Government Committee: says 'Israel not occupation force'

[sharonbn]

Itamar Fleishman
Published: 07.09.12, 09:05 / Israel News

Israel must legalize the majority of illegal West Bank outposts, a committee appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to review the legal status of such communities recommended, Ynet learned Monday.

The panel, headed by Supreme Court Justice (Ret.) Edmond Levy, also ruled that the State must devise ways to "ease land acquisition and zoning protocols for Jews residing in Judea and Samaria."

The committee's recommendations were submitted to Netanyahu in June, but have yet to be made public.

The Levy Committee, formed in January and comprised of Levy, Tel Aviv District Court Judge (Ret.) Tehiya Shapira and Dr. Alan Baker an international law expert, who was part of the team that devised the Oslo Accords, met harsh criticism from the Left, which claimed it was biased.

The committee's findings stand to significantly change the legal reality in the West Bank, especially when compared to the 2005 Sasson Report on construction in the West Bank, which deemed 120 outposts as illegal.

Tackling the issue of sovereignty, the Levy Committee ruled that in its operations in the West Bank, "Israel does not meet the criteria of 'military occupation' as defined under international law."

The ruling is based on the fact that "no other legal entity has ever had its sovereignty over the area cemented under international law," the committee said, adding that the latter included Jordan, which ruled the area prior to the Six Day War.

West Bank settlements are legal since that is no provision in the international law that deems that having Jewish population in the area is illegal, the report added.

The committee further noted that in ruling over the latter, it did favor legal opinions submitted by right-wing organizations over those presented by Peace Now and Yesh Din and B'Tselem.

'Settlements formed at State's bidding'
As for the matter of Israeli construction in the West Bank – and especially the question of illegal outpost – the committee ruled that the State must find a way to legalize and regulate the construction.

West Bank settlements and outposts were created as the State's bidding, the report said, and the settlement movement was encouraged to continue its mission.

The report further urges the government to regulate the outposts' municipal status, enable natural growth, accelerate the regulation of zoning and planning and refrain from executing any demolition orders pending further legal review.

Contradicting current government policy, the committee also stressed that the Civil Administration must allow private construction within existing communities' limits; including in areas where there is IDF presence.

Justice Levy criticized the "lack of clear government direction and policy" in regards to West Bank settlements.

"The conduct we discovered vis-?-vis the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria is unbecoming of a nation that has made the rule of law one of its primary objectives," he wrote.

Still, the committee's recommendations are not mandating. Netanyahu is likely to ask the Ministerial Committee on Settlements to review the report.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...252945,00.html

[curlyg]

What a farce. Appoint a panel headed by Edmond Levy, whose position was already known in advance, and what do you expect? Forget the fact that if you had appointed virtually any other former Israeli Supreme Court judge they would have come to the opposite conclusion...

[Reffo]

Hurling epithets is cheap. Levy gave reasons for his recommendations:

The ruling is based on the fact that "no other legal entity has ever had its sovereignty over the area cemented under international law," the committee said, adding that the latter included Jordan, which ruled the area prior to the Six Day War.

West Bank settlements are legal since that is no provision in the international law that deems that having Jewish population in the area is illegal, the report added

Try to negate his reasons and you might be convincing. Remember, we are bot arguing the wisdom or the politics of what he recommends. We are arguing whether what he says has some legal basis or not. Personally, I think it does. But then again, you are the one who is studying law, curlyg, aren't you? So how about showing it instead of just trying to use emotive arguments?

[sharonbn]

What a farce. Appoint a panel headed by Edmond Levy, whose position was already known in advance, and what do you expect? Forget the fact that if you had appointed virtually any other former Israeli Supreme Court judge they would have come to the opposite conclusion...

The same can be said about the Talia Sasson report...

[curlyg]

Hurling epithets is cheap. Levy gave reasons for his recommendations:

Right, I've read the report. There's nothing new there.

Try to negate his reasons and you might be convincing.

I don't have to, it has been done for me by far more authoritative legal bodies and scholars.

Remember, we are bot arguing the wisdom or the politics of what he recommends. We are arguing whether what he says has some legal basis or not.

The law is always open to interpretation. It just happens, though, that the vast majority of authoritative pronouncements we have on the law - including those by the Israeli Supreme Court and most of its past justices - directly contradict Mr. Levy's findings.

Personally, I think it does. But then again, you are the one who is studying law, curlyg, aren't you? So how about showing it instead of just trying to use emotive arguments?

