Outline of A Legal Strategy Against Disengagement

I am trying to develop a legal line for a possible appeal to either Israel's High Court of Justice (Bagatz) or even the International Court of Justice.I am well aware that many of the lawyers I have turned to either fear that Israel's justices are too far left in their personal opinions to be sympathetic with the arguments or that the international tribunal even less so.

Nevertheless, since I do think my arguments logical and truthful, and becausein a very fundamental sense the protest activity we are engaged in and what Pinchas Wallerstien is now promoting - a non-violent but direct action campaign -is based on these arguments, we are going to have to "go public" eventually in some forum, even if it be magistrates' courts as a result of being arrested in Gush Katif or on the way there.I will keep my points short and concise. As we are still waiting the publicationof Howard Grief's book, much more detail can be found here:
http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2html

http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/infocenter/Heb/HowardGriefAttachE.html

Please review this and let me know what you think. And if there are any lawyers out there who can write this up as a proper petition, you must get in touch with me.

Here's the outline:

1. The right of a Jew to live, reside and make a livelihood, a right grounded in religious, demographic and historical traditions, custom and realities a 3,000 years old, was recognized by international law in 1920 at the San Remo Conference and thencodified by the highest international body at the time, the Supreme Council of theLeague of Nations in its July 1922 decision granting Great Britain the Mandate for Palestine.

2. That decision can be broken down into these elements:

a. the territory was originally to be all of what was then considered Palestine, east as well as west of the Jordan River.
b. even though Trans-Jordan was suspended from the terms of the Jewish National Home, for sure all of the area west of the Jordan River, i.e., Judea, Samaria and Gaza, were included.
c. the purpose of this decision was to reestablish and reconstitute in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people. Not one word was mentioned about "Arabs".
d. to accomplish this sacred undertaking, political, economic and administrative conditions to secure this development needed to be taken (Article 2).
e. no territory of Palestine (at the least, J, S & G) was to be ceded, leased or in any way placed under the control of the government of any foreign power (Article 5).
d. the right of Jews to closely settle on the land was of paramount consideration (Article 6).

3. This decision was to be implemented by the Jewish Agency of the World Zionist Organization.

4. The 1952 Law of the Status of the JA/WZO designated the JA/WZO as the body to continue to operate for the development and the settlement of the country. A second law, in 1954, established a "pact" which granted the JA/WZO the right to represent World Jewry in the fields of immigration and settlement.

5. Ever since 1967, J, S & G have indeed been "settled" by the JA/WZO.

6. Thus we come to the crucial part of my argument which may be a bit new:
While the state of Israel can, theoretically, withdraw its forces from J, S & G, they cannot expell and transfer Jews out of their homes, farms and factories. This prohibition is based on international law and the laws of the state of Israel itself. A Jew has the principled right to live anywhere in J,S & G.
Therefore, any Jew currently living in Gush Katif or any of the northern Samarian communities who belongs to the WZO (being a member of NRP, Likud, Moledet, etc. is enough to qualify your standing in this case as they are members of ther WZO) should be able to petition the courts against the Disengagement Law and any subsequent actions taken based on that law.