Bogen indeholder FNs Charters art. 4 in extenso. 33
Boyle gennemgår den retslige situation, som er den, at Palæstina faktisk
allerede er provisorisk
anerkendt, og opfylder kravene for anerkendelse.
Fortilfældet Namibia gør, at FNs Generalforsamling (UNGA) kan anerkende
Palæstina, optage landet i FN og vedtage, at Israels besættelse skal ophøre.
UNGA kan beslutte forhandlinger om uafhængigheden mellem befrielsesorganisationen (PLO, HAMAS)
(UNGA har kompetencen til at godkende repræsentationen) og besættelsesmagten
(Israel) under FNs ledelse. Først skal Palæstinas Nationalråd
proklamere en selvstændig stat. Det skete 151188. Proklamationen skal indeholde
en foreløbig bestemmelse af, hvem der er borger i staten. Boyle har her et
forslag. Dernæst skal proklamationen skabe en regering. Folkeforbundets mandat
for Palæstina gælder stadig og er overtaget af FN. Boyle fordømmer UKs
bestræbelse på ensidigt at ophæve mandatet, som "uansvarligt".
Boyle viser, at USA ikke kan nedlægge veto i Sikkerhedsrådet mod en
anerkendelse/optagelse af Palæstina med andre end de begrundelser, der (ikke)
fremgår af artikel 4 stk. 1. Skulle USA alligevel gøre det, må UNGA anvende
fortilfældet med Uniting for Peace.
(Det er vel derfor Israel gør så meget for at undgå, at nogen anerkender
Palæstina - og netop derfor er det så forfærdeligt - ja forbryderisk - at EU
ikke tager sig sammen til en anerkendelse !!!)
USA har en national lovgivning, der forlanger, at bidrag til FN inddrages, hvis
Israel får samme behandling som Sydafrika.
UNGA kan også simpelthen konstatere, at Israel begår (krigs)forbrydelser (Genevekonventionen
m.m.) og overtræder UNSC resolutioner (242, 338, m.m.). UNGA kan opfordre
medlemslandene til at vedtage sanktioner mod Israel i.h.t. FN Charterets art.
41.
Jeg skulde yderligere mene, at mandatets artikel 15 skulle gøre Israels nye lov
om troskabserklæring ulovlig. Paragraf 15 gælder vel også den del af mandatet,
som er blevet Israel ?
Boyle argumenterer for, at man kan bruge Tysklands formel for "en nation, to
stater".
Der er selvfølgelig et større antal komplicerede forhold omkring ejendomsret
m.m. som skal reguleres. At det skal ske i en fredskonference, må være
indlysende. Boyle foreslår, at Jordan er part i denne. Det er der rimelighed i,
fordi noget af den jord, Israel har taget, var Jordansk. Syrien burde også være
med (Golan). Libanon ?
En vigtig del af bogen er Boyles vejledninger og advarsler til de palæstinensiske forhandlere om Israels og USAs juridiske tricks.
United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2145 in 1966. Therein the
General Assembly decided that the Mandate for South West Africa was terminated
and that South Africa had no other right to administer the territory.
In Resolution 2248 of 1967, .... It also decided that South West Africa shall
become independent on a date fixed in accordance the wishes of the people and by
June 1968. ... South West Africa was officially redesignated Namibia by UN
General Assembly Resolution 2372. 29
(note 45 part G.A. Res. 2678, 25 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 28) at 90, U.N. Doc.
A/8028 (1970) (calling upon South Africa to treat Namibian people captured
during their struggle for freedom as prisoners of war under Fourth Geneva
Convention of 1949 55-6).
Most significantly, in Resolution 283 of 1970 the Security Council established a
complete legal regime to be applied by all members of the United Nations with
respect to Namibia for the purpose of guaranteeing that no member state of the
Organization maintains any relations with South Africa implying recognition of
the authority of South Africa over Namibia. 29
Most significantly, the Court also held it would not be correct to assume that
just because the General Assembly was in principle vested with recommendatory
powers it would be debarred from adopting in specific cases within the framework
of its competence resolutions which make determinations or have operative
design. 30
In 1976 the UN General Assembly invited SWAPO to participate in its work as an
observer and decided that any independence talks on Namibia must occur between
representatives of South Africa and SWAPO under United Nations auspices. 30
In 1977 the UN Security Council voted unanimously to impose a mandatory arms
embargo against South Africa. 30
It is the author’s opinion that if Jimmy Carter had been reelected as President
in the fall of 1980, Namibia would have been independent today. The South
African government had officially endorsed Resolution 435, but in the aftermath
of Carter’s defeat repudiated it, probably as the result of a meeting between
Henry Kissinger and South African Foreign Minister Roelof Botha in Paris. 30
[Namibias uafhængighed ?]
(note 69 U.N. Charter art. 25. This article provides that United Nations members
“agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in
accordance with the [U.N.] Charter.” 56)
This duplicitous act occurred with the tacit acquiescence if not the active
encouragement of of the Reagan administration, which wanted to “link” Namibian
Independence to securing the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. 30
... if the United Nations General Assembly was entitled to act in the
aforementioned manner with respect to the people of South West Africa who had
been under a Class C Mandate, then a fortiori the General Assembly would
certainly be entitled to act in a similar manner with respect to the people of
Palestine who had been under a Class A Mandate and, furthermore, had already
been provisionally recognized as an independent nation by article 22(4) of the
Covenant of the League of Nations, which recognition is still in effect today
under UN Charter article 80(1) and is thus binding upon all member states of the
United Nations. 31
How to Create the State of Palestine
It is generally agreed that an independent state must possess certain
characteristics in order to have its existence recognized by the states of the
world community: (1) a determinable territory [det krav opfylder Israel ikke -
og vil ikke opfylde ! OJ]; (2) a fixed population; (3) a
functioning government; and (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other
states. There should be no problem with having the State of Palestine satisfy
these four criteria. Indeed, whether they know it or not, all state parties to
the United Nations Charter including the United States and Israel - have already
provisionally recognized the Palestinian people as an independent nation by
virtue of UN Charter article 80(1) and League Covenant article 22(4). 31
As the successor to the League of Nations with respect to the Mandate for
Palestine, the General Assembly had the exclusive legal authority to determine
that the PLO is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. That
determination is binding upon all member states of the United Nations, including
the United States and Israel whether they like it or not. 31
The Palestine National Council (PNC) is the supreme legislative organ of the
Palestinian people. Hence, as a first step, the PNC must formally proclaim the
existence of the state of Palestine by means of issuing a short but succinct
Proclamation of Independence to that effect. 31-2
The supreme legislative organ of the Palestinian people has the right to perfect
and finalize this outstanding degree of recognition by proclaiming the existence
of the independent state of Palestine. This Proclamation of Independence should
also contain the minimum amount of information necessary to establish that the
State of Palestine possesses all the characteristics , required to constitute a
state under the standard recognized criteria of international law. First, the
Proclamation would have to address the question of nationality for citizens in
the new state of Palestine. ... Hence, the Proclamation of Independence could
indicate that pending the completion of a comprehensive and updated Palestine
Citizenship Act. on a preliminary basis all individuals who were citizens of
Palestine within the meaning of the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council
as of a date-certain (e.g., September 1,1939 - the start of the Second World War),
together with the children and grandchildren of such individuals, are ipso facto
citizens of the new state of Palestine. 32
{Det var en ret smart formulering !!! - ikke mindst som udgangspunkt for en
forhandling - men det ville være venligere at vælge f. eks. 311200}
... it is conceivable that some Jewish dual nationals currently living illegally
on the West Bank and Gaza Strip might decide to remain living in the state of
Palestine though that decision would not give them any right to own property
taken in violation of international law. Final determination of these complex
issues relating to dual nationality would have to be negotiated over among the
Governments of Palestine, Israel and Jordan during the course of any peace
conference. 32-3
Next, the Proclamation of Independence must create the Government of Palestine (GOP).
