web analytics
July 4, 2015 / 17 Tammuz, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


After Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation The Endless Futility Of Israel’s ‘Peace Process’ (Fourth Of Five Parts)


Beres-Louis-Rene

            Israel’s persisting legal obligation to abrogate the Oslo Accords, as we have seen, stemmed from certain peremptory expectations of international law.  Israel, however, also has substantial rights of abrogation here that bind its behavior apart from any such expectations. These particular rights derive from the basic doctrine of Rebus sic stantibus.
            Defined literally as “so long as conditions remain the same,” this doctrine of changed circumstances augments Israel’s incontestable obligations to cease its compliance with Oslo.  This is because Israel’s traditional obligations to the Accords ended promptly when a “fundamental change occurred in those circumstances that had existed at the effective dates of the accords, and whose continuance had formed a tacit condition of the accords’ ongoing validity.  This change, of course, involved multiple material breaches by the PLO, especially those concerning control of anti-Israel terrorism, and extradition of terrorists.  In short, almost immediately, Rebus sic stantibus became a material basis for Israeli abrogation because of the profound change created by the PLO in the very circumstances that had formed the cause, motive and rationale of consent.
            According to explicit Oslo expectations, Arafat, from the beginning, should have been actively committed to the control of anti-Israel terrorism.  Yet Arafat not only sheltered terrorists; he let them incite, recruit, organize, train, arm, raise funds and even launch murderous operations from areas that had been under his direct control.  Naturally, the same has been true of his successors, Fatahas well as Hamas. The ongoing position that these two groups are somehow legally and morally distinguishable remains wrong on its face.
            Israel’s unfulfilled obligation to terminate the Oslo Accords stemmed also from a related principle of national self-preservation.  Under this peremptory norm, any agreement may be terminated unilaterally following changes in conditions that make performance of the agreement injurious to fundamental rights, especially the basic rights of existence and independence.  Known in law as “rights of necessity,” this norm was explained with particular lucidity by none other than Thomas Jefferson.
             In his Opinion on the French Treaties, written on April 28, 1793, Jefferson stated that when performance, in international agreements, “becomes impossible, nonperformance is not immoral.  So if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation to others.”  Later, in that same document, Jefferson wrote:  “The nation itself, bound necessarily to whatever its preservation and safety require, cannot enter into engagements contrary to its indispensable obligations.” 
            Regarding the Oslo Accords and Israel’s consequent vulnerability to war, Israeli security has become increasingly dependent upon nuclear weapons and strategy.  Faced with a UN-supported and self-declared Palestinian state, the Jewish state will quickly have to decide on precisely how to compensate for its eventually diminished strategic depth. While this shrinkage may not necessarily increase Israel’s existential vulnerability to unconventional missile attack, it will increase that state’s susceptibility to attacking ground forces, and to subsequent enemy occupation. 
            Any loss of strategic depth will almost certainly be interpreted by enemy states, including “Palestine,” as a significant weakening of Israel’s overall defense posture, an interpretation that could then lead to irresistible enemy incentives to strike first.
            As Israel’s sacrifice of strategic depth is expressed in an independent Palestinian state, the geostrategic victory of the Jihadist/Islamic world will be complemented by something less tangible, but assuredly no less critical. This is Arab and Iranian perception of an ongoing and unstoppable momentum against the Jewish state, a jihadcentered perception of military inevitability that would reiterate extant policies of war.  Recognizing such perilous perceptions, Israel could, inter alia, be forced to take its bomb out of the basement, and/or it could be forced to accept a greater willingness to launch preemptive strikes against certain enemy hard targets.

            Individual Arab states and/or Iran could respond to any such Israeli decisions in different ways.  Made aware of Israel’s policy shifts, shifts that would now stem from Israel’s awareness of enemy perceptions spawned by the creation of Palestine, these particular enemy states, however some might have been transformed by current revolutionary currents, would react in more or less parallel fashion.  Here, preparing openly for nuclearization and/or aggression against Israel, these states would express certain far-reaching results of Oslo/Road Map/UN results that are still generally unrecognized. Significantly, until the present moment, these effects had provided Israel, together with other above-listed rationales, a fully authoritative basis for permissible abrogation.

 

 

LOUIS RENÉ BERES  was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is the author of many books and articles dealing with international relations and international law.  In the United States,  he has worked for over forty years on international law and nuclear strategy matters, both as a scholar, and as a lecturer/consultant to various agencies of the United States Government.  In Israel, he has lectured widely at various academic centers for strategic studies, at the Dayan Forum, and at the National Defense College (IDF).  Professor Beres was Chair of Project Daniel. Born in Zürich, Switzerland, he is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press.

About the Author: Louis René Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is professor of political science and international law at Purdue University and the author of many books and articles dealing with international relations and strategic studies.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “After Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation The Endless Futility Of Israel’s ‘Peace Process’ (Fourth Of Five Parts)”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
UN Human Rights Council
UN HRC Condemns Israel (But Not Hamas) for War Crimes
Latest Indepth Stories
Jelgava Synagogue, Latvia

Latvia, July 4, 1941 they forced many Jews in the shul putting it on fire; everyone was burned alive

United Nations Building, New York City

There’s blood on the reporters’ hands AND New Israel Fund for funding groups feeding lies to the UN

Zuckerman-070315

Respect & appreciation for our country is not only a civic value but an essential Jewish one as well

wedding cake

When words lose meaning, the world becomes an Orwellian dystopia; a veritable Tower of Babel

Israel, like the non-radical Islamic world. will be happy see the ISIS beheaded for once.

Kids shouldn’t have “uninstructed” Internet access, better to train them how to use it responsibly

What if years from now, IS were to control substantial territory? What world havoc would that wreak?

Rambam writes the verse’s double term refers to 2 messiahs: first King David; 2nd the final Mashiach

The Gaza flotilla has been rightfully and legally blocked by Israel’s Navy, with greetings from Bibi

The president described the attack as “an act that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches, not random, but as a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress…”

“The only [candidate] that’s going to give real support to Israel is me,” said the 69-year-old Trump.

And whereas at the outset the plan was that Iran would have to surrender most of its centrifuges, it will now be able to retain several thousand.

Now oil independent, US no longer needs its former strategic alliances with Gulf States-or Israel

In addition to the palace’s tremendous size it was home to the “hanging gardens,” which were counted among the seven wonders of the ancient world.

More Articles from Louis Rene Beres

A “Palestine” could become another Lebanon, with many different factions battling for control.

Louis Rene Beres

President Obama’s core argument on a Middle East peace process is still founded on incorrect assumptions.

Once upon a time in America, every adult could recite at least some Spenglerian theory of decline.

President Obama’s core argument is still founded on incorrect assumptions.

Specific strategic lessons from the Bar Kokhba rebellion.

Still facing an effectively unhindered nuclear threat from Iran, Israel will soon need to choose between two strategic options.

For states, as for individuals, fear and reality go together naturally.

So much of the struggle between Israel and the Arabs continues to concern space.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/louis-bene-beres/after-fatah-hamas-reconciliation-the-endless-futility-of-israels-peace-process-fourth-of-five-parts/2011/08/03/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: