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.]

French Court of Appeal rules that Israel is the legal occupier of West Bank aka Judea and Samaria

French Court of Appeal rules that Israel is the legal occupier of West Bank aka Judea and Samaria 
 By Jerry Gordon

h/t Imre Herzog. Here’s a stunner. M. Jean Patrick Grumberg of the French blog Dreuz made a useful discovery and somehow the Israel and world media didn’t cover. 

The Arab PA brought suit in France against French companies building the light rail system in Jerusalem. The Arab PA lost in a decision that ruled that Israel is the legal occupant of Judea and Samaria.

So, why isn’t the Israeli and world media hopping all over this? Perhaps because they are intimidated by the threat of Islamic violence as their god Allah granted possession of any conquered lands in perpetuity. Which will never be held up in a Western court that doesn’t recognize sharia law ruling based on fiction rather than fact. But then the pack of Israel’s enemies gathering in Paris for tomorrow’s hate-fest doesn’t care about the facts and law. That would include that self -promoting ‘stalwart defender of Israel’, Secretary of State Kerry. Read this important French court case findings in this Dreuz blog post by the estimable M. Grumberg.

Grumberg, a French lawyer by training wrote:

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 and liberation of Judea Samaria by Israel is unequivocally legal under international law, in a suit brought by the Arab 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 Arab-Palestinians and Israelis in West Bank. Their conclusion: Arab-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 1990's, 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 liberated territories » (more about this term later).

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

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

It is the first time since the re-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 aka Judea and Samaria 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 aka Judea and Samaria or anything else in the area is legal, and the judges have rejected all the arguments presented by the Arab-Palestinians.

The Arab-Palestinian arguments

• The Arab PLO denounces the deportation of the Arab-Palestinian population, and the destruction of properties in violation of international regulations. Relying on the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the UN resolutions which is non-binding and has no legal standing, it considers that the State of Israel is illegally occupying Arab-Palestinian territory and is pursuing illegal Jewish colonization. Thus, construction of the light rail is itself illegal (1).

• The Arab PLO adds that the light rail construction has resulted in the destruction of Arab-Palestinian buildings and houses, the almost total destruction of Highway 60, which is vital for Arab-Palestinians and their goods, and has conducted many illegal dispossession's. Therefore, several clauses from the annexed Regulations to the October 18, 1907 Fourth Hague Convention were violated (2).

• Finally, the Arab 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 Arab-Palestinian arguments
Referring to the texts on which the Arab PLO claim is based, the Court of Appeal considers that Israel is entitled to ensure order and public life in the West Bank aka Judea and Samaria, 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 Arab-Palestinian Authority misread the documents, they do not apply to the occupation »

The Court explains that the Arab-Palestinian Authority misinterprets the texts and they do not apply to the occupation:
• First of all, all the international instruments put forward by the Arab PLO are acts signed between States, and the obligations or prohibitions contained therein are relevant to States. Neither the Arab-Palestinian Authority nor the Arab 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 Arab PLO nor the Arab-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 Arab PLO’s assessment of a political or social situation.«

Humanitarian law was not violated

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

The Arab 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 Arab 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 Arab PLO nor the Arab-Palestinian Authority have ever signed any of them.

• The Court draw the conclusion that the Arab PLO is mistakenly referring to the wrong legal document because the Hague Convention applies in case of bombing. And … « Jerusalem is not bombed.«

The Arab PLO and the Palestinians were dismissed
The Arab PLO cannot invoke any of these international conventions, said the Court.
« These international norms and treaties » does not give the « Arab-Palestinian people that the Arab PLO says he represents, the right to invoke them before a court.«

The Court of Appeal therefore sentenced the Arab 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 Arab PLO nor the Arab-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 ArabPalestinian legal claim that Israel’s occupation is illegal.