By Ted Belman
Attorney Elyakim Haetzni, a former Knesset Member and an influential nationalist pundit, thinks Palestinian Authority (PA) chief Mahmoud Abbas has outmaneuvered Binyamin Netanyahu and Israel is in danger of losing more ground in the diplomatic chess game with the PA.
Until now, Haetzni explained, Israel has not been defined as an occupier, according to the Geneva convention. This could change now, however.
“The greatest jurists have always said that in the Six Day War, Israel did not occupy Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, because they had never belonged to another sovereign. There was never a Palestinian state, Jordan had invaded illegally, and before that, there were the British and the Turks.
“Judge Edmond Levy determined in his famous report that this is not occupied territory but disputed territory and therefore the international conventions do not apply to it. Now Abbas wants to change the picture. After the UN recognized the PA as a state, one can no longer claim that there is no sovereign power demanding its territory back. This is a Palestinian state that received a majority of UN votes, and therefore all of the international laws on occupation and all of the treaties apply to it.”
I disagree. The world considers Israel an occupier and the settlements illegal according to the Geneva Convention so I don’t know where Haetzni is coming from. On the other hand if the Levy Report wins the day and defines Israel not an occupier and the settlements not illegal, then subsequent events to the ’67 War have no bearing in a legal sense but do so only in Court of world public opinion.
The problem starts with so many nations recognizing Palestine as a state, contrary to all the rules governing state recognition as set out in the Montevideo Convention of 1933.
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
I might ad that there is an ongoing debate as to whether recognition by other states is a necessary part of being a state or whether satisfying these criteria alone makes you a state regardless of recognition.
In any event, having a defined or distinct territory is a necessary ingredient. Obviously the PA doesn’t have such a territory unless Area A is what we are talking about. To be a state you must be able to exercise sovereignty over your defined territory or you can’t be a state.
I am sure the majority of nations will define Palestine’s territory as being the entire West Bank to the ’67 lines and will ignore the need to be sovereign over it. What Haetzni is saying is that such recognition will be applied ex post facto, thereby making Israel an occupier of Palestinian lands. Its a stretch but everything the world does regarding the PLO or PA is a stretch.
Haetzni supports his claim that Israel is not recognized as an occupier because.
“The greatest jurists have always said that in the Six Day War, Israel did not occupy Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, because they had never belonged to another sovereign,” he elaborated. “There was never a Palestinian state, Jordan had invaded illegally, and before that, there were the British and the Turks.
“Judge Edmond Levy determined in his famous report that this is not occupied territory but disputed territory and therefore the international conventions do not apply to it.”
But adds,
“Now Abbas wants to change the picture. After the UN recognized the PA as a state, one can no longer claim that there is no sovereign power demanding its territory back. This is a Palestinian state that received a majority of UN votes, and therefore all of the international laws on occupation and all of the treaties apply to it.”
All this legal mumbo jumbo aside.Abbas has out-manoevered Netanyahu.
Netannyahu must assert our rights to the land, all of it, and must start extending Israeli law to it.
@ Salomon Benzimra:If only Israel had asserted its legal rights long ago!
the deed to it , and are the only rightful owners.l
to demand something back you must first have been in existence as a state and in possession of that territory prior to its being taken. The one who was in possession has ceded claim.
Whatever the legal conclusions no one can prevent a majority voting to recognize them as a state , recognizing the west bank as occupied territory belonging to the pals,etc. Many a Judge has incorrectly given verdicts and, subsequently, the full weight of the law enforced the incorrect verdict. It is folly to believe that those wielding power will follow principles of law; they are more likely to arrange the verdict to their liking. Furthermore, it is Israel who admits to being in occupation as it has never annexed nor claimed the territory and applies occupation law. By ignoring lawfare and PR, Israel has allowed itself to be overtaken in those areas and now those are the areas producing the most worry to Israel.
@ Salomon Benzimra:
All of those legal rights are still entirely valid and applicable.
Too bad Israel is not asserting those rights NOW!!!!!!!!!
