European Union building illegally (for Arabs) in Judea and Samaria Area C
In open violation of international law, the European Union has built more than 400 housing units for 'Palestinians' in Area C - an area of Judea and Samaria that is under Israeli civilian and security control under the Oslo accords - under the guise of 'humanitarian grounds.'
More than 400 EU-funded Palestinian homes have been erected in Area C of the West Bank, which was placed under Israeli jurisdiction during the Oslo Accords – a part of international law to which the EU is a signatory.
The Palestinian buildings, which have no permits, come at a cost of tens of millions of Euros in public money, a proportion of which comes from the British taxpayer.
This has raised concerns that the EU is using valuable resources to take sides in a foreign territorial dispute.
Official EU documentation reveals that the building project is intended to ‘pave the way for development and more authority of the PA over Area C (the Israeli area)’, which some experts say is an attempt to unilaterally affect facts on the ground.
Locally, the villages are known as the ‘EU Settlements’, and can be found in 17 locations around the West Bank.
They proudly fly the EU flag, and display hundreds of EU stickers and signs. Some also bear the logos of Oxfam and other NGOs, which have assisted in the projects.
Questions have also been asked about the conduct of EU workers in the region, after a picture emerged of a man in EU uniform threatening soldiers and bystanders with a rock outside a settlement in 2012. An EU spokesperson declined to comment on the picture.
And when they do comment, these European successors to their Nazi heritage lie about it:
Maja Kocijancic, a Brussels-based EU spokesperson, denied that this was happening.
‘The EU's funding will provide training and expertise, to help the relevant Palestinian Authority (PA) Ministries to plan and build new infrastructure and enable people to reclaim and rebuild their land there,’ she said.
‘To date, no construction has started yet under these programmes. The EU is not funding illegal projects.'
When shown sequences of photographs showing construction taking place, she declined to comment. She also did not comment on an EU-Oxfam sign stating that the 'main activities' of construction work are 'rehabilitation and reclamation' of land.
However, her statement appeared to be contradicted by Shadi Othman, a spokesman for the EU in the West Bank and Gaza. Speaking on the telephone from the West Bank, he accepted that the construction was taking place.
'We support the Palestinian presence in Area C. Palestinian presence should not be limited Areas A and B. Area C is part of the occupied Palestinian territory which eventually will be Palestinian land.
'Palestinians have a right to live there, build schools there, have economic development.
This week, prior to the release of its latest report, Regavim took
journalists to look at a number of Beduin encampments straddling E1 as
well as the Jerusalem-Jericho road. They are not temporary tent
encampments as they were in years past, but rather clusters that – in
addition to tents and tin shacks – also include modular structures with
cement floors bearing the EU logo.
According to Ari Briggs,
Regavim’s international relations director, the EU logo is placed on
the structures in the belief that this will prevent Israel from
demolishing them. Israel is not likely to take down a building with an
EU logo, due to concerns over both public relations damage and the harm
it could cause to relations with the EU, he said.
Maj.-Gen Yoav
Mordechai, the coordinator of government activities in the territories
(COGAT), was in Europe this week holding talks with high-level EU
officials. One diplomatic source said this issue was one of the topics
of his conversations.
A COGAT representative, referring to the
Regavim charge that it is reluctant to take down the structures because
of EU involvement, said: “The civil administration acts against
illegal construction, and no organization is exempt from enforcement.
COGAT
has sent official letters to embassies and international organizations
cautioning them against building illegally in Judea and Samaria.”
If we don't stick up for ourselves no one else will. The original Regavim report is here. Hat Tip: Honest Reporting.
PA Rep to 'human rights council': 'Israel follows international law, we don't'
A stunning admission on 'Palestinian Authority' official television by Ibrahim Khreisheh, the 'Palestinian Authority's representative to the United Nations 'human rights council.' Khreisheh admits that Israel follows international law in its strikes on Gaza, while the 'Palestinians' don't follow international law.
This is not a parody: Iran slams Kerry for violating law and UN Charter
This is not a parody. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham has gone on Press TV to slam US Secretary of State John FN Kerry for violating the law and the United Nations Charter by saying that there was still a military option against Iran.
