From Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
https://tinyurl.com/y9p72489
Is it correct to label Israeli actions
with respect to the West Bank "annexation?" Can you annex territory
that has already been designated as yours?
It so happens that
this year is the 100th anniversary of the San Remo Conference, where the
victorious Allied powers from World War I divided the Ottoman Empire and
proposed Mandates for the former territories of Ottoman Asia. The territory
that was to become British Mandatory Palestine was designated as a future
Jewish national home already then. British diplomacy in 1920 set the stage for
not only the emergence of Israel in 1948, but also the entire system of Arab
states.
This history is
pertinent to the debate that has emerged about Israel retaining parts of the
West Bank this year in fulfillment of the Trump plan. It is commonly referred
to as "annexation" and states have pointed out that they oppose the
annexation of someone else's territory. The statute of the International
Criminal Court in fact defines as one of the acts that constitute the crime of
aggression specifically as the annexation of the territory of another state.
So is it correct to
label Israeli actions with respect to the West Bank "annexation?" Can
you annex territory that has already been designated as yours?
Indeed, annexation
resulting from aggression is unacceptable. The Turkish invasion of Cyprus was
an act of aggression. The Russian invasion of Crimea was an act of aggression.
Israel in the West Bank is an entirely different story.
In addition to the
designation of these territories as part of the Jewish national home, one must
remember that the West Bank was captured by Israel in a war of self-defense in
1967. That makes all the difference. The great British authority on
international law, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, drew a distinction between unlawful
territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to
an act of aggression.
It would be more
correct not to use the term "annexation" but rather "the
application of Israeli law to parts of the West Bank."
The idea that the
Jewish national home applied there was backed by much of the international
community from San Remo onwards. Even Article 80 of the United Nations Charter
established that national rights from the period of the League of Nations
carried over to the newly established United Nations.
In 1920 British
leadership under Prime Minister Lloyd George was pivotal in protecting Jewish
national rights. Today, 100 years later, British leadership should follow that
example.
Thus, the
foundations of Jewish legal rights established through San Remo were preserved
for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment