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

J-TV: Jewish Ideas. Global Relevance.
21 Jul 202418:50

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

  • ๐Ÿ›๏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.
  • ๐ŸŽฌ 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.
  • ๐Ÿ“š 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.
  • ๐ŸŒ 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.
  • ๐Ÿ™๏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.
  • ๐Ÿ“œ 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.
  • ๐Ÿ• 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.
  • ๐Ÿก 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.
  • ๐Ÿค” 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.
  • ๐ŸŒณ 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.
  • ๐Ÿ›๏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

00:00

๐Ÿ›๏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.

05:01

๐Ÿ“œ 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

๐Ÿ›ก๏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.

15:04

๐Ÿ—๏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

๐Ÿ’กInternational 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.

๐Ÿ’กSettlements

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.

๐Ÿ’กIndigenous 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.

๐Ÿ’กUnited 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.

๐Ÿ’กBritish 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.

๐Ÿ’กSelf-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.

๐Ÿ’กFourth 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.

๐Ÿ’กDouble 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.

๐Ÿ’กDisputed 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.

๐Ÿ’กOslo 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.

๐Ÿ’กInternational 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

play00:00

so the international court of justice

play00:02

has just ruled absurdly that Israel's

play00:05

occupation of the West Bank Judea and

play00:08

Samaria really is illegal

play00:11

unlawful and I wanted to unpack this

play00:15

with you today but it's not actually

play00:17

going to be in my own words well it sort

play00:19

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

play00:21

documentary I produced a few years ago I

play00:25

created uh alongside Roger Walters a

play00:28

film called settling the facts which you

play00:30

can find on YouTube um anyone can watch

play00:34

it and I'm going to show you a short

play00:36

clip from it this is the documentary and

play00:39

it goes into the issue of Israel's uh

play00:43

presence in Judea and Samaria from a

play00:46

moral standpoint a legal standpoint a

play00:48

historical standpoint it looks at the

play00:49

individuals and the people involved what

play00:51

I want to show you is the section that

play00:53

deals with the legal questions it won by

play00:56

by the way a few Film Festival Awards

play00:58

which we're very proud of but um

play01:00

I think it's a really compelling

play01:01

documentary and the clip I'm going to

play01:03

show you unpacks for you so you can

play01:05

understand very clearly the legal

play01:07

questions now let's just bear in mind

play01:10

the ultimate reason why I believe we

play01:12

have clear rights to land apart from our

play01:14

Biblical connection historical

play01:15

indigenous legal all these things is

play01:18

that God the creator of this universe

play01:20

the owner of this universe assigned it

play01:21

to the Jewish people let's be absolutely

play01:23

clear about that but it's also important

play01:25

to know that within the realm of

play01:26

international law the Jewish people have

play01:30

the clear right to the land and even if

play01:34

it wasn't the case in international law

play01:36

I would still say we have the right to

play01:37

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

play01:39

of respect for some of these bodies

play01:40

which are so hostile to Israel but

play01:42

nevertheless it's important or at least

play01:44

useful to know these facts so I want you

play01:47

to have a watch of this clip because in

play01:49

it will give you a lot of really crucial

play01:51

information for tackling the nonsense

play01:54

claims that we're seeing you never hear

play01:56

the word settlements used in the context

play01:58

of Israel with without it being preceded

play02:01

by the word illegal I wanted to delve

play02:04

deeper into international law and see

play02:06

whether this is indeed the case on

play02:09

December the 23rd 2016 the United

play02:12

Nations security Council passed

play02:14

resolution

play02:15

2334 stating that Israel settlements

play02:18

