Why Israel Has LEGAL RIGHT To West Bank (Judea & Samaria) - ICJ Reaction

Summary

The video script discusses the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Judea, and Samaria, challenging the International Court of Justice's ruling. It presents the argument through a documentary, 'Settling the Facts,' highlighting historical, legal, and moral perspectives. The script emphasizes indigenous rights, the Balfour Declaration, and the League of Nations Mandate, asserting the Jewish people's historical connection to the land. It also addresses the controversial application of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, arguing against the portrayal of Israeli settlements as illegal under international law, and points out double standards in the international community's approach to Israel compared to other situations of occupation.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The International Court of Justice recently ruled that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Judea, and Samaria is illegal, prompting a need to explore this issue further.
• 🎬 A documentary called 'Settling the Facts', produced alongside Roger Walters, delves into the moral, legal, and historical aspects of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria.
• 📚 The documentary argues that the Jewish people have a clear right to the land based on biblical, historical, indigenous, and legal connections, as well as divine assignment.
• 🌐 Despite some hostility towards Israel in international bodies, it's important to understand that within the realm of international law, the Jewish people have a clear right to the land.
• 🏙️ The term 'settlements' is often used negatively, but the documentary suggests that the use of the term 'settler' is a tactical ploy to sever the indigenous connection the Jews have to these lands.
• 📜 Binding international law, such as the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations, recognized the rights of indigenous people, including the Jewish people, to settle in the land they come from.
• 🕍 The Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate of Palestine established the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in Palestine, including areas now referred to as the West Bank.
• 🏡 The documentary highlights that the term 'settler' is used in various contexts, often to describe any Jew living in the West Bank, which is a misrepresentation of the legal and historical context.
• 🤔 The documentary questions the validity of the argument that the settlements are illegal based on a peculiar interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which was originally intended to prevent the forcible transfer of populations.
• 🌳 The documentary points out that the international community has applied a double standard in its treatment of Israeli settlements compared to other situations of occupation and settlement.
• 🏛️ The United States announced in 2019 that Israeli settlements do not violate international law, suggesting that the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not inherently inconsistent with international law.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented in the documentary 'Settling the Facts'?

The documentary argues from a moral, legal, and historical standpoint that the Jewish people have a clear right to the land, including areas referred to as the West Bank, based on international law, historical connection, and indigenous rights.

What is the significance of the Balfour Declaration in the context of the Jewish homeland?

The Balfour Declaration, issued in 1917, declared British support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, which included not only what is now Israel but also areas known as Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

What role did the San Remo Conference play in the establishment of a Jewish homeland?

The San Remo Conference in 1920 recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the reconstitution of their national home in the region, which was later formalized under international law by the League of Nations.

Why does the term 'settler' have a controversial use in the context of Israel and the West Bank?

The term 'settler' is controversial because it is often used to imply wrongdoing or illegality, whereas the script argues that Jewish residents in the West Bank are living there based on historical, indigenous, and legal rights.

What does the script suggest about the international community's stance on Israeli settlements?

The script suggests that there is a double standard applied to Israeli settlements, with the international community often ignoring the historical and legal rights of the Jewish people to the land and focusing on the perceived illegality of the settlements.

How does the script address the argument that the Jewish people are not indigenous to the land?

The script argues that the Jewish people have a 3,000-year history in the land, with deep historical and biblical connections, making them indigenous to the area.

What is the significance of the 1922 League of Nations mandate in relation to the Jewish homeland?

The 1922 League of Nations mandate legally recognized the Jewish people's right to a homeland in Palestine, which included modern-day Israel and the West Bank, providing a legal basis for their presence.

What is the script's stance on the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank?

The script argues that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is legal under international law, as it was captured in a defensive war and the territory was not under recognized sovereignty at the time.

How does the script respond to the claim that Israeli settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

The script argues that the interpretation of Article 49 is peculiar when applied to Israel, as the convention speaks about forced transfers, which do not apply to the voluntary settlement of Jews in the West Bank.

What does the script suggest about the international legal order in relation to Israel?