The Government of Palestine could then issue an official statement that it is
prepared to negotiate with the Government of Israel over the delimitation of
their respective boundaries on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242
(1967) 7 UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) (1947). 32-3
Article 4 of the United Nations Charter in extenso 33
[the International Court of Justice] held that a member of the United Nations,
when voting upon admission of a State to membership in the UN, whether in the
Security Council or in the General Assembly, is not juridically entitled to make
its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided for
by paragraph 1 of article 4. 33 (!!!!)
... the Court held that an affirmative and favorable recommendation of admission
by the Security Council is required. 34
(dissenting opinions) 34
... Therefore any United States veto of a Security Council resolution calling
for the admission of Palestine to the United Nations would violate Charter
article 80(1) and thus be not only illegal but also ultra vires of the United
States. 34
UN General Assembly Sanctions Against Israel 35
In any event, the rest of this analysis will assume: (1) that the United States
government will exercise a veto power over the adoption of such a resolution ...
the matter could be removed from the agenda of the Security Council and turned
over to the United Nations General Assembly ( Uniting for Peace Resolution of
0311/1950) 35
... article 18(2) specifically requires a two-thirds majority of members present
and voting for the General Assembly to admit a state to UN membership. 36
General Assembly could adopt a resolution determining that after twenty years of
grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations
of 1907, the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel
stands in explicit violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and
338 (1973), the General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 (II) of 1947, the
Mandate for Palestine, League Covenant article 22, and UN Charter article 80(1),
inter alia, and is therefore invalid under international law and an obstacle to
the implementation of the Palestinian peoples’ right to self-determination. Next,
relying upon the International Court of Justice’s series of advisory opinions
with respect to South West Africa, the General Assembly should affirm that it is
the legitimate successor to the League of Nations Council with respect to
supervising the League-mandated territory of Palestine. Thereafter the General
Assembly could then act to formally recognize the existence of the independent
state of Palestine that had already been proclaimed by the Palestinian people.
36
... the General Assembly should recommend, if not require, that all UN members
impose on their own accord the specific set of sanctions described in Charter
article 41 against the Israeli government. 36
These measures would include the complete or partial interruption of economic
relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of
communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. 36
... the General Assembly certainly has the authority to treat Palestine as an
independent, “State” whose Charter right to UN membership has been illegally
denied by an ultra vires veto by the United States at the Security Council. 37
... This approach to the Problem would not run afoul of U.S. domestic
legislation providing that the U.S. government must suspend its participation in
and financial contributions to the United Nations should the South African
credentials rejection precedent be applied to Israel. 37
... since the Mandate for Palestine still survives as a matter of positive
international law under UN Charter article 80(1), several articles of the
Mandate would bolster the legality of the General Assembly’s power to recognize
the State of Palestine and then to take whatever measures are necessary to
secure Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestine. For example, Mandate article
2 states that the mandatory shall be responsible for safeguarding the civil and
religious rights of all of the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race
and religion. [hermed er Israels nye krav om en loyalitetserklæring ulovligt,
ligesom ønsket om en jødisk stat, OJ] Article 3 states that the mandatory “shall”, so far as
circumstances permit encourage local autonomy.” Article 5 provides that the
mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestinian territory shall be
ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the government of
any foreign power. 38
According to article 15, the mandatory shall ensure to all inhabitants of
Palestine “complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of
worship,” and shall prohibit any form of discrimination “between the inhabitants
of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language.” 38
Mandate article 17 provides that the “Administration of Palestine may organize
on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and
order, and also for the defense of the country.” [min fremhævelse, OJ] 38
To be sure, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany takes the official
position that although there might exist two German “states”, there is only one
German “nation”. Similarly, the Government of Palestine could take the position
that although there might exist two “States” in the former Palestine Mandate,
nevertheless there exists only one “nation” of Palestine. For example. The
Palestine National Council could decide to affirm the unity of the nation of
Palestine in a formal Constitution for the State of Palestine, while at the same
time it could authorize the Government of Palestine to conclude a peace treaty
with Israel. 39
Such an approach .... would permit the Palestine National Council and the
Government of Palestine to adopt the good-faith position before the entire
Palestinian people that they have not abandoned the goal of the Palestine
Liberation Organization to create one, secular and democratic state in all of
Palestine. Nevertheless, the peace treaty would indicate that henceforth this
goal can only be achieved by peaceful means and in cooperation with and by the
express agreement of the Government of Israel. 39
... the supercharged political problems of the Middle East that were created by
Britain’s irresponsible, illegal and void ab initio attempt to terminate the
Mandate for Palestine unilaterally. 39
To be sure, it will be a much more difficult job to accomplish similar results
with respect to Israel because of the awesome power of the pro-Israeli lobby
over the United States Congress and news media. 41
The Palestinian Declaration of Independence
On November 15, 1988 the Palestine National Council (PNC) meeting in Algiers
proclaimed the Palestinian Declaration of independence in Arabic, the language
of the desert and of the holy Quran. Thereby the Palestine National Council
created the independent state of Palestine, and in addition, determined that the
Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) shall serve
as the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine, which it still does
today. 41
The Palestinian Declaration of Independence created a remarkable opportunity for
peace because therein the PNC also explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s
Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947 - which called for the creation of a Jewish
state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine, together with an
international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. 41
The acceptance of the Partition Resolution in their actual Declaration of
Independence signalled the genuine desire by the Palestinian people to transcend
the past century of bitter conflict with Jewish people living in their midst in
order to reach an historic accommodation with them on the basis of a two-state
solution. The Declaration of Independence is the foundational document for the
State of Palestine. It is determinative, definitive, and irreversible. 41
[Israels krav om anerkendelse som jødisk stat er altså urimeligt - de kan bare
slutte fredsaftale]
It soon became obvious that the United Nations bureaucracy had deliberately
sabotaged their English-language translation of the Declaration in order to grossly
misrepresent and distort its true meaning and ultimate significance. 41
... it became clear that the parameters for a solution must be as follows
First, the PLO would have to immediately prepare its own English-language
translation of the Declaration. 41
Second. The PLO would have to make it clear that its English-language
translation of the Declaration was the only authorized English-language
translation of the Declaration, thus implicitly repudiating, negating,
superseding and nullifying the misleading English-language translation of the
Declaration provided by the UN bureaucracy.
