Principles of a Legal Challenge and a Public Campaign Opposing the
Evacuation Plan
Yoram Shifftan
A legal challenge and a public
campaign in Israel and abroad against Sharon's evacuation plan should be based
on its being patently illegal.
In particular:
1. International law dictates
the encouragement and the facilitation of dense Jewish settlement in at least
all of Western Palestine. It requires the accomplishing of this duty with great
urgency and it does not allow a temporary freezing of this activity. It is
important to realize, as has been emphasized by the most eminent professors of
international law such as Eugene Rostow and Julius Stone, that this duty is an
absolute must according to international law. That is, the dense Jewish
settlement in at least all of Western Palestine is not just compatible with
international law but it is an absolute requirement. The proposed plan is the
antithesis of this obligation according to international law and as such
patently illegal.
2. International law requires
"that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any other
way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power". The
proposed transfer of the land out of Jewish control is thus patently illegal.
3. It is the same rules and
forum of international law that have encoded the above two principles and the
justification for the existence of an Arab state and a Jewish state in the Middle East. They all stand and fall together.
4. It is illegal to compel Israel to part with its internationally-recognized national assets in particular under
duress and terror.
5. The singling out of Jews for
transfer would be illegal anywhere in the world (where Jews have aggregated by
chance) according to basic principles of human rights (see e.g. Prof. E
Shochetman in C. Barder's article in the June issue of the online English
Nativ in http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/04-issue/barder-4.htm).
This is even more illegal (Kal Vachomer) in a location where Jews have additional
national rights according to international law.
In addition to the above basic principles
one should also recall:
6. It is not democratic and
legal to come to power on a manifesto which is diametrically opposed to the
proposed plan and then, without explaining what has fundamentally changed on
the ground since the two elections of Sharon, to urgently initiate an
evacuation plan which is so opposed to the manifesto.
7. It is not democratic and
legal to initiate a referendum in the largest forum of the party that brought
one to power, and to promise to abide by the results of the referendum, and then,
when the referendum reaffirms the party manifesto and its opposition to one's
plan, to ignore the referendum's results without explaining what has
fundamentally changed on the ground in the few days since the referendum.
A further discussion of the
above points is found in:
http://www.think-israel.org/shifftan.israelipr.html
