By: Ian Davis
On Jan. 15, the Georgia State Senate passed Resolution 739. While the residents of Georgia may expect Senate resolutions to address pressing state-related issues, Resolution 739 attends to no such thing. Rather than focusing on domestic imperatives, the Georgia legislature has decided to meddle in one of the planet’s most continually troubled and difficult conflicts: that of the Israelis and Palestinians. While the measure may have been passed with good intentions, this misguided and clumsy policy is not only embarrassing but also potentially damaging to the construction of a future peace deal.
In essence, Resolution 739 seeks to justify the alleged legality of Israeli settlers living in the occupied territories of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). The resolution cites “the legal basis for the establishment of the modern State of Israel…” based on ”…a binding act of international law established in the San Remo Resolution, which was unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922.” The San Remo Conference, which was held after World War I, established the mandates that divided the Middle East following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The conference’s resolutions concerning the future of Palestine incorporated the Balfour Declaration, which was a British statement from 1917 that expressed a commitment to create a Jewish homeland in the mandated territory of Palestine. It would seem that Georgia’s State Senators have forgotten a fairly crucial detail in American foreign policy following WWI. The United States failed to join the League of Nations upon its establishment. Thus, it is increasingly perplexing that Israeli settlement in the West Bank is being justified by “a binding act of international law” that was established by an organization the United States consciously chose not to take part in.
Furthermore, the San Remo Conference addressed the status of Arabs in British mandated Palestine. It cited an understanding “that would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” In utilizing certain quotes from the San Remo Conference, and blatantly disregarding others, the Georgia Senate treads on a slippery slope of self-inflicted contradiction.
Finally, many scholars argue that the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, which invalidated the British Mandate and sought to establish two states for two people, in fact voided the San Remo Conference. Resolution 739 seeks to address this, mentioning that “Article 80 of the United Nations charter recognized the continued validity of the rights granted to states or peoples which already existed under international instruments, and, therefore, the 1922 League of Nations resolution remains valid, and the 650,000 Jews currently residing in the areas of Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem reside there legitimately.” However, Resolution 937 fails to mention Article 80’s caveat, which reads: “this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements.” The intricacies of international law are gritty and sometimes suspended by the world’s lack of a supreme sovereign. Regardless, it seems apparent that the Georgia Senate needs to address the documents it cites in totality, especially when justifying something as controversial as it ambitiously sought to do.
Resolution 739, therefore, aims to express Georgia’s commitment to an ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip, and subsequently, the dismissal of a two state solution. Herein lies the genuine incoherence of the resolution. The current Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, expressed his government’s intention to work towards a two state solution during his famous Bar-Ilan speech in 2009. Moreover, he is currently engaged in negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in bringing about a durable peace. If the Georgia State Senate wishes to express solidarity with the Israel, why did it adopt a resolution that goes directly against Israel’s stance on the issue? Not only have the last four Israeli Prime Ministers expressed their verbal commitment to peace, but the last four U.S. presidents, Republican and Democrat, have actively sought mediation roles in the conflict, advocating two states for two people. It is therefore politically baffling that Resolution 739 seeks to ignore Israel’s concessions and reverse decades of American government policy.
How are we to perceive the Georgia legislature’s actions? Do they genuinely want Israel to remain an occupying state, increasingly isolated in the political arena? One would hope not. The State Senate’s words can be blamed on ineptitude and misguided aid. In using only personally favorable components of international law, the Georgia Senate undermines its own argument, and brings to life questions of accurate policy rationale. I do not doubt the State senators’ goodhearted intentions in crafting a bill they believed would help Israel. Many Americans see Israel as a key economic and strategic asset in the tumultuous Middle East. But before passing questionable domestic legislature regarding seemingly distant events, Georgia’s legislators must filter out reckless policy advice, and create meaningful and lasting policy that actually furthers the United States’ interests.
