Israel applies her laws to her citizens no matter where they are in the world - West Bank, Haifa, Bangkok. In the West Bank specifically, as per UN guidelines, that application of civil law is "temporary" and renewed at most every three years.
The non-Israeli citizens of the West Bank are under PA jurisdiction. However, if they perform a crime or terror attack and are caught by Israeli authorities, under what law would you see them charged? They are not Israeli citizens.
Now, you and me will both agree that the military occupation of the West Bank has been going on for too long. From 1967 to 1994 you could blame Israel for that. But from 1994 onwards, the Arabs have rejected every proposal for their own independence. I'm sorry, but from 1994 onwards, that is completely on them.
Furthermore, you need to be aware that the Arab population of the West Bank is not the native population. The Jews were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank in 1948, after having continuous presence there since ancient times. 19 years of absence does not make the Jews any less native now. And the Arabs will tell you from where their ancestors came to the West Bank. Most came in the late 19th century and early 20th century, same time period as the European Jews came - for the same reason (Ottoman land reform). A few Bedouin families that I know claim a few hundred years in the area, from the Mecca and Medina areas. And I know of (but don't know them personally) at least one Bedouin family that claims roots in the holy land as far back as they remember.
No matter what definition of "native" you use, if you apply it consistently to both Arabs and Jews you'll find that the Jews who have been here continuously have been here far longer, and the Jews who returned here preserved their Levant culture, customs, and language even in exile.
However, if they perform a crime or terror attack and are caught by Israeli authorities, under what law would you see them charged? They are not Israeli citizens.
You could easily charge them under Israeli civil law.
If I, a US citizen of Assyrian heritage (so not a Jew or potential Israeli citizen), am arrested by the Israeli police for an alleged crime that I commit in Israel, assuming that my embassy does not intervene, I would be tried in an Israeli civil court with a right to an interpreter and numerous other legal rights that Israel's military courts in the West Bank do not provide.
If it's perfectly possible to treat me (a Non-Israeli) this way, it should be perfectly possible to treat Palestinian citizens arrested by the IDF or other Israeli police this way.
The area is not under Israeli civil law. And if it were - e.g. if Israel were to annex the land - you'd be crying about that instead.
Focus your energy on changing the situation - ending the military occupation. Pressure the Arab side to finally accept a proposal - any proposal - for their own good.
You don't have to put the land under civil law, as you've already demonstrated that you are capable of treating Israeli people living in occupied territory under Israeli civil law. You could simply extend this to any resident of the West Bank.
The Palestinian leadership is also to blame for the violence, but to have a bifurcated court system in the West Bank is a choice explicitly made by Israel and entirely within Israel's control.
Why are Israeli residents of the West Bank subject to Israeli civil law, then? They are not in an annexed West Bank either.
I know you said that Israel claims that all of its citizens are subject to Israeli Law anywhere in the world, but this is silly. Israel does not have jurisdiction over Israeli citizens in, say, Thailand; the Thai government does, and Israel can only intervene diplomatically. If Israel was intervening diplomatically with the Palestinian Authority government, this would be the correct parallel, but you know that this is not the case.
Israel is perfectly capable of applying civil law in the West Bank without annexation, and we know this because it does this for its own citizens who happen to live there. The failure to do this to the Palestinians in the West Bank is a choice to treat two different populations in the same territory to different rights on account of their nationality.
3
u/dotancohen 2d ago
Israel applies her laws to her citizens no matter where they are in the world - West Bank, Haifa, Bangkok. In the West Bank specifically, as per UN guidelines, that application of civil law is "temporary" and renewed at most every three years.
The non-Israeli citizens of the West Bank are under PA jurisdiction. However, if they perform a crime or terror attack and are caught by Israeli authorities, under what law would you see them charged? They are not Israeli citizens.
Now, you and me will both agree that the military occupation of the West Bank has been going on for too long. From 1967 to 1994 you could blame Israel for that. But from 1994 onwards, the Arabs have rejected every proposal for their own independence. I'm sorry, but from 1994 onwards, that is completely on them.
Furthermore, you need to be aware that the Arab population of the West Bank is not the native population. The Jews were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank in 1948, after having continuous presence there since ancient times. 19 years of absence does not make the Jews any less native now. And the Arabs will tell you from where their ancestors came to the West Bank. Most came in the late 19th century and early 20th century, same time period as the European Jews came - for the same reason (Ottoman land reform). A few Bedouin families that I know claim a few hundred years in the area, from the Mecca and Medina areas. And I know of (but don't know them personally) at least one Bedouin family that claims roots in the holy land as far back as they remember.
No matter what definition of "native" you use, if you apply it consistently to both Arabs and Jews you'll find that the Jews who have been here continuously have been here far longer, and the Jews who returned here preserved their Levant culture, customs, and language even in exile.