Pouring aid down drains and tunnels

[Published September 2006]


Lebanon and Gaza's five million population continue to enjoy international largesse on a scale not offered to hundreds of millions racked by AIDS, hunger, starvation or conflict in many of the world's numerous trouble spots.

$30 billion in reconstruction and humanitarian aid has already been given to Lebanon and Gaza. This is in addition to the $20 billion shelled out to the Palestinians by UNWRA over the last 58 years.

A further $1.7 billion in international aid has now been promised to repair the latest damage and destruction there following two unprovoked attacks into Israel by terrorist elements operating freely, openly and without Government constraint in both Lebanon and Gaza.

The donors have sent a clear signal to Lebanon and Gaza that they will continue to be compensated for, rather than suffer the consequences of, aggression against Israel emanating from their territory.

One shudders to think what the 15,000 United Nations peacekeepers will also be costing during their sojourn in Lebanon and how that money could have been more wisely spent if the current conflict had not erupted.

The world's donations to Lebanon and Gaza have been an unmitigated disaster.

Given freely and generously and with the best of intentions, donors have never sought to attach any strings or demand full and open accountability.

This has allowed a climate of corruption and nepotism to flourish and to create a cargo cult mentality that has done nothing to help the man in the street to make a better life for himself and his family. It has helped prolong conflict in the region rather than resolving it.

Mohammed Dahlan, the former Palestinian Authority Interior Minister aptly summed up the situation when he said that the funds given to the Palestinians "have gone down the drain and we don't know to where." [Guardian 2 August 2004]

It is a safe bet that this latest infusion of money will also end up being either unaccounted for or spent on reconstruction that will yet once more come crashing to the ground in a pile of rubble when the next clash inevitably occurs between Israel and its' two frontline enemies.

It is now time for the world to reflect on the futility of continuing such unprecedented generosity at the expense of others equally, if not far more, deserving.

Donors need to direct their aid funds to other parts of the world where the money may have a lasting and more beneficial effect assisting people crying out for help who are continuously ignored or receive a mere pittance in aid that often arrives too late.

International donors pouring billions of dollars into the Middle East to repair the consequences of conflict is a complete waste of money whilst the region remains in a state of ongoing belligerence.

This is guaranteed to continue as the Arab League presses its demands for

(i) the return of every square centimetre of land lost by Jordan and Egypt to Israel in 1967 and

(ii) the right of return to Israel - the 22% of former Palestine not now under exclusive Arab control - by former Arab residents of that area.

These non-negotiable demands make any international attempts to end the conflict not worth the effort as President Clinton painfully discovered at Camp David in 2000.

These demands have destroyed the Oslo Peace Process and the Quartet's Road Map. They have completely nullified United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 which recognised that Israel's boundaries would never again be those defined by the armistice lines existing prior to 1967.

The world's four most powerful men - Messrs Bush, Putin ,Chirac and Annan - have been exposed as diplomatic eunuchs in the face of the Arab League's uncompromising stance on these two issues.

Until this intransigent mind set is changed, the continued granting of financial aid will only end up being poured down the network of tunnels that have been so assiduously and painstakingly excavated in both Lebanon and Gaza for the purposes of making war not peace.

The Arab League must be told in no uncertain terms that no further international financial aid will be given to any of its members to repair the consequences of conflict until these demands are dropped and steps are taken to restore sovereignty over each members' territory to the Government of that territory.

Perhaps the withholding of international financial support will bring the breakthrough to peace that has remained so elusive for the past 125 years. If not, at least it will lead to the money being spent where it will be put to better use.

If the Arab League fails to respond then let it answer for and provide the aid to repair the damage and destruction that will inevitably continue to occur if these demands are not abandoned.

There is no light at the end of the tunnels in Lebanon and Gaza, only the promise of ongoing conflict and suffering.

Those who fail to recognize the folly of continuing financial aid for reconstruction in such a region are truly suffering from tunnel vision.

Lemmings or Lions?

[Published August 2006]


The ceasefire brokered by the United Nations in Lebanon offers possibly the last chance for political stability to be restored in Lebanon and for Lebanon to rid itself forever of forces over which it has no control.

Will the United Nations and the Lebanese Government seize this opportunity and finally act like lions or will they, like lemmings, continue to rush towards the edge of the abyss into which both have already started to slide and from which both may never get out?

Judging by what is happening, it appears that the lemmings will again prevail over the lions.

Woe betide Lebanon if this is allowed to happen.

The United Nations appears to be balking at giving its 15,000 strong force being sent into Lebanon clear rules of engagement to disarm and disband Hezbollah as Security Council Resolution 1559 demands.

Failure to do so will confirm that the United Nations is not prepared to translate its Security Council resolutions into concrete action.

It will send a clear message to terrorist groups world wide and their sponsoring States that Security Council resolutions are not worth the paper they are written on and that terrorists can continue to operate with impunity from any member's sovereign territory free of international intervention to forcibly remove them.

The United Nations force must be given the right to search for and destroy all armaments not under the control of the Lebanese Government, to stop the delivery of armaments into Lebanon unless expressly approved by the Lebanese Government and to take all steps including armed intervention to disband the structure and organization of Hezbollah's military arm.

Anything less will be a waste of time and lead to Israel intervening once again with even more devastating force to defend its own sovereign territorial integrity.

Hezbollah has justified its continuing occupation of 2400 square kilometres of Lebanon -- one quarter of the country -- as necessary to drive Israel from, and gain Lebanese sovereignty over, 25 square kilometres of desolate land called the Shebaa Farms.

Lebanon condoned this situation by continuing to dispute a ruling by the United Nations in 2000 that this small piece of land belonged to Syria, from whom it was captured by Israel in 1967.

Trading sovereignty over 2400 square kilometres in order to gain sovereignty over 25 square kilometres must surely be the most bizarre decisions ever made by any Arab nation in their ongoing conflict with Israel.

This abdication of its national security and foreign policy has cost Lebanon dearly and has become the catalyst for the abject position in which Lebanon finds itself today.

15000 Lebanese homes have now been totally destroyed, a large section of Lebanon's roads, bridges and other vital infrastructure has been reduced to rubble, its economy set back for 20 years and its environment devastated by an oil spill that threatens the rich marine life in its territorial waters.

A thousand deaths, many more thousands injured and maimed, and countless others traumatised by constant and incessant bombing raids testifies to Hezbollah's foolhardy action in entering Israel to abduct two soldiers, kill three others and then fire a barrage of 3000 rockets into Israel.

It appears Lebanon has not learnt the lesson of the Sheba Farms folly and is still obsessed with gaining sovereignty of the area.

It was deemed so important an issue that it was included in the seven point plan prepared by Lebanon as it urgently sought the current ceasefire, calling on the United Nations to place the area under United Nations jurisdiction until the Lebanese claim to sovereignty was fully settled.

Instead of rejecting that call, the United Nations has stood its decision in 2000 on its head by agreeing to once more deal with Lebanon's claim to the Shebaa Farms within 30 days of the ceasefire resolution.

What will happen if the United Nations reverses its decision? What does this say about the competency of the organization? Will Syria accept such a reversal? Will Israel withdraw? Why did Lebanon have to wait six years and subject itself to such destruction and humiliation before asking the United Nations to review its earlier decision?

Lebanon needs to let go of this issue. It has and will continue to bring Lebanon to its knees if it persists. A loss of face is far preferable to further loss of life and limb.

Lebanon or Lezbollaland?

That is the question that both Lebanon and the United Nations need to answer without delay if Lebanon is to end the suffering and bloodshed inflicted on it for the last 30 years because of its loss of control over its sovereign territory to others with different agendas.

Israel's Illusion, the Arabs' Abyss

[Published July 2006]


Israel's belief that unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza would end Arab intransigence and bring about a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict has turned out to be an illusion.

Instead it has opened up an abyss, which threatens to swallow up Lebanon and Gaza in its wake and set back the development of their societies and economies by at least 20 years.

Syria is struggling to cope with hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Shiites seeking refuge as Israel continues its determined assault to end Hezbollah's reign of terror in Lebanon.

Emboldened by what was perceived as Israeli weakness and exhaustion, Hezbollah and Hamas quickly asserted their authority within the areas vacated by Israel, claiming this was the first step in the ultimate destruction of the Jewish State.

The Governments of Lebanon and Gaza chose to tolerate rather than confront and root out these terrorist entities.

Both Governments were strongly supported by their civilian populations.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah openly held court in Beirut. Its headquarters were well known to Lebanese authorities and the media had no trouble in locating their leaders for frequent interviews as they took every opportunity to applaud the targeted murder of hundreds of Israeli citizens and foreign nationals.

