Antony Blinken, on a trip to Argentina, has declared that the Israeli settlements are “contrary to international law.” Elder of Ziyon discusses this claim here beginning with how the major media have reported on Blinken’s describing the settlements as “contrary to international law.” What is of note is how the major media have wrongly claimed that it was only the Trump administration that declared the settlements to be legal. Blinken, in this view, was merely returning to the policy on settlements that all previous administrations had adhered to. That is not the case. Elder of Ziyon has more: “The @NYTimes says US administrations before Trump considered Israeli settlements to be illegal. Fact check: FALSE,” Elder of Ziyon, February 25, 2024:
From the New York Times:
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken’s reversal of Trump-era policy on settlements in the occupied West Bank reflects rising Biden administration frustration with Israel, but it is unlikely to dent the strong American backing for its ally’s military campaign in Gaza or pressure Israel to change course, analysts said on Saturday.
During a trip to Argentina on Friday, Mr. Blinken called the settlements “inconsistent with international law,” a break with policy set under the Trump administration and a return to the decades-long U.S. position.
While Jimmy Carter didn’t use the word “illegal” he did say they violated the Geneva Conventions, which is the same thing. His ambassador the the UN did call the settlements “illegal.” But that was the last time this terminology was used by any administration.
Ronald Reagan said when he was campaigning for President and in an interview two weeks after he took office that the settlements are not illegal. Later in his presidency, he said that settlements are an “obstacle to peace.
It is debatable whether Israeli settlements are, as Reagan said, “an obstacle of peace.” I would argue that those settlements solidify Israel’s hold on Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank), and in so doing, make it much harder for a possible assault by an Arab invasion force coming from the east, increasing Israel’s ability to deter enemies, and thus making war less likely.
George H.W. Bush was strongly against settlement construction but did not call them illegal.
Bill Clinton adopted Reagan’s phrase that they were an “obstacle to peace” but he was softer on expansion of existing settlements.
George W. Bush called for a settlement freeze but did not characterize them as illegal or even an obstacle to peace.
Barack Obama and John Kerry hardened the US stance against settlement, calling them “illegitimate” but not using the word “illegal.” However, Kerry did say, ” “the Israeli Government’s program of establishing civilian settlements in the occupied territory is inconsistent with international law” which is essentially the same thing as calling their creation illegal, and that was the first administration to do so since Carter….
If you believe that the war that has been conducted since 1948 by Muslim Arabs against the Jewish state is a classic jihad, and on the Arab side must continue until Israel ceases to exist, to be replaced by a twenty-third Arab state from which all Jews will be expelled, then you will recognize the folly of a so-called “two-state solution ” (the use of the word “solution” assumes that it is that very thing; I beg to differ) that will only weaken Israel, undermine its strategy of deterrence, and whet rather than sate Arab appetites for conquest.
That the settlements are legal, given that they are established on the very territory that the League of Nations assigned to the Mandate for Palestine in July 1922, will be treated in another post. But remember only this: before the Biden administration, no President other than the antisemitic Jimmy Carter called Israel’s settlements “illegal.” Reagan stated unambiguously that they were “legal.” George H. W. Bush did not like the settlements, but never once did he describe them as “illegal.” Bill Clinton did not call them “illegal” either, though he believed, like Reagan, that some of them were an “obstacle to peace,” rather than a boost to Israel’s deterrence and thus to the only peace that is possible. George W. Bush hoped for a settlement freeze, but never said that the settlements were illegal or even that they were “an obstacle to peace.” Not surprisingly, in the Obama administration, so hostile toward Israel, Secretary of State Kerry did say that the settlements were “inconsistent with international law,” making him the first high official to say that since Jimmy Carter.
Now, instead of returning to a consensus that he appears to think has long been held, of viewing Israel’s settlements as illegal, the egregious Antony Blinken has instead resurrected a view that among past presidents was shared by only two — Carter and Obama, both deeply antagonistic to Israel. Now there is a third — Joe Biden, who will soon be mouthing the words that have just been spoken in Argentina by his ventriloquent handler, Antony Blinken.