A legal challenge and a public campaign in Israel and abroad against Ariel Sharon's evacuation plan should be based on the plan being patently illegal.
In particular:
1. International law dictates the encouragement and the facilitation of dense Jewish settlement in at least all of Western Palestine. It requires the accomplishing of this duty with great urgency and it does not allow a temporary freezing of this activity. It is important to realize, as has been emphasized by the most eminent professors of international law, such as Eugene Rostow and Julius Stone, that this duty is an absolute must according to international law; i.e., the dense Jewish settlement in at least all of Western Palestine is not just compatible with international law, but it is an absolute requirement. The proposed plan is the antithesis of this obligation according to international law and as such is patently illegal.
2. International law requires "that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any other way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power." The proposed transfer of the land out of Jewish control is thus patently illegal.
3. It is the same rules and forum of international law that have encoded the above two principles that provide the justification for the existence of an Arab state and a Jewish state in the Middle East. They all stand and fall together.
4. It is illegal to compel Israel to part with its internationally-recognized national assets, in particular under duress and terror.
5. The singling out of Jews for transfer would be illegal anywhere in the world (where Jews have aggregated by chance) according to basic principles of human rights (see for example, Prof. E. Shochetman in C. Barder's article in the June issue of the online English edition of Nativ). This is even more illegal in a location where Jews have additional national rights according to international law.
In addition to the above basic principles, one should recall also:
6. It is not democratic or legal to come to power on a manifesto diametrically opposed to the proposed evacuation plan and then, without explaining what has fundamentally changed on the ground since the two elections, to urgently initiate said evacuation plan.
7. It is not democratic or legal to initiate a referendum in the largest forum of the party that brought one to power, and to promise to abide by the results of the referendum, but when the referendum reaffirms the party manifesto and its opposition to one's plan, to ignore the referendum's results without explaining what has fundamentally changed on the ground in the few days since the referendum.
[A further discussion of the above points is found in http://www.think-israel.org/shifftan.israelipr.html.]
In particular:
1. International law dictates the encouragement and the facilitation of dense Jewish settlement in at least all of Western Palestine. It requires the accomplishing of this duty with great urgency and it does not allow a temporary freezing of this activity. It is important to realize, as has been emphasized by the most eminent professors of international law, such as Eugene Rostow and Julius Stone, that this duty is an absolute must according to international law; i.e., the dense Jewish settlement in at least all of Western Palestine is not just compatible with international law, but it is an absolute requirement. The proposed plan is the antithesis of this obligation according to international law and as such is patently illegal.
2. International law requires "that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any other way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power." The proposed transfer of the land out of Jewish control is thus patently illegal.
3. It is the same rules and forum of international law that have encoded the above two principles that provide the justification for the existence of an Arab state and a Jewish state in the Middle East. They all stand and fall together.
4. It is illegal to compel Israel to part with its internationally-recognized national assets, in particular under duress and terror.
5. The singling out of Jews for transfer would be illegal anywhere in the world (where Jews have aggregated by chance) according to basic principles of human rights (see for example, Prof. E. Shochetman in C. Barder's article in the June issue of the online English edition of Nativ). This is even more illegal in a location where Jews have additional national rights according to international law.
In addition to the above basic principles, one should recall also:
6. It is not democratic or legal to come to power on a manifesto diametrically opposed to the proposed evacuation plan and then, without explaining what has fundamentally changed on the ground since the two elections, to urgently initiate said evacuation plan.
7. It is not democratic or legal to initiate a referendum in the largest forum of the party that brought one to power, and to promise to abide by the results of the referendum, but when the referendum reaffirms the party manifesto and its opposition to one's plan, to ignore the referendum's results without explaining what has fundamentally changed on the ground in the few days since the referendum.
[A further discussion of the above points is found in http://www.think-israel.org/shifftan.israelipr.html.]