The script suggests an inversion of international law, where Israel is held to a different standard than other countries, particularly in the application of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

How does the script address the issue of Palestinian construction in Area C?

The script points out that there has been illegal Palestinian construction in Area C, which is under Israeli control according to the Oslo Accords, and has been funded by the EU, indicating a double standard in enforcement.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ International Law and Israel's Occupation of West Bank

The speaker discusses the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Judea, and Samaria is illegal. They plan to unpack this issue using a clip from a documentary called 'Settling the Facts,' which they produced. The documentary explores the presence of Israel in Judea and Samaria from moral, legal, and historical perspectives. The speaker emphasizes that despite their belief in the Jewish people's rights to the land based on biblical, historical, and indigenous connections, it's crucial to understand the legal context within international law. They mention the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which states that Israeli settlements violate international law, but note that this resolution is non-binding. The speaker also delves into the role of indigenous rights in international law and the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land.

05:01

📜 Historical Context and International Law on Jewish Settlements

This paragraph delves into the historical and legal context of Jewish settlements in the region. The speaker discusses the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which influenced the borders of modern Middle Eastern states, and the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which supported the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. The 1920 San Remo Conference and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate further recognized the Jewish people's right to a homeland in the area, including what is now the West Bank. The speaker argues that the term 'settler' is misused and should be used in a neutral, descriptive way. They also highlight the double standards in international law, where the same legal arguments are not applied to other countries or situations.

10:02

🛡️ Israel's Right to Self-Defense and the Legality of Occupation

The speaker argues that the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank is rooted in international law, particularly in the context of self-defense. They discuss the historical background, including the 1947 UN partition plan rejected by the Arabs and the 1967 war where Israel captured the West Bank. The speaker contends that the Fourth Geneva Convention, often cited against Israel, does not apply to the West Bank because the land was not under recognized sovereignty at the time of capture. They also point out that settlers are not being forcibly moved by the state but are living there voluntarily. The speaker further criticizes the double standards in international law, noting that similar situations in other countries do not face the same scrutiny.

15:04

🏗️ Double Standards in International Law and Palestinian Settlements

In this paragraph, the speaker addresses the double standards in international law regarding Israeli settlements and Palestinian construction. They mention that the United States declared in 2019 that Israeli settlements do not violate international law. The speaker also highlights the irony of accusing Israelis of being illegal settlers while Palestinians are not allowed to settle in Area C under the Oslo Accords. They point out illegal Palestinian construction in Area C funded by the EU, suggesting a bias in the enforcement of international law. The speaker concludes that the territories in question should more accurately be described as disputed rather than occupied, emphasizing the need for a fair application of international law.

Keywords

💡International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, established to settle legal disputes between states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions. In the video's context, the ICJ's ruling on Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Judea, and Samaria is central to the discussion, highlighting the legal and political complexities of the region.

💡Settlements

Settlements refer to communities established by Israel in the West Bank, Judea, and Samaria. The term is often used in the script to denote areas of dispute, with the argument being made that these settlements are considered 'illegal' under international law, a claim the video seeks to unpack and challenge.

💡Indigenous Rights

Indigenous rights pertain to the legal and moral claims of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands. In the video, the Jewish people's historical connection to the land of Israel is presented as a basis for their indigenous rights, which is a key argument in the debate over the legality of Israeli settlements.

💡United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

This resolution, passed in 2016, is mentioned in the script as an example of international legal discourse on Israeli settlements. The resolution declares that Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity, though the video argues that this resolution lacks binding power.

💡British Mandate of Palestine

The British Mandate of Palestine was a legal commission by the League of Nations, granting Britain administration over the region with the intent of establishing a Jewish national home. The script uses this historical context to argue for the Jewish people's legal rights to the land, including areas now known as the West Bank.

💡Self-Defense

Self-defense in international law refers to the right of a state to protect itself from armed attack. The script cites the 1967 war as a defensive action, during which Israel captured the West Bank, and argues that under international law, the occupation of territories won in a defensive war is legal until belligerency ends.

💡Fourth Geneva Convention

The Fourth Geneva Convention is an international treaty that provides for the protection of civilians in times of war. Article 49, paragraph 6, of the convention is central to the script's argument, as it prohibits the transfer of a state's own civilians into territories occupied in war. The video challenges the application of this provision to Israeli settlements, arguing that the settlers are not forcibly transferred.

💡Double Standards

Double standards in the script refer to the perceived inconsistency in how international law is applied to different countries, particularly the unique application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israel. The video suggests that similar situations in other countries do not face the same level of scrutiny or condemnation.

💡Disputed Territory

A disputed territory is an area whose sovereignty is contested by two or more entities. The script argues that the term 'settlements' should be replaced with 'disputed territory' to more accurately reflect the legal and political reality of the West Bank, Judea, and Samaria.

💡Oslo Accords

The Oslo Accords were agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, intended to establish a framework for Palestinian self-governance. The script mentions the Oslo Accords to highlight the irony of Palestinians being accused of illegal construction in Area C, while Israelis are accused of being illegal settlers.

💡International Law

International law is a set of rules and standards governing the relations between states and international entities. The script discusses various aspects of international law, such as the rights of indigenous peoples, the legality of occupations in defensive wars, and the interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to argue for the legality of Israeli settlements.

Highlights

The International Court of Justice ruled that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Judea, and Samaria is illegal, but the documentary 'Settling the Facts' challenges this view.

The documentary argues that the Jewish people have a moral, legal, and historical right to the land, including a divine assignment by God.

Despite the lack of respect for some international bodies, the documentary asserts the Jewish people's clear right to the land under international law.

The United Nations Security Council's Resolution 2334 is non-binding and thus lacks legal standing, challenging the premise of illegal settlements.

International law on indigenous rights is vague, but it does recognize the Jewish people's historical connection to the land.

The term 'settler' is used negatively and promiscuously, obscuring the Jewish people's indigenous connection to the land.

The documentary won several Film Festival Awards, indicating its compelling nature and the importance of its message.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration set the stage for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The 1920 San Remo Conference and the League of Nations formalized the Jewish people's right to a homeland in Palestine, including the West Bank.

The documentary refutes the idea that Israel is a colonialist or settler state, highlighting the historical and legal context.

The argument that the West Bank belongs to Palestinian Arabs lacks a legal basis, especially considering the rejection of the UN partition plan.

Israel's capture of the West Bank in 1967 was in self-defense, a right recognized in international law under the UN Charter.

The Fourth Geneva Convention's Article 49 is often misinterpreted to argue against Israeli settlements, but its context and application are different.

The documentary points out double standards in international law, where similar situations in other countries do not face the same scrutiny.

The United States announced in 2019 that Israeli settlements do not violate international law, reflecting a shift in legal interpretation.

Israel has a history of evacuating its citizens from territories as a gesture for peace, contrary to the accusations of being illegal settlers.

The documentary exposes illegal Palestinian construction in Area C, funded by the EU, which is often overlooked in discussions on settlements.

The term 'settlements' is often used with a presumption of illegality, which the documentary challenges by examining international law and historical context.

