There are no surprises at the ICJ Advisory Opinion today, including its timing right before Shabbat. Holding: Israel's presence in West Bank & Jerusalem entirely illegal and ultraverybad.
Some things to keep in mind. THREAD (1/8)
Remember that the ICJ is just the judicial arm of the UN - an organization that runs several Hamas front organizations, and whose SG said of Oct 7th, that it didn't happen without a context. The ICJ's membership selected largely by the GA, who actually asked for this "opinion." Its judicial decisions simply reflect the politics of the GA.
This ICJ's opinion is not legally binding (its advisory), nor is it morally binding, coming from the U.N., which in Gaza has merged with Hamas and lost all credibility since Oct. 7th. (2/8)
The ICJ decision is also the millionth nail in coffin of two-state solution, by telling Palestinians they have all the marbles: starting position is Israel must leave all territory, evacuate all settlements, etc. This maximalist rhetoric is what has made it impossible to them to compromise for decades. 3/8
The ICJ already declared Israel's entire presence in the West Bank and Gaza to be an occupation in the 2004 Wall case. This is largely a reboot of the Wall Opinion for a new generation: same flawed assumptions, even bigger conclusions of illegality! The principle upshot is that not only is all the territory including the Jerusalem Holy Sites is not Israel's, it belongs to the Palestinian State, and Israel's presence in all these places is illegal. (4/8)
This is part of the rhetorical escalation against Israel, from occupation to illegal occupation to apartheid to genocide. What hasn't been said already? In this case the ICJ calls it "annexation." The point is to provide a basis for the Palestinians to seek sanctions at UN, and from EU. (5/8)
Whether this case becomes like the 2004 Wall opinion -after generating much hubub, becomes a footnote eclipsed by events - depends largely on whether Trump wins the presidency. A Democratic Administration much less likely to block the weaponization of the decision at the SC. (6/8)
The Palestinians' diplomatic win, even as the so-called "occupied Palestinian territories" are used to launch rockets against Israel & hold and torture hostages, further demonstrates that Oct. 7th was greatest victory ever for the Palestinian cause. (7/8)tabletmag.com/sections/news/…
For Israel, the lesson should be clear: Jerusalem must urgently quit treaties, like the Genocide Convention and a dozen others, where it agrees to give the ICJ jurisdiction. Israel cannot cary on with The Hague as if it is business as usual. To often Israel takes diplomatic blows without a meaningful response. (8/8)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ISRAEL'S JUDICIAL REFORMS IN A NUTSHELL: 1. Currently all judges are appointed by a committee controlled by the judges themselves. Reform would increase Knesset representation on com'tt - so not the US system of judges picked completely by elected officials, but in the direction
2. Supermajority for striking down legislation a sound idea since Court not doing it pursuant to a constitution adopted by a supermajority. SCOTUS can override democratic majority in name of Constitution's own supermajority. In Israel, SupCt just picking its favorite dem majority
3. The idea that legislature can change composition of judicial panels to make legislation harder to overrule is uncontroversial in the U.S., where Cong. created special 3-judge district cts for constitutional cases specifically in response to laws being struck down. MORE TO COME
Article says reform would make someone with a Jewish father but no Jewish mother ineligible for aliyah. Not true. All children of Jews would remain eligible. (2/6) See here for background fhttps://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-3-myths-behind-opposing-the-grandparent-clause-reform/
2. The proposal is to change the "Grandfather Clause," which allows people who do not consider themselves Jews and practice another religion to make aliyah if they can find a third-generation ancestor. (3/6)
On recently published UNHRC blacklist: 1) There is absolutely no prohibition in international law from doing business in occupied or disputed territories. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… 2) Everyone knows this. Even the most progressive governments don ban their firms from such business.
3) The UNHRC knows there is no rule against such business activity. As @KoheletForum has shown, many leading multinationals do massive business in occupied territories around the world, but UNHRC has not thought to blacklist them. en.kohelet.org.il/publication/wh…
4) Thus either UNHRC does not care about the rights of most humans, or they know such business is not illegal, and are creating a blacklist of businesses with ties to Jews. Its a little bit of the former, but mostly the latter.
THREAD: Why @SecPompeo is right to say settlements not illegal. 1) The 1978 memo's conclusion depended on the view that Israel is an occupying power. That view was wrong at the time, because one cannot occupy territory to which one has a sovereign claim. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
2) Even on its own terms, memo's conclusions no longer apply. It said the state of occupation, and with it Qs about settlements, would end when peace treaties signed w/ Jordan. That happened in '94; State Dept just failed to update policy to reflect changes on the ground
3) Even if there was an occupation, the notion that people voluntarily moving - or in some cases returning - to such a territory is a war crime is an idea invented solely for the case of Israel, and has never been applied elsewhere.
THREAD on the EJC decision re Israel product labelling: 1) Its as bad as was expected by observers, including myself. The Court affirms the EU's unique labelling policy that only applies to Israeli products. Reupping my analysis when policy first adopted nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opi…
2) The most glaring aspect of EU's decision is that is says consumers have right to know if a product made in occupied territories or where serious int'l law problems exist. But EU does not req "Made in Moroccan Settlements" labels, or any other such labels anywhere in the world
3) Nor are the poised to introduce such requirements, because everyone knows this is not abut what law requires, but what the Jewish State deserves. So don't hold your breath for "Made in Tibet," Made in Occupied Donbass, Russian Settlements Crimea, or other labels
As someone one who has argued that Israel should admit Omar & Tlaib - not out of some false demand of "openness" but to avoid opportunity for Dems to use their barring as a pretext to slam Israel, I must also say that decision to bar them is legitimate and understandable (THREAD)
Countries routinely deny visas to those with extremist views. The US excludes people for ideologies fundamentally hostile to US (ie communism); the UK and others deny entry to public figures with bigoted views as being "not conducive to the public good." Omar/Tlaib qualify.
But it is likely that Democrats will take the easy way out, pouncing on the visa denial to slam Israel, instead of reckoning with the anti-Semitism in their midsts.