Linking the Gaza Strip with the West Bank: - Jerusalem Center For ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

page 26immediate connection, connected, unbroken, joinedcontinuously to, and forming one mass with.” 144 Thisdefinition suggests that what is demanded of Israelby the term ‘territorial continuity’ is some sort ofterritorial link between the Gaza Strip and West Bank.However, this understanding of the term ‘continuity’is not supported by the definition offered in Black’sLaw Dictionary, which in the authors’ opinion is to bepreferred. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term, asused in the field of international law, as “the principlethat upheavals and revolutions within a country -- aswell as changes in governmental forms and the extentof a country’s territory, and measures taken during amilitary occupation -- do not affect the existence of acountry.” 145 This definition of ‘continuity’ as used inthe field of international law makes no reference tocontinuity of a state or continuity as a requirement ofstatehood. This is interesting as it suggests that theterm, in its legal sense, is being used improperly inconnection with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.3. ‘Territorial Connectivity’A final demand that policymakers have made of Israel isthat the Gaza Strip and West Bank benefit from territorialconnectivity.Connectivity, as defined in The OxfordEnglish Dictionary, means “the characteristic, or order,or degree, of being connected.” 146 Connected in turnmeans “conjoined, fastened or linked together.” 147 Thisalso seems to require some sort of physical connectionbetween the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.Territorial connectivityis not defined by Black’sLaw Dictionary. Thereforeit appears that the termterritorial connectivitymight be a newly coinedphrase, invented to servethe objectives of Secretary ofState Condoleezza Rice. 148Given the ambiguous nature of these three terms,particularly as they apply to the Gaza Strip and the WestBank, it is normal to consider the meanings ascribed bythe political players. These players, whose views willbe examined below, include then Israeli Prime MinisterAriel Sharon, Condoleezza Rice, the European Union, theQuartet (comprised of the US, U.N. EU and Russia), andthe U.N.C. Variable Recent Usage of Terms byProminent Political Leaders and DiplomatsInitially the term ‘contiguity’ was used to call for aterritorial link of some sort between the Gaza Stripand the West Bank. Arafat muddied the waters in hiscriticism of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer atthe failed Camp David negotiations in 2000. 149 Arafatclaimed that the Camp David offer was “less than aBantustan.” 150 This claim is not supported by others whowere present at the Camp David negotiations. DennisRoss, Middle East Advisor and Chief Negotiator underPresidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, stated:“...Arafat never honestly admitted what was offeredto the Palestinians -- a deal that would have resultedin a Palestinian State, with territory over 97 percent ofthe West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem; with Arab EastJerusalem as the Capital of that state (including the holyplace of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); withan international presence in place of the Israeli DefenseForce in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited rightof return of Palestinian refugees to their state but notto Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continue[d] to hide behindthe canard that he was offered Bantustans … Yet with 97percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there wouldhave been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not havebeen isolated or surrounded. There would have beenterritorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bankand Gaza…” 151Despite this, Arafat built on his erroneous analogyto South African history and demanded territorialcontiguity between the Palestinian areas. Despite thefaulty analogy and Arafat’s deceitful misrepresentationof the map he was offered, his demand has reverberated
worldwide with many, believing his exposition of events,taking up his call for contiguity within the West Bank.For example, the Quartet stated that, “a new PalestinianState must be truly viable with contiguity in the WestBank.” 152 Even Ariel Sharon spoke of “[a] democraticPalestinian State with territorial contiguity in Judea andSamaria and economic viability.” 153This divergent usage ofthe terms in issue raisesconcern that those who usethese terms have little ifany understanding of theirmeaning, and certainlyno consensus as to theirusage. It therefore remainsuncertain what would berequired of Israel.More recently, the term has been used in a differentcontext, and while still employed with reference to a linkbetween the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, a new termhas been coined to call for a passage between the two-- territorial connectivity. In Kofi Annan’s statement ofSeptember 20, 2005, he stated the U.N.’s support for theQuartet’s calls for “connectivity to Gaza” and contiguitywithin the West Bank. 154 Condoleezza Rice was quotedin July 2005 as saying that the US is “committed toterritorial connectivity between Gaza and the WestBank.” 155 But Rice has to date made no express mentionof contiguity, connectivity, or continuity within the WestBank. She has stated more cryptically, “Israel must alsotake no actions that prejudice a final settlement and musthelp ensure that a new Palestinian State is truly viable. Astate of scattered territories will not work.” 156 Therefore,the terms are not used in a uniform manner and can bemisleading and difficult to understand. The approach ofthe European Union shifts between the declarations ofthe Quartet, which are similar to the American approach,and the declarations in other forums in which the termterritorial contiguity is mentioned in a general sense.If, however, the phrases used do indeed require some sortof territorial link between the Gaza Strip and the WestBank, questions arise as to the form and characteristicsof such a link. It appears as if the term ‘safe passage’ hasbeen used as shorthand for this proposed link. However,little if any consideration has been given to the meaningof the term safe passage, or whether the agreementswithin which it is mentioned are still binding.D. Suggestions for the Implementation of SafePassageWith the characteristics of safe passage as yet unclear,the actual implementation of a safe passage betweenthe West Bank and Gaza could take multiple forms.One suggested alternative is the building of a secureelevated highway that would connect the two areas.This could be deemed Palestinian territory or aninternationally recognized right of way. Indeed, in 1999then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak proposed thebuilding of a highway that would connect the two areas,and that would consist of four lanes, a railway line, awater pipe and a communication cable. At the time,Barak estimated that this kind of project would costapproximately 200 million dollars. 157 In addition to theexpensive and prolonged construction necessary, thishighway would leave unresolved security threats; it wouldnot be difficult for vehicles traveling on this highway todrop terrorists or weapons beside the road.Another alternative, a subterranean highway, mightpresent fewer security risks but the cost of constructionwould likely be prohibitive. If such a highway iscompleted, it would be in the form of a tunnel andstand as one of the world’s longest and most expensivetunnels. By comparison, the Chunnel connecting theUnited Kingdom and France, built in 1994, ran 31mileslong and cost approximately 21 billion dollars. 158 Suchsuggestions are encouragingly innovative, but practicallynot realistic.page 27
Page 2: © 2007 Jerusalem Center for Public
Page 5: Executive SummaryOn March 27, 2007,
Page 10: page 10A masked terrorist of the Al
Page 13 and 14: The United States and its state of
Page 15: Examples of Viable, Non-Contiguous
Page 21 and 22: II. Safe PassageA. Origins of Safe
Page 23 and 24: Israel could, for security or safet
Page 25: discussed in the Introduction. In l
Page 29 and 30: ownership of the vehicle and the ca
Page 31 and 32: The construction of the main sectio
Page 33 and 34: The essence of territorial sovereig
Page 35 and 36: that is accepted by the dominant st
Page 37 and 38: Clearly, while the future Palestini
Page 39 and 40: weapons to Palestinian terrorist gr
Page 41 and 42: that there is a more subtle and mor
Page 43 and 44: Weapons available include:Weapon So
Page 45 and 46: Examples: Viable StatesUnder Intern
Page 47 and 48: new political community should be r
Page 49 and 50: eligious affiliation. Pakistan’s
Page 51 and 52: the overrunning and destruction of
Page 53 and 54: Not only is the need for Palestinia
Page 55 and 56: If the Palestinians were to constru
Page 57 and 58: models have been used. All three mo
Page 59 and 60: Law, 69 (1994).105See Malcolm N. Sh
Page 61 and 62: 194Ulrich Fastenrath, Servitudes, 1
Page 63 and 64: 279Available at: http://en.wikipedi

Linking the Gaza Strip with the West Bank: - Jerusalem Center For ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?