eci - israel and palestine background paper at 1.1 …...eec/arab cooperation and the creation of...

IsraelandPalestine–BackgroundPaper

IsraelandPalestine

BackgroundPaper

©EuropeanCoalitionforIsrael2015P.O.Box76,1040BrusselsSchuman,Belgium

[email protected]

1


Introduction

Forover3000years,theJewishpeoplehavebeenoneofthemostsignificantpeoplegroupsintheMiddleEast.ThenationofIsrael,withJerusalemasitscapitalandtheTempleasthecenterofitsnationallife,existedasanindependentsovereignnationfor centuries in what has now become known as the “West Bank.” Jewishcommunitieswere flourishing in Samaria,Hebron,Damascus,Alexandria, Baghdad,the Arabian Peninsula, and throughout the Middle East long before Christians orMuslims entered the scene. Following the destruction of the Second Temple andevictionoftheJewsinthefirstandsecondcenturiesAD,theJewishpeoplecontinuedtolivealongsideotherpeoplesandundervariousexternalpowers.

In 1922, following the defeat of the Turkish Ottoman Empire and its allies by theAllied Powers in WWI, the international community (convening in the League ofNations)recognizedtherightsofall thepeoplesoftheMiddleEast—Jewsandnon-Jews—toself-determination.1InadditiontoestablishingMandatesforSyria/Lebanonand Mesopotamia (Iraq), they implemented the decision of the Principal AlliedPowers in1920 tocreateaMandate forPalestine,basedon therecognitionof “thehistorical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds forreconstitutingtheirnationalhomeinthatcountry."2

RecognizingtherightoftheJewishpeopletoself-determination,andtheirhistoricalconnectionwiththelandof“Palestine,”thecorepurposeoftheMandateforPalestinewastoenabletheJewishpeopletore-establishanationalhomeinPalestine—whichincludedlandbothwestandeastoftheJordanRiver.TheareaofPalestineeastoftheJordan,knownasTransjordan,wasspecificallyreservedin1922forthecreationofaPalestinianArab state,which laterbecame theHashemiteKingdomof Jordan. TheareawestoftheJordanremainedundertheMandateforPalestine.

Significant sections of the local Arab population opposed the creation of a Jewishhomeland. Responding to this opposition, and the withdrawal of Great Britain asMandatory power, in November 1947 the UN General Assembly proposed to“internationalize”Jerusalemandpartition“western”Palestineintoseparate"Jewish”and “Arab” states.3 This “Partition Plan”was (reluctantly) accepted by the Jewishpeople,butwasrejectedbytheArabsandnevercameintoeffect.

OnMay 14, 1948, as theMandate for Palestine came to an end, the Jewish peopleproclaimedtheJewishStateofIsrael,infulfillmentoftheirhistoricalandlegalrightsto the Land as recognized in the Mandate for Palestine and the exercise of theirinternationally-recognized right to self-determination. The borders of the newJewishStatewerenotdefined.

1 Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. See: LeagueofNations,TheMandatesSystem,SeriesofLeagueofNationsPublicationsVI.A.MANDATES1945.VI.A.1,Geneva1945,LoN/1945.VI.A.1.

2SanRemo,April25,1920.3UNGeneralAssemblyResolution181(II)of29thNovember1947.

2


Israelwas immediately invadedonMay15, 1948by fiveArab states (Egypt, Syria,Jordan,Iraq,andLebanon),insupportofthelocalPalestinianArabforcesledbyHajAminalHusseini,thegrandMuftiofJerusalem.Theirdeclaredcommonintentwastowipe out the new Jewish State. Israel survived. In 1949, armistice (cease-fire)agreements were entered into between Israel and the five Arab states. Thoseagreements did not affect the status of the borders of the Jewish state, whichremained unresolved. Egypt occupied Gaza, Jordan occupied (and later illegallyannexed)the“WestBank,”andSyriaoccupiedpartoftheGolanHeights.

In June1967, Israel foughtadefensivewaragainst itsneighbors,whocontinuedtorejectitsrighttoexistandthreatenedtoattack. IsraelunexpectedlygainedcontroloverthosepartsofwesternMandateofPalestine,whichhadbeenoccupiedbyEgypt,Jordan,andSyria,aswellastheSinai.InSeptember1967,theArabLeagueadopted“main principles bywhich the Arab States abide, namely, no peacewith Israel, norecognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of thePalestinian people in their own country.”4 The UN Security Council responded byissuingResolution242,settingoutparametersforanegotiatedpeace.Resolution242hassincebeenacceptedasthebasisfornegotiationsbetweenIsraelandthePLO.

WiththeexceptionofJerusalem(whichithasdeclaredtobethecapitaloftheStateofIsrael),Israeldidnotannexthesenewlygainedterritoriesbutvoluntarilyelectedtocomplywiththeinternationalhumanitarianlawapplicabletobelligerentlyoccupiedterritories.Israelhasconsistentlydeniedthatitislegally(dejure)requiredtodosoandhassubsequentlywithdrawnfromlargepartsoftheterritoriesoccupiedin1967(Sinai in 1979 and Gaza in 2005). In October 1973, a number of Arab nationsattacked Israel once again, this time on YomKippur, the holiest day of the Jewishyear.Intheearly1970s,someArabnationsenteredintoothermeasurestodestroytheJewishStateofIsrael,including:supportingglobalPalestinianterrorismandtheAraboilboycottofEuropeancountriessupportingIsrael.

OnNovember6,1973,inresponsetothesedevelopments,theninecountriesoftheEECmetinBrusselstoformulateanewEuropeancommonpolicythatwasdesignedto bring an end to the oil boycott and Palestinian terrorism on European soil. AnumberofpointswereintroducedresultinginanewEuropean,pro-ArabMiddleEastpolicy. One of thesewas that Europewould support the creation of a viableArabPalestinianstatecoveringalloftheterritoriesoverwhichIsraelgainedcontrolinthe1967 Six-Day War (the so-called Occupied Palestinian territories). This new EUpolicyhaseffectivelyrecognizedthe“pre-1967lines”(i.e.the1949ArmisticeLines)

4Thesearethefamous"ThreeNo's"ofthe"KhartoumResolution"issuedbytheArabLeagueSummiton1September1967.Inthisresolution,theArabHeadsofStateagreed,amongstotherthings,"tounitetheirpoliticaleffortsattheinternationalanddiplomaticleveltoeliminatetheeffectsoftheaggressionandtoensurethewithdrawaloftheaggressiveIsraeliforcesfromtheArablandswhichhavebeenoccupiedsincetheaggressionofJune5."

3


as the border between Israel and the proposed new Arab Palestinian state, anddeclaredallJewishsettlementsestablishedintheseareassinceJune1967illegal.5

AccordingtorecentstatementsoftheEUForeignAffairsCouncil,officialEUpolicyisbasedontherecognitionofthefollowingpositions:6

• International humanitarian law—including theFourthGenevaConvention—appliesinthe“OccupiedPalestinianTerritory,”whichcomprisesallterritories“occupiedbyIsraelsince1967.”7

• Israelisettlementsintheseterritoriesare“illegal,irrespectiveofrecentdecisionsbythegovernmentofIsrael.”

• All of these territories "belong" to the futurePalestinian state—“it is itsmain landreserve.”

• International law prohibits Israel from taking any steps which may prejudice thecreationofaviablePalestinianstateorwhichthreatenthepossibilityofatwo-statesolution.

• ThePalestinianstatemust—underinternationallaw—bebasedontherecognitionofthe“pre-1967borders.”“TheEUreiteratesthatitwillnotrecognizeanychangestothepre-1967bordersincludingwithregardtoJerusalem,otherthanthoseagreedbytheparties.” Inotherwords, theEUtakesthepositionthat the“pre-1967borders”are internationally recognized borders that only an agreement between Israel andthePLOcanchange.

