Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank, says the Court of Appeal of
Versailles, France
Publié par Jean-Patrick Grumberg le 13 janvier 2017
http://www.dreuz.info/2017/01/13/israel-is-the-legal-occupant-of-the-west-bank-says-the-court-of-appeal-of-versailles-france/
Reprint or redistribution of this copyrighted material is permitted with the
following attribution and link: © Jean-Patrick Grumberg for www.Dreuz.info

For French court decision:
http://fr.slideshare.net/yohanntaieb3/decision-de-lacourdappel?

In a historical trial carefully « forgotten » by the media, the 3rd Chamber
of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declares that Israel is the legal
occupant of the West Bank*.

When I first learned that the Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that West
bank settlements and occupation of Judea Samaria by Israel is unequivocally
legal under international law, in a suit brought by the Palestinian
Authority against Jerusalem’s light rail built by French companies Alstom
and Veolia, that received no media coverage, I decided to put to work my
years of Law Studies in France, and I meticulously analyzed the Court
ruling.

To my astonishment, pro-Israeli media did not cover it either. The few who
mentioned the case did not have any legal background in French law to
understand the mega-importance of the ruling, and, as a few lefty English
speaking Israeli websites reported it, they thought that it was a decision
strictly pertinent to the Jerusalem light rail. It’s not.

To make sure I did not overestimate my legal abilities and that I wasn’t
over optimistic – as usual-, I submitted my analysis and the Court papers to
one of the most prominent French lawyer, Gilles-William Goldnadel, President
of Lawyers without borders, to receive his legal opinion. He indeed
validated my finding. Then I decided to translate it to English, and it will
soon be submitted to Benjamin Netanyahu thru a mutual friend.

First and foremost, the Versailles Court of Appeals had to determine the
legal rights of Palestinians and Israelis in West Bank. Their conclusion:
Palestinians have no right – in the international legal sense – to the
region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to occupy all land
beyond the 67 line.

The context :

In the 90s, Israel bid for the construction of the Jerusalem light rail. The
tender was won by French companies Veolia and Alstom. The light rail was
completed in 2011, and it cross Jerusalem all the way to the east side and
the « occupied territories » (more about this term later).

Following this, the PLO filed a complaint with the High Court (Tribunal de
Grande Instance) of Versailles France, against Alstom and Veolia, because
according to PLO, « the construction of the tram is illegal since the UN,
the EU, many NGOs and governments consider that « Israel illegally occupy
Palestinian territories ».

The quest for the International Legislation to establish the rights of each
party.

In order to rule whether the light rail construction was legal or not, the
court had to seek the texts of international law, to examine international
treaties, in order to establish the respective rights of the Palestinians
and the Israelis.

And to my knowledge, this is the first time that a non-Israeli court has
been led to rule on the status of the West Bank.

Why is this an historical ruling: it is the first international case since
the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948

It is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948
that an independent, non-Israeli court has been called upon to examine the
legal status of West bank territories under international law, beyond the
political claims of the parties.

Keep in mind though, that the Court’s findings have no effect in
international law. What they do, and it’s of the utmost importance, is to
clarify the legal reality.

The Versailles Court of Appeal conclusions are as resounding as the silence
in which they were received in the media: Israel has real rights in the
territories, its decision to build a light rail in the West Bank or anything
else in the area is legal, and the judges have rejected all the arguments
presented by the Palestinians.

The Palestinian arguments
-The PLO denounces the deportation of the Palestinian population, and the
destruction of properties in violation of international regulations. Relying
on the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the UN resolutions, it considers
that the State of Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory and is
pursuing illegal Jewish colonization. Thus, construction of the light rail
is itself illegal (1).
-The PLO adds that the light rail construction has resulted in the
destruction of Palestinian buildings and houses, the almost total
destruction of Highway 60, which is vital for Palestinians and their goods,
and has conducted many illegal dispossessions. Therefore, several clauses
from the annexed Regulations to the October 18, 1907 Fourth Hague Convention
were violated (2).
-Finally, the PLO alleges that Israel violates the provisions relating to
the « protection of cultural property » provided for in Article 4 of the
Hague Convention of May 14, 1954, Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of
1907, Article 5 of the Hague Convention IX of 1907, and Article 53 of
Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Geneva Conventions.

The Court of Appeal does not deny the occupation, but it destroys one after
another all the Palestinian arguments

Referring to the texts on which the PLO claim is based, the Court of Appeal
considers that Israel is entitled to ensure order and public life in the
West Bank, therefore Israel has the right to build a light rail,
infrastructure and dwellings.

Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 stipulates that « The
authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of
the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to
restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety ».

Israeli occupation does not violate any international law

« The Palestinian Authority misread the documents, they do not apply to the
occupation »

The Court explains that the Palestinian Authority misinterprets the texts
and they do not apply to the occupation:
-First of all, all the international instruments put forward by the PLO are
acts signed between States, and the obligations or prohibitions contained
therein are relevant to States. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the
PLO are States, therefore, none of these legal documents apply.
-Secondly, said the Court, these texts are binding only on those who signed
them, namely the « contracting parties ». But neither the PLO nor the
Palestinian Authority have ever signed these texts.

Propaganda is not international law

The Court, quite irritated by the presented arguments, boldly asserted that
the law « cannot be based solely on the PLO’s assessment of a political or
social situation.«

Humanitarian law was not violated

“The PLO mistakenly refers to the wrong legal document because the Hague
Convention applies in case of bombing. And … « Jerusalem is not bombed. »

The PLO invokes the violation of humanitarian law contained in the Geneva
and Hague Conventions.
-But on the one hand, says the judges of the Court of Appeal, international
conventions apply between States and the PLO is not a State: « the
International Court of Justice has indicated that [the Conventions] only
contain obligations for the States, and that individual have no rights to
claim the benefit of those obligation for themselves ».
-Then the Court says that only the contracting parties are bound by
international conventions, and neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority
have ever signed any of them.
-The Court draw the conclusion that the PLO is mistakenly referring to the
wrong legal document because the Hague Convention applies in case of
bombing. And … « Jerusalem is not bombed.«

The PLO and the Palestinians were dismissed

The PLO cannot invoke any of these international conventions, said the
Court.

« These international norms and treaties » does not give the « Palestinian
people that the PLO says he represents, the right to invoke them before a
court.«

The Court of Appeal therefore sentenced the PLO (and Association France
Palestine Solidarité AFPS who was co-appellant) to pay 30,000 euros
($32,000) to Alstom, 30,000 euros to Alstom Transport and 30,000 euros to
Veolia Transport.

Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority nor the AFPS appealed to the
Supreme Court, therefore the judgment has become final.

This is the first time that a Court has legally destroyed all Palestinian
legal claim that Israel’s occupation is illegal.

-(1) The PLO relies on article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of August
12, 1949, which states that « the occupant power may not deport or transfer
part of its own civilian population in the Territory he occupies », and
article 53, which states that « the occupant Power is prohibited from
destroying movable or immovable properties belonging individually or
collectively to private people, to the State or to public authorities or
social or cooperative organizations, except in cases where such destruction
is rendered absolutely necessary for military operations ».
-(2) The PLO refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12,
1949: •Article 23 (g), which prohibits « the destruction or seizure of enemy
properties except in cases where such destruction or seizure are
imperatively ordered for the necessities of war. »
-Article 27 according to which « in the sieges and bombardments, all
necessary measures must be taken to spare as much as possible the buildings
devoted to worship, the arts, sciences, charitable institutions, historical
monuments, and hospitals … »
-Article 46 which states that « private property can not be confiscated ».