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

page 36III. Israel’s SecurityConsiderationsA. Israel’s Right to Self-DefenseNumerous writers, international conferences, andinternational bodies, have purported to formulate listsof so-called basic (or fundamental) rights and duties ofstates. The basic rights most frequently expressed arethose of independence and equality of states, of territorialjurisdiction, and of self-defense and self-preservation.The basic duties that have been emphasized are those ofnot resorting to war, of carrying out treaty obligations ingood faith, and of not intervening in the internal affairsof other states. 197The basic right that Israel must continually assert is itsright to self-defense. This right not only extends to thedefense of the state, but also to the protection of itscitizens. In the Olso Agreements with the Palestinians,this right was recognized and enshrined: Israel was given“the responsibility for overall security of Israelis andSettlements, for the purpose of safeguarding their internalsecurity and public order” and granted “all the powers totake the steps necessary to meet this responsibility.” 198Terrorism poses a threat not only to the lives of Israelicitizens, but also to the very existence of the State. Suchterrorism is only likely to increase with the creation ofsafe passage. This threat of terrorism was aggravatedby Hamas’ victory in the Palestinian legislative electionsheld on January 25, 2006 and their subsequent authorityin the Gaza Strip.The Hamas Charter containsstatements such as “[o]urstruggle against the Jews isvery great and serious,” andcalls for raising “the bannerof Allah over every inch ofPalestine.” 199Of more concern is the line stating that “[t]he ProphetAllah … has said: ‘[t]he Day of Judgment will not comeabout until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew willhide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees willsay, O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me,come and kill him.’” 200 Before Hamas’ electoral victory,security officials described their possible ascendancyas a “no-win situation” 201 and asserted that Hamaswould never agree to recognize the State of Israel or putterror aside. 202 Today, more than fourteen months afterthe elections, Hamas’ stance has not changed. In thiscurrent political reality Israel’s inherent right of selfdefensebecomes even more essential.It is not surprising, facing this reality, that IDF GeneralAmos Gilad implied that in order to exercise its right ofself-defense Israel needs more than sovereignty overany future safe passage. She also requires control overthe crossing points that provide access to such passage.Only with such control can Israel effectively defendherself and her citizens, by determining who can usethe safe passage, what they can carry with them, andensuring that such standards are reliably implemented.International law appears to support Gilad’s assertion.However, some might argue that this control of thecrossing points will interfere in the affairs of anotherstate -- the future Palestinian State. While at firstglance this might seem to be implied from the dutynot to intervene in the affairs of other states, a properunderstanding of this duty suggests that in fact this isnot its intended meaning.International law generally forbids intervention by onestate in the affairs of another. The intervention that isso prohibited is understood as something less thanaggression but more than mere interference, and muchstronger than mediation or diplomatic suggestion. Tofall within the prohibited realm of intervention, theintervention generally speaking must be against the willof the particular state affected, and almost always, asclarified by the International Court of Justice in the caseof Nicaragua v. United States of America, serving by designor implication to impair the political independence ofthat state. 203