I've heard of the first argument before ie that Israel is occupying territory that wasn't previously an autonomous state, and whereas it has no moral weight I had no idea if it had legal weight. I was pleasantly surprised by the ICJ ruling.
The second argument that Israel is just taking it's time to withdraw is surely impossible to sustain given the west bank settlements, the wall and the annexation of East Jerusalem.
Last of my posts have been informed by reading this book. Which I started before the ICJ ruling. I'm only half way through. And its fascinating book.
Justice in the Question of Palestine is often framed as a question of law. Yet none of the Israel-Palestinian conflict's most vexing challenges have been resolved by judicial intervention. Occupation law has failed to stem Israel's settlement enterprise. Laws of war have permitted killing and...
www.sup.org
I'm not big on morality. As its something so fuzzy.
Israel state had a point on the occupation of West Bank. Jordan had annexed it. Without international support. Only two countries ( UK being one) recognised this annexation of Palestine Mandate land by Jordan.
So yes Israel state had a legal point.
What it argued in legal terms was that West Bank and Gaza were not clear cut issues re international law at the time. So it was in legal terms a Sui generis situation. Otherwise known as Israeli exceptionalism.
To add Sui Generis in this legal situation means unique case that is not fully covered by existing law. As this case was not foreseen when the international laws were decided.
So the occupation was for Israel up for debate in legal terms.
Before the right wing lot came later the Israeli state realised it could not do a 48 but it did produce a plan for land for peace.
This imo is what the more sensible Zionists have continued to put forward from the early days of occupation.
Israel State would have strategic bits of West Bank and Palestinians other areas less important, That was always on the cards from 67.
With Palestinians being given some limited self government.
The second case about the Oslo accords is that State of Israel thought the agreement meant that Palestinians had waived right to recourse to international law. This was the mistake that Arafat made in agreeing to Oslo.
Both US and Israel wanted what they called direct negotiations without going on about international law.
TBF given that Israel state is now run by elected hardline Zionists who don't give a shit all this comes across as all academic and historical.
I'm only half way through Noura Erakat book. So did not mention it before.
Israel as a State liked to see itself as western style democratic state that believes in the rule of law ( well it did before its recent turn to the hard right and religious right.)
So its always , until recently , had legal teams working on what Noura calls the legal work to justify its actions in West Bank and Gaza.
For Noura international law about states is not the same as law for individuals in a state.
One thing is that there is no overall enforcement. If I as an individual break a law in the state I am in it comes down on me.
International law is an area of contestation. Made up of different elements. And capable of change depending on the the political forces involved.
And up until now State of Israel have been pretty good at creative use of international law.