constituted a flagrant violation of

play02:20

international law and has no legal

play02:23

validity but this resolution has no

play02:25

legal standing itself because it is a

play02:28

non-binding resolution

play02:30

the resolution tries to argue

play02:32

settlements are illegal from

play02:34

pre-existing international law so let's

play02:37

look into this what does binding

play02:39

international law say about the

play02:41

settlements let's first explore the role

play02:44

of indigenous rights in international

play02:46

law as we saw earlier the Jewish people

play02:49

began their journey in this land 3,000

play02:51

years ago all the places I visited on my

play02:54

trip to Israel are places the Jewish

play02:56

people have historical and biblical

play02:58

connection to Judea was the birthplace

play03:01

of King David and the location of

play03:03

Jerusalem which was the capital of the

play03:05

kingdom of Judah Samaria was the capital

play03:08

of the Northern Kingdom of Israel Shiloh

play03:10

in Samaria is mentioned in the Hebrew

play03:12

Bible as a location of the Tabernacle

play03:15

before the construction of the first

play03:17

temple in Jerusalem heon was an

play03:20

important city and a center of worship

play03:23

and where Abraham Sara Isaac Rebecca

play03:25

Jacob and Leia were buried in the cave

play03:28

of the Patriarchs there are very few

play03:30

peoples in the

play03:32

world the Chinese the Indians but very

play03:35

few people in the world that have um a

play03:40

recorded history in a land the way the

play03:42

Jews have in the land of Israel it's

play03:44

harder to

play03:46

say whether the Palestinian Arabs are

play03:50

indigenous there certainly have been

play03:52

Arabs in this

play03:54

land longer than there have been Muslims

play03:57

in Israel which means that there history

play04:00

is a thousand years shorter than the

play04:01

Jews but then there are very few people

play04:03

who have as long a history in this land

play04:05

as uh in the Jews anywhere in the world

play04:08

there are several examples of binding

play04:09

international law that recognizes the

play04:12

rights of indigenous people to settle

play04:14

the land they come from however these

play04:16

rights in international law are somewhat

play04:18

vague because the Practical parameters

play04:20

can be hard to define the word settler

play04:23

is being used very promiscuously in an

play04:25

entirely negative way settlers include

play04:28

the prime minister of Israel living in

play04:30

downtown Jerusalem the businessman

play04:32

living in Tel Aviv a child living in

play04:36

Benet Brock uh to other settlers would

play04:39

include everybody who lives in any area

play04:43

that was captured by Israel Defense of

play04:46

War in

play04:47

1967 including the people who used to

play04:49

live in Gaza who left the people who

play04:50

live in the Golan Heights which is now

play04:52

part of Israel people who live in Malay

play04:55

adumim which will become part of Israel

play04:58

under any settlement and also people who

play05:00

live in areas that will likely become

play05:02

part of a Palestinian state if a

play05:05

two-state solution is ever adopted so we

play05:07

have to be far more precise in using the

play05:10

term settler and make sure we use it in

play05:12

a neutral way in a descriptive way

play05:14

rather than an invidious way because the

play05:17

law regarding such people is very

play05:20

complicated some of the legal experts I

play05:22

spoke to also said that the use of the

play05:24

term settler is a tactical ploy to sever

play05:28

or hide the indigenous connection the

play05:30

Jews have to these lands describing them

play05:33

as settlers is describing them as

play05:37

non-indigenous as people who arrived

play05:40

there and um due to other developments

play05:45

it's a way of insinuating that they're

play05:47

wrongdoers that they're they're some

play05:49

sort of criminals now actually the

play05:51

French language media has the English

play05:53

language media top here they don't they

play05:56

don't mess around they don't call them

play05:57

settlers they certainly don't call call

play05:59

them residents they call them colonists

play06:02

when the Israeli left uses the term in

play06:04

English when they're speaking in English

play06:06

and they call uh uh someone a settler

play06:08

they're referring to Jews who live in

play06:12

the West Bank not including

play06:14

Jerusalem when Europeans use the term

play06:18

they'll use it to also

play06:20

include Jews living in primarily Arab

play06:23

neighborhoods or in parts of Jerusalem

play06:26

that were occupied by Jordan and

play06:28

sometimes they'll use it just to Des Des

play06:29

cribe more generally Jews living in

play06:32

predominantly Arab areas and then you

play06:34

ask uh Palestinian when they use the

play06:36

term they're using it to describe every

play06:38

single Jew living in the holy land and

play06:41

all of this is because settler to them

play06:44

does not

play06:45

mean someone who is somehow involved in

play06:50

the formal Act of being transferred what

play06:53

they mean is a Jew living in a place

play06:57

where they think Jews ought not to live

play06:59

my point of view as a liberal I find it

play07:02

uh disturbing that we should assume that

play07:05

there is wrongdoing

play07:07

involved in people living in a

play07:09

particular place simply because of their

play07:12

ethnicity it's an attenuated legal

play07:14

argument that doesn't really hold water

play07:16

there is no relevant international law

play07:21

about settling or settlements or being a

play07:25

settler those are again those are media

play07:28

terms so Jews can claim indigeny to

play07:31

these territories but as we've seen the

play07:33

rights of indigenous people in

play07:35

international law are ambiguous so back

play07:38

to our question what does binding

play07:40

international law say about who has the

play07:42

right to this land today let's rewind to

play07:45

World War I in 1916 a secret treaty was

play07:49

established between Britain and France

play07:51

known as the syes Pico agreement where

play07:54

they agreed on the boundaries of British

play07:56

and French spheres of influence in the

play07:58

region on the assumption they would win

play08:00

the war this agreement played a

play08:02

significant role in determining the

play08:04

borders of many modern-day Middle

play08:06

Eastern States including Iraq Kuwait

play08:09

Lebanon Syria Jordan and of course the

play08:12

future Jewish homeland in Palestine in

play08:15

197 the British conquered Palestine from

play08:18

the Ottoman Empire and declared their

play08:20

support for the establishment of a

play08:21

national home for the Jewish people in

play08:23

Palestine this was known as the ball

play08:26

declaration the area they designated as

play08:29

Palestine did not just include what is

play08:31

now Israel it also included the areas of

play08:34

Judea and Samaria I.E the West Bank and

play08:37

even the entirety of Jordan then in 1920

play08:41

an International Conference was held in

play08:43

Sano Italy where the principal allied

play08:46

powers of World War I voted to recognize

play08:49

quote the historical connection of the

play08:51

Jewish people with Palestine and the

play08:53

reconstitution of their National home in

play08:56

the region this conference led to a

play08:58

further meeting in 19 22 of the League

play09:00

of Nations a precursor to the United

play09:03

Nations where these proposals were

play09:05

formalized under international law so

play09:07

that means that according to

play09:08

international law established in 1922

play09:11

the Jewish people were given the right

play09:13

to a Homeland in not just territory that

play09:16

is part of modern-day Israel but also

play09:18

the area often referred to as the West

play09:21

Bank while the British Mandate of

play09:24

Palestine originally included Jordan it

play09:26

was separated into its own Arab state

play09:29

which as it happens today contains a

play09:32

Palestinian

play09:33

majority the B for declaration the Sano

play09:36

conference they are integral to the

play09:40

recognition by the International

play09:42

Community of the indigenous right of

play09:45

Jews to settle in the land and in fact

play09:47

the Mandate made specific provision for

play09:50

the closed settlement so in a sense

play09:53

these political and legal instruments

play09:56

are crucial in that they provide that

play09:59

hisorical legal context so it was

play10:01

clearly established in international law

play10:03

way back in 1920 that the Jewish people

play10:06

had the right to set up a Homeland

play10:08

certainly in all of the territories that

play10:10

under dispute today but what if you

play10:13

don't consider these legal agreements to

play10:14

be valid because they were established

play10:16

by Colonial Powers if you don't accept

play10:20

them then there is no state of Jordan uh

play10:22

there is no state of Iraq so the idea of

play10:25

ever calling Israel a colonialist or a

play10:28

settler state is so anti-history and so

play10:31

ignorant of the realities of what

play10:34

occurred so there is clearly a precedent

play10:37

in international law that grants the

play10:39

Jewish people the right to the land

play10:40

referred to as settlements but what if

play10:42

that's not good enough for you what if

play10:44

you say that since 1948 this territory

play10:47

legally belongs to the Palestinian Arabs

play10:50

the question is on what basis if you

play10:52

want to say it belongs to them based on

play10:54

the un's 1947 partition plan even if

play10:57

this plan was binding international law

play11:00

which it isn't you still have the

play11:02

problem that the Arabs rejected the

play11:04

proposal then Jordan came and occupied

play11:06

the territory from 1948 but there's no

play11:09

legal basis for their occupation so when

play11:11

in 1967 Israel captured the area of the

play11:14

West Bank in a defensive War who had the

play11:17

legal right to it in the first place it

play11:19

couldn't have been the jordanians they

play11:21

had no legal right to it and the

play11:23

Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN

play11:25

partition plan so the only President you

play11:28

have to go back to is the 1922 League of

play11:30

Nations mandate that allocated the area

play11:33

for a future Jewish homeland moreover

play11:35

when Israel took control of the West

play11:36

Bank from Jordan in 1967 it did so in a

play11:40

war of self-defense the inherent right

play11:43

to self-defense is recognized in article

play11:45

51 of the UN Charter which is also

play11:48

binding in international law the

play11:51

question I'm often asked as a lawyer is

play11:53

is the occupation of the West Bank legal

play11:57

the answer to that is clearly

play11:58

unequivocal Ely yes it's legal that any

play12:01

country is entitled to occupy areas that

play12:05

it won in a defensive War until there is

play12:09

no longer any belligerency that's what

play12:11

the United States did in Japan that's

play12:13

what the United States did in Germany

play12:15

that's what many other countries did

play12:17

there has been no end of belligerency

play12:18

it's clear in international law that a

play12:21

territory captured in a defensive war is

play12:24

legal so why do some people argue that

play12:27

the settlers are living there illegally

play12:29

all of the legal arguments stem from A

play12:33

peculiar interpretation

play12:36

of the sixth paragraph of uh article 49

play12:40

of the forth Geneva Convention it's an

play12:43

interpretation that seems to apply only

play12:46

in the context of Israel article 49 of

play12:49

the Fourth Geneva Convention says that

play12:51

while a state may occupy land in a

play12:53

defensive War they cannot start

play12:56

transferring their own civilians to the

play12:57

occupied territory

play12:59

this provision was included in response

play13:01

to the practices of Nazi Germany during

play13:04

World War II which involved forcibly

play13:06

transfering German populations into

play13:09

territories it had occupied in Eastern

play13:11

Europe the provision was seen as an

play13:13

important step in ensuring that the

play13:15

transfer of populations was no longer

play13:17

used as a tool of Oppression and control

play13:20

during times of armed conflict it is

play13:23

this legislation that has been the basis

play13:25

for those arguing Israeli settlers are

play13:27

violating international law

play13:29

but Israel argues that this law cannot

play13:31

apply to these territories because the

play13:33

land was not under the recognized

play13:35

sovereignty of any state and the time of

play13:37

its capture but also because the Fourth

play13:40

Geneva Convention is talking about a

play13:42

nation forcefully moving their citizens

play13:45

into the land captured in a defensive

play13:47

War but in Israel's case the settlers

play13:49

aren't being forced to move they are

play13:51

moving to these areas or already living

play13:54

there

play13:55

voluntarily most of the residents most

play13:58

of the Jewish residents

play14:00

of Judea and Samaria the West Bank lived

play14:03

their all of their

play14:04

lives they've not been moved from one

play14:07

side of the line to the other and

play14:09

perhaps their parents or their

play14:10

grandparents moved

play14:12

there but they didn't move

play14:15

anywhere so they were never

play14:18

transferred what's more is even if they

play14:21

had been transferred there's no reason

play14:24

to think that it's a crime to be

play14:26

transferred the the crime if there would

play14:28

be any would be Israel forcing them to

play14:31

move there but the people who live there

play14:35

have as much right to live there as