Don't think there was anything emotive about it - I was making the point that when you appoint a panel with predetermined conclusions, don't expect anyone to find them credible. Judge Levy holds a small minority legal opinion and yet he was selected, deliberately for that reason, to head this committee on precisely the topic where his views are not accepted within the legal profession or Israeli and international judicial organs.

[Reffo]

Pity that some internationally recognised authorities disagree with your biased politically motivated experts who are pushing the party political line of the Arab/Muslim bloc in the UN.

People like Eugene Rostow and Professor Julius Stone agree with the author of this report. Here, read all about it:

The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created. The Mandate for Palestine differs in one important respect from the other League of Nations mandates, which were trusts for the benefit of the indigenous population. The Palestine Mandate, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country," is dedicated to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing nonjewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

who was Eugene Rostow?

The Late Eugene W. Rostow was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969.
He played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242

http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id45.html

Here is what Professor Julius Stone said:

Stone considers it "absurd" to think that Israeli settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 49(6)). He stated:

here, read all about it ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Stone#section_4

Who was professor Julius Stone? You should know, after all didn't you say that you study law at an Australian University?

Julius Stone (7 July 1907 – 1985) was Challis Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the University of Sydney from 1942 to 1972, and thereafter a visiting Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales and concurrently Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the Hastings College of Law, University of California.

He is the author of 27 books on jurisprudence and international law, and is hailed by his official biography at the Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence as one of the premier legal theorists.[1]

So there, curlyg, I can drop some names too. But unlike you I can back them up by logical reasoning too.

[dayag]

Here is the link to read the English translation of the report:

http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/4...dENG100712.pdf

[curlyg]

Here is the link to read the English translation of the report:

http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/4...dENG100712.pdf

Those are only the conclusions, the committee's actual reasoning is only available in Hebrew afaik.

http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E...doch090712.pdf

[curlyg]

Pity that some internationally recognised authorities disagree with your biased politically motivated experts who are pushing the party political line of the Arab/Muslim bloc in the UN.

Well duh, of course anyone who came to the opposite conclusion to you must be politically motivated, and it couldn't possibly be that people who share your conclusion might be politically motivated. Right?

People like Eugene Rostow and Professor Julius Stone agree with the author of this report. Here, read all about it:

who was Eugene Rostow?

http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id45.html

Here is what Professor Julius Stone said:

here, read all about it ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Stone#section_4

Who was professor Julius Stone? You should know, after all didn't you say that you study law at an Australian University?

So there, curlyg, I can drop some names too. But unlike you I can back them up by logical reasoning too.

I'm aware of both Stone and Rostow - in fact both are directly quoted in the report (which is a good thing given that they are pretty much the only two reputable international authorities that side with Levy on this point). But look, if you'd like a quick list of some of the reputable authorities that hold the opposite view, then here's a selection:

- The International Court of Justice, being the leading judicial authority on international law.

- The Supreme Court of Israel, being the leading judicial authority on Israeli law.

- The International Committee of the Red Cross, whose commentary on the Geneva Conventions is quoted in the report without also noting that it takes the contrary view to the report on the status of the territories.

- Virtually every human rights organisation on Earth.

- The leading authorities on the law of the use of force and international humanitarian law, including: Yoram Dinstein, Thomas M. Franck, Christine Gray, and others.

- Other prominent international legal scholars including Antonio Cassese, and dozens more.

The committee's views haven't added anything new, they just selectively quoted the ICRC and the only two major authorities that support them, Stone and Rostow (and of those I only really consider Stone to be a truly eminent scholar) to support their predetermined conclusion.

[Reffo]

Well duh, of course anyone who came to the opposite conclusion to you must be politically motivated, and it couldn't possibly be that people who share your conclusion might be politically motivated. Right?

You are a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. What was it you said about the report in your post #2?

What a farce. Appoint a panel headed by Edmond Levy, whose position was already known in advance, and what do you expect? Forget the fact that if you had appointed virtually any other former Israeli Supreme Court judge they would have come to the opposite conclusion...

And when I asked you to debate the legal arguments (not the politics), what was your response?

Try to negate his reasons and you might be convincing.

I don't have to, it has been done for me by far more authoritative legal bodies and scholars

Never mind, you can just parrot the party line of those who are politically motivated against Israel (or who think that it is against Israel's political interests to have those settlements - those people may or may NOT be right of course but that isn't the point. The point is the legality or otherwise of those settlements). So I in turn, will find and present their so called reasoning and present counter arguments. You are welcome to stay out of it from now on, seeing that the "say so" alone of so called experts (who of course don't have an agenda - not much huh?) is good enough for you ...

[Reffo]

All the organizations which curlyg listed, base their arguments on the Geneva convention. Here is what the Geneva convention states about population transfers:

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

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

The first question to ask: Is the West Bank under occupation? If the answer to that is yes, then the next question to ask is who had sovereign control of the West Bank prior to the Israeli occupation and who lived there? The answer to that is that between 1948 and 1967, it was Jordan. And what did the Jordanians do? They ethnically cleansed the existing Jewish population from the West Bank. But not many countries, not even Arab countries, recognized Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank. So who had RECOGNIZED sovereignty over the West Bank prior to 1948? ANSWER: it was part of the British Mandate. And what was the composition of the population of Palestine during the British mandate? ANSWER: it consisted of BOTH Jews and Arabs. And both people's had the right to settle anywhere within pre 1948 Palestine. So what changed? Why are Jews suddenly forbidden from settling in the West Bank, which was part of Palestine, after Israel's victory over Jordan in a defensive war?

That's the crux of Eugene Rostow's argument in favor of the legality of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. And how do his critics negate his argument? By saying that his view is the minority view. That's not a valid legal argument in my opinion. Unlike some, I will accept Only a well reasoned legal argument backed up by facts ...

[Pleepleus]

Mentioning the International Kangaroo Court of Justice as "the leading judicial authority on international law" after their politicized ruling in 2004 concerning the Separation Barrier is hilarious.

You might as well try to claim that the United Nations Human Rights Council is the leading authority on Human Rights.

http://www.bnaibrith.ca/cipac/cipac040709.html

[Reffo]

Mentioning the International Kangaroo Court of Justice as "the leading judicial authority on international law" after their politicized ruling in 2004 concerning the Separation Barrier is hilarious.

You might as well try to claim that the United Nations Human Rights Council is the leading authority on Human Rights.

http://www.bnaibrith.ca/cipac/cipac040709.html

You are absolutely right. They are a kangaroo court. Essentially, their logic is as follows: In 1948, Jordan ethnically cleansed all Jews from the West Bank and that marked the entire West Bank as "a Jew free area" from then on. Go figure ...

[Reffo]

Oh and it is false to claim that the Israeli high court ruled ALL "settlements" in the West Bank to be illegal. It ruled that only SOME of the settlements are illegal. Specifically, the settlements that it deemed were built on privately owned Arab lands. I am not aware of any rulings by the Israeli high court which deem settlements built on crown lands or places where Jews lived prior to the Jordanian invasion of 1948, as illegal.

Or is curlyg claiming that "settlements" like Gush Etzion and East Jerusalem all places where Jews returned after 1967 are illegal according to the Israeli high court?

[curlyg]

And when I asked you to debate the legal arguments (not the politics), what was your response?

That's because I don't believe you actually have an interest in the legal arguments. Now perhaps I'm being unfairly judgemental here but I hardly think you're interested in the technicalities of the law and treaty interpretation - what matters to you is the outcome, and the outcome you want is that the settlements are legal. You'll find the legal perspectives that back that point and stick with them.

Never mind, you can just parrot the party line of those who are politically motivated against Israel (or who think that it is against Israel's political interests to have those settlements - those people may or may NOT be right of course but that isn't the point. The point is the legality or otherwise of those settlements). So I in turn, will find and present their so called reasoning and present counter arguments. You are welcome to stay out of it from now on, seeing that the "say so" alone of so called experts (who of course don't have an agenda - not much huh?) is good enough for you ...

It is comical to claim that all of those scholars I listed - many of whom are Jewish and Israeli - are just echoing some 'party line' and are 'politically motivated against Israel.' Many of them support Israel's legal positions on a range of issues - Dinstein and Gray, for example, support Israel's right to respond in self-defence to attacks by non-state groups such as Hezbollah by attacking the state itself (i.e. Lebanon) which, believe it or not, is a pretty significant step away from 'traditional' international law. Again, you're committed to a particular legal outcome and are willing to just dismiss out of hand the world's leading scholars and international legal experts and organisations, relying on a very small minority opinion to back you up. That's fine, but it's not something I want to spend my time on.