Leveretts on International Law and the Gaza Crisis – and US Policy Toward Russia, Ukraine, and the Iran Nuclear Talks

Posted on

As the human toll of Israeli military action in Gaza mounts, the Obama Administration continues its cynical endorsement of Israel’s “absolute right” of “self-defense.”

Earlier this week, Flynt appeared on RT’s CrossTalk to discuss the Gaza crisis; see here or here (YouTube). Over the weekend, Hillary went on MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Parry (on both Saturday and Sunday) to discuss the Gaza crisis (see here, here, and here), as well as the West’s mounting tensions with Russia over Ukraine (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) and the extension of the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran (see here). We highlight below some themes discussed.

The Gaza Crisis, International Law, and the Road to a One-State Solution

Among various substantive points in the CrossTalk episode on which Flynt appeared, the discussion was distinguished by one of the other guests – Martin van Creveld, a well-known Israeli military historian at Hebrew University – yelling at Flynt to “shut up” and then storming off the set, all within the first nine minutes of the program. Flynt’s apparent offense was to challenge Prof. van Creveld’s assertion that Israel is no longer occupying Gaza.

Flynt noted that, while Israel withdrew soldiers and settlers from inside Gaza in 2005, it continues to control – strictly and severely – Gaza’s air, land, and sea access to the world; thus, “under international law, Israel is still occupying Gaza.” (For analyses on this important point, see – for starters – here, here, and here.) For Prof. van Creveld or anyone else to claim otherwise is, literally, to “reinvent international law” – and not in a positive or legitimate way.

As Hillary explains on Melissa Harris-Parry, international law has much broader relevance to the Gaza crisis:

“There is a legal solution, which [the United States] has repeatedly blocked at the United Nations, and that is to allow the state of Palestine to sign up to, to adhere to the International Criminal Court. Samantha Power, our ambassador there, has said publicly, she has made it her number one priority, every month, to meet with international institutions to block the entry of the state of Palestine to get legal protection. Legal protection would constrain American power, would constrain Israeli power, and that’s why we oppose it…

There is this body of international law that came out of World War II, came out of the persecution of the Jewish people. There is a body of international law that was instituted, that was created with the U.S. hand, with Europeans, so that this would never happen to another people again. Th[e Palestinians] are a protected civilian population under occupation; that’s the law. The United States should get out of the way.”

Politically, too, there is a way forward, as Hillary lays out:

“We don’t talk about it because we demonize [HAMAS] as a terrorist organization that can’t possibly have a sane idea, but what they have put on the table is a ten-year ceasefire with Israel, in exchange for Israel lifting the siege of the civilian population in Gaza, with an internationally supervised airport and seaport…That is a critically important contribution to conflict resolution.”

However, as Hillary underlines, this runs up against both Israeli and American strategic preferences:

“The Israelis want to manage occupation, they want to manage a siege. The Palestinians don’t want that. It’s as simple as that. I’ve been to Gaza several times, as a student, as a U.S. official, as a U.S. diplomat. It is, under the best of circumstances, a horrific place to live. No one wants to live there. The vast majority of the population are refugees, without clean water, without health care, without basic necessities. They don’t want a siege. What HAMAS is offering is to change that situation, to change that dynamic.

The problem is that, for the United States and Israel, we would prefer to have the management of conflict, to have the management of an occupation. We don’t really want to see a resolution of this. That’s why the Middle East peace process has always failed – because we don’t really want a two-state solution, we don’t want the constraint of Israeli and American power in the Middle East.”

And that, Flynt argues, puts the parties and the rest of the world on the road toward a one-state solution to the Palestinian conflict:

“Israel essentially has no strategy for dealing with the Palestinian problem. It is committed to open-ended occupation. We are already at a point where the number of Arabs living under Israeli control exceeds the population of Israeli Jews, which means that what we call the state of Israel is already a minority regime in the areas that it controls. And as long as Israel continues this open-ended occupation of Arab populations, it is going to face resistance, it is going to face violence. HAMAS is not some foreign force imposed on Israel; it is a home-grown resistance movement. Until Israel – and I think this would require, basically, an utter recasting of the Israeli state – until Israel is prepared to stop being an occupying power, this is what it is going to suffer, and it is increasingly going to delegitimate itself in the process…

That is what Israel has brought on itself. The two-state solution is, at this point, in my view, effectively dead, and we are on what is going to turn out, I think, to be a very, very slow, very, very bloody, very painful but ultimately inevitable trajectory toward a one-state solution.”

In this context, it may be worth noting that, this year, July 25 will be Qods Day.

Ukraine and American Policy Toward Russia

Hillary linked the current debate over how to deal with Russia to the American political class’s eager embrace of the George W. Bush administration’s “fraudulent case” for invading Iraq just over a decade ago:

“This is the bipartisan failure of our political class, that we buy into over and over again, based on assumptions of who we deem to be the bad guy…The foreign policy elite in the United States have acted, from day one after the collapse of the Soviet Union, like we defeated Russia, and we’ve acted that way ever since. What Putin represents is a rise to that attitude, that we defeated them. We have basically no response – there is no endgame in trying to bring Putin down, to bring Russia down. We’ve tried that in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, and it has failed. And now we’re taking it to the doorsteps of one of the world’s historic superpowers, a power with nuclear weapons, a cyber army, dollars, and oil. This is not going to turn out well for us…

This is about Russia’s reemergence to power and its challenge to the United States. It really does need to be dealt with on a Russian-American level, where there is an assurance that we will not encourage, support, or in any way facilitate – for Ukraine or any of these other countries close to Russia – their entrance into NATO. That is the red line for Putin, and if we could do that, that opens the door to conflict resolution. Everything else is noise.”

Flynt Leverett is professor of international affairs at Pennsylvania State University’s School of International Affairs. Hillary Mann Leverett teaches US foreign policy at American University and is CEO of STRATEGA, a political risk consultancy. They are both retired national security professionals, Flynt of the CIA, State Department and National Security Council; Hillary of the State Department, National Security Council and US mission to the United Nations. They are co-authors of Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Visit their website.

11 thoughts on “Leveretts on International Law and the Gaza Crisis – and US Policy Toward Russia, Ukraine, and the Iran Nuclear Talks”

  1. my co-worker’s sister-in-law makes $83 an hour on the internet .. She has been fired for nine months but last month her paycheck was $19782 just working on the
    internet for a few hours…..
    go to ths sit………… W­­­W­­W.S­­L­­­A­­M­J­­O­­­B­­S­­.C­­­O­M

  2. Professor J. Ed Anderson: "There is no doubt in my mind that deployment of anti-missile missiles in Eastern Europe is part of a first-strike strategy."

    1. Which will see the exact same Russian response as happened when the United States placed Pershing Missiles on the Turkish Border under Eisenhower, The then USSR put Nuclear missiles on Cuba! Already Russia has announced the reopening of Military bases in Cuba! Nuclear weapons placed there negate the Anti ballistic missiles placed on the Russian border by the US!

      What shouldn't be forgotten here is that the United States has already had American Troops on the ground in Russia fighting against the Soviets, as have the British, So Russia doesn't trust America or the British! The Soviets were invaded several times by several different countries, Germany in WWI and WWII, Britain, the United States all have invaded Soviet soil in the past and all of those in an OVERT way!

  3. Missile engineer Bob Aldridge -www.plrc.org on the missiles in Romania, Poland and on 32 ships in the Mediterranean Sea, 4 now stationed in Cadiz: Whether they are on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike. So, Russia will probably deploy Launch On Warning by 2017 followed by Suicide due to a mistake. Bloody crazy fools in the Pentagon !!!

  4. Really thank this information, the content revealed me a image, a real specialist. Satisfied Wedding King of Soul! Thank you is an motivation for many generations

  5. I do like your firm workings and be grateful for your idea. I can pass on you another site where one can obtain huge assistances about tutoring. To learn moiré, please click here. Thanks…

  6. Neo fascism comes from every class and color or the design, their common connection is that they all are part of capitalism, the one that call itself "a civilized" society without practicing civility showing it by all their fascistic means. Gaza is one of it, creation of ISIS is the other, cooperating with alike yet different dressed as Saudis and Qatari is another, what they have in common? Is their common interests in destructions. Barack Hussein Obama is looking for a bigger war and destruction, if time is not enough for him to do it, the system (vulture capitalism) have plenty of them lined at A secret "education" vicinity preparing them for when and how to start the Third World War.

  7. Water retention, also called edema, is related to many circumstances, including the next-than-regular potassium degree and an intense train session. Bruce Pearl is going to pay massive time for misleading the NCAA during its 17 month lengthy investigation into recruiting violations for the Tennessee basketball group. Log into your account or register as a brand new author. http://www.sans78.com/

Comments are closed.