Manipulating International Law as Part of Anti-Israeli "Warfare"

7/28/2019 Manipulating International Law as Part of Anti-Israeli "Warfare"

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manipulating-international-law-as-part-of-anti-israeli-warfare 1/17

ManipulatingInternationalLawasPartof

Anti-Israeli“Lawfare”RobbieSabel,June2,2013

Vol.13,No.162June2013

Israel’srecordofcompliancewithinternationallawisremarkably

strong.Inalongseriesofdecisions,theIsraeliHighCourthas

orderedtheIsraeligovernment,army,andsecurityservicesto

changepoliciesthat,inthecourt’sview,wereinviolationof

customaryinternationallaw.Thecourthasevenintervenedinactual

combatsituations.

PerhapsbecauseIsrael’sdetractorsareawareofthisreality,they

haveundertakenaprocessofmanipulatinginternationallawina

waythatinventsrulesthatareappliedonlytoIsraelandnottoother

statesorinothersituations.

Israel’sdetractorsinventedanewinternationallegalconceptcalled

“illegaloccupation.”Inanarmedconflict,internationallawclearly

permitsmilitaryoccupation.TheUNSecurityCouncilhasnever

declaredIsraelioccupationtobeillegal.U.S.occupationofIraqafter

theSecondGulfWarwasuniversallyconsideredalegalact. ItisoftenpresentedmanipulativelyasalegalaxiomthattheGreen

Linealreadyhasthestatusofalegallybindingborder.Bysigninga

peaceagreement,IsraelandJordanhavenowmutually

acknowledgedtheterminationoftheArmisticeAgreementandits

demarcationline.Thevalidityofanarmisticelineexpireswiththe

expirationofthearmistice.Therefore,formally,thereisnolonger

anylegalvaliditytotheGreenLine.

Byanyacceptedlegalstandard,GazaisnotunderIsraelioccupation.

Internationallawrequiresthat,foranareatobeconsideredasunder

occupation,theterritorymustbe“actuallyplacedunderthe

authorityofthehostilearmy.”Again,thereappearstobeaunique

definitionof“occupation”applicableonlytoIsrael.



Theessenceofanylegalsystemisthatlawappliesequallytoall.

Devisingtailor-maderulesofinternationallawforapplicationonly

whereIsraelisconcernedunderminesinternationallawandcan

haveaninsidiousandcorrosiveeffectontheruleoflawingeneral.

TheattemptstobrandIsraelasastatethatviolatesrulesof

internationallawhavebecomearecurrentfeatureofthe“lawfare”

beingwagedagainstIsrael.Althoughnostatehasaperfectrecordinthis

regard,Israel’srecordofcompliancewithinternationallawis

remarkablystrong.Israelicourtsenforcecustomaryinternationallaw

aspartofthe“lawoftheland”andinalongseriesofdecisions,the

IsraeliHighCourthasorderedtheIsraeligovernment,army,and

securityservicestochangepoliciesthat,inthecourt’sview,wereinviolationofcustomaryinternationallaw.Perhapsuniquelyamong

nationalcourtsystems,thecourthasevenintervenedinactualcombat

situations.TheIsraeligovernmenthasanear-impeccablerecordof

complyingwithsuchcourtorders.

Inapersonalvein,thisauthorcanattesttoanot-very-friendlysenior

Egyptiannegotiatortellinghiminaprivateconversationthatalthough

negotiatingwithIsraelwas“hell,”hewasawarethatonceagreement

wasreached,Israelhadaverygoodrecordofcomplyingwithits

undertakings.

PerhapsbecauseIsrael’sdetractorsareawareofthisreality,theyhave

undertakenaprocessofmanipulatinginternationallawinawaythat

inventsrulesthatareappliedonlytoIsraelandnottootherstatesorin

othersituations.Blatantexamplesofsuchmanipulationinclude:

UNGeneralAssemblyResolutions

AccordingtotheUNCharter,UNGeneralAssemblyresolutionshavethestatusofrecommendationstostatesandarenotbinding.1Theydonot

createinternationallawandnostatecanbe“guilty”ofviolatingsucha

resolution.Suchresolutionsarepoliticalstatementsdictatedby

whatevergroupofstatescanmusteramajorityvoteonagivenissueat

agiventime.AprimeexampleisUNGeneralAssemblyResolution194



(II)of1948,whichproposedmeasurestoresolvetheArab-Israeli

disputeincludingtheissueofrefugees.2AlltheArabstatesthatwereUN

membersatthetimevotedagainsttheresolution,astheyobjectedto

anyrecognitionofIsrael.3TheGeneralAssemblyhassubsequently

readoptedthepartoftheresolutionconcerningtherefugees.4

ThePalestinianlegalpositionisthatthisarticlehasthusmiraculously

beenturnedintoabindingruleofinternationallaw.Thelegalrealityis,

however,thatevenwheretheGeneralAssemblyreiteratessucha

resolution,itneverthelessremainsnonbinding.Inthewordsofa

leadingFrenchjurist,“Neitheristhereanywarrantforconsideringthat

bydintofrepetition,non-normativeresolutionscanbetransmutedinto

positivelawthroughasortofincantatoryeffect.”5NostateisonrecordstatingthatitacceptsGeneralAssemblyresolutions,assuch,asbinding

onitself.Nevertheless,theclaimisfrequentlyheardthatIsraelis

“violating”GeneralAssemblyresolutions.Apparentlythereisan

interpretationoftheUNCharterthatisapplicableonlytoIsrael.

UNSecurityCouncilResolutionsThoseanti-IsraelilawfaretacticianswhoareawarethatUNGeneral

AssemblyresolutionsarenotbindingtrytochargeIsraelwithviolating

UNSecurityCouncilresolutions.Hereagainthecriticsignorethe

explicitrulessetoutintheUNCharter.SecurityCouncilresolutionsare

onlybindingwherethecouncil,actinginaccordancewithChapterVIIof

thecharter,declaresthattherehasbeenanactofaggressionbyastate

orthatastate’sactionisathreattoworldpeaceorsecurity.6

TheSecurityCouncilhasnevermadesuchadeclarationregarding

Israel,norforthatmatterhasitevermadesuchadeclarationregarding

ArabaggressionagainstIsrael.LiketheGeneralAssembly,theSecurityCouncilisapoliticalbodyanditsresolutionsarepoliticalstatements

andnotlegaljudgments.MembersoftheUNhaveundertakento

implementSecurityCouncilresolutionsonlywhentheyaredecisions

adoptedunderChapterVII.Nevertheless,thisstipulationofthecharter



hasnotpreventedIsraelfrombeingchargedwith“violating”

nonbindingSecurityCouncilresolutions.

“Illegal”MilitaryOccupation

ThereisalegitimatedebateastowhethertheWestBankisindeedtheterritoryofanenemysovereignstateandhencesubjecttotherulesof

militaryoccupation.Beyondthisdebate,though,thebonmot usedby

nearlyallanti-IsraelipublicistsisthatIsraelimilitaryoccupationis

illegalassuch.7However,inanarmedconflict,internationallawclearly

permitsmilitaryoccupation.ItisinterestingtonotethattheUNSecurity

CouncilhasneverdeclaredIsraelioccupationtobeillegal.TheSecurity

Council’sreticenceincondemningIsraelioccupationasillegalisnot

necessarilyderivedfromsympathywithIsrael’spoliciesbut

presumablyfromtheawarenessthatoccupationisperfectlylegalin

caseofarmedconflict.8

ThepermanentmembersofthecouncilnodoubtrecalltheAllied

occupationofGermanyandJapanafterWorldWarII,clearlylegalin

accordancewiththelawsofarmedconflict.Morerecently,U.S.

occupationofIraqaftertheSecondGulfWarwasuniversallyconsidered

alegalactanditslegalityevenreceivedexplicitconfirmationbythe

SecurityCouncil.9ApplyingthelawsofmilitaryoccupationtotheWest

BankmaynothaveearnedIsraelmuchpublicrelationskudos,butitis

legalandthealternative,namely,applyingIsraellaw,couldhavebeen

deemedtobeannexation.ThefactthatIsraelwasactinglegallyhasnot,

however,deterreditsdetractorsfromattemptstoattachtoIsraeli

activitytheinventednewinternationallegalconceptof“illegal

occupation.”

The“RightofReturn”ofArabRefugeesInaccordancewithinternationallaw,astatemustallowitsnationals

intoitsterritoryandhenceitispossibletospeakofa“rightofreturn”of

nationalstothestateoftheirnationality.Internationaltreaties,towhich

Israelisaparty,refertotheright,withsomerestrictions,ofpersonsto



returnto“theirowncountry.”10Themajorregionalhumanrights

treatiesexplicitlyclarifythephrase“theirowncountry”asapplying

onlytonationalsofthecountry.11Someacademiciansbelievesucha

rightshouldalsoapplytopermanentresidents,12but,apparently,no

statehasadoptedsuchapositionandgovernmentsinterprettheruleas

meaningthattherightappliesonlytonationals.

ThemanipulationoftheruleasproposedbytheArabstates,however,is

thatthereis“awell-establishednormininternationallawandpractice”

–namely,therightofallPalestinianArabrefugeesto“return”toIsrael,

eventhoughtheyareneithernationalsnorpermanentresidentsof

Israel.13

Theinterpretationofthephrase“Palestinianrefugees”inthiscontexthas,moreover,beenextendedtoincludealldirectdescendants.The

Arabclaimisnowthateventhoughthepersoninvolvedwasbornin

anothercountryaswerehisparentsandgrandparentsandtheymaybe

nationalsofanotherstateandpermanentresidentsofanotherstate,

neverthelessinternationallawgrantsthemarightto“return”toIsrael.

Itisestimatedthatundersuchadefinitionoverfivemillionpersons

couldclaima“rightofreturn”toIsrael.Nosuchinterpretationofthe

term“refugee”or“rightofreturn”hasbeenheldapplicableinany

situationotherthantheIsraeli-Palestiniandispute.Itshouldbeadded

thatPalestiniannegotiators’adherencetotheirdemandthatIsrael

recognizesucha“right”hasmadeitverydifficulttoreachapragmatic

solutiontotheproblem.

“ApartheidWall”ThereisaclearattempttosmearIsraelwiththeabhorrent

phenomenonofracismandapartheidbydescribingIsrael’ssecuritybarrierasan“apartheidwall.”14

Anyborderfenceservestoseparateareasandonemayhopeforaworld

withnoborders.However,forsolongasIsraelhastofaceterroristacts,

itislegitimateforit,asitisforotherstates,toerectabarriertoprevent

terroristattacksandillegalcrossings.15Thosecallingthefencethe



“apartheidwall”makefrequentreferencetotheadvisoryopinionofthe

InternationalCourtofJusticeontheissue.16Theyfailtopointoutthat,in

thisopinion,theInternationalCourtofJusticemadenoreference

whatsoeverto“apartheid”oranalogywith“apartheid.”Furthermore,

althoughthecourtcriticizedtherouteofthe“wall”asbeingbeyondthe

1949“Green”ArmisticeLine,17thecourtwascarefulnottodenyIsrael’s

rightinprincipletobuildsuchasecurityfence.

Apartheidhasbeendefinedasa“socialandpoliticalpolicyofracial

segregationanddiscriminationenforcedbywhiteminority

governmentsinSouthAfricafrom1948to1994.”18Adictionary

definitionis“racialsegregation;specifically :aformerpolicyof

segregationandpoliticalandeconomicdiscriminationagainstnon-EuropeangroupsintheRepublicofSouthAfrica.”19Amongthe

prominentfeaturesoftheSouthAfricanapartheidpolicieswere:

prohibitionofmarriagesbetweenwhitepeopleandpeopleofother

races;20prohibitionofextramaritalsexualrelationsbetweenwhiteand

blackpeople;21prohibitingablackpersonfromperforminganyskilled

workinurbanareasexceptinthosesectionsdesignatedforblack

occupation;22prohibitingstrikeactionbyblacks;23preventingAfricans

fromreceivinganeducationthatwouldleadthemto“aspiretopositions

theywouldn’tbeallowedtoholdinsociety.”24Blackstudentswere

bannedfromattendingmajorwhiteuniversities.25Inallpublic

amenities,suchasrestaurants,swimmingpools,andpublictransport,

“EuropeansOnly”and“Non-EuropeansOnly”signswereputupto

enforcethislegislation.26EvenIsrael’smostvirulentdetractors

presumablymustfeeluncomfortableinclaimingthisisthesituationin

Israel.AwarethataccusationsofactualapartheidinmodernIsraellackany

credence,theaccusationismadethattheveryfactthatIsraelisaJewish

stateprovesthatthereisan“apartheid-like”situation.27Onewebsite

writesthat“apartheidbeganandisrootedintheveryestablishmentof

thecolonialJewishState.”28ThecruxoftheaccusationagainstIsraellies



intheoften-repeatedchargethatitsracism“issymbolizedmostclearly

inIsrael’sJewishflag,anthemandstateholidays.”29Theaccusershave

notawordofcriticismagainstthetensofliberaldemocraticstatesthat

haveChristiancrossesincorporatedintheirflags,noragainstthe

numerousMuslimstateswiththehalf-crescentsymbolofIslamastheir

statesymbol.Again,thereappearstobeaspeciallegaldefinitionof

apartheidwhereIsraelisconcerned.

Perhapsthemostchillingindicationoftherealpurposebehindthe

“Israelisapartheid”campaignisrevealedinoneofthemostactive

websitespromotingit.Theywritethatamongthegoalsof“prosecution

forthecrimeofapartheid”isto“enablethetruemajoritytoreturnto

powerovertheirownlands,whileprotectingtherightsofethnicminorities.”30Inotherwords,therealgoalbehindtheapartheid

campaignisthedenialofthelegitimacyoftheStateofIsraelandthe

determinationthattheonlysituationtheJewishpopulationinIsraelcan

hopeforisthatofa“protected”ethnicminorityinanArabPalestinian

state.

TheLegalStatusofanArmistice

DemarcationLineAnIsraeligovernmentmayhavetodecidewhethertoadoptthe1949

Israel-JordanArmisticeDemarcationLine,knowncolloquiallyasthe

“GreenLine,”asthenegotiatingbasisforaborderbetweenIsraelanda

futurePalestinianstate.Thisissue,however,isoftenpresented

manipulativelyasalegalaxiomthattheGreenLinealreadyhasthe

statusofalegallybindingborder.

The1949Israel-JordanArmisticeAgreementstatesthattheGreenLine

isanArmisticeDemarcationLine,31andthatitshouldnotbe

“interpretedasprejudicing,inanysense,anultimatepolitical

settlementbetweentheParties.”32TheArmisticeAgreementthen

continuesexplicitlytodeterminethat:“TheArmisticeDemarcation

Lines…areagreeduponbythePartieswithoutprejudicetofuture



territorialsettlementsorboundarylinesortoclaimsofeitherparty

relatingthereto.”33NeitherIsraelnorJordaneverdesignatedtheGreen

Lineastheirinternationalborder.Before1967,JordanandotherArab

statesrefrainedfromrecognizingtheGreenLineasaborderbecauseof

theirreluctancetoacceptthelegitimacyofIsraelevenwithintheGreen

Line.

Bysigningapeaceagreement,IsraelandJordanhavenowmutually

acknowledgedtheterminationoftheArmisticeAgreement.34In

accordancewithinternationallaw,internationalboundariessurvivethe

demiseofthetreatiesthatestablishedthem.This,however,isnottrue

ofceasefireorarmistice-demarcationlines.Thetemporarynatureofa

ceasefireorarmisticelineissuchthattheirvalidityexpireswiththeexpirationoftheceasefireorarmistice.Therefore,formally,thereisno

longeranylegalvaliditytotheGreenLine.

UNSecurityCouncilResolution242,acceptedbyallthepartiestothe

disputeasanagreedframeworkforpeacenegotiations,makesno

referencetotheGreenLine.TheIsrael-JordanPeaceTreatyreferstothe

“boundarydefinitionundertheMandate”indefiningtheIsraeli-

Jordanianborder;again,noreferencewasmadetotheGreenLine.35

TheUNGeneralAssemblyResolutionrequestinganInternationalCourt

ofJusticeAdvisoryOpinionon“LegalConsequencesofConstructinga

WallintheOccupiedPalestinianTerritory”madenoreferencetothe

GreenLine.ThewrittenstatementoftheLeagueofArabStates

addressedtotheInternationalCourtinthiscaserefersto“theArmistice

linethatnowmarkstheboundarybetweenPalestineandIsrael.”The

statementgoeson,however,toobserve:“Thepurposeofthearmistice

wasnottoestablishorrecognizeanyterritorial,custodialorotherrights,claimsorinterestsofanyparty.”36TheJordanianjudge

Al-Khasawneh,inhisseparateopinion,wrotethat“Thereisno

implicationthattheGreenLineistobeapermanentfrontier.”37Eventhe

finalcourtadvisoryopinion,whichstronglycriticizesIsraelforthe



routeofthe“Wall,”explicitlystatesthatitsadvisoryopinion“involves

noimplicationthattheGreenLineistobeapermanentfrontier.”38

Nevertheless,theclaimcontinuestobeheardthatasfarasIsraelis

concerned,atemporaryarmisticelinehasthelegalstatusofa

permanentboundary.

CommissionsofInquiryWhentheUnitedStatesortheUnitedKingdomorotherdemocratic

statessetupjudicialcommitteesofinquiryonissuesinvolvingtheir

armedforces,worldopiniontendstoseeitasareflectionofthe

democraticnatureofthestatesconcerned.Thisauthorhasfailedtofind

instancesofinternationaldemandthatsuchcommissionsmustinclude

foreignnationals.

Israelhasawell-earnedreputationforitsindependentandimpartial

judiciary.Nevertheless,whenIsraelsetsupsuchajudicialcommission

ofinquiry,itnearlyautomaticallyencountersdemandsthatthe

commissionmustincludenon-Israeliparticipation.Thus,apparently,

thereisoneinternationalruleforIsraelicommissionsofinquiryanda

differentonefortherestoftheworld.

“Occupied”GazaSincethe2005IsraeliunilateralwithdrawalfromGaza,therehasbeen

noIsraelicontroloftheGazaarea.TheareaisadministeredbyHamas.

ThereisnoIsraelimilitarygovernmentinGaza.ThelawsinGaza,both

criminalandcivilian,areHamaslaws.Hamascontrolstheeconomy,the

taxes,thecourts,thepolice,andtheprisons.Ithasitsown,heavily

armed,militias.TheHamasgovernmentpalpablywasnotappointedby

IsraelandisnotsubservienttoIsrael.Byanyacceptedlegalstandard,

GazaisnotunderIsraelioccupation.Israelmaintainsablockadeinan

attempttopreventarmsshipmentsfromenteringGaza;this,however,

doesnotconstitute“occupation.”Furthermore,Gazahasalandborder

withEgypt,overwhichIsraelhasnocontrolwhatsoever.



Internationallawrequiresthat,foranareatobeconsideredasunder

occupation,theterritorymustbe“actuallyplacedundertheauthorityof

thehostilearmy.”39TheInternationalCourtofJusticegaveitsopinion

that“territoryisconsideredoccupiedwhenitisactuallyplacedunder

theauthorityofthehostilearmy,andtheoccupationextendsonlytothe

territorywheresuchauthorityhasbeenestablishedandcanbe

exercised.”40Inalatercasethecourtreconfirmeditsposition,stating

that“Occupationrequiredtheexerciseofactualauthoritybytheforeign

forces”(emphasisadded).41EventheInternationalCommitteeoftheRed

Cross(ICRC)reportonthesubjectreachedtheconclusionthat

“occupationcouldnotbeestablishedormaintainedsolelythroughthe

exerciseofpowerfrombeyondtheboundariesoftheoccupiedterritory;acertainnumberofforeign‘bootsontheground’wererequired.”42The

ICRCreportrefersto“thetraditionalrulesaboutoccupationwiththeir

strongemphasisonthefactualbasisofacontinuingpresenceonthe

ground.”43

ForpoliticalreasonsthePLOwantstoretainGaza’sstatusas“occupied”

territory.44Whatismoresurprising,however,isthattheInternational

CommitteeoftheRedCrosscontinuestomaintainthatGazaisunder

Israelioccupation.45Again,thereappearstobeauniquedefinitionof

“occupation”applicableonlytoIsrael.

LawsofArmedConflictThelawsofarmedconflictareamongthebetter-establishedrulesof

internationallawandmanyofthetreatiesontheissueareregardedas

reflectingcustomaryinternationallaw.Democraticstates,including

Israel,incorporatetheserulesintothestandinginstructionsand

militarymanualsoftheirarmedforces.However,regardingIsraeltherehasbeenarecentattempttoinventtwonewrules:

ProportionalityincombatThelawofarmedconflictrecognizestherequirementofproportionalityin

twocontexts.First,itisprohibitedtoattackamilitarytargetifitwill



causeciviliancasualtiesthatareexcessiveinrelationtothemilitary

advantagetobeobtained.46Second,measuresofself-defensemustbe

proportionatetothethreat.47However,regardingIsraelanewruleseems

tohavebeendeveloped:thatinactualcombatIsraelmustnotuse

weaponsthatarenotproportionatetotheweaponsusedbyterrorist

groups.Regardingotherstates,thereisnosuchrule;onthecontrary,all

armiestrytoconcentratesuperiorforcesandarmsagainstenemy

positionsandforces.Thisuniversalmilitarypractice,however,doesnot

preventIsraelfrombeingaccusedofusing“disproportionate”forcein

actualcombatsituations.

CiviliancasualtiesCiviliancasualtiesare,unhappily,acommonfeatureofarmedconflicts.

Thisisparticularlytruewhereanenemyplacesitsweaponsamong

civilians,asdoHamasinGazaandHizbullahinLebanon.Itisaviolation

ofthelawsofarmedconflicttodeliberatelytargetcivilians,andastate

maybeliableforrecklessornegligenttargeting.However,asfarasIsrael

isconcerned,anyenemyciviliancasualtiesarepresentedastheresultofa

“warcrime,”eventhoughitisacknowledgedthatIsraeltakesimmense

stepstotryandpreventandminimizeciviliancasualties. 48

Self-DefenseOnlyagainstAttacksfrom

StatesPerhapsthemostflagrantattempttomanipulateinternationallaw

againstIsraelwastheInternationalCourt’smajoritydecisionthatIsrael

hadnorightofself-defenseagainstterroristsoperatingfromthe

territoriesundercontrolofthePalestinianAuthority.Thecourtdecided

thatitwouldnotevenexaminewhetherIsrael’ssecuritybarrierwasa

legitimateactofself-defenseagainstactsofterrorism.Thecourtbased

itsdecisiononitsinterpretationofArticle51oftheUNCharter,which

recognizesthe“inherentrightofindividualorcollectiveself-defenseif

anarmedattackoccursagainstaMemberoftheUnitedNations.”The

courtinterpretedArticle51asrequiringthatanattackmustemanate



fromaforeignstate,althoughthereisnomentionintheUNCharterof

sucharequirement.

Thecourtconsequentlybrusquelydeterminedthat“Article51ofthe

Charterhasnorelevanceinthiscase.”49ItsconclusionwasthatIsrael

hadnorightofself-defensewhatsoeveragainstterroristactsemanating

fromterritoriesunderthecontrolofthePalestinianAuthority.The

British,Dutch,andU.S.judgesonthecourtweretheonlyoneswho

refusedtoconcurwiththisstartlingruling.50Thisstrangedictumofthe

courthasnotbeenfollowedbyotherstates,andoneacademicwriter

notesthat“Statepracticestronglysuggeststhattheinternational

communityhasrecognizedarighttouseforceinself-defensetargeting

nonstateactorsinforeignterritorytotheextentthattheforeignstatecannotbereliedontopreventorsuppressterroristactivities.”51

ConclusionIsraelhasastrongrecordofcomplyingwithinternationallawandits

judicialsystemensuresthatitwillcontinuetodoso.Theessenceofany

legalsystem,however,isthatlawappliesequallytoall.Thisprincipleis

beingunderminedbytheattemptsofIsrael’sfoesanddetractorsto

manipulateinternationallawaspartoftheirlawfareagainstIsrael.

Devisingtailor-maderulesofinternationallawforapplicationonly

whereIsraelisconcernedunderminesinternationallawandcanhave

aninsidiousandcorrosiveeffectontheruleoflawingeneral.

***

Notes

1“Exceptforcertaininternalmatters,suchasthebudget,theAssemblycannotbinditsmembers.Itisnotalegislatureinthatsense,andits

resolutionsarepurelyrecommendatory.”“TheAssemblyisessentiallya

debatingchamber.”MalcolmShaw,InternationalLaw,sixthedition

(2008),p.1212.

2UNGAResolution194(III),UNGAOR,3rdsession,partI,1948,



Resolutions,pp.21-24.

3IsraelwasnotamemberoftheUNatthetime.

4Article11ofUNGAResolution194(III),UNGAOR,3rdsession,partI,

1948,Resolutions,pp.21-24.

5ProsperWeil,“TowardsRelativeNormativityinInternationalLaw,”

77AmericanJournalofInternationalLaw413(1983).

6“MostCouncilresolutionscontainonlyexhortationsor

recommendations.”“AChapterVIIresolutionhasthereforebecome

shorthandforalegallybindingmeasure.”AnthonyAust,Handbookof

InternationalLaw2005(2009),p.214.

7Forexample,“Europeisultimatelytakingpartinthesubjugationof

thePalestiniansbyfundingIsrael’sillegaloccupation.”http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/13/funding-and-denouncing-

israeli-occupation

8InacasesubmittedbythePLOagainsttheFrenchcompanythatbuilt

theJerusalemlightrail,theFrenchCourtofAppealrecentlyreconfirmed

thatoccupationislegal.

http://fr.slideshare.net/fullscreen/yohanntaieb3/decision-de-

lacourdappel/1;:http://www.israel-flash.com/2013/04/la-cour-

dappel-de-versailles-olp-c-alstom-et-veolia-conclut-que-loccupation-

par-israel-nest-pas-illegale/#ixzz2QWVjg6eB

9S/RES/1483(2003).http://daccess-dds-

ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/368/53/PDF/N0336853.pdf?OpenEl

ement

10Article5-(d)(ii),ConventionfortheEliminationofAllFormsofRacial

Discrimination1965,enteredintoforce4January1969,660UNTS195;

Article12(4),InternationalConventiononCivilandPoliticalRights1966,enteredintoforce23March1976,999UNTS171.

11AmericanConventiononHumanRights1969,enteredintoforce18

July1978,9ILM673(1970);EuropeanConventionfortheProtectionof

HumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms1950,enteredintoforce3

September1953,213UNTS221;ProtocolNo.4totheEuropean



ConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamental

Freedoms1963,enteredintoforce2May1968,ETS46.Thattherightof

returnisrestrictedtonationalsisalsoreflectedinthe“Declarationof

PrinciplesofInternationalLawonMassExpulsion,”62International

LawAssociationConferenceReport13(ILA1986),Articles1,2,3,7.

12See,e.g.,OriolCasanovas,“LaProtectionInternationaledesRéfugiés

etdesPersonnesDéplacéesdanslesConflitsArmés,”306Recueildes

Cours2003(2005)86.

13RefugeesBackground,PalestineLiberationOrganization,

NegotiationsAffairsDepartment,PermanentStatusIssues.

http://www.nad-plo.org/permanent/refugees.html

14Thosecriticizingtheconstructiontendtousetheword“wall”andcallita“separationwall”thoughinfactonlyatinyfractionofthetotal

lengthofthebarrier(lessthan3percent)isactuallyathirty-feet-high

concretewall.Oneorganizationhaspublishedathree-hundred-page

treatise“proving”thatIsraelisapplyingapartheid.Occupation,

Colonialism,Apartheid?Are-assessmentofIsrael’spracticesinthe

occupiedPalestinianterritoriesunderinternationallaw,Democracyand

GovernanceProgrammeoftheHumanSciencesResearchCouncilof

SouthAfrica.http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml

15Forexamplesofotherdemocraticstatesthathavebuiltsimilar

fencessee:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

16ICJAdvisoryOpinion,LegalConsequencesoftheConstructionofa

WallintheOccupiedPalestinianTerritory,9July2004.

17Seethisauthor’scritiqueofthecourt’srulingontheissue,R.Sabel,

“TheInternationalCourtofJusticeDecisionontheSeparationBarrierandtheGreenLine,”IsraelLawReview38,1-2(2005),p.316.

18http://www.africanaencyclopedia.com/apartheid/apartheid.html

TheStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourtdefinesapartheidasone

ofthecrimesagainsthumanity,being“inhumaneacts….committedin

thecontextofaninstitutionalizedregimeofsystematicoppressionand



dominationbyoneracialgroupoveranyotherracialgrouporgroups

andcommittedwiththeintentionofmaintainingthatregime”(Article

VIIoftheStatuteoftheICC).

19http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartheid

20ProhibitionofMixedMarriagesAct,ActNo.55of1949.

21SouthAfricanImmoralityAmendmentAct,ActNo.21of1950;

amendedin1957(Act23).

22SouthAfricanBantuBuildingWorkersAct,ActNo.27of1951.

23SouthAfricanNativeLabour(SettlementofDisputes)Actof1953.

24SouthAfricanBantuEducationAct,ActNo.47of1953.

25SouthAfricanExtensionofUniversityEducationAct,ActNo.45of

1959.26SouthAfricanReservationofSeparateAmenitiesAct,ActNo.49of

1953.

27“Israelhasmadeitselfintoawhitecolonialsettlerstate,mimicking

SouthAfricabeforetheendofapartheid.”LisaRofel,Anthropology,UC

SantaCruz.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060609/2006060907.

html

28ThePalestiniangrassrootsAnti-ApartheidWallCampaign.

http://www.stopthewall.org/downloads/pdf/4PageFactSheetOctober9.

pdf

29DarylJ.Glaser,“ZionismandApartheid:amoralcomparison,”Ethnic

andRacialStudies26,3(2003),pp.403-421,403,408.

30

http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/internationallaw/studyg

uides/sgil3k.htm311949HashemiteJordanKingdom-IsraelGeneralArmistice

Agreement,656UNTS304,ArticleIII,paragraph2.

32ArticleVI,paragraph8,ibid.

33ArticleVI,paragraph9,ibid.Article5(2)oftheIsraeli-Egyptian

ArmisticeAgreementhasanevenmoreexplicitdisclaimer,whichstates:



“itisnottobeconstruedinanysenseasapoliticalorterritorial

boundaryandisdelineatedwithoutprejudicetorights,claimsand

positionsofeitherPartytotheArmisticeasregardsultimatesettlement

ofthePalestinequestion.”

34WhiletheIsrael-JordanPeaceAgreementdoesnotexplicitlystate

thatitsupersedestheArmisticeAgreement,thetwoagreementsare

patentlyincompatible.

35Article3(1),1994TreatyofPeacebetweentheStateofIsraelandthe

HashemiteKingdomofJordan.AnnexI(a)Article2(A)(7)ofthetreaty

providesthatthesectionoftheboundaryseparatingJordanfromthe

WestBankismarkedonthemapasan“administrativeboundary

betweenJordanandtheterritorywhichcameunderIsraeliMilitarygovernmentcontrolin1967.”

36WrittenStatementoftheLeagueofArabStates,January2004,

paragraphs1.2,5.15.

37SeparateOpinion,JudgeAl-Khasawneh,paragraphs10,11.

38C/2004/03,paragraph35.

39Article42ofthe1907HagueRegulations.


WallintheOccupiedPalestinianTerritory,9July2004,paragraph78.

41ICJ,ArmedActivitiesontheTerritoryoftheCongo(Democratic

RepublicoftheCongov.Uganda),decisionof19December2005,

Para.173.

42ICRC,OccupationandOtherFormsofAdministrationofForeign

Territory,ReportpreparedandeditedbyTristanFerraroLegaladviser,

ICRC,Summary,Article1.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/publication/p4094.ht m

43ICRC,OccupationandOtherFormsofAdministrationofForeign

Territory,ReportpreparedandeditedbyTristanFerraroLegaladviser,

ICRC,p.48.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/publication/p4094.ht



m

44SeeonthisissueDoreGold,“LegalAcrobatics:ThePalestinianClaim

thatGazaisStill‘Occupied’EvenAfterIsraelWithdraws.”

http://www.icjs-

online.org/indarch.php?eid=490&ICJS=2394&article=536

45See,e.g.,http://www.icrc.org/eng/where-we-work/middle-

east/israel-occupied-territories/index.jsp

46Article51(5)(b)of1977AdditionalProtocolItotheGeneva

Conventionsof12August1949andRelatingtotheProtectionofVictims

ofInternationalArmedConflicts.

47TheCarolineCase,J.Moore,DigestofInternationalLaw2,p.412

(1906).48See,e.g.,theReportoftheUNFactFindingMissionontheGaza

Conflict(A/HRC/12/48)(2009)The“Goldstone”Report.


WallintheOccupiedPalestinianTerritory,9July2004,paragraph139.

50SeparateopinionsofJudgesHiggins,Buergenthal,andOwada,ICJ

AdvisoryOpinion,LegalConsequencesoftheConstructionofaWallin

theOccupiedPalestinianTerritory,9July2004.

51KimberlyN.Trapp,“BacktoBasics:Necessity,Proportionalityand

theRightofSelf-DefenceAgainstNon-StateTerroristActors,”56

InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly,pp.141,156(2007).

Manipulating International Law as Part of Anti-Israeli "Warfare"

Documents

Transcript of Manipulating International Law as Part of Anti-Israeli "Warfare"