Third, for diplomatic reasons, this repudiation had to be done in such a way so
as not to attack or criticize the United Nations Organization, or even explain
why the PLO was putting out its own authorized English-language translation of
the Declaration. At this critical moment in time, the PLO could not afford to
antagonize the UN Secretariat and the UN Secretary General. 42
But in the meantime, the mistranslated English-language translation provided by
the UN bureaucracy had already inflicted terrible harm upon the just cause of
the Palestinian people. Questions remain as to why the English-language
translation was sabotaged, under whose authority, and in whose interests. 42
[undersøges, ideer, tanker modtages gerne, OJ]
One must bear in mind that it had been the United Nations Organization in the
first place that had illegally carved up the Mandate for Palestine in gross
violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. [!!!] The
Palestinians must never rely upon the United Nations Organization to be
operating with total objectivity, free from the influence of powerful States.
After all, while
Israel officially accepted the UN Partition Resolution
as a condition for its membership in the United Nations Organization (as well as
accepting it in its own Declaration of independence), today Israel is a UN
member state, whereas Palestine is not. 42
Furthermore, the 1947 UN Partition Plan called for the Palestinian people to
have a much larger section of historic Palestine for their state than do the
1967 boundaries contemplated by UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and
338 (1973). By comparison, today the Palestinian people would be prepared to
accept the 1967 boundaries for the state of Palestine, which would consist
essentially of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The PNCs
contemporaneous acceptance of Resolutions 242 and 338 represented a significant
concession by the Palestinian people for the benefit of the Israeli people. What
is needed now from the Israeli government and people is the same will for peace
that was demonstrated by the Palestinians fourteen years ago. 42
PALESTINIAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE Alger du 12 au 18 novembre 1988 43-46
Palestine, the land of the three monotheistic faiths. 43
The call went out from temple, church, and mosque to praise the Creator; to
celebrate compassion and peace was indeed the message of Palestine. 43
... in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) and in the
Treaty of Lausanne community of nations had recognized that all the Arab
territories, including Palestine, of the formerly Ottoman provinces were to have
granted to them their freedom as provisionally independent nations. 43
the historical injustice ... UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which
partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab one Jewish, yet it is this
Resolution that still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that
ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty and national
independence. 44
And the collective Palestinian national will forged itself in a political
embodiment, the Palestine Liberation Organization, its sole, legitimate
representative, recognized by the world community as a whole, as well as by
related regional and international institutions. 44
The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the
Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of
Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash
Sharif). 45
... complete equality of rights. A parliamentary democratic system of governance,
itself based on freedom of expression and the freedom to form parties. 45
... nondiscrimination in public rights men or women, on grounds of race,
religion, color or sex 45
It further announces itself to be a peace-loving state in adherence to the
principles of peaceful co-existence. 45
The State of Palestine herewith declares that it believes in the settlement of
regional and international disputes by peaceful means, in accordance with the UN
Charter and resolutions. 46
... if you read the Jewish state’s Declaration of independence, it states quite
clearly that their right to found their state goes back to the Palestinian
Mandate, the portion of it called the Balfour Declaration and the Partition
Resolution. 50
... when Israel was admitted to the United Nations after the events of 1948, one
of the conditions for its admission was that it accepted the Partition
Resolution which it voluntarily agreed to do. 50
... from December 9,1987 through May 31,1990 ... 88 deaths were produced by tear
gas. .... 9,550 people subjected to administrative detention ... 1,467 homes and
other structures demolished or sealed ... the Israeli army has also uprooted
approximately 87,473 olive and fruit trees. 58
During the course of his various public pronouncements in Europe during December
of 1988, Yasser Arafat stated that currently the PLO is serving as the
Provisional Government of the state of Palestine. 59
Over 114 States have already recognized the newly proclaimed state of Palestine,
which is more than the 93 that maintain some form of diplomatic relations with
Israel. 60
Furthermore, on
December 15,1988, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
Resolution 43/177, essentially recognizing the new State of Palestine and
according it observer-state status throughout the United Nations Organization.
That resolution was adopted by a vote of 104 in favor, the United States and
Israel opposed, and 44 states abstaining. 60
All of the above-mentioned atrocities inflicted by the Israeli army against the
Palestinian people and land in its vain attempt to suppress the intifada violate
both the customary and conventional international laws of belligerent occupation
including but not limited to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1907
Hague Regulations on Land Warfare. 60
These grievous violations of international humanitarian law constitute “war
crimes” that create personal criminal responsibility for the perpetrators. 60
Today, the acceptance of the Partition Resolution in their actual Declaration of
Independence signals a genuine desire by the Palestinian people to transcend the
past forty years of history and now reach an historic accommodation with Israel
on the basis of a two-state solution. 61
... in the Political Communiqué attached to the Declaration of Independence, the
Palestine National Council indicated its
willingness to accept United Nations
supervision over Palestine on an interim basis in order to terminate Israeli
occupation. 62
Palestine National Council has now explicitly accepted Resolutions 242 and 338.
62
The 1947 UN Partition Plan called for the Palestinian people to have a much
larger section of historic Palestine for their state than do the 1967 boundaries
set forth in Resolutions 242/338. In this regard, I should point out that Israel
officially accepted the Partition Resolution in its own Declaration of
Independence and as a condition for its admission to membership in the United
Nations Organization. 62
Indeed, on April 3. 1989 President George Bush bluntly stated that Israel should
end its occupation of Arab lands and that the Palestinians must be given their
political rights by means of an international peace conference. 63
In recognition of this fundamental right of organized civilian resistance
movements to use force against an army of occupation, article 4 of the Third
Geneva Convention of 1949 provided that its members must be treated as prisoners
of war, not criminals or terrorists, in the event such individuals fall into the
hands of the occupying army. 64
So in recognition of these basic international legal obligations, the PLO
ratified the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 on behalf of the state of Palestine
during the summer of 1989 The PLO transmitted its instrument of ratification to
the government of Switzerland, which is the official depositary for the Geneva
Conventions. Yet, because of massive overt pressure mounted by the United States
government, the Swiss government did not formally accept the PLO’s instrument of
ratification. 64 [!!!!!!]
By contrast, the Israeli government has absolutely refused to apply the Four
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations, inter alia, to its
occupation of Palestine and to its conduct of hostilities against the people.
