Comments on: Edmond Levi: Israel’s one-state justice

By: Aaron the Fascist Troll

Aaron the Fascist Troll — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 06:43:41 +0000

It’s not clear to me that the internal logic of these decisions points to “a state for Jews and Palestinians alike.”
*
To start with the second decision: That seems to be a standard social welfare argument that would apply equally to Israelis-only and to Israelis-and-Palestinians. I don’t see how it’s even connected to the question of non-citizen Palestinians.
*
The first decision cites traditionally Zionist principles: the right to “close settlement by Jews on the land,” “we made the desert bloom,” etc. There’s also an appeal to the settlements as an accomplished fact—the children “never had another home”—but that applies just as well to a colonial as to an integrated framework.
*
The internal logic of the third decision actually points *away* from the integrated or one-state framework. First of all, the final disclaimer is not necessarily a case of “doth protest too much.” Given the demographic motivation behind the law, it’s quite natural to anticipate such a rhetorical reaction against the decision, i.e., to anticipate that ruling against the law would be called in effect an implementation of Palestinian “right of return.”
*
But the most significant part is in the decision itself. While the law itself was clearly designed to discriminate against certain non-citizens, the decision (as summarized here) ignores that discrimination and focuses exclusively on Israeli citizens. There’s a concern about the law’s disastrous consequences to “the majority, who brought this law into the world,” i.e., the Jewish citizens of Israel. Not just that, but the decision cites the Declaration of Independence, which was partly addressed to Arab *citizens* of Israel, not to Arabs in Judea, Samaria, or Gaza. The most likely interpretation is that Levy holds the common (but clearly incorrect) view that the law ethnically discriminates against the Israeli citizens, not (only) against their non-citizen spouses. Therefore, his appeal to the Declaration is a traditional appeal to the rights of the Israeli citizen, specifically ignoring any rights or interests of the non-citizen Palestinian in the territories. The internal logic of Levy’s decisions point back to the traditional, “colonialist” model of Zionism, and away from any integrated framework.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:39:34 +0000

France should form one-state with Spain. Lebanon and Syria should merge and form one state. Gaza and Egypt should form one state. USA and Mexico should form one state. Italy and Greece should merge and form one state. Everyone should merge with their neighbors!
…
Oh? They shouldn’t? ONLY ISRAEL should be asked to suicide themselves and end the existence of the world’s only Jewish state? So there can be dozens of Muslim states, dozens of Arab states, and 0 Jewish states?
…
That’s PERFECTLY reasonable! (Sarcasm.)

By: directrob

directrob — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:21:34 +0000

Who am I to explain, the rules are part of customary international law see:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf

By: Michael W.

Michael W. — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:41:57 +0000

Law? You mean rule, right?

By: directrob

directrob — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:17:13 +0000

Does it really matter? We all know the real law.
.
Rule 132. Displaced persons have a right to voluntary return in safety to their homes or places of habitual residence as soon as the reasons for their displacement cease to exist.
.
Rule 133. The property rights of displaced persons must be respected.
.
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule132

By: Jazzy

Jazzy — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:55:30 +0000

There was plenty of ‘right of return’ talk surrounding the Citizenship Law case, even if, for obvious reasons, the Arab spouses didn’t demand it in their briefs. So there isn’t really some kind of weird Freudian subconscious recognition of ‘right of return’ as a part of civic equality, I’m afraid – someone at Yale Law should be familiar enough with other opinions that preemptively address public concerns to know that this kind of thing is not uncommon in judicial opinions. So really the last sentence just comes out of nowhere – Levi actually, very explicitly, doesn’t agree with the idea that ‘right of return’ is part of civic equality – this is a total distortion.