Wednesday, July 04, 2012

We're Unoccupied

Reported in Hebrew (English later in the day but here's the gist and now with their translation following):-

Superior Court Judge retired, Edmond Levy, who heads the Committee to examine the state of construction in Judea and Samaria, ruled yesterday the findings of the committee's report that "under international law, Israelis possess the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria, and at the least in the areas under Israel's control by virtue of agreements with the PA and therefore the establishment of settlements in itself does not suffer from illegality".

'Israelis have a legal right to settle all Judea and Samaria'

Committee headed by retired Supreme Court justice, tasked with examining the legal status of outposts, concludes that international law does not preclude Israeli construction on land owned by the state • Committee declares that communities built with government assistance were implicitly authorized.

Edna Adato

Retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, who heads a committee tasked with examining the legality of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, declared on Tuesday that Israelis have a legal right to settle the region.

"According to international law, Israelis have a legal right to settle all of Judea and Samaria, at the very least the lands that Israel controls under agreements with the Palestinian Authority," Levy stated. "Therefore, the establishment of Jewish settlements [in Judea and Samaria] is, in itself, not illegal."

The committee was established by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in efforts to determine and cement the legal status of the outposts in Judea and Samaria, with an emphasis on communities that were not built on privately owned Palestinian land but their status was still in doubt due to legal bureaucracy.

The committee issued its report on Tuesday, which was subsequently handed over to Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein. In the report, Levy wrote that "upon completing the committee's tasks, and considering the testimonies heard, the basic conclusion is that from an international law perspective, the laws of 'occupation' do not apply to the unique historic and legal circumstances surrounding Israel's decades-long presence in Judea and Samaria."

"Likewise," the report said, "the Fourth Geneva Convention [relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] on the transfer of populations does not apply, and wasn't intended to apply to communities such as those established by Israel in Judea and Samaria."

In the part of the report that criticizes Israel's actions, the retired justice wrote that "dozens of new neighborhoods have been erected, without government authorization and at times without a contiguous link to the mother community. Several were built outside the legal jurisdiction allotted to the community. This prevalent phenomenon has required large amounts of funding therefore the committee finds it hard to believe that it was done without the government's knowledge."

In conclusion, the report stated that "we have discovered a phenomenon within the Israeli settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria that does not befit a country that upholds the rule of law. From now on, it must be made very clear to the proponents of the settlement enterprise and to the political echelon that they are to operate only within the confines of the law, and the various law enforcement institutions must decisively enforce the law in the future."

The committee's recommendations include the following: The government must clarify its position on the issue of Israeli settlement in Judea and Samaria to prevent varying interpretations of its policy; a new community will only be built after the government or an authorized ministerial committee has approved it; the expansion of a community outside the bounds of its authorized jurisdiction must first be approved by the defense minister or a ministerial committee on settlements, in coordination with the prime minister.

On the other hand, the committee declared that the encouragement provided by the government to the settlement enterprise constituted authorization. According to the committee, communities that were built on land owned by the state, or privately owned Israeli land, with the help of government bodies could not be classified as "unauthorized" due to the absence of an official government decision to authorize them. The very assistance provided by the government in their establishment constitutes implicit authorization.

Under these circumstances, the report concluded, the evacuation of such communities would be impractical and another solution, such as compensation or land swap, should be implemented. Therefore, the committee recommends in its report, the government should avoid issuing demolition orders for these communities because it is the government itself that created this situation in the first place.

Another recommendation was that the government should speed up the examination of the communities whose status isn't defined. The committee suggested that the government define these disputed communities' status in terms of evacuations or demolitions only after a thorough investigation and a full legal proceeding. In order to ease the lives of the residents, the committee suggested the establishment of special courts in Judea and Samaria specifically to settle land disputes.

To prevent uncertainty and to promote stability, the committee encouraged Israelis and Palestinians to record their land purchases within an agreed upon time frame of between four and five years, after which anyone who did not complete the process would lose rights to property. The committee further proposed that Israelis would only be allowed to purchase land in Judea and Samaria under the auspices of an authorized body.


^

11 comments:

NormanF said...

Peace Now - Hagit Ofran, the Arabs and the EU are not going to be happy with with the Edmund Levy Report.

It introduces clarity to the issues surrounding the revanants and recommends the government of Israel move to give them legal rights and assist in securing their permanent status and future growth.

