Skip to content
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Strategic Alliances for a Secure, Connected, and Prosperous Region

International Law – Media Perspectives : “Occupation”

Lebanon to UN: Israel will suffer consequences if our ships are attacked
Ha’aretz  |  “Occupation”
Obama, Abdullah push proximity talks
Hilary Leila Krieger  |  “Occupation”
Arab official: US plan can’t be proposed in a vacuum, timing crucial.
View Article >>
Is Gaza Occupied? Redefining the Legal Status of Gaza
Elizabeth Samson  |  “Occupation”
Despite whatever previous classifications have been applied to Gaza, Gaza is presently not an occupied territory. Israel presently does not exercise “effective control” over Gaza and, therefore, does not occupy it. That element, combined with the existence of the Palestinian Authority as the indigenous government endorsed by the population which is recognized by the international community, lends additional weight to the conclusion that occupation is over. Therefore, the new legal status of Gaza should be that of a “sui generis territory” administered by the Palestinian Authority. It is politically important for the absence of occupation to be acknowledged by international legal experts so that Israel would not be held to the more stringent legal requirements of an occupier and to lend greater legitimacy to Israel’s acts of self-defense.
View Article >>
Israel’s Right in the ‘Disputed’ Territories
Danny Ayalon  |  “Occupation”
And yet, there is this perception that Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table. Statements like those of Lady Ashton’s are not only incorrect; they push a negotiated solution further away.
View Article >>

Preserving a Legal Inheritance: Jewish Settlement Rights in the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”
Gerald Adler  |  “Occupation”
Israel has an independent legal claim to occupy, and settle in, the West Bank territory, which can be traced through a number of international legal instruments. Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate of 1922 imposed a positive obligation on the British Mandate “to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage…close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”
View Article >>
Israel’s settlements are legal
Geoffrey Alderman  |  “Occupation”
In the online journal of the Law Society of Scotland (Sep. 14, 2009), the distinguished Anglo-Canadian jurist, Professor Gerald Adler, offers a painstaking analysis of Jewish claims stretching back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Treaty of Sevres of 1920, and the Palestine Mandate of 1922. Professor Adler demonstrates that Jews have a right to “close settlement” on the West Bank, and that this right was specifically preserved and carried forward on the demise of the League of Nations, through the deliberate wording of article 80 of the founding charter of its successor body, the United Nations.
View Article >>

Shoddy Goldstone Report Adds a Zero
Martin Kramer  |  “Occupation”
The part of the Goldstone report treating the economic impact of the Gaza operation is largely copied from a March 2009 report compiled by the Palestinian Federation of Industries. The Goldstone report writes that “324 factories had been destroyed during the Israeli military operations at a cost of 40,000 jobs.” But if you look at the report of the Palestinian Federation of Industries, it puts the job losses at these 324 factories at 4,000, not 40,000. As you ponder all those figures in the Goldstone report, keep in mind that the report isn’t just biased. It’s shoddy.
View Article >>
Why is HMG misrepresenting international law against Israel?
Melanie Phillips  |  “Occupation”
When it was revealed that the British government had revoked five export licences for the sale to Israel of warships’ gun parts on account of its ‘disproportionate’ behaviour in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, which I wrote about below, one aspect of what the Foreign Office was saying jumped out at me. It appeared that Israel’s crime was to fall foul of Criterion Two in the Consolidated Criteria for Licence Decision Making. Criterion Two invites consideration of whether the proposed item for export would be used for internal repression. But Gaza is not ‘internal’ to Israel.
View Article >>