The legal rights and title of sovereignty of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and Palestine under international law.

The legal rights and title of sovereignty of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and Palestine under international law. 

                                                                 

  

These rights originated in the global political and legal settlement, conceived during World War I and carried into execution in the post-war years between 1919 and 1923. Insofar as the Ottoman Turkish Empire was concerned, the settlement embraced the claims of the Zionist Organization, the Arab National movement which received over 6 million sq. mi. of territory with a wealth of oil reserves, the Kurds, the Assyrians and the Armenians.
As part of the settlement in which the Arabs received most of the lands formerly under Turkish sovereignty in the Middle East which was about 13 million sq. km., the whole of Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan, was reserved exclusively for the Jewish people as their national home and future independent state.
Under the terms of the settlement that were made by the Principal Allied Powers consisting of Britain, France, Italy and Japan, there would be no annexation of the conquered Turkish territories by any of the Powers, as had been planned in the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 9 and 16, 1916. Instead, these territories, including the peoples for whom they were designated, would be placed under the Mandates System and administered by an advanced nation until they were ready to stand by themselves. The Mandates System was established and governed by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, contained in the Treaty of Versailles and all the other peace treaties made with the Central Powers – Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. 

The Covenant was the idea of US President Woodrow Wilson and contained in it his program of Fourteen Points of January 8, 1918, while Article 22 which established the Mandates System, was largely the work of Jan Christiaan Smuts who formulated the details in a memorandum that became known as the Smuts Resolution, officially endorsed by the Council of Ten on January 30, 1919, in which Palestine as a whole envisaged in the Balfour Declaration was named as one of the mandated states to be created. The official creation of the country took place at the April 1920 San Remo Peace Conference where the Balfour Declaration was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers as the basis for the future administration of Palestine which would henceforth be recognized as the Jewish National Home with no boundary restrictions.
The moment of the re-birth of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty thus took place at the same time Palestine was created a mandated state for the Jewish people, since it was created for no other reason than to reconstitute the ancient Jewish state of Judea in fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and the general provisions of Article 22 of the League Covenant. This meant that Palestine without boundary restrictions from the start was legally a Jewish state in theory that was to be guided towards independence by a Mandatory or Trustee, also acting as Tutor, and who would take the necessary political, administrative and economic measures to establish the Jewish National Home. The chief means for accomplishing this was by encouraging large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine, which would eventually result in making all of Palestine an independent Jewish state, not only legally but also in the demographic and cultural senses.
The details for the planned independent Jewish state were set forth in three basic documents, which may be termed the founding documents of mandated Palestine and the modern Jewish state of Israel that arose from it. These were the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine conferred on Britain as trustee by the Principal Allied Powers and confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920. These founding documents were supplemented by the Anglo-American Convention of December 3, 1924 respecting the Mandate for Palestine. It is of supreme importance to remember always that these documents were the source or well-spring of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty over all of Palestine and the Land of Israel under international law, because of the near-universal but completely false belief that it was the United Nations General Assembly Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 that brought the State of Israel into existence. In fact, the UN resolution was an illegal abrogation of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the whole of Palestine and the Land of Israel, rather than an affirmation of such rights or progenitor of them.
The April 1920 San Remo Resolution converted the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 from a mere statement of British policy expressing sympathy with the goal of the Zionist movement to create a Jewish state into a binding act of international law that required specific fulfillment as trustee by Britain of this object in active cooperation with the Jewish people. Under the Balfour Declaration as originally issued by the British government, the latter only promised to use their best endeavors to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. But under the San Remo Resolution of April 24-25, 1920, the Principal Allied Powers as a cohesive group charged the British government as trustee with the responsibility or legal obligation of putting into effect the Balfour Declaration. A legal onus as trustee was thus placed on Britain to ensure that the Jewish National Home would be duly established. This onus the British Government willingly accepted because at the time the Balfour Declaration was issued and adopted at the April 1920 San Remo Peace Conference, Palestine was considered a valuable strategic asset and communications center, and so a vital necessity for protecting far-flung British imperial interests extending from Egypt to India. Britain was fearful of having any major country or power other than itself, especially France or Germany, positioned alongside the Suez Canal.
The term “Jewish National Home” was defined to mean a state by the British government at the Cabinet session which approved the Balfour Declaration on October 31, 1917. That was also the meaning originally given to this phrase by the program committee which drafted the Basel Program at the first Zionist Congress in August 1897 and by Theodore Herzel, the founder of the Zionist Organization. The word “home” as used in the Balfour Declaration and subsequently in the April 1920 San Remo Resolution was simply the euphemism for a state originally adopted by the Zionist Organization when the territory of Palestine was subject to the rule of the Ottoman Empire, so as not to arouse the sharp opposition of the Sultan and his government to the Zionist aim, which involved a potential loss of this territory by the Empire. There was no doubt in the minds of the authors of the Basel Program and the Balfour Declaration regarding the true meaning of this word, a meaning reinforced by the addition of the adjective “national” to “home”. However, as a result of not using the word “state” directly and proclaiming that meaning openly or even attempting to hide its true meaning when it was first used to denote the aim of Zionism, ammunition was provided to those who sought to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state or who saw the Home only in cultural terms.

YJ Draiman

The San Remo Conference of April 1920, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration as international treaty and law; reconstituted the Jewish National Home in all of Palestine as international law; thus, they assigned its implementation to the League of Nation with the Mandate for Palestine and the British as trustee to promote Jewish immigration, development of the land and bring about the sovereign Jewish State in all of Palestine. These terms was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres Article 95 that all the Allied Powers signed and which terms were incorporated to the Mandate of Palestine.
The Jewish National Home in all of Palestine was reconstituted to take affect in 1920; with a provision that sovereignty will be reached when they become majority.
Faisal Weizmann Agreement signed January 3, 1919, stated that The Jewish National Home will be in what is known as Palestine.
The Inquiry academics accompanied President Wilson to Paris in 1919. For Palestine, they recommended that the dispersed Jewish People settle there and later, rule in Palestine. Initial rule was to be carried out by a trustee for the Jewish People (Great Britain under the Mandate for Palestine).
American Proposal for Jewish Homeland, January 21, 1919
An excerpt from the Tentative Report and Recommendations of the Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference, in accordance with instructions, for the President and the Plenipotentiaries, January 21, 1919*
26. Palestine
It is recommended:
1) That there be established a separate state of Palestine.
2) That this state be placed under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.
3) That the Jews be invited to return to Palestine without boundary restrictions and settle there being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize all of Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.
4) That the holy places and religious rights of all creeds in Palestine are placed under the protection of the League of Nations and it’s mandatory.
For discussion:
1) It is recommended that there be established a separate state of Palestine.
The separation of the Palestinian area from Syria finds justification in the religious experience of mankind. The Jewish and Christian churches were born in Palestine, and Jerusalem was for long years, at different periods, the Jewish capital. And while the relation of the Mohammedans to Palestine is not so intimate, from the beginning they have regarded Jerusalem as a holy place. Only by establishing Palestine as a separate state can justice be done to these great facts.
As drawn upon the map, the new state would control its own source of water power and irrigation, on Mount Hermon in the east to the Jordan; a feature of great importance since the success of the new state would depend upon the possibilities of agricultural development.
2) It is recommended that this state be placed under Great Britain as trustee and a mandatory of the League of Nations.
Palestine would obviously need wise and firm guidance. Its population is without political experience, is racially composite, and could easily become distracted by fanaticism and bitter religious differences.
The success of Great Britain in dealing with similar situations, her relation to Egypt, and her administrative achievements since General Allenby freed Palestine from the Turk; all indicate her as the logical mandatory.
3) It is recommended that the Jews be invited to return to Palestine in its entirety and settle there, being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize all of Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.
It is right that Palestine without boundary restrictions should become a Jewish state, if the Jews, being given the full opportunity, make it such. It was the cradle and home of their vital race, which has made large spiritual contributions to mankind, and is the only land in which they can hope to find a home of their own; they being in this last respect unique among significant peoples.
At present, however, the Jews form barely a tenth of the total population of 550,000 in Palestine, and whether they are to form a majority, or even a plurality, of the population in the future state remains uncertain. Palestine, in short, is far from being a Jewish country now. England, as mandatory, can be relied on to give the Jews the privileged position they should have without sacrificing the rights of non-Jews.
4) It is recommended that the holy places and religious rights of all creeds in Palestine be placed under the protection of the League of Nations and it’s mandatory.
The basis for this recommendation is self-evident.

YJ Draiman

Supreme Muslim Council: Temple Mount is Jewish - by YJ Draiman

Supreme Muslim Council: Temple Mount is Jewish - by YJ Draiman

Supreme Muslim Council: Temple Mount is Jewish

Click here for the 1925 Temple Mount Guide.
http://www.raptureforums.com/IsraelMiddleEast/guide.pdf
https://www.templeinstitute.org/wakf-1925-guidebook.htm

The widely-disseminated Arab Muslim position that the Temple Mount is not Jewish has been debunked - by the Supreme Muslim Council (Waqf) of Jerusalem, in a Temple Mount guide published in 1925.

Wakf guidebook, 1925, cover
The Temple Institute

Guidebook Puts the Lie to Current Arab Campaign In 1997, the chief Muslim cleric of the Palestinian Authority, Mufti Ikrama Sabri, stated, "The claim of the Jews to the right over [Jerusalem] is false, and we recognize nothing but an entirely Islamic Jerusalem under Islamic supervision..."

Thus began a campaign to convince the world that the millennia-old natural association between Jerusalem and Jews was untrue. As Islamic Movement chief Raed Salah stated in 2006, "We remind, for the 1,000th time, that the entire Al-Aqsa mosque [on the Temple Mount], including all of its area and alleys above the ground and under it, is exclusive and absolute Muslim property, and no one else has any rights to even one grain of earth in it."

However, it is now known that this "absolute" Muslim claim is actually not as absolute as claimed. In fact, back in 1925, the Supreme Muslim Council - also known as the Waqf, which has overseen Temple Mount activities on behalf of the Muslim religion for hundreds of years - boasted proudly that the site was none other than that of Solomon's Temple.

The Jerusalem-based Temple Institute (http://www.templeinstitute.org) reports that it has acquired a copy of the official 1925 Supreme Muslim Council Guide Book to Al-Haram Al-Sharif (the Muslim name for the Temple Mount). On page 4, the Waqf states, "Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which 'David built there an altar unto the L-rd...', citing the source in 2 Samuel XXIV,25.

Wakf guidebook, 1925, excerpt close-up
The Temple Institute

In addition, on page 16, the pamphlet makes reference to the underground area in the south-east corner of the Mount, which is refers to as Solomon's Stables. "Little is known for certain of the history of the chamber itself," the guide reads. "It dates probably as far back as the construction of Solomon's Temple. According to Josephus, it was in existence and was used as a place of refuge by the Jews at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70 A.D."

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem was in fact the site of the two Jewish Holy Temples which stood for nearly 1,000 years (see below).

Wakf guidebook, 1925, excerpt
The Temple Institute

Proof of Muslim Anti-Jewish RevisionismThe Temple Institute's Rabbi Chaim Richman writes that the pamphlet provides proof that the Waqf's current position is a departure from traditional Muslim belief. "In recent years," he writes, "the Muslim Waqf has come to deny the historic existence of the Holy Temple, claiming that the Temple Mount belongs solely to the Muslim nation, and that there exists no connection between the Jewish nation and the Temple Mount. It is clear from this pamphlet that the revised Waqf position strays from traditional Muslim acknowledgment of the Mount's Jewish antecedents."

