Israeli panel backs legalizing settler outposts

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Israeli panel backs legalizing settler outposts

By Jeffrey Heller
JERUSALEM | Mon Jul 9, 2012 8:41am EDT

(Reuters) - A government-appointed committee on Monday proposed granting official status to dozens of unauthorized settler outposts in the West Bank, challenging the world view that Israeli settlement there is illegal.

The non-binding legal opinion, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had sought, could be used by the right-wing leader to address criticism at home and abroad of his declared plans to build more homes for Jews on land Palestinians want for a state.

Three months ago, his governing coalition drew Palestinian and international condemnation when it retroactively legalized three West Bank outposts built without official sanction.

But the panel, chaired by a former Israeli Supreme Court justice who has written pro-settlement opinions from the bench, reaffirmed Israel's long-held view that the West Bank is not occupied territory and that settling Jews there is legal.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/us-palestinians-israel-settlements-idUSBRE8680JS20120709

[kayecy]

1. How to have your cake and eat it........

The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits occupying powers from settling their own populations in occupied lands. But that's not a problem for Israel, according to the committee set up by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman to examine construction in the West Bank, because Israel is not a "military occupier" in the territories

.
.
.
.

Conclusion:

The Levy Committee's conclusions, therefore, are very helpful in piercing the veil of legal hypocrisy behind Israeli control in the territories: If it's an occupation, then the whole body of occupation law applies, making all the settlements - and here there is no distinction between "settlements" and "outposts" - illegal. On the other hand, if we're not talking about an occupation, then everything the military commanders have been doing all this time was unauthorized and it must thus return to the Palestinians any and all lands that were seized.

Ref: http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/if-there-are-no-palestinians-there-s-no-israeli-occupation.premium-1.449988?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.225%2C2.226%2C

[bemildred]

2. Obama administration raps Israeli report on legality of settlements

(JTA) -- The Obama administration criticized an Israeli panel finding that West Bank settlements are legal under international law.

"We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts," State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters Monday evening in answer to a question about the Levy Committee report. Ventrell added that the State Department is "concerned about it, obviously."

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns could bring up the report during meetings this week in Israel. Burns will be there with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit to the region.

The Levy Committee, which was formed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and headed by former Israeli Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, said in its 89-page report released Sunday that “Israel does not meet the criteria of ‘military occupation’ as defined under international law” in the West Bank, and that therefore settlements and West Bank outposts are legal.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/10/3100331/obama-administration-criticizes-settlement-report

[LeftishBrit]

3. One Voice are opposing this.

http://blog.onevoicemovement.org/one_voice/2012/07/onevoice-activists-warn-against-report-promoting-settlement-expansion.html

[Bradlad]

4. Of course.

Most people do not take kindly to having their beliefs questioned - especially when those beliefs have become part of their identity. But have you read the report? What I have understood from it, so far, is that:

a) Balfour, San Remo, etc. as per League if Nations (which was the accepted international law of the day) says that Britain's Mandate was to prepare the territory as a Jewish homeland and encourage Jewish immigration and "close settlement" on the "land" - which was the whole of Palestine including Judea and Samaria. My understanding is that they had a single Jewish majority state in mind at some point, with large, hopefully accepting, Arab minority.

b) Then years later, after many more Jews and Arabs had immigrated - and after Hajj Amin Husseini radicalized many of the Arabs against the Jews, the UN proposed two separate states - the key word being proposed. It was up to the Jews and Arabs there to implement their own statehood.

c) The Jews accepted the proposal. The Arabs, with the assistance of surrounding Arab states started a war to wipe out the new Jewish state.

d) There was no UN resolution saying that the concept of a Jewish homeland in the totality of "Palestine" was cancelled. There was never a resolution under international law that said that even though Israel had accepted a state on part of that land, that the rest of it had to be reserved for exclusive Arab use in case they ever decided to put a state there.

e) I think what the Levy Report suggests is that - since the Arabs rejected the opening to establish an Arab state there which would have secured Arab sovereignty over that land - that both Arabs and Jews still had some claim to sovereignty there. And that the claim had to be worked out in negotiations (which is exactly what UNSCR 242 reinforced and explicitly stated many years later BTW.) The Arabs because of their majority and the suggested Partition Plan - but the Jews also because of the original League of Nations proclamations, which had never been legally superseded by the UN. In other words, because of the Arab failure to accept the Partition Plan the land remained in status of "disputed" territory, as it was before the Partition, it's sovereignty yet to be determined. It was not "occupied" in the legal sense and therefore Geneva 4 was not applicable.

f) Their thinking is that Israel's "occupation" of the WB was not a military occupation of another state. It was the means of establishing peace and order in a stateless region of belligerents that Israel had been attacked from and to which the Jews had an existing, but not exclusive, legal claim by international law. This was the case even though Israel did not "annex" the land - which it could have done. The fact is Israel offered to trade their rights to annex the land in the future for a lasting peace with the Arabs there. (That offer was rejected at Khartoum of course and repeatedly since then.)

Perhaps I don't fully understand what I've read so far and need to digest it some more but this view seems at least as credible as Palestinian Arab claims to sovereignty over the WB - that seem to be based on rejection of all Jews from the area (including Israel) because they hate Jews and will not tolerate sharing any land with them. (This is what their foundation documents of Hamas, PA, etc. all say and it's what their leaders say continuously.)

So just as an exercise can anyone poke some serious holes in the Levy Report conclusions?

[kayecy]

5. Good for you Bradlad.....

Good for you Bradlad.....The two-state solution is obviously dead.......Only problem is, what do you right-wing types propose to do with all those Palestinians living there now.......Ethnicaly cleanse them again?

[shira]

6. Various rightwing proposals for one state...

From what I've read recently, the right proposes to leave Gaza as is, annex Judea/Samaria, and then either...

a) allow all Palestinians there full citizenship if they want it, as they believe the demographic threat is bunk

b) allow all Palestinians there something on the order of permanent residency status

c) offer Palestinians in the WB compensation to go elsewhere throughout the Arab world if they don't want to stay.

d) offer compensation not only to WB Palestinians, but also to all other Palestinians (refugees in other nations) as an alternative to their return. Something on the order of $100,000 per family to live elsewhere.

===========

Now what's interesting in your comments is:

1) You claim 1-state is rightwing, yet that is what all anti-zionists claim they want to see. I don't understand how one version of 1-state is rightwing while another is leftwing. Both are rightwing IMO, especially since the "leftwing" version is basically identical to that of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, etc.

2) If Israel ethnically cleansed Palestinians, they did a lousy job. Over one million remain within Israel today. Compare to genuine ethnic cleansing of Jews throughout the mideast, where maybe a few thousand (at most) remain.

[azurnoir]

9. again the through the looking glass definations of rightwing vs liberal

a military occupation/colonization, ethnic supremacist rule in the occupied West Bank is liberal while the very concept of self rule is rightwing at least for Palestinians and/or other "Arabs"

[shira]

17. You think Israel rules the WB via ethnic supremacy? Are you sure you want to claim that?

Try doing the minimal amount of research to see who coined that terminology (Jewish Supremacism) while repeating it constantly on his website....

[azurnoir]

18. lol oh a David Duke comparison is it? But it is YOU that quoted Duke not me

Last edited Sat Jul 14, 2012, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

if it is not an ethnically supremacist (Israeli) rule then what would you call it shira but see you think I offered you some red meat and well you certainly snatched it quickly enough thank you I we'll hearing about this one over and over and over and over and over .........just wanted to see how you'd get out of answering the question

your of Jews rather than Israeli speaks volumes here

[shira]

19. You're using the same language as Duke, whether you want to play semantic games or not...

....with ethnic supremacy vs. jewish supremacy.

What ethnicity are you referring to if not Jewish?

[azurnoir]

20. Israeli is what I said it is you that conflates Israeli with Jews

any other filth you wish to spew?

[shira]

21. Israeli is not an ethnicity; it's a nationality. Try again. n/t

[azurnoir]

22. well I stand corrected then I should have said nationalistic supremacist

there is that better?

[shira]

23. There is no such thing. So from which vile website did you get the idea of ethnic supremacy? n/t

[azurnoir]

31. This one dear Democratric Undergroud so please continue on that line of thought n/t

[shira]

43. This one? You mean DU is now influenced by David Duke and Stormfront?

And you decided to adopt the same rhetoric?

[King_David]

28. Either way ,

It was a filthy thing to say.

[azurnoir]

30. why what nation militarily controls the majority of the West Bank?

and is transferring its civilians to militarily conquered territory, has roadways in that territory that only its own nationals are allowed to use?

but do keep trying pleez

[King_David]

32. 'but do keep trying pleez'

Seems you are.

[azurnoir]

33. Does the truth pain you? Israel controls the majority of the West Bank area

and builds Israeli only roads, and additionally allows its citizens to possess automatic weapons and to brandish them publicly but jails Palestinians for possessing almost anything that can be called a weapon

shall we continue?

[King_David]

34. What pains me and disgusts me,

Is anyone (especially coming from DU and not Stormfront) calling Jews 'supremacists' .

as in ''ethnic supremacist rule in the occupied West Bank ''

[azurnoir]

35. I meant Israeli supremacy not Jews nor did I say Jews you and shira are claiming that

now I do understand why both of you would be confused as you seem to prefer the use Jews over that of Israeli, however I do not

but the creative and desperate spin here is indeed interesting

[shira]

44. Sure...you meant "Israeli" supremacy. Hahahahaha! n/t

[azurnoir]

36. I find it equally shocking that a DUer would advocate for the US to continue its occupation of Iraq

under the heading of Gay rights and advocate for countries not coming up their standards of Gay rights to no longer exist

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113411909#post85

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113411909#post91

I'll challenge you to go top side with those sentiments

eta I added these comments because you have told me countless times how "shocked" you are at my posts being on this site so finally I showed some of yours that while I did not find them "shocking" I did find surprising coming from a 'liberal'

[King_David]

39. Sorry I don't get the connection ,

Gay rights however seem to frazzle you.



Good try though.

[azurnoir]

40. No people advocting on DU for the continuation of a war that was wrongfully started by a Republican

surprising on a liberal Democratic site, as to Gay rights they hardly frazzle me I would advocate for change not more killing in the 3rd world, but I guess that's me

BTW do ya want to take my challenge?

[King_David]

42. Pathetic that you think my support of Gay rights

Would be not accepted "up top"

You forget that your on a liberal democratic forum.

We support gay and minority rights here in DU.



You just don't get it, do you ?

[azurnoir]

49. I think that supporting what could well be interpreted as a call for further death and destruction o

under the heading of Gay Rights would be unacceptable to most reasonable people but do go ahead if you believe it true post a thread saying the US military should have remained in Iraq until came in line with Gay Rights expectations if you believe you are so right

[King_David]

50. I will discuss such Ignorance no further

Gay rights are absolute and you just showing your ignorance and bias.


bye bye

[azurnoir]

51. my bias is against illegal military occupations not Gay Rights as you are attempting to portray

and I for one am not afraid to discuss this further but I do understand your hesitance

[King_David]

52. Yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=13382

[azurnoir]

53. that is the second time you've linked to BtA, why ?

is it only because he is an LBGT host or is it this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10131702

if so you are out of line

[King_David]

47. Best review this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=13421

[azurnoir]

54. see comment #53

I chose to let it go this first time, but chose to press the point

[kayecy]

10. Try reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.....

Now what's interesting in your comments is:

1) You claim 1-state is rightwing, yet that is what all anti-zionists claim they want to see. I don't understand how one version of 1-state is rightwing while another is leftwing. Both are rightwing IMO, especially since the "leftwing" version is basically identical to that of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, etc.

I said "Good for you Bradlad........I support one state if that is what the Palestinians want. However, unlike the Zionist right, I only accept what you wrote in b) ie:

a) allow all Palestinians there full citizenship if they want it, as they believe the demographic threat is bunk

b) to d) are unacceptable in terms of human rights and what the rest of the world would accept....They are not even acceptable to most Israelis, so why bother to list them as possibilities?

[shira]

16. You mean you accept part (a) of those 4 options? n/t

[kayecy]

29. Yes...If that is what the Palestinians want......Why the surprise?......

[shira]

45. Which Palestinians? Their leaders or individual Palestinians? n/t

[kayecy]

48. The individual Palestinians of course....

The individual Palestinians of course....


Well Shira.......What are you getting at?.........Are you prepared to allow all Palestinians full citizenship of Israel/West Bank single state if they want it?......Are you prepared to treat them as equals rather than as now, treating them as colonial subjects?

[azurnoir]

38. Now shira do you agree with the basic findings of the Levy Committee ?

a simple yes or no will do, but not required

assuming we're done with your false attempts to equate me with David Duke?

[shira]

46. Yes. n/t

[Bradlad]

7. Well . .

The question under discussion is if the settlements are legal or not. The question is not what Israel should/should not do with respect to the existing Arab population. Although giving them a great deal of autonomy in their majority areas seems like a reasonable approach.

Does your comment - which avoided dealing with the challenge I posed - mean you have no disagreement with the Levy Report conclusions?

[azurnoir]

8. well thank you as this quote from your comment explains Israel's actions in area C 60+% of the WB

"The question is not what Israel should/should not do with respect to the existing Arab population. Although giving them a great deal of autonomy in their majority areas seems like a reasonable approach."

thank you again for that insight

[kayecy]

11. You think it would be reasonable if........

So you think it would be reasonable if israelis were given a great deal of autonomy in their majority areas of one state?

.........................

Does your comment - which avoided dealing with the challenge I posed - mean you have no disagreement with the Levy Report conclusions?

I certainly don't disagree with the following Levy conclusion:

Finally, we wish to stress that the picture that has been displayed before us regarding Israeli settlement activity in Judea and Samaria does not befit the behavior of a state which prides itself on, and is committed to, the rule of law

At last, even the hard right are begining to see Israel for what it is.....A state which only pretends to be committed to the rule of law!

[Bradlad]

12. I think you misunderstand.

I believe they are referring to the failure of the state of Israel to establish a clear legal basis for the settlements before allowing them to be built. They are saying it should have been done long ago. As a non-Israeli outsider and after reading the report I agree that it probably would have been better for Israel if that had been done before any settlements were built. Added: And if there was no legal basis they should not have been built.

But the commission's report finally does establish a clear case for the legality of the settlements based on international law. Now, before another international body can criticize the settlements they will need to invalidate the report's legal argument (if they want credibility) and that may not be so easy to do.

Of course, Israel's enemies in the West will try to invalidate the report including perhaps, the Obama administration, who's public opposition to the settlements has been a main theme of its policy regarding the conflict. (See comment #2 above.) So now we'll see how good their counter-argument is. I'm sure there are several administration lawyers working on it as we speak.

PS - I don't understand your first question.

[kayecy]

13. That is magnanimous of you.......

......Added: And if there was no legal basis they should not have been built.

That is magnanimous of you.......Legal basis under whose jurisdiction?

But the commission's report finally does establish a clear case for the legality of the settlements based on international law. Now, before another international body can criticize the settlements they will need to invalidate the report's legal argument (if they want credibility) and that may not be so easy to do

.
What are you talking about?....Will try to invalidate the report?......All western democracies have stated for years that the settlements are illegal........The verdict of an Israeli commission doesn't change anything....You have the cart before the horse......The Israelis must take the case to the International Court of Justice if they want the report of their comission to have any international credibility.......That, I assure you, they will never do.

PS - I don't understand your first question.

You said that giving them (the Palestinians) a great deal of autonomy in their majority areas seemed like a reasonable approach to you......I asked if you thought giving Jews the same autonomy in their majority areas in a single state would also seem fair to you, or does a single state to you mean a Jewish-ruled state irrespective of the proportion of Palestinians in that state?
.

[Bradlad]

14. Western democracies . .

The political administrations of Western democracies say many things. That does not make them legal or illegal. Even the ICJ only issues advisory opinions that are not enforceable. There really is no world court that any state must accept its rulings on these things. Even UNSC resolutions comes down to whether any UN member state with a large military is willing and able to take on the enforcement. That's even less likely now than it was ten years ago. When anything like that even seems possible, the UNSC resolution is vetoed by one side or the other.

Assad is over there slaughtering hundreds of innocent civilians every day and the enlightened West is peeing all over themselves. If they allow Assad, a military dictator to do this, do you really think the West has the stomach to militarily attack Israel for building apartments in a stateless territory from which they've been repeatedly attacked? Do you really think Obama has the balls to do that?

And so in this enlightened world that appeasement of dictators and aggressors has brought us to - states and non-state entities, dictatorships and terrorist regimes are pretty much free to do what they wish - like fire rockets, mortars and machine guns into civilian areas of UN member state like Israel. Added: And then the ever-so-just UN passes GA resolutions condemning Israel for defending itself.

When states do attempt to operate within some international legal framework - even though the law is anything but clear and unambiguous on those things - they do so voluntarily - like Israel has finally done regarding the settlements.

*********************

"You said that giving them (the Palestinians) a great deal of autonomy in their majority areas seemed like a reasonable approach to you."

Yes, a reasonable approach in their non-state territory until they agree to negotiate permanent borders and an end to violence against Israel. At that point they may be deserving of statehood there - which provides full autonomy. Like Israel enjoys.

[kayecy]

15. Fortunately, neither israel nor its ultra-zionist

Yes, a reasonable approach in their non-state territory until they agree to negotiate permanent borders and an end to violence against Israel. At that point they may be deserving of statehood there - which provides full autonomy. Like Israel enjoys

Yes, well, fortunately neither Israel or its ultra-Zionists are likely to be allowed to get away with that sort of "Greater Israel" policy so as the Levy commission said.......Israel will just go on pretending to abide by the law.

I don't suppose you consider the 50 year occupation classes as "violence against Palestinians" and that ending it is entirely in Israel's hands?.......Anyway, Israel hasn't even said what eastern borders it claims....Some of the settlements?......All settlements?....The Jordan or what?.......Israel is the only UN state which refuses to say what borders it claims.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Two questions...

1. Could you provide a link to the Levy Report for anyone who wants to read it? Not that I think a report written to order for an extreme RW govt needs to be taken seriously, and wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone but RW types, but I like to read what people are talking about...

2. You ask if anyone can poke any serious holes in the reports conclusions. Didn't I see you in another thread being shown by The Magistrate a few serious holes? Or was that just my imagination playing tricks on me? It's just it does look to me like you travel from thread to thread ignoring what's been said to you in one, only to kick off the same 'arguments' again...

btw, welcome to DU. Have a look around. You'll find there's a whole lot of DU outside of just this group for left-wingers who want to become a part of the DU community

[Bradlad]

26. No problem.

1. Could you provide a link to the Levy Report

Hebrew full report

Conclusions and Recommendations in English

The Legal Arguments in English

This last is the most interesting although some here might not like the URL. It's the only English translation of this I know of so far.

2. You ask if anyone can poke any serious holes in the reports conclusions.

Actually, after the Magistrate left I started looking into his criticisms. Some of what he said had merit. It caused me to take another look. I'm doing that now as I get time. I am time limited as I'm self employed and this is my busy season. So I grab what time I can to follow one or two threads and maybe comment. That's why I don't comment in other forums. I'm interested in the I/P conflict and so what time I have I spend here for now.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it today...

[Bradlad]

27. BTW Violet

I posted a comment, a question really, in another thread this morning on this very topic. I 'd really be interested in your ideas on this if you'd care to give it a shot. Actually I'd like to hear ideas on this question from anybody in his forum as I think it encapsulates some of the problems inherent in translating legal definitions - even when they are very carefully crafted - and imposing them on helpless humans in the real world.

The question.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. My answer...

When it comes to the last paragraph of Article 49, my understanding has always been that it applies to the occupying power moving their own population into the occupied territory and settling there. Obviously medical personnel sent to deal with wounded members of the protected population don't fall into that category, and would fall under the obligation of the occupying power to take responsibility for the population in the occupied territory...

btw, I'm starting to read the English translation of the Levy Report now, and I'm not even into the second paragraph and I've found the first hole. Someone needs to tell them that they don't get to redefine the term 'occupation' to suit themselves and their situation. The whole thing about the length of time excluding something from being an occupation doesn't make sense at all. Indonesia occupied East Timor for decades, and still continues to occupy West Papua. Yet these guys are saying Indonesia wasn't carrying out an occupation at all? Or much like how they didn't think about what the implications of their conclusions are on Israel and its future as a democratic Jewish state, they didn't think about how their reasoning applies to other areas of conflict and occupation around the world...

Anyway, I must go back to holding my nose at the numerous biblical references to Judea and Samaria peppered throughout it and get to pointing out more gaping holes in it...

[Violet_Crumble]

25. US Jewish leaders criticize West Bank report

In letter to Netanyahu, more than 40 prominent Jewish figures, including Charles Bronfman and Stanley Gold, express fear that report calling for legalization of West Bank outposts will 'add fuel to those who seek to delegitimize Israel's right to exist'

Dozens of American Jewish leaders and scholars have made a rare appeal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, asking him to make sure his government rejects a controversial report that denies Israel is occupying the West Bank.

In a letter to Netanyahu, more than 40 prominent Jewish figures predicted the report authored by former Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy would tarnish Israel's image and jeopardize prospects for peace with the Palestinians.

"We recognize and regret that the Palestinian Authority has abdicated leadership by not returning to the negotiating table," they wrote in the letter, obtained Monday by The Associated Press. "Nonetheless, our great fear is that the Levy Report will not strengthen Israel's position in this conflict, but rather, add fuel to those who seek to delegitimize Israel's right to exist."

Signatories included businessmen and philanthropists Charles Bronfman and Stanley Gold, the former head of the Israel lobby in Washington, Tom Dine, and former Jewish Agency board chairman Richard Pearlstone.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4256354,00.html