Kerry said in an interview in Geneva
on Thursday that the military option was still on the table if Iran did
not live up to its nuclear commitments under the Geneva deal.
“These remarks are undiplomatic, and a group that is opposed to the
Geneva deal… seems to be having unconstructive influences on US
authorities,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said
on Saturday.
She added that these groups were mainly behind the spread of violence in the Middle East.
“Iran has extended its hand of friendship to all countries in the
region and has friendly relations with a vast majority of these
countries,” Afkham said.
The inmates are running the asylum. What could go wrong?
Recall Jodi Rudoren's column calling stone throwing by 'Palestinians' a 'hobby.' Recall also that as an aside in that column, Jodi asserted that the 'settlements' are currently deemed 'illegal' by the United States, a position that was only taken during the Carter administration over the 46 years since Judea and Samaria were liberated. As Adam Kredo noted:
The United States considers Israeli settlements illegal, Rudoren stated in her article.
“The United States, along with most of the world, considers these
settlements illegal, and some of them sit in the heart of the area
imagined as a future Palestinian state,” wrote Rudoren.
However, this statement is factually inaccurate, according to Middle East experts and an analysis of official U.S. policy on Israeli settlements since 1949.
“This is not the declared policy of the United States,” Steven Rosen,
a former top official at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), wrote in a 2012 analysis of U.S. policy.
“Successive U.S. administrations have deplored settlement activity as
an obstacle to peace, but no American president—except Jimmy Carter—has
taken the view that building Jewish homes in Jerusalem constitutes a
violation of the Geneva conventions,” wrote Rosen, currently director of
the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum.
While Carter stated in 1980 that he considered the settlements
illegal, every presidential administration of the last 30 years—as well
as those before Carter’s—has refused to state this as U.S. policy.
President Barack Obama has repeatedly declined to declare settlements illegal despite pressure for him to do so.
The United States in 2011 vetoed a United Nations Security Council Resolution that would have labeled Israeli settlements illegal.
“If an American president were to take the position that all Israeli
construction outside the former 1967 line is illegal, it would have the
effect of criminalizing the Jewish communities of the eastern sector of
Jerusalem, where 40 percent of the Jews in that city live,” Rosen wrote
in his policy analysis.
The cabinet decision added a number of Jewish settlements in the West
Bank territory that Israel seized in the 1967 war to a “national
priority list” of communities eligible for extra subsidies for
education, housing, infrastructure projects, cultural programs and
sports, along with better mortgage rates and loans for new homeowners.
Most of the world considers these settlements illegal, and some of them
sit in the heart of the area imagined as a future Palestinian state. The
United States has not taken a position on the settlements’ legality for
several decades, saying instead, according to the State Department, “We
do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.”
And at the bottom you will find the following correction:
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: August 8, 2013
An
article on Monday about a decision by the Israeli cabinet to add
several Jewish settlements in the West Bank territory seized by Israel
in the 1967 war to a list of communities eligible for extra subsidies
and better mortgage rates and loans for new homeowners misstated the
United States’ view of such settlements. While much of the rest of the
world considers them illegal, as the article noted, the United States
has taken no formal position in the last several years on whether they
are legal or illegal. (In a statement on Tuesday, the State Department
said, “We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement
activity.” )
As usual, the problem is that most of the people who read the original article will never see the correction.
For those who are interested in seeing a fascinating lecture on why 'settlements' are in fact both legal and legitimate, regardless of what the anti-Semites of the world say, please go here.
Northwestern Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich has a level-headed piece explaining the meaning of last week's European Union decision regarding Judea and Samaria. More importantly, he looks into some of the motivation behind it.
Indeed, the Europeans’ own conduct proves that
this is not about implementing international law. Many countries in the
region occupy foreign territory and even establish settlements there.
The most obvious example is Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus; others
include Morocco’s subjugation of Western Sahara, the EU’s fellow “Middle
East Quartet” member Russia’s recent conquest of parts of Georgia, and
Armenia’s in Azerbaijan. In none of these cases has the EU promulgated
such guidelines – even when it concerns the ongoing Turkish settlement
enterprise in the territory of Europe itself. So whatever “law” the EU
thinks mandates the Israel rules, it is clearly a law for one nation
only.
Moreover, the guidelines contain a massive
exception that undermines the notion that this is about international
law rather than EU foreign policy. Article 15 exempts groups that
“promot[e] the Middle East peace process in line with EU policy.” Either
the Geneva Conventions and related rules prevent Israelis from having
anything to do with the West Bank or they do not – but they certainly do
not contain a “things the EU likes” exception. The exemption reveals
the true purpose of the rules: to promote European foreign policy, not
to vindicate international law. Indeed, the essence of the rule of law
is about applying general rules to similar cases, regardless of one’s
sympathies. The application of unique rules to Jewish State is the
opposite of lawful.
Here's a video of a talk by Professor Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University about the international law issues related to Israel's borders.
This is a little bit long (about 46 minutes), but well worth your time.
Let's go to the videotape. I'll have a final comment after the tape.
I am in touch with Professor Kontorovich (I got this video from him and not from a Google search), so if any of you have questions or would like Professor Kontorovich to come speak on your campus or at your synagogue, please drop me a note at israelmatzav@gmail.com and I will be happy to pass it on to him.
UPDATE TUESDAY 10:59 AM
I have contacted Professor Kontorovich regarding one of the comments below, and he responded as follows:
The mandate specifically says that that Palestine shall be "a Jewish
national home." That will be achieved by allowing Jewish immigration
(which the British did not do). While all residents can become
citizens, the Mandate only speaks of a "Jewish national home."
The Partition Plan has no legal effect, it is a GA resolution.
Israel had no definite "borders" when it was born, aside from the
Mandate. The armistice lines were not borders by their very
definition.
Dean of Hebrew U law school: Israeli attack on Iran 'illegal' under 'international law'?
The dean of Hebrew University's law school worries that an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear weapons program would be 'illegal' under 'international law.'
In a recent interview with The Jerusalem Post,
the new Hebrew University Law School dean and leading international law expert
analyzed a number of dilemmas facing Israel in the realms of international law
and security, including in potential future conflicts with Iran and
Egypt.
Even when it comes to nuclear weapons, international law would
appear only to permit an attack on Iran when an armed attack from Iran is at
least imminent, said Shany.
The UN Security Council is supposed to be
responsible for security issues that are short of an armed attack, he explained,
and “states are not supposed to take things into their own hands” preemptively
unless an attack is imminent.
On the other hand, he commented, the
Security Council “has failed to perform this duty in many cases” – and in the
case of Iran in particular, as none of the international efforts to date have
managed to stop what many believe is Iran’s clandestine push for nuclear
weapons.
Also, the practice of nations, or what nations do regardless of
what conventions actually say – something that often comes up in determining
questions of international law – has shown that both Israel and other nations
have taken matters of their security into their own hands even prior to an
imminent attack when they believed it was necessary, said Shany.
While
this past practice does not necessarily make such actions legal – especially
since some of the actions have been criticized – as the actions have not brought
any real punitive action from the UN Security Council beyond some condemnations,
the HU law expert implied that it was hard to say these actions were far beyond
the pale.
At the end of the day, Shany, choosing his words carefully,
said that although as a lawyer he could not currently say that a preemptive
strike on Iran would be lawful, “as someone who lives here,” he could not say
that under all circumstances the leadership must refrain from seriously
considering such action.
Iran is clearly developing nuclear weapons. The United Nations has done nothing effective about it for more than ten years. Iran has threatened numerous times to wipe Israel off the map and similar expressions. Is Shany saying that we have to wait for the nuclear version of 'seeing the whites of their eyes' before we attack? That seems absurd under these circumstances. I don't see Israel asking the UN's permission to put a stop to this under any circumstances.
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.
That last paragraph likely covers the vast majority of the so-called 'illegal outposts.'
Over the course of a week in which the president spoke frequently on the subject of Iran, one message stood out. By vociferously arguing that his administration’s brand of diplomacy is realistically capable of ending Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, and that views to the contrary are irresponsible war-mongering, Obama is attempting to undermine the legality of an Israeli strike.
In fact, self-defense in international law depends on the assessment that the threat posed to one’s civilian population is real and sufficiently imminent as to justify the use of force to prevent the impending harm. Given the catastrophic nature of the danger, it is not necessary for Israel — or America — to wait until the genocidal Iranian mullahs and President Ahmadinejad have their hands on the nuclear trigger. Advertisement
But President Obama is painting a different picture. If Israel can be cast as pre-empting or foregoing the reasonable possibility of diplomatic success with a “rational actor” — as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey recently described Iran — then it would not be engaged in justifiable self-defense. Labeling discussion of the necessity of using force to stymie Iran’s aggressive behavior as “loose talk of war” or “beating the drums of war” — in the president’s words — is also to deny that such a move would be legitimate self-defense.
This explains why in Sunday’s speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, the president lunged the knife into Israel’s back and twisted it: “I firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy. … Iran’s leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. … Israel…[has] an interest in seeing this challenge resolved diplomatically.” The insulting innuendo was that without his wise admonition Israeli mothers and fathers would be hankering to send their children into battle.
International Law professor Louis Rene Beres argues that the terrorists for Gilad trade violates international law.
A core element of all civilized legal systems is the rule of Nullum crimen sine poena, “no crime without a punishment.” This principle, drawn originally from the law of ancient Israel and reaffirmed at the post-war Nuremberg Trials, is part of all international law. It applies here as well.
Were the United States to undertake a Schalit-like deal to free terrorist prisoners, America would stand in violation not only of international law, but also of US law. This is because Article 6 of the Constitution (the “supreme law of the land”) makes all international law part of US law. Several landmark Supreme Court decisions have upheld that stance.
For Israel, there is an additional point: The country also has a pertinent and portentous history of terrorist exchanges. In June 2003, Shurat Hadin, the Israel Law Center, in anticipation of a then-planned terrorist releases, condemned Israel’s freeing of 100 Palestinian prisoners. Later, almost five times that number were freed by then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. In her letter to the prime minister and members of his cabinet, Shurat Hadin director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner wrote that releasing terrorists for any reason would reignite Arab terrorism against defenseless Jewish men, women and especially children.
Nitsana was correct. Soon thereafter, at least two newly released Palestinian terrorists proceeded to launch suicide bomb attacks in Israel. In these attacks, one “military target” of the “heroic fighters” was a cafe filled with mothers and their babies.
Every state has an indisputable core obligation under international law to prosecute and punish terrorists. This obligation derives in part from the “no crime without a punishment” principle and is codified directly in many authoritative sources. It can also be deduced from the binding Nuremberg Principles (1950). According to Principle 1: “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”
Terrorism is a serious crime under international law. The precise offenses that comprise this crime can be found at The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. Some of the Palestinian terrorists previously released were also guilty of related crimes of war and crimes against humanity. These are Nuremberg-category crimes, so egregious that the perpetrators are known in law as Hostes humani generis, “Common enemies of humankind.”
International law presumes solidarity between states in the fight against all crime, including terrorism. This presumption is mentioned as early as the seventeenth century in Hugo Grotius’ The Law of War and Peace.
Although Israel has a clear jurisdiction to punish any crimes committed on its own territory, it also has the right to act under broader principles of “universal jurisdiction.” Its case for such universal jurisdiction, which derives from an expectation of inter-state solidarity, is found in the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949. These conventions impose upon the High Contracting Parties the obligation to punish “grave breaches.”
No modern government has the legal right to free terrorists in exchange for its own kidnapped citizens, military or civilian. Terrorism is a criminally sanctionable violation of international law that is not subject to manipulation by individual countries. In the United States, it is clear from the Constitution that the president’s power to pardon does not encompass violations of international law. Rather, this power is always limited precisely to “offenses against the United States.”
In originally capturing and punishing Palestinian terrorists, Israel acted on behalf of all states. Moreover, because some of the terrorists had committed their crimes against other states, Israel cannot properly pardon these offenses against other sovereigns.
Although Mr. Netanyahu’s impending prisoner exchange would not, strictly speaking, represent a “pardon,” it would have exactly the same effect.
Video: How Obama uses 'international law' to bypass the Senate
Douglas J. Feith, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy under the Bush administration, spoke to the Center for Security Policy's National Security Group on Capitol Hill on the topic of international law. The State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh, is a strong proponent of following the "norms" of international law. Now, the Obama administration is making the case that a part of the Geneva Convention that the US has NEVER ratified should be accepted in the United States.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