"The current denial of historical reality is merely one tool in the war being waged by Muslims against the G-d of Israel and the entire 'infidel' world," Richman declares.
Posted by YJ Draiman

Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank, says the Court of Appeal of Versailles, France

Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank, says the Court of Appeal of Versailles, France

PUBLIÉ PAR JEAN-PATRICK GRUMBERG LE 13 JANVIER 2017

Jerusalem light rail system route (in blue)

In a historical trial carefully « forgotten » by the media, the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declares that Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank*.

When I first learned that the Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that West bank settlements and occupation of Judea Samaria by Israel is unequivocally legal under international law, in a suit brought by the Palestinian Authority against Jerusalem’s light rail built by French companies Alstom and Veolia, that received no media coverage, I decided to put to work my years of Law Studies in France, and I meticulously analyzed the Court ruling.

To my astonishment, pro-Israeli media did not cover it either. The few who mentioned the case did not have any legal background in French law to understand the mega-importance of the ruling, and, as a few lefty English speaking Israeli websites reported it, they thought that it was a decision strictly pertinent to the Jerusalem light rail. It’s not.

To make sure I did not overestimate my legal abilities and that I wasn’t over optimistic – as usual-, I submitted my analysis and the Court papers to one of the most prominent French lawyer, Gilles-William Goldnadel, President of Lawyers without borders, to receive his legal opinion. He indeed validated my finding. Then I decided to translate it to English, and it will soon be submitted to Benjamin Netanyahu thru a mutual friend.

First and foremost, the Versailles Court of Appeals had to determine the legal rights of Palestinians and Israelis in West Bank. Their conclusion: Palestinians have no right – in the international legal sense – to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to occupy all land beyond the 67 line.

The context :

In the 90s, Israel bid for the construction of the Jerusalem light rail. The tender was won by French companies Veolia and Alstom. The light rail was completed in 2011, and it cross Jerusalem all the way to the east side and the « occupied territories » (more about this term later).

Following this, the PLO filed a complaint with the High Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) of Versailles France, against Alstom and Veolia, because according to PLO, « the construction of the tram is illegal since the UN, the EU, many NGOs and governments consider that « Israel illegally occupy Palestinian territories ».

The quest for the International Legislation to establish the rights of each party.

In order to rule whether the light rail construction was legal or not, the court had to seek the texts of international law, to examine international treaties, in order to establish the respective rights of the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And to my knowledge, this is the first time that a non-Israeli court has been led to rule on the status of the West Bank.

Why is this an historical ruling: it is the first international case since the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948

It is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 that an independent, non-Israeli court has been called upon to examine the legal status of West bank territories under international law, beyond the political claims of the parties.

Keep in mind though, that the Court’s findings have no effect in international law. What they do, and it’s of the utmost importance, is to clarify the legal reality.

The Versailles Court of Appeal conclusions are as resounding as the silence in which they were received in the media: Israel has real rights in the territories, its decision to build a light rail in the West Bank or anything else in the area is legal, and the judges have rejected all the arguments presented by the Palestinians.

The Palestinian arguments

• The PLO denounces the deportation of the Palestinian population, and the destruction of properties in violation of international regulations. Relying on the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the UN resolutions, it considers that the State of Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory and is pursuing illegal Jewish colonization. Thus, construction of the light rail is itself illegal (1).
• The PLO adds that the light rail construction has resulted in the destruction of Palestinian buildings and houses, the almost total destruction of Highway 60, which is vital for Palestinians and their goods, and has conducted many illegal dispossessions. Therefore, several clauses from the annexed Regulations to the October 18, 1907 Fourth Hague Convention were violated (2).
• Finally, the PLO alleges that Israel violates the provisions relating to the « protection of cultural property » provided for in Article 4 of the Hague Convention of May 14, 1954, Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 5 of the Hague Convention IX of 1907, and Article 53 of Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Geneva Conventions.

The Court of Appeal does not deny the occupation, but it destroys one after another all the Palestinian arguments

Referring to the texts on which the PLO claim is based, the Court of Appeal considers that Israel is entitled to ensure order and public life in the West Bank, therefore Israel has the right to build a light rail, infrastructure and dwellings.

Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 stipulates that « The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety ».

Israeli occupation does not violate any international law

« The Palestinian Authority misread the documents, they do not apply to the occupation »

The Court explains that the Palestinian Authority misinterprets the texts and they do not apply to the occupation:

• First of all, all the international instruments put forward by the PLO are acts signed between States, and the obligations or prohibitions contained therein are relevant to States. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the PLO are States, therefore, none of these legal documents apply.
• Secondly, said the Court, these texts are binding only on those who signed them, namely the « contracting parties ». But neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority have ever signed these texts.

Propaganda is not international law

The Court, quite irritated by the presented arguments, boldly asserted that the law « cannot be based solely on the PLO’s assessment of a political or social situation.« 

Humanitarian law was not violated

The PLO mistakenly refers to the wrong legal document because the Hague Convention applies in case of bombing. And … « Jerusalem is not bombed. »

The PLO invokes the violation of humanitarian law contained in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

• But on the one hand, says the judges of the Court of Appeal, international conventions apply between States and the PLO is not a State: « the International Court of Justice has indicated that [the Conventions] only contain obligations for the States, and that individual have no rights to claim the benefit of those obligation for themselves ».
• Then the Court says that only the contracting parties are bound by international conventions, and neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority have ever signed any of them.
• The Court draw the conclusion that the PLO is mistakenly referring to the wrong legal document because the Hague Convention applies in case of bombing. And … « Jerusalem is not bombed.« 

The PLO and the Palestinians were dismissed

The PLO cannot invoke any of these international conventions, said the Court.

« These international norms and treaties » does not give the « Palestinian people that the PLO says he represents, the right to invoke them before a court.« 

The Court of Appeal therefore sentenced the PLO (and Association France Palestine Solidarité AFPS who was co-appellant) to pay 30,000 euros ($32,000) to Alstom, 30,000 euros to Alstom Transport and 30,000 euros to Veolia Transport.

Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority nor the AFPS appealed to the Supreme Court, therefore the judgment has become final.

This is the first time that a Court has legally destroyed all Palestinian legal claim that Israel’s occupation is illegal.

Reprint or redistribution of this copyrighted material is permitted with the following attribution and link: © Jean-Patrick Grumberg for www.Dreuz.info

• (1) The PLO relies on article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, which states that « the occupant power may not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population in the Territory he occupies », and article 53, which states that « the occupant Power is prohibited from destroying movable or immovable properties belonging individually or collectively to private people, to the State or to public authorities or social or cooperative organizations, except in cases where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary for military operations ».
• (2) The PLO refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949:
  • Article 23 (g), which prohibits « the destruction or seizure of enemy properties except in cases where such destruction or seizure are imperatively ordered for the necessities of war. »
  • Article 27 according to which « in the sieges and bombardments, all necessary measures must be taken to spare as much as possible the buildings devoted to worship, the arts, sciences, charitable institutions, historical monuments, and hospitals … »
  • Article 46 which states that « private property can not be confiscated ».

Court ruling :

http://www.dreuz.info/2017/01/13/israel-is-the-legal-occupant-of-the-west-bank-says-the-court-of-appeal-of-versailles-france/

A Massive Legal Win In France Against BDS

By

 Brian of London

 -

April 25, 2013

Jerusalem light rail Photo: Sharon A

News is breaking of a huge win in France. It’s a technical case but essentially a court has confirmed what most of us know to be true. It concerns the building of the light rail project in Jerusalem by Alsthom, Veolia and another firm.

The PLO/PA sued these firms in France indicating that they should not have taken the project.

The court has basically said Israeli “occupation” is not illegal and orders PLO/PA to pay court costs to Alsthom, Veolia, & another firm. The court costs add up to 90,000 euros.

The first reports are in French so here is a google translate version:

The Court of Appeal of Versailles (PLO c / Alstom and Veolia) concludes that the Israeli occupation is not illegal

Here is a study that friends of Israel must be preserved carefully in their archives.  France is not neutral in the conflict, and the judgment of the Court is of particular importance.

Veolia and Alstom built, following a call for tenders, the Jerusalem tramway through the city to the east, into the territories claimed by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.

The PLO considers that the State of Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land and continues an illegal Jewish settlement in the construction of the tram and is itself unlawful.

The legal arguments of the PLO removed one after another

Organization for the Liberation of Palestine has therefore embarked on a lengthy trial that just ended before the Court of Appeal of Versailles, March 13, 2013, by an overwhelming so inconvenient conclusions were spent hammering totally under silenced by the mainstream media to inform you loaded independently.

The occupation of Palestinian territory is not illegal

The PLO is based on international law and considers that Israel illegally occupies Palestinian territory and is pursuing an illegal Jewish settlement. The construction of the tram and itself illegal. In support, the PLO alleges infringement of several texts:

• Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 which states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
• Article 53, which states that “it is forbidden for an occupying power to destroy the real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, the State or public authorities and social or cooperative organizations except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. “

The PLO added that the construction has caused destruction, virtually removing the 60 vital road for Palestinians and their goods, removal of tracks and paths, and expropriations. There had therefore been a violation of several articles from the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907:

• Article 23 (g) which prohibits “destroy or seize the enemy’s property except where such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war”
• Article 27 that “in sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare as far as possible buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals …”
• and Article 46, which states that “private property can not be confiscated.”

Finally, the PLO says Israel violates the provisions relating to “the protection of cultural property” under Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 14 May 1954, Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Article 5 of the Hague Convention IX of 1907 and Article 53 of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions.

Like this article? Sign up for our newsletter to receive new articles Dreuz once per day in late afternoon.

Niet! meets the Court of Appeal, without denying the occupation, said Israel was within its rightsbecause “… the authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country “(Article 43 of the 4th Convention The Hague 1907).

The occupation does not violate any international law

And the Court did not stop there … It explains why the occupation of the West Bank by Israel does not violate any international law.

The PLO, explaining that the occupation is illegal, says Israel is violating:

• Articles 49-6 and 53 of the Geneva Convention,
• Articles 23, 27 and 46 of the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907,
• Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 14 May 1954
• Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907,
• Article 5 of the Convention IX of the 1907 Hague
• and Article 53 of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions.

Not at all! meets the Court of Appeal of Versailles , which states that:

1. First, all of these texts are international acts signed between states and the obligations or prohibitions they contain are addressed to States. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the PLO are States, none of these texts do not apply to them .
2. Second, the Court still remember, these texts are addressed to “the Contracting Parties”, ie both parties have signed – and again, neither the PLO nor the AP never signed these documents .

Propaganda does not replace the law

An irritated anything, the Court also added that the French law … “can not be based solely on the discretion [the PLO] a political or social situation.”

Humanitarian law is not violated either

The PLO, which then tries to hide the humanitarian standards, is once again sent into the ropes by the court, who said that while the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention are applicable in French law .

But “the International Court of Justice stated that they (the agreements) contain only obligations on states, and that the right of individuals to rely on was not mentioned” , only the parties contractors are bound by those conventions, and the Hague Convention of 1907 are not applicable because … Jerusalem is not bombed!

The PLO and the Palestinians can not rely on any international texts

Finally, the Court said, “the conventional international standards” do not give the “Palestinian people shows that the PLO represent the right to plead before a court. ”

PLO condemned AFD

The Court of Appeal sentenced the AFPS (Association France Palestine Solidarity) and the PLO to pay 30,000 euros to Alstom, 30,000 euros from Alstom Transport, and 30 000 Veolia Transport.

Landmark French Ruling on West Bank Construction and International Law

by Eugene Kontorovich on May 1, 2013 9:41 am in International Law, Israel

In an important but largely ignored case, a French Court of Appeals in Versailles ruled last week that construction of a light rail system in the Israeli-controlled West Bank by a French company does not violate international law. In doing so, the court sided with many of the arguments long made against the blanket application of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions to Israeli settlements. National courts rarely if ever address such issues, and thus the decision is important both for its rarity and for what it says.

In this post, I’ll address issues relevant to the substance – Israel’s presence in the West Bank. In the next post I’ll deal with the “Kiobel” issues raised by the case – corporate liability, the value of American ATS cases, and so forth. I should note at the outset that what follows is based on a rough translation of the opinion and my vague French; I would be grateful for corrections on matters of language that I have misapprehended. I venture forward because it is an important decision that deserves attention, yet has been met by complete silence by international legal scholars.

The Jerusalem Light Rail, which began running last year after a long period of construction, links the Western part of the city with the parts occupied by Jordan prior to and annexed by Israel after the 1967 War. The project was widely criticized by pro-Palestinian groups, as was the participation of French rail companies in the project. Along with a variety of political pressure and boycott activities, a Palestinian group sued the French-based multinational conglomerate Alstom Transport for its role in in the project. The case was dismissed below in 2011, and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision last week.

Crucially, the Court held that only the Government of Israel, and not private parties, can violate the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The arguments that Israeli communities in the West Bank violate international law start with Art. 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer its civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The provision was also relied on heavily in the lawsuit. The Court ruled that 49(6) only speaks to and applies to action by the Israeli government (“the Occupying power”), and does not regulate Alton’s activities in the occupied territory.

This is an extraordinarily important holding in light of the decades old-debate about the meaning of 49(6) in the context of Israeli civilian migration into the West Bank. It is in direct opposition to the political and international law position on settlements. In the standard narrative, any migration of Israeli Jews past the Green Line, or the expansion of their residences and communities once there, is a war crime. Thus when private citizens decides to buy or build a house across the Green Line, or even expand an existing one, it is a war crime.

Moreover, Israeli citizens who migrate to the West Bank are often said to be guilty of war crimes themselves as aiders-and-abettors. The Versailles decision would seem to reject such a position.

This conventional reading of 49(6) as generally banning Jewish settlements is disconnected from the text, which only speaks of “transfers” carried out by the Government. Some scholars, including myself, have long maintained that private movement of persons is in no way covered by 49(6), and the Court apparently adopts this position (though I am unclear how much of a role domestic legal principles played). Now one might say the government is always “involved” – roads, security, zoning, etc., but ubiquitous “background” roles do not trigger the state action doctrine in U.S. constitutional law, and it is not clear why they would under international law. (On the other hand, if one gets a package bus/light rail ticket, it would be an unusual literal case of “transfer” into occupied territory.)

Indeed, the French case would be a strong one for inferring governmental role, since the defendant worked under contract with Israeli governmental entities. My understanding of the Court’s opinion is a little fuzzy here, but it seems they say contractual privity is not enough to trigger 49(6) either. This would certainly make it inapplicable to the vast majority of Israeli settlers (not all, necessarily, since 49(6) is ultimately a case-by-by-case factual question.

The Court goes on the reject the notion that the relevant norms have become customary or jus cogens and apply without the particular textual restrictions of 49(6).

Israel’s critics have long claimed that “everyone agrees” that all “settlements” (a term referring to all Israeli activity in the West Bank, at least that benefits Jews) clearly violates international law, and that only Israeli apologists could believe the arguments to the contrary. I assume the Versailles Court of Appeals won’t be accused of being unduly sympathetic to the Jewish State.

Indeed, many might share my surprise on such a decision coming from a European court, especially given the supposed uniformity of views on the underlying legal issues. Perhaps two factors may explain the surprising decision: this is not an international court, but an ordinary municipal one, and it was an important French industrial concern, rather than Israel, in the dock. International lawyers may what could positively be described as professional or scientific knowledge of the matter, or more cynically as guild orthodoxy. Judges unversed in these verities might see things differently. And of course, here international law is being used against important and powerful domestic interests.

The plaintiffs could still appeal to the Cour de Casssation, which however is not obligated to hear the appeal.

[Cross-posted on OpinioJuris.]