January 6, 2013
Nurit Greenger's Statement:
International law, under which Judea and Samaria is part of the legal land of
the state of Israel has become a political law and thus the world has come to believe
that Israel has no claim to any land beyond the 'Green Line'.
All the UN resolutions condemning Israel on the
"settlements" are based on lies, totally ignoring international law
that has become international political law.
It is just like admitting that the existence of the
Palestinian Authority and its recent "promotion" in the UN is based
on going AGAINST the UN charter, AGAINST the Montevideo Agreement on what
determines a state to be, etc. It's exactly the same.
The main problem is not the lack of pertinent
international law, but rather the practical irrelevance of any such law in a
world that still basks in ritualistic anti-Semitism. Europe, as the
always-residual source of such hatred, will never support Israel, irrespective
of authoritative international law. Hence, the core problem here is not
jurisprudential, but geopolitical. This is a problem that must be solved by
Israelis only.
In the meantime, Israel is NOT making its legal case for
construction in Judea and Samaria and is not defending itself. As it stands now, if Israel
continues to build beyond the 'Green Line', the European Union may even begin
taking harsher punitive measures against it.
As long as the government of Israel does not promote the
jurisprudence that the "settlements" in Judea and Samaria are legal,
world pressure will continue and get even worse.
For reference please read the article below.
We need to push back! And we begin right
here with the facts and truth. Every time we see anyone complaining about the
illegality of the "settlements" in Judea and Samaria we send them the
below explanation as our reply. The government of Israel needs to use the two-one
page as well. Enough of the lies.
Below is one page 10 and one page 9 talking points explaining why Jews building
in Judea and Samaria is NOT illegal. The facts that settlements
in Judea and Samaria are NOT illegal to act as a tool to push back and defend
Israel from the anti-Semites in Europe and beyond.
***
Take one:
Jews building settlements in Judea and Samaria is legal
Ten Basic points summarizing
Israel's rights in Judea and Samaria
Upon
Nurit Greenger's request, written by Ambassador and Advocate Alan Baker, an expert in international
law.
1. Upon
Israel's taking control of the area – Judea and Samaria - in 1967, the 1907
Hague Rules on Land Warfare and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) were not
considered applicable to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) territory, as the
Kingdom of Jordan, prior to 1967, was never the prior legal sovereign in this
territory, and in any event has since renounced any claim to sovereign rights Vis-à-vis the territory.
2. Israel, as
administering power, pending a negotiated final determination as to the fate of
the territory, nevertheless chose to implement the humanitarian provisions of
the Geneva convention and other norms of international humanitarian law in
order to ensure the basic day-to-day rights of the local population, as well as
Israel's own rights to protect its forces and to utilize those parts of land
that were not under local private ownership.
3. Article 49
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibiting the mass transfer of population
into occupied territory as practiced by Germany during the second world war,
was neither relevant nor was ever intended to apply to Israelis choosing to
reside in Judea and Samaria.
4. Accordingly,
claims by the UN, European capitals, organizations and individuals that Israeli
settlement activity is in violation of international law therefore have no
legal basis whatsoever.
5. Similarly,
the oft-used term "occupied Palestinian territories" is totally
inaccurate and false. The territories are neither occupied nor Palestinian. No
legal instrument has ever determined that the Palestinians have sovereignty or
that the territories belong to them.
6. The
territories of Judea and Samaria remain in dispute between Israel and the
Palestinians, subject only to the outcome of permanent status negotiations
between them.
7. The legality
of the presence of Israel's communities in the area stems from the historic,
indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, granted
pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and
accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or
placed in question.
8. The
Palestinian leadership, in the still valid 1995 Interim Agreement (Oslo 2),
agreed to, and accepted Israel's continued presence in Judea and Samaria,
pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations, without any
restriction on either side regarding planning, zoning or construction of homes
and communities. Hence, claims that Israel's presence in the area is illegal
have no basis.
9. The
Palestinian leadership undertook in the Oslo Accords, to settle all outstanding
issues, including borders, settlements, security, Jerusalem and refugees, by direct
negotiation only and not through unilateral measures. The Palestinian call for
a freeze on settlement activity as a precondition for returning to negotiation
is a violation of the agreements.
10. Any
attempt, through the UN or otherwise, to unilaterally change the status of the
territory would violate Palestinian commitments set out in the Oslo Accords and
prejudice the integrity and continued validity of the various agreements with
Israel, thereby opening up the situation to possible reciprocal unilateral
action by Israel.
***
Take two:
Jews building settlements in Judea and Samaria is legal
Upon
Nurit Greenger's request, written by Salomon Benzimra, author of the book: The
Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel
(http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Peoples-Rights-Israel-ebook/dp/B0065WZM14)
First and foremost,
the first five pages of the Levy Report ("Legal Argument") clearly summarizes why Israel is not an occupying
power in Judea and Samaria – and East Jerusalem - and, therefore, why the settlements are not
illegal. You can find the English version of these 5 pages here:
The following
are the points on which this claim rests:
1. The legality
of the "settlements" cannot be dissociated from the notion of
"occupation." As long as Israel is viewed as an
"occupying power," not only the "settlements" can be
construed as illegal but the whole of Israel becomes "occupied
territory" since there is no difference between land acquired or
repossessed - a better term would be "liberated" - in 1967 and
1948-49 respectively.
2. The Fourth
Hague Regulation of 1907 defines "occupation" in Article 43: it
presupposes that "the authority of the legitimate power ...passed into
the hands of the occupant." The annexation of Judea & Samaria
(renamed in 1950 "The West Bank') by Jordan has never been recognized as
"legitimate."
3. The San
Remo Resolution (April 1920) integrated the Balfour Declaration
(November 1917) to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations
(June 1919) and resulted in the following:
3a: The provisions of the Balfour Declaration (i.e. the
establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine) became binding upon
Britain, which the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers selected as the
Mandatory Power in the land.
3b. The establishment of a Jewish National Home in
Palestine was no longer a mere a British foreign policy decision, but became an
act of international law.
3c. Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution, in July 1922,
the Mandate for Palestine was confirmed, approved by the 52 members of
the League of Nations and entered into force in September 1923.
3d. No "special rights" were conferred to the
Jewish people. The Supreme Council recognized a pre-existing right
by calling for the "reconstitution" of the
Jewish National Home in Palestine – and not the "creation" – it being
clearly understood that it would turn, in time, into a sovereign Jewish State,
pending on an expected Jewish population majority.
4. Following
the Churchill White Paper – the official British policy for Palestine - of June 1922, Britain separated the
Transjordan part of Palestine – the land east of the Jordan River - and made it
an exclusively Arab land where no organized Jewish settlement was allowed, as
per the inserted Article 25 of the Mandate. However, in "western
Palestine" - from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea - all the
provisions of the Jewish National Home were upheld, including the encouragement
of Jewish settlement of all lands (as per Article 6).
5. When the
League of Nations ceased to exist, in 1946, following the creation of its heir,
the United Nations, the acquired rights of the Jewish people remained
enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 80).
6. The UN
General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended a further partition of the
remaining "western Palestine" into a Jewish State and an Arab
State. Had this recommendation been accepted by both parties, the terms
of the Mandate would have been superseded. But that was not the case, due to
the Arabs' rejection of the Resolution. Besides, the recommendation
formulated in UNGA Res. 181 violated the UN Charter (Article 80) and the terms
of the Mandate, still in force in 1947, especially Article 5 which prohibited
the cession of any territory of Palestine to a foreign power.
7. Since no
agreement occurred in 1947 pertaining to a further partition of Palestine, and
no other binding agreement has been entered into between Israel and the Arabs
ever since, which might affect the Jewish sovereignty over western Palestine,
the provisions of the Mandate still hold, and especially the title to the
land, vested in the Jewish people and that includes Judea and Samaria.
8. Point #7
therefore refutes the notion of Israel being an "occupying power" in
any part of western Palestine –From the River to the Sea - since one cannot
occupy land on which it has legal title.
9. Because the
State of Israel is not an "occupying power" in any part of western
Palestine, it follows that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply.
This is especially true for Article 49 which deals with transfer and
deportation of populations to and from occupied territories, in addition to
other legal aspects (the nature of the Contracting Parties, the non-forcible
transfers, etc.), and the preposterous situation of ethnic cleansing, which the
Arabs demand that would result in making Judea and Samaria judenrein.
Conclusion: The claim that it
is illegal for Jews to build in Judea and Samaria and that Israel
"occupies" the land is an utter lie, arises from deliberate ignorance,
pandering to the Arab/Muslim world, anti-Semitism or all of the above combined.
No comments:
Post a Comment