• Israel’sannexationofJerusalemisregardedasillegal.Jerusalemmustbedivided(inaccordancewiththe“pre-1967borders”)andbecomethecapitalofbothIsraelandthenewPalestinianstate.The “Palestinian refugee problem,” together with the “Jewish refugees” who fledmanycountriesoftheMiddleEastinthesameperiod,isoneofthegreatesttravestiesof justice of the 20th century, and cries out for resolution. Somewhere between450,000and750,000ArabsfledwesternPalestineduringthe1947-9conflict.Inthesubsequentdecades,approximately850,000JewsfledfromthecountriesofNorthernAfricaandtheMiddleEastasaresultofincreasinganti-Semitismandpersecution.ThereismuchcontroversyabouttheextenttowhichArabswereforcedtoleavetheirland. No doubtmistakesweremade on both sides. But one thing is certain—theconflict that resulted in their flight was created by Arab rejection of Jewishnationhood in general, and of the Partition Plan in particular. In contrast to theJewish refugees (who have been absorbed in Israel), since 1949, the “Palestinianrefugees”andtheirdescendantshavebeendeniedthepossibilityofbeingabsorbedintotheirhoststates(whichisthenormalcaseforrefugees)andbeenforcedtoliveinsub-standardconditionsinrefugeecampswiththehopeofbeingableto“return”tothetownsandcitiesfromwhichtheirforebearsfled.

5On31stJuly1974,agreementwasreachedbetweentheEECandtheArabLeagueinParisfurtherspecifyingEEC/ArabcooperationandthecreationoftheEuro-Arabdialogue.SeefurtherYe’or,BatEurabia:theEuro-ArabAxis(FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress2005).6See:ConclusionsoftheEUForeignAffairsCouncilmeetingsMay2012;December2012;July2013.7SeetheGenevaConventionrelativetotheProtectionofCivilianPersonsinTimeofWar(1949),commonlyreferredtoasthe"FourthGenevaConvention."

4


Israelhasdeveloped since1948 intoanopen,pluralisticdemocracy. It is far fromperfect,andtherearemanyobstaclestobeovercome.But,Israelhasdemonstratedthatit iscommittedtodemocraticprinciplesandcapableofprotectingtherightsofitsminorities. Non-Jewshave inprinciple equal civil, political and religious rights.Over20percentofIsraelicitizens,severalKnessetmembers,andoneSupremeCourtjudgeareArabs.Israelhasproventhatitiswillingtoenterintopeacetreatieswithitsneighbors.In1993, the Israeli governmentdemonstrated in theOsloAccords its commitment toassisttheArabPalestinianpeopletoachieveindependence.In2000and2008,IsraelofferedtocedealmostalloftheWestBanktobepartofaPalestinianstate.ThePLOrejectedbothoffers.Since the Oslo Accords, the Arab Palestinians have developed significantindependence in terms of economic development and institutional governance.However, there is still a high degree of institutional instability and evidence ofsignificant breaches of human rights in the “Palestinian” territories. Today, theMiddleEastisinastateofchaos.TheriseofISIS,theMuslimBrotherhood,andotherextremist Islamic groups in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and other countries hasintroduced an unprecedented level of instability in the region. Minority groups(especiallyChristians)arebeingpersecutedandmurdered.Wesharetheconcernsofallpeace-lovingnationstogiveeffecttotheaspirationsofboth the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people to independence and tofacilitatealastingpeaceintheregion.However,concerningthepotentialrecognitionof “Palestine” and the status of the “occupied territories,” all statesandinternationalinstitutions shoulddeterminetheir policy in light ofthe followingcriteria:

1. The Legitimate Legal Claims of the State of Israelwith Respect toJerusalemandtheWestBank.

1.1 RespectforthePre-ExistingHistoricalandLegalRightsandInterestsofIsraelandtheJewishPeople.Any internationally-sponsored solution to the rights of the Arab Palestiniansmustrespectthepre-existinglegal,historical,cultural,andreligiousconnection,whichtheJewishpeoplehavewithJerusalemandthe“WestBank,”asreflectedintheSanRemoResolution(1920),theMandateforPalestine(1922)andtheCovenantoftheLeagueof Nations (1922).8 Through these instruments, the Jewish people have obtainedlegal rights and interests protected under international law with respect to theterritoryofPalestine—includingJerusalemandthe“WestBank”(JudeaandSamaria).Theserightshaveneverbeenwaivedorabrogated.Specifically,Article80oftheUNCharterensuredthattherightsgrantedundertheMandateforPalestinecontinued,notwithstanding the termination of the Mandate itself and the replacement of theLeagueofNationsbytheUnitedNations.9

8SeeAppendix.9SeeAppendix.

5


Thenatureandextentoftheserightsmaybeamatterofdebate,butthefactthatsuchrights and interests were created must not be ignored. On the basis of Israel’slegitimate claims under international law to sovereignty with respect to Palestinebeyond the “Green Line,” Israel is entitled to negotiate the transfer or cession ofterritorialsovereigntytoanotherentity.Thismeansthatasolutioninvolvingrecognitionofsovereigntywithrespecttotheseterritories cannot be “imposed” without Israel’s consent. On the contrary, Israel’sconsent is required, andanymultilateralorunilateraldecisionbyother states thatdirectlyorindirectlyinfringestheserightsisaviolationofinternationallaw.

1.2 The1949ArmisticeLinesAreNotLegallyBindingBorders;rather,SimplytheBasisforNegotiationofSecureBordersPursuanttothePrinciplesSetOutinUNSecurityCouncilResolutions242and338.

IsraelsignedArmisticeAgreementsinearly/mid1949withEgypt,Lebanon,Jordan,andSyria.10TheboundariesdescribedintheArmisticeAgreements—oftenreferredtoasthe“GreenLine”—werecease-firelinesonly.11Theywerenotintendedto(anddidnot)affecttheunderlyingstatus(sovereignty)oftheterritoriesconcerned.Theywerenotintendedtoconstitutepermanentinternationalborders,andtheycertainlydidnothavethateffect.Inparticular,Article2oftheArmisticeAgreementbetweenIsrael and Transjordan states, "no provision in this agreement shall in any wayprejudice the rights, claims and positions of either party hereto in the ultimatepeacefulsettlementofthePalestinequestion."12

Anymeasure that gives recognition to the “Green Line” as a borderwould conflictwith the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In these resolutions, theSecurity Council affirmed the way to peace is through negotiations in which theinterestsandrightsofallpartiesareprotected.AccordingtotheSecurityCouncil:“ThefulfillmentofCharterprinciplesrequirestheestablishmentofajustandlastingpeaceintheMiddleEast,whichshouldincludetheapplicationofboththefollowingprinciples:

i. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recentconflict;

ii. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for andacknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and politicalindependenceofeveryState in theareaand their right to live inpeacewithinsecureandrecognizedboundariesfreefromthreatsoractsofforce.”13

This carefullyworded resolution does not require the removal of all Israeli armedforces from the territories over which Israel gained control in the Six-Day War.Further, the deliberate use of the word “territories” (instead of “the territories”)meansthattheSecurityCouncilalsodidnotintendtorequireIsraeltoreturntothe

10TheArmisticeAgreementwithJordancoveredthearmisticewithIraq.11Thecease-fireboundariesagreedundertheseArmisticeAgreementshavecometobeknownastheGreenLine,becauseofthecolouroftheinkusedwhenthelineswerebeingdrawnduringthenegotiations.12Article2,ArmisticeAgreementbetweenIsraelandTransjordan.13SeeRes.242inAppendix.

6


1949Armisticelines(sometimesreferredtoasthe“GreenLine”).Rather,Resolution242 reflects the understanding that the 1949 Armistice Lines did not representsecurebordersforIsrael.ThepurposeoftheresolutionwasthustoencourageIsraeland its neighboring states to negotiate recognized and secure national borders toreplacetheprovisionalarmisticelines.14These principles set out in Resolution 242 and 338 form the basis for the OsloAgreements,which (despite thebreakdownofnegotiationsand,arguably,breachesoftheirtermsbybothsides)remainvalidandapplicabletoday.

1.3 TheInternationalLawofBelligerentOccupationDoesNotApply to JerusalemandtheWestBank.EvenifItApplies(Arguendo),ItDoesNotMakeOccupation“Illegal”orRequireIsrael toWithdrawfromthe“Occupied”Territories intheAbsenceofaNegotiatedPeaceAgreement.Itisarguablethattheinternationallawofbelligerentoccupationdoesnotapplytothepost-1967territories.In 1967, Israel elected not to annex theWest Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza, butdecided voluntarily to comply with international humanitarian law applicable tooccupied territories, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel’s“occupation”of thedisputed territoriesdoesnot fall under the classicdefinitionofmilitary (belligerent) occupation at all; thus, the Fourth Geneva Convention is notobligatorytoIsraelasamatteroflaw.

Jordan illegallycontrolled theWestBankbetween1949and1967,havingacquiredcontrol as a result of an illegal act of aggression. Its subsequent purportedannexationofthisterritorywasnotsufficienttogiveitrightsoverthisterritory.Inotherwords,JordanhadnosovereigntyovertheWestBankbetween1948and1967.As a result,when Israel defeated the Jordanian forces and regained control of thisterritoryinJune1967,itwasnotaquestionofIsraeltakingcontrolof"theterritoryof a High Contracting Party" [i.e. another State] within themeaning of the FourthGeneva Convention. Professor Julius Stone, a foremost authority on the GenevaConventionsandtheobligationsofStatesintimesofwar,expressedthefollowing:

“[B]uttheConvention itselfdoesnotby its termsapplytotheseterritories.For,underArticle2,theConventionapplies‘tocasesof...occupationoftheterritoryofaHighContractingParty,byanothersuchParty.’ InsofarastheWestBankatpresentheldbyIsraeldoesnotbelongtoanyotherState, theConventionwouldnotseemtoapplyto itatall. This isa technical, thoughratherdecisive,legalpoint.”15

TheFourthGenevaConventionchangedthefocusofthelawofoccupationbygivinggreaterattentiontotherightsofthepopulationoftheoccupiedterritory;however,itdid not change the notion of “occupation” itself. In our submission, the law ofoccupationisnotapplicableinsituationswherethereisnosovereignpowerthathasbeen“ousted”fromtheterritory.AsBenvenististated,“Thefoundationuponwhich

14 Id. 15Lacey,I.(ed.),InternationalLawandtheArab-IsraelConflict–extractsfromIsraelandPalestine–AssaultonthelawofnationsbyJuliusStone,secondeditionwithadditionalmaterialandcommentaryupdatedto2003.

7


theentirelawofoccupationisbasedistheprincipleof inalienabilityofsovereigntythroughtheactualorthreateneduseofforce....Fromtheprincipleofinalienabilityofsovereigntyoveraterritoryspringtheconstraintsthatinternationallawimposesontheoccupant.”16 Thepurposeof the lawofbelligerentoccupation isnotonly toprotect civilians from theoccupyingarmy,but it isalso (andperhapsprimarily) to“safeguardthereversionaryrightsoftheoustedsovereign.”17Insituations(liketheWestBankandGaza)wheretherewasno“oustedsovereign,”therecanaccordinglybenoquestionof“occupation”withinthemeaningofinternationalhumanitarianlaw.

Even if (arguendo) the law of belligerent occupation applies, it does not makeoccupationperse“illegal.”

As ICJ Judge Rosalyn Higgins stated, “[t]here is nothing in either the Charter orgeneral international law which leads one to suppose that military occupationpending a peace treaty is illegal.”18 The law of occupation simplymeans that anyState that, as a result of war or conflict, takes control of neighboring territorybelonging to (or claimed by) another State is required to administer that territorytemporarily until the conflict has been terminated and a peace treaty has beennegotiated. In themeantime, the "occupier" is subject to certain strict obligationsthatareprimarilydirectedatprotectingthecivilpopulationinthatterritory.

Even if (arguendo) the law of belligerent occupation applies, Jewish settlements inoccupiedterritoriesarenotperseforbiddenunderinternationallaw.Under international law as embodied in the Mandate for Palestine, Jews werepermittedandevenencouraged to settle ineverypartofPalestine—including “EastJerusalem”andwhat laterbecameknownas the “WestBank.” Jews living in thoseterritorieswereforciblyremoved,andtheirpossessionsdestroyed,bytheJordaniansfrom1949-1967. Many Jews,who established their homes in theWestBank after1967,werereturningtolandsfromwhichtheirforefathershadbeenevictedin1947-49.The claim that settlements are illegal rests entirely on Article 49(6) of the FourthGenevaConvention. This provision is part of a complex set of rules governing theconduct of occupying powers. Article 49(6) provides that “[t]heOccupying Powershallnotdeportor transferpartsof itsowncivilianpopulation into the territory itoccupies.”19Theword“transfer”isarguablylimitedtodirectcoerciononthepartoftheoccupyingpowerof thepersonwho isbeing transferred. ThatArticle49(6) islimitedinthissenseissupportedbythefactthatthedraftersoftheRomeStatuteoftheCriminalCourtin2002feltitnecessarytoinsertthewords“directlyorindirectly”intheequivalentprovision,whichwasintendedas“asnubtoIsrael.”20WhileIsraelhasstimulatedandfacilitatedmanysettlementsintheWestBanksince1967,Israeli

16EyalBenvenisti,TheInternationalLawofOccupation(1993),pages5-6.CitedbyAvinoamSharon,“WhyisIsrael’sPresenceintheTerritoriesstillcalled“Occupation”?”JerusalemCentreforPublicAffairs.17YehudaZ.Blum,“Themissingreversioner:reflectionsonthestatusofJudeaandSamaria”,3Is.L.Rev.279,293(1968).18RosalynHiggins,“ThePlaceofInternationalLawintheSettlementofDisputesbytheSecurityCouncil,”64Am.J.Int’l.L.(1970)1-18,at8.19 Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. 20 Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute defines as a war crime the “transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”; R. Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime 274 (2005).

8


citizenshaveneverbeen “deported”or forcibly “transferred” to the territories thatIsrael regained in 1967.With the exception ofmilitary outposts, all of the Israeliswhohavemoved into these areas since1967havedone so voluntarily—theyhavenotbeen“coerced”or“forced”todosobytheIsraeligovernment.Even if thisprovision iswidely interpreted to include the facilitationofpopulationmovements, not all settlements have been facilitated or supported by the State ofIsrael. There are many different kinds of “settlements” in Area C. A significantpercentageofsettlementshavebeenfinancedandconstructedwithoutgovernmentsupport.ManyhavebeenbuiltonprivatelandownedbyJewspriorto1948(insomecasespriortotheMandate),oronprivatelandpurchasedsince1967forfullmarketvalue, without government support. “When settlers act entirely in their owninitiative, when they do not arrogate for themselves land belonging to others orexpropriatedfromitsrightfulowners,andwhentheydonotbenefitfromanyovertorcovertgovernmentinducement,neithertheletternorthespiritofArticle49(sixthparagraph)comesintoplay.”21Accordingly,qualifyingalltheJewishcommunitiesin“East Jerusalem” and the “West Bank” as “illegal” both misinterprets and grosslyoversimplifies the spirit and letter of Article 49(6) of the Fourth GenevaConvention.22Inthisrespect,itisimportanttonotethatIsraelhasforciblyremovedIsraelicitizensfrompartsoftheterritoriesoverwhichitgainedcontrolin1967.ThewholeoftheSinaiwastransferredtoEgyptfollowingthe1979CampDavidagreements;andover8000 Israeli citizens were removed from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Further, underIsraeli lawprivatelyowned land cannotbepart of a settlementunless the land inquestionhasbeenconfiscatedformilitarypurpose,andseveralIsraeli“settlements”intheWestBankhavebeendismantledbytheIsraeliauthorities.

2. TheParties’RightsandObligationsundertheOsloAccords.

Both therecognitionof the1949ArmisticeLinesasbordersand therecognitionofPalestineasastateconflictwiththetermsoftheOsloAccords,whichremainbindingon Israel, the PLO, and the states and international institutions thatwitnessed theagreements.23

Although the interim period has expired and no final status agreement has beenreached,theOsloAgreementsarestillvalidandbindingonthepartiesinvolved.

ThecomplexarrangementsmadeundertheOsloAgreementshavearguablyresultedin a special legal regime (lex specialis) in relation to the “post-1967” territories.Asinstrumentsofinternationallaw,theyimposemutualrightsandobligations,limiting

21SeeDinstein,Yoram,TheInternationalLawofBelligerentOccupation,Cambridge2009,page241.AsimilarconclusionisreachedbyProfessorJamesCrawfordSCinhisOpiniononThirdPartyObligationswithrespecttoIsraeliSettlementsinPalestinianOccupiedTerritories,January24,2012,availableat:http://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/tucfiles/LegalOpinionIsraeliSettlements.pdf(accessed9December2014).22Seee.g.Crawford,Opinion,January24,2012,op.cit.23 UnitedStates,theEuropeanUnion,Russia,Egypt,JordanandNorway.

9


theapplicationofgeneralprinciplesoflaw.24TheOsloAgreementsarguablylimitthescopeoftheArabPalestinianrighttoself-determination.GiventhatIsraelretainsall“residual”powersnotexplicitlytransferredtothePalestinianCouncil, it isarguablethat—pending final agreement—the Oslo Arrangements do not affect Israel’sunderlying claims to territorial sovereignty with respect to territories outside theGreenLine.25

The InterimAgreement (1995)prohibitsbothparties from initiating “anystep thatwillchangethestatusof theWestBankandtheGazaStrippendingtheoutcomeofthepermanentstatusnegotiations.”26 Thefuturestatusof theseterritoriesandthenatureofanindependentPalestinianentitycanonlybesettledthroughnegotiationsreflectingabalanceofcompetinginterests.Providedthepartiesactingoodfaith,nospecificsolutiontotheseissuescanbeimposedwithoutthemutualconsentofbothIsrael and the Palestinian-Arab people, and any attempts to have such a solutionimposedwouldbeinbreachoftheOsloAccords. Forthisreason,theactionsofthePLO to seek recognition of Palestine within the UN—based on the “pre-1967borders”—are inbreachof theOsloAccords. Equally, recognitionof “Palestine”bythe EU (or its Member States), Russia, the USA, Egypt, Jordan or Norway wouldbreachtheirobligationsundertheOsloAccords.

ItisoftenarguedthattheconstructionofsettlementsinJerusalemorotherpartsofthe West Bank constitutes a “step” that will “change the status of the West Bankpending the outcome of permanent status negotiations.”27 In our submission, theconstructionorexpansionofphysicalbuildings intheseterritoriesdoesnotchangethe status of theWest Bank. The question of the settlements is an issue explicitlyreserved for permanent status negotiations, together with “Jerusalem, refugees,securityarrangements,borders,relationsandcooperationwithotherneighborsandotherissuesofcommoninterest.”28 Pendingsuccessfulnegotiationonthoseissues,IsraelretainsfullpowerandresponsibilitywithinAreaC(includingJerusalem).Thisincludeszoningandplanningresponsibilities. Asdemonstrated in theCampDavidnegotiationsin2000,Israelhasrepeatedlyindicatedthatitiswilling,aspartofafinalagreement, togiveupcontrolover largepartsof theWestBankthat includeIsraelisettlements.

By explicitly incorporating Resolutions 242 and 338 into the DOP and InterimAgreement, Israel and the Palestinians recognize that any outcome of thenegotiationsmustcomplywiththecriteriasetoutinthoseresolutions.Specifically,they recognize that Israel is not required towithdraw from all of the “post-1967”

24Thereismuchdiscussionabouttheexactnatureofthesedocuments.NotwithstandingthefactthatthePLOisnotaState,itseemstobegenerallyacceptedthattheseagreementsaregovernedbyinternationallaw.Theyarebindingontheparties,andmayevenconstitutetreatiesinthesenseofthe1969ViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties.25Asdescribedabove,Israelconsidersthatitstillhasa“claimtosovereignty”overtheWestBank,andthatthisareaisnotdejure“occupiedterritory”inthesenseoftheFourthGenevaConvention.SeeSinger,J.“AspectsofForeignRelationsUndertheIsraeli-PalestinianAgreementsonInterimSelf-GovernmentArrangementsfortheWestBankandGaza”,IsraelLR28(1994)268at276.26ArticleXXXI(7)oftheInterimAgreement.27 Id. 28ArticleV(3)oftheDOP.

10


territories. Further,any futurePalestinianentitymustnotendanger the territorialintegrityorpoliticalindependenceofIsrael(oranyotherState).29

3. TherightsoftheStateofIsraeltoterritorialintegrity/inviolability,politicalindependenceandsecureborders.Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides, “[a]ll Members shall refrain in theirinternationalrelationsfromthethreatoruseofforceagainsttheterritorialintegrityorpoliticalindependenceofanystate,orinanyothermannerinconsistentwiththePurposesoftheUnitedNations.”30TheprincipleofterritorialintegrityandpoliticalindependenceispartofthefoundationoftheWestphalianStatesystemandhaslongbeenestablishedinthecontemporarysystemofinternationallawontheuseofforce.As such, it is embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and customaryinternational law. The International Court of Justice stated, “[t]he principle ofterritorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and isenshrined intheCharterof theUnitedNations, inparticular inArticle2,paragraph4.”31Whiletherearethosetodaywhowouldchallengethisworldview,asamatteroflawitisdifficulttodiscernanyweakeningoftheprincipleofterritorialintegrity.32

TheconceptofterritorialintegrityunderArticle2(4)oftheUNCharterisexpoundedon in other important declarations of the UN General Assembly, including theFriendly Relations Declaration and the Definition of Aggression.33 The words“against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state” wereinsertedintoArticle2(4)oftheCharter“inordertoemphasizetheimportanceofnotinfringing on territorial integrity and political independence; and they cannot beinterpreted (as isoccasionally suggested)as limiting thenon-useof forceprincipleembodiedintheCharter.”34

The 1949 Armistice Lines do not constitute secure borders and do not reflect thecontinuinglegalclaimofIsraelandtheJewishpeopletoJerusalemandtheterritoryoftheWestBank.Fromamilitarysecurityperspective,the1949ArmisticeLinesarevirtually indefensible. Given Israel’s narrow geographical dimensions and thestrategicpositionoftheWestBank,anyfutureattacklaunchedfromterritoriesinthe“WestBank”outsidethe1949ArmisticeLinesagainst Israel'snine-mile-widewaistcouldeasilysplitthecountryintwo.Israel’s right, as a UNmember state, to territorial integrity is reflected in SecurityCouncil Resolutions 242 and 338 which require negotiation of peace based on“[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for andacknowledgementofthesovereignty,territorialintegrityandpoliticalindependence

29Becker,T.“Self-determinationinPerspective:PalestinianClaimstoStatehoodandtheRelativityofThisRighttoSelf-Determination”,(1998)32Isr.L.Rev.301,pages347-352.30SeeArticle2(4)oftheUNCharterinAppendix.31InternationalCourtofJustice,AccordancewithinternationallawoftheunilateralDeclarationofIndependenceofKosovo,AdvisoryOpinion,ICJReports(2010),para.80.32Forexample,itwasconcernforterritorialintegrityandthestabilityofbordersthatledtheOrganizationofAfricanUnity(nowtheAfricanUnion)toinsistuponthemaintenanceofthecolonialbordersasatindependence.Indeed,internationallawstillaffordsacentralplacetotheprincipleofterritorialintegrity.SeeMichael,Wood.ThePrincetonEncyclopediaofSelf-Determination.TerritorialIntegrity.http://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/271.33FriendlyRelationsDeclaration(1970);DefinitionofAggression(1974).34Michael,Wood.ThePrincetonEncyclopediaofSelf-Determination.TerritorialIntegrity.http://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/271.

11


ofeveryStateintheareaandtheirrighttoliveinpeacewithinsecureandrecognizedboundariesfreefromthreatsoractsofforce.”ThePLOhas failed to demonstrate that it is able andwilling to complywith theserequirements.UnderthePalestinianNationalCharter,thePLOremainscommittedtotheliberationofallofPalestine—includingtheterritoriesnowcoveredbytheStateof Israel. Further, there is a very real possibility that anti-Israel jihadic elementswithinArab-PalestiniansocietywilluseanewPalestinianstate—overwhichneitherIsrael nor any other statewill have the right in interfere in internalmatters—as aplatformtolaunchfurtherattacksonIsrael.WithHamasinGaza,theriseofISIS,theMuslimBrotherhood,andotherextremistIslamicgroupsinEgypt,Syria,Iraq,Libya,and other countries in the region, there are sufficient grounds to fear that anti-democratic, jihadic forces would control a newly created Arab-Palestinian state.These movements by definition deny the right of the Jewish people to exist as asovereign nation and are committed to the use force against the Jewish people,therebythreateningIsrael’sterritorialintegrityandpoliticalindependence.

4. ProtectingtheUniqueStatusofJerusalem.Jerusalemisauniquecity.Noothercityintheworldcontainssomanysacredplacesfor the threemonotheistic religionsof theworld—Judaism,Christianity, and Islam.There are essentially three issues here: (1) the protection of the Holy Places, (2)freedomofreligion,(3)changestothecharacter,composition,structure,andstatusoftheCityofJerusalem.ProtectionofHolyPlacesandFreedomofReligionTheOldCityofJerusalemisthemostsacredplaceintheworldforJewsandcontainsmany holy sites for Christians and Muslims. In many resolutions since 1967, theSecurityCouncilhasemphasized,“thespecificstatusofJerusalemand,inparticular,the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religiousdimensionoftheHolyPlacesinthecity.”35TheUNhasaspecialobligationtoensurethatthewholeofJerusalemremainaCityforallfaiths.The questions are: Who is most capable of protecting and preserving the uniquespiritualandreligiousdimensionoftheCityofJerusalem?And,whocanensurethatJews, Christians, and Muslims can have full access to their Holy Places? Islamicregimeshaveproven that they cannotguarantee suchprotectionandpreservation.Forexample,JordanremovedallJewsanddestroyedallJewishplacesofworshipintheOldCityofJerusalemandtheWestBankintheperiodfrom1949-1967. Today,Jordan and thePalestinian leadership restrict access of Jews to theTempleMount.Across the Middle East, since the creation of the State of Israel, the once-thrivingJewish communities have been decimated. Thousands of Christians are beingdiscriminated against, persecuted, and killed, simply because they are considered“infidels.”InaccordancewiththetermsandspiritofthePalestinianNationalCharter,the Palestinian leadership has repeatedly and publicly declared it intends to applyIslamic law in Palestine, and evict all Jews from the proposed State of Palestine,includingtheOldCityofJerusalem.

35SeeforexampleSecurityCouncilResolutions252(1968),476(1980)and478(1980).

12


Thestatusof theTempleMount (al-Haramal-Sharif) is illustrative. In1967, Israelentrusted custodianship of the Muslim Holy Places on the Temple Mount to theMuslimWaqf inallmattersexcept forexternalsecurity. Thiswasconfirmedinthe1994PeaceAgreementbetweenIsraelandJordan.TheTempleMount(includingtheWesternwall) isof courseaholy sitenotonly forMuslims,butalso for the Jewishpeople,aswellasChristians.Inrecentweeks,thePalestiniansandJordanhavetakesteps to further restrict access to the Temple Mount by Jews. According to anagreementexecutedonMarch31,2013betweenKingAbdullahIIofJordanandthePLO/PA, thePLO/PAaffirmsrecognitionby theArabPalestiniansof theHashemiteKing as custodian of the Islamic Holy Places in Jerusalem.36 The agreement alsorecognizes Palestinian self-determination and sovereignty over the landwhere theIslamicHolyPlacesaresituated.Thisagreement"affirmsthatallMuslims,nowandforever, may travel to and from the Islamic Holy Sites and worship there, inconformancewith the freedomofworship." TheWaqfand itspropertiesare tobeadministered "in accordance with the laws of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.”Thesearrangementscontainnoguaranteeswhatsoever that JewsorChristianswillcontinuetohaveaccess to theirholyplacesconnectedwiththeTempleMount. Onthecontrary,theyindicatethataccesswillbelimitedtoMuslims.37 ThisagreementindicatesthatanIslamicStateofPalestineisunlikelytoprotecttherightsofJewsandChristiansofaccesstotheirHolyPlacesintheOldCityofJerusalem.Incontrast,theJewishStateofIsraelhasdemonstratedsince1967thatitiscapableofensuringthattheOldCityisgovernedinsuchawaythatallfaithshavefullaccessto holy sites and can practice their religion freely. Since 1967, Muslims andChristianshavehadfullaccesstotheirHolyPlacesinJerusalem.ChangestotheCharacter,Composition,Structure,andStatusoftheCityofJerusalem:TheUnitedNationsanditsmembersmustbeconsistentandfairintheirtreatmentofJerusalem.Since1967,theUNhasrepeatedlycondemnedwhattheSecurityCouncilhas described as “the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character,demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of theHolyCity ofJerusalem.”38IfIsrael’sconductin“changing”thecharacterandstatusoftheCityistoberegardedasillegal,thenbydefinition,anyconductby“Palestine”tochangetheunique character and status of Jerusalem should also be regarded as illegal. It isinequitabletocondemnIsraelfordeclaringJerusalemtobethecapitaloftheStateofIsrael,whileallowing“Palestine”todeclareJerusalemtobethecapitalofthe“StateofPalestine.” Similarly, it is inequitable to condemn Israel for changing the “physicalcharacter,demographiccomposition,andinstitutionalstructure”ofJerusalem,whilegiving“Palestine”freereigntodoexactlythat.

5. UNCharterPrinciples.

36 In his capacity as descendant of the Sharif Hussein bin Ali of Mecca, who was Caliph of Islam for several months in 1924. 37 For more information about this agreement, see: Lapidoth, R. "A Recent Agreement on the Holy Places in Jerusalem," Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs VII:3 (2013), 61-70. 38Resolution476(1980).

13


Evenifoneaccepts(whichwedonot)thatIsraeldoesnothavenationalsovereigntyintheterritoriesanddoesnothavetherighttofacilitateorallow“settlements”tobebuilt in the territories, that does not justify a prohibition on individual Israeli orJewish persons or corporate entities from living or operating in these territories.SuchmeasuresconflictwiththeUNCharterPrinciplesofHumanDignity,Tolerance,Equality,RespectforTreatyObligations,andNon-violence.It is often argued that the removal of “settlers” from these territories is justifiedbecausetheexistenceofIsraelicitizensintheseterritories“threatenstomakeatwo-state solution impossible.”39 There is no basis for this conclusion. The mereexistence of Israeli persons or enterprises in the “territories” cannot—in and ofitself—threatenthecreationofaPalestinianstate. JustastheexistenceofArabsintheterritoryofIsraeldoesnotmakeaJewishStateofIsraelimpossible,inthesameway,theexistenceofJewsinthe“OccupiedTerritories”doesnotthreatenorpreventtheexistenceofanArab-Palestinianstateonthoseterritories.Somehavearguedthatthe settlements result fromapolicyof “creepingexpropriation.”40 It is amatterofdebate whether this argument holds any weight with regard to some of theinfrastructuredevelopment;however,itisdefinitelynottrueofallindividualJewishpersons and enterprises in the “Occupied Territories.” On the contrary, there aremanyexamplesof Jewishpersonsandenterprises in these territoriesassistingandpromoting Palestinian development and self-determination (e.g.many Jewish-Arabpartnerships, and thousands of Arab Palestinians owe their livelihood to Jewishbusinesses in the “Occupied Territories”). The existence of Jewish persons andenterprises in the territories would only be a hindrance to the creation of aPalestinianstate,iftheproposedArab-PalestinianstaterequiredanethniccleansingofJewishpersons.FurtherdifficultiesarepresentedbytherecognitionofthePLOasthe“solelegitimaterepresentativeofthePalestinianpeople.”• ThereisnoguaranteethatthePLOinitscurrentformwillremainthegoverning

power in a new Palestinian state. It very likely Hamas or a similar Islamicextremistmovementwouldgaincontrol.UnderitsCharter,HamasiscommittedtotheuseofarmedforceagainstIsraelandtheJewishpeople.41

• PAPresidentAbbashasrepeatedlystatedtherewillbenoplaceforJewsinthenew Palestinian state.42 The PA and PLO facilitate education and mediapropaganda,whichpromote terrorism, hatred, andnegative attitudes towardsJewishpeople.

• ThePLOremainscommittedunderthePalestinianNationalChartertotheuseof“jihad”toachievetheliberationof“allofPalestine,”whicheffectivelymeansthedestructionofIsraelasaJewishState.43

39 See “Statement on the publication of tenders to expand Israeli settlements in Ramot and Pisgat Ze'ev” by the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on 8th November 2012 (A 497/12). 40 See eg. Crawford, Opinion, 2006, op. cit. 41 See Hamas Charter in Appendix. 42Seehttp://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Abbas-wants-not-a-single-Israeli-in-future-Palestinian-state-321470(lastvisited12thNovember2014).43 SeeAppendix;DespitecommitmentsmadebyYasserArafatonbehalfofthePLOuponsigningtheOsloAccordsin1993toamendtheCharterinordertoremoveprovisionsinconsistentwiththetermsoftheOsloAccords,the1968versionofthePalestinianNationalCharterhasneverbeenformallyamended.

14


By recognizing the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, theinternational community is therefore condoning (a) denial of the legitimacy of theJewishpeopleasanationwitharight toself-determination; (b)ethniccleansingof“Palestine”ofJews;and,(c)systemicdiscrimination.ThisnotonlyconflictswiththeobligationsenteredintobymanystatesundertheMandateforPalestinein1922,butalsobreachesUNCharterprinciples,inparticular:44• “The dignity andworth of the human person, in the equal rights ofmen and

womenandofnationslargeandsmall;”• the establishment of “conditions under which justice and respect for the

obligationsarising fromtreatiesandother sourcesof international lawcanbemaintained;”

• “To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as goodneighbors;”and

• “Toensure,bytheacceptanceofprinciplesandtheinstitutionofmethods,thatarmedforceshallnotbeused,saveinthecommoninterest.”45

6. PalestineDoesNotQualifyasa“State”UnderInternationalLaw.

First, it is importanttonotethattherighttoself-determinationunderinternationallaw is not absolute. Accordingly, the Arab-Palestinian people do not have anautomatic “right” to statehood. Theexerciseof the rightof self-determinationof apeoplemayresultindifferentformsofautonomywithintheterritoryofastate.“Theestablishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association orintegration with an independent State or the emergence into any other politicalstatus freelydeterminedbyapeopleconstitutemodesof implementingtherightofself-determinationbythatpeople.”46Second, states only exist under international law if they satisfy certain objectivecriteria.Oneofthemostoftheseistheexistenceofaneffectivegoverningauthority.Inourview“Palestine”doesnotatthistimesatisfythecriteriaforstatehoodunderinternational law. Amongst other things, “Palestine” does not have a governingauthoritythatiscapableofgoverningthewholeoftheclaimedPalestinianterritorieseffectivelyandindependently:47

• Although civil control has been handed over to the Palestinian authorities inAreasAandB,and internalsecuritycontrol inAreaA,undertheOsloAccordsIsrael retainsresponsibility foressentialmatterssuchasexternalsecurityandexternal relations throughout the whole of the West Bank. The regimeestablishedundertheOsloagreementsis“thatofaPalestinianautonomyunder

44SeePreambleoftheUNCharter.45UNCharter. 46 GARes.2625(XXV);Thisresolutionadoptedin1970includedtheDeclarationonPrinciplesofInternationalLawConcerningFriendlyRelationsandCo-operationamongStatesinAccordancewiththeCharteroftheUnitedNations. 47 See generally on the criteria for statehood: Crawford, James The Creation of States in International law, 2nd edition, Clarendon Press, 2006.

15


the supreme authority of the Israelimilitary government.”48 Notwithstandingthewithdrawalof themilitary regimeand transferof extensivepowers, Israelstillretains“reversionary”powersinAreasAandB.

• UndertheOsloagreements,Palestinianpowerandauthorityhavebeencarefully(and intentionally) fragmented. The PLO retains power and claims ultimateauthority as “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” Thejurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority is extremely limited, being whollyderived from both the PLO and Israel, pursuant to the terms of the InterimAgreement. The PA does not have authority outside the terms of thatagreement.

• The PLO lost power in the Gaza Strip,whereHamas has assumed power in abitter, fratricidal conflict. The PLO and/or Palestinian Authority do not havecontroloverthewholeoftheterritoryclaimedtobe“Palestine.”

It should be noted there is a fundamental distinction between the legitimateexistence(andcreation)ofstatesandtheirrecognition.Astatemayexistasamatterof fact andmaybe legitimateas amatterof lawwithoutbeing recognizedas such.Conversely, a “state”maybe recognizedbymany (even amajority of) other statesand still not exist as a matter of fact or law. The fact that over 130 states haveofficiallyrecognizedPalestineasastatedoesnotmakePalestineastate.

Similarly, the UN General Assembly does not have the authority or power torecognizeorcreate“states”thatdonototherwiseexistunderinternationallaw.UNGeneralAssemblyResolutionof29thNovember2012changingthePA’sstatuswithinthe UN from an “Entity” with “Observer” status to a “Non-member State” withObserverstatuscouldnotanddidnotaffectthestatusofPalestine49.

Further,wenote thatArticle4of theUNCharterrequiresUNMemberStates, interalia,tobe“peaceloving,”andtobeableandwillingtocarryoutallobligationsundertheUNCharter.50Althoughthesearenotstrictly-speakingconditionsforstatehood,giventhepoliticalcontextoftheIsrael/PalestineconflictitwouldbeunwisefortheUN Security Council or individual UNmember states to recognize “Palestine” as astateifitisunabletomeetthecriteriaforUNmembership.Itisclearthat“Palestine”fails to meet these criteria. Notwithstanding their formal statements, thecommitments made by the PLO in the context of the Oslo agreements, significantelementsofPalestiniansocietyremaincommittedtojihad,violence,andterror.ThePalestinian National Charter still advocates jihad and some PLO leadership openlysupporttheuseofviolencetowardsIsraelandtheJewishpeople.Consequently,itishighly doubtfulwhether the PLO as a single entity purporting to represent all theconstitutiveelementsofPalestiniansocietyisgenuinely“peace-loving.”51

48Singer,J.“TheWestBankandGazaStrip:PhaseTwo,Justice”,TheInternationalAssociationofJewishLawyersandJuristsNo.7,December1995,5-17at8.CitedbyMalanczuk,P.“SomeBasicAspectsoftheAgreementsbetweenIsraelandthePLOfromthePerspectiveofInternationallaw”,7EJIL(1996)485-500. 49Infactnoorganizationortribunelisabletomakeadefinitive,bindingdeterminationonwhetherornot“Palestine”constitutesastate.

50Article4oftheUNCharter.51SeePalestinianNationalCharterinAppendix.

16


APPENDICES

RelevantProvisionsoftheMandateforPalestine(1922)

TheCounciloftheLeagueofNations

WhereasthePrincipalAlliedPowershaveagreed,forthepurposeofgivingeffecttotheprovisionsofArticle 22 of theCovenant of the League ofNations, to entrust to aMandatory selectedby the saidPowers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the TurkishEmpire,withinsuchboundariesasmaybefixedbythem;and

Whereas thePrincipalAlliedPowershavealsoagreedthat theMandatoryshouldberesponsible forputtingintoeffectthedeclarationoriginallymadeonNovember2nd,1917,bytheGovernmentofHisBritannicMajesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of anationalhome for the Jewishpeople, itbeingclearlyunderstood thatnothingshouldbedonewhichmightprejudice thecivilandreligiousrightsofexistingnon-Jewishcommunities inPalestine,or therightsandpoliticalstatusenjoyedbyJewsinanyothercountry;and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish peoplewithPalestineandtothegroundsforreconstitutingtheirnationalhomeinthatcountry;andWhereasthePrincipal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; andWhereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms andsubmittedtotheCounciloftheLeagueforapproval;andWhereasHisBritannicMajestyhasacceptedthemandateinrespectofPalestineandundertakentoexerciseitonbehalfoftheLeagueofNationsinconformitywiththefollowingprovisions;and

Whereasbytheafore-mentionedArticle22(paragraph8),itisprovidedthatthedegreeofauthority,controloradministrationtobeexercisedbytheMandatory,nothavingbeenpreviouslyagreeduponbytheMembersoftheLeague,shallbeexplicitlydefinedbytheCounciloftheLeagueofNations;

Confirmingthesaidmandate,definesitstermsasfollows:

Article1—TheMandatory shallhave fullpowersof legislationandof administration, saveas theymaybelimitedbythetermsofthismandate.

Article 2—The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political,administrativeandeconomicconditionsaswillsecuretheestablishmentoftheJewishnationalhome,as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self -governing institutions, and also forsafeguarding thecivilandreligiousrightsofall the inhabitantsofPalestine, irrespectiveof raceandreligion.

Article3—TheMandatoryshall,sofarascircumstancespermit,encouragelocalautonomy.

Article 4—An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose ofadvising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and othermattersasmayaffect theestablishmentof the Jewishnationalhomeand the interestsof the JewishpopulationinPalestine,and,subjectalwaystothecontroloftheAdministration,toassistandtakepartinthedevelopmentofthecountry.

The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of theMandatoryappropriate,shallberecognisedassuchagency.ItshalltakestepsinconsultationwithHisBritannicMajesty'sGovernmenttosecurethecooperationofallJewswhoarewillingtoassistintheestablishmentoftheJewishnationalhome.

Article5—TheMandatoryshallberesponsibleforseeingthatnoPalestineterritoryshallbecededorleasedto,orinanywayplacedunderthecontrolof,theGovernmentofanyforeignPower.

17


Article 6—The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of othersections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitableconditionsandshallencourage,inco-operationwiththeJewishagency.referredtoinArticle4,closesettlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for publicpurposes.

Article80oftheUnitedNationsCharter

Exceptasmaybeagreeduponinindividualtrusteeshipagreements,madeunderArticles77,79,and81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have beenconcluded,nothinginthisChaptershallbeconstruedinorof itselftoalter inanymannertherightswhatsoeverofanystatesoranypeoplesor the termsofexisting international instruments towhichMembersoftheUnitedNationsmayrespectivelybeparties.

Paragraph1ofthisArticleshallnotbeinterpretedasgivinggroundsfordelayorpostponementofthenegotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under thetrusteeshipsystemasprovidedforinArticle77.

UNSecurityCouncilResolution242

November22,1967

TheSecurityCouncil,

ExpressingitscontinuingconcernwiththegravesituationintheMiddleEast,

EmphasizingtheinadmissibilityoftheacquisitionofterritorybywarandtheneedtoworkforajustandlastingpeaceinwhicheveryStateintheareacanliveinsecurity,

Emphasizing furtherthatallMemberStatesintheiracceptanceoftheCharteroftheUnitedNationshaveundertakenacommitmenttoactinaccordancewithArticle2oftheCharter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lastingpeaceintheMiddleEastwhichshouldincludetheapplicationofboththefollowingprinciples:

a. WithdrawalofIsraeliarmedforcesfromterritoriesoccupiedintherecentconflict;b. Terminationofallclaimsorstatesofbelligerencyandrespectforandacknowledgementofthe

sovereignty,territorialintegrityandpoliticalindependenceofeveryStateintheareaandtheirrighttoliveinpeacewithinsecureandrecognizedboundariesfreefromthreatsoractsofforce;

2. Affirmsfurtherthenecessity-

a. Forguaranteeingfreedomofnavigationthroughinternationalwaterwaysinthearea;b. Forachievingajustsettlementoftherefugeeproblem;c. For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the

area,throughmeasuresincludingtheestablishmentofdemilitarizedzones;

3. RequeststheSecretaryGeneraltodesignateaSpecialRepresentativetoproceedtotheMiddleEasttoestablishandmaintaincontactswiththeStatesconcernedinordertopromoteagreementandassisteffortstoachieveapeacefulandacceptedsettlementinaccordancewiththeprovisionsandprinciplesinthisresolution;

RequeststheSecretary-GeneraltoreporttotheSecurityCouncilontheprogressoftheeffortsoftheSpecialRepresentativeassoonaspossible.

18


RelevantprovisionsofthePalestinianNationalCharter(asrevisedin1968)

Article1:PalestineisthehomelandoftheArabPalestinianpeople;itisanindivisiblepartoftheArabhomeland,andthePalestinianpeopleareanintegralpartoftheArabnation.

Article2:Palestine,withtheboundariesithadduringtheBritishMandate,isanindivisibleterritorialunit.

Article3:thePalestinianArabpeoplepossessthelegalrighttotheirhomelandandhavetherighttodeterminetheirdestinyafterachievingtheliberationoftheircountryinaccordancewiththeirwishesandentirelyoftheirownaccordandwill.

Article4:ThePalestinianidentityisagenuine,essential,andinherentcharacteristic;itistransmittedfrom parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people,through thedisasterswhichbefell them,donotmake them lose theirPalestinian identity and theirmembershipinthePalestiniancommunity,nordotheynegatethem.

Article 5: The Palestinians are thoseArab nationalswho, until 1947, normally resided in Palestineregardlessofwhethertheywereevictedfromitorhavestayedthere.Anyoneborn,afterthatdate,ofaPalestinianfather-whetherinsidePalestineoroutsideit-isalsoaPalestinian.

Article6:TheJewswhohadnormallyresidedinPalestineuntilthebeginningoftheZionistinvasionwillbeconsideredPalestinians.

Article 7: That there is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historicalconnection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individualPalestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must beadopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, bothspiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready tosacrificehiswealthandhislifeinordertowinbackhishomelandandbringaboutitsliberation.

Article8:Thephase in theirhistory, throughwhichthePalestinianpeoplearenowliving, is thatofnational (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestiniannational forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that existsbetweentheforcesofZionismandofimperialismontheonehand,andthePalestinianArabpeopleontheother.OnthisbasisthePalestinianmasses,regardlessofwhethertheyareresidinginthenationalhomeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute - both their organizations and the individuals - onenationalfrontworkingfortheretrievalofPalestineanditsliberationthrougharmedstruggle.

Article 9: armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, notmerely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firmresolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for theliberationoftheircountryandtheirreturntoit.TheyalsoasserttheirrighttonormallifeinPalestineandtoexercisetheirrighttoself-determinationandsovereigntyoverit.

Article10:Commandoactionconstitutesthenucleusof thePalestinianpopular liberationwar.Thisrequires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and themobilization of all the Palestinian popular andeducationaleffortsandtheirorganizationandinvolvementinthearmedPalestinianrevolution.Italsorequirestheachievingofunityforthenational(watani)struggleamongthedifferentgroupingsofthePalestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure thecontinuationoftherevolution,itsescalation,andvictory.

Article11:ThePalestinianswillhavethreemottoes:national(wataniyya)unity,national(qawmiyya)mobilization,andliberation.

19


Article12:ThePalestinianpeoplebelieveinArabunity.Inordertocontributetheirsharetowardtheattainmentofthatobjective,however,theymust,atthepresentstageoftheirstruggle,safeguardtheirPalestinian identity anddevelop their consciousnessof that identity, andoppose anyplan thatmaydissolve or impair it. Article 13: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementaryobjectives, theattainmentofeitherofwhich facilitates theattainmentof theother.Thus,ArabunityleadstotheliberationofPalestine,theliberationofPalestineleadstoArabunity;andworktowardtherealizationofoneobjectiveproceedssidebysidewithworktowardtherealizationoftheother.

Article14:ThedestinyoftheArabnation,andindeedArabexistenceitself,dependuponthedestinyofthePalestinecause.FromthisinterdependencespringstheArabnation'spursuitof,andstrivingfor,theliberationofPalestine.ThepeopleofPalestineplaytheroleofthevanguardintherealizationofthissacred(qawmi)goal.

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and itattempts torepel theZionistand imperialistaggressionagainst theArabhomeland,andaimsat theeliminationofZionisminPalestine.AbsoluteresponsibilityforthisfallsupontheArabnation-peoplesand governments -with theArabpeople of Palestine in the vanguard.Accordingly, theArabnationmustmobilizeallitsmilitary,human,moral,andspiritualcapabilitiestoparticipateactivelywiththePalestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armedPalestinianrevolution,offerandfurnishthePalestinianpeoplewithallpossiblehelp,andmaterialandhuman support, andmake available to them themeans and opportunities thatwill enable them tocontinuetocarryouttheirleadingroleinthearmedrevolution,untiltheyliberatetheirhomeland.

Article16:TheliberationofPalestine,fromaspiritualpointofview,willprovidetheHolyLandwithan atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country's religioussanctuariesandguaranteefreedomofworshipandofvisittoall,withoutdiscriminationofrace,color,language,orreligion.Accordingly, thepeopleofPalestine looktoallspiritual forces intheworld forsupport.

Article 17: The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view,will restore to the Palestinianindividualhisdignity,pride,andfreedom.AccordinglythePalestinianArabpeoplelookforwardtothesupportofallthosewhobelieveinthedignityofmanandhisfreedomintheworld.

Article 18: The liberation of Palestine, from an international point of view, is a defensive actionnecessitatedbythedemandsofself-defense.AccordinglythePalestinianpeople,desirousastheyareofthefriendshipofallpeople,looktofreedom-loving,andpeace-lovingstatesforsupportinordertorestore their legitimate rights inPalestine, to re-establishpeace and security in the country, and toenableitspeopletoexercisenationalsovereigntyandfreedom.

Article19:ThepartitionofPalestinein1947andtheestablishmentofthestateofIsraelareentirelyillegal, regardless of the passage of time, because theywere contrary to thewill of the Palestinianpeopleandtotheirnaturalrightintheirhomeland,andinconsistentwiththeprinciplesembodiedintheCharteroftheUnitedNations,particularlytherighttoself-determination.

Article20: TheBalfourDeclaration, theMandate forPalestine, andeverything thathasbeenbaseduponthem,aredeemednullandvoid.ClaimsofhistoricalorreligioustiesofJewswithPalestineareincompatiblewiththefactsofhistoryandthetrueconceptionofwhatconstitutesstatehood.Judaism,being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with anidentityofitsown;theyarecitizensofthestatestowhichtheybelong.

Article21:TheArabPalestinianpeople,expressingthemselvesbythearmedPalestinianrevolution,rejectall solutionswhicharesubstitutes for the total liberationofPalestineandrejectallproposalsaimingattheliquidationofthePalestinianproblem,oritsinternationalization.

20


Article22:Zionismisapoliticalmovementorganicallyassociatedwithinternationalimperialismandantagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressivemovements in theworld. It is racist andfanaticinitsnature,aggressive,expansionist,andcolonialinitsaims,andfascistinitsmethods.Israelis the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placedstrategicallyinthemidstoftheArabhomelandtocombatthehopesoftheArabnationforliberation,unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in theMiddle East and thewholeworld.SincetheliberationofPalestinewilldestroytheZionistandimperialistpresenceandwillcontributetotheestablishmentofpeaceintheMiddleEast,thePalestinianpeoplelookforthesupportofalltheprogressiveandpeacefulforcesandurgethemall,irrespectiveoftheiraffiliationsandbeliefs,to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of theirhomeland.

Article23:Thedemandofsecurityandpeace,aswellasthedemandofrightandjustice,requireallstatestoconsiderZionismanillegitimatemovement,tooutlawitsexistence,andtobanitsoperations,inorder that friendlyrelationsamongpeoplesmaybepreserved,andthe loyaltyofcitizens to theirrespectivehomelandssafeguarded.

Article 24: The Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination,humandignity,andintherightofallpeoplestoexercisethem.

Article25:FortherealizationofthegoalsofthisCharteranditsprinciples,thePalestineLiberationOrganizationwillperformitsroleintheliberationofPalestineinaccordancewiththeConstitutionofthisOrganization.

Article 26: The Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the Palestinian revolutionaryforces, is responsible for the Palestinian Arab people's movement in its struggle - to retrieve itshomeland, liberateandreturn to itandexercise theright toself-determination in it - inallmilitary,political,andfinancialfieldsandalsoforwhatevermayberequiredbythePalestinecaseontheinter-Arabandinternationallevels.

Article27:ThePalestineLiberationOrganizationshallcooperatewithallArabstates,eachaccordingtoitspotentialities;andwilladoptaneutralpolicyamongtheminthelightoftherequirementsofthewarofliberation;andonthisbasisitshallnotinterfereintheinternalaffairsofanyArabstate.

Article28: ThePalestinianArabpeople assert the genuineness and independence of their national(wataniyya)revolutionandrejectallformsofintervention,trusteeship,andsubordination.

Article 29: The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and genuine legal right to liberate andretrievetheirhomeland.ThePalestinianpeopledeterminetheirattitudetowardallstatesandforceson thebasisof the stands theyadoptvis-a-vis to thePalestinian revolution to fulfill theaimsof thePalestinianpeople.

Article30:FightersandcarriersofarmsinthewarofliberationarethenucleusofthepopulararmywhichwillbetheprotectiveforceforthegainsofthePalestinianArabpeople.

21


RelevantProvisionsoftheHamasCharter198852

ArticleFive:DimensionsofTimeandSpaceoftheHamas AstheMovementadoptsIslamasitswayoflife,itstimedimensionextendsbackasfarasthebirthoftheIslamicMessageandoftheRighteousAncestor.ItsultimategoalisIslam,theProphetitsmodel,theQur’anitsConstitution.

ArticleSix:PeculiarityandIndependence TheIslamicResistanceMovementisadistinctPalestinianMovementwhichowesitsloyaltytoAllah,derivesfromIslamitswayoflifeandstrivestoraisethebannerofAllahovereveryinchofPalestine.OnlyundertheshadowofIslamcouldthemembersofallregionscoexistinsafetyandsecurityfortheirlives,propertiesandrights.IntheabsenceofIslam,conflictarises,oppressionreigns,corruptionisrampantandstrugglesandwarsprevail.

ArticleEight:TheSloganoftheHamas Allahisitsgoal,theProphetitsmodel,theQur’anitsConstitution,JihaditspathanddeathforthecaseofAllahitsmostsublimebelief.

ArticleEleven:TheStrategyofHamas:PalestineisanIslamicWaqf TheIslamicResistanceMovementbelievesthatthelandofPalestinehasbeenanIslamicWaqfthroughoutthegenerationsanduntiltheDayofResurrection,noonecanrenounceitorpartofit,orabandonitorpartofit.NoArabcountrynortheaggregateofallArabcountries,andnoArabKingorPresidentnorallofthemintheaggregate,havethatright,norhasthatrightanyorganizationortheaggregateofallorganizations,betheyPalestinianorArab,becausePalestineisanIslamicWaqfthroughoutallgenerationsandtotheDayofResurrection.

ArticleThirteen:PeacefulSolutions,[Peace]InitiativesandInternationalConferences [Peace]initiatives,theso-calledpeacefulsolutions,andtheinternationalconferencestoresolvethePalestinianproblem,areallcontrarytothebeliefsoftheIslamicResistanceMovement.ForrenouncinganypartofPalestinemeansrenouncingpartofthereligion;thenationalismoftheIslamicResistanceMovementispartofitsfaith,themovementeducatesitsmemberstoadheretoitsprinciplesandtoraisethebannerofAllahovertheirhomelandastheyfighttheirJihad:“Allahistheall-powerful,butmostpeoplearenotaware.”

52 The Hamas Charter, available at Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library – Avalon Project: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp.

23


THE SEPARATION OF TRANSJORDAN (1922)


24


THE 1949 ARMISTICE LINES


25


JERUSALEM SHOWING THE 1949 ARMISTICE LINES ("GREEN LINE")


27


ForMoreInformationContact:European Coalition for IsraelP.O. Box 76, 1040 Brussels Schuman, Belgium

[email protected]

www.ec4i.org

28


eci - israel and palestine background paper at 1.1 …...eec/arab cooperation and the creation of...

Documents