This is the opposite of everything Israeli government and the bureaucracy have been doing for the past four decades. Can we see that it will be implemented?

Hope springs eternal in Judea and Samaria!

yoram getzler said...

If this were the world of justice or even truth perhaps this report would have some significance. But this is neither. This is the world of illusion and power. Who even ignores the rules of this world suffers the unpleasant consequences.
For who exactly is this report important.
...and if a Palestinian committee or judge declares Israel illegal, will you move?

YMedad said...

Yoram, don't be silly.

(a) it can't be illegal;

(b) if you think it can, can Israel declare its Arabs as "settlers", their towns/villages "settlements" and then for peace, expell them?

(c) it is important because we do have not only a legal right but a moral opne to be in Shiloh, etc.

(d) and if it's all power, so you they hell cares? that can't be right.

Anonymous said...

It's a joke. When the support of the EU and the US drains away from Israel and the money dries up there will be 1 million soi disant revenant Jews living in condos with no money to pay for food. How sustainable is the YESHA economy? Take away cheap oil and what is there?

Anonymous said...

Great, annex the West Bank and make it eternally part of Israel!

Oh wait, you guys don't want to give the vote to Palestinians, you guys don't think the brownies are human, do you?

YMedad said...

Anon 6:26 -

who said so? you have no idea what I think on this issue unless you have read my blog for years and Chapter 4 in this 1984 book: A Stranger in My House: Jews and Arabs in the West Bank by Walter Reich

yoram getzler said...

Dear Annonymous, it is not that we do not think "brownies are human" but that we suspect people who do not reveal themselves. Who prefer to remain annonymous.
We also have learned not to trust those who threaten us with harm. They usually have actually tried their best to fulfill their threats.
No, I do not want the Palestinians voting in our elections! We are having enough problems with mostly Jewish voters. I believe it would lead to a failed state, not something the human community needs more of while the entire earth is in danger.
...and Mr. Medad, I would like to respond to your reactions to my original posting.

Nog1 said...

Article 49 of the 4th Geneva convention states;

'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'

This article is clear to everyone, even non-jurists. All settlements in occupied territory are illegal.

YMedad said...

Try to get your facts straight:

a. The Convention is between states;

b. there was no state of Palestine;

c. the Arabs of Judea & Samaria, that portion of the Mandate slated to be an Arab state in 1947 rejected the idea and went to war;

d. they lost - no Partition;

e. Jordan illegally annexed the area;

f. Arabs continued the war, calling it the terror of fedayeen and then Fatah;

g. Israel in a defensive war in 1967 won, the territory gained reverted to previous legal status;

h. Jews had always lived there and it was part of the area slated to become the Jewish national home by Int'l law, 1922;

i. Jews are not transferred into Judea & Samaria.

Conclusion: through violence, Arabs lose everything. And Jews regain natural, historical, legal rights to live in Eretz-Yisrael.

David T. said...

I read the article and there were only baseless assertions and not a single legal explanation.

So I read YMedad postings. Shalom YMedad.

a.) Within customary law this has become irrelevant.
b.) Actually there was a state of Palestine. Palestine (and all other territories detached from turkey) under mandate was a state. That was not only the opinion of the permanent mandate comisssion of the League of Nation but also of the permanent Internataional court and surely of all states which had treaties with Palestine, incl. the USA. If you like I can provide you with links.
c.) - f.) is irrelevant.
g.) Even political or military leaders of Israel don't claim that it was a defensive war. And if it had been one still there's no right to acquire territory through war.
h.) Palestinians also lived there and a national home is not a state.
i.) "Transfer" does not mean that somebody carries them into the occupied territories. It means the abstract process of colonialising that can only happen under the protection of an occupying state.
j.) Neither the policitcal or national rights of Jews were recognized in the mandate, because Palestine was allready a state. And Palestine was not for the Jews but for all citizens of Palestine.

I would like to add:
k.) Israel was proclaimed within the borders of the partition plan. No state is allowed to allow its citizens to settle in a territory which is under its occupation. Even Arab Israelis are not allowed, this has nothing to do with being Jews, but with being citizen of the occupying power. International law doesnt make a difference between Jews and Gentiles. And even the supreme court of Israel has noticed in to cases (which I know) that the Judea and Samaria are under its belligerent occupation.

You like to discuss it? I would be glad and provide links and sources.

YMedad said...

sorry but i have no time to argue/discuss matters with ignoramuses or with people who either make up things or have really no idea of what they talk.