Most Recent 100 Mondoweiss Comments

Again, you cannot define what is Palestine by attempting to define what Israel is not.

LOL! I've already explained that the ICJ removed that difficulty. Israel struck out using the "terra nullus" argument, but here you are still standing at the plate and swinging your bat at thin air.

Judge Higgins noted in her concurring opinion that Palestine had sufficient international legal personality to participate in the Wall case. That's a right reserved exclusively for States. Determining the status of the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" was the object of the request for an advisory opinion. Judge Higgins said that the applicable laws were clear about that:

This is not difficult – from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.

So let's get this straight:

a) We are talking about Israel's reports to the official UN treaty monitoring bodies on its own compliance with the ICCPR and ICESCR in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Among other things, the ICJ advisory opinion noted that those treaties contain the conventional laws, together with the UN Charter, which establish the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to determine their own political and legal status and exercise "permanent sovereignty" over the resources of the Palestinian territory.

b) For their own part the Palestinians declared their statehood in 1988. The State of Palestine has subsequently been recognized, as such, by both the international community of states and the UN General Assembly. All of those parties have insisted that Israel is prohibited from annexing or settling in territory acquired during the 1967 war.

c) The government of Israel has not only asserted that the West Bank and Gaza are NOT its responsibility or part of its sovereign territory or jurisdiction, it claims:

powers and responsibilities in all civil spheres (including civil and political rights, as well as a variety of security issues, have been transferred to the Palestinian Council, which in any event is directly responsible and accountable vis-a-vis the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with regard to such issues. In light of this changing reality, and the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council in these areas, Israel cannot be internationally responsible for ensuring the rights under the ICCPR [or ICESCR] in these areas.

See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

The use of the word "jurisdiction" in that Israeli report has legal consequences. The Rome Statute is based on the laws and customs of war and the conventional laws contained in the Hague Convention, the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions. They in-turn are based upon the exercise of "jurisdiction", not "sovereignty".

If the PA has responsibility for implementing the ICCPR and ICESCR in the West Bank and Gaza, then it is responsible for implementing the inhabitant's decision regarding the statehood and political independence of their territory.

d) The only tangible manifestation of sovereignty is the exercise of jurisdiction - and Israel claims that belongs to the Palestinians when it comes to implementing and protecting the political, civil, and human rights of Palestinians. The Oslo Accords had explicitly stated that the West Bank and Gaza Strip were under the "jurisdiction" of the Palestinian Council. The agreement stipulated that its authority encompassed all matters that fell "within its territorial, functional and personal jurisdiction". The Israeli military commander only exercised power "in accordance with international law". Note: He was always prohibited on that basis from expropriating private property, establishing Jewish settlements, or concluding "special agreements" with local officials to violate any rights of the inhabitants that were protected by Article 49 & etc. of the 4th Geneva Convention.

e) The ICJ advised that under the terms of the agreements Israel could not subsequently interfere in matters where responsibility had been transferred or placed under the competence of the Palestinian National Authority.

f) Despite all of that, you insist that the territory is a terra nullus where Israel is still free to commit war crimes and that all of the laws of nations simply do not apply. That's pretty unconvincing, since that idea violates the content and intent of the UN Charter, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute.

The borders of Israel is not the question, rather the borders of Palestine. Which are not defined by your “by default” method.

Perhaps, but the extent of a state's jurisdiction can and does peacefully change or evolve over time. For the purposes of the war crimes laws in the Rome Statute, the Court only needs permission from any of the States that exercise or share "territorial jurisdiction" under one of the UN Armistice Agreements.

Come and hear: when a State party to the Rome Statute signs a formal agreement to protect the Jerusalem Holy Places, that has legal consequences with respect to the extent of its own jurisdiction. Under the terms of Article 12, the Rome Statute applies to all of the territory which is subject to the jurisdiction of an ICC member State. See Jordan, Palestinians sign agreement to protect J'lem holy sites link to ynetnews.com

FYI, Jordan was one of the first countries to accept the protections extended by the Rome Statute. The first President of the Court's Legislative body, the Assembly of States Parties, was Ambassador Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al Hussein of Jordan.

The Court has its own subject matter jurisdiction over crimes that were established by the Statute itself, regardless of whether or not they are considered to be crimes under local law.

Palestine's current borders were originally fixed by Jordan in the 1949 Armistice Agreements and the rules on belligerent occupation contained in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. FYI, the ICJ cited the terms of the 4th Geneva Convention on non-renunciation of rights and advised that the belligerent occupation originally began as an armed conflict between two High Contracting Parties, Israel and Jordan, and that nothing had altered that status since 1967.

Israel's peace treaty with the Kingdom of Jordan contained a safeguarding clause, which stipulated that it did not alter the legal status of any territory that came under the control of the Israeli military in 1967.

The boundaries contained in those agreements remain unchallengeable today unless - and until - a final settlement is concluded by mutual consent of the parties concerned which "might" alter the existing international demarcation lines. In short, for all of its bold talk about the "disputed status" of the territory, Israel itself granted Jordan jurisdiction over the territory in writing from the very outset and hasn't complied with the terms for peacefully altering the frontiers. There is a maxim in the Torah which says: Cursed be he who moves back his neighbor's landmark. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' -- Deuteronomy 27:17.

FYI, those agreements were adopted as provisional measures under the auspices of UN Security Council resolutions 62 and 73. Both of them were Chapter VII resolutions that are still in force, pending an end to the conflict. They explicitly invoked the organization's powers under Articles 39 and 40 of the UN Charter. The agreements established "permanent international armistice lines of demarcation" which every UN member state is bound to respect. The agreements and resolutions stipulated that the armed forces and civilian populations of the respective parties may not legally pass beyond those frontiers.

Talknic has correctly pointed out that the Security Council explicitly recognized that the Israeli attack on the Hebron area in 1966 was a premeditated act of aggression on a region that was subject to Jordanian territorial jurisdiction.

Nobody is trying to deny who lived there, but that has nothing to do with the recognized, defined borders of a sovereign state.

Sure it does. There are about 189 countries that have told Israel in no uncertain terms to stop messing around with the demographic balance of the Occupied Palestinian territories. Nobody, but nobody, thinks that they are Israeli territory or calls them by that name.

You get a failing mark and get held back until you learn that the
territorial integrity norm of international law protects the jus cogens right of national self-determination from prohibited coercive revision.

For example, Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention doesn't say one word about sovereignty. It's just a list of recommended qualities:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The boundaries of States are always drawn around "the people who live there" and function to protect and conserve their existence. Article 11 of Montevideo stipulates that:

The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

link to jus.uio.no

None of that is written in secret code or disappearing ink.

R.S.C. 1985 c. C-38 7.1c loses this arm wrestle to CIFTA 1.4 1. “(b) with respect to Israel the territory where its customs laws are applied;”

The government of Canada maintains a Foreign Affairs and International Trade page which contains policy statements. They indicate that Canada views the Israeli settlements as a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
-- link to international.gc.ca

FYI, Article 8 of the Rome Statute cites the Geneva Conventions and the laws and customs of war. The portions of the Canadian criminal code on war crimes has, in-turn, been based upon the criteria contained in the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions. See also Proceeds of Crime Offences in Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act: link to international.gc.ca

Israel is only an occupying power. It has concluded a special agreement with local officials in the OPt to collect customs fees on their behalf which are delivered to the Palestinian authorities. For its own part, the government of Israel routinely advises the UN treaty bodies that it's actions in the Occupied territories are not subject to the human rights covenants that apply to garment workers in places like Bangladesh. Israel claims that's because the OPt is NOT part of its sovereign territory or jurisdiction, e.g. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

P.S. The legal term of art for the practice of extending a country's municipal and customs laws to another territory is "annexation".

One of the most common cries we hear on campus these days is “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea!”

For years the articles at Wikipedia have had banners at the top claiming that almost nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is undisputed or can be known for certain - except for the fact that Palestine is the conventional name for the geographical region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. link to en.wikipedia.org

If you still oppose equal rights and freedom anywhere, then you should probably stick to campus life until you learn a thing or two.