The Oslo Accords Are Not Dead


	They aren't observed, but they exist By Moshe Gorali Haaretzdaily.com Septermber 11, 2003 Are the Oslo Accords dead, or just sunk in a coma? Under accepted conventions,international agreements are not completely abrogated; at most they can be frozen or delayed, says Prof. Nathan Lerner, an expert in international law from the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. "The agreements exist, even if the signatories don't observe them. They exist as long as they haven't been abrogated by the parties, and they cannot be abrogated unilaterally. The formal life of the agreements is divorced from the reality - they have validity and the parties have the power to revive them at any given moment," he said. One could have learned about the attitude of the state to the agreements from a legal decision in the Barghouti trial, which was handed down in January 2003. "We are assuming that the interim agreement remains valid so long as it hasn't been abrogated by the State of Israel, despite the state's claims regarding blatant violations of the agreement by the Palestinian Authority," wrote Judge Amiram Binyamini. "Even the state made this assumption for the purpose of its claims in this case, and its proxy pointed out that the interim agreements `have not been abrogated, and have been confirmed by law.'" Two different legal proceedings thoroughly analyzed the status of the PA according to the agreements. Another proceeding, which took place at the Jerusalem District Court, surrounded a claim submitted by victims of terror and their families for compensation from the PA and from Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Among the complainants were the families of the Ramallah lynch victims, Yosef Avrahami and Vadim Norzhich, the families of Motti Dayan and Etgar Zeituni, who were murdered upon entering a restaurant in Tul Karm, and the families of many other victims. The second proceeding is taking place in the Tel Aviv District Court - the trial of Marwan Barghouti, who was accused of responsibility for the terror attacks carried out in Israel. Barghouti claimed that the agreements grant him immunity from standing trial in Israel. The judge, Avraham Tal, ruled that "the State of Israel has reserved for itself the sole responsibility and authority for maintaining the security of the citizens and residents of Israel, and the security of Israelis everywhere. Israel has never relinquished these obligations, and has never transferred them to the Palestinian Authority." Because Barghouti was accused of responsibility for attacks that took place inside Israel, it was ruled that "the PA has no jurisdiction over crimes committed within the boundaries of the State of Israel." The authority to try Barghouti was also discussed before Judge Zvi Gorfinkel, who analyzed the issue according to the agreements, and wrote the following incisive words: "The Palestinian Authority has adopted the custom of murdering as many Israeli citizens as possible everywhere, at any time and in any manner. Civilians, including women, children and men who are not fighters and are unarmed. While its hands are involved in murder, the PA continues to insist on the observance of agreements." It's only autonomy The ruling in the suit by victims of terror and their families was handed down in March 2003, and expanded on the status of the PA according to the agreements. Judge Moshe Drori summarized: "All the powers that have been granted to the PA give it no more than autonomy, but are far from an independent state." According to the ruling: "The PA is not fulfilling the four basic conditions required to turn it from an international entity into an independent sovereign state, as these have been shaped in customary international law - a defined area, a permanent population, an effective independent regime and the conducting of external relations with foreign countries." Prof. Yaffa Zilbershatz, an expert in international law from Bar Ilan University, also deals with the question of sovereignty in the PA areas. "The Oslo Accords determined that until the final arrangement, the territories continue to be `held' in the sense that the military ruler remains the sovereign," she explains. Dr. Alan Baker, the legal adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, finds that the agreements improved the international status of the settlers. "The central claim was always that they are living in the area contrary to international law, which forbids the transfer of a civilian population to an occupied territory," says Baker. "Now they are living there by agreement - by the force of an international treaty that determines that their status will be decided in the final arrangement." Another benefit from the agreements was that issued by the Supreme Court, which approved of the expulsion of the brother and sister Kifah and Intisar Ajouri from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip. "Socially and politically speaking," wrote Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, "these two areas are seen by all those involved as one territorial unit, with the legislation of the military ruler in them being of identical content." From that the court concluded that this was not expulsion, which is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, but rather a rather a new demarcation of their area of residence, with the transfer of people from one place to another in the same territory. The laws passed in Israel to make it possible to implement the agreements gave rise to many lawsuits in Israeli courts. Most were financial claims by Israeli firms that were dispossessed of their businesses in the territories by the PA. The companies demanded compensation through offsetting [claims] with money that Israel is holding for the PA. The Supreme Court ruled on this issue, as stated by Justice Mishael Cheshin, that "in agreements between Israel and the PA, Israel did not acquire the right of offsetting [claims] even in documents in which the parties determine that they will continue to discuss between themselves the issue of offsetting, this does not apply to the right of offsetting for the benefit of private bodies, but rather for the benefit of the state or for the benefit of bodies under its control or administration." \| The Oslo Accords Are Not Dead \| The Heartland of Israel and America: Destruction \| \| Replacement Theology \| Map of Israel \| Dividing Israel's Covenant Land \| The Forsaking of Gaza, Rapture & Day of the Lord \| Russia, Iran About to Fulfill Ezekiel 38,39 \| Netanyahu is Already Dividing Jerusalem \| President Bush's Meeting With Abbas, May 26, 2005 \| New 'Sanhedrin' plans rebuilding of Temple \| Battle of Gog/MaGog Videos w/maps \| Our Pictures \| \| Return Home \| Tithing and Giving \| Prayer, Fasting and Discernment \| Bible Study and Bible Study Helps \| Mystery Babylon \| Antichrist Revealed \| False Prophet \| The New World Order \| Israel in Bible Prophecy \| Home Schooling \| LINKS: \| Contact Us! \|