|
D
Demolition of Houses
House demolitions are frequently attacked by
pro-Palestinians as illegal acts against civilians. What is the truth?
The latest IDF (May 2004) push into Rajah is intended to wipe out
terrorists nests, to destroy their bomb, chemical, explosives and missile
factories, and to find and demolish their tunnels for smuggling war
materiel into Gaza. The only way to ensure that the terrorists do not use
these houses as safe havens, bases, tunnel exits, hideouts, sniper and
ambush sites is to take them down. The way to ensure that these safe
houses continue to be used for terrorist purposes is to leave them
standing. In defense of the Jewish State, Israel has only one choice:
demolition.
But are the displaced owners of the houses not innocent victims?
The civilians displaced are not always innocent. They have probably
permitted their homes to be used by the terrorists and in doing so have
become aiders and abettors. They become equally guilty of the crime of
terrorism and can be held responsible and accountable. Buildings near the
Egyptian border are used by terrorists to conceal tunnels that allow them
to smuggle arms, explosives and other supplies into Gaza for the express
purpose of killing Israelis. The blame for house demolitions must be
placed fairly and squarely where it belongs - on the terrorists. An end to
terrorism brings an immediate end to demolitions.
Disputed Territories
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES
What is the REAL international legal status of
Yehuda and Shomron? Is or is not
Israel's occupation of the West Bank illegal by international law !?
Judea and Shomron were taken from Jordan in the
1967 war, after it attacked Israel, together with Syria and Egypt ,
and since occupied by Israel (today partly).
The basic precept of international law
concerning the right of a state victim of aggression, which has
lawfully occupied the attacking state's territory in the course of
self defense, is clear. And it is still international law after the
Charter, which gave to the UN General Assembly no power to amend this
law. This precept is that a lawful occupant such as Israel in 1967 is
entitled to remain in control of the territory involved pending
negotiation of a treaty of peace.
These territories were never the land of
Palestinians neither were they legally ruled by Jordan
( only two states in the whole world recognized
Jordan's right).
So the right status of Judea and Shomron is
"disputed territories" and not Palestinian territories, until
arrangements acceptable to Israel, which was the state victim of Arab
aggression, are reached in a peace treaty .
More on this subject can be found at
here
Letter to Ha'aretz newspaper on the Disputed
Territories and International Law:
The Editor
Ha'aretz
Letter for publication
Sub: Settlements and International Law (Moshe Gorali: "Legality is in the
Eye of the Beholder" - 7 October)
Moshe Gorali's article "Legality is in the Eye of the Beholder" (7
October) buries the straightforward international law relating to the
settlements in unnecessary complexity.
As Gorali notes, the current assertion that the settlements are illegal is
based on the paragraph (6) of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
which provides that "The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer
parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies." However
under Article 2, the Convention applies only "to cases of . occupation of
the territory of a High Contracting Party, by another such Party". The
result is that, since the Territories do not belong to any other sovereign
state, Israel is not an occupying Power within the meaning of the
Convention, which simply does not apply.
It is also significant that the aim of the Fourth Geneva Convention is to
provide humanitarian protection in occupied territory. Article 49
contributes to this aim by outlawing the forceful deportation or transfer
of unwilling populations. This does not apply to the settlements, and no
other serious humanitarian consideration of the type contemplated by the
Convention arises.
It follows that charges of illegality, inflated to "war crimes", levied
against the settlements, are mere propaganda.
None of this implies any judgment about the advisability of the existing
settlements, the future of which is in any case reserved for the final
status negotiations under the Oslo Accords. Meanwhile future settlement
activity is arguably governed by the interim power-sharing agreements
under the Accords, which is another question altogether.
Yours sincerely
Ian Lacey
|
