----- Original Message ----- From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:57 AM Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Verzonden: woensdag 23 januari 2002 17:06 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: Re: CNN Breaking News > > > > > <<I doubt that the Oslo Treaty contains a clause that gives Israel > > > > the right to attack the Palestinian Authority if it does not abide > > > > by the treaty...>> > > > > > > > > Ilana > > > > You *doubt* or you *know* ? Facts, pls. > > > > > > I do not need to look up the Oslo Treaty for that. The Palestinian > > > Authority would never have agreed to such a clause. > > > > Right, why bother with data, since you know the truth in the absence of > > data. But, I'm an experimentalist, so I like data. The Oslo accord is > > at: > > <snip URL and part of article> > > > as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis and > > Settlements, for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security > > and public order, and will have all the powers to take the steps > > necessary to meet this responsibility. > > This covers the security of Israelis and Israeli settlements on the Gaza > Strip and the Jericho Area. It does not cover the security outside those > areas, and therefore does not warrant attacks on Palestinians and the > Palestinian Authority in retaliation for attacks on Israelis outside those > two areas. > So, your point is that Israel can only protect its citizens in the occupied territories, but not in Israel proper? I read it as extending the inherent right of countries to defend its citizens from attack within the agreed upon borders of the country to the settlements that are in the area. In short, in the Olso agreement, the Palestinians made a concession far bigger than allowing Israel to use all means necessary to protect Israel proper. Indeed, the language used in Arafat letter, "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security." indicates accepting language that Israel had used for years when they stated they have a right to defend their own territory when need be. It is always possible for a Philadelphia lawyer to twist and turn language in treaties so that the absurd (settlements in areas turned over to the Palestinains can be protected but not Tel Aviv) is given as the only interpretation. The sensible interpretation was that the right to use force to defend the resolution 242 boundaries of Israel has been extended to the settlements. Dan M.
