   |
  
Follow the Middle
East Forum
|
|||||
|
Please take a moment to
visit and log in at the subscriber
area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this
information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your
area.
Israel and the Palestinians
A briefing by Steven J. Rosen
December 17, 2012
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Hamas in Gaza:
·
Israel's deterrence has been partially
restored following the Gaza fighting. Israeli national security doctrine
espouses a clear preference for adversaries that exercise strong central
control over their constituents and can therefore be held accountable for
hostile behavior emanating from these territories. This now appears to be the
case with Hamas as evidenced inter alia by its swift enforcement of quiet
after the ceasefire agreement.
·
Future Israeli efforts to prevent Hamas from
rearming are likely to focus on enlisting Egypt, which has a vested interest
to avert another conflagration in Gaza. Unlike President Mubarak who turned a
blind eye to Sinai weapons smuggling in the hope of driving Israel to weaken
Hamas for him, President Morsi cannot afford such an eventuality for the
simple reason that Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestinian offshoot.
The UN vote and the Palestinian Authority:
·
The PA's move was a transparent attempt to
rally the international community behind an imposed, rather than negotiated,
solution. By codifying the 1967 borders in a UN resolution the PA has
effectively predetermined the outcome of future negotiations.
·
A more malevolent goal of the initiative is to
enable the PA to bring criminal charges against Israeli military personnel
and state officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC), a body
comprised of judges from non-aligned countries largely hostile to the Jewish
state. This option, however, has some clear limitations:
·
There is one possible ICC action of concern to
Israel: litigation concerning "settlements." Were the ICC to rule
that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to the disputed territories, thus
making them legally "occupied," this would enable the prosecution
of current and past members of government involved in the establishment of
settlements for war crimes.
·
The US, like Israel, has not recognized ICC
jurisdiction because of the likelihood of politically motivated prosecutions.
The ICC could just as easily be used to bring cases against U.S. soldiers in
Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Predator drone counter-terrorism strikes. Yet
although it is in America's self-interest to avoid submitting to ICC rulings,
the Obama administration has softened Washington's opposition to the ICC to a
policy of re-engagement.
Summary account by Marilyn Stern, Associate Fellow with the Middle East
Forum. |
||||||
|
To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php |
||||||
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment