The ACLJ’s international affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), was given the opportunity to make a submission in defense of Israel to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The ECLJ took issue with the fact-finding mission’s basis that Israel is an “occupying” force, noting that the UNHRC has come under considerable criticism, including from two UN Secretaries-General, for its disproportionate singling out of Israel for review and reprimand.
The ECLJ’s submission explains in detail why Israel is not an “occupying” force and that “Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, east Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights are fully consistent with Israel’s rights in international law.”
The submission reminded the UNHRC that the UN never established the pre-1967 armistice lines as the permanent boundaries of the Israeli state. Further, the UN resolution enacted after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war required “secure … boundaries” for Israel, which was, as the submission notes, “something that did not exist prior to 1967 as evidenced by the persistent attacks mounted against Israel from Arab-controlled territory and would not exist today if the status quo ante were reinstated.”
The submission also shows how the crude death and infant mortality rates declined, life expectancy, education, and literacy improved, and the general standard of living had increased before these social responsibilities were turned over to the Palestinian Authority. In fact, surveys show that many Palestinians in east Jerusalem would actually prefer to be governed by Israel than a Palestinian state.
The ECLJ concluded:
The presumption in the Mission’s mandate that Israel is “occupying” territory that belongs to Arab Palestinians is simply incorrect historically, factually, and legally. The mandate for Palestine, an internationally-adopted and -sanctioned document enshrining the right of Jews to settle throughout Palestine, constituted a sacred trust and continues to exist. Further, security Council Resolution 242 and its progeny clearly envisaged that Israel would have to acquire additional territory to attain defensible borders. As such, Israeli settlements in Mandate territory are lawful under international law. The ultimate territorial solution must come via bilateral negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Further, because the Golan heights were acquired through defensive war against serial aggressor Syria, Israel’s retaining such territory is compatible with both the letter and spirit of international law. As such, Israeli communities are also lawful.
The ECLJ urged the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission to find that Israel is not “occupying” territory and that its settlements are in compliance with international law.
The United Nations has rejected a resolution that could have crippled Israel, imposing on it indefensible borders and forcing hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens from their homes. The resolution was yet another attempt by the terrorist-led Palestinian Authority to circumvent U.N. resolutions...
One of the more ridiculous aspects of the decades-long Middle East “peace process” is the belief that the so-called 1967 borders between Israel and Arab-held territory represent the foundation for a lasting piece. It’s never been true, it’s not true now, and there’s no realistic indication it will...
Late last week, a number of media outlets reported that the Obama Administration may be considering “sanctioning” Israel, an unthinkably destructive act against our closest Middle East ally? But is the report true? American media outlets source their suspicion back to this report , from Haaretz ,
Yesterday, the University of California’s student-worker union (UAW Local 2865) voted on whether to join the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. While we don’t yet know the results of the vote, we do know that its supporters have been making deceptive legal arguments...