Why Israel Has LEGAL RIGHT To West Bank (Judea & Samaria) - ICJ Reaction
Summary
TLDRThe 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
- ๐๏ธ 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.
- ๐ฌ 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.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐๏ธ 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.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐ก 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.
- ๐ค 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.
- ๐ณ 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.
- ๐๏ธ 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
๐๏ธ 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.
๐ 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.
๐ก๏ธ 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.
๐๏ธ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กInternational Court of Justice
๐กSettlements
๐กIndigenous Rights
๐กUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
๐กBritish Mandate of Palestine
๐กSelf-Defense
๐กFourth Geneva Convention
๐กDouble Standards
๐กDisputed Territory
๐กOslo Accords
๐กInternational Law
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
Browse More Related Video
World demands end to Israelโs illegal occupation of Palestine, in landslide UN vote
The History of Palestine Occupation
Bangladesh Statement in ICJ hearing on Palestine 20 Feb 2024
UN court rules Israel must prevent genocidal acts in Gaza | BBC News
A Brief History of Gaza Ancient and Modern
Mehdi Hasan Debunks 7 Israeli Myths About UNRWA
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)