Transcripts

so the international court of justice

has just ruled absurdly that Israel's

occupation of the West Bank Judea and

Samaria really is illegal

unlawful and I wanted to unpack this

with you today but it's not actually

going to be in my own words well it sort

of is it's going to be a clip from a

documentary I produced a few years ago I

created uh alongside Roger Walters a

film called settling the facts which you

can find on YouTube um anyone can watch

it and I'm going to show you a short

clip from it this is the documentary and

it goes into the issue of Israel's uh

presence in Judea and Samaria from a

moral standpoint a legal standpoint a

historical standpoint it looks at the

individuals and the people involved what

I want to show you is the section that

deals with the legal questions it won by

by the way a few Film Festival Awards

which we're very proud of but um

I think it's a really compelling

documentary and the clip I'm going to

show you unpacks for you so you can

understand very clearly the legal

questions now let's just bear in mind

the ultimate reason why I believe we

have clear rights to land apart from our

Biblical connection historical

indigenous legal all these things is

that God the creator of this universe

the owner of this universe assigned it

to the Jewish people let's be absolutely

clear about that but it's also important

to know that within the realm of

international law the Jewish people have

the clear right to the land and even if

it wasn't the case in international law

I would still say we have the right to

it and I can't say I have a great deal

of respect for some of these bodies

which are so hostile to Israel but

nevertheless it's important or at least

useful to know these facts so I want you

to have a watch of this clip because in

it will give you a lot of really crucial

information for tackling the nonsense

claims that we're seeing you never hear

the word settlements used in the context

of Israel with without it being preceded

by the word illegal I wanted to delve

deeper into international law and see

whether this is indeed the case on

December the 23rd 2016 the United

Nations security Council passed

resolution

2334 stating that Israel settlements

constituted a flagrant violation of

international law and has no legal

validity but this resolution has no

legal standing itself because it is a

non-binding resolution

the resolution tries to argue

settlements are illegal from

pre-existing international law so let's

look into this what does binding

international law say about the

settlements let's first explore the role

of indigenous rights in international

law as we saw earlier the Jewish people

began their journey in this land 3,000

years ago all the places I visited on my

trip to Israel are places the Jewish

people have historical and biblical

connection to Judea was the birthplace

of King David and the location of

Jerusalem which was the capital of the

kingdom of Judah Samaria was the capital

of the Northern Kingdom of Israel Shiloh

in Samaria is mentioned in the Hebrew

Bible as a location of the Tabernacle

before the construction of the first

temple in Jerusalem heon was an

important city and a center of worship

and where Abraham Sara Isaac Rebecca

Jacob and Leia were buried in the cave

of the Patriarchs there are very few

peoples in the

world the Chinese the Indians but very

few people in the world that have um a

recorded history in a land the way the

Jews have in the land of Israel it's

harder to

say whether the Palestinian Arabs are

indigenous there certainly have been

Arabs in this

land longer than there have been Muslims

in Israel which means that there history

is a thousand years shorter than the

Jews but then there are very few people

who have as long a history in this land

as uh in the Jews anywhere in the world

there are several examples of binding

international law that recognizes the

rights of indigenous people to settle

the land they come from however these

rights in international law are somewhat

vague because the Practical parameters

can be hard to define the word settler

is being used very promiscuously in an

entirely negative way settlers include

the prime minister of Israel living in

downtown Jerusalem the businessman

living in Tel Aviv a child living in

Benet Brock uh to other settlers would

include everybody who lives in any area

that was captured by Israel Defense of

War in

1967 including the people who used to

live in Gaza who left the people who

live in the Golan Heights which is now

part of Israel people who live in Malay

adumim which will become part of Israel

under any settlement and also people who

live in areas that will likely become

part of a Palestinian state if a

two-state solution is ever adopted so we

have to be far more precise in using the

term settler and make sure we use it in

a neutral way in a descriptive way

rather than an invidious way because the

law regarding such people is very

complicated some of the legal experts I

spoke to also said that the use of the

term settler is a tactical ploy to sever

or hide the indigenous connection the

Jews have to these lands describing them

as settlers is describing them as

non-indigenous as people who arrived

there and um due to other developments

it's a way of insinuating that they're

wrongdoers that they're they're some

sort of criminals now actually the

French language media has the English

language media top here they don't they

don't mess around they don't call them

settlers they certainly don't call call

them residents they call them colonists