play14:37

anyone else uh let me let me just push

play14:40

forward with this argument that I think

play14:41

it's again I I think this argument is

play14:43

silly it's not applied anywhere else in

play14:45

the world when we're looking at double

play14:47

standards in international law it's also

play14:49

really important to understand how

play14:51

settlement activity in the context of

play14:54

real situations of occupation occupation

play14:57

is envisaged by the fourth Geneva

play14:59

Convention are addressed by the

play15:01

International Community and Professor

play15:04

Eugene kovich has conducted a very

play15:06

detailed survey of these instances and

play15:10

concludes that in every case um the

play15:13

concept of article 496 being applied and

play15:18

the idea that this activity is

play15:20

recognized as illegal um it is simply

play15:23

non-existent so these are blatant double

play15:27

standards and it's not the case that

play15:29

these instances have escaped

play15:31

International condemnation in many of

play15:33

these examples there are other um

play15:36

criticisms that have been made of

play15:37

widescale human rights abusers that have

play15:39

accompanied these programs but in not

play15:42

one of them is article 496 used as um a

play15:47

a way of describing illegal settlement

play15:49

activity it's only with respect to

play15:51

Israel go Israel the international

play15:53

lawyers I spoke to argued that it's not

play15:56

simply a question of double standards

play15:58

but that even in situations of real

play16:00

occupation where the Geneva Convention

play16:02

clearly applies the transfer of

play16:04

settlement is not regarded as illegal

play16:07

this undermines any argument under

play16:09

international law Advanced against

play16:11

Israel in this respect there seems to be

play16:14

an inversion of international law

play16:16

essentially and a complete abuse of the

play16:19

international legal order Visa

play16:22

Israel thus a more accurate term for

play16:24

these territories would be a disputed

play16:27

territory

play16:29

it is for these reasons that the United

play16:31

States announced in 2019 that Israeli

play16:34

settlements do not violate international

play16:36

law the establishment of Israeli

play16:39

civilian settlements in the West Bank is

play16:42

not per se inconsistent with

play16:44

international law ironically the only

play16:47

notable times Israel has forcibly moved

play16:49

their citizens from a territory under

play16:51

their control was when they were moving

play16:53

their own citizens out of territories as

play16:55

a gesture for peace in 1982 Israeli

play16:59

settlements were forcibly evacuated and

play17:01

demolished in the Sinai Peninsula as

play17:03

part of a land for peace deal with Egypt

play17:06

and similarly in 2005 Jews were forcibly

play17:09

evacuated from Gaza by their own

play17:11

government and the land was handed to

play17:13

the Palestinians for self-government

play17:16

another irony of accusing Israelis as

play17:19

illegal settlers is that under the Oslo

play17:21

Accords Palestinians are not allowed to

play17:23

settle in area CA yet I discovered that

play17:27

for many years there have been illegal

play17:29

Palestinian Construction in area SE

play17:31

funded by the

play17:34

EU and you can see colors illegal

play17:38

Palestinian construction this is yellow

play17:41

since 2007 then blue is 18 19 21 and you

play17:47

can see just filled with dots and if we

play17:50

will travel we will see the signs by the

play17:53

road which European country funded

play17:56

everything I have neighbors you know if

play17:58

if they would like to to add uh just a

play18:00

storage uh Warehouse or whatever on next

play18:02

to their house on their own property you

play18:05

if they do it without the proper permits

play18:07

it'll get destroyed it would be nice if

play18:09

uh the tables were turned and we would

play18:11

just be able to actually build you know

play18:13

where we're legally allowed to build and

play18:14

we're not even looking to expand beyond

play18:17

that so it's clear from the legal

play18:19

experts that there is a double standard

play18:21

being applied to Israel settlements and

play18:23

an ignoring of international law both in

play18:25

other countries and with regard to

play18:27

Palestinian settlement building

Rate This
โ˜…
โ˜…
โ˜…
โ˜…
โ˜…

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

Related Tags
International LawIsraeli SettlementsWest BankJudea and SamariaIndigenous RightsHistorical PerspectiveLegal DebateDocumentary InsightsSelf-DefenseDouble Standards