This book analyses both the substance of Israel's National security law and the dynamics of its historical development. It examines the normative principles upon which Israel's national security law is based, institutional arrangements for the formulation and protection of national security law, and the style in which Israeli national security law is formulated.

Contents.

The author argues that Israel stands on the frontlines of a new struggle over the international laws of war and exposes abuses of law that have been promulgated by international human rights lawyers, UN bodies, and intellectuals to illegitimately circumscribe the right of liberal democracies to defend themselves against transnational terrorists. The Goldstone Report, which was published by the United Nations in September 2009, and the Gaza flotilla controversy, which erupted at the end of May 2010, are examples of those abuses. This book criticizes the flawed assumptions and defective claims arising from both the Goldstone Report and the Gaza flotilla controversy, showing how the legal principles and conclusions advanced by many of Israel's critics threaten not only Israel's national security interests but the United States' as well.

“A brilliant and bracing analysis of the Palestine question and settler colonialism . . . a vital lens into movement lawyering on the international plane.” —Vasuki Nesiah, New York University, founding member of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) Justice in the Question of Palestine is often framed as a question of law. Yet none of the Israel-Palestinian conflict’s most vexing challenges have been resolved by judicial intervention. Occupation law has failed to stem Israel’s settlement enterprise. Laws of war have permitted killing and destruction during Israel’s military offensives in the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accord’s two-state solution is now dead letter. Justice for Some offers a new approach to understanding the Palestinian struggle for freedom, told through the power and control of international law. Focusing on key junctures—from the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to present-day wars in Gaza—Noura Erakat shows how the strategic deployment of law has shaped current conditions. Over the past century, the law has done more to advance Israel’s interests than the Palestinians’. But, Erakat argues, this outcome was never inevitable. Law is politics, and its meaning and application depend on the political intervention of states and people alike. Within the law, change is possible. International law can serve the cause of freedom when it is mobilized in support of a political movement. Presenting the promise and risk of international law, Justice for Some calls for renewed action and attention to the Question of Palestine. “Careful and captivating . . . This book asks that the Palestinian liberation struggle and Jewish-Israeli society each reckon with the impossibility of a two-state future, reimagining what their interests are—and what they could become.” —Amanda McCaffrey, Jewish Currents

Terror attacks on western civilian targets have stimulated interest in the dilemmas faced by liberal societies when combating threats to national security. Combining the perspectives of political science and law, this book addresses that discourse, asking how democracies seek to harmonize the protection of individual liberties with the defence of state interests. The book focuses on the experience of Israel, a country whose commitment to democratic values has continuously been challenged by multiple threats to national survival. It examines the legal, legislative and institutional methods employed to resolve the dilemmas generated by that situation, and thus provides a unique interpretation of Israeli national security behaviour. Policy-making and policy-implementation in this sphere, it shows, have reflected not just external constraints but also shifts in the domestic balance of power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The book concludes with an agenda of the measures that each branch of government needs to implement in order to repair the flaws that have developed in this system over time. Based on a close reading of legislative and court readings, the book proposes a new taxonomy for the analysis of national security legal frameworks, both in Israel and elsewhere in the democratic world. As such it will be of great interest to students and scholars of political science, national security law, Israeli history and civil-military relations.

Rodman (a contributor to such journals as The Journal of Strategic Studies, Israel Affairs, and Defence Studies) provides an explanatory outline of the Israeli national security doctrine, "pragmatic and effective, though essentially unarticulated." He begins with a description of the historical arcs of the key military and diplomatic variables of d.

In recent years, countries around the world introduced numerous national security programs and military campaigns. Despite the complex legal questions they raise, very few of these measures have been the subject of rigorous judicial review. Nevertheless, the absence of real-time review has had an enormous effect on human rights, rule of law, and on national security. The Supreme Court of Israel provides an excellent case study of a different approach, which allows judges to assess military action in real-time and to issue non-binding results of their evaluation. This raises the question: How was the Court actually able to uphold this challenge? In Judicial Review of National Security, David Scharia explains how the Supreme Court of Israel developed unconventional judicial review tools and practices that allowed it to provide judicial guidance to the Executive in real-time. In this book, he argues that courts could play a much more dominant role in reviewing national security, and demonstrates the importance of intensive real-time inter-branch dialogue with the Executive, as a tool used by the Israeli Court to provide such review. This book aims to show that if one Supreme Court was able to provide rigorous judicial review of national security in real-time, then we should reconsider the conventional wisdom regarding the limits of judicial review of national security.