The “Deal of the Century” & “Close Jewish Settlement”

The right to “Close Jewish Settlement” is perfectly legal under Article 6 of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924. This is the Supreme Law of the USA and is American Public Policy since the right is an Acquired Legal Right under Treaty Law (e.g. the San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Versailles).

Lest the American (Trump) Administration forget, political rights for Arabs were granted through the Mandates for Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria and Lebanon via the Treaty of Versailles; while political rights within “Palestine” (Eretz Yisrael) were granted exclusively to the Jewish People!

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution labels treaties as the “Supreme Law of the Land” and instructs judges to enforce the performance of the specific obligations of the Nation’s treaties:”…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”Though the 1924 Anglo-American Convention expired when the Mandate for Palestine was terminated midnight May 14/15, 1948, the principle of “Acquired Legal Rights,” as defined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 70(1)(b), dictates that rights recognized and protected under a treaty do not expire or terminate when the legal instrument recognizing the rights is terminated. In other words, rights continue without end.

Moreover, Article 80 of the UN Charter provides:

Article 80

  1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
  2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

Article 80 has been defined as the “Jewish People’s Clause”

After World War II, Benzion Netanyahu, along with Irgun activist Peter Bergson, nephew of Mandatory Palestine Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and liberal American Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, drafted an article for inclusion in the United Nations Charter that could yet save the Jewish state.
The article became known as the “Palestine clause” for the protection it afforded to the right of Jewish settlement throughout the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River. Article 80 extended the guarantees to Jews afforded by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine following World War I. The Mandate had recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the legitimacy of grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Jews were guaranteed “the right of close settlement” throughout Palestine.
But where was “Palestine”? According to the Mandate, it comprised the land east and west of the Jordan River, stretching from Iraq to the Mediterranean. Jewish settlement rights in Palestine were limited only in one respect: Great Britain, the Mandatory Trustee, was empowered to “postpone” or “withhold” the right of Jews to settle east — but not west — of the Jordan River.

Bennett’s platform revealed

Arutz Sheva Staff, 28/02/19 08:39

New Right party platform opposes giving away land, supports increased construction in Judea, Samaria, J-lem, applying sovereignty in Area C.

 

 

Bennett

Bennett

Hadas Parush 90

The New Right party is committed to applying Israeli sovereignty in Area C and opposing the release of terrorists. In the political part of its platform, which was obtained by Israel Hayom, it is written, “As long as we are in the government, we will not allow a return to this pattern of returning terrorists, which is morally flawed and destructive.”

In the document, drafted by ministers Ayelet Shaked and Naftali Bennett, the party commits to refraining from handing over territories, and instead to significantly expand construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

“We oppose the handing over of our land and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel. We stand by the value settlement in all parts of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem, the united, is the capital of Israel – we will work to renew the building within united Jerusalem and to realize the potential of Givat Hamatos, Har Homa, Pisgat Ze’ev, the City of David and other neighborhoods … In Samaria and Judea there is enormous potential for building, and we will work for free construction, which will enable the doubling of the Jewish population in the area. ”

The New Right intends to apply Israeli sovereignty in Area C and grant Israeli citizenship to tens of thousands of Arab residents in the area. “The residents of Judea and Samaria are not treated equally in terms of construction and property rights … We support the application of Israeli law to the territories under Israeli control.”

German Ambassador to rabbis: ‘World should know your position’

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News
Mordechai Sones, 18/02/19 21:54

Rabbinical Congress for Peace: ‘Past experience has proven without shadow of doubt any withdrawals only embolden terrorists.’

 

Rabbi's emergency conference for Land of Israel

Rabbi’s emergency conference for Land of Israel

Rabbinical Congress for Peace

A delegation of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, led by central Tel Aviv Rabbi Joseph Gerlitzky, Shavei Shomron Rabbi Avraham Schreiber, and Chief Rabbinical Justice in Europe and Jerusalem Rabbi Yirmiya Cohen met yesterday with Germany’s ambassador to Israel, Susanne Vassum-Rainer.

The rabbis presented the Ambassador with the halachic ruling based on the universal value of the sanctity of life that it is absolutely forbidden to enter negotiations on an Israeli withdrawal from territories presently under its control. “Past experience has proven without a shadow of a doubt that any withdrawals only embolden the terrorists to increase terrorism and instability in the region,” the rabbis said. The rabbis requested that the Ambassador convey their message to the German government.

Ambassador Wasum-Rainer admitted that this was the first time that the Torah view had been called to her attention and recommended that it be brought to the attention of world public opinion too, however, she said, that her government does not take sides in the conflict. She said that she feels that the Palestinians are entitled to their own independent state as well. Rabbi Gerlitzky responded, “there are millions of Muslims in Germany, and no one thinks of granting them autonomy there.”

Rabbi Yirmiyahu HaCohen showed the ambassador original archaeological findings that prove beyond any doubt that the Jewish people have been in Israel from time immemorial and there is no room for debate on the subject.

Rabbi Schreiber talked about his close rapport that he had with Arabs of Gaza when he served as a rabbi in Gush Katif before the disengagement. “It is clear,” he said, “most of the Arab residents in Gaza were against the disengagement because they do not want to live under Palestinian rule. They enjoyed more freedom and prosperity under Israeli rule.”

The ambassador expressed great interest in what the rabbis had to say and promised to convey their message to senior officials in the German government.

Ambassador Wasum-Rainer and her staff were impressed that the rabbis are not affiliated with any party or any political body, but solely articulated the Torah view on the matter out of genuine concern for the peace and safety of the people in Israel.

Rabbi Joseph Gerlitzky

Saar: ‘Autonomy yes, state no’

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

Shimon Cohen, 29/01/19 19:05

Gideon Sa’ar supports canceling ambiguity in Syria, demands Gantz express clear positions, says ‘There’s no division in Likud.’

 

Sa'ar

Sa’ar

Flash 90

Former minister and political security cabinet member Gideon Sa’ar spoke to Arutz Sheva about a series of issues from Likud primaries to Benny Gantz’s speech to Israeli policy in Judea and Samaria and the northern border.

Sa’ar began the conversation with reference to the difficult incident in Jerusalem where a synagogue was desecrated, a Holy Ark broken into, and holy books vandalized. We asked Sa’ar if the cause of the act might be growing polarization in Israeli society in light of the election campaign. Sa’ar is in no hurry to judge:

“I don’t want to get into speculation because facts aren’t known and the conjectures aren’t helpful, but I want to express shock at the harsh images. I can’t believe such things are happening here in the Land of Israel and I’m convinced the police will act decisively to locate and punish the criminals – sick souls infected with terrible hatred.”

As for Benny Gantz’s speech, we asked Sa’ar if he did not find a connection between Gantz’s There’s no Left and no Right campaign and Meir Shitrit’s statements when Kadima was founded, on striving for a party that has no “baggage” as he put it, of Jabotinsky or Katznelson.

In Sa’ar’s opinion, the statement that emerges from Gantz’s campaign is more serious than Shitrit’s statement: “Here we’re told more than Shitrit’s words, that there is no Right and no Left here; this is absurd, because there is a Right and there is a Left, there were always Left and Right and always there will be. Or he has no worldview or path but he wants to blur it, hide it, and mislead the voters.

“Out of respect for Gantz’s many years in the IDF uniform, I say it’s good that people who want to contribute and have rich life experience come along, but the ideological path is very important. It’s the most important thing. What’s your way? Are you for or against establishing another Arab state? Are you in favor of strengthening settlement? What are your positions on the tradition of Israel? In these things there is Right and Left, and people have to choose between them after a penetrating clarification that must be conducted in respectful language,” says Sa’ar, emphasizing that “in everyday life there are many ideological issues that require reference and decision.”

Sa’ar with supporters at Likud event

Flash 90

Perhaps, we asked, so much support for Gantz’s party before he expressed himself indicates the desire of the general public to find leadership that’s not clearly located on the Right or on the Left, but rather one whose statements are more obscure. Perhaps the general public is fed up with the struggles of the Right and the Left? Sa’ar replies: “The public is much more intelligent, the citizens want answers on social and economic issues, and the public has the right to hear answers to decide between the different paths, and I tell Ganz and his friends, do you have a path? Present it and let’s argue.” He believes the past experience of the Israeli public, which has been disappointed by leaders who have dulled down their position, will also be reflected in the upcoming vote at the polls.

On reports that Gantz is expected to call the government of Israel in his speech a corrupt government that is dividing the people, Sa’ar was asked to take a stand: “He hasn’t yet said what he has to say and I wouldn’t like to address what hasn’t yet been said. Even this refusal to relate to what hasn’t yet been said is part of serious discourse. With this I think there’s no room for collective accusations, which isn’t right for any public.”

On the possibility that Gantz’s might join Lapid, Sa’ar says it’s quite possible such a union should bother the right-wing and the Likud less. Sa’ar estimates that a joint run will reveal some of Gantz’s hidden positions. “The public knows better what Lapid’s views on tradition and the Land of Israel are and doesn’t know what Ganz’s positions are. Joining would be to their disadvantage.”

From here, the conversation revolves around the political issue and assessments that after the US elections the American president will present his political plan and the right way to respond to this plan. Gideon Sa’ar also notes that seriousness requires hearing the plan and only then responding.

“I have to say that I told American Ambassador David Friedman that I oppose establishing an Arab state in the heart of the Land of Israel, I believe this is dangerous and won’t lead to peace. I hope this administration that is very friendly to Israel won’t repeat mistakes made by previous administrations such as the Clinton and Obama administrations that presented guidelines based on establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria.

“I proposed alternative ideas that are regional arrangements based on existing states and not on establishing another Arab state in the heart of the Land of Israel,” Sa’ar said. “Since thirty years ago, the Arabs of Judea and Samaria were Jordanian citizens and the one who deprived them of their citizenship is the Jordanian King,” he said. “We can consider a connection between autonomy and Jordan.”

Sa’ar sees the dangers of a Palestinian state not only from the security aspect but also from the demographic point of view, since it has the ability to open its gates to absorb millions of Muslims. “This is a very dangerous scenario of loss of security and demographic control,” Sa’ar says, noting that his position was clarified in his talks with the American Ambassador.

“They tell us in a somewhat demagogic way, do you want a binational state? It’s like giving a person a choice whether to commit suicide by strangulation or shooting. There’s no need to commit suicide on a binational state or by establishing another Arab state. The Palestinian autonomous government may have a connection to Jordan within the framework of a regional arrangement. It cannot be that our enemies have security and demographic control over the territory.”

Gideon Sa’ar and Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Grossman

Flash 90

Sa’ar also rejected the idea of ​​a “state minus” that was heard in the past: “A lot of slogans are being thrown around. They say ‘a state minus’, which means a demilitarized state. I ask the same people: Is Gaza demilitarized after the Israeli withdrawal? The power building there that threatens Israel and its citizens only grows. We mustn’t do anything like this in Judea and Samaria. If I’m elected as a public representative I will act to prevent such a danger and to implement the decision of the Likud Central Committee to impose Israeli sovereignty over Jewish settlement areas in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. The issue of the Palestinian state in the Land of Israel should be removed from the agenda. It will not happen and we won’t let it happen. Autonomy yes; a state, no. Even today they have autonomy where they control civilian and municipal life, but in the areas of security and demography, we cannot allow them independence.”

As a member of the security cabinet in the past, Gideon Sa’ar was asked about the policy of ambiguity that seems to have dissipated vis-à-vis the Syrian arena: “Not only do I have no problem with this, but I think it’s correct, and I’ll explain: There wasn’t exactly ambiguity beforehand. It was clear that Israel was opposed to Iranian consolidation in Syria and was acting by means of attacks to prevent this establishment. Reality has changed. There was a long civil war and there was chaos, and there were Israeli military operations under the term ‘battle between wars’. Today things have stabilized, the internal war has been decided, the survival of the Assad regime has been assured, and there’s no question of who’s working with the Iranian elements.”

In his opinion, canceling ambiguity is important because “Iran’s trying to create capability for a qualitative strike on the Israeli home front from neighboring countries like Syria and Lebanon, because it’s far from here and wants to hit any target in Israel from the front line. We cannot allow this and we must be determined to prevent it. Therefore I not only back the IDF operations under the government’s guidance, but also think they should be intensified, because in a year’s time conditions won’t be better, and all the players must understand our determination on this issue. I believe the Russians will respect those who will be determined in this struggle.”

Toward the end of the conversation we asked Sa’ar about the internal struggle in the Likud, whether the tense feelings had already dissipated between the Netanyahu camp and the Sa’ar camp, which marked the beginning of his return to the political arena. Sa’ar replies: “There’s no tension on my part, there’s no division in the movement, we’re all one camp that must ensure the victory of the Likud and the national camp headed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and so I’ll act in the future after the primaries are over. We’ll face a battle that won’t be easy because it’s vital for the future of Israel that the right wing and the Likud at its center continue to lead Israel in the coming years.”

On one issue Saar refuses to speak absolutely, that is the issue of the ministry he wants to receive in the next government: “I don’t talk about this, the bear hasn’t yet been hunted, so there’s no reason to divide up his hide,” he says.

Gideon Sa’ar

Flash 90
Video Player

00:00 | 21:59
אין מחנאות. סער

“Uti possidetis juris” & Eretz Yisrael

 The rights that the Jewish Community acquired under the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate upon expiration of the Mandate as per Article 80 of the UN Charter. There is a principal in international law that “emerging states acquire the territory of their former administrative district(s)” – As well, Uti possidetis (lit. “as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict.
Since the Hashemite Kingdom of [trans-]Jordan was established as “a [temporary] administrative power” under Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine and trans-Jordan illegally annexed and ethnically cleansed Judea and Samaria; at the end of hostilities (in this case at the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 1984) territorial sovereignty reverts back to the beneficiary of the “sacred trust” under which it was held (per Article 80 of the UN Charter and Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine) – the Jewish People – terra nullius does not apply as these [“disputed”] Lands are “Liberated Lands” under the principal of Uti possidetis; now that Israel possesses peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan these Liberated Lands are “Treaty Lands” (It might be argued that since Israel is still in a state of war with Lebanon, Syria and Iraq in a defensive posture, terra nullius could never apply due to the Treaties of Sevres and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924).
One might invoke the principal of Uti possidetis per the 1969 Convention on the Laws of Treaties, as relevant to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, the Franco-British Boundary Convention and the rights acquired under the Mandate, now reserved in Article 80 of the UN Charter and as acquired under the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 (e.g. Jewish territorial integrity, self-determinism) and demand recognition of past acts of Arab (“Palestinian”) self-determinism (the December 1948 Jericho Conference) (estoppel and laches) as no Trusteeship Agreement has been made under emerging or developing international law with respect to these Treaty Lands.
More recently, the principle has been used in the modified form “Uti possidetis juris” to establish the frontiers of newly independent states by ensuring that the frontiers followed the original boundaries of the old territorial entities from which they emerged.

Netanyahu’s son sends ‘reminder’ to MK Tibi

Arutz Sheva Israel National News

Elad Benari, 25/11/18 05:54

Yair Netanyahu fires back after Joint List MK criticizes him. “All the Arab communities in Israel sit on ruins of Jewish communities.”

 

Yair Netanyahu

Yair Netanyahu

Flash 90

Yair Netanyahu, the son of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, published a “reminder” to MK Ahmed Tibi (Joint List) after Tibi published a Facebook post against Yair.

“Ahmed Tibi, the best friend of the greatest murderer of Jews since Hitler, Yasser Arafat, wrote a post about me. That’s very exciting and flattering,” wrote Yair Netanyahu.

“I want to remind Ahmed that all the Arab communities in Israel without exception sit on the ruins of ancient Jewish communities, and often preserve the previous Jewish name,” he continued.

The son of the prime minister added, “For example, the village of Battir sits on the spot where the last battle of Bar Kokhba and the Romans took place – Beitar. The Arabs themselves call the archaeological hill in the village Khirbat el-Yahud (meaning ‘ruin of the Jews’ -ed.). The Tibi family came to Israel from Syria. We are called Jews because we came from this country – Judea. And you are called Arabs because you came from another country – the Arabian Peninsula.”

On Friday, Netanyahu’s son criticized the police and wrote on Facebook that they do not enforce building laws in the Arab sector.

“In the Galilee, the Negev and the Triangle, there is a big problem that the Israeli police simply do not enforce the building laws in the Arab sector,” he wrote, attaching to the post an aerial photo of the Arab village of Tamra.

“Take, for example, the village of Tamra in the Western Galilee. The village itself is shown in the yellow circle. The red circle shows the area on which the illegal construction of the village was built. The area of ​​expansion and takeover is more than two times larger than the entire village of Tamra itself! For comparison, Akko is shown in a green circle,” noted Yair Netanyahu.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fphoto.php%3Ffbid%3D10219258272193897%26set%3Da.2154599830850%26type%3D3&width=500

The prime minister’s son is known for speaking his mind on social media and has had an adversarial relationship with the Israeli media and the left. Last month, he came under fire after penning a scathing Facebook post calling Israeli media personality Ofira Assayag a “crude beast”.

Several weeks earlier, Yair called veteran journalist Amnon Abramovich a “garbage can, stupid, and a Soviet propagandist…the nation of Israel hates him.”

After being criticized by other media figures in wake of his Abramovich remarks, Netanyahu wrote on Facebook that the journalist and the Israeli media as a whole “have been butchering my father’s personality, embarrassing him, belittling him, falsely accusing him, and drinking his blood with a straw for the past thirty years.”

Ari Fuld’s tragic murder: A wake-up call for everyone

American Thinker

As I write this, many Israeli, Jewish, and Arab friends are mourning the horrifying murder of Ari Fuld at the hands of a teenage terrorist.

Stabbed to death at the Gush Etzion Junction shopping center, Fuld left us in honor – he was stabbed trying to save a female worker from an armed attacker.  Ari, a proud father of four and a dedicated friend to many, was a resident of the Efrat settlement.

For those who knew Ari, his family was everything, just as his feelings for Israel were.  This tragic terrorist act underscores everything that’s wrong with the status quo and the “peace process.”

As I reflect on both Ari’s life and Yom Kippur, I wonder what he would do or say if we asked him about his own demise and the soon to be proposed peace plan.

I first met Ari in the summer of 2014.  The black belt in karate was a gentle giant, making him warm and easy to talk to.  Israelis treated him as a patriot, while his Arab neighbors treated him as a friend thanks to him helping them find work in the settlements.

His work often took him to the mall and the spot where he fell.  Since the mall is less than a mile away from my in-laws’ Bethlehem home, I have visited it many times, and I can see in my mind where the attack took place.  The stores are filled with merchandise, Palestinian women in hijabs pushing carts next to orthodox Jewish men and Arab workers earning a living alongside their Israeli counterparts.  You also see cars with Palestinian license plates parked next to Israeli ones.  Both come here for the selection and savings.

Now I will always see blood out in front of my favorite store in the West Bank.

I can also see the young terrorist, from the local Arab village of Yatta, who carried out the attack.  He knew he would be able to enter the mall without being stopped by Israeli security because the mall does not discriminate – it welcomes everyone, including Arabs, unlike what we hear from the propaganda machines of regional terror-mongers like the king of Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood, the P.A., and Hamas.

Everyone who knew Ari knew that he died in the land he loved.  He didn’t deserve to die this way, nor did his kids deserve to be orphaned.

As the world contemplates major changes in the region that will hopefully lead to peace, and his friends mourn his loss, a tragic bell rings: enough is enough.  The status quo cannot go on forever.  This lunacy must stop, once and for all!

It needs to be made clear that the 17-year-old terrorist didn’t do this act unwittingly; he was born under the Oslo Accords and then brainwashed by the tyrannical Palestinian Authority that grew up from it.  In fact, the killer was so brainwashed by the P.A. propaganda mill that he had not even finished high school before he decided to commit this murder.  It also included him knowing that if he was killed or imprisoned, his family would receive a substantial stipend from one of the terrorist entities listed above, and if he died as a “martyr,” he would bypass all the suffering and economic hardship brought upon Palestinians and find his reward in Heaven.

That understood, I think Ari would agree with me that in the 25 years since Oslo, the agreement has brought everyone nothing but pain.  The time has come to speak out against it: the Oslo agreement is dead; cannot be sustained; and is costing us lives, money, and resources.

As my group and I are pushing for change in how we approach the peace agreements, I think Ari would agree that it’s time that everyone accept that Palestinians and Jordanians are one people, and that no peace can really materialize without recognizing our human rights in Jordan, as it is, after all, our legitimate and sovereign homeland.

Several facts support this claim.  First, most Palestinians live in 78% of the “historically promised Palestine.”  Second, most West Bankers (including the Abbas family) hold Jordanian passports.  Third, most Palestinians passionately hate the P.A. and openly yearn for the economic and political freedoms found in Israel.  Fourth, over 70% of the Jordanian population is Palestinian in nature, not that there is any difference at all between us and our East Bank brothers, whom we love and with whom we share blood connections, faith, and soil.  Finally, 1.1 million Jordanians of Palestinian heritage hold Israeli green or yellow cards, providing them with the right to return should they decide to claim that right.  Nonetheless, they are not returning because they love Jordan.

As the U.S. administration prepares to release its groundbreaking Peace Plan – dubbed the Deal of the Century – we have to ask what Ari would say about it.

I believe that Ari would not only support peace between brothers as long as it is based on facts, truth, love, and moderation.  I also believe that he would support what the media have reported: Israeli sovereignty and a confederation between Jordanians and Palestinians as one people.

From what I know of the man in the White House, he fully understands Ari’s vision of peace with his brothers.  As such, I have never been more optimistic about the future of Palestinians/Jordanians and Israelis.

Mudar Zahran is secretary general of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition.

Uti possidetis Juris

“Uti possidetis Juris”

“Uti possidetis juris“ it is a very powerful principle in international law that can be used to categorically confirm that the borders of the State of Israel should be considered those of the British Palestine Mandate. “Uti possidetis juris” is a Latin phrase meaning “as you possess under law,” that is used in international law to define the borders of states that derive either from colonial occupation or from previous unclear origins, as is the case with Israel. This blog briefly summarizes an important article entitled “PALESTINE, UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS AND THE BORDERS OF ISRAEL” by Professors Abraham Bell and Eugene Kontorovich, to be published in the Arizona Law Review . This consists of 70 pages with numerous examples of the application of this principle of international law to actual cases of sovereignty and border disputes in the real world (http://ssrn.com/abstract=2745094).

Many of us have argued that the legal arrangements subsequent to WWI form the basis for Israel’s borders to include Gaza and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). These legal arrangements included the treaty of Ran Remo in 1920, that incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, that led to the British Mandate of 1922 that was approved by the League of Nations and specifically adopted by its replacement the United Nations when it was established. Note that in none of these cases was the establishment of an Arab State or specifically a Palestinian State, envisaged to be included in the British Mandate. However, while we were arguing this on the basis of international law we lacked the evident expertise to know the principles involved. Now Profs. Bell and Kontorovich have given us the specific principle in international law that applies to this case and that is authoritative.

Here are some examples where this principle has been applied and has led to the definition of borders of new states: 1. The States constituting the former Soviet Union, where the historic independent sovereign borders were used to reconstitute the new borders; 2. Similarly with the former Yugoslavia that gave rise to several new states based on previous borders; 3. The British Mandate of Mesopotamia and the borders of Iraq and Kuwait; 4. The French Mandate of Syria and the borders of Syria, Lebanon and Turkey; 5. The borders between Rwanda and Burundi; 6. The borders of Cameroon and Togo. Since the principle of border demarcation is clear in these examples, it should be applied equally to the issue of Israel’s undefined borders.

However, the Mandate, included an important exception. Article 25 of the Mandate permitted Britain to “postpone or withhold” the provisions of the Mandate recognizing Jewish rights “[i]n the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined,” subject to the approval of the Council of the League of Nations. Britain used this exception in order to satisfy its commitments to the Hashemites of Mecca and unilaterally awarded the area of Transjordan to the Emir Abdullah in 1922. However, in doing so the British demarcated the administrative legal boundary of Western Palestine as the Jordan River.

Regarding the borders of Israel their conclusion is: “Thus, it would appear that uti possidetis juris dictates recognition of the borders of Israel as coinciding with the borders of the Mandate as of 1948” (p. 57-8). Without further elaboration, this is as clear and definitive a statement as can be expected, although it is certainly contrary to the common perceived wisdom of the situation.

Israeli court bars razing of settler outpost on West Bank Palestinian land

The ruling by Judge Arnon Darel further stated that the presence of the small community on the outskirts of the Kochav Hashahar settlement was legal.

Jpost – Israel News
By Tovah Lazaroff August 28, 2018 22:54

In a historic first in the history of the settlement movement, the Jerusalem District Court barred the IDF from evacuating the outpost of Mitzpe Kramim, even though it was built on private Palestinian property.

The ruling by Judge Arnon Darel further stated that the presence of the small community on the outskirts of the Kochav Hashahar settlement was legal.

Be the first to know – Join our Facebook page.

Darel’s conclusions ran contrary to High Court of Justice ruling in such cases, which have consistently upheld the principle that illegal settler building on private Palestinian property must be removed.

The ruling falls in line with the legal understanding on which the Knesset approved the Settlement Regulation Law. Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit has opposed the law.

The legislation allows for the retroactive legalization of some 4,000 settler homes on private Palestinian property and offers the Palestinian landowners monetary compensation.

Both the law and Darel’s ruling make use of Israel’s market regulation, which allows for illegal property transactions to be upheld in certain cases where the buyers was unaware that the transaction was illegal.

The High Court of Justice is adjudicating the legality of the Settlement Regulation Law and right-wing lawmakers hope this ruling could influence that case.

It could also impact the High Court of Justice case regarding the possible evacuation of the Mitzpe Kramim outpost, filed by the Palestinian land owners of the property.

Both this ruling and that law are part of a revolutionary judicial upheaval that right-politicians are attempting to undertake, to allow for judicial opinions to favor settler rights over those of private Palestinian landowners.

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said, “The District Court today clearly stated that whoever settled [the land] with the state’s approval and in good faith, would not be evacuated. The injustice done in the evacuations of the Amona and Netiv Ha’avot [outposts] should not be repeated.”

“The court should not be a party to the political debate between the Right and Left. That should be left to the ballot box. Through joint and intensive work, we have brought about a policy change in the state’s responses to the High Court of Justice. Now we are seeing a change in the district court,” she said.

Knesset Land of Israel Caucus chairs MK Yoav Kisch (Likud) and Bezalel Smotrich (HaBayit HaYehudi) said the ruling proves that unauthorized settler homes can be legalized and evacuations halted even within the framework of the existing laws, with just “a little bit of good will and caring.”

“This ruling is the result of a long legal battle, waged by the Mitzpe Kramim community and other settler organizations which sought to legalize and regulate a community that was built by the State of Israel. This is a historic and welcome decision, and we call upon the Attorney-General to apply the principles expressed in today’s decision to other communities in Judea and Samaria that are not yet regulated,” said Dr. Arnon Harel, the attorney who represented the residents of Mitzpe Kramim before the court.

The left-wing NGO Peace Now said, “The court today chose to align itself with values of the annexation and dispossession set forth by the Israeli government headed by Bayit HaYehudi. Granting of land rights to criminals who settled in an illegal outpost, on the grounds that they did so in ‘good faith’ is outrageous.”

“This is an outpost whose houses were built illegally and without permits, on private Palestinian land. This affair contains everything except ‘good heartedness.’ From Jerusalem comes the justice of [Education Minister Naftali] Bennett and [Justice Minister Ayelet] Shaked, we hope that the HCJ will stop this shameful behavior,” Peace Now said.

According to Peace Now, the Mitzpe Kramim outpost was built in 1999 on land that belonged to the village of Deir Jarir and registered to Palestinian landowners.

Those landowners petitioned the HCJ in 2011 against the homes. In 2013, while that case was ongoing, the Mitzpe Kramim families turned to the district court on the matter.

The court said that while the land was outside the jurisdiction of the original seizure order on which the Kochav Hashahar was built, the Civil Administration initially believed it was part of a land seizure order. The land plots were then given to the settlement division of the World Zionist Organization.

Darel clarified that therefore the principle of “good faith” applied here. The Mitzpe Kramim families then purchased their homes through valid contracts with the settlement division.•