According to common article 1 of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, every
state of the world community is obliged to bring to bear whatever pressure it
can upon the Israeli government to terminate its violation of these sacred
Conventions. 64
[in June of 1990] the UN General Assembly essentially recognized the State of
Palestine and accorded it observer-state status, it had also adopted Resolution
43/176 calling for the convocation of an international peace conference on the
Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations with the participation of
all parties to the conflict including the Palestine Liberation Organization, on
an equal footing, and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council
based on Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the
legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, “primarily the right to
self-determination.” This resolution was adopted by a vote of 138 in favor, the
United States and Israel opposed, with Canada and Costa Rica abstaining. 65
principles: 65-6
... the 1947 UN Partition Resolution called for the creation of an international
trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem that would be administered as a corpus
separatum apart from both the Jewish state and the Arab state contemplated
therein. 67
... the Israeli government requested the Bush administration to divert the flow
of Soviet Jewish immigrants from the United States to Israel expressly for the
purpose of moving these people into Palestine and Jerusalem. 67-8
... the Soviet Union has never accepted the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights as binding upon it as a matter of positive international law. ... Rather,
the better explanation is Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s desire to secure
a Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Agreement on trade with the United States of America.
69
... that
as yet another express condition for its admission to the United
Nations Organization, the government of Israel officially endorsed and agreed to
carry out the aforementioned UN General Assembly Resolution 194(111) of 1948,
which determined that Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their
homes, or that compensation should be paid to those who choose not to. 69
[!!!]
Furthermore, that same article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration c of Human
Rights which Soviet Jews rely upon to justify their emigration from the Soviet
Union provides that: “Everyone has the right... to return to his country.” “
That absolute right of return clearly applies to Palestinian refugees living in
their diaspora who want to return to their homes in Israel, Palestine, and
Jerusalem. 69 [!!!]
The Future Peace of Jerusalem 71-7
On September 25,1971, then-Ambassador George H.W. Bush:
“The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such
land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having
historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to
occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in the
city.” 71
... that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. 71-2
... and the fact that in the
Oslo Agreement of 13 September 1993, Israel
expressly agreed in writing to negotiate over the final status of Jerusalem with
the PLO. 77 [!!!]
The Palestinian Alternative to Oslo 78-118
Memorandum to the Palestinian Delegates to the Middle East Peace Negotiations on
1 December 1992. The memorandum was written by Francis A. Boyle 78
What the Americans and the Israelis have told you orally is one thing. What the
documents say is quite another thing. There is an enormous gap between the two.
79 [!!!]
You Must Negotiate the Interim Agreement As if it Were the Final Settlement 81
The American Strategy Is to Conclude a Separate Peace Among Israel, Jordan,
Syria, and Lebanon at the Expense of the Palestinians. 81
14. Under any Interim Agreement, you must make it very clear that the Interim
Agreement does not satisfy the terms of Resolution 242. 82
18. You will note that paragraph 1, subparagraph (i) calls for the withdrawal of
Israeli armed forces “from territories occupied in the recent conflict...” It
does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the territories occupied in the
recent conflict. 83
19. The story of this deception has recently been told by Mr. George Ball,
former Under-Secretary of State in the Johnson administration, in his latest
book, The Passionate Attachment 83
Practically everyone else, including the British government speaking through
Lord Caradon, thought that even without a definite article in the English text (it
was included in the French and Spanish versions), the resolution would require
the Israelis to evacuate all, or practically all, of the territories, with only
minor adjustments. 83
So far, Israel has had the sheer audacity to argue that their withdrawal from
the Sinai has fulfilled the terms of Resolution 242. 83
Subparagraph (ii) calls for: ‘Termination of all claims or states of
belligerency...” Notice the use of disjunctive word “or” as opposed to the
conjunctive word “and.” 26. The Israelis will also argue that the outstanding
Palestinian “claim” to your own land becomes irrelevant because subparagraph (ii)
calls for the termination of either “all claims” or “all...states of
belligerency”; but not both. 84
The Palestinian People Are Not Per Sese Protected by the Literal Text of
Resolution 242. 84
[???]
28. The State of Palestine did not exist in 1967. Hence, the Palestinian people
are technically unable to claim the literal protection of this language found in
Resolution 242 in their own right, 84-5
The promises given in the Letters of Invitation and Letters of Assurances do not
mean very much as a matter of public international law. 86
The secret negotiating history of any international agreement is generally
disregarded by the International Court of Justice. 87
... you must insist upon your independent legal right to conclude the Interim
Agreement with Israel and without Jordan. 87
40 Since Israel refuses to recognize the existence of the independent State of
Palestine, the Israelis will claim that neither Palestine nor the Palestinian
people have any rights or claims under Resolution 242. 87
... to make sure that there only two “parties” to the Interim Agreement itself:
the Israelis and the Palestinians; but not the Jordanians. 87
... the first round of negotiations in Washington, D.C. in December of 1991. ...
14. We now must turn to the U.S./Soviet Letter of Assurances to the Palestinians
dated October 18,1991. Once again, paragraph 1 refers to “direct negotiations”
between Israel and the Palestinians. 88
Hence, the Israelis will argue that after the conclusion of such an Interim
Agreement, any remaining Israeli settlers and settlements are no longer illegal
because the Fourth Geneva Convention no longer applies. 91
58. The need to protect your rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention is also
made quite clear by paragraph 3 of article 6 thereof: “In the case of occupied
territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after
the general close of military operations...” 91-2
... article 8 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: ‘Protected persons may in no
circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the
present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing
Article, if such there be.” 93
70. The critical point is this: Right now it is undeniable that Israel is the
belligerent occupant of the Palestinian people and lands. But at least you, have
never consented to their belligerent occupation. You do not want to sign an
Interim Agreement that formally recognizes, consents to, assents to, or
acquiesces in, Israeli belligerent occupation in any way, shape, or form, 94
360. Maintenance of Occupation 94-5
Hence, in any Interim Agreement, you must have absolute guarantees that Israeli
military forces confined to their bases cannot “within a reasonable time, send
detachments of troops to make its authority felt within the occupied district.”
97
You Must Make Sure That PISGA Is Not a Puppet Government Under International Law.
[hvordan er det juridisk med PA ?????] 98
8. On these points I speak from the experience of my own people - the Irish. 100
... published by the Procedural Aspects of International Law Institute in 1980
by Professors Hannum and Lillich under the title The Theory and Practice of
Autonomy. The findings of this official State Department Study were summarized
in an article by Professors Hannum and Lillich that was published soon
thereafter in The American Journal of International Law, entitled The Concept of
Autonomy in International Law”. 101
Rather, I simply wish to quote at this time the following conclusion of the
authors: “...the present survey offers no examples of the successful
implementation of a transitional regime without prior agreement on the general
nature of the permanent regime to follow.” 101
Therefore, you must insist that PISGA have independent legislative authority and
powers. 103
37. It is clear to me as an American lawyer that Djerejian is trying to deceive
you, trick you, and confuse you. Djerejian gives away his outright fraud and
deception in the next part of his sentence when he says: “and we think that you
should not confuse the legislative function and the issue of legislative
authority, and therefore throw out a good idea.” This is total nonsense! This is
a deceptive distinction without a difference. Djerejian is lying to you and
deceiving you. 105
.. because the PNC has already declared an independent Palestinian State in
1988; so PISGA does not have to declare the State a second time. Likewise, you
could also agree that in the Basic Law, PISGA would have no authority to
“overturn” or “change” the Interim Agreement itself. 106
XI. THERE MUST BE NO ISRAELI “SETTLERS” PER SESE UNDER THE INTERIM AGREEMENT!
108
Hence, any Israelis who continue to insist to live in liberated Palestinian
lands after the conclusion of the Interim Agreement must be subject to the
pre-1967 laws for the regulation of foreigners.
154. In other words, the Interim Agreement can be drafted in such a way as to
make it clear that the settlers will not be thrown out. On the other hand, the
Interim Agreement must not expressly permit settlers to remain because this
would violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. 109 [!!]
156. On this matter, of course, the Israeli government would want an assurance
that Israeli citizens living in liberated Palestinian lands would not be
discriminated against. That would be fine. In the Palestinian Declaration of
Independence of 1988 and the Political Communiqué attached hereto, the Palestine
National Council made it quite clear that it did not want to discriminate
against anyone for any reason. 109
The incorporation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into the Basic
Law would protect both Palestinians and Israelis living in the liberated
Palestinian lands. But it would not protect Israelis per se or by name. 110
... ,then in order to make it possible for Israelis to live in liberated
Palestinian lands for a period of time, the PISGA could enact legislation that
would provide that non-Palestinians living in land subject to its jurisdiction
would have the right to continue to live there for a guaranteed five years
(i.e., the proposed term of the Interim Agreement), provided that they obey
Palestinian laws like everyone else, but subject to the protections established
by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as incorporated into the Basic Law.
A five-year deadline in this legislation would make it quite clear that in the
event the Israeli government stalled on the so-called Final Settlement, then all
foreigners (i.e., Israelis) living in liberated Palestinian lands would have to
go home. 110
159 In regard to these settlers, you could also indicate to the Israelis at this
time that as part of the Final Settlement, PISGA would be prepared to enact
legislation that would give foreigners currently living in occupied Palestinian
lands the right of permanent resident alien status. 110
XII.[XI] THERE MUST BE NO ISRAELI “SETTLEMENTS”[“settlers”] PER SESE (sic) UNDER
THE INTERIM AGREEMENT! [110] 111
170. Thus, all Israelis living on these military bases are subject to Israeli
military control and jurisdiction. Under no circumstances must you recognize in
an Interim Agreement the “right” of the Israeli government to apply any of its
civilian laws to civilians living on these military bases. ... The critical
point is that you must not consent to the application of Israeli civilian laws
to any civilians living on these military bases. 112
... the four Great Powers actually had international legal sovereignty over the
City of Berlin jointly, whereas Israel does not have any legal sovereignty or
claims to sovereignty over these military bases. 113
... the crux of the problem: Could an Interim Agreement permit Israeli military
forces to withdraw to some currently existing Israeli settlements and thus
establish their military bases there? In theory, it might be possible to do this;
but it would have to be done very carefully. Otherwise, you risk losing
sovereign control over those military bases/settlements forever. 114-5
186. Indeed, the status of the British military bases in Cyprus is even worse
than the status of U.S. military forces in the old Panama Canal Zone. Under the
terms of the old Panama Canal Treaty, the United States government had rights to
the Panama Canal Zone “as if it were the sovereign.” ... 187. By comparison, the
British military bases in Cyprus are sovereign British territory - just like
London. 115
189. Both the Israelis and the Americans are encouraging you to put aside the
status of Jerusalem until the so-called Final Settlement.
But this is a trap
that they are trying to set for you. You must not fall into it. 116
From the Oslo Accords to the Al Aqsa Intifada It was my great honor and pleasure
to have served as the Legal Adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle
East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993, including and especially to the Head
of the Delegation, Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi. 119
It became quite obvious that the U.S. State Department officials involved with
the negotiations had no intention whatsoever to pressure Israel to negotiate in
good faith. 119
summer of 1992, ... They are offering you a bantustan. As you know, the Israelis
have very close relations with the Afrikaner apartheid regime in South Africa.
It appears that they have studied the bantustan system quite closely. And so it
is a bantustan that they are offering you.” 120
Then at the instructions of Dr. Abdul Shaffi, the entire Palestinian Delegation
assembled for me to brief them on my anti-bantustan proposal. 121
My Memorandum was entitled “The Interim Agreement and International Law,” and
was completed on December 1, 1992. 122
My Palestinian anti-bantustan model was approved by the Palestinian Delegation to the
Middle East Peace negotiations as well as by the PLO leadership in Tunis. 122
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
While reviewing this Memorandum, the reader should understand that the Israeli
bantustan proposal severely criticized therein later became the Oslo Agreement
of 13 September 1993. 122
President Arafat knew exactly what he was signing on 13 September 1993. He had
been fully informed and properly advised. But he signed on to the Oslo bantustan
anyway. 122
It was for this reason that Dr. Abdul Shaffi never attended the signing ceremony
on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993. 123
Why would President Arafat accept and sign an Israeli proposal that he knew
would constitute nothing more than a bantustan for the Palestinian people? I
really do not know the answer to that question 123
I am not going to waste my time here analysing the numerous post-Oslo Agreements
between Israel and the PLO that were “brokered” by the United States, for they
all constitute nothing more than implementation and refinements Israel’s
original bantustan proposal that the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East
Peace negotiations had already rejected in Washington, DC. From the perspective
of public international law, however, numerous provisions of all these
agreements were void ab initio under articles 7, 8, and 47 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention of 1949, inter alia. 124
The Reverend Jackson proved to be a true Good Samaritan. 125
To his great and everlasting credit, President Arafat refused to accept the Oslo
bantustan as a permanent model for the Palestinian people and their land. But it
was a near-death experience. 125
When it became crystal clear to the Israeli Government that they could lot
impose Oslo’s bantustan arrangement permanently upon the Palestinian people by
means of negotiations .... then General Barak and Likud Leader General Ariel
Sharon decided to revert to inflicting raw, naked, brutal, military force upon
the Palestinian people in order to get their way. 125
On 28 September 2000, General Ariel Sharon ... appeared at Haram Al-Sharif in
Jerusalem ... But this should not be mistaken as the act of a rogue general run
amok; rather, it was undertaken with the full approval of Prime Minister Barak.
125
And if there had been any lingering doubt about the matter, Israeli armed forces
returned the next day and shot dead several unarmed Palestinians on Haram
Al-Sharif. 126
On 7 October 2000, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1322
(2000), which is critical for all subsequent analysis. The vote was fourteen to
zero, with the United States government abstaining. 126
In paragraph 1, the Security Council: “Deplores the provocation carried out at
Al-Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000 and the subsequent violence
there....” Notice. 126
In paragraph 3 of Resolution 1322 (2000), the Security Council, again 14 to 0:
“Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power....” “Occupying power has a definite
meaning in public international law. Israel only “occupies” the West Bank, the
Gaza Strip, and the entire City of Jerusalem. Israel is what internal lawyers
call a “belligerent occupant.” As such, Israel has no sovereignty over the West
Bank, or the Gaza Strip, or the entire City of Jerusalem. 126 [!!!]
This is not sovereign Israeli land as far as the Security Council is concerned,
as far as international law is concerned, as the entire international community
is concerned, and even as far as the United States of America is officially
concerned. 126
The International Laws of Belligerent Occupation 127
Belligerent occupation is governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907, as well as
by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the customary laws of belligerent
occupation. Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), paragraph 3 continued:
“Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal
obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative
to the Protection of Civilian Persons in a Time of War of 12 August 1949;...”
Again, the Security Council vote was 14 to 0, becoming obligatory international
law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to
the entire City Of Jerusalem in order to protect the Palestinians living there
The Palestinian people living in occupied Palestine are “protected persons” ....
The Israeli Government is currently violating and has since 1967 been violating
almost each and every one of these sacred rights of the Palestinian people
recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, violations of the Fourth
Geneva Convention are war crimes. So this is not a symmetrical situation where
there is some right and some wrong on both sides. As matters of fact and of law,
the gross and repeated violations of Palestinian human rights by the Israeli
army and by Israeli settlers living illegally in occupied Palestine constitute
war crimes. ... In an international armed conflict such as this, the
direct
military targeting of innocent civilians as such is a serious war crime.
[!!!]
The UN Human Rights Commission Specifies Israeli Actions As War Crimes and
Crimes Against Humanity
Indeed, the human rights situation is far more serious than that. On 19 October
2000 a Special Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted a Resolution
set forth in UN Document E/CN.4/S-5/L.2/Rev. 1, “Condemning the provocative
visit to Al-Haram Al-Sharif on 28 September 2000 by Ariel Sharon, the Likud
party leader, which triggered the tragic events that followed in occupied East
Jerusalem and the other occupied Palestinian territories, resulting in a high
number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians.” The UN Human Rights
Commission then said it was “[g]ravely concerned” about several different types
of atrocities inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian people, which it
denominated “war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law
and crimes against humanity.” 127-8
... And in paragraph 5 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the UN Human Rights
Commission: “Also affirms that the deliberate and systematic killing of
civilians and children by the Israeli occupying authorities constitutes a
flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a crime
against humanity;...” .... war crimes inflicted every day by Israel against the
Palestinian people living in occupied Palestine: e.g., willful killing of
Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army and by Israel’s illegal paramilitary
settlers. These Israeli “grave breaches” of the Fourth Geneva Convention mandate
universal prosecution for their perpetrators, whether military or settlers, as
well as universal prosecution for their commanders, whether military or civilian,
including and especially Israel’s political leaders. ... The paradigmatic
example of a “crime against humanity” is what Hitler and the Nazis did to the
Jewish people. This’is where the concept of a “crime against humanity” came
from. And this is what the UN Human Rights Commission determined that Israel is
currently doing to the Palestinian people: crimes against humanity. Expressed in
legal terms, this his is just like what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews.
That is the significance of the formal determination by the U.N. Human Rights
Commission that Israel has inflicted crimes against humanity upon the
Palestinian people. 128
So far during the course of the Al Aqsa Intifada, the world has not yet heard
even one word uttered by the United States government and its NATO allies in
favor of "humanitarian intervention" against Israel in order to protect the
Palestinian people from Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide. .... The doctrine of "humanitarian intervention" so readily espoused
elsewhere when U.S. foreign policy goals were allegedly at stake clearly proves
itself to be a joke and a fraud when it comes to stopping the ongoing Israeli
campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people. 129
Generals Barak and Sharon deliberately killed off Oslo on 28 September 2000 when
they knowingly instigated the Al Aqsa Intifada by desecrating the
Haram-Al-Sharif. When Barak could not compel President Arafat into permanently
accepting the Oslo bantustan arrangement as the "final solution" for the
Palestinian people at the Camp David II negotiations in July, he and Sharon
decided to revert to inflicting raw, naked, brutal force that would culminate in
the planned reimposition of Israel's outright military occupation upon the West
Bank. All of the subsequent violence between Israelis and Palestinians is
directly attributable to this malicious decision undertaken jointly by Barak ("Labor")
and Sharon ("Likud") with the full acquiescence of the United States government
[under both Clinton and Bush Jr.) every step of the way. .... In our
conversations before Oslo was signed and afterwards, the greatest fear and
concern shared by Dr. Abdul-Shaffi and me was that Oslo would set off a
Palestinian civil war. This would not have bothered the Israelis and the
Americans one bit. But to his great credit, so far President Arafat has refused
to ignite a Palestinian civil war in the name of enforcing the Oslo bantustan.
Precisely because President Arafat would not do their dirty work for them, the
Israelis and the Americans then turned upon him. [!!!] Both the Israelis and the
Americans decided to jettison President Arafat in preference to installing some
Palestinian quisling willing to become the "chief of a Palestinian bantustan
where he would then employ its "reservation police force" in order to suppress
the Al Aqsa Intifada. 130
Despite the tragic events of 11 September 2001, the world must never forget that
the overwhelming majority of "terrorist" acts -whether in number or in terms of
sheer human and material destructiveness - have always been committed by strong
states against weak states, as well as by all governments against their own
people. ... In order to underscore these points, this author agreed to serve as
Rapporteur for what has come to be known as the Geneva Declaration on Terrorism,
which was issued by the International Progress Organization's 1987 Conference on
International Terrorism. 132
THE GENEVA DECLARATION ON TERRORISM 132
which was issued by the International Progress Organization’s 1987 Conference on
International Terrorism, [210387 Geneve] 132-7
It is a cruel extension of the terrorist scourge to taunt the struggles against
terrorism with the label “terrorism.” We support these struggles and call for
the liberation of political language along with the liberation of peoples. 133
Hence, national liberation fighters would be held to the same Standards of
belligerent conduct that are applicable to soldiers fighting in an international
armed conflict. 136
... when a national liberation fighter is captured after directly attacking
innocent civilians as such, he would still be treated as a prisoner of war, but
would be subject to prosecution for the commission of war crimes before an
impartial international tribunal. 136
The international media also play a direct role in international terrorism when
they uncritically disseminate disinformation from “official sources” that
creates public support for the use of deadly force or other forms of economic
and political violence against another state. 136
Upon its ascent to power in January of 1981, the Reagan/Bush Sr. Administration
forthrightly proclaimed its intention to replace President Carter’s emphasis on
human rights with a war against international terrorism as the keystone of its
foreign policy. 137
William Casey ordered the CIA to conduct a study on international terrorism 138
With the advent of the Reagan/Bush Sr. Administration in 1981, the overall
foreign policy of the United States government toward the Middle East
dramatically changed. ... Became the most vigorously pro-Israeli
[US-]government
... ever 138
The Israeli government maintained that its actions were in retaliation and
reprisal for attacks on civilian targets in Israel or occupied Palestine and
therefore could be justified under the doctrine of
self-defense as recognized by
article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The United States government strongly
disagreed, and refused to accept the Israeli interpretation of the article 51
right of self-defense so as to include the latter’s retaliatory and later
preemptive strikes. The disagreement over this point was politically and legally
important because the United States and Israel had and still have an arms supply
agreement which provides that American weapons, equipment and supplies can only
be used in legitimate self-defense as determined by article 51 of the UN Charter
or ... 139-40
Therefore, an attempt had to be made by Israel’s American supporters to get the
Department of State to change its formal position on the illegality of
retaliation and reprisal. 140
Eugene V. Rostow 140
1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon .. The Arab peoples of the Middle East held the
United States government fully responsible for all atrocities against the
civilian population of Lebanon that were undeniably perpetrated by the Israeli
army and the Phalange militia. Under basic principles of international law, they
certainly had a perfect right to do so. 140
The
Reagan/Bush Sr. Administration’s War Against International Law .... use of
U.S. military force in explicit and knowing violation of article 2(4) of the
United Nations Charter. 141
“preemptive” and “preventive” attacks etc. 141
The foremost proponents of such reprehensible anti-terrorism policies were
Secretary of State George Shultz and his second Legal Adviser, former federal
district judge Abraham Sofaer, another passionate Israel supporter. One of the
great ironies of the Reagan/Bush Sr. Administration proved to be the fact its
Secretary of State was consistently far more bellicose than its Secretary of
defense, Caspar Weinberger. 141-2
The Perversity Behind the Shultz Doctrine ...
American sponsored
counter-terrorism. 142
former Judge Abraham Sofaer did his best to justify a perverse innovation in the
theory of international law and the practice of international relations: Namely,
that the United States government possesses some god-given right to resort to
the use of military force in alleged self-defense as unilaterally determined by
itself alone. .. An argument similar to that put forth in defense of the Nazi
war criminals before the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945 with respect to the
non-applicability of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. This “Paris Peace Pact”
had formally renounced war as an instrument of national policy. However, when
signing the Pact, Germany entered a reservation to the effect that it reserved
the right to go to war in self-defense as determined by itself. 143
Article 51 right of individual or collective self-defense to repel an actual
“armed attack” ... Related to this right of self-defense are its
two fundamental
requirements for the “necessity” and the “proportionality. 143
So much for the alleged legality of “pre-emptive” attacks as perpetrated by
Israel in its 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, 144
... furthermore, in regard to the extent of the authority of the Security
Council itself, on 27 February 1998 the International Court of Justice issued
two judgments rejecting Preliminary objections raised by the United States and
the United Kingdom as Respondents (i.e., defendants) in the Lockerbie bombing
cases filed against them by Libya with the assistance of this author, making it
crystal clear that the UN Security Council is definitely not the Judge, the
Jury, and the Lord-High Executioner of International Law. 145
UN General Assembly Resolutions: Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their
Independence and Sovereignty (1965); the Declaration on Principles of
International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in
Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970); and the Definition of
Aggression (1974). ...
In the emphatic opinion of the member States of the UN General Assembly,
non-consensual military intervention by one state into the territorial domain of
another State is absolutely prohibited for any reason whatsoever. 145
In the seminal decision of Nicaragua v. United States of America ... the
International Court of Justice found ... international law establishing an
absolute prohibition against military intervention by one state against another
145
The Reagan/Bush Sr. Administration ... attempted to justify its contra-terrorist
war ... in substantial part on humanitarian grounds. 145
[UCJ] 268. In any event, while the United States might form its own appraisal of
the situation as to respect for human rights in Nicaragua, the use of force
could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure such respect....The
Court concludes that the argument derived from the preservation of human rights
in Nicaragua cannot afford a legal justification for the conduct of the United
States.... 146
The Bush Jr. Administration policies ... that were every bit as radical, extreme
and excessive as had the Reagan/Bush Sr. Administrations starting in January of
1981. 147
In quick succession, the world saw these Bush Jr. Leaguers repudiate the Kyoto
Protocol on global warming, the International Criminal Court, the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), an international convention to regulate the trade in
small arms, a verification Protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention, an
international convention to regulate and reduce smoking, the World Conference
Against Racism, the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems Treaty, etc. 147
The same was true for the Clinton administration as well invading Haiti; bombing
Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Serbia, etc. 148
Federalist Society Lawyers, 148
“enemy combatant”, 148
Bush Jr. has used this quasi-category to create an anti-matter universe of
legal
nihilism where human beings (including U.S. citizens) can be disappeared,
detained incommunicado, denied access to attorneys and regular courts, tried by
kangaroo courts, executed, tortured, assassinated and subjected to numerous
other manifestations of State Terrorism. 148
Then came the monumentally insane, horrendous, and tragic announcement on 13
December 2001 by the Bush Jr. administration to withdraw from the ABM Treaty,
effective within six months. 148
And now the Pentagon and the CIA are back into the dirty business of
researching, developing and testing biological weapons and biological agents
that are clearly prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention and its U.S.
domestic implementing legislation, the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of
1989. 149
Next, writing in the March 10,2002 edition of the Los Angeles Times, defense
analyst William Arkin revealed the leaked contents of the Bush Jr.
Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it had just transmitted to
Congress on January 8. ... Ordered the Pentagon to draw up war plans for the
first-use of nuclear weapons against .... Iraq, Iran, and North Korea — plus
Libya, Syria, Russia and China. 149
This component of the Bush Jr. NPR incorporated the Clinton administration’s
1997 nuclear war-fighting plans against so-called “rogue “ states set forth in
Presidential Decision Directive 60. These warmed-over nuclear war plans
targeting these five non-nuclear states expressly violate the so-called
“negative security assurances” given by the United States as an express
condition for the renewal and indefinite extension of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by all of its non-nuclear weapons states parties
in 1995. 149 [!!!!!!!!!!!]
According to Bush Jr.’s NPR, the Pentagon must also draw up nuclear war-fighting
plans to intervene with nuclear weapons in wars (1) between China and Taiwan;
(2) between Israel and the Arab states; (3) between North Korea and South Korea;
and (4) between Israel and Iraq. 149
PRINCIPLE VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under
international law (a)Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation
or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances; 150 [Blair må kunne anklages sammen med Bush
for deres forhånds-aftale]
UN Suspension of the State of Israel 153
.. Insofar as Israel has violated its conditions for admission to UN membership,
it must accordingly be suspended on a de facto basis. 153
He said that they have conformed to the definition of a State according to
international law. He said that they have territory - but that territory has no
boundaries. He said that they have population - where are the people? Half the
people of the territory which they occupy have been expelled and dispersed
throughout the country. They are now homeless - starving and dying. These are
the people of the territory which they are occupying. Does the representative of
the United States mean he is coming here to represent them? [Cadogan, UK] 154
USSR Ambassador Malik: The State of Israel has been created and exists in
accordance with a resolution passed in the General Assembly on 29 November 1947.
It is therefore incorrect to assert that its territory is not defined. Its
territory is clearly defined by an international decision of the United Nations,
namely by the resolution adopted on 29 November 1947 by the general Assembly.
155
Consequently, an appropriate act on the part of the UN General Assembly would be
to indicate its intention to de facto suspend Israel from UN participation until
such time as recommendation of the admission of the State of Palestine has been
received from the Security Council. 156
Any further negotiations between Palestine and Israel must be conducted on the
basis of Resolution 181 (II) and its borders. 156
UN General Assembly Resolution 194(111) of 1948 determined that Palestinian
refugees have a right to return to their homes, or that compensation should be
paid to those who choose not to return. 156
As I can attest from personal experience, the Palestinian negotiators have
always been subjected to continual bullying, threats, harassment, intimidation,
bribery, lies, and outright deceptions )perpetrated by the United States working
in conjunction with Israel. 158
4. Sanctions 5. International Criminal Tribunal for Palestine 158
Indeed, the Bush Jr. Administration is doing everything humanly possible to
sabotage the ICC in order to avoid such guilt.” Hence the need for the
International Criminal Tribunal for Palestine to be established under the
auspices of the UN general Assembly. 159
The Provisional Government of the State of Palestine must sue Israel before the
International Court of Justice in The Hague for
inflicting acts of genocide against the Palestinian people in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. ...
That actively started on or about 1948 and has continued apace until today in
violation of Genocide Convention Article II(a), (b), and (c), inter alia. 159
Of course, if necessary, Palestine could also sue the United States before the
International Court of Justice for aiding and abetting Israeli genocide against
the Palestinian people in violation of Article III(e) of the 1948 Genocide
Convention that expressly criminalizes such “complicity” in genocide. 160
The mere filing of this genocide lawsuit against Israel at the World Court would
constitute a severe defeat for Israel in the court of world public opinion. ...
and request provisional measures of protection for them on an emergency basis.
160
7. Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign 160
Simply put, divestment calls for the sell-off of all investments in corporate
entities that do business with Israel, whereas disinvestment calls for all to
eliminate any investments in Israel. 160
The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime
of Apartheid. 161-8
... apartheid is a “crime against humanity” 161
[by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of 162 - kunne
udelukke anvendelse mod Israel - jøder er ikke en race-gruppe - samme sprogbrug
anvendes i ICC, p. 166]
[Apartheid konventionens artikler overtrædes vel ellers alle hele tiden af
Israel - men gælder den, når grundlaget er nationalt ikke racialt ?]
Israel has inflicted and currently inflicts almost each and every one of these
“inhuman acts” of apartheid upon the Palestinian, excepting the prohibition of
mixed marriages.. “163
For analytical purposes here, it is important to note that the Preamble to the
1973 Apartheid Convention makes it clear that there is an overlap between
criminal acts of apartheid and criminal acts of genocide within the meaning of
the 1948 Genocide Convention: “Observing that, in the Convention on the
Prevention and punishment’ of the Crime of Genocide, certain acts which may also
be qualified as acts of apartheid constitute a crime under international law...
163
Article IV
The States Parties to the present Convention undertake:
(a) To adopt any legislative or other measures necessary to suppress as well as
to prevent any encouragement of the crime of apartheid and similar
segregationist policies [OJs fremhævelse - spm. rækker det som grundlag for at
israelsk diskrimination er kriminel - det mener Boyle, 165] or their
manifestations and to punish persons guilty of that crime;
165
(b) To adopt legislative, judicial and administrative measures to prosecute,
bring to trial and punish in accordance with their jurisdiction persons
responsible for, or accused of, the acts defined in Article II of the Present
Convention whether or not such persons reside in the territory of the State in
which the acts are committed or are nationals of that state or of some other
State or are stateless persons. 165
Obviously Apartheid Convention article IV(a) mandates Divestment/Disinvestment
from Israel in order “to suppress as well as to prevent any encouragement of the
crime of apartheid against the Palestinians. Furthermore Apartheid Convention
article IV(b) requires the establishment of universality of criminal
jurisdiction by governments 165
The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court 166
The Israeli Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign must demand that the UN Human
Rights Commission prepare “a list of individuals, organizations, institutions
and representatives of States which are alleged to be responsible” for the
genocidal apartheid regime in Israel as well as those non-Israelis who aid and
abet it from abroad. 167-8
Fortunately, I have analyzed at great length many of me legal ramifications for
dismantling the former criminal apartheid regime in South Africa in Chapter 6 of
my book Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law (Transnational
Publishers: 1989). The reader can obtain a “Special Paperback Edition” of this
book expressly written “For Pro Se Protestors” at Amazon.com for $10. 168
[South African government]. And, certainly the doctrine that had been pursued by
the Reagan administration, known as constructive engagement, I think, creates
very serious problems of complicity under well recognized principles of
international law. 169
Under the Reagan administration, under the influence of Chester Crocker, who is
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, that policy changed to one
known as “constructive engagement.” 170
170-5 forsvar for (studenter)protestaktioner
And that would turn on the question of intent, as is the case respect to any
charge on aiding and abetting. Namely, does the University know or should it
know that conduct that it is engaging in will be further facilitating,
assisting, helping, or profiting from the commission of international crimes.
That is the relevant test. 171
Certainly. In my opinion, as someone who has written on this subject and has
taught about it, the one thing I think that will bring the South African
government along to a change is economic sanctions. 173
... in 1977. When the Carter administration went to the United Nations Security
Council and imposed a mandatory arms embargo against the South African
government.... 173
Israeli Prime Minister General Ariel Sharon may very well be seeking such a
second Bush Family anti-Iraqi oil crusade, to provide suitable cover for a
military resolution to the indefatigable Palestinian intifada which is wreaking
demoralization and economic havoc in Israel - yet another Israeli round of
ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people, driving their West Bank
residents into Jordan, and their Gaza inhabitants into the Sinai desert,
together with Israel’s Palestinian third-class “citizens”. A second Al Nakba for
the Palestinians. 177
There are also indications that Sharon would very much like to launch a major
new aggression and land-grab against Lebanon and Syria just as he did in 1982
when as Israel’s so-called Minister of Defense, he obtained the proverbial
“green light” from the Reagan administration to do so and exterminated about
20,000 Arabs in the process. 177
Bibliography of Genocidal/Apartheid Acts Inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians
During the Al Aqsa Intifada 178-200
TREATIES
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
U.N, COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
STATEMENTS BY UN SECRETARY-GENERAL
STATEMENTS BY UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PALESTINIAN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
STATISTICS WITH REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
THE PALESTINIAN SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENT
WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE
bibliography on the Middle East and International Law 201-2
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf
http://www.Cesr.org/
Orla Jordal, 2007
Må gerne gengives - helt eller delvist -med kildeangivelse. Dog må teksten ikke ændres og der skal være en aktiv link til det oprindelige dokument. Dette web site er absolut non profit og anvendes materialet i anden sammenhæng end non profit, fair use, så forudsætter det skriftlig tilladelse fra Jordal Samfundskritisk.
This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making this article available in my efforts to advance the general understanding. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Rettelser og andre forslag til forbedringer modtages meget gerne - også meddelelse om døde links - på e-mail: orla@jordals.dk
Dokumentet er sidst redigeret: