The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[P F Tinmore]

Self governance is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite.

But governance is a prerequisite for Statehood.

Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.

 

[rylah]

We welcome reasoned discussion on any or all of the above topics. This is not the appropriate thread. I would suggest you find a thread (or start one) and ask some specific questions about specific events.

I do find your comments about disqualifiactions from statehood to be interesting, though I think its rather more a removal of statehood, than a disqualification or prevent of forming statehood at this point, with respect to Israel. Current international legal standards do not have a "removal of statehood" option based on moral principles or guidelines. There is no process by which this can occur. The assumption of an absolute right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity is the norm. I wonder what such a thing would look like? I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"? To whom should it apply?

I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"? To whom should it apply?

Good questions.

There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.

UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.

So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?

Are You done with fiction?
That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.

That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.

Nice deflection.

9 years, and still can't refute this very simple point.

It is you who has never proven your point.

I've brought up documented international law.
You bring up slogans.

We can go in circles like that and You'll still have nothing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Good questions.

There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.

UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.

So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?

Are You done with fiction?
That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.

That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.

Nice deflection.

9 years, and still can't refute this very simple point.

It is you who has never proven your point.

I've brought up documented international law.
You bring up slogans.

We can go in circles like that and You'll still have nothing.

You bring up Israeli say so but no proof.

 

[rylah]

First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?

That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
tire 1 - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
tire 2 - At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.

The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.

The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference,

Where did it say that?

In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:

San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;

Indeed.

It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter) which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.

Your "indeed" is beyond meaningless when faced with what actually happened between those years.

All of those attacks happened after the Zionist invasion.

Arabs systematically attacked Palestinian Jews before and during the mandate time.

 

[rylah]

Are You done with fiction?
That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.

That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.

Nice deflection.

9 years, and still can't refute this very simple point.

It is you who has never proven your point.

I've brought up documented international law.
You bring up slogans.

We can go in circles like that and You'll still have nothing.

You bring up Israeli say so but no proof.

Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
tire 1 - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WWI
tire 2 - At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.

The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Remo incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:

San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

San Remo Convention - Palestine Mandate - 1920

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.

Foreign States are certainly not, we agree. But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.

Foreign States are certainly not, we agree. But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?

The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.

 

[rylah]

Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.

Foreign States are certainly not, we agree. But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?

The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.

Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
Israel fulfilled it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where did it say that?

In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:

San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;

Indeed.

It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter) which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.

Your "indeed" is beyond meaningless when faced with what actually happened between those years.

All of those attacks happened after the Zionist invasion.

Arabs systematically attacked Palestinian Jews before and during the mandate time.

Indeed, the Palestinians resisted the Zionist colonial project from the start.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.

Foreign States are certainly not, we agree. But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?

The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.

Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
Israel fulfilled it.

The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.

 

[rylah]

In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:

San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;

Indeed.

It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter) which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.

Your "indeed" is beyond meaningless when faced with what actually happened between those years.

All of those attacks happened after the Zionist invasion.

Arabs systematically attacked Palestinian Jews before and during the mandate time.

Indeed, the Palestinians resisted the Zionist colonial project from the start.

Palestinians were pioneers of Zionism, they supported and coordinated the Zionist project on the ground.

 

[gtopa1]

Conclusions and Recommendations
65.
After having considered the terms of reference set out in the Commission's
mandate, and in light of what we have heard, as well as the considerable amount of
material that has been presen
ted to us by a wide range of bodies, our conclusions and
recommendations are as follows:
Our basic conclusion is that from the point of view of international law, the
classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
74
conventions canno
t be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis
historic and legal circumstances of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria
spanning over decades.
In addition, the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, regarding
transfer of populations,
cannot be considered applicable
,
and were never
intended to apply to the type of settlement activity carried out by Israel in
Judea and Samaria.
Therefore and according to international law, Israelis have the lawful right to
settle in Judea and Samaria, an
d consequently, and the establishment of
settlements cannot in and of itself be considered to be illegal
.
With regard to the other issues considered, our recommendations are as follows:
First, the Government is advised to elucidate its policy regarding set
tlement by
Israelis in Judea and Samaria, with a view to preventing future mistaken or
“creative” interpretations of its decisions. We propose that its decision include the
following principles:
a.
Any new settlement in Judea and Samaria will be established o
nly following a
decision by the government or by a duly empowered ministerial committee.
b.
Construction within the bounds of an existing or future settlement will not
require government or ministerial decision, but such construction must be
approved by the
planning and zoning authorities after they have ascertained that
the proposed construction is not contrary to the approved town
-
planning scheme
applicable to the land in question.
c.
Extension of an existing settlement beyond the area of its jurisdiction or b
eyond
the area set out in the existing town
-
planning scheme will require a decision by
the Minister of Defense with the knowledge of the Prime Minister, prior to any
of the following stages: commencement of planning and commencement of
actual construction.
Second, with regard to settlements established in Judea and Samaria on state lands or
on land purchased by Israelis with the assistance of official authorities such as the
World Zionist Organization Settlement Division and the Ministry of Housing, and
whi
ch have been defined as "unauthorized" or "illegal" due to the fact that they were
established without any formal government decision, our conclusion is that the
establishment of such settlements was carried out with the knowledge,
encouragement and tacit
agreement of the most senior political level
–
government
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
75
ministers and the Prime Minister, and therefore such conduct is to be seen as implied
agreement.
Regarding these settlements, as well as those established pursuant to a government
decision but lacki
ng definition of their municipal jurisdiction, or without having
completed the planning and zoning procedures, and which as a result, have been
described as “unauthorized” or “illegal,” the remaining outstanding procedures
should be completed as follows:
a.
The area of municipal jurisdiction of each settlement, if not yet determined,
must be determined by order, taking into due consideration future natural
growth.
b.
The administrative barriers imposed on the planning and zoning authorities
must be removed immed
iately, so that they may fulfill their function of
examining plans that have been submitted to them by each settlement, without
any further need for additional approval by the political level.
c.
Pending completion of those proceedings and examination of the
possibility of
granting valid building permits, the state is advised to refrain from carrying
out demolition orders, since it brought about the present situation through its
own actions.
d.
With a view to avoiding doubt, it is stressed that all the settlement
s, including
those approved pursuant to this proposed framework, may in the future extend
their boundaries in order to address their needs, including natural growth,
without the need for additional government or ministerial decision, as long as
the propose
d extension is located within the jurisdiction of the settlement,
within its bounds as set out in the approved town
-
planning scheme, and has
received due approval from the planning and zoning authorities.
e.
Settlements established wholly or partially on land
that is subject to
examination as to whether it is public or private land (“
seker
”), are to be
considered settlements whose legal status is pending.
Most of these
settlements were established years ago, and it is thus necessary to accelerate
the slow exam
ination process (“
seker
”), in all areas of Judea and Samaria, and
to complete it within a fixed time period, and to this end, even consider,
utilizing assistance from external entities. Upon completion, the processing of
each settlement will continue
according to the results of the land examination
("
seker
") and determination of the type of land, in accordance with the
framework proposed by us.
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
76
f.
In the event of conflicting claimants to land, it would be appropriate to adopt a
policy whereby prior to any
determination by the state regarding petitions for
eviction or demolition, a thorough examination of the conflicting claims be
conducted by a judicial tribunal dealing with land issues. This is all the more
necessary with respect to claims of prior purcha
se or obsolescence, or where
the possessor acted in good faith. Pending such determination, state authorities
should be instructed to refrain from taking any position in land conflicts and
taking irreversible measures, such as eviction or demolition of bui
ldings on the
property.
g.
To this end and with a view to facilitating accessibility by local residents to
judicial tribunals, we suggest the establishment of courts for the adjudication
of land disputes in Judea and Samaria, or alternatively, extending the
j
urisdiction of district court judges in order to enable them to handle land
disputes in Judea and Samaria in their courts.
h.
It is necessary to draft into the security legislation a right for the public to
review databases administered by the various officia
l bodies, including the
Civil Administration, concerning land rights in Judea and Samaria.
i.
With an eye to promoting stability and preventing uncertainty, we are of the
view that the residents of Judea and Samaria, Palestinians and Israelis alike,
should be
encouraged to register their rights in the land within a fixed period
of time (four or five years seems to be a reasonable period), at the end of
which, anyone who has not carried out the registration will lose whatever
rights he may have had
j.
With regard
to the “Order Concerning the Disruptive Use of Private Land ”
—
we are of the view that this order must be cancelled. In the event that it is
decided to retain it, we propose that it be amended such that any decision by
an Appeals Committee will not be rec
ommendatory, but will rather be binding
upon the Head of the Civil Administration to act pursuant to such
a
decision.
The Head of the Civil Administration and other interested parties may appeal
the decision of the Appeals Committee before a Court for Admi
nistrative
Affairs, whose decision will be final.
We propose that this arrangement be
applied also to other decisions of the Appeals Committee, including
concerning questions of "Primary Registration" of land in Judea and Samaria.
k.
The composition of the Ap
peals Committee should be changed. It presently
consists of uniformed reserve officers, jurists, who are, of necessity, perceived
at the least to be subordinate to, and even under the command of the Head of
the Civil Administration. We feel that this situa
tion is not proper, and
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
77
therefore recommend that the Appeals Committee be composed of non
-
uniformed jurists, a factor which would contribute to the general perception of
the Appeals Committee as an independent body, acting according to its own
discretion.
l.
The "Procedure for Dealing with Private Land Disputes" must be revoked.
Such disputes must only be considered and adjudicated by a judicial body.
m.
Security legislation must be amended to enable Israelis to purchase land in
Judea and Samaria directly, and n
ot only through a corporation registered in
the area. We also recommend that the procedures for "Primary Registration"
of land rights be accelerated and completed within a reasonable and fixed time
period.
n.
The Civil Administration should be instructed tha
t there is no prohibition
whatsoever on additional construction within the bounds of a settlement built
on land initially seized by military order, and such requests should be
considered at the planning level only.
o.
We also recommend advancing the planning
and declaration procedures for all
areas designated for nature preserves and parks in all those areas of Judea and
Samaria under Israeli responsibility.
Finally, we wish to stress that the picture that has been displayed before us regarding
Israeli settlem
ent activity in Judea and Samaria does not befit the behavior of a state
that prides itself on, and is committed to the rule of law.
If as a result of this report, the message is conveyed that we are no longer in the
formative stages of the creation of our
state when things were done in an informal
and arbitrary manner, we will be satisfied.
The proponents of settlements, including at the most senior political levels, should
take to heart and acknowledge the fact that all actions on this matter can only be
done in accordance with the law. Similarly, official governmental bodies should act
with alacrity and decisiveness in fulfilling their functions to ensure that the law is
duly observed.
66.
As noted in Section 2 of this report, many issues were raised befo
re us by the
interested parties, and some of an exceedingly complex nature. Were we to address
all of them, e.g. issues related to the leasing of land belonging to absentees by the
Custodian of Government and Abandoned Property, the issue of the status of
land
purchased in Judea and Samaria by Jews before the establishment of the state, it
would have taken many long months of study and examination and a further delay in
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
78
the consolidation of our recommendations. In these circumstances, we decided to
focus on
the main guidelines concerning the principal issues upon which we were
asked to express our opinion. Should the government decide to adopt our
recommendations, it will be necessary to implement those principles in detail.
To conclude
, we would like to ex
press our thanks to the coordinator of the
committee, Attorney Eran Ben
-
Ari, who thanks to his pleasant manner, hard work
and devotion, efficiency and professionalism greatly assisted us in achieving the
goals we were tasked with by the Terms of Reference.
Jerusalem, 21 June 2012
–
1 Tammuz, 577

What the Levy Commission said.

Easier to read here.. https://israelipalestinian.procon.o...l-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria.pdf )

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.

Foreign States are certainly not, we agree. But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?

The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.

Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
Israel fulfilled it.

The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.

Huh? Supported by nearly every non-Arab Government in the world. lol

Greg

 

[rylah]

Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.

Foreign States are certainly not, we agree. But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?

The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.

Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
Israel fulfilled it.

The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move by the sovereign nation to independence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.

Foreign States are certainly not, we agree. But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?

The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.

Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
Israel fulfilled it.

The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move by the sovereign nation to independence.

Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Its so called "permanent population" was foreign colonial settlers. Israel never had a defined territory. The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.

My assessment is correct.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Conclusions and Recommendations
65.
After having considered the terms of reference set out in the Commission's
mandate, and in light of what we have heard, as well as the considerable amount of
material that has been presen
ted to us by a wide range of bodies, our conclusions and
recommendations are as follows:
Our basic conclusion is that from the point of view of international law, the
classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
74
conventions canno
t be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis
historic and legal circumstances of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria
spanning over decades.
In addition, the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, regarding
transfer of populations,
cannot be considered applicable
,
and were never
intended to apply to the type of settlement activity carried out by Israel in
Judea and Samaria.
Therefore and according to international law, Israelis have the lawful right to
settle in Judea and Samaria, an
d consequently, and the establishment of
settlements cannot in and of itself be considered to be illegal
.
With regard to the other issues considered, our recommendations are as follows:
First, the Government is advised to elucidate its policy regarding set
tlement by
Israelis in Judea and Samaria, with a view to preventing future mistaken or
“creative” interpretations of its decisions. We propose that its decision include the
following principles:
a.
Any new settlement in Judea and Samaria will be established o
nly following a
decision by the government or by a duly empowered ministerial committee.
b.
Construction within the bounds of an existing or future settlement will not
require government or ministerial decision, but such construction must be
approved by the
planning and zoning authorities after they have ascertained that
the proposed construction is not contrary to the approved town
-
planning scheme
applicable to the land in question.
c.
Extension of an existing settlement beyond the area of its jurisdiction or b
eyond
the area set out in the existing town
-
planning scheme will require a decision by
the Minister of Defense with the knowledge of the Prime Minister, prior to any
of the following stages: commencement of planning and commencement of
actual construction.
Second, with regard to settlements established in Judea and Samaria on state lands or
on land purchased by Israelis with the assistance of official authorities such as the
World Zionist Organization Settlement Division and the Ministry of Housing, and
whi
ch have been defined as "unauthorized" or "illegal" due to the fact that they were
established without any formal government decision, our conclusion is that the
establishment of such settlements was carried out with the knowledge,
encouragement and tacit
agreement of the most senior political level
–
government
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
75
ministers and the Prime Minister, and therefore such conduct is to be seen as implied
agreement.
Regarding these settlements, as well as those established pursuant to a government
decision but lacki
ng definition of their municipal jurisdiction, or without having
completed the planning and zoning procedures, and which as a result, have been
described as “unauthorized” or “illegal,” the remaining outstanding procedures
should be completed as follows:
a.
The area of municipal jurisdiction of each settlement, if not yet determined,
must be determined by order, taking into due consideration future natural
growth.
b.
The administrative barriers imposed on the planning and zoning authorities
must be removed immed
iately, so that they may fulfill their function of
examining plans that have been submitted to them by each settlement, without
any further need for additional approval by the political level.
c.
Pending completion of those proceedings and examination of the
possibility of
granting valid building permits, the state is advised to refrain from carrying
out demolition orders, since it brought about the present situation through its
own actions.
d.
With a view to avoiding doubt, it is stressed that all the settlement
s, including
those approved pursuant to this proposed framework, may in the future extend
their boundaries in order to address their needs, including natural growth,
without the need for additional government or ministerial decision, as long as
the propose
d extension is located within the jurisdiction of the settlement,
within its bounds as set out in the approved town
-
planning scheme, and has
received due approval from the planning and zoning authorities.
e.
Settlements established wholly or partially on land
that is subject to
examination as to whether it is public or private land (“
seker
”), are to be
considered settlements whose legal status is pending.
Most of these
settlements were established years ago, and it is thus necessary to accelerate
the slow exam
ination process (“
seker
”), in all areas of Judea and Samaria, and
to complete it within a fixed time period, and to this end, even consider,
utilizing assistance from external entities. Upon completion, the processing of
each settlement will continue
according to the results of the land examination
("
seker
") and determination of the type of land, in accordance with the
framework proposed by us.
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
76
f.
In the event of conflicting claimants to land, it would be appropriate to adopt a
policy whereby prior to any
determination by the state regarding petitions for
eviction or demolition, a thorough examination of the conflicting claims be
conducted by a judicial tribunal dealing with land issues. This is all the more
necessary with respect to claims of prior purcha
se or obsolescence, or where
the possessor acted in good faith. Pending such determination, state authorities
should be instructed to refrain from taking any position in land conflicts and
taking irreversible measures, such as eviction or demolition of bui
ldings on the
property.
g.
To this end and with a view to facilitating accessibility by local residents to
judicial tribunals, we suggest the establishment of courts for the adjudication
of land disputes in Judea and Samaria, or alternatively, extending the
j
urisdiction of district court judges in order to enable them to handle land
disputes in Judea and Samaria in their courts.
h.
It is necessary to draft into the security legislation a right for the public to
review databases administered by the various officia
l bodies, including the
Civil Administration, concerning land rights in Judea and Samaria.
i.
With an eye to promoting stability and preventing uncertainty, we are of the
view that the residents of Judea and Samaria, Palestinians and Israelis alike,
should be
encouraged to register their rights in the land within a fixed period
of time (four or five years seems to be a reasonable period), at the end of
which, anyone who has not carried out the registration will lose whatever
rights he may have had
j.
With regard
to the “Order Concerning the Disruptive Use of Private Land ”
—
we are of the view that this order must be cancelled. In the event that it is
decided to retain it, we propose that it be amended such that any decision by
an Appeals Committee will not be rec
ommendatory, but will rather be binding
upon the Head of the Civil Administration to act pursuant to such
a
decision.
The Head of the Civil Administration and other interested parties may appeal
the decision of the Appeals Committee before a Court for Admi
nistrative
Affairs, whose decision will be final.
We propose that this arrangement be
applied also to other decisions of the Appeals Committee, including
concerning questions of "Primary Registration" of land in Judea and Samaria.
k.
The composition of the Ap
peals Committee should be changed. It presently
consists of uniformed reserve officers, jurists, who are, of necessity, perceived
at the least to be subordinate to, and even under the command of the Head of
the Civil Administration. We feel that this situa
tion is not proper, and
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
77
therefore recommend that the Appeals Committee be composed of non
-
uniformed jurists, a factor which would contribute to the general perception of
the Appeals Committee as an independent body, acting according to its own
discretion.
l.
The "Procedure for Dealing with Private Land Disputes" must be revoked.
Such disputes must only be considered and adjudicated by a judicial body.
m.
Security legislation must be amended to enable Israelis to purchase land in
Judea and Samaria directly, and n
ot only through a corporation registered in
the area. We also recommend that the procedures for "Primary Registration"
of land rights be accelerated and completed within a reasonable and fixed time
period.
n.
The Civil Administration should be instructed tha
t there is no prohibition
whatsoever on additional construction within the bounds of a settlement built
on land initially seized by military order, and such requests should be
considered at the planning level only.
o.
We also recommend advancing the planning
and declaration procedures for all
areas designated for nature preserves and parks in all those areas of Judea and
Samaria under Israeli responsibility.
Finally, we wish to stress that the picture that has been displayed before us regarding
Israeli settlem
ent activity in Judea and Samaria does not befit the behavior of a state
that prides itself on, and is committed to the rule of law.
If as a result of this report, the message is conveyed that we are no longer in the
formative stages of the creation of our
state when things were done in an informal
and arbitrary manner, we will be satisfied.
The proponents of settlements, including at the most senior political levels, should
take to heart and acknowledge the fact that all actions on this matter can only be
done in accordance with the law. Similarly, official governmental bodies should act
with alacrity and decisiveness in fulfilling their functions to ensure that the law is
duly observed.
66.
As noted in Section 2 of this report, many issues were raised befo
re us by the
interested parties, and some of an exceedingly complex nature. Were we to address
all of them, e.g. issues related to the leasing of land belonging to absentees by the
Custodian of Government and Abandoned Property, the issue of the status of
land
purchased in Judea and Samaria by Jews before the establishment of the state, it
would have taken many long months of study and examination and a further delay in
The Levy Commission Report
Translated by Regavim
78
the consolidation of our recommendations. In these circumstances, we decided to
focus on
the main guidelines concerning the principal issues upon which we were
asked to express our opinion. Should the government decide to adopt our
recommendations, it will be necessary to implement those principles in detail.
To conclude
, we would like to ex
press our thanks to the coordinator of the
committee, Attorney Eran Ben
-
Ari, who thanks to his pleasant manner, hard work
and devotion, efficiency and professionalism greatly assisted us in achieving the
goals we were tasked with by the Terms of Reference.
Jerusalem, 21 June 2012
–
1 Tammuz, 577

What the Levy Commission said.

Easier to read here.. https://israelipalestinian.procon.o...l-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria.pdf )

Greg

This is from Israel. Not a reliable source.

 

[rylah]

Foreign States are certainly not, we agree. But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?

The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.

Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
Israel fulfilled it.

The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move by the sovereign nation to independence.

Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Its so called "permanent population" was foreign colonial settlers. Israel never had a defined territory. The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.

My assessment is correct.

The Jewish agency was coordinated by Palestinians themselves.
Arabs and Britain succeeded in install a foreign monarch from Mecca, and sabotage the independence of the the alloted territory.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused; as I am sure that you are.

The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.

(COMMENT)

You offer two equally incorrect criteria here. You make to declarative statements here; neither of which is accurate; implying that either the State of Israel was:

• Created by a Foreign Power;
- - - - - - - - - OR - - - - - - - - -
• Created unilaterially.​

The Allied Powers using the Mandate → directed the establishment of a Jewish National Home. A "National Home" may be characterized by a number of different ways; one of which is a "State."

The Mandate did NOT create the National Home. I'm not sure that anyone here is claiming that.

I will say it once again (see Posting #2895), the State of Israel was: Proclaimed by the "National Council for the Jewish State." This action was a form of self-determination. The new State of Israel established and defended its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The establishment of the state was NOT a unilateral move. It was fully coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission (the successor government after the termination of the Mandate and the withdraw of the British) pursuant to Part 1b(4) of Resolution 181(II).

(QUESTION)

• Now that we've clarified that again, what is your point?
  
• Do you have a point to be made?

(CURIOSITY)

Are you purposely and intentionally, trying to ignore the factual and historical evidence when you make these unsubstantiated claims?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I would not brag about you assessment accuracy.

Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Its so called "permanent population" was foreign colonial settlers. Israel never had a defined territory. The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.

My assessment is correct.

(COMMENT)

See Posting #2938.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

.
The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.

The vast majority that disproved the independence was created by hostile ways, against the will of the indigenous nation.

If Britain was to follow her legal obligations Jews would form a majority and give refuge to millions. They sabotaged it , all while giving Arabs virtually free unrestricted movement.