|
Trending Topics
|
Source: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=196206
U.S. Support for '67 Borders Would Break Deal with Israel
(Jerusalem Post) Malvina Halberstam - The New York Times reported on Oct. 6 that to induce PA President Mahmoud Abbas to return to negotiations, Obama offered "to formally endorse a Palestinian state based on the borders [sic] of Israel before the 1967 Middle East war." Such a promise would breach an agreement between the U.S. and Israel entered into on April 14, 2004, in an exchange of letters between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Although the U.S. Constitution only provides for treaties ratified by the president with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, executive agreements have been used since the beginning of the United States, and most agreements between the U.S. and other countries today are by executive agreement rather than by treaty. In two cases decided over 70 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that executive agreements are constitutional, and that, like treaties, they supersede inconsistent state law. While there is, of course, no way Israel, or any other country, can compel the U.S. to honor its treaty commitments, the U.S. has generally done so. If Obama fails to honor agreements made by his predecessor, it would not only tarnish the U.S. reputation internationally, it would seriously impair America's ability to negotiate future agreements, as other states would wonder whether any U.S. commitments they received in return for concessions would be honored. The writer, a professor of international law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, served as counselor on international law in the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser.