The IDF supports this conclusion. I submit that it is much more complicated than this.
Obviously war precedes belligerent occupation. Thus it is necessary to determine when the war ends and belligerent occupation begins. To shed light on this question we should look at a legal decision as to when it ends which is cited in this Report.
In The Hostages Case, the Nuremburg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations’ basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.[34] It held that “[t]he test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power.”
So the question becomes, does Israel have the ability to exercise effective control? In other words, does Israel have the ability to subdue the terrorists and maintain law and order? I submit not; at least, not without going to war, as the US is doing in Iraq. This would entail much death and destruction. But if Israel were to attempt this, the world will complain that it is using excessive force and is not sufficiently protective of the Palestinian civil and human rights.
In effect international law would be argued to conclude that Israel has the ability to exercise effective control but would also be argued to inhibit Israel from doing so.
The Report argues
“[…] one of the primary motivations behind the Gaza Disengagement Plan is to “dump” 1.3 million non-Jews while illegally confiscating as much Palestinian land in the West Bank as possible.”
And I agree except for the description. “illegally confiscating”.
Other motivations which have been alluded to by Sharon include increased security and less pressure to make concessions are wishful thinking, similarly for freezing the peace process. The opposite will be the case.
As for the primary motivation above set out. I ask you, how will Israel have "dumped the 1.3 million Non-Jews"? Since Israel will still be considered the occupier, it is doubtful to say the least, that Israel will have accomplished even that.
As for whether it will have strengthened its hold on major settlement blocks, the answer is far from certain. America is not yet fully committed to this. Remember that the letters exchanged with Bush merely state that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" and that ".. the settling of Palestinian refugees there (Palestine), rather than in Israel.". I would point out that what is "unrealistic" doesn't have much currency in the world when it comes to Israel and that the all-important words "all" or "the" don't precede "Palestinian refugees" as they didn't proceed "territories" to be relinquished in Resolution 242.
The EU recently reaffirmed its intention to pressure Israel to go back to the Green Line.
So what in effect, will disengagement accomplish? One thing for sure is that it will leave Gaza, Juderein. It will also succeed in traumatizing Israel, the effects of which we can only imagine. Similarly it will energize the Arabs to continue with their Khartoum Declaration of "no negotiations, no recognition and no peace.
For there to be any chance of success, the Quartet or parts thereof must take responsibility for establishing a responsible government in Gaza and ending the attacks just as the US is doing in Iraq.
Where there is a will there is a way. So far it has talked the talk but not walked the walk.
What will “disengagement” accomplish?
By Ted Belman
Assuming Sharon is able to transfer the last Israeli from Gaza, what will be the situation the morning after?
Gaza will be a hornet’s nest of terrorist factions vying for power. As DEBKA points out, no outside force will be willing or able to instil anything remotely resembling law and order.
The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department makes the case for Israel still being considered by international law, the occupying power. This Report makes fascinating reading.
The IDF supports this conclusion. I submit that it is much more complicated than this.
Obviously war precedes belligerent occupation. Thus it is necessary to determine when the war ends and belligerent occupation begins. To shed light on this question we should look at a legal decision as to when it ends which is cited in this Report.
So the question becomes, does Israel have the ability to exercise effective control? In other words, does Israel have the ability to subdue the terrorists and maintain law and order? I submit not; at least, not without going to war, as the US is doing in Iraq. This would entail much death and destruction. But if Israel were to attempt this, the world will complain that it is using excessive force and is not sufficiently protective of the Palestinian civil and human rights. In effect international law would be argued to conclude that Israel has the ability to exercise effective control but would also be argued to inhibit Israel from doing so.The Report argues
And I agree except for the description. “illegally confiscating”.Other motivations which have been alluded to by Sharon include increased security and less pressure to make concessions are wishful thinking, similarly for freezing the peace process. The opposite will be the case.
As for the primary motivation above set out. I ask you, how will Israel have "dumped the 1.3 million Non-Jews"? Since Israel will still be considered the occupier, it is doubtful to say the least, that Israel will have accomplished even that.
As for whether it will have strengthened its hold on major settlement blocks, the answer is far from certain. America is not yet fully committed to this. Remember that the letters exchanged with Bush merely state that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" and that ".. the settling of Palestinian refugees there (Palestine), rather than in Israel.". I would point out that what is "unrealistic" doesn't have much currency in the world when it comes to Israel and that the all-important words "all" or "the" don't precede "Palestinian refugees" as they didn't proceed "territories" to be relinquished in Resolution 242.
The EU recently reaffirmed its intention to pressure Israel to go back to the Green Line.
So what in effect, will disengagement accomplish? One thing for sure is that it will leave Gaza, Juderein. It will also succeed in traumatizing Israel, the effects of which we can only imagine. Similarly it will energize the Arabs to continue with their Khartoum Declaration of "no negotiations, no recognition and no peace.
For there to be any chance of success, the Quartet or parts thereof must take responsibility for establishing a responsible government in Gaza and ending the attacks just as the US is doing in Iraq.
Where there is a will there is a way. So far it has talked the talk but not walked the walk.
Posted by Ted Belman at October 30, 2004 05:53 PM