My Right Word: A Failing of Israeli Legal Scholars

In my previous post, I quoted extensively from Howard Grief's responses, detailing legal opinions regarding the issue of whether Israel has internationally-recognized legal rights to the territory of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

I did so, in part, after obtaining a copy of this article, "Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement," by Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, which appeared in the American Journal of?International Law, 89, 295-340 (1995) which is quoted by various scholars and appears on required/recommended reading lists at universities.

In discussing the theme of the 'Legal Status of the Territories', p. 305, section 3 (a), the authors, while defining the situation so: "the unique status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip - as territories with no sovereign government - ..." and indicate that Israel's position is one of official non-recognition of these areas as occupied territories, although Israel had undertaken to abide by the "humanitarian provisions" of the Fourth Geneva Convention, they note that

"Israel's unwillingness to acknowledge the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention has been rejected by the international community"

They further note that the peace treaty with Jordan of 1994 "reflects the distinct status of the West Bank, outside Jordan's jurisdiction" and that the proclamation of the 'State of Palestine' in 1988

"could not affect the status of the West Bank because this new entity failed to qualify as a state under international law"

They refer to "different legal arguments as to the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" but provide no adequate outline of such although there are a few footnote references but nothing of a firm pro-stance.? Moreover, in their "Historical Background" section, 1, pp. 297-298, despite?clearly stating that

"until 1948, Palestine/Eretz Yisrael was a unified territorial and political unit...long before the Zionist immigration of the twentieth centruy, there was a small Jewish population in Palesagtine/Eretz Yisrael, mainly in Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias and Safad (though elsewhere, including the town of Gaza)..."

thyey draw no legal principles or conclusions or even raise conjectures from all that as regards the national rights of Jews to and in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Their article, of course, deals with the rights of individuals and does touch of communal rights but no higher in the poitical definitions of an ethnic group.? On p. 311, you can read that there is a premise that

"there is a historical, political and moral link between the status of the property left by Israelis in the West Bank? and the Gaza Strip in 1948 , and the status of property left by Palestinians in Israel at that time"

They quickly aver as to a similarity of circumstances of their legal analyses but do not engage in any discussion that could promote Jewish rights as to the question beyond property owned by individuals.? This is a failing on their part.

Jews do have national rights to the territory beyond elementary individual rights.? The Mandate decision awarded Jews the right, which was not granted to others, defined simply as "non-Jews", to make use of state and waste lands specifically for the right of close settlement on the land and that land was to become the reconstituted Jewish national home.

Law/legal opinion/discussion such as this is unworthy of Israelis, even as academic scholarly researchers.

(with thanks to ChallahHuAkbar for research assistance)
^

Source: http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2012/01/failing-of-israeli-legal-scholars.html

carrier iq linda perry world aids day amber rose kristin cavallari horse slaughter horse slaughter