“Add”? — I would submit that this is not peripheral to the question of statehood, but the central element in it. This is because as long as recognition by existing states is essential to the acquisition & exercise of sovereignty — NO state is secure. There may be practical considerations over acceptance of a new state into various international bodies, or of continued acceptance of an existing one into such
— but not only does “I am” always precede “I belong”; it also survives it.
In the end, if a self-proclaimed state can defend itself in battle against all who wish it ill, it remains a state. If it CAN’T, its supporters get to enjoy occasional tearful reunions and nice bumper stickers. Tibet comes to mind.
Haetzni says:
Could we not rephrase that quote by saying:
If only Israel had asserted its legal rights long ago!
The key question is whether Israel’s military occupation of the territories is a “belligerent occupation”. See the 4th Hague Convention, Article 43 that assumes it is if the territory was occupied by a legitimate sovereign before the military occupation. The start of the formation of world opinion was the finding of the UN General Assembly that under international law, an alleged people named Palestinians allegedly were entitled to the exercise of political self-determination, It formed a UN Committee for the exercise of Palesinian right to self-determination that issued a legal opinion supporting the view that the Palestinian right to exercise self determination was supported by international law. That opinion distorted international law by viewing UN General Assembly resolutions as changing international law, rather than being merely recommendations, and by the far fetched notion that any group claiming to be a “people” could empower the UN to redraw boundaries of a sovereign state. See SSRN.com/abstract=2404738 SSRN.com/abstract=238-5304 Julius Stone, “Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations
The key question is whether Israel’s military occupation of the territories is a “belligerent occupation”. See the 4th Hague Convention, Article 43 that assumes it is if the territory was occupied by a legitimate sovereign before the military occupation. The start of the formation of world opinion was the finding of the UN General Assembly that under international law, a people named Palestinians were entitled to the exercise of political self-determination, It formed a UN Committee for the exercise of Palestinian right to self-determination that issued a legal opinion supporting the view that the alleged Palestinian People’s alleged right to exercise self-determination was supported by international law. That opinion distorted international law by viewing UN General Assembly resolutions as changing international law, rather than being merely recommendations, and by the far fetched notion that any group claiming to be a “people” could empower the UN to redraw boundaries of a sovereign state. See SSRN.com/abstract=2404738 SSRN.com/abstract=238-5304 Julius Stone, “Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations
The majority of those in UN and Europe do support PA without considering the above criteria. It seems: PA and Hamas seek UN recognition of the territories under their control as a ‘sovereign state’. If they ‘achieve’ their goals, they may try to seek bilateral relations thereby weakening Israel’s rightful claims to Judea and Samaria unless Israel outmaneuvers them ASAP. Sooner or later, USA and others may try to restart the so called peace process. If the process cannot be discarded,
Israel should totally avoid going through such futile exercises unless Hamas and PA agree (among other factors) not to allow any more attack against it’s territory/people.
there is still time to declare israel sovereignty and to extend israel civil law throughout yehuda and shomron (the former occupied west bank of the hashemite kingdom of transjordan). by the way what was transjordan (east jordan) doing on the west bank of the jordan river?!!
israeli school children believe it was the kingdom of palestine. so do a majority of the UN members. I wonder what Mr. Apartheid believes?
@ David Chase:
Haetzni’s concern is exactly as the phoenix puts it. All logic and reason goes by the way side when antisemitic animus is evident.
Ex post facto is the legal term correctly used to describe what is going on in this situation. But my understanding of ex post facto is that the concept exists to avoid exactly situations like this. If, at one moment, abortion is legal and then if it’s subsequently made illegal you cannot retroactive start prosecuting women or doctors for their actions. I don’t understand Haetzni’s concern.
Does one REALLY need to be a super genius to realize that this whole charade is rigged???
That the results are known in advance???
That there is not even a mask of pretense of fairness???
That the more the giant that Israel is, is giving to the Lilliputian scum, the MORE DEMANDS are made of her….
I am certain that in this SICK ‘legal’ mambo jumbo game, NOBODY believes that the Israelis would actually agree to these outrageous demands,… except the goi that is going through all sorts of contortions trying to figure how to meet these demands…