The International Law says there is No Occupation

Cover of Subliminal's Album "Haor VeHatzel" (The Light & The Shadow)

The International Law supports that Judea and Samaria (a.k.a West Bank) are not being occupied by Israel. The Levy Report states:

“Having considered the approaches presented before us [from the Left and from the Right], we think a reasonable interpretation of the standard term of "occupation", with all the obligations arising from it, in the provisions of international law is intended to apply for short periods of occupation of a territory of a sovereign state until the end of the conflict between the parties and the return of the land or any other negotiated agreement regarding it.

But the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria is significantly different: the possession of the territory continues for many decades, and no one can predict its end, if at all; the territory was conquered from a state (the Kingdom of Jordan) whose sovereignty over the territory has never been firmly legalized, and in the meantime it even renounced its claim of sovereignty; the State of Israel claims sovereign rights to the territory.” (Read the complete Legal Arguments of the Report, in English, Here)

PM Netanyahu ordered this report, in January of the current year, to learn about the legal status of settlements in the “West Bank” and to determine, once and for all, whether the Palestinian & International accusation of “occupation” was backed up by the International Law. Conclusion: it is not.

So, what does this mean? It means that:

  • The Palestinians have no legal rights over Samaria and Judea
  • The International Community is, and has been, deadly wrong
  • The Jewish Left (in and out of Israel) has been making a fool of itself for far too long
  • The Iranians will perhaps have to replace “Quds Day” with “Mecca Day”
  • Anti-Semitic people will have to come up with a different subterfuge to express their irrationality.

“In November 1947 the General Assembly adopted the United Nations committee's recommendation to divide the Land of Israel west of the Jordan river into two states: one Arab and one Jewish. But the plan was never implemented, and therefore was not binding under international law, since the Arab states rejected it and started a war to prevent its implementation and the establishment of a Jewish state.(..)

Nevertheless, in April 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank, unlike Egypt, which has never claimed sovereignty over the Gaza Strip. However, Jordan's annexation was not accepted on any legal basis, and most Arab countries opposed it, until 1988 when Jordan renounced its claim to the territory.
Thus the original legal status of the territory was restored, namely, a territory designated as a national home for the Jewish people, who had a "right of possession" to it during Jordanian rule while they were absent from the territory for several years due to a war imposed on them, and have now returned to it.”

So far, it has been convenient to disregard that the League of Nations, in 1922, acknowledged that the international law supported the Jewish people's right to settle in their historic homeland, and to establish their State there; it has been convenient to make perverted readings of Article 49(6) ofthe Fourth Geneva Convention and, it has been interesting to see how the EU and President Obama (a professor of law himself) have been so quiet regarding this legal issue. What are they waiting for; a historical evidence of some sort? One would believe that the international law would suffice.

Palestine is occupying Jewish Land.

Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza strip where the Palestinian people have elected a president and a prime minister (and suffered the consequences of their democratic act).

Saeb Erekat, the ball is in your court: the Palestinians have now a chance to abide to the international law and build a thriving nation in Gaza, the lawful Homeland of the Palestinian People. Should you, and the Palestinian political elite, continue to refuse doing so, you will once again prove to the world that you are unwilling to build a nation for the Palestinian refugees and that you are, truly, a political tool in the hands of the Arab League to delegitimise the Jewish State – will that be your legacy?

It is utterly uncreative, and witless, to affirm that the Levy Report perils the Two State Solution. Those who claim to support a fractured Palestine (one in Gaza, another in “West Bank”) are not thinking it through for the Arab ambition is geo-strategically perilous: a divided Palestine, as a sovereign nation, will never be strong.

Comments

  1. Well, well, well finally someone in the west mentions the Levy Report! When it came out it threw the Jewish Left off the roof: they squirmed, they twisted, their heads rolled, they nearly vomited green soup cause what were they to do now? What could they say to attack their right wing brothers?
    Of course those who know best already knew this but it always nice to have the international law backing it up.
    Yeah, Saeb Erekat what will your legacy be? The Palestinian Status Quo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ana :D!

      "Well, well, well finally someone in the west mentions the Levy Report!"

      I had been waiting to address this issue since the report was published, but I was waiting to see the West's reaction: none.

      "When it came out it threw the Jewish Left off the roof: they squirmed, they twisted, their heads rolled, they nearly vomited green soup cause what were they to do now? What could they say to attack their right wing brothers?"

      LOL that scene reminds me of something...Hmmm....a movie? lol
      Yeah, their reaction was beautiful to see - they didn't know in which hole they'd put themselves...beautiful, just beautiful. I am waiting to see their next move.

      "Of course those who know best already knew this but it always nice to have the international law backing it up. Yeah, Saeb Erekat what will your legacy be? The Palestinian Status Quo?"

      True. I hope he stops to think and does something decent and concrete. Abbas is hopeless and he always does the same thing - this week he had the nerve to say that "an unprecedented threat to the two state solution" was near; can you believe it? He has his people protesting against food prices and corruption; and instead of giving his people a State where they can work and build a stable economy he continues with the status quo.
      Shameless.

      Ana, thank you so much for your input :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  2. The EU is probably studying the international law to see if their lawyers reach the same conclusion. At the same time, Europeans will wait to see what the USA will say about it and then they might express themselves - if the UK were any smart she'd take the advantage to surpass everybody and pronounce herself on the matter; it would be an incredible opportunity since they started the whole process in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration...but alas, the UK is now being ran by wankers. Excellent article, lass!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Joe :D!

      "The EU is probably studying the international law to see if their lawyers reach the same conclusion."

      Perhaps they are.

      "At the same time, Europeans will wait to see what the USA will say about it and then they might express themselves"

      Indeed. Europeans always wait for the US to take the lead.

      "if the UK were any smart she'd take the advantage to surpass everybody and pronounce herself on the matter; it would be an incredible opportunity since they started the whole process in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration..."

      It would be outstanding to see the UK taking the lead on this one. However, it seems that Her Majesty's government will probably let the US take over this issue and give a strong signal to Israel: count on us, not on them (Europeans, in general)!
      But let's see.

      "but alas, the UK is now being ran by wankers. Excellent article, lass!"

      LOL you did not say that LOL LOL *nodding*...I don't like the present coalition; British liberals are anti-Israel (look at Nick Clegg) thus everything they do is to undermine the Jewish State.
      Thanks, Joe; I am glad you liked it :D.

      Joe, thank you so much for your input :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  3. I read the Legal Arguments: no, there is no Jewish occupation under the International Law. How can you occupy what is yours by "right of possession"?
    Now, the law has been there for a long long time so what possessed the international community to make a sick interpretation of the law and ignore the obvious definition of the article 49 of the Geneva convention? Whom did this Palestinian-Israeli conflict benefit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Louis :D!

      "I read the Legal Arguments: no, there is no Jewish occupation under the International Law. How can you occupy what is yours by "right of possession"?"

      Indeed.

      "Now, the law has been there for a long long time so what possessed the international community to make a sick interpretation of the law and ignore the obvious definition of the article 49 of the Geneva convention? Whom did this Palestinian-Israeli conflict benefit?"

      It was politically convenient; a convenience that created a chain of events and groups that probably helped to get us where we are: a worldwide war against terror.
      The Arab League, corrupt politicians, the international left etc; who knows?

      Louis, thank you so much for your input :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  4. Palestinians are not goibg to take this opportunity to finally acquired a UN recognised statehood cause would mean their ideology had failed.
    Saeb Erekat is incompetent and a puppet in the hands of the Pali elite. And you ask him to leave a legacy? His legacy will be more of the same: a corrupt would-be state of Palestine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous :D!

      "Palestinians are not goibg to take this opportunity to finally acquired a UN recognised statehood cause would mean their ideology had failed."

      I understand where you are cooming from and you might have a point.

      "Saeb Erekat is incompetent and a puppet in the hands of the Pali elite. And you ask him to leave a legacy? His legacy will be more of the same: a corrupt would-be state of Palestine."

      I am not sure I agree with you entirely. I hope he wishes something more viable for his people.

      Anonymous, thank you ever so much for your input :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  5. I have been pondering whether or not International Law is an oxymoron or not. Still haven't made up my mind.

    Thanks for pointing out a line of discussion that is new to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Looney :D!

      "I have been pondering whether or not International Law is an oxymoron or not. Still haven't made up my mind."

      How so? I am curious now.

      "Thanks for pointing out a line of discussion that is new to me."

      You are most welcome*bowing*.

      Looney, thank you so much for your input :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. Well, international law implies some sort of governing authority, which I don't believe exists. Perhaps international law could somehow be an agreed upon consensus, but what should be the formula for this? My impression (not researched at all) is that "international law" is a euphemism for leftist sensibilities, since it usually represents western European and north American views. For example, Sharia law should probably get as much consideration as many western values, since a greater percentage of the world's population is in favor of it. How would a billion Africans or Indians sway the laws if they are given a vote? Perhaps there is a sensible basis for the concept of international law, but this is unknown to me. But what do you think? What is the origination of international law?

      Delete
    3. Looney,

      "Well, international law implies some sort of governing authority, which I don't believe exists."

      Indeed, international law is consent-based governance.

      I don't disagree: most of the times international law is misused for leftist purposes. I sense the left (knowing that most of the people do not have access to such texts/agreements) utters the term "under the international law" in such a manipulative fashion that makes me wonder if it ever bothered to read and interpret the law itself and by itself.

      "But what do you think?"

      I am inclined to think you are right when you suggest the law is outdated since it is not inclusive [i.e. it is highly based on western law and political theories; thus excluding other civilizations' legal and political theories]. And if they would try to change it today, it would be interesting to see which side of the international political arena would bear more weight in re-shaping it. Do you think this present law serves western political interests? If so, do you think it has suited the West, so far, to make ill interpretations of the law when it came to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

      "What is the origination of international law?"

      Very simply, the origination of the international law is legal positivism, which states that the law is a matter of what has been decided/ordered and it envisages social construction.
      Still, how should it be interpreted and which interpretation should prevail?

      I hadn't thought of this theme in these terms, Looney. Thank you for making me think and for teaching me new things.

      Delete
    4. The only part of International Law that I actually read was the Geneva Convention(s). That was a few years back when I tried to discuss with some leftists whether or not foreign terrorists were subject to rules on enemy combatants according to the Geneva Convention. It was quite trivial to show that the terrorists met not one of the criteria established for uniformed soldiers of signatory nations, yet that fact wouldn't put the slightest damper on their insistence that Bush was a war criminal - worse than Hitler - who was flagrantly defying the Geneva Convention in every detail regarding the treatment of foreign terrorists (or is that insurgents now?) Each terrorist captured now costs the US millions of dollars, so we could easily be destroyed as a nation if they simply walked up to our soldiers and surrendered! Of course that isn't the consequence of international law, but rather how America's leftist lawyers have construed international law.

      That is the only one I looked at, although I have an audio version of the UNs rules on Human Rights to listen to.

      It might be good to read the text of a few more international laws.

      Delete

    5. Looney,

      Yes, I think you had shared that experience (with the leftists) some time ago. They can be unbelievably blind and bias when arguing.
      My present understanding of the Geneva Convention is that it only involves signatory nations (with emphasis on Nations); therefore I am not sure that non-state actors (i.e. terrorists) are covered by it - they are not soldiers of a nation, they do not represent one (at least not officially). This being said, it is highly questionable whether they should be treated as uniformed soldiers of signatory nations.
      President Bush was not a war criminal (calling him that is perverting the definition of war crime).

      "It might be good to read the text of a few more international laws."

      Agreed.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers