"The Jewish right to live in western Palestine: The Irrelevancy Of 'Belligerent Occupation' and the 4th Geneva Convention
"The Jewish right to live in western Palestine: The Irrelevancy Of 'Belligerent Occupation' and the 4th Geneva Convention
"by Yoram Shifftan
It was reported in the press (22.3.05) that the Israeli state has rejected settlers' appeal against the uprooting because the state argues that the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) have been held by Israel since the Six Day War and until today in "belligerent occupation".[1] The argument is that since belligerent occupation is by definition temporary, the settlers could have anticipated that one day they could be uprooted.
This is manifestly incorrect. After 1967, Israel had to decide how to proceed with specific and practical questions on the ground. Even though Israel had the right according to international law to annex and declare sovereignty on any part of Western Palestine, it delayed its annexation. To deal with concrete practical problems, it voluntarily decided to apply a complex mix of the rules of belligerent occupation and municipal law. Indeed as long as the territory is not annexed and sovereignty declared, there are no other legal frameworks available.
The de facto usage that Israel made of aspects of Belligerent Occupation Law is akin to the Americans voluntarily using aspects of the Human Rights law involved in the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war for her prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay but they are not considered to be prisoners of war. After all they had to find some rules with which to treat these prisoners. Similarly, the de facto adoption of some rules of belligerent occupation to solve local problems by Israel does not imply that the settlers' rights are governed by the law of belligerent occupation.[2]"
To read the whole thing click here
Posted by IceViking at June 27, 2005 04:09 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/9087
1
.
Sara
said:
Yoram Shifftan argues his case well enough, but I am still surprised to observe that experts seem to overlook the peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) in which these countries de facto and de jure relinquished the disputed areas (Gaza and the West Bank) to Israel by defining the new secure state borders, to which Israel withdrew in accordance with UN Resolution 242.
On entering the the peace treaties, any discussion of "occupation" of lands inside Israel's internationally recognized state borders became juridically meaningless.
Posted by: Sara on June 28, 2005 05:25 AM
"The Jewish right to live in western Palestine: The Irrelevancy Of 'Belligerent Occupation' and the 4th Geneva Convention
"by Yoram Shifftan
It was reported in the press (22.3.05) that the Israeli state has rejected settlers' appeal against the uprooting because the state argues that the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) have been held by Israel since the Six Day War and until today in "belligerent occupation".[1] The argument is that since belligerent occupation is by definition temporary, the settlers could have anticipated that one day they could be uprooted.
This is manifestly incorrect. After 1967, Israel had to decide how to proceed with specific and practical questions on the ground. Even though Israel had the right according to international law to annex and declare sovereignty on any part of Western Palestine, it delayed its annexation. To deal with concrete practical problems, it voluntarily decided to apply a complex mix of the rules of belligerent occupation and municipal law. Indeed as long as the territory is not annexed and sovereignty declared, there are no other legal frameworks available.
The de facto usage that Israel made of aspects of Belligerent Occupation Law is akin to the Americans voluntarily using aspects of the Human Rights law involved in the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war for her prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay but they are not considered to be prisoners of war. After all they had to find some rules with which to treat these prisoners. Similarly, the de facto adoption of some rules of belligerent occupation to solve local problems by Israel does not imply that the settlers' rights are governed by the law of belligerent occupation.[2]"
To read the whole thing click here
Posted by IceViking at June 27, 2005 04:09 PM