They lived openly within Lebanese society and were elected to Government and held cabinet portfolios. This could not have happened without popular support.

Large shipments of missiles and weaponry were routinely unloaded at Lebanese ports in full view of customs, military and police authorities and transhipped through Lebanon to launching sites and military depots in South Lebanon for ultimate use against Israel.

In Gaza frequent demonstrations by tens of thousands of men, women and children marching behind hooded and well armed terrorists burning Israeli and American flags and effigies of Sharon and Bush, clearly indicated Hamas was held in awe, not disgust, by the civilian population among whom was hidden the military stockpile of rockets and explosives.

Hamas was elected to power in Gaza by the overwhelming majority of Gazans whilst Hezbollah established an autonomous State within a State in Lebanon, both clearly expressing their continuing refusal to recognise the sovereign existence of Israel.

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah and Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh believed the time was now ripe to flex their muscles to procure the release of hundreds of convicted terrorists held in Israeli prisons in exchange for a few Israeli soldiers. This had worked very well before with thousands of prisoners being released by Israel in return for the remains of a few dead soldiers and the release of one businessman of dubious reputation.

What better way for Hezbollah and Hamas to retain the support and hopes of their civilian populations than securing the release of husbands and children who could then be enlisted once again to repeat the missions that had led to their imprisonment in the first place.

However kidnapping three Israeli soldiers by incursions into sovereign Israeli territory proved the downfall for these terrorist groups. Such brazenness was the breaking point -- the red line -- that these terrorist groups had not expected their actions would provoke.

Rather than getting expected negotiations by intermediaries to procure the exchange of prisoners, Hezbollah and Hamas unleashed Israel's military might as it entered Lebanon and Gaza in hot pursuit to free its soldiers with the full authority of international law firmly behind it.

Again completely misreading Israel's intentions, both Hezbollah and Hamas started firing rockets into Israel leading to Israel's re-entry into Gaza in force and massive retaliation on Lebanon's infrastructure -- roads, bridges, airports and ports -- which had served as the supply lines for Hezbollah from Syria and Iran

This time international criticism of Israel's right to defend itself has been muted and even Arab countries have been critical of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Israel now carries the world on its shoulders as it alone seeks to implement Resolution 1559 of the United Nations Security Council calling for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. This will result in the loss of Israeli lives and many casualties as an impotent United Nations does nothing to assert and enforce its own resolutions.

The civilian populations of Lebanon and Gaza have now paid and will continue to pay a huge price for the trust and belief they placed in their would be Saladdins to remove the Jewish State once and for all.

Some have suggested these civilians are innocent victims who did not have the strength to overthrow their oppressors. If true, one would imagine Israel's actions would have brought forward at least some expressions of support from within Lebanon and Gaza. Not a single word has been heard.

The Arab League has now finally pronounced the Road Map proposed by Bush, Putin, Chirac and Annan as "dead". The League is three years behind the times but at least it now recognises the futility of a plan that never had the slightest chance of getting off the drawing board.

So where does the Middle East go from here?

There is but one avenue now -- the removal of Hezbollah and Hamas followed by trilateral negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt on the future sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza.

Perhaps the Arab League will at long last realise the folly of trying to wipe Israel off the map and take these positive steps to end the ongoing 120 year conflict that is now bringing suffering on a scale to their constituency that even they could never have contemplated.

Olmert's Unilateralism Undermines Unity

[Published April 2006]


"Convergence" is the buzzword used by Ehud Olmert and his slick Public Relations team to gift-wrap his policy on Israel's intended unilateral withdrawal from large areas of the West Bank to a defensive line behind the security barrier being presently constructed by Israel.

365,000 Jews today live in the West Bank -- roughly the size of Delaware -- among 2.3 million Arabs.

"Convergence" has already become entrenched in the international lexicon of the Middle East and in the media although no one had heard of the word just two months ago.

Yet the use of this word masks a multi faceted approach to singling out and victimising Jews on a scale not seen since the 1930's and 1940's.

"Convergence" is defined in the Chambers 20th century dictionary to mean, "coming nearer together, tending towards or meeting in one point or value"

"Convergence" as espoused by Mr Olmert will actually result in Jews being alienated from each other -- precisely the opposite of what he is suggesting -- since his policy will have the following consequences:

1. The forced removal of up to 70,000 Jews from their homes and businesses in the West Bank in breach of international humanitarian law embodied in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to both of which treaties Israel is a signatory.

2. The abrogation of the right of present and future generations of Jews anywhere in the world to return and settle in the West Bank for the purpose of reconstituting the Jewish National Home in that area as was specifically conferred on them by the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres 1920, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1922 and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

How such outcomes can possibly be described as bringing people nearer together remains unexplained by Mr Olmert.

"Convergence" is in fact a repackaged version of Ariel Sharon's policy of "Disengagement" or "Evacuation" carried out last year in the Gaza Strip where 8000 Jews and the international Jewish community saw their legal and humanitarian rights trampled on in exactly the same manner.

Far from bringing Jews nearer together such "Disengagement" has created areas of resentment and frustration as well as breakdowns in family and societal relationships that are ongoing and serious.

The failure of the Israeli Government to meet its obligations to those it forcibly removed and whose livelihoods it destroyed could well lead to continuing tragedies on an unprecedented scale.

Ariel Sharon promised the Israeli public and the international Jewish community that no further "painful concessions" of this kind would be undertaken at least until a peace agreement was reached with Israel's neighbours in accordance with the Road Map compiled by the Quartet -- the US, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

His Deputy Ehud Olmert has repudiated this assurance and now claims to have received a mandate to introduce more of the same medicine under the supposed guise of bringing Jews closer together within more defensible lines.

In fact, such policy will serve to further exacerbate the frictions and divisions in Israeli society caused by the Gaza withdrawal at a time when unity is needed more than ever to face the enemies that surround Israel.

Mr. Olmert's "Convergence" policy will have a harder time getting off the ground in the West Bank than Mr.Sharon 's "Disengagement" policy from Gaza for the following reasons:

1. 70,000 people will be affected this time, not 8000, and they will be fully aware of the manner in which those 8000 people in Gaza were left to fend for themselves.

2. Another 295,000 people living within a 30 minutes drive of those being tossed out of their homes and businesses will see this as the thin edge of the wedge. Failure by them to protest and prevent such "convergence" could well see them next in the firing line to be removed. Gaza was not in their backyard, but the areas to be vacated in the West Bank certainly are. They should not rely on their living inside the security barrier to guarantee they will not also be forcibly removed at some later date.

3. Those Jews allowed to remain in the West Bank will be subjected to ever increasing terror attacks as the recently elected Hamas Government and other Arab terrorist militias quickly move in to take control of and operate from the areas vacated by Jews.

4. Any Government promises of no such further unilateral withdrawals being undertaken will not be believed and with good reason.

Mr Olmert needs to stop and think long and hard before embarking on an expedition that threatens to destroy what little unity still exists in Israel.

He needs to ponder on the effect his policy will have on the strong and supportive relationship Israel enjoys with Jewish communities throughout the world who will have no say in his unilateral abandonment of their rights and those of future generations to live in the vacated areas of the West Bank -- the biblical heartland of the Jewish people

Mr Olmert can still unilaterally separate from the Arab residents living in the West Bank by withdrawing to defensible lines that will incorporate the overwhelming majority of those 70000 Jews without the necessity of moving them. This will allow Israel to retain those areas until a final peace treaty is achieved.

Sugarcoating a policy that can have catastrophic effects for the Jewish people with the imprimatur of "convergence" is doublespeak of the worst possible kind.

What Sharon Should Have Told The United Nations

[Published September 2005]


Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon missed a golden opportunity to address the future of the West Bank before the 170 world leaders who had gathered at the United Nations last week to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the founding of that organization.

Instead the words he uttered were sweet music to the ears of most of those leaders justifying the vitriolic War of Words waged by their countries against the Jewish State in complete betrayal of the promises given to the Jewish people by the United Nations and its predecessor the League of Nations.

Standing at the podium, Mr. Sharon meekly repeated the mantra continually preached by these countries:

"The Palestinians are also entitled to freedom, and to a national, sovereign existence in a state of their own."

This was a far cry from the defiant words uttered by Mr Sharon in Time on 17 April 1989:

"Jordan is Palestine! The capital of Palestine is Amman. If Palestinian Arabs want to find their political expression, they will have to do it in Amman."

