The Hague International Court of Law and Israel The Jewish Settlements A Reflection to the Nearest Past

Abstract

One of the major problems that the hague international court of law is trying to deal with is the question about the legality of the jewish settelments at the west bank of the Jorden river-one of the outcomes from the 1967 war.   Throughout history, the treatment of non-combatant civilian populations has been examined from various angles, most prominently with respect to the issue of the displacement of those on the losing side of a conflict, while the victorious party often settles the seized land with "less desirable" elements within its own population.[1]

This phenomenon is repeated in the exile of the Jewish people throughout history; the exile of criminals from England to Australia between 1788 and 1868; and in the appalling efforts of ethnic cleansing pursued by the Nazis in the Second World War, the Soviet Union's purge in Eastern Europe the 1950s, or the French rule of Algeria.[2]

This has been the case in countless wars and conflicts worldwide, one of the most prominent of which is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here, the issue at heart is Jewish settlement in an area the Palestinians call the "West Bank" of the Jordan River and that Jews refer to as "Judea and Samaria" and see as an inextricable part of their ancestral homeland, of which they had been robbed and which they liberated.

On November 18, 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced an announcement that in this article I wish to examen as a reflection to the major problem that the hague court of law call that this is "a crime of war" and Israel call it "our legal right"-who is on the right side?   

At first glance, this statement seems to contradict everything that has been said, done statement? Or is it that the concept of "illegal settlements" is a distortion of the Geneva Convention?[3]

The first chapter of this essay focuses on international law and whether it is a doctrine set in stone or a mutable fabric of woven conventions, including some that may be politically motivated or biased with respect to a certain issue, namely, populating disputed areas with the people of a party perceived as an occupying force.

The second chapter of this essay focuses on the dispute over the settlement enterprise in the Israeli-Palestinian case and how it is viewed from a number of completely different perspectives.

The third chapter of this essay focuses on the circumstances and motives that drove the latest American administration to make such a controversial statement.the big question is are these circumstances still valid under a new American regime? how such statement affects the Hauge court decisions about investigate the so called war crimes made in Israel?

The final chapter of this essay will summarize and attempt to predict the future results of this move: Whether Israel — as the Palestinians have already warned[4] — plans to exploit the court move in favor of annexing areas it perceives as a bulwark against threats to its sovereignty, such as the Jordan Valley; or whether this move will brace the parties' ability to, for example, explore a land swap, and will this render the two-state solution[5] upon which the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has been so far based invalid.

This paper will try to outline the possibilities this decision of the court may herald, and delve into its implications, reasoning, and potential consequences. On this days that we make the scope on the Hague court to check Israel crime of war this essay will try to open another scope to events that occurred only three years ago.

[1] Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, p.50

[2] Barclay, F (2017). "Settler colonialism and French Algeria" in Settler Colonial Studies, Vol. 8, no.2, pp.115-130

[3] Baker, Alan (2019). "The Legality of Israel’s Settlements: Flaws in the Carter-Era Hansell Memorandum," Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

[4] Kuttab, Daoud (2019). "Pompeo's gift to Netanyahu might bring about new Israeli annexation," Al-Monitor.com

[5] The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisages an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River. It is at the core of the 1993 Oslo Accords signed between the parties.