Many nations and people are questioning Israel
No one is mentioning that the
Arab countries had ejected about a million Jewish people and their children
from their countries, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real
estate. Many of the Jews ejected from Arab countries died while their forced
departure from Arab countries, due to hardship, famine and starvation. 650,00
Jewish people and their children of these expelled Jewish people and their
children were resettled in Greater Israel. The Land the Arab countries confiscated
from the Jewish people 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which is over 5-6
times the size of Israel
The Jewish people and their
children during the over 2,000 years living in Arab countries have suffered
Pogroms, Libel claims, beheadings, beatings, false imprisonment and extreme
hardship as a second class citizens. They had their businesses and homes
pillaged, their wives and daughters raped, sold them as slaves, their houses of
worship pillaged and burned, forced conversion to Islam.
Today over half of Israel
The Audacity of the Arab
countries in demanding territory from the Jewish people in Palestine after they
ejected over a million Jewish people and their children who have lived in Arab
land for over 2,000 years and after they confiscated all their assets and Real
estate 5-6 times the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km. - 75,000 sq. mi.), valued
in the trillions of dollars.
Now the Arab nations are
demanding more land and more compensation.
The Arab countries have
chased the million Jews and their children and now the want to chase them away
again, from their own historical land.
The Jewish people have
suffered enough in the Diaspora for the past 2,500 years. It is time for the
Jewish people to live as free people in their own land without violence and
terror.
It is time to consider that
the only alternative is a population transfer of the Arab-Palestinians to the
territories the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people and settle
this dispute once and for all. Many Arab leaders had suggested these solutions
over the years.
YJ Draiman
The Levy Report: Reinvigorating the Discussion of Israel’s
Rights in the West Bank by Avi Bell BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 176,
July 31, 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Commission to Examine the Status of
Building in Judea and Samaria
(the “Levy report”) has drawn a flurry of overwrought criticism due to its
inclusion of a section concerning the lawfulness of Israeli settlement
activity. But the report’s argument is surprisingly modest in substance; it
does little more than endorse the traditional official Israeli position that
the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply de jure to the West Bank ,
and in any event does not bar Israeli settlements. Some have argued that the
Levy report is foolish politically, arguing that by asserting its legal rights,
Israel will
signal that it is unwilling to entertain “land for peace” compromises. This
seems a doubtful thesis. Israel has asserted
its legal rights
to Jerusalem for
decades, but yet
repeatedly offered compromises on
its rights in the city. What the Levy report has done is to reinvigorate
the discussion of the legitimacy of Israel ’s
position under international law after
many years in which Israel
has been silent about its legal rights. That is a welcome development.
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was
presented with the report of the Commission to Examine the Status of Building
in Judea and Samaria ,
headed by former Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy (the “Levy report”). The
report has drawn a flurry of overwrought criticism due to its inclusion of a
section concerning the lawfulness of Israeli settlement activity.
In contrast with the misinformed and sometimes outright
disingenuous criticism, the report’s discussion of the lawfulness of
settlements is surprisingly modest in substance.
The report does little more than endorse the traditional
official Israeli position that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply de
jure to the West Bank , and in any event does not bar
Israeli settlements. While the report’s analysis is far from comprehensive, it
is more detailed and more persuasive than that usually offered by
anti-settlement activists.
The Levy report adduces one of two fairly compelling reasons
for concluding that the laws of belligerent occupation do not apply de jure to Israel ’s
presence in the West Bank .
One of the sine quibus non of belligerent occupation, as
reaffirmed recently in an expert conference organized by the International
Committee of the Red Cross, is that the occupation take place on foreign
territory. While recent years have seen some debate on the meaning of foreign
territory, considerable state practice supports the traditional view that
captured territory is “foreign” only when another state has sovereignty. The
Levy Commission is on solid ground in observing that neither Jordan
nor any other foreign state had territorial sovereignty over the West
Bank in 1967 and that the territory cannot therefore be “foreign”
for purposes of the law of belligerent occupation.
Indeed, had the Levy Commission chosen to so argue, it could
have argued cogently that Israel
itself was already the lawful sovereign over the West Bank
in 1967.
Unmentioned by the report, Israel ’s
peace agreement with Jordan
constitutes a second reason for questioning the de jure application of the laws
of belligerent occupation to the West Bank . As Yoram
Dinstein wrote some time ago, the rules of belligerent occupation cannot be
applied to Israel ’s
presence in the West Bank “in light of the combined
effect of ... the Jordanian-Israeli Treaty of Peace of 1994 and the series of
agreements with the Palestinians. There is simply no room for belligerent
occupation in the absence of belligerence, namely, war.” While Dinstein
qualified his observation by holding several
idiosyncratic views regarding the definition of occupation
and the status of the
Palestinians, as well as by joining a small group of legal
scholars who believe in a “post-belligerent occupation” that shares many of the
rules of belligerent occupation, the majority position is still clearly that
the rules of belligerent occupation do not apply to an agreed-upon peacetime
presence.
