YLE och andra rapporterar att Finland tillsammans med 18 andra stater i ett gemensamt uttalande fördömer Israels agerande på västbanken. Finland gör här gemensam sak med arab- och muslimstaterna och den palestinska myndigheten. Är det verkligen där Finland hör hemma?
Suomi ja joukko muita maita tuomitsevat Israelin pyrkimykset Länsirannalla
Det som är intressant med uttalandet är att Finland hör till de stater som vill hålla fast vid det gamla regelbaserade världsordningen. Man vill att internationella avtal och överenskommelser skall hållas och styra staters agerande. Men det gäller som känt inte när man behandlar Israel.
Enligt internationella avtal tillhör västbanken det område som gavs till judarna för att de där skulle återupprätta sin nationalstat. (San Remo deklarationen och stadgarna för Palestinamandatet)
Om Israel förändrar lagar som berör området borde det inte vara något att bråka om.
Det kan vara intressant att i sammanhanget läsa vad Alan Baker skriver om saken i Jerusalem Post:
These government measures are not de facto annexation
(Alan Baker heads the International Law Program at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs. He is an expert in international law and former ambassador of the state of Israel to Canada.)
Israel’s security cabinet has approved a set of administrative changes affecting day-to-day governance and law enforcement in the territories. Predictably, the response has been split between celebration and outrage. Supporters have hailed the measures as “de facto annexation.” Critics have denounced them as exactly the same. Both camps are wrong.
...In the territory under its administration, Israel is duty-bound to ensure public order and to prevent arbitrary obstructions – whether by Israeli or Palestinian residents, or by local municipal and other authorities – that disrupt day-to-day life.
Streamlining legal and administrative procedures, improving planning and oversight, ensuring transparent property purchase and registration, and protecting archaeological sites are all part of Israel’s responsibilities under the existing framework. Respect for private property in the territories, including in the context of Israel’s settlement policies, was affirmed in 2012 by an expert, government-established legal commission headed by Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, which sought to protect private ownership and regulate settlement activity.
At the same time, nothing prevents private, legitimate, and transparent property transactions conducted lawfully by willing parties. In that context, the decision to enable lawful land transactions and not to apply in the territories a distinctly discriminatory and antisemitic Jordanian-era law that barred the sale of land to Jews cannot reasonably be described as “de facto annexation.”
...Exaggerated condemnations by international leaders have relied on selective and misleading framing. They accuse Israel of annexation without engaging seriously with the nature of the measures themselves.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar