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

models have been used. All three models lack a guidancesystem and are designed specifically as a terror weapon to beused against civilians.38Op-ed, Un”safe passage,” Jerusalem Post, Dec. 12, 2005, at13.39Op-ed,Un”safe passage,” Jerusalem Post, Dec. 12, 2005, at13.40Xinhua News Agency “OPT: Israel Says No Gaza-WestBank Convoys Until Rocket Fire Stops” ReliefWeb, Dec. 13,2005, available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/VBOL-6K2JCK?OpenDocument&rc=3&emid=ACOS-635PFR (last visited: Feb. 28, 2007).41Op-ed, Un”safe passage,” Jerusalem Post, Dec. 12, 2005, at13.42Ibrahim Barzak, North County Times, Dec. 25, 2005.43Yaakov Katz, Katyusha rocket fired into Israel from Gaza,Jerusalem Post, Mar. 29, 2006.44Khaled Abu Toameh, Palestinian Groups Threaten Israel withNew Long-Range Missiles, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 27, 2005.45S.C. Res. 242, 22 U.N. SCOR, 1382d meeting (1967).46Dr. Meir Rosenne, “Understanding UN Security CouncilResolution 242 of November 22, 1967, on the Middle East.”Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. JCPA.47Charter of the United Nations, available at: www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter6.htm (last visited Dec. 31, 2006).48Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law 139 (4th ed. 1997). Thetraditional view in international law was that only states aresubjects of international law. This view is no longer shared byall. Today, it would appear that entities, such as, the UnitedNations and NGO’s are also full subjects of international law.Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claims to Statehood in International413 (1994).J.A. Andrews, The Concept of Statehood and the Acquisitionof Territory in the Nineteenth Century, 94 LQR 408, 413(1978).49Convention on Rights and Duties of States signed atstipulates that the question of private property, rights, andinterests in an enemy country shall be settled according tothe principles laid down in this Section and the provisionsof the Annex attached. However, this is subject to anycontrary stipulations which may be provided for in the Treatyitself. There is also a reservation such that the Allied andAssociated Powers reserve the right to retain and liquidateall property, rights, and interests, belonging to Germannationals within their territories, colonies, possessions, andprotectorates, including territories ceded to them by theVersailles Treaty, and at the date of the Treaty’s coming intoexistence.On December 14, 1923, the Polish Committee of Liquidation,ordered the liquidation of property owned by the plaintiffcompany in Warsaw (former Russian territory acquired byPoland). The object of the litigation was to obtain redressprovided for in Article 305 of the Treaty of Versailles on theground that the liquidation was inconsistent with Articles 92and 297 (b). The plaintiff contended that it was the intentionof the Treaty to restrict Poland’s right of liquidation to theterritories ceded by Germany, that by the terms of Article297 (b) the right of Allied and Associated Powers to liquidatewas limited to German property within their territory, andthat on January 10, 1920 (the date of the coming into force ofthe Treaty of Versailles) Poland possessed no other territorythan that which Germany had ceded to her. Indeed, it wasargued that at the time the territory in which the propertywas situated belonged to Russia, who had not then cededit to Poland. In the alternative, even if it were assumed thatthere was a cession of the territory by Russia to Poland, thefrontiers of the territory thus ceded were not yet delimited.The Polish state, it was argued, could not therefore beconsidered as de jure possessing the territory, since theboundaries were not delimited. The court rejected thisargument.56Krystyna Marek, Identity and Continuity of States inpage 57Montevideo on 26 Dec., 1933, 165 LNTS 19.50See Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claims to Statehood inInternational Law 57 (Carlton Press Inc 1994).51See Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law 140 (4th ed. 1997).52See Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claims to Statehood inInternational Law 53 (4th ed. 1994); Ian Brownlie, Principlesof Public International Law 73 (4th ed. 1990); and Malcolm N.Shaw, International Law 140 (4th ed. 1997).53Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction toInternational Law 76-77 (7th ed. 1997) (1970).54The various theories as to the relationship between statesand territory will be discussed below.55Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesselschaft v. Polish State(1929) 5. A.D. NO.5, at 14-15. The creation of a Polish Statewas one of the Fourteen Points enshrined in the Treaty ofVersailles, following World War I. Article 92 of the Treatyprovided that in all the German territory that was to becomepart of Poland, the property, rights, and interests of Germannationals should not be liquidated. Further, Article 297 (b)International Law 15 (Droit 1968).57The Hamas Charter. Available at: http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm (last visited March 1, 2007).58Available at: http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/hizballah-background.htm (last visited Oct.24, 2006). Hezbollah, a terrorist organization in Lebanon,“views the Zionist Jews’ occupation of Palestine, displacingits people and establishing the entity of Israel on its usurpedland as the living materialization of the most hideous kinds ofaggression and organized terrorism.”59Available at: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10252.htm#pij (last visited Aug. 19, 2006). Palestinian IslamicJihad is committed to the creation of an Islamic PalestinianState and the destruction of Israel through holy war.60Available at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2005/iran-051101-rfer/01.htm (last visited Nov.19, 2006). On October 26, 2005, Iranian President MahmudAhmadinejad, speaking at a forum called ‘The World WithoutZionism,’ stated that “Israel should be wiped off the map.”