Inter alia [emphasis added, as elsewhere below] :
'.... There are many misunderstandings about the planned move—starting with what to call it. It is widely described as an Israeli “annexation” of West Bank territory, also known as Judea and Samaria. But annexation has a precise meaning in international law: the forcible incorporation by one state of the territory of another state. The land to which Israel seeks to apply its laws isn’t legally the territory of any other state, nor has it been since Israel’s independence in 1948. Neither the U.S. nor the European Union recognizes the existence of a Palestinian state, and Israel’s sovereign claim to the territory is superior to any other country’s. Putting this move in the same category as Russia’s seizure of Crimea is entirely misleading.
Past peace efforts have been based on the morally repugnant and impractical assumption that the creation of a Palestinian state must be preceded by the expulsion of all Jews from its territory. The acceptance of an ethnic pre-cleansing was one of the reasons the U.S. had previously opposed the application of Israeli civil law: to make life harder and more uncertain for Jewish settlers and thereby encourage them to leave.
President Trump’s peace vision rightly rejects this illiberal notion, which hasn’t been the basis of realized or proposed peace deals anywhere else in the world, from East Timor to Northern Cyprus.The application of Israeli law wouldn’t affect the treatment of Palestinians. In the West Bank, they would continue to be governed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel’s Knesset wouldn’t rule over them. The Palestinian Authority would also still have a chance to make peace. While all evidence suggests the authority isn’t fundamentally serious about statehood, U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty in parts of the West Bank may help bring it to the table. It would show Palestinian leaders that turning down negotiations weakens their hand.Some Middle East experts say the Israeli move could lead to violence, European sanctions or a reversal of Israel’s warming ties with Arab states.
But the same predictions of doom were made before Mr. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and they proved entirely hollow. Critics must explain why this one should be any different.Others say Israel should desist because its actions would provoke a possible Biden administration. This is heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic: Israel must accept Democratic policies when Democrats are in office and also when they aren’t. President Obama, by contrast, had no problem allowing the United Nations Security Council to pass an anti-Israel resolution even after President-elect Trump asked him to veto it.U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty in parts of the West Bank comes along with upfront Israeli commitments. Israel has agreed to a temporary building freeze in areas of the West Bank that are under Israel’s jurisdiction but where Israeli law isn’t being extended.
This goes beyond what the Trump administration’s Vision for Peace requires. Israel also knows that a future U.S. administration could repudiate support for Israeli sovereignty and recognize a Palestinian state anyway.Israel’s friends are right to take such concerns seriously:
The plan isn’t without risks for Israel. But these can be addressed through a formal memorandum of understanding that would commit the U.S. to recognizing Israeli sovereignty and not recognizing a Palestinian state until the detailed Palestinian prerequisites in the Vision for Peace have been met to America’s and Israel’s satisfaction. Such an agreement between the U.S. and Israel could be written to limit backsliding by the next U.S. administration.The application of Israeli civil law to Jewish settlements isn’t an annexation or an imposition on Palestinians. It is a long overdue recognition of Israel’s legal and moral rights, a step that can no longer be deferred by the Palestinian refusal to make peace'.A summary of points made by the distinguished Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh in a must-read article here:
'It is dead wrong to assume that if Israel abandons its plan, most Muslims would give up their desire to destroy Israel and replace it with an extremist Iran-style Islamic state.
[Islamic officials] are now calling on Palestinians to launch terror attacks against Israel, not because of the "annexation" plan, but in order to drive the Jews out of the "Palestinian Arab Islamic lands."
Those who are pressuring Israel not to proceed with the "annexation" plan need to hear what Islamic leaders are saying, day and night: that the conflict is not about Jewish settlements or the Jordan Valley, but the "big settlement" called Israel.'From a host of of international law academics (see signatories at source), an open letter to the Israeli government opposing "annexation":
".... Such an action would constitute a flagrant violation of bedrock rules of international law, and would also pose a serious threat to international stability in a volatile region.
The norm prohibiting unilateral annexation of territory acquired by force has come to be universally recognized as a basic rule of international law. All international courts (including the International Court of Justice) and all international institutions (including the UN General Assembly and Security Council) who have considered this matter, as well as the overwhelming majority of international jurists, affirm this rule unequivocally. This prohibition applies equally to territories belonging to other states, as well as to non-self-governing territories in which peoples are entitled to determine their political fate in accordance with the right to self-determination. Furthermore, this prohibition applies to all territories occupied by force, even if it is claimed that force was initially used in an act of self-defense.
The West Bank was taken by force in 1967. It has been consistently recognized by the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, and the International Court of Justice as an occupied territory, in which the Palestinian people is entitled to fulfill its right to self-determination. This remains so even if bilateral negotiations could determine the details of security arrangements and final borders. Furthermore, the Israeli government as well as the Israeli Supreme Court have for decades applied the law of belligerent occupation to the West Bank. This is demonstrated in dozens of decisions by the Supreme Court of Israel, as well as in Israel’s positions before international treaty bodies, where it argues that the West Bank is not under Israeli jurisdiction for the purpose of application of human rights treaties.
It follows that unilateral annexation of any part of this territory would violate the fundamental norm prohibiting annexation as well as the right to self-determination. As such, it would be null and void, entail consequences of international wrongfulness, and – under certain circumstances – lead to individual international criminal liability. In this context, it matters not whether such actions would be effected through “extension of sovereignty,” “extension of law, jurisdiction, and administration,” or explicit annexation. De facto annexation entails the same legal consequences as de jure annexation. Additionally, in no case can such an act lawfully bring about or justify discriminatory results, inter alia in relation to citizenship or property rights...."It seems more signatories are being canvassed.
Update: Meanwhile, here are the folks at Latma (hat tip: David Singer)