Understanding the Israeli Right’s Legal Approach on the Status of the West Bank

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 1 - 22, 31.01.2023

Diren Çakmak

https://doi.org/10.30626/tesamakademi.1245643

Öz

Arab states argue that Jewish settlements in the West Bank violate the Article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that Israel is the occupier in the West Bank. On the other hand, the Israeli right argues that there is no occupation and that the problem is the disputed territories. According to the Israeli right, Israel can annex the West Bank. In Türkiye, the claim of the Israeli right in the West Bank is widely explained on the religious ground. The legal approach of the Israeli right on the status of the West Bank is ignored. This limits the understanding of Israeli politics. With this study, this deficiency in Turkish literature is aimed to be eliminated. In the study, the perspective of the Israeli right on the examples such as East Timor, Western Sahara, Syria-Lebanon and Vietnam-Cambodia is explained, so it is provided that the basic thesis of the Israeli right on the status of the West Bank is understood. The USA’s approach on the status of the West Bank is handled and a discussion is conducted on the thesis of the Israeli right. Since the basic thesis of the Israeli right on the status of the West Bank constitutes the skelaton of the Pompeo Doctrine, the study provides an opportunity to evaluate the Pompeo Doctine correctly. With the study, it ia possible to see the double standard towards Israel.

Anahtar Kelimeler

West Bank, Israel, Palestine, Pompeo Doctrine, Fourth Geneva Convention

İsrail Sağının Batı Şeria’nın Statüsüne Dair Hukuki Yaklaşımını Anlamak

Öz

Arap devletleri, Batı Şeria’daki Yahudi yerleşimlerinin, Dördüncü Cenevre Sözleşmesi’nin 49 (6) Maddesi’ni ihlal ettiğini ve İsrail’in Batı Şeria’da işgalci olduğunu savunurlar. İsrail sağı ise, bir işgal olmadığını, sorunun tartışmalı topraklar sorunu olduğunu öne sürer. İsrail sağına göre, İsrail Batı Şeria’yı ilhak edebilir. Türkiye’de yaygın olarak İsrail sağının Batı Şeria’daki hak iddiası dinsel gerekçelere göre açıklanır. İsrail sağının Batı Şeria’nın statüsüne dair hukuki yaklaşımı önemsenmez. Bu ise, İsrail siyasetini anlamayı sınırlandırır. Çalışma ile Türkçe literatürdeki bu eksikliğin giderilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Çalışmada, İsrail sağının, Doğu Timor, Batı Sahra, Suriye-Lübnan ile Vietnam-Kamboçya örneklerine bakışı açıklanmakta ve böylece İsrail sağının Batı Şeria’nın statüsüne dair temel tezinin anlaşılması sağlanmaktadır. ABD’nin Batı Şeria’nın statüsüne yaklaşımı ele alınmakta ve İsrail sağının tezi üzerinden tartışma yürütülmektedir. İsrail sağının Batı Şeria’nın statüsüne dair temel tezi Pompeo Doktrini’nin iskeletini teşkil ettiği için, çalışma Pompeo Doktrini’ni doğru değerlendirmeye imkan sunmaktadır. Çalışma ile İsrail’e yönelik çifte standardı görmek mümkündür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Batı Şeria, İsrail, Filistin, Pompeo Doktrini, Dördüncü Cenevre Sözleşmesi.

Kaynakça

• Amer, R. (1994). The ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia: A minority at risk? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 16(2), 210-238.
• Baker, A. (2019). The legality of Israel’s settlements: Flaws in the Carter-Era Hansell Memorandum. https://jcpa.org/.
• Baruch, P.S. and Hatuel-Radoshitzky, M. (2019). Are they legal or not? Pompeo’s announcement on the Israeli settlements. INSS Insight, 1230.
• Bell, A. and Kontorovich, E. (2016). Palestine, uti possidetis Juris, the borders of Israel. Arizona Law Review, 58, 633-692.
• Benvenisti, E. (2004). The international law of occupation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Blaff, A. (2019). Settlements. Israel Studies, 24(2), 217-227.
• Blum, Y. Z. (1968). The missing reversioner: Reflections on the status of judea and samaria. Israel Law Review, 3, 279-301.
• Bob, Y. J. (2016). Applying Israeli law to West Bank is not creeping annexation: Former MAG. The Jerusalem Post, 10.05.2016.
• Boteach, S. (2022). Dr. Oz Must Clarify His Position on Israel. The Jerusalem Post, 13.06.2022.
• Chalcraft, J. (2007). Labour in the Levant. New Left Review, 45, 27-47.
• Drew, C. (2001). The East Timor Story: International law on trial. European Journal of International Law, 12(4), 651-684.
• Hansell, H. J. (1978). United States: Letter of the state department legal adviser concerning the Legality of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. International Legal Materials, 17(3), 777-779.
• Jaulin, T. (2014). Citizenship, migration and confessional democracy in Lebanon. Middle East Law and Governance, 6, 250-271.
• Kassel, M. (2020). The bygone era of James Baker’s Washington. https://jewishinsider.com/.
• Kattan, V. (2009). From coexistance to conquest: International law and the origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891-1949. London:Pluto Press.
• Kattan, V. (2018). Why U.S. recognition of Jerusalem could be contrary to international law. Journal of Palestine Studies, 47(3), 72-92.
• Kontorovich, E. (2018). Unsettled: A global study of settlements in occupied territories. Journal of Legal Analysis, 9(2), 285-350.
• Kontorovich, E. (2019). Pompeo busts the ‘Occupation’ Myth. The Wall Street Journal, 19.11.2019.
• Lazaroff, T. (2020). Bennett to Netanyahu: Annex settlements Now, and we’ll support you. The Jerusalem Post, 29.01.2020.
• Lazaroff, T. (2021). Sa’ar says West Bank annexation still a goal, even if not implemented now. The Jerusalem Post, 12.02.2021.
• Leibovitz, L. (2019). Forty years? Erişim tarihi: 19.05.2022, https://www.tabletmag.com/.
• Levy, E. E., Shapira, T. and Baker, A. (2012). The levy commission report on the legal status of building in Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem: Regavim.
• Mallison, W. T. and Mallison, S.V. (1986). The Palestine problem in international law and order. Essex: Longman.
• Mazzawi, M. (1997). Palestine and the law: Guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict. New York: Ithaca Press.
• Meron, T. (2017). Notes and comments: The West Bank and international humanitarian law on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of six-day war. American Journal of International Law, 111(2), 357-375.
• Mundy, J. (2012). Moroccan settlers in Western Sahara: Colonists or fifth column? The Arab World Geographer, 15(2), 95-126.
• Roberts, A. (1990). Prolonged military occupation: The Israeli-Occupied territories since 1967. American Journal of International Law, 84, 44-103.
• Rostow, E. V. (1990). Letter. American Journal of International Law, 84, 717-720.
• Quinn, J. (2020). The Pompeo doctrine. Erişim tarihi: 19.05.2022, https://www.nationalreview.com/.
• Schwebel, S. M. (1970). Editorial comment: What weight to conquest? American Journal of International Law, 64(2), 344-347.
• Shamgar, M. (1971). The observance of international law in the administered territories. Y. Dinstein (Eds.) Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (Volume I) içinde (pp. 262-277). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law.
• Sher, G. and Cohen, D. (2020). The Trump administration’s statement on Israeli settlements: Legal status and political reality. Rice University’s Baker Institute For Public Policy, 23.01.2020.
• Stone, J. (1981). Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations. Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.
• The times of Israel staff. (2020). EU says it won’t Recognize Unilateral Israeli annexation in West Bank. The Times of Israel, 19.05.2020.
• USA. (2020). Proclamation 10126: Recognizing the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Morocco over the Western Sahara. Federal Register, 04.12.2020. https://www.govinfo.gov/.
• Weiner, J. B. (1979). The green march in historical perspective. Middle East Journal, 33(1), 20-33.