 |
|
The legalities of Israel's ATB
and of the Occupation Generally Maurice Ostroff |
| While
much of the West accepts the need for a separation barrier, the three most
frequent arguments against Israel's Anti-Terror Barrier (ATB) which
deserve serious attention are: A) The suffering caused to Palestinians who are being separated from their fields and from each other The inconvenience caused to farmers who experience delays in reaching their lands and to other Palestinians due to erection of Israel's Anti-Terror Barrier (ATB) is indeed very regrettable and every Israeli wishes it was avoidable. The very fact that so many Israelis participate as activists demonstrating against the ATB, indicates the strong empathy among Israelis for the suffering of the Palestinians as well as the democratic nature of Israel in permitting non violent protests against government actions. Every effort is being made to minimize this inconvenience and compensation claims are being considered. but in human terms, it is not a disproportionate price to pay for saving hundreds of innocent lives. During the past three years 700 Israeli civilians were killed and thousands seriously wounded by Palestinian terrorists , mostly suicide bombers who easily entered Israel due to lack of a physical barrier.. It should be obvious to all that the sole purpose of the barrier is to prevent the entry of terrorists who indiscriminately kill and maim innocent people, Arab and Jews alike, including the elderly, the infirm and babes in arms. It is an elementary self-evident truth, that If the PA authority would carry out its obligations under the Oslo Accords by acting firmly against terror, instead of encouraging it, the ATB would be unnecessary. B) The contention that where the fence is built East of the green line, Israel is "illegally grabbing Palestinian land" While the barrier basically follows the Green Line it extends in places to a depth of a few kilometers eastwards. Claims that the West Bank east of the green line is rightfully owned by the Palestinians and is unjustly occupied by Israel are plainly incorrect. Politicians and journalists who subscribe to these claims are obviously unaware of the facts. Reference to any credible history book shows conclusively that the Palestinians who are claiming the return of this territory never ever possessed it and any reference to returning it to the Palestinians is therefore a misnomer. The indisputable facts are that prior to 1967, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were not possessed by the Palestinians but were ILLEGALLY occupied by Jordan. Gaza was similarly, ILLEGALLY occupied by Egypt, both countries having illegally invaded the territories in defiance of the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Jordan resolved to annex the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1950 but this attempt at annexation was rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states. Only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized this attempt at annexation. . Since the subject is due for hearing in the International Court of Justice in the Hague (ICJ), it is relevant to quote former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who at one time headed the ICJ. In 1970 he wrote: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title." It is a matter of history that Israel entered the West Bank in self defence, as evidenced by the UN itself, having rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War. Many journalists and politicians who should know better, frequently quote UN resolution 242 in support of their contention that Israel's presence on the West bank is ILLEGAL. To really understand what 242 is about, who better to turn to than one of the authors of the resolution, the late Eugene Rostow? In an article "Are the settlements legal?" in The New Republic, (October 21, 1991) he wrote:
"Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of
state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls
on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the
territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the
Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to
withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the
Six-Day War" It is seen to be patently misleading to
describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied Palestinian
territories" as clarified by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright.
In March 1994, she stated: "We simply do not support the description of
the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian
territory." |