The claim that Israel is withholding Covid-19 vaccines from Palestinians is false. This ILF brief sets out Israel’s obligations and what it does beyond that to alleviate Palestinian suffering brought upon them by their own leadership.
The recent normalization agreements between Israel and a number of Arabic states seem to indicate that a growing number of Arabic/Islamic states prefer to switch from the idealistic ‘perpetrator-victim’ paradigm to a more realistic approach – a switch from a situation of captivity and stagnation to a future of peace, prosperity and security.
On 17 December 2020 the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that a Decree by the Flemish Region that requires animals to be stunned prior to slaughter to reduce their suffering does not contravene European law. This judgement is a serious threat to the freedom of religion in Europe.
In 2014, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups violated the international law prohibition against spreading terror among the civilian population. These acts continue up to the present day and amount to violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes.
In a remarkable ceremony in the White House on 4th September 2020, presided over by US President Trump, Serbia and Kosovo signed agreements to normalize their economic relations. The US-brokered agreements were hailed by the US President as “historic”. In reality they do not constitute a comprehensive “normalization” agreement, but resemble little more than an agreement to carry out a list of previously-agreed projects.
International law can be confusing even for lawyers and law students who are trying to grasp its basic concepts. What do terms like “conquest”, “belligerent occupation”, “annexation”, “statehood”, “non-self-governing territory” and “the right to self-determination” mean? To the average non-lawyer, these terms might sound like a completely foreign language. In this article, we hope to provide a simple layperson’s guide to some basic concepts in international law, and their relevance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The EU claims that labels on products made by Jews in Judea or Samaria are “misleading” if they do not specify the product is made in a “settlement” in the “West Bank”. But actually it is the EU that is misleading consumers.
There is much confusion and controversy about the plan of the Israeli government to extend its legal administration and excercise its sovereignty in certain parts of Judea and Samaria per 1 July 2020. This Q&A is intended to assist the reader in understanding what international law says about the plans.
By Andrew Tucker, Director at thinc. On the 10th of June, over 100 international lawyers issued an Open Letter to the Israeli government, stating that Israel’s policy proposal is “clearly unlawful, and will most likely have adverse consequences, including … consequences of an internationally wrongful act … [and] a high likelihood of violent…
On 5th June 2020 the “State of Palestine” submitted its response to the Pre-Trial Chamber’s Order requesting them to provide additional information about recent statements by the Palestinian organizations concerning the Oslo Accords (“Palestine’s Response on Oslo”).
Fundamental to the rule of law is equal treatment and non-arbitrary, fair application of law. Instead, the International Criminal Court (ICC) exemplifies UN politicisation of international law principles and bureaucratic corruption of the rule of law, at extravagant cost. Read more.
On 5 December 2019 the Office of the Prosecutor of the
International Criminal Court issued its annual Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2019. In this report, the Prosecutor, Ms. Fatou
Bensouda, gave a summary of the status of the twelve “situations” under examination by her office. She has indicated strongly that the Office intends to move forward soon to officially investigate Israeli leaders for war crimes and possibly also crimes against humanity relating to the “situation in Palestine”. In our view, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC is making a grave mistake.
A legal analysis of the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Psagot Winery Case, concerning the question how products imported into Europe from the “occupied Palestinian territories” should be labeled, shows that the reasoning of the ECJ is seriously flawed.
The Israeli government has called the BDS movement the second most serious existential threat to Israel. Second only to the threats issued by Iran to destroy Israel. Israel is not overreacting. The BDS movement is both dangerous and misleading. As Canadian PM Trudeau recently remarked, it is also anti-Semitic.
In a Judgment of 2 September 2019 the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court orders the Prosecutor to reconsider her decision not to investigate the Gaza flotilla case. The wanderings of this case through the avenues and alleys of the procedural provisions of the Rome Statute of the ICC seems to become a journey without end.
On May 20, 2019 we reported that the ICC is considering looking into whether Israel has committed war crimes in its dealings with Palestinians. Now, the ICC is even considering initiating an investigation into the legality of Jewish settlements in the so-called “West Bank”, suggesting that such settlements constitute a war crime against Palestinians. The fact is, but for political motives, the ICC would not even be considering these issues.
In today’s society, there is a prevalent trend when it comes to “equity and justice” as regards the nation of Israel. There is a widespread predisposition against any act or situation involving Israel, which is invariably portrayed in a negative light and all too readily pre-judged as contrary to international law, often with no supporting evidence. Looking at the age-old ties of Israel with the Golan, and considering that the Heights are a strategic necessity for the national defense of Israel, justice would require that Israel’s ancient territory of the Golan be reconstituted under Israeli sovereignty.
Jerusalem is the subject of proceedings before the International Court of Justice. It is a bizarre case, in which the PLO appears to be trying to rewrite history, and to have that historical revisionism confirmed by the most eminent jurists in the world.
On Friday 17 May, the German Bundestag became the first national parliament in the European Union to adopt a motion denouncing the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for its anti-Semitic ‘pattern of argument and methods’.
The so-called ‘Two-state Solution’ appears to be up for grabs. Basically, the Two-state Solution says that the Palestinians have a right to a state covering all of the so-called West Bank, including ‘East Jerusalem’ as their capital. Years of failed negotiations have given way to the growing sentiment that the two-state solution is simply no longer feasible.
The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has for some time been looking into whether Israeli leaders are potentially guilty of war crimes, i.a. in relation to Israeli settlement policies. To open an investigation into the settlements issue, she needs to decide that ’Palestine‘ is a state for the purposes of the Rome Statute that governs the ICC.
In a recent letter titled ‘Europe must stand by the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine’, 37 high-ranking former EU and NATO officials urge the EU to reject President Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ unless this plan commits to the two-state solution and adequately addresses Palestinian demands.
On 12 April 2019, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) unanimously rejected the ICC Prosecutor’s request to authorize her to open a formal investigation into alleged ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘war crimes’ in Afghanistan over the last 15 years. The decision comes at a time when the ICC is under fire for its lack of success.
On 13 September 2018, the 25th anniversary of the ‘Oslo Accords’ was passed. The Dutch government has always been a supporter of these accords. Unfortunately, the implementation of the Oslo Accords has stalled and the belief in the Two-state Solution is waning. Positions on both sides of the conflict harden and the situation among the…
On the 21st of December 2017 the UN GA again adopted a resolution on Jerusalem within a month of its previous resolution on the same topic . The most recent resolution came in response to the speech of the President of the United States on the 6th of December 2017, in which he recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced the removal of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv and its relocation to Jerusalem.
Every day, media around the world report on the “illegality” of Israeli settlements, and the obligations of Israel under international law to withdraw from the “occupied Palestinian territories”. Time again, Israeli presence in the “Palestinian territories” is claimed to be an “obstacle to global peace”, and as a result all states are required not to recognize those illegalities, and are even obliged to ensure that they stop. Such statements are repeated time and again in the UN organisations like the General Assembly, the Security Council and UNESCO, and are often picked up and repeated by religious bodies like the World Council of Churches. Many national governments, following those statements, are committed as a matter of foreign policy to condemnation of the illegality of many of Israel’s activities and policies, and recognition of the State of Palestine on the basis of the “1967 borders”. Challenging these assertions is often regarded as politically incorrect and those who do so are subject to being shouted down as opponents of peace and justice.