when the Israeli left uses the term in

English when they're speaking in English

and they call uh uh someone a settler

they're referring to Jews who live in

the West Bank not including

Jerusalem when Europeans use the term

they'll use it to also

include Jews living in primarily Arab

neighborhoods or in parts of Jerusalem

that were occupied by Jordan and

sometimes they'll use it just to Des Des

cribe more generally Jews living in

predominantly Arab areas and then you

ask uh Palestinian when they use the

term they're using it to describe every

single Jew living in the holy land and

all of this is because settler to them

does not

mean someone who is somehow involved in

the formal Act of being transferred what

they mean is a Jew living in a place

where they think Jews ought not to live

my point of view as a liberal I find it

uh disturbing that we should assume that

there is wrongdoing

involved in people living in a

particular place simply because of their

ethnicity it's an attenuated legal

argument that doesn't really hold water

there is no relevant international law

about settling or settlements or being a

settler those are again those are media

terms so Jews can claim indigeny to

these territories but as we've seen the

rights of indigenous people in

international law are ambiguous so back

to our question what does binding

international law say about who has the

right to this land today let's rewind to

World War I in 1916 a secret treaty was

established between Britain and France

known as the syes Pico agreement where

they agreed on the boundaries of British

and French spheres of influence in the

region on the assumption they would win

the war this agreement played a

significant role in determining the

borders of many modern-day Middle

Eastern States including Iraq Kuwait

Lebanon Syria Jordan and of course the

future Jewish homeland in Palestine in

197 the British conquered Palestine from

the Ottoman Empire and declared their

support for the establishment of a

national home for the Jewish people in

Palestine this was known as the ball

declaration the area they designated as

Palestine did not just include what is

now Israel it also included the areas of

Judea and Samaria I.E the West Bank and

even the entirety of Jordan then in 1920

an International Conference was held in

Sano Italy where the principal allied

powers of World War I voted to recognize

quote the historical connection of the

Jewish people with Palestine and the

reconstitution of their National home in

the region this conference led to a

further meeting in 19 22 of the League

of Nations a precursor to the United

Nations where these proposals were

formalized under international law so

that means that according to

international law established in 1922

the Jewish people were given the right

to a Homeland in not just territory that

is part of modern-day Israel but also

the area often referred to as the West

Bank while the British Mandate of

Palestine originally included Jordan it

was separated into its own Arab state

which as it happens today contains a

Palestinian

majority the B for declaration the Sano

conference they are integral to the

recognition by the International

Community of the indigenous right of

Jews to settle in the land and in fact

the Mandate made specific provision for

the closed settlement so in a sense

these political and legal instruments

are crucial in that they provide that

hisorical legal context so it was

clearly established in international law

way back in 1920 that the Jewish people

had the right to set up a Homeland

certainly in all of the territories that

under dispute today but what if you

don't consider these legal agreements to

be valid because they were established

by Colonial Powers if you don't accept

them then there is no state of Jordan uh

there is no state of Iraq so the idea of

ever calling Israel a colonialist or a

settler state is so anti-history and so

ignorant of the realities of what

occurred so there is clearly a precedent

in international law that grants the

Jewish people the right to the land

referred to as settlements but what if

that's not good enough for you what if

you say that since 1948 this territory

legally belongs to the Palestinian Arabs

the question is on what basis if you

want to say it belongs to them based on

the un's 1947 partition plan even if

this plan was binding international law

which it isn't you still have the

problem that the Arabs rejected the

proposal then Jordan came and occupied

the territory from 1948 but there's no

legal basis for their occupation so when

in 1967 Israel captured the area of the

West Bank in a defensive War who had the

legal right to it in the first place it

couldn't have been the jordanians they

had no legal right to it and the

Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN

partition plan so the only President you

have to go back to is the 1922 League of

Nations mandate that allocated the area

for a future Jewish homeland moreover

when Israel took control of the West

Bank from Jordan in 1967 it did so in a

war of self-defense the inherent right

to self-defense is recognized in article

51 of the UN Charter which is also

binding in international law the

question I'm often asked as a lawyer is

is the occupation of the West Bank legal

the answer to that is clearly

unequivocal Ely yes it's legal that any

country is entitled to occupy areas that

it won in a defensive War until there is

no longer any belligerency that's what

the United States did in Japan that's

what the United States did in Germany

that's what many other countries did

there has been no end of belligerency

it's clear in international law that a

territory captured in a defensive war is

legal so why do some people argue that

the settlers are living there illegally

all of the legal arguments stem from A

peculiar interpretation

of the sixth paragraph of uh article 49

of the forth Geneva Convention it's an

interpretation that seems to apply only

in the context of Israel article 49 of

the Fourth Geneva Convention says that

while a state may occupy land in a

defensive War they cannot start

transferring their own civilians to the

occupied territory

this provision was included in response

to the practices of Nazi Germany during

World War II which involved forcibly

transfering German populations into

territories it had occupied in Eastern

Europe the provision was seen as an

important step in ensuring that the

transfer of populations was no longer

used as a tool of Oppression and control

during times of armed conflict it is

this legislation that has been the basis

for those arguing Israeli settlers are

violating international law

but Israel argues that this law cannot

apply to these territories because the

land was not under the recognized

sovereignty of any state and the time of

its capture but also because the Fourth

Geneva Convention is talking about a

nation forcefully moving their citizens

into the land captured in a defensive

War but in Israel's case the settlers

aren't being forced to move they are

moving to these areas or already living

there

voluntarily most of the residents most

of the Jewish residents

of Judea and Samaria the West Bank lived

their all of their

lives they've not been moved from one

side of the line to the other and

perhaps their parents or their

grandparents moved

there but they didn't move

anywhere so they were never

transferred what's more is even if they

had been transferred there's no reason

to think that it's a crime to be

transferred the the crime if there would

be any would be Israel forcing them to

move there but the people who live there

have as much right to live there as

anyone else uh let me let me just push

forward with this argument that I think

it's again I I think this argument is

silly it's not applied anywhere else in

the world when we're looking at double

standards in international law it's also

really important to understand how

settlement activity in the context of

real situations of occupation occupation

is envisaged by the fourth Geneva

Convention are addressed by the

International Community and Professor

Eugene kovich has conducted a very

detailed survey of these instances and

concludes that in every case um the

concept of article 496 being applied and

the idea that this activity is

recognized as illegal um it is simply

non-existent so these are blatant double

standards and it's not the case that

these instances have escaped

International condemnation in many of

these examples there are other um

criticisms that have been made of

widescale human rights abusers that have

accompanied these programs but in not

one of them is article 496 used as um a

a way of describing illegal settlement

activity it's only with respect to

Israel go Israel the international

lawyers I spoke to argued that it's not

simply a question of double standards

but that even in situations of real

occupation where the Geneva Convention

clearly applies the transfer of

settlement is not regarded as illegal

this undermines any argument under

international law Advanced against

Israel in this respect there seems to be

an inversion of international law

essentially and a complete abuse of the

international legal order Visa

Israel thus a more accurate term for

these territories would be a disputed

territory

it is for these reasons that the United

States announced in 2019 that Israeli

settlements do not violate international

law the establishment of Israeli

civilian settlements in the West Bank is

not per se inconsistent with

international law ironically the only

notable times Israel has forcibly moved

their citizens from a territory under

their control was when they were moving

their own citizens out of territories as

a gesture for peace in 1982 Israeli

settlements were forcibly evacuated and

demolished in the Sinai Peninsula as

part of a land for peace deal with Egypt

and similarly in 2005 Jews were forcibly

evacuated from Gaza by their own

government and the land was handed to

the Palestinians for self-government

another irony of accusing Israelis as

illegal settlers is that under the Oslo

Accords Palestinians are not allowed to

settle in area CA yet I discovered that

for many years there have been illegal

Palestinian Construction in area SE

funded by the

EU and you can see colors illegal

Palestinian construction this is yellow

since 2007 then blue is 18 19 21 and you

can see just filled with dots and if we

will travel we will see the signs by the

road which European country funded

everything I have neighbors you know if

if they would like to to add uh just a

storage uh Warehouse or whatever on next

to their house on their own property you

if they do it without the proper permits

it'll get destroyed it would be nice if

uh the tables were turned and we would

just be able to actually build you know

where we're legally allowed to build and

we're not even looking to expand beyond

that so it's clear from the legal

experts that there is a double standard

being applied to Israel settlements and

an ignoring of international law both in

other countries and with regard to

Palestinian settlement building