Document: State defies legal position adopted by all Israeli governments
since 1967 in arguments against settlers

#1 Now: State: Pullout doesn't violate rights
Dan Izenberg, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 22, 2005
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111375278688&p=1078027574097

The Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip knew the area they lived in was held
by Israel in belligerent occupation which was a temporary situation and that
the final status of the land had not yet been determined, the state wrote in
its response to a High Court petition declaring the disengagement plan a
violation of the settlers' human rights.

"The areas of Judea and Samaria and the area of the Gaza Strip have been
held by Israel since the Six Day War and until today in belligerent
occupation," wrote the state's representatives, attorney Osnat Mandel, head
of the High Court Petitions Section of the State Attorney's Office, and
attorney Yuval Roitman.

"The final status of these areas has not yet been determined and is to be
determined in one kind of diplomatic arrangement or another," they wrote.

Mandel and Roitman explained that belligerent occupation is temporary by
definition and, according to the 1907 Hague Convention, is meant to
guarantee public order and safety in the meantime.

The fact that Israel entered into negotiations relating to these areas, such
as the 1978 peace agreement with Egypt and the Oslo Accords, is proof that
the status of the territories was not final and that it would be determined
in negotiations.
These and other facts were not lost on the settlers, continued Mandel and
Roitman.

"When the petitioners and others settled in the Gaza Strip and northern
Samaria, they did so knowing that they were settling in an area held by
Israel in belligerent occupation

"Therefore, there is no grounds for claiming today that they thought they
were going to live within the boundaries of the State of Israel."

The state asked the High Court to reject the petition on the grounds that
the settlers did not have a case.

====

#2 Two years ago

Sharon redefines 'occupation'
By Gideon Alon Ha'aretz May 28, 2003
www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=297613&

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon yesterday backtracked on his use of the word
"occupation," which he had used four times at a meeting with Likud MKs on
Monday to describe Israel's presence in the territories.

Yesterday, Sharon told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee,
"When I used the term `occupation,' I meant it is undesirable for us to rule
over a Palestinian population."

Sharon noted that Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein had rebuked him for
using this term, pointing out that the legal position adopted by all Israeli
governments since 1967 is that the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed
territories" rather than "occupied territories."

Rubinstein explained, "These are territories that belonged to no recognized
sovereign power before 1967, and therefore the correct way to describe the
situation in the territories in legal terms is as `disputed territory,'
whose status is to be determined through agreements."

Sharon's statements at Monday's Likud faction meeting sparked a furor among
rightist MKs on the foreign affairs committee. Coalition chair, Gideon Sa'ar
(Likud), told him: "You taught us that all the rights to this land belong to
the Jewish people. How is it possible for a people to be an occupying power
in its own land?" Shaul Yalahom (National Religious Party) demanded: "What's
happened to you, Ariel Sharon? Statements such as the ones you made [on
Monday] are a shock from which it is impossible to recover."

Sharon responded sharply to this criticism. "I have no training in how to
treat people for shock," he said. "But as for what happened to me, I can
cite statements I made as far back as 1988 in which I detailed the areas
that are vital for Israel's security and those on which the Palestinians
should be permitted to establish a state. Today, things have changed. My
opinion now is that we don't need to assume responsibility for 3.5 million
Palestinians."

He offered a similar response when Uri Ariel (National Union) asked "whether
he had undergone a conversion."

"I haven't undergone any conversion," Sharon replied. "But someone who
doesn't carry the responsibility on his shoulders can ignore the situation.
My goal is for Israel to be able to exist within borders that ensure its
defense. These wars don't allow [Israel] to be free."

From leftist MKs, Sharon won a few compliments for his statement. Amram
Mitzna (Labor) said: "I'm delighted that you reached the conclusion that 3.5
million Palestinians cannot be kept under occupation. Better late than
never."

Others, however, were skeptical. Yossi Sarid (Meretz), for instance,
announced that he did not believe a word Sharon said unless it was backed up
by actions, such as evacuating settlement outposts and freezing construction
in the veteran settlements. Most of the other leftist MKs reiterated these
demands.

Sharon did not comment specifically on the settlements, but in response to a
question by Ran Cohen (Meretz), he declared that he is determined to
implement the U.S-backed road map.