On settlements, the Levy report likewise adduces several
strong arguments to the effect that even if the laws of belligerent occupation
applied to Israel ’s
presence in the West Bank , the Fourth Geneva Convention
poses no bar to the kinds of actions that are subsumed under the term
“settlement activities.”
The Fourth Geneva
Convention forbids
“transfers” and “deportations” by the
occupying state of parts of its population into occupied territory, but not
“settlements.”
Officials of the state of Israel
have provided services to settlers and sometimes encouraged them, but the state
of Israel has
not transferred any Israeli to the West Bank against his
or her will. In fact, as even anti-settlement activists like Talia Sasson
acknowledge, “there was never a considered, ordered decision by the state of Israel ,
by any Israeli government” on settlements. While some governments of Israel
have favored the physical expansion of settlements or the increase of their
population, settlement growth has been driven by the preferences of private
citizens not by official Israeli population transfers. There is no precedent
for any other state being adjudged to have violated the Fourth Geneva
Convention simply on the basis of permitting or facilitating private
preferences in the way Israel
has done. Indeed, this is the reason that the Arab states sought to redefine
the bar on “transfers” in international law by including a crime of “indirect”
transfers in the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court.
However, Israel
is not a party to the Rome Statute and it is therefore not bound by the
alternative, more restrictive standard.
The Levy Commission
notes that even
if facilitating private
Jewish residential preferences in
the West Bank were otherwise suspect “transfers,” sui generis rules apply to
the area. Article 6 of the Mandate of Palestine demands “encourage[ment], in
cooperation with the Jewish Agency … [of] close settlement by Jews on the land,
including State lands...” As the late Eugene Rostow, one-time dean of Yale Law
School, noted, this command is preserved by article 80 of the U.N. Charter,
and, if the West Bank (Judea and
Samaria) is under belligerent
occupation, by article 43
of the Hague
Regulations.
Additionally, if, as Israel’s critics contend, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies to Israeli actions
in the West Bank, articles 3, 12 and 26 of the Covenant lend urgency to Israeli
efforts to protect Jewish housing rights in the West Bank in light of the
Palestinian Authority death penalty for land sales to Jews coupled with senior
Palestinian officials’ open call for a Jew-free state of Palestine.
Talia Sasson, author of her own controversial 2005 report on
outposts, has criticized the Commission on the grounds that its conclusions are
contradicted by Israeli Supreme Court rulings. But contrary to Sasson’s
assertions, while the Supreme Court has adjudicated cases on the basis of Israel ’s
voluntary assumption of selected duties of a belligerent occupant, the Court
has never ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure to the West
Bank .
In opposing the Levy report, Aeyal Gross and David Kretzmer
have claimed that if the laws of belligerent occupation do not apply de jure to
the West Bank , Israel
lacked the authority to empower a military commander to undertake actions such
as seizing property in the territory. However, Gross and Kretzmer err. Israel ’s
administrative law determines the powers given to an Israeli military
commander, not international law, and there is nothing to prevent Israel
granting various powers to its commander in the West Bank ,
in the absence of a de jure belligerent occupation. History supplies more
extreme examples: the United States applied
full military regimes
to defeated Confederate states
after the civil war, and to Puerto Rico following a
peace treaty with Spain ,
even though the states were American territory and there was clearly no de jure
belligerent occupation.
Some have argued that the Levy report is foolish
politically, arguing that by asserting its legal rights, Israel
will signal that it is unwilling to entertain “land for peace” compromises.
This seems a doubtful thesis. Israel
has asserted its legal rights to Jerusalem
for decades, but yet repeatedly offered compromises on its rights in the city.
Others have objected
that the Levy
report’s conclusions can
be disputed by international jurists, including by a
controversial and non-binding advisory opinion of the International Court of
Justice. It is true that like many legal controversies, the questions addressed
by the Levy Commission are capable of being analyzed in a number of ways. The
Levy Commission’s conclusions are logical applications of reasonable
understandings of the rules in an area where no authoritative resolution of the
dispute has yet been rendered.
The Levy report has reinvigorated the discussion of the
legitimacy of Israel ’s
position under international law after many years in which Israel
has been silent about its legal rights. That is a welcome development.
