Settlements are legal according to International Law

[Nannette]

Settlements are legal according to International Law

by Ted Belman

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=17225

In Obama’s address to the UNGA he said that a peace accord must take into account the “legitimate rights of the Palestinians”. I responded with “What legitimate rights”.

I received a few requests for the legal arguments in support of my denial of any such rights.

Talia Einhorn, a law professor at Tel Aviv U. in 2001 published The Status of Palestine/Land of Israel and Its Settlement Under Public International Law. Prof. Talia Einhorn is Senior Research Fellow at T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague; Professor of Law at Concordia International University Estonia; and Editor-in-Chief, European Business Organization Law Review (2000- )

After arguing that the Geneva Convention does not apply, she continues,

[..]
3. The Jewish Settlements in Yesha Under Public International Law

3.1 The Rules of Public International Law Regarding “Occupied Territories”

Even if Israel had been an occupant in Yesha, Jewish settlement there would have been permitted under public international law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Protocol only prohibits the Occupying Power from deporting or transferring parts of its civil population into the territory it occupies. It does not prohibit civilians from acting on their own, purchasing land in occupied territories and settling there among the existing population of that territory. This prohibition is aimed at preventing the occupant from introducing a fundamental demographic change in the structure of the population of the occupied territory.13 In addition, the occupant may actively establish civilian settlements for its citizens in the occupied territories, if such settlement is warranted by security needs of the occupant, and concerns territories in which its presence and control are deemed necessary.14 This does not mean that the land must be used to serve the army’s own needs. It suffices that the military considers: (i) that the land should not be left in the hands of the enemy, for fear that it would be used by the enemy for its purposes, and (ii) that the land is important from a military and security perspective.

With respect to public land, Article 55 of the Hague Regulations provides that the occupying state shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. The occupying state must safeguard the capital of these properties (subject to reasonable amortization), and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. Among others, the occupying state is entitled to rent out such land or cultivate it.15

Regarding private property, the situation is different. According to Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, the occupying state must respect private property and it must not confiscate it, that is – expropriate it without consideration for an illegal purpose.16 The occupying state may, however, assume temporary possession of private property, against consideration, for the purpose of establishing civilian settlements that serve its security needs.17

As aforementioned, with respect to Yesha, Israel was not obliged, under international law, to apply the Hague Regulations or the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, in the cases brought before the Israeli courts, the state declared that, although not legally obliged to apply these rules in Yesha, it will nonetheless apply the humanitarian provisions included in them. As far as the court was concerned, it accepted the state’s position and abstained from deciding on it on its merits. This is the background against which one must read the decisions of the Israel Supreme Court, according to which private property can be seized (against consideration) for the establishment of civilian settlements only to the extent that such settlement is necessary for security reasons, whereas confiscation of private property for the establishment of settlements which is not motivated by security considerations is prohibited (the “Elon Moreh” case).18 In another case, the Court allowed the seizure of land, despite the claim of the applicant that the area concerned was all very quiet and posed no threat to the peace. The Court’s reply (Justice Witkon) stated that

there is no better cure to a malady than its prevention at onset, and it is better to discover and thwart a terror act before it has been committed… One does not have to be a military and security expert to realize that terrorist elements operate more easily in an area inhabited only by a population that is indifferent or is sympathetic towards the enemy than in an area where there are also persons likely to look out for them and to report any suspicious movement to the authorities. Among the latter, terrorists will find no hideout, assistance or supplies.19

In other cases the Supreme Court declined to address the legality of Jewish settlement beyond the Green Line, since the status of the settlements will be determined definitely in the peace treaty, when such is signed, and “until then it is the duty of the respondent [in casu, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Commander of the Gaza Strip – T.E.] to protect the civil population (Arab and Jewish) in the area within his military control.”20

3.2 The Settlements in Yesha

Israel is not a foreign occupying power in Yesha, and therefore there is no rule in international law to prevent Israel from establishing civilian Jewish towns and villages on state lands.21 The initiative to establish the settlements may be taken either by the state or by private persons. Insofar as private property is concerned, Israel is entitled to expropriate such land (against consideration) for a range of public purposes, according to the standards existing in democratic states (including “tiny” Israel – that is, pre-1967 Israel within the “Green Line” – itself).

3.3 The Agreements with the PLO

The Interim Agreement of September 28, 1995, entered between Israel and the PLO for a period of five years from the Gaza-Jericho Agreement of May 4, 1994, provides that Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip (including state lands) will be handed over to the Palestinian Authority in stages (Art. 16 of Annex III – Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs – of the Interim Agreement). Therefore, in areas handed over to the Palestinian Authority, its authority extended also to state lands for an interim period of five years.

But the Interim Agreement does not apply at all to those issues which will be discussed during the final status negotiations, including the issues of Jerusalem and the Jewish settlement in Yesha (Art. XXXI(5) of the Interim Agreement). Moreover, the Interim Agreement provides that the parties agree that the results of the final status negotiations will not be influenced and not be adversely affected by the interim arrangements, and the parties will not be deemed to have waived any of the rights, claims and positions that they allege, as a result of their entering the Interim Agreement (Art. XXXI(6)). The Interim Period is over by now. Truly, Article XXXI(7) provides that the parties are prohibited from initiating activities that will change the status of Yesha prior to the final status arrangements. However, had this provision been capable of preventing the establishment of new Jewish settlements, it would have rendered Article XXXI(6) devoid of meaning and therefore redundant. The Palestinian Authority has not applied such an interpretation to its own acts, since that would have prevented the Arab population, too, from building in the land handed over to the PA under the Interim Agreement. In any case, the Interim Period has elapsed and this provision is not valid any longer.

In conclusion, the Interim Agreement does not restrict the Jewish settlement of Yesha. The existing settlements may be expanded, and new settlements may be established. [..]

She goes on to discuss the refugees rights.
_________________
He who is merciful with the cruel, will end-up being cruel to the merciful
- Kohelet Rabba 7:16

[dbdent]

VERY IMPORTANT

http://pamelageller.com/2017/01/israel-legal-occupant-west-bank-says-court-appeal-versailles.html/

[Disciple]

In Joshua 1:4 God promised Joshua that the land of Israel would include territory extending “from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Mediterranean Sea in the west.” This territory would include the land from the southern tip of Israel along the Red Sea to the Euphrates River on the east, the border of Syria on the north (land of the Hittites), and the Mediterranean Sea (Great Sea) to the west. As of yet, Israel has not controlled this entire land area.

Biblically speaking, Israel has every right to possess, occupy, and build homes in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and far more. All of those territories are well within the borders of the land that God promised to the nation of Israel. Israel currently possesses a fraction of the land the Word of God declares belongs to it stated in Joshua 1:4. Unless the Palestinians are descendants of the tribes of Israel (and if so they would be obliged to kill themselves), they have absolutely no biblical claim to live on those lands. Whatever the case, they have no biblical basis for preventing the nation of Israel from occupying and building homes in those territories. God’s laws and decrees carry more weight than that of the UN, which is obviously a tool of the devil

[dbdent]

Disciple , not so. You misunderstand, a basic miscomprehension - the UN is also a tool or the responsibility of God.
The possession of the land mass posted by you as in Joshua comes with a condition, a very important condition.
The Jewish people merit that land on condition that they follow Gods commandments - when they do not we run the risk of being expelled as did happen in the past; and it is fair to say that our observance is not 100% , especially when we have a past Chief Rabbi about to go to jail, let alone the killings and crimes that exist on this holy land!!

[dbdent]

Disciple , not so. You misunderstand, a basic miscomprehension - the UN is also a tool or the responsibility of God.
The possession of the land mass posted by you as in Joshua comes with a condition, a very important condition.
The Jewish people merit that land on condition that they follow Gods commandments - when they do not we run the risk of being expelled as did happen in the past; and it is fair to say that our observance is not 100% , especially when we have a past Chief Rabbi about to go to jail, let alone the killings and crimes that exist on this holy land!!

[Disciple]

[dbdent]

Thank you and same wishes to you
Yes - the land has been granted by God for the Jewish people on condition as aforementioned ; but God did make a covenant granting it to us irrespective of our behaviour. So we can lose it temporarily by misbehavior ie expulsion , but other circumstances will bring us back in, one being the bad way in which other religions or countries who are supposed to chastise us overstep the mark ie our punishment