The main legal issues before the Committee are whether the Covenant applies in principle to Israeli actions in the WBGS and whether in practice Israel still exercises effective jurisdiction over the WBGS.
In its report to the Committee, Israel rejected both the application of the Covenant to the WBGS and also its own exercise of effective jurisdiction over the WBGS. First, Israel argues that its human rights obligations do not extend beyond "the territory of the State of Israel" and therefore do not apply to the WBGS. Second, Israel argues that it "no longer exercises effective jurisdiction" in the WBGS by virtue of having "transferred actual authority and responsibility for over 90% of the populationÉ to the Palestinian Council/Authority" under the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Corollary to this second argument, Israel claims that "the Palestinian Council/Authority now enjoys exclusive responsibility in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza StripÉ in respect to the vast majority of issues that fall within the scope of this Covenant."
It is astonishing that Israel can make such arguments before the Committee only weeks after having fought at Wye to hand over as little territory as possible to Palestinian jurisdiction and control. The Committee should reject these claims as a transparent attempt by Israel to circumvent its well-established human rights obligations.