3
   

Eye On Israel/Palestine

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2004 02:40 pm
Last Update: 29/05/2004 08:32

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's four-stage disengagement plan

May 28, 2004
Appendix A - Four-stage disengagement plan - Key principles

I. Background - Diplomatic and security significance

The State of Israel is committed to the peace process and endeavors to reach an agreed arrangement based on the vision presented by U.S. President George W. Bush.

The State of Israel believes it must take action to improve the current situation. The State of Israel has reached the conclusion that there is currently no partner on the Palestinian side with whom progress can be made on a bilateral process. Given this, a four-stage disengagement plan has been drawn up, based on the following considerations:

A. The stalemate embodied in the current situation is damaging; in order to break the stalemate, the State of Israel must initiate a process that is not dependent on cooperation with the Palestinians.

B. The aim of the plan is to bring about a better security, diplomatic economic and demographic reality.

C. In any future permanent arrangement, there will be no Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, it is clear that some parts of Judea and Samaria (including key concentrations of Jewish settlements, civilian communities, security zones and areas in which Israel has a vested interest) will remain part of the State of Israel.

D. The State of Israel supports the efforts of the United States, which is working along with the international community, to promote the process of reform, the establishment of institutions and improving the economic and welfare conditions of the Palestinian people, so that a new Palestinian leadership can arise, capable of proving it can fulfill its obligations under the road map.

E. The withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and from the northern part of Samaria will reduce interaction with the Palestinian population.

F. Completion of the four-stage disengagement plan will negate any claims on Israel regarding its responsibility for the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip.

G. The process of graduated disengagement does not detract from existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. The relevant security arrangements will remain in force.

H. International support for the four-stage disengagement plan is widespread and important. This support is vital in ensuring that the Palestinians fulfill their obligations in terms of fighting terror and implementing reforms, in accordance with the road map. Only then will the sides be able to resume negotiations.

II. Key points of the plan

A. The Gaza Strip

1. The State of Israel will withdraw from the Gaza Strip, including all Israeli settlements, and will redeploy outside the area of the Strip. The method of the withdrawal, with the exception of a military presence in the area adjacent to the border between Gaza and Egypt (the Philadelphi route), will be detailed below.

2. Once the move has been completed, there will be no permanent Israeli military presence in the evacuated territorial area of the Gaza Strip.

3. As a result of this, there will be no basis to the claim that the Strip is occupied land.

B. Judea and Samaria

1. The State of Israel will withdraw from northern Samaria (four settlements: Ganim, Kadim, Sa-Nur and Homesh) as well as all permanent military installations in the area, and will redeploy outside the evacuated area.

2. Once the move has been completed, there will be no permanent Israeli military presence in the area.

3. The move will provide Palestinian territorial contiguity in the northern parts of Samaria.

4. The State of Israel, along with the international community, will help improve the transportation infrastructure in Judea and Samaria, with the goal of providing continuous transport for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.

5. The move will make it easier for Palestinians to live a normal life in Judea and Samaria, and will facilitate economic and commercial activity.

C. The Process

The withdrawal process is slated to end by the end of 2005.

The settlements will be split into the following four groups:

1. Group A - Morag, Netzarim, Kfar Darom

2. Group B - The four settlements in northern Samaria (Ganim, Kadim, Sa-Nur and Homesh).

3. Group C - The Gush Katif bloc of settlements.

4. Group D - The settlements in the northern Gaza Strip (Alei Sinai, Dugit and Nissanit)

The necessary preparations will be undertaken in order to implement the four-stage disengagement plan (including administrative work to set relevant criteria, definitions and preparation of the necessary legislation.)

The government will discuss and decide separately on the evacuation of each of the above-mentioned groups.

D. The security fence

The State of Israel will continue to construct the security fence, in accordance with the relevant cabinet decisions. In deciding on the route of the fence, humanitarian considerations will be taken into account.

III. The security reality after the evacuation

A. The Gaza Strip

1. The State of Israel will monitor and supervise the outer envelope on land, will have exclusive control of the Gaza airspace, and will continue its military activity along the Gaza Strip's coastline.

2. The Gaza Strip will be completely demilitarized of arms banned by current agreements between the sides.

3. The State of Israel reserves the basic right to self defense, which includes taking preventive measures as well as the use of force against threats originating in the Gaza Strip.

B. The West Bank

1. After the evacuation of the northern Samaria settlements, there will be no permanent military presence in that area.

2. The State of Israel reserves the basic right to self defense, which includes taking preventive measures as well as the use of force against threats originating in the area.

3. Military activity will remain in its current framework in the rest of the West Bank. The State of Israel will, if circumstances allow, consider reducing its activity in Palestinian cities.

4. The State of Israel will work to reduce the number of checkpoints throughout the West Bank.

IV. Military infrastructure and installations in the Gaza Strip and the northern Samaria region

All will be dismantled and evacuated, except for those that the State of Israel decides to transfer to an authorized body.

V. The nature of the security assistance to the Palestinians

The State of Israel agrees that in coordination with it, consulting, assistance and training will be provided to Palestinian security forces for the purpose of fighting terror and maintaining the public order. The assistance will be provided by American, British, Egyptian, Jordanian or other experts, as will be agreed upon with Israel.

The State of Israel stresses that it will not agree to any foreign security presence in Gaza or the West Bank without its consent.

VI. The border area between the Strip and Egypt (the Philadelphi route)

The State of Israel will continue to maintain military presence along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (the Philadelphi route.) This presence is an essential security requirement. The physical widening of the route where the military activity will take place, may be necessary in certain areas.

The possibility of evacuating the area will be considered later on. This evacuation would be conditioned, among other factors, on the security reality and on the level of cooperation by Egypt in creating an alternative credible arrangement.

If and when the conditions are met enabling the evacuation of the area, the State of Israel will be willing to consider the possibility of setting up an airport and a seaport in the Gaza Strip, subject to arrangements agreed upon with the State of Israel.

VII. Real estate

In general, houses belonging to the settlers, and other sensitive structures such as synagogues will not be left behind. The State of Israel will aspire to transfer other structures, such as industrial and agricultural facilities, to an international third party that will use them for the benefit of the Palestinian population.

The Erez industrial zone will be transferred to an agreed-upon Palestinian or international body.

The State of Israel along with Egypt will examine the possibility of setting up a joint industrial zone on the border between Israel, Egypt and the Gaza Strip.

VIII. Infrastructure and civilian arrangements

The water, electricity, sewage and communications infrastructures will be left in place.

As a rule, Israel will enable the continued supply of electricity, water, gas and fuel to the Palestinians, under the existing arrangements and full compensation.

The existing arrangements, including the arrangements with regard to water and the electromagnetic area, will remain valid.

IX. The activity of the international civilian organizations

The State of Israel views very favorably continued activity of the international humanitarian organizations and those that deal will civil development, which aid the Palestinian population.

The State of Israel will coordinate with the international organizations the arrangements that will make this activity easier.

The State of Israel suggests that an international mechanism (such as the AHLC) be set up, in coordination with Israel and international bodies, that will work to develop the Palestinian economy.

X. Economic arrangements

In general, the economic arrangements that are currently in effect between Israel and the Palestinians will remain valid. These arrangements include, among other things:

A. The movement of goods between the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria, Israel and foreign countries.

B. The monetary regime.

C. The taxation arrangements and the customs envelope.

D. Postal and communications arrangements.

H. The entry of workers into Israel in accordance with the existing criteria.

In the long run, and in accordance with the Israeli interest in encouraging Palestinian economic independence, The State of Israel aspires to reduce the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel, and eventually to completely stop their entrance. The State of Israel will support the development of employment sources in the Gaza Strip and in the Palestinian areas in the West Bank, by international bodies.

XI. The international crossing points

A. The international crossing point between the Gaza Strip and Egypt

1. The existing arrangements will remain in force.

2. Israel is interested in transferring the crossing point to the "border triangle," south of its current location. This will be done in coordination with the Egyptian government. This will allow the expansion of the hours of activity at the crossing point.

B. The international crossing points between Judea and Samaria, and Jordan.

The existing arrangements will remain in force.

XII. The Erez crossing point

The Erez crossing point will be moved into the territory of the State of Israel according to a timetable that will be determined separately.

XIII. Summary
The implementation of the four-stage disengagement plan will bring about an improvement in the situation and a break from the current stagnation. If and when the Palestinian side shows a willingness, an ability and an implementation of actions to fight terrorism, a full cessation of terror and violence and the carrying out of reforms according to the roadmap, it will be possible to return to the track of discussions and negotiations.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 08:21 am
Moslem Prof.: Quran States that Holy Land is Jewish
15:51 Jun 06, '04 / 17 Sivan 5764


Prof. Khaleel Mohammed of San Diego State University is the latest Moslem expert to say that the Quran - the holiest Moslem work - is actually Zionist. He thus joins Sheikh Palazzi, secretary-general of the Italian Muslim Association.


Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, is the latest Moslem expert to say that the Quran - the holiest Moslem work - is actually Zionist.

In an interview with Jamie Glazov of FrontPageMagazine.com three days ago (June 3, 2004), Mohammed quoted the Qur'an (5:20-21) as saying:
"Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."

Prof. Mohammed emphasized that the above phrase "God has written for you" is very significant: "In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term 'written,' there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability... So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point of view: If God has 'written' Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?" He also quoted two of Islam's most famous exegetes - Ibn Kathir and Muhammad al-Shawkani - as supporting this explanation.

Imam Abdul Hadi Palazzi, secretary-general of the Italian Muslim Association, has long promoted that it is possible to be a Muslim scholar and leader and still support America, Israel and democracy. Citing pro-Jewish verses in the Quran, Sheikh Palazzi told a Jewish audience in Cleveland recently, "There are many good Muslims who value life on earth and the sanctity of their families. Israel should make every effort to support the growth of a pro-Israel movement among these Muslims... [but sadly, Muslims in Israel were emotionally and morally defeated by the Oslo Accords.] They felt that Israel was selling them out to Arafat. They need to be supported and encouraged to speak out in defense of Israel without fear of being assassinated by the PLO or Hamas... Oslo signaled to many of us that Israel was ready to accept peace at any price, and make incredible concessions to ruthless criminals."

Arab-American Nonie Darwish has recently opened a website <"www.ArabsforIsrael.com">. The site states, inter alia, "We are Arabs and Moslems who believe we can support the State of Israel and the Jewish religion and still treasure our Arab and Islamic culture."

Prof. Mohammed, in his interview with FrontPageMagazine, apportions at least partial blame for today's wars to the Muslims of the 7th century:
"[W]hen the Muslims entered that land [the Holy Land] in the seventh century, they were well aware of its rightful owners [the Jews], and when they failed to act according to divine mandate (at least as perceived by followers of all Abrahamic faiths), they aided and abetted in a crime. And the present situation shows the fruits of that action - wherein innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being killed on a daily basis."

"When the Muslims conquered Jerusalem," Prof. Mohammed continued, "it should have been left open for the rightful owners to return. It is possible that Jewish beliefs of the time only allowed such return under a Messiah - but that should not have influenced Muslim action... [The] Muslim occupation and building a mosque on the site of the Temple was something that was not sanctioned by The Quran. How honest is contemporary Islam with this? Given the situation in the Middle East, politicking, etc. stands in the way of honesty."

Prof. Mohammed says that Muslim groups have frequently denounced him because "I am out of line with the geo-political movement towards fundamentalism. What your readers must understand is that fundamentalism is rapidly becoming mainstream. Moderation is not. A perfect example is in Akbar Ahmed's "Islam Under Siege," where he points out that the Taliban are no longer a fringe group in Pakistan; many Pakistanis are finding themselves drawn to their teachings. Right here in the US, I present a problem to those at mosques who use social pressure to coerce others into accepting their extremism.. Many Muslims stand against me for no other reason than I say that Israel has a right to exist... I in no way deny that Palestinians have rights. But this is generally not considered by those that criticize my position..."
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 08:38 am
Interesting article au1929.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 10:21 am
Interesting, indedd.

(However, it should be mentioned that Professor Khaleel Mohammed isn't only born in [South-] America and an iman, but he is also a speaker with the United Jewish Communities [UJC].)
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 11:49 am
This gives hope that there will be peace between Muslims and Jews. Maybe not now, but in some future.
BTW, today Mr. Sharon managed to gain a governmental approval for his plan of disattachment from Palestine: it implies gradual withdrawal, including dismantling of settlements.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 12:05 pm
steissd wrote:

BTW, today Mr. Sharon managed to gain a governmental approval for his plan of disattachment from Palestine: it implies gradual withdrawal, including dismantling of settlements.


Quote:
According to the new formula, the plan will be approved by the cabinet but settlements will not be removed until March 2005, when Sharon will have to hold another vote at the cabinet to approve the move. In the nine months until then, the infrastructure for the settlement removal will be prepared
. Source

It was a 14:7 vote, btw.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 01:32 pm
Well, it is not so easy to transfer several thousand people. Some other housing must be built for these people, they are not supposed to remain homeless.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 02:59 pm
steissd wrote:
Well, it is not so easy to transfer several thousand people. Some other housing must be built for these people, they are not supposed to remain homeless.


In that case I would recommend to hire a couple of Orthodox colonists. What I've heard is that they can build houses real fast :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 03:01 pm
Rick d'Israeli wrote:

In that case I would recommend to hire a couple of Orthodox colonists. What I've heard is that they can build houses real fast :wink:


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 01:51 pm
Orthodox colonist? I thought it wa strictly unothodox. Smile
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 06:51 am
They Already Got Their "Right of Return"
by Steven Plaut
Jun 23, '04 / 4 Tammuz 5764




Try to imagine what the world would be like if Israel had granted the "Palestinian refugees" who fled from Israel in 1948-49 the right to return to Israel. Not to the West Bank. Not to the Gaza Strip. But to Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

Imagine a situation in which Israel agreed to allow tens of thousands of Arabs who fled from the battle zones of the Israeli War of Independence the possibility of returning to Israel, in many cases to the very homes they had abandoned during the fighting. Imagine how the same world, currently obsessed with achieving a "right of return" for "Palestinian refugees" were forced to acknowledge that Israel had already granted the possibility for tens of thousands of these refugees to return to Israel, in many cases decades ago. What would the world then have left to bash Israel about? What would the anti-Semites have left to scream about, or the crowd claiming to be "anti-Zionists but not anti-Semites", who only enjoy seeing "Zionist" children mass murdered, or the self-hating leftist Jewish anti-Semites?

Well, hold on to your shtreimel, because I have a whopper of a revelation to make to you. Israel did grant the "Palestinian refugees" the right to return to Israel!

Let us back up a bit. In 1947-48, the United Nations proposed partitioning "Palestine" into a Jewish and an Arab state of approximately equal sizes. The Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs rejected it. When the British Mandate over "Palestine" was ended under the UN decision, the Arab states attacked the newborn state of Israel, tried to annihilate it and its population, and at the same time gobbled up most of the territory that the UN had allotted to become a Palestinian Arab state.

The territory that became Israel had never been a Palestinian Arab state, ever. Most of the Arabs in "Palestine" had migrated in from neighboring Arab countries after the 19th-Century start of the Zionist Jewish immigration, taking advantage of the influx of capital, the availability of jobs and of services, like hospitals. In other words, the Arabs of "Palestine" in 1948, exactly like the Jews, were by and large people from families who had been in the country for three generations or less.

During the fighting in the 1948-49 war, thousands of Arabs living in the territory that became Israel fled. The main reason they fled was that they understandably wanted to put some distance between their families and the battle zones. At the same time, they were ordered by the Arab political leadership to leave the territory of Israel. Why take my word on this? Listen to Arab sources:

"The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."- Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in." - from the Jordanian daily A-Difaa, September 6, 1954

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland." (emphasis added) - Abu Mazen, erstwhile "Prime Minister" of the Palestinian Authority, in "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin Al-Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, in Beirut, March 1976.

And there are scores of other Arab sources confirming this.

So, how many Arabs fled? The number has become enormously distorted over time by the Bash-Israel Lobby and by Arab propagandists and their apologists, who usually claim between 500,000 and a million. A more realistic estimate is between 300,000 and 450,000, based in part on Arab and UNRWA sources themselves (http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/refugees.html). Most of these refugees ended up in some of the twenty-two sovereign Arab states, including those Arab countries from which they had migrated into "Palestine" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the first place. In other words, the "refugees" went back to their earlier homelands in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. It was a sort of "right of return."

At the same time, the Arab states carried out a near-total ethnic cleansing of around a million Jews, who had been living in those lands since Biblical days, in many cases, before these states had Arab populations (http://www.ajds.org.au/mendes_refugees.htm). The Jews from Arab countries left behind far more property than did the Palestinian Arab refugees (http://jewishrefugees.org/JusticeForJews.htm). Most of these Jewish refugees were resettled in Israel.

In the years immediately after World War II, there were more than 50 million refugees: Poles, Germans, Indians, Pakistanis, Hungarians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc., etc. They were all long ago resettled and forgotten, all except for the "Palestinian refugees". How come?

Because for decades, the Arab aggressor states found it convenient to utilize the "refugees" as a political and military weapon against Israel, not only of propaganda and spin, but of terrorism (http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/resettlement.html). "Palestinians" inside Arab states were trained as terrorists and sent out to murder. At the same time, there was enormous incentive for the Arab locals in the countries into which the refugees had entered to pretend also to be "Palestinian refugees" (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8650). After all, the UN and other agencies were handing out free food and perks to anyone pretending to be a refugee from "Palestine". (For further information and documentation, see http://arabterrorism.tripod.com/FAQ/refugees.html.)

Unlike all those many millions of other people considered refugees in the late 1940s, the "Palestinians" were the only ones for whom the "right of return" to their previous homes was considered an entitlement. The reason was not a selective affection for Palestinians, but a selective hostility towards Israel and Jews. Those demanding the wholesale "return" to Israel of Palestinian "refugees", including the countless thousands of non-Palestinians pretending to be Palestinian refugees, had one goal in mind, the eradication of Israel.

Israel would have been insane to allow itself to be inundated with real and make-pretend Palestinian "refugees", this in a tiny sliver of land the size of Maryland, at the same time that the 22 Arab states have territory-galore stretching from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to Central Asia. The Palestinian Arabs and their sponsors had tried to annihilate Israel and failed. Just like the infant United States, which refused to allow any of the tens of thousands of Tory Loyalists expelled by the patriots to "return" to the United States after the War of Independence, Israel was entirely in its rights to refuse to allow the "return" of masses of "Palestinians", whose migration was being demanded by those seeking to liquidate Israel via a demographic flooding.

There is just one little wrinkle though.

Israel did let the Palestinian refugees return. Tens of thousands of them were quietly allowed to return to Israel, in many cases to their original homes, once the fighting in 1949 subsided. Many continue to be admitted today within the framework of "family reunification" agreements.

From 1948 until 2001, Israel allowed about 184,000 "Palestinian refugees" or their families to "return" to Israel proper (Jerusalem Post, January 2, 2001; see also Ha'aretz, December 28, 2000). These are in addition to about 57,000 Palestinians from Jordan illegally in Israel, towards whom the authorities are turning a blind eye (Ha'aretz, April 4, 2001). They are not migrating to the West Bank, not to Gaza, but to Israel inside its pre-1967 "Green Line" borders. In the Camp David II meetings in 2000, Israeli leftist Prime Minister Ehud Barak rather insanely offered to allow another 150,000 "refugees" to enter Israel as part of a peace accord. The PLO's response was to launch pogroms and four years of atrocities, because the number was finite. (See also http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/immigration-oslo.html.)

The demand for a "right of return" by Palestinians to Israel is no doubt the most absurd political demand floating anywhere around the planet. There is already an Arab state in two thirds of Mandatory Palestine, named Jordan, and most of its population is Palestinian Arab. The Oslo Accords and Israel's Camp David II offer would have created a second Arab state in Palestine, in the West Bank and Gaza, as part of a comprehensive peace settlement. Any "Palestinian" from anywhere could have moved to "Palestine" or to Jordan, within the framework of such a peace, the same way any Jew who wishes to may immigrate to Israel, or any Armenian may immigrate to Armenia, and Greeks from the Greek Diaspora are automatically welcomed in Greece.

The PLO and the Islamofascist states backing it demand that in addition to establishing a second Arab state in Palestine within the framework of any peace settlement, Israel itself must also be converted into a third Arab Palestinian state, via unlimited massive immigration of people claiming to be Palestinians. Benjamin Franklin, who opposed granting even a dime in compensation to the Tory refugees expelled from the United States during the War of Independence, would be splitting his sides laughing.

But the most Orwellian absurdity of all is that Israel long ago did grant the right to "return" to Israel itself to tens of thousands of "Palestinian refugees". Did this earn Israel the world's gratitude for its uniquely generous gesture? Did the world denounce the Arab fascist states who ignored this generosity, and continued to seek Israel's destruction militarily and the genocide of its population? Do today's bleeding hearts and recreational compassion posturers, pretending to feel uncontrollable pain and caring for Palestinian refugees, even know about the limited "right of return" granted by Israel over the past decades?

Hindus have never been returned to Pakistan, Moslems from Pakistan have not been returned to India, ethnic Germans were not returned to their pre-war homes in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia or Romania, Japanese have not been returned to Manchuria, Greeks have not been returned to Anatolia, Jews have not been compensated for the billions they left behind when ethnic cleansing of Jews in Moslem countries took place, and Tory Loyalists were never returned to New England. But tens of thousands of "Palestinian refugees" were granted by Israel what none of these others received.

It is time to say enough is enough. The only remaining reasonable plan regarding those still claiming to be "Palestinian refugees" is simply - "Foggedaboutit."
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 06:03 am
I do not think there are people here who are in favor of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to what is now Israel.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2004 11:55 am
2Rick d'Israeli
I hope so. But in 2002-3 there were some postings claiming that the very establishment of State of Israel was a historical error of the UN and the Superpowers (USSR and USA).
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2004 02:15 pm
steissd
There still are more than a few who feel that Israel should never have been established and would like to see it's demise.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 06:44 am
I've decided to resurrect this thread, for my own edification more than anything else. I hope discussion will resume.

The World Court finally got around to ruling on the Israeli fence - the ruled against it. Isreal, of course, has refused to acknowledge the courts authority, rendering the decision ultimately inconsequential.

Last month the Isreali Supreme Court ruled that the barrier was legal, but recommended that it be shortened considerably.

Quote:
[size=25]World court rules Israel's West Bank barrier illegal[/size]

Sat Jul 10, 4:24 AM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!

THE HAGUE (AFP) - The world court delivered a sweeping indictment of Israel's controversial barrier in the occupied West Bank, declaring it illegal and calling for parts to be torn down.


In a ruling hailed by the Palestinians but rejected out of hand by Israel, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said if the barrier became permanent it would be tantamount to a "de facto annexation" of occupied land.


It called for the United Nations (news - web sites) to act after determining that the wall, which in some areas slices West Bank villages in half, breached international law.


The court said construction should be halted immediately and sections which encroach on Palestinian territory should be dismantled.


The barrier infringed the rights of Palestinian residents who had seen their homes and farmland seized or destroyed, it added, and called on Israel to pay compensation for the hardship caused.


The Palestinians wasted no time in demanding international sanctions against Israel, while veteran leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) hailed the decision as a "victory for the Palestinian people."


"We salute this decision condemning the racist wall," Arafat said.


But the Jewish state dismissed the court's "advisory opinion" even before it was issued and vowed that construction of the 700 kilometre (450 mile) network of electric fencing, barbed wire and concrete walls would carry on unimpeded.


Israel insists the barrier is necessary to prevent Palestinian attacks but the Palestinians denounce it as little more than a land grab aimed at pre-empting a definitive demarcation of the border of a future state.


The Hague (news - web sites)-based court, the highest UN legal body, said it recognised Israel's right to defend itself but that its security concerns did not justify the hardship caused by the wall.


But Israel said the ICJ was not competent to debate the issue and accused it of ignoring "Palestinian terrorism," which it said was the main factor behind the wall's construction.


"No country would have acted differently in the face of such a criminal campaign," an Israeli government statement said, adding that since the September 2000 start of the Palestinian intifada nearly 1,000 Israelis had been killed and tens of thousands wounded.


Israel was backed by its top ally the United States, which said it believed it was "inappropriate" for the court to issue a ruling on a "political issue."


But EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said while the European Union (news - web sites) recognised Israel's right to self-defence, the barrier hindered the search for peace in the Middle East.


"At the same time, we have underlined that the wall not only results in confiscation of Palestinian land and causes untold humanitarian and economic hardship, but also could prejudge future negotiations and hinder a just political solution to the conflict," he added.


The Palestinians sought international punishment for Israel.


"This decision will lead to the isolation of Israel, and the international community should impose sanctions against Israel, for it is violating the law and international relations," said top Arafat advisor Nabil Abu Rudeina.





Amid huge controversy, and against a backdrop of continued violence, the ICJ was asked by the UN General Assembly last year to assess "the legal consequences" of the barrier.

Leaked copies of the judgement had circulated on the Internet long before the court issued its ruling, which was adopted by 14 votes to one. The sole dissenter was an American judge who said the court lacked "credibility" because it had failed to give serious consideration to Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

"The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments," the ruling said.

"The court considers that the construction of the wall and its associated regime create a 'fait accompli' on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case... it would be tantamount to de facto annexation," it said.

"The United Nations and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall," the ICJ added.

It also said "all states are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation".

The advisory opinion was read in its entirety by the head of the 15-judge panel, China's Shi Jiuyong, over almost two and a half hours.

Last month Israel's supreme court ruled that parts of the barrier should be rerouted north of Jerusalem because it infringed the rights of 35,000 Palestinians but it confirmed in effect the government's right to build the barrier on security grounds.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 07:21 am
It will be interesting to see how this matter plays out when it is brought the the General Assembly of the UN this Thursday. It is a given, I think, that most non-Western nations will vote in favor of the International Courts decision. According to what I've read, the Isrealis are trying to convince Western countries to abstain from voting.

The block of 25 nations that constitutes the European Union is expected to abstain because they will not be able to formulate a consensus.

Whatever the result, the United States has already vowed to block any resolutions against Isreal at the Security Council.

To be honest, the whole thing is rather confusing; everything is obfuscated in overwhelming beaurocracy. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the ins and outs of the UN could explain to me:

a) Assuming most nations vote in favor of the International Court's resolution, what would the tangible consequences be?

b) America has vowed to block any resolutions against Israel at the security council. How is this related - or is it the same thing - as the vote at the General Assembly on Thursday?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 07:30 am
I wonder if the whole thing can be resolved with a terrorist bomb planted at the world court while in session. Perhaps that bit of realism could give the judges a better prospective. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 07:41 am
I wonder, au, if that is your opinion as well on the cases, where the International Court of Justice (it's not a 'World Court', btw, ruled in favour for e.g. the USA.

And I do wonder more, au, which institution you suggest to solve legal questions between states, when you have bombed this institution.


Seems to be a kind of -how do you call that ?- 'third world mentality': kill those, whom you don't like, even if you brought them in office.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 07:53 am
Walter that was a tongue in cheek statement that apparently went over your head.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 07:55 am
au1929 wrote:
I wonder if the whole thing can be resolved with a terrorist bomb planted at the world court while in session. Perhaps that bit of realism could give the judges a better prospective. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes



I wonder if the whole thing can be settled if Isreali tanks surrounded the UN court while in session, constructed a 'protective' barrier around it, bombed them intermittantly, and oppressed them wontonly for decades. It could give the judges a little more perspective.

[/equally ridiculous allegory]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 10:28:41