DOCSLIB.ORG

“I Lost Everything” RIGHTS Israel’S Unlawful Destruction of Property During Operation Cast Lead WATCH

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“I Lost Everything” RIGHTS Israel’S Unlawful Destruction of Property During Operation Cast Lead WATCH Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories HUMAN “I Lost Everything” RIGHTS Israel’s Unlawful Destruction of Property during Operation Cast Lead WATCH “I Lost Everything” Israel's Unlawful Destruction of Property during Operation Cast Lead Copyright © 2010 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-630-6 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org May 2010 1-56432-630-6 “I Lost Everything” Israel's Unlawful Destruction of Property during Operation Cast Lead Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 14 To the Government of Israel ................................................................................................. 14 To the Government of the United States .............................................................................. 14 To the European Union ........................................................................................................ 15 To the United Nations Human Rights Council ....................................................................... 15 To the UN General Assembly ............................................................................................... 15 To the UN Secretary-General ................................................................................................ 15 To the UN Security Council .................................................................................................. 15 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 17 Destruction of Property during the Conflict ............................................................................... 20 Izbt Abd Rabo and Nearby Industrial Areas ............................................................................... 41 Industrial Areas ................................................................................................................... 55 Zeytoun .................................................................................................................................... 66 Western Beit Lahiya ................................................................................................................. 82 Khuza’a, al-Shoka, and al-Fokhari ............................................................................................. 95 Khuza’a .............................................................................................................................. 96 Al-Shoka ........................................................................................................................... 100 Al-Fokhari .......................................................................................................................... 104 International Legal Obligations and Property Destruction ....................................................... 107 The Gaza Blockade and Israeli Obligations under the Laws of Occupation ......................... 116 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 118 Appendix 1: Human Rights Watch Letter to IDF ........................................................................ 119 Appendix 2: IDF response ........................................................................................................ 123 Summary This report documents 12 cases of unlawful destruction of civilian property by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009. These cases describe instances in which Israeli forces caused extensive destruction of homes, factories, farms and greenhouses in areas under IDF control without any evident military purpose. These cases occurred when there was no fighting in these areas; in many cases, the destruction was carried out during the final days of the campaign when an Israeli withdrawal was imminent. In the cases documented in this report, the IDF violated the prohibition under international humanitarian law – the laws of war – against deliberately destroying civilian property except where necessary for lawful military reasons and the ensuing civilian harm is not disproportionate. This report does not address civilian property damaged or destroyed during immediate fighting; such destruction may or may not be lawful, depending on the circumstances. The available evidence indicates that the destruction in each of the 12 cases documented in this report was carried out by the IDF for either punitive or other unlawful reasons. Human Rights Watch found – based on visits to each site, interviews with multiple witnesses, and the examination of physical evidence – that there were no hostilities in the area at the time the destruction occurred. In seven cases, satellite imagery of the area was available during the fighting, and corroborated witness accounts that large numbers of structures were destroyed shortly before Israel announced a ceasefire and withdrew its forces from Gaza. Two factors are especially relevant to the ongoing impact of this destruction today, some 15 months after the conflict ended. First, Israel's comprehensive blockade of the Gaza Strip, imposed since June 2007, has prevented reconstruction of private property and public infrastructure after the conflict. The blockade continues to affect the lives of the civilian population, including those whose losses are documented in this report. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted in late March 2010 that Israel had allowed imports of cement for several repair projects, including 151 housing units, but these imports were “a drop in a bucket” compared to housing needs, and Israel continued to restrict or bar the entry of many essential goods including materials needed for reconstruction. The media and humanitarian agencies reported in March that many goods were entering Gaza through smuggling tunnels beneath the southern border with Egypt, and many damaged buildings had been at least partially repaired with bricks 1 Human Rights Watch | May 2010 made from smuggled cement and recycled concrete rubble. However, in the areas of Gaza where the vast majority of homes were completely destroyed during the conflict in December 2008 and January 2009 – including areas addressed in this report – there has been virtually no reconstruction of destroyed buildings, indicating that the cost of reconstruction materials under the blockade remained prohibitive for Gaza’s residents, more than three-quarters of whom live under the poverty line (as defined by international standards). That poverty is often a product of or aggravated by the blockade. Israeli officials insist that the blockade— which had already degraded humanitarian conditions in Gaza before Operation Cast Lead— will remain in place until Hamas releases Sgt. Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured in June 2006, rejects violence, and fulfills other political conditions. The blockade, which is supported by Egypt at Rafah's Gaza border, amounts to a form of collective punishment of Gaza's 1.5 million civilians in violation of international law. Second, the inadequate steps that Israel has taken to investigate alleged violations of the laws of war committed during Operation Cast Lead and to bring to justice those found to be responsible compound the violations documented in this report. As of March, Israeli military police had opened 36 criminal investigations, which included interviewing Palestinian witnesses, leading to the sentencing of one soldier who stole a credit card and indictments of two others for endangering a child at a checkpoint. The IDF has undertaken scores of military “operational debriefings” and several broader inquiries, including one focused on the issue of property destruction, but none took any testimony from Palestinian witnesses or victims. The IDF disciplined four soldiers and commanders, one for destroying property, but released only partial information about the circumstances. Notably, Israel has not conducted thorough and impartial investigations into whether policy decisions taken by senior political and military decision-makers including pre-operation decisions led to violations of the laws of war, such as the destruction of civilian infrastructure. (Human Rights Watch is not aware of any meaningful steps by Hamas authorities to ensure accountability for serious violations; a Hamas report released in January which purported to exonerate Palestinian armed groups for laws-of-war
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Armed Conflicts Report - Israel
    Armed Conflicts Report - Israel Armed Conflicts Report Israel-Palestine (1948 - first combat deaths) Update: February 2009 Summary Type of Conflict Parties to the Conflict Status of the Fighting Number of Deaths Political Developments Background Arms Sources Economic Factors Summary: 2008 The situation in the Gaza strip escalated throughout 2008 to reflect an increasing humanitarian crisis. The death toll reached approximately 1800 deaths by the end of January 2009, with increased conflict taking place after December 19th. The first six months of 2008 saw increased fighting between Israeli forces and Hamas rebels. A six month ceasefire was agreed upon in June of 2008, and the summer months saw increased factional violence between opposing Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah. Israel shut down the border crossings between the Gaza strip and Israel and shut off fuel to the power plant mid-January 2008. The fuel was eventually turned on although blackouts occurred sporadically throughout the year. The blockade was opened periodically throughout the year to allow a minimum amount of humanitarian aid to pass through. However, for the majority of the year, the 1.5 million Gaza Strip inhabitants, including those needing medical aid, were trapped with few resources. At the end of January 2009, Israel agreed to the principles of a ceasefire proposal, but it is unknown whether or not both sides can come to agreeable terms and create long lasting peace in 2009. 2007 A November 2006 ceasefire was broken when opposing Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah renewed fighting in April and May of 2007. In June, Hamas led a coup on the Gaza headquarters of Fatah giving them control of the Gaza Strip.
    [Show full text]
  • Light at the End of Their Tunnels? Hamas & the Arab
    LIGHT AT THE END OF THEIR TUNNELS? HAMAS & THE ARAB UPRISINGS Middle East Report N°129 – 14 August 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... i I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. TWO SIDES OF THE ARAB UPRISINGS .................................................................... 1 A. A WEDDING IN CAIRO.................................................................................................................. 2 B. A FUNERAL IN DAMASCUS ........................................................................................................... 5 1. Balancing ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Mediation ..................................................................................................................................... 6 3. Confrontation ............................................................................................................................... 7 4. The crossfire................................................................................................................................. 8 5. Competing alliances ................................................................................................................... 10 C. WHAT IMPACT ON HAMAS? ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment of the Areas Disengaged by Israel in the Gaza Strip
    Environmental Assessment of the Areas Disengaged by Israel in the Gaza Strip FRONT COVER United Nations Environment Programme First published in March 2006 by the United Nations Environment Programme. © 2006, United Nations Environment Programme. ISBN: 92-807-2697-8 Job No.: DEP/0810/GE United Nations Environment Programme P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, KENYA Tel: +254 (0)20 762 1234 Fax: +254 (0)20 762 3927 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.unep.org This revised edition includes grammatical, spelling and editorial corrections to a version of the report released in March 2006. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNEP. The designation of geographical entities in this report, and the presentation of the material herein, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the publisher or the participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimination of its frontiers or boundaries. Unless otherwise credited, all the photographs in this publication were taken by the UNEP Gaza assessment mission team. Cover Design and Layout: Matija Potocnik
    [Show full text]
  • “Why Are the Jews Shooting at Us?”
    Chapter 1 “Why Are the Jews Shooting at Us?” Before Israel’s 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip, Netzarim—a small Jewish settlement amid densely populated Arab areas in central Gaza—was a flashpoint between Palestinians and the Israel Defense Forces for many years. As a result, an IDF post was set up near Netzarim Junction, overlooking the main roads and manned by about 30 soldiers. On the morning of Saturday, September 30, 2000, near the beginning of what would become the second intifada, hundreds of local residents, many of them teenage boys, streamed into Netzarim Junction, hurling rocks and Molotov cocktails at the army post. Journalist Ron Ben-Yishai, who was at the post, stated that it came under fire from several direc- tions.1 The soldiers at the post returned fire, aiming at Palestinians who were carrying weapons.2 That morning, Jamal al-Dura and his 12-year-old son Muhammad left their home in the Al-Bureij refugee camp to buy a car. “We got in a taxi and drove toward Gaza,” the father later recounted. “When we reached Netzarim Junction, the driver stopped and said there was a riot going on and asked us to get out; he said he couldn’t continue . I got out with Muhammad and tried to cross the street, and then we got caught in a hail of gunfire coming from both sides.”3 A video of the incident shows the two pressed against a wall of concrete blocks, cowering behind a barrel. The gunfire continued for 45 minutes.4 “They started shooting at us and there was nowhere for us to go and no place to take cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Briefing
    Policy Briefing Middle East Briefing N°26 Gaza City/Ramallah/Jerusalem/Brussels, 5 January 2009 Ending the War in Gaza I. OVERVIEW ings, somewhat bruised by its harsh tactics in taking over Gaza and seeming indifference to national unity, would grow far beyond its actual military capability, A war neither Israel nor Hamas truly wanted turned while those of its domestic foes – President Mahmoud into a war both are willing to wage. The six-month Abbas, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority ceasefire that expired on 19 December was far from (PA) and Fatah – are in peril. A ground invasion was ideal. Israel suffered through periodic rocket fire and expected and, in some Hamas quarters, hoped for. the knowledge that its foe was amassing lethal fire- House-to-house guerrilla warfare, they surmise, is power. Hamas endured a punishing economic block- more favourable terrain. Should their rule be toppled, ade, undermining its hopes of ruling Gaza. A sensible some claim to look forward to a return to pure armed compromise, entailing an end to rocket launches and struggle, untainted by the stain of governance. an opening of the crossings should have been avail- able. But without bilateral engagement, effective third From Israel’s perspective, six months of overall quiet party mediation or mutual trust, it inexorably came to had been welcome, if not without perpetual qualms. this: a brutal military operation in which both feel Hamas used it to amass a more powerful and longer- they have something to gain. range arsenal; Corporal Gilad Shalit, captured in 2006, remained imprisoned; and sporadic rocket fire As each day goes by, Israel hopes to further degrade continued.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Shot Mohammed Al-Dura? | Fallows Page 1 of 8
    The Atlantic | June 2003 | Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? | Fallows Page 1 of 8 Print this Page Close Window The Atlantic Monthly | June 2003 Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? The image of a boy shot dead in his helpless father's arms during an Israeli confrontation with Palestinians has become the Pietà of the Arab world. Now a number of Israeli researchers are presenting persuasive evidence that the fatal shots could not have come from the Israeli soldiers known to have been involved in the confrontation. The evidence will not change Arab minds—but the episode offers an object lesson in the incendiary power of an icon BY JAMES FALLOWS ..... he name Mohammed al-Dura is barely known in the United States. Yet to a billion people in the Muslim world it is an infamous symbol of grievance against Israel and—because of this country's support for Israel —against the United States as well. Al-Dura was the twelve-year-old Palestinian boy shot and killed during an exchange of fire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian demonstrators on September 30, 2000. The final few seconds of his life, when he crouched in terror behind his father, Jamal, and then slumped to the ground after bullets ripped through his torso, were captured by a television camera and broadcast around the world. Through repetition they have become as familiar and significant to Arab and Islamic viewers as photographs of bombed-out Hiroshima are to the people of Japan—or as footage of the crumbling World Trade Center is to Americans. Several Arab countries have issued postage stamps carrying a picture of the terrified boy.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies Founded by the Charles H. Revson Foundation Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Editor: Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov 2010 Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies – Study no. 406 Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Editor: Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov The statements made and the views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors. © Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Israel 6 Lloyd George St. Jerusalem 91082 http://www.kas.de/israel E-mail: [email protected] © 2010, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies The Hay Elyachar House 20 Radak St., 92186 Jerusalem http://www.jiis.org E-mail: [email protected] This publication was made possible by funds granted by the Charles H. Revson Foundation. In memory of Professor Alexander L. George, scholar, mentor, friend, and gentleman The Authors Yehudith Auerbach is Head of the Division of Journalism and Communication Studies and teaches at the Department of Political Studies of Bar-Ilan University. Dr. Auerbach studies processes of reconciliation and forgiveness . in national conflicts generally and in the Israeli-Palestinian context specifically and has published many articles on this issue. Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov is a Professor of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and holds the Chair for the Study of Peace and Regional Cooperation. Since 2003 he is the Head of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. He specializes in the fields of conflict management and resolution, peace processes and negotiations, stable peace, reconciliation, and the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular. He is the author and editor of 15 books and many articles in these fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside Israel (Armistice Line [Green Line] of 1948–49) 1967-Occupied Arab Territories
    Inside Israel (Armistice Line [Green Line] of 1948–49) 1967-occupied Arab Territories Part III Article 2 A. Measures to eliminate racial discrimination 1. Measures preventing discrimination by all public authorities and institutions [See Article 4 for a discussion on the judicial, legislative and penal measures taken by the State to eliminate discrimination] Favoured Status for Jewish (“national”) Institutions Nonetheless, both Israel’s state and parastatal institutions exclusively proscribe Palestinians from enjoying the rights and Under the World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency Status Law freedoms guaranteed to them by international law, and ratified by (1952), major Zionist organizations have special parastatal status. Israel. It is impossible for Palestinians to have fair appeals in Israeli They manage land, housing and services exclusively for the Jewish courts to uphold their rights. A dual system of law discriminates population. As no non-Jewish organizations enjoy similar status, this between Jewish Israelis and indigenous Palestinians based on a yields a vastly inferior quality of life for the indigenous Palestinian constructed status of “Jewish nationality.” This prejudicial Arab community. (More on these mechanisms of material application of law is apparent in all processes of the legal system, discrimination below under the specific rights affected). from the rights to information and fair trial to detention and prison treatment. State policies compound judicial failures by contracting The State party has taken no measures to address the charters or parastatal institutions (WZO, JNF, etc.) to annex and manage the the operations of these parastatal institutions, which form the most properties confiscated from indigenous Palestinians by developing fundamental and pervasive institutional discrimination in the country, and transferring them to possession by “Jewish nationals” in disadvantaging the entire class of indigenous Palestinian Arab perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Daniel Abraham Israeli-Palestinian Workshop Making Gaza Disengagement Work: Israeli,Palestinian, and International Requirements
    THE SABAN CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION PROCEEDINGS Number 2, June 2004 THE DANIEL ABRAHAM ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN WORKSHOP MAKING GAZA DISENGAGEMENT WORK: ISRAELI,PALESTINIAN, AND INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS WASHINGTON,DC MAY 11–13, 2004 THE SABAN CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION PROCEEDINGS Number 2, June 2004 THE DANIEL ABRAHAM ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN WORKSHOP MAKING GAZA DISENGAGEMENT WORK: ISRAELI,PALESTINIAN, AND INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS WASHINGTON,DC MAY 11–13, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . V LIST OF PARTICIPANTS . IX PROGRAM . XI INTRODUCTION . XIII I. TIMELINE . 1 II. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS . 5 A. CEASE-FIRE . 5 B. PALESTINIAN POWER SHARING . 6 C. PALESTINIAN SECURITY REFORM . 8 D. ISRAELI COMMITMENT TO FULL WITHDRAWAL . 9 E. ROBUST INTERNATIONAL ROLE . 11 F. LINKAGE TO WEST BANK AND BROADER POLITICAL PROCESS . 15 G. U.S. LEADERSHIP . 16 APPENDICES 1. THE DISENGAGEMENT PLAN OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL (MAY 28, 2004) . 19 2. LETTER FROM PRESIDENT BUSH TO PRIME MINISTER SHARON (APRIL 14, 2004) . 25 3. LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER SHARON TO PRESIDENT BUSH (APRIL 14, 2004) . 29 4. LETTER FROM PRESIDENT BUSH TO PRIME MINISTER AHMED QUREI (MAY 11, 2004) . 33 5. LETTER FROM DOV WEISSGLAS TO CONDOLEEZA RICE (APRIL 14, 2004) . 37 6. QUARTET STATEMENT ON UNILATERAL DISENGAGEMENT PLAN (MAY 4, 2004) . 41 T HE S ABAN C ENTER AT T HE B ROOKINGS I NSTITUTION III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he Israeli government’s decision to disengage Although all of these requirements are unlikely to be Tfrom the Gaza Strip and a limited number of achieved in their entirety, it is important to under- settlements in the northern West Bank provides an stand the symbiotic relationship between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocket Threat from the Gaza Strip, 2000-2007
    December, 2007 Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) Rocket threat from the Gaza Strip, 2000-2007 Houses in Sderot damaged by rocket fire (Photos courtesy of the Sderot Communications Center) 1. Overview 2. Methodological notes 3. Part I: The advantages and disadvantages of the use of rockets in the eyes of the Palestinian terrorist organizations i. Overview ii. Advantages iii. Disadvantages iv. Future trends 4. Part II: The terrorist organizations’ rocket launching policy i. General description ii. The Hamas Movement iii. Palestinian Islamic Jihad iv. Popular Resistance Committees v. Fatah groups active in the Gaza Strip vi. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine vii. The Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine 5. Part III: Nature of the rocket threat, 2000 – 2007 i. Scope of the attacks during the confrontation ii. How and where rockets are launched iii. The scope of the attacks and factors influencing them 6. Part IV: Technological aspects i. General description ii. Technological data for locally manufactured rockets iii. Attempted mortar and rocket attacks from the West Bank iv. The rocket stockpiles and how they are housed 7. Part V: The failure of the efforts to export rockets and mortar shells to the West Bank i. Overview ii. Attempts to export know-how to the West Bank iii. Attempts mortar and rocket attacks from the West Bank 8. Part VI: The impact of rocket fire on the western Negev settlements 2 i. Israeli settlements drawing the most fire ii. Casualties caused by rocket fire iii. The long-term influence of the rocket fire on Sderot residents iv.
    [Show full text]
  • Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Occupied Palestinian Territory
    UNITED NATIONS Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Occupied Palestinian territory GAZA DISENGAGEMENT SITUATION REPORT, 12 September 2005 Overview The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) completed their withdrawal from Gaza at 7 am this morning. Operation Last Watch ended with a brief ceremony at Qissufim road crossing when the national flag was re-raised by Gaza Division troops on the Israeli side of the crossing. Palestinian National Security Forces progressively moved into the former settlements throughout Sunday night and into the early hours of this morning. In spite of their presence, synagogues were set ablaze in Netzarim, Kfar Darom and Morag by groups of Palestinians who followed behind the security forces. 1. Status of former settlements • All former settler homes were dismantled by the IDF prior to their departure. Only a small number of municipal and commercial buildings now remain and the PA will decide their future. • The settlements are now under the control of Palestinian security forces, although tens of thousands of Palestinians have subsequently entered including armed militants in Kfar Darom. • Official celebrations organised by the PA are expected to take place in Al Mawasi and Neve Dekalim later this week. • Following a cabinet meeting on Sunday, the Israeli government decided that it could not demolish 27 synagogues and has left the responsibility to the PA, in spite of its reluctance to take such on such action. • The rubble from the former settler homes will be transferred to the Sinai under the auspices of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). • The PA will conduct evaluations of the former settlements in order to check for unexploded ordanance and hazardous materials while also assessing the remaining infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Disengagementsrael’S Renewing the Peace Process Plan
    IDISENGAGEMENTsrael’s Renewing the Peace ProcessPlan 1 IDISENGAGEMENTDISENGAGEMENTsrael’s Renewing the Peace Process Plan IDISENGAGEMENTsrael’s Renewing the Peace Process Plan April 2005 2 Contents INTRODUCTION 3 EVOLUTION OF THE PLAN 5 KEY PROVISIONS OF THE DISENGAGEMENT PLAN 8 THE SHARM E-SHEIKH SUMMIT (FEBRUARY 8, 2005) 12 THE COST OF DISENGAGEMENT 14 REASON TO HOPE 16 APPENDIX: 1) Address by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the Fourth Herzliya Conference (December 18, 2003) 21 2) The Cabinet Resolution Regarding the Disengagement Plan (June 6, 2004) 25 3) Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Address to the Knesset – The Vote on the Disengagement Plan (October 24, 2004) 33 4) Excerpt from an Address by Foreign Minister Shalom to the Israel-British Chamber of Commerce (February 2, 2005) 37 5) Statement by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the Sharm e-Sheikh Summit (February 8, 2005) 38 5 IDISENGAGEMENTsrael’s Renewing the Peace Process Plan Introduction Hope for the prospects of peace has revived in recent months. The death of Yasser Arafat and the election of his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, have fostered the expectation of a new era in relations between Israelis and Palestinians. Within this context, Israel’s Disengagement Plan, introduced in December 2003, should be seen as an important step forward. Ever since the 1967 Six Day War brought Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Gaza Strip under Israel’s administration, their status has been in contention. Israel was forced to wage that war in self-defense, and the disputed territories were held not as the object of conquest, but to be part of eventual negotiations for lasting peace.
    [Show full text]