No attempt was made in Mr Sharon's speech to retrace the history of Palestine, a territory created with defined boundaries for the first time ever by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the League of Nations in 1922 after the defeat of Turkey and Germany in World War I.

He could well have quoted Israel's former ambassador to the United Nations, the late Abba Eban, who had eloquently summarised that history when he said in Newsweek on 2 December 1974:

"Palestine comes into modern history as a region extending on both sides of the Jordan, comprising the present sovereign territories of Israel and Jordan and the administered areas of the West Bank and Gaza. Of this original Palestine, 80 per cent became an exclusively Arab domain through the separation of Trans-Jordan from Palestine."

A modicum of research could have enabled Mr Sharon to also remind the gathered world leaders, particularly King Abdullah of Jordan, of the statement made to the United Nations by Israeli Ambassador Yehuda Blum on 3 December, 1979:

"Let me remind the Jordanian representatives of the record. Between 1922 and 1946, Trans-Jordan remained an integral part of Mandated Palestine. In 1946 it became the independent Palestinian Arab State in that area. When King Abdullah came to the Jericho Conference in December 1948, which was attended by Palestinian Arabs west of the Jordan River, he was crowned "King of Palestine". Abdullah, in fact, wanted to rename his country "The Kingdom of Palestine". King Hussein, in his memoirs, indicates clearly that Trans-Jordan was arbitrarily siphoned off from the rest of Mandated Palestine. Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, in the Jordanian National Assembly on 2 February 1970, stated unambiguously:
'Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine. The nation is one and the land is one'"

Given the current leadership tensions between Mr. Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu, Mr Sharon would probably have found it difficult to quote what Mr. Netanyahu told the United Nations on 11 December 1984, although the national interest certainly dictated that Mr. Sharon should do so:

"Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two States in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some 3 million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5th of the territory originally allocated by this body's predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over 4 million of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5th of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate?. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949 "

Having reminded the world leaders present of these past statements, Mr Sharon should then have told them:

"The League of Nations and the United Nations promised the Jews that they would be entitled to resettle and reconstitute the Jewish National Home on land from which they had been dispossessed 2000 years earlier by Roman invaders, provided nothing was done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". No political rights were conferred or intended to be conferred on those communities then or in the future.

This promise to the Jews extended to the West Bank, which you now obscenely call "occupied Palestinian territory" and from where you wish to see all Jews removed to create a State solely for the Arab residents contrary to the terms of the Mandate and article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which the United Nations has consistently ignored but which it must now confront and acknowledge.

The Road Map calling for the creation of a sovereign Arab State between Jordan and Israel in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, now supported by the United Nations, the United States, Russia and the European Union, is the very opposite of what the United Nations has pledged to fulfill in accordance with its own Charter.

Israel now enjoys peace treaties with its neighbors Jordan and Egypt.

The path to peace in the West Bank and Gaza must involve the division of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between these three nations in trilateral negotiations chaired by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

Israel stands ready to enter into such negotiations to cede sovereignty of the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank to Jordan. Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza indicates its willingness to cede sovereignty in Gaza to Egypt or Jordan and not rule over its neighbors.

I urge you all to abandon the idea that Jews have no legal right to settle in the West Bank and reconstitute their national home in that area. If international law is to have any meaning in regulating the conduct of the international community, then you must give legal effect to the Mandate and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Seize the day, because the time is short."

If the 170 dignitaries present were not prepared to listen, at least the 15 million Jews all over the World would be applauding Israel's Prime Minister for his principled stand instead of recoiling at his abject acceptance of Jewish rights being trampled on in their own homeland by a United Nations acting in breach of its own Charter.

Evacuation or Expulsion?

[Published August 2005]


Amidst the turmoil enveloping Israel as the proposed disengagement date approaches, one question remains unanswered: are the Jewish communities living in Gaza and Northern Samaria being expelled or evacuated?

This is not a semantic question only, but has a vital bearing on the future of the sovereignty of those areas from which Israel proposes to disengage.

"Evacuation" indicates a temporary uprooting with the intention of returning when the emergency giving rise to the evacuation has subsided.

Thus large population centres were evacuated during the terrible tsunami earlier this year or Londoners were evacuated during the wartime blitz by the Germans in World War 2.

No one ever suggested they would not be allowed to return to their homes after the crisis had ended.

"Expulsion" on the other hand indicates something far more permanent. A child expelled from a school has no chance of returning to that school. A diplomat expelled from a country will never be accepted back in that country.

Strangely, the language used by Israel's Government speaks of "evacuation", while the language used by the Opposition to disengagement speaks of "expulsion".

Ariel Sharon needs to urgently explain whether Israel still maintains its claim to sovereignty in those areas from which it is currently removing Jewish communities or whether its disengagement amounts to a ceding of all claims of sovereignty to those areas which it is leaving.

Based on the use of the word "evacuation", it would appear that Israel is not ceding its claims, which are well grounded in international law arising from the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Israel can certainly cede those claims, but to my knowledge Ariel Sharon has not mentioned this "c" word.

One can envisage an Israeli return to Gaza and Northern Samaria, should the Palestinians carry out their threats to continue the armed struggle all the way to Jerusalem. Israel's response could be disastrous for the Palestinians and wipe out whatever political or territorial gains they may make as a result of Israel's initial withdrawal.

If these circumstances arose would Sharon then be able to claim sovereignty or was the initial disengagement a ceding of all claims to any parts of the areas from which withdrawal took place?

Sharon could do well to clarify what this forthcoming disengagement means, because it could have an important bearing on the Road Map so earnestly espoused by the USA, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

By continuing to use the word "evacuation" to describe its actions, Israel seems to be making it very clear that if the Palestinians don't embark on the Road Map and instead continue to use violence and incitement to achieve their goal of an independent State, the removal of the Jewish communities will be only temporary, Israel will return in force and claim sovereignty of such parts of the areas vacated as it deems in its national interest.

Sharon continues to play his cards close to the chest.

Israelis, and indeed the whole world, should be taken into Sharon's confidence on this very vital issue.

Uprooting Jews Violates International Treaties

[Published June 2005]


Plans by the Israeli Government to forcibly remove Jews from their homes in the West Bank and Gaza breach the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 [Covenant] as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 [Convention], to both of which Israel is a signatory.

Article 17 of the Covenant provides that:

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 16 of the Convention expressly protects children and is a mirror image of Article 17.

The International Court of Justice determined last year that both the Covenant and the Convention are applicable in the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel had disputed.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan however also advised the International Court that Israel recognises that the Convention is intended to protect its citizens from their own Government in times of peace.

Israel's High Court of Justice acknowledged in its recent judgement on the disengagement law, that the forced evacuation of Israelis would undermine their human dignity.

The High Court nevertheless asserted that the disengagement law passed all constitutional tests because it "corresponds with the Zionist values of the State and is intended for a worthy purpose -- the political, national and security purposes on which the disengagement is based are designed to realize a vital and substantial need."

This viewpoint could not be successfully raised to negate article 17 since Article 4.1 of the Covenant states:

"In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin."

Israel's forced removal of Jewish residents of Gaza and the West Bank obviously involves discrimination solely on the ground of race and/or religion and so could not be relied on by Israel to escape its international obligations under the Covenant or the Convention.

Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza are legally entitled to reside there pursuant to the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter in order to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in those areas as specifically stated in the Mandate document.

Many returned there after 1967 to reclaim land from which other Jews had been driven out in 1948 by six invading Arab armies.

Any attempt now to forcibly uproot Jews from their homes against their expressed will is therefore in breach of the inalienable rights conferred on them by the Covenant, the Convention, the Mandate and the United Nations Charter.

Choosing to stay will not be palatable to all 8000 Jews affected by the withdrawal of Israel's army and they will have the option of accepting the compensation packages that are being offered by the Israeli Government to those who voluntarily leave.

But one thing is certain -- the forced removal of Jews from the West Bank and Gaza is not permitted or authorised under international law and is in breach of international agreements in force since 1920 authorising Jews to live in those areas.

President Bush, President Putin, the European Union and the United Nations have publicly welcomed the forced uprooting, whilst Human Rights organisations are deafening in their silence toward such expulsions.

Would they all act differently if the Arabs residing in the West Bank and Gaza were subjected to such proposed action against their will?

Ariel Sharon needs to revise his thinking on this aspect of his proposed disengagement.

He should urgently seek the opinion of the High Court of Justice on this issue before embarking on a course of action that has the capacity to lead to the outbreak of civil insubordination and threatens to seriously undermine the ability of Israel to resist those who seek its' total annihilation.