Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Anti-Israel Conferences
Anti-Israel Academic Resolutions
Lectures Interrupted
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
On the Brighter Side
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Rebuttal to Dr. Amir Paz-Fuchs


Tel Aviv University


[TAU & Ono] Part 4 - Rebuttal by IAM to Dr. Amir Paz Fuchs "The Inner Morality of law under Israel's occupations"
Paz-Fuchs errs fundamentally in applying Fuller’s eight procedural rules to the military legislation in the territories in that the rules were never intended to apply to military legislation. Moreover, several, indeed most, of Paz-Fuchs’s examples relate not to military legislation but to military practice (placement of roadblocks/checkpoints, targeted killings, the Security Barrier, and so forth), to which Fuller’s rules are irrelevant.
In numerous instances, Paz-Fuchs’s alleged statement of facts is inaccurate: the Security Barrier’s route has, in fact, been changed following Supreme Court decisions, targeted killings are not as such illegal, Israel has repeatedly claimed that the territories are disputed territory, and has, indeed, annexed sections of the West Bank to Jerusalem and has continuously claimed that the settlement blocs will be part of Israel in any agreement between the two sides. In addition, contrary to Paz-Fuchs's allegations, Israel has shown its willingness to withdraw from territory.
Rather than conduct a fair and honest review of military legislation, and military practice in the territories, Paz-Fuchs blatantly misrepresented and misused Fuller’s procedural rules to advance his political agenda.


Tel Aviv University


[TAU & Ono] Part 3 - Rebuttal by IAM to Dr. Amir Paz Fuchs "The Inner Morality of law under Israel's occupations"
The requirement of Rule 3 is clarity. Paz-Fuchs’ declarations and theorizing on Israeli legislation in the territories is anything but clear, and his political polemic is superficial, faulty and irrelevant to Rule 3.
He speaks of the “introduction of vague formulas into legislation and jurisdiction” and a “vague system of relations, loyalties and alliances,” but gives no applicable example. He claims Israel is vague regarding the status of the territories, which vagueness, he contends, enables Israel to sanction acts that, absent the vagueness, would be clearly unlawful. His own argument is undermined by such vagueness.


Tel Aviv University


[TAU & Ono] Part 2 - Rebuttal by IAM to Dr. Amir Paz Fuchs "The Inner Morality of law under Israel's occupations"
In sum, Paz-Fuchs confuses orders/procedures with rules/law that Fuller’s procedural natural law theory relates to. As noted, the examples that Paz-Fuchs has furnished have been expressed in sufficiently general terms to comport with Fuller’s rule of generality.


Tel Aviv University


[TAU & Ono] Part 1 - Rebuttal by IAM to Dr. Amir Paz Fuchs "The Inner Morality of law under Israel's occupations"
Israel Academia Monitor has initiated a new program aimed at tracking the contribution of Israeli professors to lawfare (legal warfare), defined as the use of international law and human rights conventions to delegitimize the state of Israel in the international arena.
IAM believes that too little attention has been paid to this highly effective strategy.
The following article is a detailed rebuttal to a lecture which Dr. Amir Paz-Fuchs (Ono Academic Center and Tel Aviv University's Human Rights Clinic) delivered at a conference co-sponsored by the Ono Academic Center and the Law Faculty at Columbia University. The lecture was posted on Youtube and widely disseminated.



Back to "Lawfare"Send Response
Top Page
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 257176439Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version