---

En lille sag fra Jerusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
&cid=1126405205491

Sep. 12, 2005 1:48 | Updated Sep. 12, 2005 18:59
Admitting occupation
By DAOUD KUTTAB

For 37 years Israel has consistently rejected the view of Palestinians
and the rest of the world that the areas it militarily took in 1967 were
occupied. When Israel was not using the biblical terms of Judea and
Samaria (to refer to the West Bank) it used "administered territories"
or "disputed territories."

That is until now. After the evacuation of the illegal Jewish settlers
and before the resolution of the international crossings the Israelis
want Palestinians to say the O word.

Despite Israel's refusal to allow the reopening of Yasser Arafat
International Airport in Gaza and the Rafah crossing point between
Palestinian Gaza with Egypt, the Israelis want Palestinians to publicly
proclaim that the occupation of Gaza is over. To be exact, some in the
Israeli government (mostly those in the National Security Council) want
this statement, while Israeli officials in the Foreign Ministry are
simply interested in a Palestinian Authority statement that it and not
Israel will be the party with overall responsibility for the Strip.

Israeli officials and columnists are surprised that Palestinians are not
too enthusiastic about rushing to make a declaration they have been
hoping for some time. They are looking for a clear statement that the PA
is ready, willing and taking concrete steps to take full responsibility
where the Israelis are vacating.

They repeatedly insist that Sharon, who himself publicly used the term
"occupation" a few months ago, wants to end all Israeli presence,
including in the Rafah crossing. While a number of western leaders,
including Europe's Javier Solana, believe the Israeli position,
Palestinians are not in a rush to make such a declaration.

THE OFFICIAL Palestinian reluctance is understandable so long as the
airport and the land crossings (including security, customs and
administrative responsibility) are not fully and permanently in
Palestinian hands. Partial control means partial sovereignty, and
therefore partial end of occupation. Occupation is like pregnancy. You
can't be half-pregnant.

If these two sovereign crossings were fully placed in Palestinian hands,
Israel would have a stronger case that the PA needs to declare an end to
occupation.

Despite this, I don't see why the Palestinian leadership should make any
one-sided declaration about the end of the occupation in Gaza until
Israel makes a much simpler declaration. Israel should first admit that
there was an occupation in Gaza, and that there is still an occupation
in the West Bank.

While such an Israeli acknowledgment would be nothing more than a
recognition of a reality that it has been literally occupying
Palestinians since 1967, such an admission would have far-reaching
consequences.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, which was devised specifically to deal
with cases of prolonged occupation following the German occupation of
most of Europe, defines the rights of persons and property in occupied
territories. Israel, though claiming it voluntarily applies the Geneva
Convention in some instances, has refused to recognize the Palestinian
(as well as the Syrian) areas as occupied and therefore does not regard
itself as required to grant all the rights entitled to people under
occupation.

International humanitarian law (which the Geneva Convention is part of)
specifies, for example, that the occupying power is not allowed to take
citizens from occupied territories to its country. Nor is an occupier
allowed to send its own citizens to live in occupied areas.
Now that the Israeli violation of bringing settlers to the occupied
areas has been rectified, it is natural to demand that Palestinians
imprisoned in jails in Israel (also denied family visits since the
intifada) should be released back into the areas Israel is demanding
Palestinians say are no longer occupied.

Impeding movement of local citizens within occupied areas is also
illegal according to international law. This means that Israeli closures
between West Bank cities are illegal, as is the prevention of movement
between freed Gaza and the still-occupied West Bank.

Declaring the end of occupation in Gaza should should therefore be
linked to recognition of the continuation of the occupation, and
therefore all Israeli violations still taking place in the West Bank
(such as the recent decision to build yet another 117 homes in
settlement of Ariel, near Nablus).

Once Palestinians take full control and sovereignty over all of Gaza,
including the borders with Egypt, they should rebuild the international
airport, declare the end of the occupation in Gaza and demand the same
for all remaining occupied territories.

--
Three things are certain: Death, taxes and lost data.
Guess which has occurred. -- David Dixon
http://www.intervocative.com/DVDCollection.aspx/extract