The Levy Report is Israel’s response to those who unfairly and incorrectly conclude that the settlements are illegal under int’l law.
Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen a major escalation regarding the issue of the legality of Israeli communities over the 1949 Armistice Line (known as the “Green Line”). When asked about this, many foreign officials give little if any explanation for their accusations of illegality, fostering the inescapable impression that the issue is less about law and more about interests and politicking.
In the history of modern statehood, there is no other disputed territory in the world that has never known independent sovereignty. Other examples which are given in comparison, including Northern Cyprus and the Western Sahara, were part of recognized independent nations, whereas Judea and Samaria, what many call the West Bank, formerly of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, was not.
However, many in Europe, and elsewhere, continue to conduct business with these other territories and only single out Israeli settlements for boycott. In fact, the EU has in recent weeks approved a contentious agreement with Morocco that extends EU-Moroccan fisheries treaties into the territory of Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara.
The deal both applies beyond Morocco’s recognized sovereign territory into occupied territory, and further, actually pays Morocco for access to the Western Saharan fishery. Compare this with the European Union’s position not to fund Israeli institutions located beyond the Green Line.
While every nation is entitled to enact its desired policy or render judgment on any given situation, to shroud such policy in the language of international law necessitates that it rest on a strong legal foundation.
Those that claim that there are no legal parallels to the situation in the territories should necessarily conclude that because the situation is unique, it is highly complex, and should therefore be thoroughly explored and researched before concluding a breach of international law.
Historically, Israel grappled with the status of Judea and Samaria almost immediately following the 1967 Six Day War, and thoroughly investigated the implications of these territories under international law.
Led by Supreme Court Justice Meir Shamgar, Israeli authorities concluded that due to the fact that Judea and Samaria – terms used in United Nations resolutions and not merely biblical terms as many claim – was not sovereign territory of any state, and thus it could not be “occupied” in the sense of international law. This single, crucial point forms a basis for Israel’s long-standing position regarding the settlements and their legality.
In fact, it was at Jordan’s insistence that the 1949 armistice line became not a recognized international border, but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: “No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.”
The Armistice Agreement was recognized and supervised by the United Nations, standing in stark contrast to the many United Nations condemnations of Israel’s presence in the territories.
What is more remarkable is that an erosion of Israel’s position on the territories began in earnest after the signing of the Oslo Accords, witnessed by among others the European Union, which implicitly recognized Israeli settlements and placed them under Israeli civil and military administration.
Two years ago, a three-person committee was created, chaired by former High Court justice Edmond Levy, who recently passed away, to reexamine the legality of the settlements. The committee’s report – “The Status of Building in Judea and Samaria” – was released on July 8, 2012.
Rather than representing a radical departure from Israeli government policy as some have painted it, the Levy Report offers a reiteration of what has been normative policy. The report’s findings, based on historical and legal evidence, are that Israel’s position in Judea and Samaria is based on historic right as enshrined by decisions taken by the international community in the 20th century; that Israel is not an occupier; and that the settlements are not illegal.
It further concludes that the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, regarding transfer of populations, cannot be considered to be applicable and were never intended to apply to the type of settlement activity carried out by Israel in Judea and Samaria.
Therefore, according to international law, Israelis have the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria and the establishment of settlements there cannot, in and of itself, be considered illegal.
For those who would like to address the facts and how the case is laid out, the Levy Report is available online, as are similar arguments which appear on the website of the Foreign Ministry. No one can argue that Israel’s case is not made, and no one can suggest that Israel has no well-researched and documented claim.
The Levy Report is Israel’s response to those who unfairly, and in our estimation incorrectly, conclude that the settlements are illegal under international law. The Levy Report is our case made before the international community.
It would appear however that no amount of facts, evidence or lack of precedent can dissuade parts of the international community, a few brave voices notwithstanding, that the settlements are illegal.
I recently challenged the local representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross on their rendering of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention regarding their possible application to Judea and Samaria, and have yet to hear a formal response, even while their initial article welcomed a debate on the issue.
Now I call on the international community to explain why the arguments contained in the Levy Report are invalid, rather than simply assert that they are, as is usually done, without addressing the enduring complexity of Israel’s rights in the territories.
The writer is Israel’s minister of agriculture and rural development.
CuriousAmerican Said:
they also pay taxes, join the armed forces and run for national office they participate in American life as Americans. Palestinians do not!!!!!!!!!!!! Palestinians ,as a tribe, wish to destroy Israel and the Jewish people.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Yes Curious we’ve had this discussion before. For you “civil” rights are all encompassing obviating the distinction from “political” rights. Rather than try to disabuse you of your mistaken, but firmly held, contention, let me state that those voting rights indeed should be extended to the pali-posers just as soon Jordan extends voting rights (for whatever they may worth) to the Jews of Jordan and Hamastan to the Jews of Gaza.
After all those territories comprise the Mandate lands, do they not, all subject to those same “civil” rights you hold so dear?
Do you now see how silly your contention is even if you are correct, which you are not?
Where’s the nuance in Jordan and Gaza, Mandate lands, both being Judenrein? Don’t hear you espousing anything about it let alone anything nuanced.
What would be nuanced would be for Israel to drive every single Arab out of Israel into Jordan and Gaza to be on a moral and political parity with the Arabs of the Mandate lands that have driven every single Jew our of Mandate lands they occupy.
That way everyone would have their full “civil” rights and you wouldn’t find anything to nuance about.
Indeed but the Mandate also said the civil rights of the non-Jewish communities had to be respected.
Civil Rights means the vote.
Civil Rights certainly means not seizing property by means of closed military zone as was done.
I AM NOT OPPOSED TO JEW BUILDING ON THEIR PATRIMONY.
I am just saying the issue is nuanced.
Usually the way to quiet criticism is to treat the conquered party as absolute equals with a voting franchise. Because of demographics, this was not offered to the Arabs in Judea and Samaria.
If it were as easy as you all seem to think it is, it would have been solved years ago.
I am just informing you of the nuances.
LIAR! I am not a Jew hater. I am not even opposed to Jewish building. I am just telling you the issue is more nuanced than you make it out.
BTW: The issue of California, and the Mexican Acquisition was NOT one of theft. Read your history.
Honeybee will inform you of the JUSTICE of the Texas Revolt.
To Honeybee
Those tribe can also vote in US and state elections. Something the Arabs of Judea and Samaria cannot.
I am not saying Israeli settlements are wrong. I am saying the issue is more nuanced.
yamit82 Said:
CuriousAmerican Said:
The Arabs are building exponentially more than the Jews. If they Jews can’t build there why should the Arabs? The legal status of the whole of the so called West Bank is disputed territory belonging to no sovereignty. The legal rights of Jews to build is not challenged but are condemned by you Jew haters and Arab lovers with other Euphemisms. Those declaring our presence and construction as illegal cannot make a legal case but echo the mantra of illegality out of factual ignorance and hate of the Jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNQArAtNrA0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmV1ffKP0ms
CuriousAmerican Said:
Russia has historical claims on most of the Ukraine and certainly Crimea. They extended Russian citizenship to all residents of lands they took or occupied. So you must agree with Putin’s actions. They fit your definitions and criteria.
I say the Lands are ours and our rights are based on this premise and because we need the land. If we have the power to take and hold them that is our right if not we won’t possess those lands or any part of Israel for that matter. Mexico has historical rights in the USA from Florida to California and there are millions of Mexican Spanish speakers in each of the States, Now occupied by THE USA. If Mexico had the power to retake those lands or part of them affording Non Mexican Americans the full rights of citizenship of Mexico you would have to agree…. 🙂
By the way how many treaties has America broken with the American Indians? What happened to their rights of indigenous natives??? I’m not saying you can turn the clock back but giving every Native of Turtle Island a billion dollars as reparations would go a long way to repairing historic thuggery, butchery, outright murder and theft. Otherwise you are the inheritors of Murder and theft and are profiting from those acts. In addition every Indian reservation should have the status and rights of independent autonomous states.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Didn’t know there was a “Jordanian” ethnicity. Churchill’s breach of Britain’s Mandate trust by stealing 80% of land promised for the Jewish homeland and giving it to the Arabian Hashamites in 47 created a Jordanian ethnicity. Truly remarkable!
The USA stole those lands from other countries. The exact converse of what happened in Israel. The least the USA could do then was offer those disenfranchised Mexicans, etc. citizenship.
The Mandate lands were earmarked for a Jewish state. Just as the same powers carved out Syria and Lebanon. The difference here is of course that of the Jewish land there are already two Arab states interposed where no Jew is allowed to live. And by your reckoning the Jews also owe the pali-posers citizenship, in addition to allowing them to remain in the Jewish state that they don’t recognize?
Am I understanding you correctly?
Because a lot of them were not from Jordan but were displaced by 1948. They are not ethnic Jordanians but many are from Jaffa, Casaeria, etc.
With the extension of borders usually goes citizenship. As the USA extended citizenship to Mexicans of California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, and later to Puerto Ricans.
I know the reasons why Israel does not do it; but this non-application of usual practice is one reason – not the only one – why Israel is in a gray zone.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Why would Israel need to enfranchise these Jordanians that were disenfranchised by Jordan?
If their freedom is a fiction it is one of their own creation. Do you really think there would roadblocks or other restrictions if they weren’t constantly trying t kill us?
The problem is more nuanced.
Israel is exercising the perogatives of annexation in Judea and Samaria, (such as building communities at will and roads), while not extending citizenship rights to the Arab population. This has been the historic problem since 1967.
It existed before Oslo; and the delimiting of area A, B, & C, so one cannot hide behind Oslo as the Arabs had no rights even before Judea and Samaria were delimited.
You may see no inconsistency, but the world does.
It is a tightrope.
You see the land as Jewish … and it is based on historic claims.
But the usual practice is to enfranchise with annexation. Israel did not want to enfranchise; and so one sees this gray zone.
The Palestinians are not free in A or B. Their freedom is a fiction (maybe this is good for Israel’s security) but it is a fiction. They cannot fly out of A or B to the outside world. They have roadblocks everywhere.
Israel would be better off annexing outright; and squelching the problem. Then start the slow process of enfranchisement.
I understand why Israel is walking the tightrope but world does not.
The real issue is not settlements, but annexation.
If you annexed, and offered them a road to citizenship, a lot of this would disappear.
By way of analogy, I’d like to attempt to explain the fundamental problem regarding the international community’s reaction/interpretation of the legality of the settlements (developments) as follows: a patient goes to a psychiatrist and tells the patient she’s dead. The psychiatrist gets up from his desk, walks around, takes out a knife and cuts her in the leg- and she bleeds. When the psychiatrist asks her, “Well, what do you think of that” she says “I guess dead people bleed” And, therein, lies the explanation of the mentality of the international community regarding Israel and the Jewish people’s legal claim to the territories. Shavua tov