When is occupation 'occupation'?
Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich points out some of the
hypocrisy in the way that the French government (25% shareholder) is relating to the Israeli 'occupation' of Judea and Samaria, as compared with how it relates to the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara and the Turkish occupation of Cyprus.
On Wednesday the CEO of the French telecom firm Orange announced that
he sought to “drop” his business in Israel, done through an Israeli
subsidiary. Speaking at a meeting in Cairo, he emphasized that this was
action was mostly to win the “trust”
of Arab countries. But there was also a suggestion that this is because
the Israeli affiliate has some cellular antennae across the Green Line.
The French Ambassador to the U.S., (and formerly Israel), defended the Orange CEO’s statement on Twitter:‘
“4th Geneva convention : settlement policy in occupied territories is illegal. It is illegal to contribute to it in any way.”
That
statement is entirely baseless. Even if settlements are illegal, there
is no ban on business in the territories, or with settlers. Certainly
there is no tertiary obligation to not do business with businesses that
have some tangential business in such territory. All this is
demonstrated extensively in my new paper, some of which I tried to share
with Amb. Araud.
...
The Orange incident, and the Ambassador’s legal claim, are also bad
news for a number of French companies, like the oil giant Total, which
is active in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara against the vociferous protests of the indigenous Sawahari people. (There are many other examples, like Michelin in Turkish-occupied Cyprus.)
The French government has never criticized any of these controversial
activities in any way. But if the Ambassador’s legal claim is right, he
has provided the basis for war crimes prosecutions of France’s leading
executives.
Amb. Araud responded to my question
by revealing that he had no idea one of his country’s largest companies
was engaged in an major project that, by his account, is a war crime.
The Ambassador, after blocking me, revealed that his international law claims are not really about international law:
I
speak of one occupied territory. I am answered on other territories. I
conclude that everybody agrees on what I say on the former.
In other words, no fairs to cite precedents and practice. But of course, if you are talking about international law, “other territories” are entirely relevant. First, for something to be law, it has to be a rule that applies to similar situations. And for it to be international, well, those situations will involve different countries.
So we have a diplomat blocking a university professor on Twitter for pointing out that he was mistaken. And
not for the
first time, we have proof that those who oppose the Israeli 'occupation' of Judea and Samaria are incapable of passing
Natan Sharansky's 3D test.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: anti-Semitism, French anti-Semitism, Morocco, Natan Sharansky, occupation, Orange, Turkish occupation of Cyprus, Western Sahara
'Disputed territory'
The Wall Street Journal has discovered the concept of disputed territory. No, of course not in Judea and Samaria. In the Western Sahara. But Eugene Kontorovich still thinks
it's a hopeful sign.
While addressing the geographic issue, the Journal chooses
to characterize the territory as “disputed” – following Gov. Chris
Christie’s controversial description of the West Bank. The
characterization is accurate – the territory is disputed between Morocco
and the Sawahari Polisario government. Like the West Bank, Western
Sahara was not the territory of a sovereign state when Morocco took
control. Nonetheless, the U.N. Security Council called for Morocco to
withdraw, and several subsequent G.A. resolutions characterizing the
territory as occupied. While it gets less attention, Western Sahara is
treated as occupied in the leading international law texts.
One wonders if the Journal’s characterization of the
territory will encounter the derision that greeted Christie’s comments,
and whether the paper will now also describe the West Bank as merely
“disputed.”
Still waiting for the Washington Post to call it 'disputed' too.
Labels: Eugene Kontorovich, Judea and Samaria, occupation, Western Sahara
Mah Nishtana... Why is this 'occupation' different from all the other occupations?
Raphael Ahren reports that Eugene Kontorovich and Alan Baker have come up against a brick wall in their efforts to elicit an explanation from the Europeans
why Israel's 'occupation' of Judea and Samaria is different from Turkey's occupation of Northern Cyprus and from Morocco's occupation of the Western Sahara.
The EU
maintains that Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is
unique, legally speaking, but consistently refuses to explain exactly
how it differs from, say, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus or that
Moroccan presence in Western Sahara; while Rabat asserts ownership of the territory, not a single other country recognizes the claim.
In their letter to Ashton, the legal scholars posited that the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement, approved
earlier this month by the European Parliament, appears “to directly
contradict what the EU has called obligations of international law in
its dealing with Israel.”
