Johnboy. Not quite true. The ruling does NOT create borders. As well World recognised autthority on International law Professor Julius Stone,amongst others had this to say;- - Comment - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
  • p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String = ''; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = ''; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = ''; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = ''; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String = ''; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = ''; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = ''; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = ''; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap
    • PETER SM
    • 25.07.11 | 13:11 (IDT)

    He points out that for specific problems such as requisition of land, Israel volitionally acted "AS IF" the requisitions depend on the customary law of belligerent occupation. But he keeps repeating that the right for dense Jewish settlement in Western Palestine is not dependent on the law of belligerent occupation but on other "formidable bases of title", i.e., other principles of international law to which the justices of the supreme court did not have to refer to when ruling on requisitions. And these justices indeed carefully reserved their ruling so as not to imply that these other bases do not exist. He enumerates these "formidable bases of title" (pp 168-169): "The other bases of Israel's territorial entitlement, and the principles of international law involved, were examined in Chapter 7. They include: (1) The rule that would attribute sovereign title in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza to Israel, by virtue of the fact that Israel is the state in lawful possession of territory affected by a "sovereignty vacuum" (view of E. Lauterpacht); (2) The rule that in a situation of disputed sovereignty that state is entitled that can establish the best title thereto, a rule well recognized by the International Court of Justice; (3) The rule that a state in lawful possession of territory to which no other sovereign has supportable claim of sovereignty is entitled to take the step of formal annexation; (4) The rule laid down by the International Court of Justice, that territories subject to a League of Nations mandate whose disposition has not been otherwise determined remain subject to the obligations of the mandate, here the mandate for Palestine of which the primary obligation was the establishment of a Jewish national home. Far from dismissing such formidable bases of title, this analysis will show that the judgements of the Supreme Court of Israel carefully reserved the effects of such other rules, the court regarding itself as debarred from addressing them by the manner in which the case was presented." Stone writes: "Perhaps the central current criticism against the government of Israel in relation to its administration of the territories occupied after the 1967 War concerns its alleged infractions of the final paragraph (6) of Article 49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of August 12, 1949. The preceding paragraphs deal with deportation or transfer of a population out of the occupied territory. The final paragraph (6) reads as follows. 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies.'" "It has been shown in Chapters 3 and 7 that there are solid grounds in international law for denying any sovereign title to Jordan in the West Bank, and therefore any rights as reversioner state under the law of belligerent occupation." "Not only does Jordan lack any legal title to the territories concerned, but the Convention itself does not by its terms apply to these territories. For, under Article 2, the Convention applies 'to cases of ... occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, by another such Party'. Insofar as the West Bank at present held by Israel does not belong to any other State, the Convention would not seem to apply to it at all. This is a technical, though rather decisive, legal point." "It is also important to observe, however, that even if that point is set aside, the claim that Article 49 of the convention forbids the settlement of Jews in the West Bank is difficult to sustain." Regarding Israel’s acquisition of territories in the 1967 war, Schwebel wrote: Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. ("What Weight to Conquest," American Journal of International Law, 64 (1970))

    from the article: Israel looking into revoking Oslo Accords in response to Palestinian UN bid
    First published 02:13 25.07.11 | Last updated 02:13 25.07.11
Haaretz Headlines
Netanyahu talks with Abbas during a group photo at the Paris climate change summit.

EU asks Israel for 'clarification' of decision to suspend ties

PM declared moratorium on contacts with the EU over the Palestinian issue due to union's decision to label settlement products.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon.

Defense Minister Ya'alon: No signs of terror wave subsiding

Moshe Ya'alon says there is no 'halting or extinguishing' attacks. He also says Russian defense systems in Syria are not affecting Israeli operations there.

Spain's King Felipe celebrating a law through which Sephardic Jews can apply for Spanish citizenship

Spain has missed you, Spanish king tells Sephardic Jews

In light of new law, which grants citizenship to Jews who were expelled during the Spanish Inquisition, King Felipe VI welcomes new citizens back 'home.'

Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, shown here in cartoon form garbed in ermine-finished purple and crown

Bibi moves to stay in power, no matter what

He doesn't need peace. He doesn't even need quiet. He needs three more years, occupying his office. Occupying us. Nothing else matters. Nothing.