’s leading Democracies” (like Israelis like calling their country) to follow it and obey it?


______________
*1 - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=%20956143
*2 - http://thegulfblog.com/2008/01/26/finkelstein-on-the-israeli-palestinian-situation-its-not-complicated/