“In fact, the EU has been negotiating this
agreement with Morocco even as it imposes on Israel unprecedented
funding guidelines and rules of origin requirements that say the exact
opposite,” Kontorovich and Baker wrote, referring to much-discussed guidelines
that, from January 1, ban any European funding from going to Israeli
entities beyond the Green Line or those with any connections beyond the
Green Line. Jerusalem’s fierce opposition to those guidelines famously jeopardized Israel’s participation in Horizon 2020, a highly lucrative scientific cooperation program; the Horizon partnership was ultimately saved.
The EU’s response, authored on Ashton’s behalf
by the managing director of the union’s external action service’s
Middle East and Southern Neighborhood department, Hugues Mingarelli,
read: “With regards to the allegation of using double standards for
Israel and Morocco, our analysis is that the two cases are different and
cannot be compared.” No further explanation was given.
“Whatever they have identified in their
‘analysis,’ they’re obviously not very proud of it. Had it been
substantial, they would have surely not hesitated to provide more
detail,” Kontorovich told The Times of Israel this week.
“The terseness of Ashton’s statement reflects
the general moral superiority of EU officials toward Israel that I’ve
encountered in my attempts to discuss these issues with them,” he added.
“The attitude is that they are the judges, we are the suspect. How dare
we accuse or judge them? As one senior EU official said when I brought
these matters up with him, ‘We’re here to talk about you [Israel], not
us.’ That is why they do not need to give their reasons: They do not
have to explain themselves. We do.”
The EU delegation in Israel declined to
formally comment on the matter for this article. Privately, local EU
sources told The Times of Israel that, according to the United Nations,
Western Sahara is a “disputed non-self-governing territory under
de-facto Moroccan administration. This differs from the legal situation
applying to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”
Read the whole thing. You don't think this could have something to do with...
anti-Semitism, do you?
Labels: European anti-Semitism, European Union, Judea and Samaria, occupation, Turkish occupation of Cyprus, Western Sahara
Europe's issue isn't the 'territories,' it's Israel
It's been one of those days....
You will recall that in July, the European Union
published guidelines that significantly restrict Israeli institutions from taking
part in various EU programs and being eligible for EU grants, prizes and
financial instruments if they have activities beyond the Green Line. The Europeans claim that this is all about abiding by 'international law.'
Morocco has occupied the territory of Western Sahara since 1975. The occupation has been condemned by the United Nations, but in response the Moroccans have sent hundreds of thousands of settlers there - so many that Moroccans now make up a majority of the population in Western Sahara.
Northwestern Law professor Eugene Kontorovich reports that the Europeans are paying Morocco for the rights to exploit scarce natural resources in the Western Sahara. And they are doing so 'in accordance with international law.' Yes, of course, that is the diametric opposite of what the Europeans are doing in Judea and Samaria.
How could they be doing one thing in Judea and Samaria and another in Western Sahara and have both be 'in accordance with international law'? They can't. Which one is right?
Take a guess....
The controversy over EU deals with Morocco led to a ruling from the
European Parliament’s legal advisor. In brief, the official opinion says
international law does not prevent Morocco from exploiting the natural
resources of the occupied territory, or for the EU to pay Morocco to
exploit the resources of occupied territory.
The EU position regarding Western Sahara is consistent with prior international law, including a 2002 opinion by the Security Council’s legal advisor, and a ruling of the French Court of Appeals this summer, as well as the general practice of nations.
The EU is right about Western Sahara — which means it is wrong about Israel.
To be sure, there are differences between the EU’s policies toward Western Sahara and the West Bank; the former is much worse.
In Western Sahara, the EU has licensed the exploitation of scarce
natural resources. In the West Bank, the EU seeks to punish pure
academic and business activity that do not exhaust resources but only
create jobs and opportunities for Arabs and Jews.
Moreover, Israel’s economic activity in the West Bank is confined to
areas under Israeli jurisdiction by agreement with Palestinian
authorities under the Oslo Accords. Morocco’s activities have no
limitations, because unlike Israel, it has not turned over most of the
territory to Polisario rule.
Ironically, the inconsistency in European policies sends exactly the opposite message from that intended by Europe.
...
The Moroccan precedent suggests that if significant Israeli defense,
high-tech or biotech enterprises were located in the West Bank, the EU
would reduce diplomatic pressures on Israel.
Unless the EU's problem isn't just with the 'territories,' but with Israel itself.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: East Jerusalem, European anti-Semitism, European Union, Judea and Samaria, occupation, Western Sahara
'Palestinians' call for rushing Israel's borders
Building on the successful breach of Israel's borders with Syria on Sunday, the 'Palestinians' are putting out the call for a massive effort to
approach and cross the Arab countries' borders with Israel.
The effort is scheduled for Friday and has nearly 100,000 'likes' on Facebook. The group – "Third Palestinian Intifada" – urges Arab activists in neighboring countries to storm Israel's borders in reaction to the recent "Nakba Day" events and ensuing casualties.
Several Facebook groups urge a third mass popular uprising against Israel, and one of them sports a "Friday of response" page, bearing the date May 20. The page, which currently has 100,000 "Like's", does not however give any details on how or exactly when these marches should take place.
Still, various reports in the Arab media, including in al-Jazeera, suggest that activists in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon plan to march on the Israel's borders; and that Palestinians from Gaza Strip and the West Bank are also expected to stage such marches.
The Facebook page that I have seen is
here.
Meanwhile, the United Nations, the Europeans and the shmuck in the White House, all of whom are pretending that if only Israel would return to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines all of this would stop, are ignoring the fact that there is precedent for breaching borders in this region and that it's considered
an act of war.
For this is not the first time in modern Middle Eastern affairs that an Arab autocracy has used massive marches of nominally civilian personnel to invade and undermine a neighboring state. In the past, such attempts have been denounced by the international community for what they are: a use of force against the territory of another state in violation of the U.N. Charter. International law is based on practical precedents, on the way given actions were legally judged by the world community in the past. It is a testament to the selective use of international law in the case of Israel that Morocco’s “Green March” into Western Sahara, by far the closest parallel to this week’s events, has not even been mentioned by world leaders.
...
The press has taken to calling the Arabs marching across the Israeli frontier “protesters.” In fact, “protests” are contained within a country; the organized crossing of a frontier is an invasion. In 1975, when Western Sahara was the victim, the world community was clear on this point (even though the Moroccans were unarmed, while the Syrians and Lebanese attacked Israeli soldiers with stones and other objects). Other Arab leaders called the Green March “a violation of the sovereignty of” Western Sahara and “an act contrary to international law.” Prominent international scholars described it as an illegal use of force, a “stealing of the Sahara,” in the words of one of the leading international lawyers of the time. The U.N. Security Council passed a measure that “deplored” Morocco’s invasion.
Moreover, despite the nominally civilian character of the marchers, several U.N. General Assembly resolutions recognized that the enterprise constituted a military occupation by Morocco. Observers noted that the march could not have gone off without the permission, and indeed encouragement, of King Hassan of Morocco, and thus he must take responsibility as if he had ordered army units across the border. It was a conquest despite the lack of arms: A large organized mob can be as forceful as an armed military unit. Indeed, as the Spanish capitulation proved, a march could be a more effective tool of conquest than a military strike against Western armies reluctant to fire on civilians.
Perhaps world leaders today would rather not remind anyone of the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, which in many ways showcases how the international rules applied to Israel are not those that govern the rest of the world. Rabat has occupied Western Sahara almost as long as Israel has occupied the West Bank, and with much less legal pedigree. Yet international efforts to end Morocco’s occupation have been scant and half-hearted. The occupation has been effectively accepted since the “peace process” in the region collapsed in 2004, when Morocco rejected a peace plan endorsed by the Security Council, with no damage to its international relations. Moreover, Morocco has implemented a massive policy of government-orchestrated settlement of Western Sahara. Yet the failed U.N. peace proposals did not contemplate uprooting a single Moroccan settler. Indeed, in the Security Council’s failed plan, the settlers, who now outnumber the natives, would get to vote in a plebiscite on the territory’s future.
Many observers have suggested that infiltrations represent a powerful new Arab tool for influencing world opinion against Israel. Yet the march tactic is not civil disobedience: It is an attempt at foreign conquest by the Arab states, just as when Morocco did it.
Indeed.
Labels: Lebanese border breach, Morocco, Syrian border breach, Western Sahara
