web analytics
November 24, 2014 / 2 Kislev, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘agreement’

Syria (Today) and ‘Palestine’ (Tomorrow) II

Wednesday, September 18th, 2013

As I noted last week, what is currently taking place in Syria closely resembles what we can ultimately expect in a future “Palestine.”

In principle, and contrary to his beleaguered country’s overriding legal rights and security interests, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to a Palestinian state back in June 2009. Yet Mr. Netanyahu, more or less prudently, conditioned this concessionary agreement on prior Palestinian “demilitarization.” More specifically, said the prime minister: “In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel.”

In fact and in law, this published expectation offers no effective obstacle to Palestinian statehood, or to any subsequent Palestinian war against Israel.

Neither Hamas, now subtly closing ranks with its once more powerful Muslim Brotherhood mentors in post-Morsi Egypt, nor Fatah, whose “security forces” were recently trained by American General Keith Dayton in nearby Jordan at very great American taxpayer expense, will ever negotiate for anything less than full sovereignty. Why should they? Supporters of Palestinian statehood can readily discover authoritative legal support for their stance in binding international treaties.

Easily misrepresented or abused, international law can generally be manipulated to serve virtually any preferred geo-political strategy, a jurisprudential twisting sometimes referred to as “lawfare.” For example, pro-Palestinian international lawyers, seeking to identify self-serving sources of legal confirmation, could conveniently cherry-pick pertinent provisions of the (1) Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (the 1933 treaty on statehood, sometimes called the Montevideo Convention), and/or (2) the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Israel, as an existing sovereign state, has a basic or “peremptory” right to survive. From the standpoint of the government’s responsibility to assure citizen protection, a responsibility that goes back in modern political thought to the 16th century French philosopher, Jean Bodin, and also to the seventeenth-century English theorist, Thomas Hobbes, this right is also a fixed obligation. It was, therefore, entirely proper for Netanyahu to have originally opposed a Palestinian state in any form, an opposition, incidentally, once shared by Shimon Peres, himself the proudest Israeli champion of a “two-state solution.”

To wit, in his otherwise incoherent book, Tomorrow is Now (1978), Peres had said the following about Palestinian statehood:

The establishment of such a state means the inflow of combat-ready Palestinian forces into [Judea and Samaria]: This force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other military equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in [Judea, Samaria] and the Gaza Strip…. In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel’s existence.

In writing about “time of war,” this former prime minister had neglected to mention that Israel is already locked in a permanent condition of war. The war, not “tomorrow” (whatever that was intended to signify) is now. Pertinent target “infrastructure installations” could include Dimona, and also a number of other presumably vulnerable Israel nuclear reactor facilities.

Any Israeli arguments for Palestinian demilitarization, however vehement and well intentioned, are certain to fail. International law would not even expect Palestinian compliance with any pre-state agreements concerning the right to use armed force. This is true even if these compacts were to include certain explicit U.S. guarantees. Moreover, per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, because authentic treaties can only be binding upon states, a non-treaty agreement between the Palestinians and Israel could prove to be of little or no real authority.

What if the government of a new Palestinian state were somehow willing to consider itself bound by the pre-state, non-treaty agreement? Even in these very improbable circumstances, the new Arab regime could have ample pretext to identify relevant grounds for lawful treaty termination.

A new Palestinian government could withdraw from the treaty-like agreement because of what it regarded as a “material breach,” a reputed violation by Israel that allegedly undermined the object or purpose of the agreement. Or it could point toward what Latinized international law calls Rebus sic stantibus. In English, this doctrine is known as a “fundamental change of circumstances.”

Argentina to Investigate Official for Incitement against Israel

Saturday, August 24th, 2013

An Argentinian prosecutor a government official of incitement against Israel and public intimidation.

Alberto Nisman, the special prosecutor investigating the 1994 bombing of the AMIA cultural center, said there is “concrete evidence to start an investigation” of acting Under Secretary of Family Agriculture Emilio Persico, who participated in an Aug. 2 ceremony marking Al Quds Day at the At-Tawhid Mosque in Buenos Aires.

On Aug. 14, the Simon Wiesenthal Center wrote to Argentina’s minister of agriculture, Norberto Yauhar, calling for Persico’s removal. “Apparently, the speakers at Al Quds Day in Buenos Aires feel energized and empowered by the Argentina-Iran agreement, and now foment hate with impunity,” Sergio Widder, the Wiesenthal Center’s director for Latin America, told JTA, referring to a much-criticized agreement between the countries to jointly investigate the AMIA bombing.

The next day, Persico went to the headquarters of DAIA, the Jewish political umbrella group, to explain his position. DAIA president Julio Schlosser then told media: “We understood his reasons and the situation is finished.”

Israel’s Only Alternative is a Good One

Monday, December 10th, 2012

Originally published at Rubin Reports.

The Palestinian leadership, abetted by many Western governments, has now torn up every agreement it made with Israel. Once the efforts of two decades of negotiations—including irrevocable Israeli compromises in giving the Palestinian Authority control over territory, its own armed forces, dismantling settlements, and permitting billions of dollars of foreign aid to the Palestinians—were destroyed, the world has decided to focus the blame on Israel approving the construction of 3000 apartments.

In 1993, Israel signed an agreement with the PLO to make peace in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The accord, known as the Oslo agreement, included the following passage in Article 31:

“Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”

By essentially unilaterally declaring the existence of an Arab Palestine, the world has abrogated that agreement.

What is shocking is not just that this has happened, but there has been no discussion much less hesitation by dozens of countries to destroy an agreement that they hitherto supported. Indeed, a study of the history of this agreement shows clearly that the Palestinian side prevented the accord from succeeding, most obviously by permitting and carrying out continuing terrorism and rejecting Israeli offers for a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem both in the 2000 Camp David summit and in the ensuing offer conveyed by President Bill Clinton at the end of that year.

Now there are certain implications of this move. I am completely aware that virtually no one in a position of power in the Western world cares about these implications, but it is necessary to remind them and others of just what they have done. And at least the Western public should know how this all looks from an Israeli perspective, information often denied it altogether or distorted by the mass media.

–They have rewarded the party that refused to make peace.

–They have rewarded the side that rejected the offer of a state and pursued violence instead, cheering the murder of Israeli civilians.

–They have removed the framework on the basis of which Israel made numerous risky concessions including letting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians enter the West Bank and Gaza Strip; establish a government; obtain billions of dollars of money; created military organizations that have been used to attack Israel; establish schools and other institutions which call and teach for Israel’s destruction; and a long list of other things.

As a result of these concessions, terrorists were able to strike into Israel. Today, Hamas and its allies can fire thousands of rockets into Israel. Israel has paid for the 1993 deal; the Palestinian Authority has only taken what it has wanted.

Abbas Zaki, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, was one of many who stated that the Oslo Accords have now ceased to exist. What then governs the situation and Israel-Palestinian (Palestine?) relations?

Nothing.

There is, for example, no standing for any claim that the Palestinian side has recognized—much less accepted—Israel’s existence. Indeed, a “one-state solution” is daily advocated by Palestinian leaders.

Yet the world’s outrage is reserved for Israel’s announcement that 3000 apartments will be constructed on land claimed by Israel on the West Bank, all built on settlements whose existence until a bilateral agreement was reached was accepted by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. Incidentally, repeatedly decisions of Israeli zoning boards that permit construction in future provoke global hysteria about the bulldozers moving in next week. Perhaps if the Palestinian Authority would make peace those buildings would never get built in a few years.

Whether or not the announcement of this construction was a good idea, the fact is that it is hardly the biggest outrage in what has just happened. The decision is a signal that if the Palestinian side, or indeed the world, isn’t going to recognize what was in effect a treaty—contrary to international practice—and in favor of the side that violated the treaty—even more contrary to international practice—Israel is not going to be bound by the interpretation of that document by those who have torn it up.

Again, what’s important here is not to complain about the unfairness of international life, the hypocrisy of those involved, and the double standards applied against Israel. This is the reality of the situation and must be the starting point for considering what to do.

Lauder Agrees to Bail Out Israeli TV Station

Monday, December 3rd, 2012

American billionaire Ronald Lauder agreed to bail out the financially troubled Israeli television station Channel 10.

Under the agreement signed with the State of Israel, the franchise for Israel’s second commercial channel will be extended for three years and Lauder, the station’s majority shareholder, will invest nearly $21 million over that time, the Israeli business daily Globes reported.

Channel 10′s debt is equal to about $29 million, according to reports.

Lauder, who owns 25 channels in Eastern Europe, said during a news conference on Sunday that he was signing the agreement to help save the jobs of the station’s 600 employees. He also decried Israel’s stringent regulatory laws, saying that no other country in the world has regulations as tough as Israel.

The station’s debt consists of state royalties and license fees, as well as interest on the fees, according to reports.

Lauder is the president of the World Jewish Congress.

Israel to Sign Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with India

Sunday, December 2nd, 2012

India will likely be signing a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) with Israel in order to create smoother and easier cooperation between the countries in the investigation of crimes.

According to a report in the India Times, India will also sign the agreement with Oman, Azerbaijan and Nepal in a bid to cooperate on the prevention, investigation and prosecution of crime, the exchange and service of judicial and legal documents, the execution of warrants, forfeiture and confiscation.

Terror Attack Foiled in Ma’aleh Adumim

Thursday, November 29th, 2012

Police foiled a possible terror attack in Ma’aleh Adumim on Thursday evening after noticing a suspicious vehicle trying to drive into the city of Ma’aleh Adumim, just outside of Jerusalem.

The police stopped the car which had no plates, and arrested the Arab driver (40), a resident of the Shomron, who said he had planned to commit a terror attack in Maaleh Adumim as part of an agreement to end a feud with another Arab from the town of Azariyah, which is near Ma’aleh Adumim.

No explosives or weapons were found in the vehicle.

Gaza Imam: Breaking Ceasefire Would Be A Sin

Monday, November 26th, 2012

A Muslim imam in Gaza has issued a religious edict, or fatwa, that says it is a sin to violate the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

Suleiman al-Daya issued the fatwa on Saturday night, according to Haaretz, after a top Hamas official said the terrorist organization would continue to stockpile arms although it was prohibited under the agreement brokered last week by Egypt.

“Honoring the truce, which was sponsored by our Egyptian brethren, is the duty of each and every one of us,” al-Daya said in his edict. “Violating it shall constitute a sin.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/gaza-imam-breaking-ceasefire-would-be-a-sin/2012/11/26/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: