Against all the negative rhetoric and criticism of the Israeli Government’s plans to apply its civilian law to parts of the ‘West Bank’ professor Bell puts the benefits for both parties.
It is often argued that the Mandate for Palestine ended with the withdrawl of the British on 15 May 1948. In this article Dr. Matthijs de Blois cogently argues that this is a misconception under international law.
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.
In response to the Open Letter in Opinio Juris about the plans of the Israeli Government to “annex” certain parts of the “West Bank”, the author points at the misrepresentation of the planned act as ‘annexation’; you cannot annex territory where you already possess sovereignty.
The new Israeli government intends to extend Israeli sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank). The media cry out ‘illegal annexation’ but is this a question of annexation? How can one annex what you’re entitled to?
It is widely believed that the State of Israel was born as a result of UN Resolution 181 of 1947. The truth is that the legal rights of the Jewish people and Israel as a nation were founded in international law well before the very existence of the United Nations, dating back to international legal instruments agreed shortly after World War I, at Villa Devachan in San Remo, Italy, on 25 April 1920.
In this article the author analyses historical and actual objections under international law to the Two-State Solution and the unilateral declaration of the ‘State of Palestine’.
The freedom of religion is being threatened under the pretence of animal welfare.
Rebuttal to the Article: “THE IGNORANCE OF TRUMP ENVOY GREENBLATT” by Col. Res. Shaul Arieli, published on August 9, 2019 by HAARETZ.com
Senior Fellow Dr. Cynthia Day Wallace challenges the many misquotes, misrepresentations and misinterpretations by Israeli author Shaul Arieli critiquing U.S. presidential envoy Jason Greenblatt’s address to the UN Security Council. If untruths (or half truths, which are in fact untruths) are allowed to go unchallenged, and the distortion of international law to continue unchecked, a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict risks being seriously impeded.
The Israeli Products Labelling Controversy – Imposing Politically-motivated Opinions in the Name of Law
The Opinion of AG Hogan at the ECJ in the Psagot Winery case is scrutinized. Conclusion: the AG’s Opinion seems more an expression of political belief than a correct legal opinion based on a sound interpretation and fair application of international law.