The Green Line

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

The Green Line The Green Line is a term used to delineate the demarcation line between Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Syria from the period following Israel’s 1948 InInInIndependependependependendendendencececece W WWWarararar until the 1967 SixSixSixSix Da DaDaDayyyy W WWWarararar when Israel captured the WWWWestestestest Bank BankBankBank, and East JerusalemJerusalemJerusalemJerusalem from Jordan, the GazaGazaGazaGaza Strip StripStripStrip from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria. It is reportedly named for the green pen used by officers negotiating the armistice in 1949 to delineate the borders between the countries. Today, the Green Line refers to the “pre June 1967” line in which Israeli territory does not include the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan, as compared to the “post 1967” line which includes all of those areas. It is the boundary that is most often the basis of land-for-peace proposals in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The PPPPalestinianalestinianalestinianalestinian A AAAuthuthuthuthorityorityorityority asserts that the territory over the green line (including the entire West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem — but not the Golan Heights) should be part of an independent Palestinian state. Israel maintains that the old 1949 armistice lines are indefensible — at its narrowest point from the Mediterranean coast to the demarcation line, Israel is only about nine miles wide. In prior negotiations, Israel has reportedly proposed “land swaps” to modify this line, whereby areas of Israeli territory within the Green Line would be incorporated into a Palestinian state, in exchange for including many of the large Israeli population centers living in settlement blocs within Israel’s permanent boundary. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 1.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

The-Legal-Status-Of-East-Jerusalem.Pdf
December 2013 Written by: Adv. Yotam Ben-Hillel Cover photo: Bab al-Asbat (The Lion’s Gate) and the Old City of Jerusalem. (Photo by: JC Tordai, 2010) This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position or the official opinion of the European Union. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) is an independent, international humanitarian non- governmental organisation that provides assistance, protection and durable solutions to refugees and internally displaced persons worldwide. The author wishes to thank Adv. Emily Schaeffer for her insightful comments during the preparation of this study. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 6 3. Israeli Legislation Following the 1967 Occupation ............................................................ 8 3.1 Applying the Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to East Jerusalem .................... 8 3.2 The Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel ................................................................... 10 4. The Status
[Show full text]
• International Court of Justice • • • • •
• • • INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE • • • • • . Request for an • Advisory Opinion on the • Legal Consequences of the • Construction of a Wall • in the Occupied Palestinian Territories • • WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY • THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN • • • • 30 January 2004 • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • 1. Introduction • Il. General background • III. Immediate background • IV. Relevant facts V. Relevant legal considerations • (a) The Court' s jurisdiction • (i) The request raises a legal question which the Court has jurisdiction ta answer • (ii) There are no compelling reasons which should lead the • Court ta refuse ta give the advisory opinion requested of it. • (b) Applicable legal principles (i) The prohibition of the use of force, and the right of seIf- • determination, are Iules of ius cogens (ii) The territory in whîch the wall has been or is planned to be • constructed constitutes occupied territory for purposes of international law • (lii) The law applicable in respect of occupied territory limîts • the occupying State's power$ (iv) Occupied territory cannot be annexed by the occupying • State • (c) Applicable legal principles and the construction of the wall (i) The occupying State does not have the right effectively to • alIDex occupied territory or otherwise to alter its status (ii) The occupying State does not have the right to alter the • population balance in the occupîed territory by estabIishing alien • settlements • ->- :.• 1 1. • -11- (iii) The occupying State lS not entitled in occupied territory to construct a wall
[Show full text]
The Demarcation Line
No.7 “Remembrance and Citizenship” series THE DEMARCATION LINE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE General Secretariat for Administration DIRECTORATE OF MEMORY, HERITAGE AND ARCHIVES Musée de la Résistance Nationale - Champigny The demarcation line in Chalon. The line was marked out in a variety of ways, from sentry boxes… In compliance with the terms of the Franco-German Armistice Convention signed in Rethondes on 22 June 1940, Metropolitan France was divided up on 25 June to create two main zones on either side of an arbitrary abstract line that cut across départements, municipalities, fields and woods. The line was to undergo various modifications over time, dictated by the occupying power’s whims and requirements. Starting from the Spanish border near the municipality of Arnéguy in the département of Basses-Pyrénées (present-day Pyrénées-Atlantiques), the demarcation line continued via Mont-de-Marsan, Libourne, Confolens and Loches, making its way to the north of the département of Indre before turning east and crossing Vierzon, Saint-Amand- Montrond, Moulins, Charolles and Dole to end at the Swiss border near the municipality of Gex. The division created a German-occupied northern zone covering just over half the territory and a free zone to the south, commonly referred to as “zone nono” (for “non- occupied”), with Vichy as its “capital”. The Germans kept the entire Atlantic coast for themselves along with the main industrial regions. In addition, by enacting a whole series of measures designed to restrict movement of people, goods and postal traffic between the two zones, they provided themselves with a means of pressure they could exert at will.
[Show full text]
Demilitarization of the Siachen Conflict Zone: Concepts for Implementation and Monitoring
SANDIA REPORT SAND2007-5670 Unlimited Release Printed September 2007 Demilitarization of the Siachen Conflict Zone: Concepts for Implementation and Monitoring Brigadier (ret.) Asad Hakeem Pakistan Army Brigadier (ret.) Gurmeet Kanwal Indian Army with Michael Vannoni and Gaurav Rajen Sandia National Laboratories Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited. Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors. Printed in the United States of America.
[Show full text]
China and the South China Sea Debate: Crouching Tiger Or Hidden Dragon?
CHINA AND THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DEBATE: CROUCHING TIGER OR HIDDEN DRAGON? Lieutenant-Commander P.S. Robinson JCSP 39 PCEMI 39 Master of Defence Studies Maîtrise en études de la défense Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and do Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs et not represent Department of National Defence or ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Ministère de Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used la Défense nationale ou des Forces canadiennes. Ce without written permission. papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par le ministre de la of National Defence, 2013 Défense nationale, 2013. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 39 – PCEMI 39 2012 – 2013 MASTER OF DEFENCE STUDIES – MAÎTRISE EN ÉTUDES DE LA DÉFENSE CHINA AND THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DEBATE: CROUCHING TIGER OR HIDDEN DRAGON? By Lieutenant-Commander P.S. Robinson Par le Capitaine de corvette P.S. Robinson “This paper was written by a student “La présente étude a été rédigée par attending the Canadian Forces un stagiaire du Collège des Forces College in fulfillment of one of the canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une requirements of the Course of des exigences du cours. L'étude est Studies. The paper is a scholastic un document qui se rapporte au cours document, and thus contains facts et contient donc des faits et des and opinions, which the author opinions que seul l'auteur considère alone considered appropriate and appropriés et convenables au sujet.
[Show full text]
The Egypt-Palestine/Israel Boundary: 1841-1992
University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Dissertations and Theses @ UNI Student Work 1992 The Egypt-Palestine/Israel boundary: 1841-1992 Thabit Abu-Rass University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©1992 Thabit Abu-Rass Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd Part of the Human Geography Commons Recommended Citation Abu-Rass, Thabit, "The Egypt-Palestine/Israel boundary: 1841-1992" (1992). Dissertations and Theses @ UNI. 695. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd/695 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses @ UNI by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EGYPT-PALESTINE/ISRAEL BOUNDARY: 1841-1992 An Abstract of a Thesis .Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the ~egree Master of Arts Thabit Abu-Rass University of Northern Iowa July 1992 ABSTRACT In 1841, with the involvement of European powers, the Ottoman Empire distinguished by Firman territory subject to a Khedive of Egypt from that subject more directly to Istanbul. With British pressure in 1906, a more formal boundary was established between Egypt and Ottoman Palestine. This study focuses on these events and on the history from 1841 to the present. The study area includes the Sinai peninsula and extends from the Suez Canal in the west to what is today southern Israel from Ashqelon on the Mediterranean to the southern shore of the Dead Sea in the east.
[Show full text]
List of Boundary Lines
A M K RESOURCE WORLD GENERAL KNOWLEDGE www.amkresourceinfo.com List of Boundary Lines The line which demarcates the two countries is termed as Boundary Line List of important boundary lines Durand Line is the line demarcating the boundaries of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was drawn up in 1896 by Sir Mortimer Durand. Hindenburg Line is the boundary dividing Germany and Poland. The Germans retreated to this line in 1917 during World War I Mason-Dixon Line is a line of demarcation between four states in the United State. Marginal Line was the 320-km line of fortification on the Russia-Finland border. Drawn up by General Mannerheim. Macmahon Line was drawn up by Sir Henry MacMahon, demarcating the frontier of India and China. China did not recognize the MacMahon line and crossed it in 1962. Medicine Line is the border between Canada and the United States. Radcliffe Line was drawn up by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, demarcating the boundary between India and Pakistan. Siegfried Line is the line of fortification drawn up by Germany on its border with France.Order-Neisse Line is the border between Poland and Germany, running along the Order and Neisse rivers, adopted at the Poland Conference (Aug 1945) after World War II. 17th Parallel defined the boundary between North Vietnam and South Vietnam before two were united. 24th Parallel is the line which Pakistan claims for demarcation between India and Pakistan. This, however, is not recognized by India 26th Parallel south is a circle of latitude which crosses through Africa, Australia and South America. 30th Parallel north is a line of latitude that stands one-third of the way between the equator and the North Pole.
[Show full text]
Transplanting Nationalism: How the Chinese Government Provokes Nationalistic Emotions Where Nationalism Foundation Does Not Exist
Transplanting Nationalism: How the Chinese Government Provokes Nationalistic Emotions Where Nationalism Foundation Does Not Exist Guanjie Niu A thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES University of Washington 2018 Committee: David Bachman Scott Fritzen Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies ©Copyright 2018 Guanjie Niu University of Washington Abstract Transplanting Nationalism: How the Chinese Government Provokes Nationalistic Emotions Where Nationalism Foundation Does Not Exist Guanjie Niu Chair of the Supervisory Committee: David Bachman Jackson School of International Studies During international disputes that involve China, if there is no existing foundation for nationalism, such as historical grievances and former conflicts between the disputing nations, how does the Chinese government manage to evoke a wide-range of nationalistic sentiments in Chinese society in a very short time? To answer this question, I conducted a content analysis based on the Philippines v. China (or the South China Sea Arbitration case) by using articles that were published in the People’s Daily. I argue that the Chinese government attempts to transplant existing nationalistic emotions from other nationalism foundations and symbols, which are familiar with Chinese people, to the “unblemished” target country to create an instant nationalistic fever among the Chinese public if there’s no nationalistic foundation between these two countries.
[Show full text]
The Nature and Scope of the Armistice Agreement
I The Nature and Scope of the Armistice Agreement 50 AmericanJournal of International Law 880 (1956) I. Introduction or many centuries the annistice agreement has been the method most F frequently employed to bring about a cessation ofhostilities in international conflict, particularly where the opposing belligerents have reached what might be termed a stalemate. This practice has not only continued but has probably increased, during the present century. The first World War ended in an extended series of so-called annistice agreements.! During the twenty-one years which elapsed before the outbreak of the second World War there were really only two such agreements of any historical importance: that entered into in Shanghai on May 5, 1932, which brought about a cessation of hostilities in the Sino-Japanese conflict of that period? and that entered into at Buenos Aires onJune 12, 1935, which ended hostilities between Bolivia and Paraguay over the Gran Chaco.3 The second World War also ended in an extended series ofso-called annistice agreements; 4 and in the comparatively short period of time since then, there have already been no less than ten major general annistice agreements concluded by belligerents.5 This increased importance in modem practice of the general annistice as an instrument leading to the restoration of peace has resulted in it having been likened to the preliminaries of peace 6 (which it has, in fact, practically superseded), and even to a definitive treaty of peace? Under the circumstances, it appears appropriate to review the history and development of the general armistice as a major international convention concerned with the non-hostile relations of belligerents, as well as to detennine its present status under international law.
[Show full text]
DELIMITATION of MARITIME BORDERS and OFFSHORE PRODUCTION: COOPERATION and CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL and LEBANON Charles Pacheco Piñon1 Marcelo De Souza Barbosa2
DOI 10.21544/1809-3191.v25n2.p 346-380 DELIMITATION OF MARITIME BORDERS AND OFFSHORE PRODUCTION: COOPERATION AND CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND LEBANON Charles Pacheco Piñon1 Marcelo de Souza Barbosa2 ABSTRACT The findings of oil and gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean, more specifically in the Levantine Basin, has aroused Israel and Lebanon concerns regarding the possibility that these energy sources provide both their energy self-sufficiency and the profitable earns which this economic activity has the potential to provide. However, the political and territorial conflicts between those countries have been even raised by the dispute of maritime areas implied in the exploitation of this important energetic asset. In this matter, the definition of maritime borders between Israel and Lebanon must be highlighted as a way to allow the full offshore exploitation by both countries. For this purpose, this article aims to identify regional and international actors which have the skills to interfere in this issue, the interests and obstacles related to Levantine Basin oil and gas production and the legal framework that can improve cooperation in order to get the maritime border delimitation. This way, it will be possible to create a security environment to allow full offshore exploitation by the contenders. Keywords: Oil and Gas Geopolitics. Maritime Borders. Cooperation and Conflict. 1 Ph.D. Student and master’s degree on Maritime Studies by the Naval Warfare School (PPGEM-EGN), Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil. Email: [email protected] / Orcid: https://orcid. org/0000-0002- 4231-1371 2 Master’s Degree. Universidade Cândido Mendes (UCAM), Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil.
[Show full text]
Camp David's Shadow
Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2015 © 2015 Seth Anziska All rights reserved ABSTRACT Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska This dissertation examines the emergence of the 1978 Camp David Accords and the consequences for Israel, the Palestinians, and the wider Middle East. Utilizing archival sources and oral history interviews from across Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Camp David’s Shadow recasts the early history of the peace process. It explains how a comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict with provisions for a resolution of the Palestinian question gave way to the facilitation of bilateral peace between Egypt and Israel. As recently declassified sources reveal, the completion of the Camp David Accords—via intensive American efforts— actually enabled Israeli expansion across the Green Line, undermining the possibility of Palestinian sovereignty in the occupied territories. By examining how both the concept and diplomatic practice of autonomy were utilized to address the Palestinian question, and the implications of the subsequent Israeli and U.S. military intervention in Lebanon, the dissertation explains how and why the Camp David process and its aftermath adversely shaped the prospects of a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s. In linking the developments of the late 1970s and 1980s with the Madrid Conference and Oslo Accords in the decade that followed, the dissertation charts the role played by American, Middle Eastern, international, and domestic actors in curtailing the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.
[Show full text]
Mapping Peace Between Syria and Israel
UNiteD StateS iNStitUte of peaCe www.usip.org SpeCial REPORT 1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPO R T Frederic C. Hof Commissioned in mid-2008 by the United States Institute of Peace’s Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution, this report builds upon two previous groundbreaking works by the author that deal with the obstacles to Syrian- Israeli peace and propose potential ways around them: a 1999 Middle East Insight monograph that defined the Mapping peace between phrase “line of June 4, 1967” in its Israeli-Syrian context, and a 2002 Israel-Syria “Treaty of Peace” drafted for the International Crisis Group. Both works are published Syria and israel online at www.usip.org as companion pieces to this report and expand upon a concept first broached by the author in his 1999 monograph: a Jordan Valley–Golan Heights Environmental Preserve under Syrian sovereignty that Summary would protect key water resources and facilitate Syrian- • Syrian-Israeli “proximity” peace talks orchestrated by Turkey in 2008 revived a Israeli people-to-people contacts. long-dormant track of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Although the talks were sus- Frederic C. Hof is the CEO of AALC, Ltd., an Arlington, pended because of Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip, Israeli-Syrian peace Virginia, international business consulting firm. He directed might well facilitate a Palestinian state at peace with Israel. the field operations of the Sharm El-Sheikh (Mitchell) Fact- Finding Committee in 2001. • Syria’s “bottom line” for peace with Israel is the return of all the land seized from it by Israel in June 1967.
[Show full text]