Avi Bell is a professor in the Rackman Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan
University
BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity of the
Greg Rosshandler Family
does not bar Israeli settlements. While the report’s
analysis is far from comprehensive, it is more detailed and more persuasive
than that usually offered by anti-settlement activists.
The Levy report adduces one of two fairly compelling
reasons for concluding that the laws of belligerent occupation do not apply de
jure to Israel West Bank .
One of the sine quibus non of belligerent occupation,
as reaffirmed recently in an expert conference organized by the International
Committee of the Red Cross, is that the occupation take place on foreign
territory. While recent years have seen some debate on the meaning of foreign
territory, considerable state practice supports the traditional view that
captured territory is “foreign” only when another state has sovereignty. The
Levy Commission is on solid ground in observing that neither Jordan West Bank in 1967 and
that the territory cannot therefore be “foreign” for purposes of the law of
belligerent occupation.
Indeed, had the Levy Commission chosen to so argue, it
could have argued cogently that Israel itself was already the lawful sovereign
over the West Bank in 1967.
Unmentioned by the report, Israel’s peace agreement
with Jordan constitutes a second reason for questioning the de jure application
of the laws of belligerent occupation to the West Bank. As Yoram Dinstein wrote
some time ago, the rules of belligerent occupation cannot be applied to Israel West Bank “in light of the combined effect of ...
the Jordanian-Israeli Treaty of Peace of 1994 and the series of agreements with
the Palestinians. There is simply no room for belligerent occupation in the
absence of belligerence, namely, war.” While Dinstein qualified his observation
by holding several
idiosyncratic views regarding the definition of
occupation and the status of the
Palestinians, as well as by joining a small group of
legal scholars who believe in a “post-belligerent occupation” that shares many
of the rules of belligerent occupation, the majority position is still clearly
that the rules of belligerent occupation do not apply to an agreed-upon
peacetime presence.
On settlements, the Levy report likewise adduces
several strong arguments to the effect that even if the laws of belligerent
occupation applied to Israel West Bank , the Fourth Geneva Convention poses no
bar to the kinds of actions that are subsumed under the term “settlement
activities.”
The Fourth Geneva
Convention forbids
“transfers” and “deportations” by the
occupying state of parts of its population into occupied territory, but not
“settlements.”
Officials of the state of Israel have provided
services to settlers and sometimes encouraged them, but the state of Israel has
not transferred any Israeli to the West Bank against his or her will. In fact,
as even anti-settlement activists like Talia Sasson acknowledge, “there was
never a considered, ordered decision by the state of Israel Israel Israel Rome Israel Rome
The Levy Commission
notes that even
if facilitating private
Jewish residential preferences in
the West Bank were otherwise suspect “transfers,” sui generis rules apply to
the area. Article 6 of the Mandate of Palestine
Additionally, if, as Israel’s critics contend, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies to Israeli actions
in the West Bank, articles 3, 12 and 26 of the Covenant lend urgency to Israeli
efforts to protect Jewish housing rights in the West Bank in light of the
Palestinian Authority death penalty for land sales to Jews coupled with senior
Palestinian officials’ open call for a Jew-free state of Palestine.
Talia Sasson, author of her own controversial 2005
report on outposts, has criticized the Commission on the grounds that its
conclusions are contradicted by Israeli Supreme Court rulings. But contrary to
Sasson’s assertions, while the Supreme Court has adjudicated cases on the basis
of Israel West Bank .
In opposing the Levy report, Aeyal Gross and David
Kretzmer have claimed that if the laws of belligerent occupation do not apply
de jure to the West Bank , Israel United States
Confederate states after the civil war, and to Puerto
Rico following a peace treaty with Spain, even though the states were American
territory and there was clearly no de jure belligerent occupation.
Some have argued that the Levy report is foolish
politically, arguing that by asserting its legal rights, Israel Israel Jerusalem
Others
have objected that
the Levy report’s
conclusions can be
disputed by international
jurists, including by a controversial and non-binding advisory opinion of the
International Court of Justice. It is true that like many legal controversies,
the questions addressed by the Levy Commission are capable of being analyzed in
a number of ways. The Levy Commission’s conclusions are logical applications of
reasonable understandings of the rules in an area where no authoritative
resolution of the dispute has yet been rendered.
The Levy report has reinvigorated the discussion of
the legitimacy of Israel Israel
Avi Bell is a professor in the Rackman Faculty of Law
at Bar-Ilan University University of San Diego
School
BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity
of the Greg Rosshandler Family
No comments:
Post a Comment