fredag 17 november 2017

Hur kommer relationerna mellan Saudiarabien och Iran påverka omvärlden?

Hotet från Iran får intressanta konsekvenser. En av dem är att Israels och Saudiarabiens syn på Iran allt mer börjar likna varandra. En gemensam fiende förenar, åtminstone till en del.
Saudiarabiens utrikesminister Adel al-Jubeir sade i går att Hizbollah måste avväpnas. Enligt Adel al-Jubeir är Hizbollah en terrorist organisation som Iran använder till att destabilisera hela regionen.
Diktaturstaten Saudiarabien känner sig hotad av Iran och ser tydligare än demokratierna i Europa vad Iran står för.
Motsättningarna mellan Saudiarabien och Iran innehåller allt som behövs för att en verkligt stor konflikt med förödande följder skall bryta ut.
USA stöder Saudiarabien och Ryssland stöder Iran. Både Rysslands och USA:s stridsstyrkor finns på plats i Mellanöstern och om krig utbryter mellan Saudiarabien och Iran kan vad som helst hända.
Relationerna mellan USA och Ryssland är inte heller speciellt goda. Ett exempel på det fick man i går när Ryssland lade in sitt veto i FN:s säkerhetsråd. Ryssland motsatte sig ett förslag av USA som skulle ha förlängt mandatet för en expertgrupp (JIM) som undersöker vem som använt giftgas i attacker i Syrien.

Saudi Arabia calls on Hezbollah to disarm, threatens its ouster from Lebanon (The Times of Israel)
At a press conference in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, al-Jubeir denounced Hezbollah as “a tool of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards” and “a first-class terrorist organization used by Iran to destabilize Lebanon and the region.”
“Hezbollah has kidnapped the Lebanese system,” he said.
Al-Jubeir added that “consultations and coordination between peace-loving countries and Lebanon-loving countries are underway to try to find a way that would restore sovereignty to Lebanon and reduce the negative action which Hezbollah is conducting in Lebanon.”

ANALYSIS: THE PRAGMATIC SUNNI FRONT AGAINST IRAN EXISTS NO MORE

In first-ever Saudi interview, IDF head says ready to share intel on Iran

US, Russia trade blame as Syria gas attacks probe set to expire (The Times of Israel)
“To my Russian friends, the next chemical weapons attack is on your head,” US Ambassador Nikki Haley said. “By not having a JIM, you are basically telling the entire world that chemical weapons are OK to use. That’s what we should be embarrassed about today.”

Rapport om judarnas rätt att bo och bygga i Judéen och Samarien

Den som vill ha kunskap om judarnas lagliga rätt att bosätta sig i Judéen och Samarien (västbanken) borde läsa den här rapporten från The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation.
 Författare är Andrew Tucker och Matthijs de Blois.

Hela rapporten kan läsas här:
ARE THE ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
IN THE WEST BANK ILLEGAL
UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Redan sammanfattningen ger en hel del kunskap som de flesta saknar:

Executive Summary
This Position Paper is intended to assist in the analysis of the international legal aspects of what
are often referred to as “settlements” in the “Occupied Palestinian Territories.”1
The “West Bank” and East Jerusalem is an area of approximately 6000 km2
north/west, east
and south/west of Jerusalem. It encompasses most of the mountainous territory of what for
centuries after 70AD was known as “Palestine.”
For 2000 years the territory covering what is now current Israel and the West Bank was
part of larger empires. In 1922, the international community agreed that a Jewish national
home should be established in the area then known as Palestine—including all of Jerusalem
and the area now known as the “West Bank”. This was part of the desire to achieve an equitable
determination of the territories of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after WWI in order to
give the peoples of the Middle East self-determination. For millennia, the Jewish people had
been one of the most important peoples of the Middle East. In the Mandate for Palestine,
the international community recognized the unique connection of the Jewish people with
all of Palestine—including Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria (which only became known as
the “West Bank” after 1950).
In the Six-Day War in June 1967, the Israeli army unexpectantly gained control over a
large area of land that was prior to 1948 part of the Mandate for Palestine, but since the
conclusion of hostilities in 1949 had been controlled by Syria (Golan Heights), Egypt (Gaza
Strip and Sinai) and Jordan (the “West Bank”). Since June 1967, with the exception of “East
Jerusalem,” Israel has not annexed these territories, but has instead voluntarily submitted to
the application of the law of “belligerent occupation.” As a result, these territories are now
almost universally referred to as “the occupied Palestinian territories.”
Israel is heavily criticized for its military administration and for Israeli civilian “settlements”
in these territories. These territories are referred to in UN resolutions, by international
organizations and agencies, in the media and even by the International Court of
Justice as the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” (“OPT”). It is often stated that “Israel is
illegally occupying” these territories, and that “the settlements” are “illegal” and an “obstacle
to peace.” UN Security Council resolution 465 (1980), for example, calls on Israel to “dismantle
the existing settlements.” The International Court of Justice stated generically in the
Wall Advisory Opinion that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
(including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.”
On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2334, in which it
stated that the establishment by Israel of “settlements” in the “Palestinian territory occupied
since 1967” “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and
a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive
peace.” In referring to “Palestinian territory occupied since 1967,” the Security
Council is referring to the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the “West Bank” and
“East Jerusalem.” This paper focusses on the status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. We
argue that the statements by the Security Council that the establishment by Israel of “settlements”
in these territories are illegal is both incorrect and misleading.
The term “Occupied Palestinian Territories” is often used to make the suggestion that:
a. the 1949 Armistice Lines constitute legally binding “borders”;
b. these territories “belong” to the “Palestinians”;
c. Israel’s “occupation” of these territories is illegitimate.
This paper sets out the main legal issues involved in characterizing these territories.
The main conclusions of this analysis are:
1. International law applicable to the West Bank is extremely complex and controversial.
International law does not provide “cut-and-dried” solutions to the conflict between
Israel and its neighbors in relation to these territories. Care should be taken to avoid
generalizations. When referring to international law, it is essential to specify precisely
which actions by the State of Israel are considered to be in breach of international
law. For the reasons set out below, blanket statements that “the settlements are illegal”
completely fail to take account of these complexities.
2. Israel has potentially legitimate claims to territorial sovereignty (title) with respect
to all of the territory included in the former Mandate for Palestine. This covers all of
the West Bank (including East Jerusalem).
3. In light of these (potential) claims, and Israel’s rights to “territorial integrity”, neither
the United Nations, the EU nor any other party or organization has the jurisdiction
to impose any legally-binding “solution” with respect to these territories without
Israel’s consent.
4. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) also does not have jurisdiction to make
legally-binding determinations concerning these territories without Israel’s consent.
5. Given Israel’s potentially legitimate sovereign territorial claims with respect to all or
part of these territories, it is inaccurate and misleading to refer to them as “Palestinian”
in so far as this is intended to imply that these territories are part of the sovereign
territory of another people or State.
6. Although the West Bank is (almost) universally referred to as “occupied” (including
by Israel itself—at least for the territories outside Jerusalem), the international law
of belligerent occupation arguably does not apply to the West Bank.
7. But even if the West Bank does constitute “occupied” territory within the meaning
of the law of occupation, that law does not prohibit occupation as such. It does not
require Israel to “withdraw” its military personnel or its citizens from the West Bank
pending the finalization of a negotiated peace treaty.
8. The international law of belligerent occupation only prohibits specific kinds of conduct
by occupying States. At best, it could be argued that article 49(6) of the Fourth
Geneva Convention prohibits the State of Israel from taking measures to transfer (or
encourage the transfer of) Israeli citizens from Israel to the West Bank.
9. But even on this reading, international law only applies to the activities of the State of
Israel. It does not prohibit or restrict the right of Israeli citizens to settle voluntarily
in the West Bank, or to move in and out of, or to conduct activities or build houses
or other infrastructure in, the West Bank.
10. While the “Palestinians” arguably have a right to self-determination, international
law does not mandate the establishment of a “Palestinian” state next to Israel. The
“two-state” solution is a political goal, not a legal requirement. It is therefore invalid
to claim that settlements are “illegal” because they somehow frustrate the establishment
of a Palestinian state.
11. It is also incorrect to state or imply that “Palestine” is already a state.
12. Additional considerations are raised by the unique status of Jerusalem. The fact that
“East Jerusalem” contains sites regarded as holy by Jews, Christians and Moslems
raises additional issues of concern. In particular, no steps should be taken that would
limit the freedom of members of any of these religions to access their holy places.
Allowing East Jerusalem to come under the exclusive control of an Islamic regime
would by definition arguably result in the illegitimate restriction of the rights of
Christians and Jews to access these holy sites.
13. Israel and the PLO remain bound by the terms of the Oslo Accords. Until such time
as these binding agreements are revoked, they provide the legal framework for the
settlement of disputes between Israel and the PLO. Under the Oslo Accords, Israel
and the PLO are both entitled and obliged to negotiate directly with each other
concerning all “final status” issues, including Jerusalem, borders and settlements.
Under Article XXXI of the Interim Agreement, neither party is entitled to take unilateral
action that will “change the status” of the West Bank pending the outcome of
permanent status negotiations.
14. The UN Security Council and General Assembly, the EU and individual member
states have no authority to limit the rights of Israel and its citizens with respect to
the West Bank, including “East Jerusalem.” In fact, measures by the EU or United
Nations organs to comply with PLO requests to change the status of the West Bank
unilaterally, or to impose limitations on the rights of Israel to negotiate as set out
above, could arguably themselves constitute infringements of international law.

Terrorattack

En ung palestinsk bilförare körde idag på morgonen över två personer söder om Jerusalem. Därefter steg han ur bilen och försökte knivhugga soldater.
Soldaterna sköt angriparen.Både terroristen och hans offer fördes till sjukhus. En av de skadade fick allvarliga hjärnskador.

Two injured, one seriously, in West Bank car ramming; terrorist shot

torsdag 16 november 2017

Kommer Islamsk jihad att attackera Israel?

En artikel av Paul Widén om det spända läget efter sprängningen av en av Islamsk Jihads tunnlar för en tid sedan.
Israel har denhär veckan förberett sig för en större terrorattack.

Förhöjd militär beredskap i södra Israel
"Israel höjde på måndagskvällen sin militära beredskap runt gränsen till Gaza, då man befarar att terroristorganisationen Islamiska Jihad står i begrepp att utföra en storskalig attack som vedergällning för Israels kontrollerade demolering av en tunnel under gränsen till Gaza den 30 oktober. Ett antal enheter av raketförsvarssystemet Järnkupolen utplacerades i centrala Israel för första gången sedan kriget i Gaza sommaren 2014, vilket tyder på att Israels försvarsstyrkor (IDF) har konkret information om planer på raketattacker, specifikt mot Tel Aviv med omnejd. ..."

Fatah försvarar våld

Efter att Hamas och Fatah kom överens om att samarbeta i Gaza har flera ledare inom Fatah försvarat användning av våld i kampen mot Israel.
USA och Israel har krävt att Hamas måste avstå från sina vapen och avstå från våld om samarbetet med Fatah skall ha någon effekt i praktiken. Mahmoud Abbas har också uttryckt liknande tankar.
Den senaste rapporten från Palestinian Media Watch visar att även ledare inom Fatah motsätter sig en avväpning av Hamas.

För övrigt så går samarbetet mellan Hamas och Fatah lite trögt. Gränsövergången till Egypten borde enligt avtalet vara öppen vid det här laget men den hålls fortfarande stängd. Som orsak uppges oenighet om säkerhetsarrangemangen i Gaza.

Fatah official Abbas Zaki promises continued violence:
The US, Israel, and others have demanded that Hamas denounce violence and disarm in order for them to accept the unity deal that Hamas and Abbas' Fatah party signed in October.

Responding to this demand, several Fatah leaders have spoken against disarmament and reiterated Fatah's position not to lay down arms, but rather to continue the "resistance" - a Palestinian euphemism for violence and terror.

Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki stated that Fatah will "resume arming" its "brigades" in the Gaza Strip, and emphasized that Fatah adheres to violent "resistance" against Israel with weapons that are "pure." Zaki specified that the loyalty and allegiance of any Palestinian who suggests laying down "the weapons of the resistance" is cast into doubt, and such a person is perceived as a "traitor":

...Fatah official Nasser Al-Qidwa: Disarming Hamas "is unacceptable, unrealistic, and impossible to implement"

Hamas leadership member: "The resistance will never hand over its weapons"

Palestinian reconciliation falters as Gaza crossing with Egypt stays shut

onsdag 15 november 2017

Hotet från Iran kommer närmare

USA:s och Rysslands överenskommelse om vapenstillestånd i Syrien är tyvärr ett allvarligt hot mot Israels säkerhet.
Avtalet verkar nämligen inte eftersträva att iranska trupper skall avlägsnas från Syrien. Rysslands utrikesminister Sergey Lavrov sa för några dagar sedan att Iran har rätt att stanna i landet. Ryssland har i kriget varit allierad med Syriens "president" Assad, Iran och Hizzbollah så uttalandet är inte så förvånande. Men för Israel är situationen allvarlig.
Både Israels premiärminister och försvarsminister har de senaste dagarna klargjort att de inte under några omständigheter kommer att acceptera iranskas styrkor i närheten av gränsen till Israel.
Premiärminister Netanyahu har sagt att om det så behövs kommer Israel ensam att förhindra att Iran får militärbaser i Syrien.
Iranska militära, religiösa och politiska ledare upprepar med jämna mellanrum att målet för Iran är att utplåna staten Israel så Israels ovilja att få iranska trupper stationerade några kilometer från gränsen är förståelig.
Förutom rädslan för ett framtida kärnvapenhot från Iran är Hizbollah i Libanon ett stort hot mot Israel. (Hizbollah tar sina order direkt från Iran)
Ytterligare iransk närvaro vid Israels norra gräns i Syrien verkar därför vara totalt oacceptabelt för Israel och om inte stormakterna förstår detta och har makt att förmå Iran att dra sig bort från området kommer följderna med största sannolikhet att vara katastrofala.


WATCH: NETANYAHU VOWS ISRAEL WILL ACT ALONE AGAINST IRAN IF GIVEN NO CHOICE
"Iran is scheming to entrench itself militarily in Syria. They want to create a permanent air, land and sea military presence, with the declared intent of using Syria as a base from which to destroy Israel. We are not going to agree to that. I have said very clearly that Israel will work to stop this,” Netanyahu told the Jewish Federation of North America’s General Assembly which is meeting in Los Angeles. 
“We must all work together to stop Iran’s aggression and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. If we stand together we will achieve it. But if we have to we'll stand alone. Iran will not get nuclear weapons. It will not turn Syria into a military base against Israel,” the premier asserted.

Touring northern border, Liberman vows no Iran presence in Syria
“We simply will not allow Shiite and Iranian entrenchment in Syria. And we will not allow all of Syria to become a forward operating base against the State of Israel. Whoever doesn’t understand that — should understand that,” Liberman said.

Netanyahu says he told Putin Israel not bound by Syria ceasefire