I originally received this via email, but you can find it online here.
Dear Friends,
The
Lawfare Project urges all lawyers and legal experts to sign onto the
following letter, which calls upon the EU to revoke its recent directive
regarding Israeli settlements.
Composed
by Ambassador Alan Baker, head of the International Division of the
Legal Forum for Israel, the letter will be sent to Catherine Ashton,
foreign affairs head of the EU, as well as to the foreign ministers of
the 28 members of the EU.
For this letter to have maximal effect, it is vitally important to attach as many signatories as possible.
Please do not reply to this email. In order to ensure that your signature is attached to the letter, please send your response to office@haforum.org.il with your name, title, and contact information. If possible, please also forward the letter to colleagues and acquaintances and encourage them to sign.
The letter will be sent in the coming days in view of the urgency of the issue.
[Letter begins below]
H.E. Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs
Excellency
Re: EU directive regarding Israeli settlements
We,
the undersigned, attorneys from across the world who are involved in
international law issues as well as being closely concerned with the
Israeli-Palestinian dispute, respectfully call upon you and the EU to revoke the abovementioned directive which we feel is based on legally
flawed and incorrect assumptions regarding both the legality of
Israel's settlements and the status of the pre-1967 Armistice lines as
Israel's border.
Furthermore,
the reasoning behind the directive summarily ignores the historic and
legal rights of Israel and the Jewish people in and to the areas of
Judea and Samaria, including the internationally acknowledged rights of
the Jewish people as the indigenous people of the area.
The
long-held view of the EU as to the illegality of Israel's settlements
is a misreading of the relevant provisions of international law, and
specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is
neither relevant to the unique circumstances of Israel's status in the
area, nor was it ever applicable, or intended to apply to Israel's
circumstances in Judea and Samaria.
The
EU together with other international bodies has consistently ignored
authoritative sources, including the 1958 official commentary by
International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as the published
opinions of prominent international jurists, all of which explain the
provenance of Article 49 in the need to address deportations, forced
migration, evacuation, displacement, and expulsion of over 40 million
people by the Nazis during the Second World War. This has no relevance
to Israel's settlements in Judea and Samaria.
The
EU totally ignores the very agreement to which it is signatory as
witness, the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, in which it was
agreed by the parties, pending a permanent status agreement, to
exercise powers and authority in the areas under their respective
control. Such powers include planning, zoning and construction. The
issues of settlements and Jerusalem, as agreed upon between the parties,
are negotiating issues, and hence, determinations by the EU undermine
the negotiating process and run against the EU's status as signatory.
The
legality of Israel's presence in the area stems from the historic,
indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area,
as granted in valid and binding international legal instruments
recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights
cannot be denied or placed in question. This includes the 1922 San Remo
Declaration unanimously adopted by the League of Nations, affirming the
establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical
area of the Land of Israel (including the areas of Judea and Samaria
and Jerusalem) as well as close Jewish settlement throughout. This was
subsequently affirmed internationally in the League of Nations Mandate
Instrument, and accorded continued validity, up to the present day, by
Article 80 of the UN Charter which reaffirmed the validity of the rights
granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international
instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations).
The
inference regarding Israel's borders as recognized by the EU is no less
misguided and historically and legally wrong. The pre-1967 Armistice
lines (so-called "green" line) were never considered to be borders. UN
Security Council resolution 242 (1967), endorsed by the European members
of the Council, called for "secure and recognized boundaries" to
replace the pre-1967 Armistice lines. The European leaders further
endorsed this principle in their 1980 Venice Declaration. By its
persistence in referring to the pre-1967 lines, the EU is undermining
future negotiation on this issue by predetermining its outcome.
In
a similar vein, the repeated use by the EU of the term "occupied Arab"
or "Palestinian territories" to refer to the area of Judea and Samaria,
has no basis in law or fact. The area has never been determined as such,
and thus the continued EU usage of the term runs against the very
concept of negotiations to resolve the dispute regarding these areas,
supported by the EU, to determine their permanent status.
Excellency,
The
position taken by the EU and the action presently being taken pursuant
to its directive, regarding Israel's settlements in Judea and Samaria,
is, in our view, incompatible with the EU's standing as a member of the
international Quartet, and serves to neutralize any pretentions it might
have to serve a useful function in the negotiating process between
Israel and the Palestinians.
Frankly,
the EU cannot, in all sincerity, presume to come with clean hands and
claim to be an impartial element in the negotiating process. The EU has
taken sides and as such, in its actions against Israel, it is
undermining the negotiating process.
The
position and actions of the EU against Israel are all the more
unfortunate and regrettable in light of the tragic Jewish history in
Europe, which cannot be ignored or forgotten. One might have expected
that realization of this factor would guide the wisdom and logic of the
actions of the EU.
Signed by jurists and international lawyers
By the way, the San Remo declaration was 1920 and not 1922.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, April 16.
1) The PA's defense budget
The Palestinian Authority regularly complains about its budget woes. Nitzana Darshan-Leitner writes that the largest portion of the PA's budget goes to defense:
Recently, the Palestinian Authority publicly revealed its new budget. In
approving the 2013 fiscal plan, the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas
signed off on a startling $3.9 billion spending spree. What is
fascinating, however, is not just the amount of money being destined for
expenditures but rather the manner in which the PA is planning on
allocating it.
Almost $1b., about 28 percent of the budget, will be spent on defense,
compared to 16% for education and 10% for medical services. In other
words, a bulk of the PA’s funds will not be used for schooling, health
or infrastructure, but for procuring weapons and maintaining a massive
military structure. A government which is not officially at war with
Israel, and has no formal army, has somehow decided to invest all of its
financial resources in militarization – at a time the US is asking it
to continue with final settlement negotiations.
Apart from paying the salaries of 95% of “defense employees” in
Hamas-ruled Gaza, the PA also uses its budget to strengthen its
oppressive grip on the local population. Money is used to torment
minorities, gays, women, and to indoctrinate schoolchildren with hateful
rhetoric as well as to glorify terrorist attacks against Jews.
Only one quarter (24.6%) of the Palestinian public opinion believes the
Oslo Accords served the Palestinian national interests while one third
(33.6%) thinks they have harmed them and another third (34.9%) considers
them to have made no difference. Public opinion is especially critical
of the security coordination between the Palestinian National Authority
(PNA) and Israel. Only a third (33.8%) believes it to benefit the
Palestinians while a majority of 55.4% wants to see it terminated even
if this would lead to an increase of incursions by the Israeli army into
Area A of the West Bank.
(The poll also shows widespread support for "non-violent" resistance
against Israel. There are a number of other interesting findings in the
poll too.)
2) UNESCO site damaged - by Hamas
The Palestinian Authority's recent campaign to build public support
included being accepted into membership of UNESCO. One of the reasons
for this was to wage lawfare against Israel.
Following its admission to UNESCO, the Palestinian Authority is planning
to pursue Israel legally in international forums for allegedly stealing
Palestinian antiquities and changing the Arab and Islamic character of
holy sites in Jerusalem, Palestinian officials said over the weekend.
“Now that we have joined UNESCO, we will take Israel to court for
systematically destroying and forging Arab and Islamic culture in
Jerusalem,” said Hatem Abdel Qader, former PA minister for Jerusalem
affairs. “We are also seeking to file lawsuits against Israel in
international courts and bodies for stealing Arab and Islamic
antiquities and assaulting Islamic and Christian holy sites.”
“Earlier last month, amid overwhelming criticism from public figures and
nongovernmental organizations, the military wing of the Islamic
movement of Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, bulldozed a part of
the ancient Anthedon Harbor in northern Gaza along the Mediterranean
Sea. The Brigades damaged the harbor in order to expand its military
training zone, which was initially opened on the location in 2002,
according to Ejla.”
The Anthedon seaport dates back over 3,000 years and is considered one
of the most important sites in the Middle East. It was designated an
international heritage site by UNESCO in 2012. It contains mosaic floors
with historical pillars from the Roman, Byzantine and Islamic ages.
You might recall that I posted about this story at length here.
After a late meeting Tuesday night residents of five apartment buildings in Ulpana outpost, located on the outskirts of the West Bank settlement of Beit El, agreed to voluntarily evacuate their homes by July 1.
They did so only after the Prime Minister’s Office pledged to build 300 new homes in Beit El and to amend its policy with respect to the removal of unauthorized settlement homes on private Palestinian property, according to a statement to the media by Ulpana residents.
In May, the High Court of Justice ordered the state to demolish the buildings, which house 30 families. Three caravans have also been included in the mandate, so that in total 33 families are due to leave their homes.
Ulpana residents noted that building 300 housing units hardly compensated them for the loss of their initial homes.
They quoted a statement by the rabbi of Beit El, Zalman Melamed, in which he said that just as a father who lost a son cannot be compensated by ten new ones in exchange, so too, “the pain of losing these (initial homes) won’t lessen and the stain (this action creates) on the government won’t lessen.”
In their media statement Ulpana residents said they had agreed to voluntarily evacuate, because “we are peaceful people.”
They added that, “this battle between brothers is tearing apart the Israeli public in general, and our population in specific.”
They had agreed to leave, they said, after receiving guarantees from emissaries form the Prime Minister’s Office for 300 new homes in Beit El, along with a promise that the homes they live in now will be relocated.
In addition, they said, “the prime minister’s office, the prosecutor’s office and the Defense Ministry won’t send out statements about absurd decisions to destroy developing neighborhoods and settlements.”
They asked for this last pledge in hopes of preventing future demolitions of settler homes.
It remains to be seen whether this changes the fate of Migron and Amona, and whether the homes are ever actually built. My bet is that it will have no effect on the former, and that the homes will be built (or at least started while the current government is in power), but that it will take many years before they are ready.
IHH claims to have submitted IDF soldiers' names to Istanbul prosecutor's office
The Turkish terror organization IHH, which attempted to run Israel's legal blockade of Gaza in May 2010, claims that it has submitted a list of IDF soldiers who were involved in the Mavi Marmara raid to the Istanbul prosecutor's office, and, subject to verification by Turkish intelligence, they prosecutor will open cases against the soldiers involved (Hat Tip: Gershon D).
"We have presented a list of Israeli soldiers who gave the order for and who were involved in the attack on the Turkish flotilla to the Istanbul prosecutor's office," Ramazan Ariturk, lawyer for the group that organized the Gaza flotilla said.
The move came as the Istanbul Chief Prosecutor's Office appealed to the Turkish Intelligence Organization (MİT) in order to obtain information on the identities of the IDF soldiers who were involved in the raid which left nine Turks dead in May of last year, Turkish newspaper Zaman reported on Friday.
According the paper, an affirmative answer from MİT would allow the prosecutor to open court cases against Israeli officials including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, former IDF chief of General Staff Lt.- Gen. (res.) Gabi Ashkenazi , and the soldiers involved in the raid.
The charges would include the “willful murder and torture” and “limiting freedom” of the passengers, the paper reported.
How do they think they're going to haul any of these people into court? Surely, none of them will visit Turkey.
It's probably an appealable order, which means it ain't over until it's over, but a New York Federal judge has ruled that he has jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit against the PLO by victims of terror attacks between 2001 and 2004. The lawsuit seeks up to $3 billion in damages.
Federal Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said in a written order Wednesday that the PLO had offices in Washington and New York during a three-year period when the bombings occurred. He said that creates enough of a connection to the United States to allow the lawsuit to proceed here. The ruling came in a 2004 lawsuit that seeks up to $3 billion in damages as a result of attacks between January 2001 and February 2004.
And they now would probably have to post a $3 billion bond to appeal.
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
