Tag Archive | "Gaza Strip"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Illegitimate State of Israel

Posted on 30 January 2012 by Tea Server

Formation of Modern Day Israeli Illegitimate State
                                                              

          For centuries, the Jews have had their presence all over the world, but were mostly concentrated in North Africa, Arab states and in Europe (mostly Germany, Austria, and the UK), USA and some parts of Latin America (South America) ; but they didn’t have their own state with a Jewish majority and were desperate to have one they could call their own.

          Following the world wars, most of the Muslim Ottoman Empire was broken up and captured by allies that implemented their own rules in these territories.  After the 2nd world war ended, the Jewish population was mostly exiled from Europe and was sent to Palestinian territories to occupy and live there. All this happened under the British support. The British first kept the Jews in refugee camps as the Muslims were not ready to accept this. Later on, they were given armed support and were set free to occupy by force. Seeing the gradually weakening British control on Palestine, the Jewish militant and terrorist groups started a revolt against the British Rule in a desperate attempt to gain an area for themselves under cover of statements from their Holy Book, that that part of earth had been promised to them in their Holy Book. There were soon mob attacks on Muslim populations and this started a series of fights ultimately leading to a situation that could be called a civil war.
          In 1947, the British announced that they would soon be ending their Palestinian mandate as the things were going out of control and no agreement could be made between the Jews and the Arabs.  The newly formed United Nations presented a partition plan for this region, on 29 November 1947, which was named as Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181). According to this plan, there were two states to be formed; Palestine and Israel. Israel was to be formed on the Palestinian territories occupied by the Jewish minority of the region and Jerusalem was to be made a city under the control of United Nations.  As could be expected, the Arab League and Palestinians refused to accept this plan as it was compromising nearly all the rights and major part of Palestinian land. The Jews were delighted and accepted the plan as it was favoring them completely.
          The British mandate was to end on 15th of May, 1948. On 14th of May, 1948, the Jewish Agency declared independence and vowed to start an armed struggle and snatch the lands from the locals. As a result, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen launched a joint Arab League war to defend the Palestinian territories. The Israelis were armed and supported by the allies and so were well equipped as compared to Arab League Force. After a very fierce fighting, for over a year, a cease fire was reached. Temporary borders were setup and given the name Green Line.  According to this cease fire treaty, West Bank and Jerusalem (East) were given in control of Jordan and Gaza Strip was taken over by the Egyptian Authorities. Both the Palestinians and Jews suffered heavy losses of life and major economic crises. Millions of Palestinians were displaced. However the leaders of Jewish Population declared the occupied territories as their “Holy land” and made it clear to the Muslim neighbors that they would say there and Israel is a reality. None of the Arab world countries accepted Israel, as it was a country without any legitimacy.
The War in 1967
          The Green Line, the Israeli occupation and false propaganda against its neighboring countries led to worsening of ties with the neighboring states. In 1967, the Egyptian Army expelled United Nations forces from the Egyptian lands of Sinnai peninsula.  Egypt, Jordan and Syria started to mobilize their forces as Israel continued to threat. On 5th of June, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Backed by the US, UK and other western powers, tiny Israeli army defeated the forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan and after a fight of 6 days, the Arab armies surrendered.  Israel captured Jerusalem and West Bank from Jordan, Gaza Strip from Egypt and also the Golan Heights.
In this way, most of the Palestinian land fell to the Jews who till now occupy and maintain a firm occupation in the region.
How The Occupation of Palestine is Illegal:
          Bringing an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is as much a prerequisite for peace in the Middle East as is the Palestinian recognition of Israel. The Israeli occupation is not only inhuman and the cause of extreme suffering for the 3.5 million Palestinians living under its subjugation, but it is also illegal under international law. Attempts to claim otherwise have no legal validity and are morally bankrupt and politically dangerous since they basically preclude the achievement of peace.
          While it is true that victorious powers can legally occupy hostile territories seized in the course of conflict – an example of which is the Allies’ occupation of the territory of Nazi Germany during World War II, foreign occupation should nevertheless be a temporary situation, pending a political settlement or solution. During the interim, the occupying Power must comply with relevant instruments of international humanitarian law with regard to its conduct in the territory it has occupied.
          International law is very clear on two basic principles: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of  territory  by  war  and  the  prohibition  of  the  transfer  of  civilians of  the occupying Power to the occupied territory. Both are intended to prevent expansionism and the colonization of occupied territories. Both complement another explicit principle of international law, namely the right of peoples to self-determination, a right that a colonial or occupying Power is obliged to respect.
The Israeli occupation has clearly violated all three of these principles of international law. In fact, throughout its prolonged occupation, Israel has persistently and aggressively breached international law.
          Thus, what makes the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land illegal is not the fact that it occurred during the war of 1967 (regardless of the narrative concerning the causes of the war). What makes the Israeli occupation illegal is that it has existed for 35 years, during which time it transformed into a form of colonialism and suppressed and oppressed an entire people for decades, preventing them from the exercise of their right to self-determination and the establishment of their State, Palestine.
Israel, as an occupying Power, has undertaken countless measures attempting to change the legal status, demographic composition and character of the territory by confiscating land, exploiting natural resources, building more than 250 settlements, transferring more than 400,000 Israelis to the occupied territories, establishing a dual system of law and even annexing part of the territory.
These actions have been carried out in direct contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which, among other things, defines the rules of conduct and the obligations of the occupying Power. Clearly then, the active intent of the Israeli occupation has been to negate Palestinian rights, to create new facts on the ground and to illegally expand Israel’s borders.
          Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which is the bedrock of the peace process and of any future peace settlement, is anchored in the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. The old and deceptive argument that the resolution calls for withdrawal from ‘territories’ and not ‘the territories’ not withstanding (in fact, the French text of the resolution does contain the article ‘the’). The call in the resolution for the withdrawal of Israel can only be read within the context of the above-mentioned principle.
          Since the onset of the Israeli occupation in 1967, and in response to established, illegal policies and practices of the occupying Power, the Security Council has adopted 26 resolutions that affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel. Of those resolutions, several deal directly with the issue of Israeli settlements and several also specifically deal with Israeli violations in Occupied East Jerusalem.
          The resolutions clearly address the illegality of Israel’s policies and practices with regard to both issues. For example, some of the resolutions affirm that the Israeli settlements ‘have no legal validity’; call upon the government and people of Israel ‘to dismantle the existing settlements’; and call upon ‘all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories’.
          As for Occupied East Jerusalem, which the Israeli government illegally annexed in 1980, the Security Council, in resolution 478 (1980), determined ‘that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and, in particular, the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith’.
          Similar affirmations were made by the Council in several other resolutions. Moreover, the General Assembly and other UN organs have adopted scores of resolutions on the illegal policies and practices of the Israeli occupation and on the legitimacy of, and the necessity for, the exercise of the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people.
          There has therefore been absolutely no impropriety on the part of the UN Secretary-General concerning his recent statements with regard to the Israeli occupation. Kofi Annan’s call for an end to ‘the illegal occupation’ was not only legally correct but was also not a concept invented by the Secretary-General, as reflected in the numerous resolutions of the United Nations. It was, however, important for Mr. Kofi Annan to add his moral authority to the urgent need for an end to that illegal occupation, particularly during this late stage in the perilous deterioration of the situation.
In that statement on 12 March 2002, the Secretary-General addressed both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. The Palestinian side probably did not like everything it heard. But, taken in its entirety, the statement was widely viewed as a necessary and responsible call that intended to, and should, help the parties to move forward towards a peaceful settlement. For this to happen, the Israeli people and the Israeli government must indeed come to terms, for once and for all, with the illegality of their occupation and the need for its termination.

The first map is Israel as it was first created by UN declaration in 1947. The blue portion is Israel; the rest is all Arab lands. Note that Jerusalem was completely within Arab lands and Israel was much smaller than it is today. Note also that there is NO Israeli presence inside the area surrounding Jerusalem. No settlements, certainly no IDF. 
The red square outlines the approximate region shown below.

 The second map shows Israel as it is today. Note that the western border of Palestine has been pushed up to Jerusalem. Such a land grab is NOT the result of a defensive act, but of an invasion to bring Jerusalem under Israeli control, even though Jerusalem was not originally part of Israel. The maps clearly tell the story of an Israel conquering lands which do not belong to it. Since Sharon took office, Israel has built more illegal Jewish Settlements on Palestinian land. Note on the above map that the majority of the lands which were originally Arab lands when Israel was created, are now under complete (dark blue) or partial (green) Israeli control. Only the black areas remain to the Palestinians, and those are shrinking by the minute. 

The Loss of Palestinian Lands from 1946-2000; The maps tell it all! : 

          How does a defensive action result in the total conquest of the lands of others? The answer is that it does not. Israel is the aggressor. The maps of Israel then and now prove it.
Syndicated from: The Absolute Verdict

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Israeli Heron TP Srone crashes During Test Flight

Posted on 30 January 2012 by Tea Server



 
Israeli Heron TP
drone
An Israeli Heron TP
drone has crashed during a joint operation performed by the Israeli
military and the developer company of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

The most advanced Israeli drone crashed during its test flight on
Sunday morning in an area near the Tel Nof military base in central
Israel.

No injuries were reported in the incident and an investigation has been launched into the cause of the crash.

The Heron TP is the largest Israeli UAV with a 26-meter-long
wingspan. It can fly for up to 45 hours and carry a payload of 1,000
kilograms.

The Israeli drone is also capable of launching missiles.

Israel has increased the use of its drones over the past few years in areas including the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon.

In July 2011, France announced its decision to purchase the Israeli
Heron TP in line with plans to upgrade its UAV capabilities.

READ MORE

Syndicated from: ASIAN DEFENCE NEWS

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In Order to Fight Hamas, Israel Must Provide for Fatah

Posted on 18 January 2012 by Tea Server

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process (negotiations between Israel and Fatah) has reached a stalemate that could prove quite detrimental to the two-state solution.  It has allowed Hamas to make a resurgence in Palestinian public opinion.   Since the Gilad Schalit deal, which saw over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners released, Hamas has gained popularity in Gaza and the West Bank.  The Hamas political victory also discredited and undercut the influence and image of Fatah and its leaders.  In the eyes of the Palestinians, Hamas was able to make real gains through the use of threats of violence, while Fatah has nothing to show for their non-violent methods and stalled negotiation attempts with Israel.  In reality, this is of course not true.   The West Bank economy has more than flourished in comparison to that of the Gaza Strip, largely a result of Fatah’s negotiations with Israel.  But come election time, what will Palestinians weigh in on more?

Hamas is gaining popularity in Gaza and the West Bank, at the expense of Fatah and the Peace Process. (Image: vkb.isvg.org)

While neither party may be part of the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian solution, a Hamas victory in the West Bank would put an end to the peace formula altogether.  Fatah is the only reasonable political party that Israel can negotiate a peace treaty with.  As a result, Israel must do all it can to restore the reputation of Fatah and help it win back the hearts and minds of its constituency.  Dennis Ross, a known supporter of Israel and the former special assistant to President Obama, provides some valuable and constructive insight on how Israel can do this in his most recent piece for the Washington Post:

The following was written on January 6, 2012 by Dennis Ross, the former special assistant to President Barak Obama, for the Washington Post:

Dan Meridor, one of Israel’s four deputy prime ministers, said to me years ago that “the peace process is like riding a bicycle: When you stop pedaling, you fall off.” And currently, the Israelis and Palestinians have stopped pedaling.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is convinced that this Israeli government cannot make a peace deal — or at least one he can live with — so he imposes conditions on negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees these conditions as harsh and unprecedented, and doesn’t want to pay a steep political price just to enter talks.

The Obama administration and the other members of the Quartet — the Middle East mediating group that also includes envoys from the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — want to resume direct talks and this past week held a preparatory meeting with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Amman, Jordan. There may be more such meetings, and that is good, because ultimately there will be no peace without negotiations.

But there should also be no illusions about the prospects of a breakthrough any time soon. The psychological gaps between the parties make it hard to resolve their differences and have bedeviled all the work for peace talks over the past few years.

I have been intimately involved in peacemaking efforts over the past 20 years under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Obama, and I know that Abbas and Netanyahu carry the weight of their peoples’ history and mythology, and face enormous political constraints. But those difficulties cannot be a reason to despair and accept a stalemate, particularly when those who reject peace will exploit any impasse to challenge the very idea of a two-state outcome.

While there may be no early breakthrough on holding negotiations, it is possible to overcome the stalemate. One way to do so — and to validate those Palestinian leaders, such as Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who believe in nonviolence and coexistence — is for the Israelis to change the realities on the ground. After all, these Palestinian leaders need to be able to show that their approach is producing a process that will, in time, end the occupation.

What could demonstrate to the Palestinians that the occupation is receding? Examples are not hard to come by. Since the interim agreement of the Oslo process was finalized in 1995, the West Bank has been divided into non-contiguous areas known as A, B and C — with the Palestinians having putative control in Area A and Israel retaining overall responsibility in the two other areas. From the fall of 1995 to the spring of 2002, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) largely stayed out of Area A, which constitutes about 18 percent of the territory and includes all the major cities in the West Bank. According to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians are to have civil and security responsibility in this area.

But in 2002, at the height of the second intifada and the horrendous suicide bombings that Palestinians were executing in Israel, the IDF began operating in Area A again to try to stop the attacks. Though the intifada ended in 2005 and Palestinian security forces have been generally effective in preventing terror attacks, the IDF still carries out periodic incursions into Palestinian cities to reinforce local security efforts. This grates on Palestinians, reminding them who remains in control.

So, one meaningful step would be either to stop all such incursions in Area A or, if there are continuing security concerns, to phase them out based on the security situation. Gabi Ashkenazi, former chief of staff of the IDF, has consistently said that “as the Palestinians do more on security, we will do less.” A gradual ending of incursions in Area A would certainly be consistent with that axiom.

In Area B, about 22 percent of the West Bank, Palestinian police maintain law and order but are not permitted to deal with terrorist threats. Israel could allow their presence to grow. From my discussions with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, I know that he is open to increasing the number of Palestinian police stations and broadening the areas where Palestinian security personnel operate. Now would be a good time to take these steps, as any such expansion would certainly be noticed, and welcomed, by the Palestinian public.

Finally, in Area C, which is about 60 percent of the West Bank, Palestinians’ security and police forces have no access, their economic activity is extremely limited, and Israel retains civil and security responsibilities. There is no practical reason that the Palestinians cannot be permitted dramatically more economic access and activity in this area.

To give one example, there are Palestinian stone masonry factories in Area A, but Palestinians have limited access to the rock quarries in the West Bank, which are in Area C. In a case brought against Israeli ownership of the rock quarries, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled late last month that no additional quarries should be Israeli-owned. That ruling creates an opening for private Palestinian ownership, should any new quarries be established — and there clearly is room for more.

Expanding the Palestinians’ economic opportunities in Area C would do wonders for job creation and the overall Palestinian economy. (In the West Bank, unemployment has come down in recent years but remains at about 16 percent.)

These steps should be feasible from an Israeli standpoint. First, these or similar changes could be implemented without altering the territory’ s political status and could be done in a way that would not put Israeli security at risk, particularly if coordinated closely with the IDF.

Second, Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he does not want to rule over Palestinians and that the stronger their economic base, the better the prospects for peace. These steps would certainly demonstrate that the prime minister means what he says. At the same time, they would signal to Palestinians that independence is possible and that the approach from Abbas and Fayyad — not Hamas resistance or violence — can produce it.

I’m not suggesting to forgo negotiations and their focus on a two-state solution. Talks need to be pursued, and the Obama administration is rightly doing so. The administration is also continuing to assist with institution-building by providing material support for the security, judicial and other sectors of Palestinian society — steps that fit neatly with the kind of actions I am proposing to validate leaders such as Fayyad. At this point, validation of nonviolence will come less from words and more from demonstrations that the occupation is shrinking and will, eventually, end.

The rest of the Middle East is churning, with dictators being toppled and protesters still in the streets a year into the Arab Awakening. Since the demand for free and fair elections has become a symbol of credibility in the uprisings, the pressure on both Fatah and Hamas to hold elections this year is likely to become irresistible. For the past few years, Abbas has said that he would not be a candidate in new elections, but now he is saying he would like those elections to take place in May and plans to depart the political scene afterward. Even if it will not be simple to reach an agreement with Hamas on the terms of elections, Abbas will feel the need to hold them sometime in 2012.

These elections are likely to shape the Palestinians’ identity and whether they continue to accept nonviolence, peaceful coexistence with Israelis and a two-state solution. If there are clear signs that the occupation is diminishing, the positions of Palestinians such as Abbas, Fayyad and their followers who believe in nonviolence will be validated before the elections. This is essential because the alternative is Hamas, which rejects nonviolence and peace with Israel.

In the recent deal with the Israeli government to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, which gained the release of more than 1,000 prisoners, Hamas was seen as delivering political gain through an act of violence. By comparison, Abbas and Fayyad are not seen as delivering on the issues that matter to the Palestinian public, such as prisoner releases, Israeli withdrawal or a reduction of Israeli control.

For Palestinians, at least, this validation would also shrink the psychological gap between them and the Israelis, inspiring hope that negotiations could actually lead somewhere. It might, thus, also offer the best way to unstick the negotiating track. Even more important, with the changes sweeping the region and a political transition looming for the Palestinians, such a validation may be the only way to preserve support among the Palestinian and Arab publics for a two-state solution.

Dennis Ross, counselor at the Washington Institute, served as a special assistant to President Obama and a senior director on the National Security Council staff from July 2009 to December 2011.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cyber War in the Middle East.

Posted on 16 January 2012 by Tea Server

According to the latest news, Israel’s national airline EI AI and Tel Aviv stock exchange had been under the cyber attack, the latest in a series of cyber attacks on the Israeli businesses. A Saudi hacker, who calls himself as OxOmar, is considered to be behind this latest attack.

Israeli media considers such attacks as ‘politically motivated’ and they have expressed their motivation to retaliate. Hamas, the group which administers the Gaza Strip has hailed such attacks and encouraged the hackers to step up. Pro-Palestinian groups have said that they will continue such attacks in the future as well.

The computer experts in Israel has said that politically motivated attacks had happened in the past and they will continue to happen in future too. Thus, they urged private sector businesses to improve their cyber security to avoid such happenings in the future.

In nutshell, one can say that the Cyber-Security would be one of the most important challenges in the future, as there is a growing tendency to transfer business operations online. Disregarding the world in future is safer from the cyber-attacks or not, one things is for sure; thanks to cyber hackers, the demand for the computer specialists would continue to increase in future.

Syndicated from: Blog From Paris

Comments (0)

Register your blog:

Enter your blog address below to become a part of the TeaBreak network.

About TeaBreak:

TeaBreak.pk is a blog aggregator that syndicates pakistani blogs and categorizes them appropriately. Our mission is to give our readers a break from work and let them enjoy their blog time. And we are doing this by bringing all the popular blogs of Pakistan on one platform.