Annex 15
Territorial Exchange Case Studies
|
A 15.1 Simple Case "A" A small Israeli township crosses the "Green Line". Those living on the Palestinian side vote for territorial exchange; nearly everyone votes in favor (blue) except for three households who decline to vote or fail to register a vote (brown). Ruling: The properties for which no vote is recorded count as neutral votes. Applying the contiguity rules, the entire township becomes Israeli territory, including the neutral properties. |
|
|
A 15.2 Simple Case "B" The situation is the same as case "A". Nearly everyone votes in favor (blue) except for one household that declines to vote (brown) and three who vote against the exchange (green). Ruling: The properties for which no vote is recorded count as neutral votes and two of the households voting against exchange are over-ruled as they are completely surrounded by households voting for exchange. Applying the contiguity rules, the entire township becomes Israeli territory, except for the household on the |
 edge of the township that voted against exchange. The two households caught up in the exchange are granted permanent residence immediately. |
|
A 15.3 Simple Case "C" The situation is the same as case "B". Nearly everyone votes in favor (blue) except for one household that declines to vote (brown) and three who vote against the exchange (green). Ruling: Two of the households voting against exchange are contiguous and so act as a block on the exchange. The household circled in red is excluded from the exchange (in order to connect these two households to their state) but it counts as being "caught up" and so is granted permanent residence immediately. |
 |
A 15.4 Complex Case "BA"
The small townships BA and GB vote unanimously for territorial exchange to Israel (blue), claiming
contiguity through exclusive road use of road 4 and potentially through a new road branching off
road 3 to the north. No objection to the exchange is registered by Arab villages R and L. However,
the Palestinian government registers an objection, claiming that road 4 must be Palestinian all the
way to village R as it is the only way for villages R and L to connect to the rest of Palestine. They
furthermore claim that a new road to the north connecting BA to Israel would separate village R from
Arab villages to the north.
Ruling: The territorial exchange is refused. The objections by the government of Palestine are upheld in spite of the apparent lack of interest on the part of the villagers, as R and L are undoubtedly Palestinian villages. The possibility of building a new road to connect BA and GB to Israel via a northern route is ruled to be irrelevant as it does not presently exist.
A 15.5 Complex Case "ST"
Township O (top left) has voted 100% to become Israeli territory (blue) through territorial exchange. The
rules of contiguity are clear in this case, and the exchange has not been challenged. In Arab township
K (bottom left), the votes for territorial exchange are mixed, and it appears that nearly all of the town
will remain Israeli territory.
Townships ST, E, and EE vote for territorial exchange unanimously, along with the settlers in outpost MD, claiming contiguity with Israel through exclusive use of roads 6 and 7 and highway 5. Arab villages A and B object on the grounds that their use of road 6 to connect with Arab village M over-rides the contiguity of ST with Israel, and their use of roads 6 and 7 to connect with Arab town K invalidates the claim of township E and EE to contiguity with Israel through these roads. They also claim some of outpost MD is not permanent, and that various pieces of cultivated land have been taken illegally, and that their access to their land is impeded by the security barrier built around O, A, ST, EE and E.
Ruling: The territorial exchange is upheld, conditionally. It is ruled that townships E and EE and outpost MD do have contiguity with Israel through highway 5. The exchange of township ST is also upheld, on the grounds that the part of road 6 that passes through township E is going to be in Israel and so the rest of road 6 can also be Israeli. The claim that road 6 must be Palestinian to connect with township K is discounted on the grounds that K has voted predominantly to remain Israeli territory. Outpost MD is also granted their territorial exchange. The claims for return of cultivated land by the Arab villagers are upheld and, where there is a dispute over ownership, compensation is given to Israeli claimants. The barriers impeding access to land are to be removed.
The following conditions are imposed on the territorial exchange. Use of road 6 to travel between village A and village M must be unimpeded, without any border controls, checkpoints or barriers. The security barrier between villages A and B (passing between ST and B) and between E and M must be removed immediately, along with all other sections of the barrier. The international border between the states shall include roads 6 and 7 within Israel and shall pass around ST, EE, E and MD according to the habitation and contiguity rules of the agreement. The border shall not take account of nor follow the route of the former barrier. Highway 5 shall be Palestinian territory till the junction with the track from MD, then becomes Israeli. Compensation is awarded to Arab landowners whose land in the triangles between roads 5, 6 and 7 is caught up in the territorial exchange to Israel.
A 15.6 Complex Case "MH"
In an area where the Green Line splits to create a large strip of no-man's land, township MH has been built in the neck of the resulting Palestinian salient. The inhabitants vote unanimously for territorial exchange to Israel. Moreover, they claim contiguity with both sides of the salient and that all the land as far as both borders, plus the entire salient, should be included in the territorial exchange. The Israeli government supports their claim on the grounds that highway 1 connects Israeli territory on either side of the salient and should be Israeli, and that the park around Y is Israeli and should remain in Israel.
The government of Palestine strongly objects to these claims. It requests that the territorial exchange be refused as it has firm published plans to rebuild the ruined Arab villages I and Y, depopulated in 1967, and a similar village BN on the site of which MH now stands. Furthermore, the religions institution LM and the Arab-Jewish village NW have both voted unanimously to be bi-national parity zones under the terms of the Just Peace Agreement, as they are entitled to do in the course of their elections for territorial exchange. According to their wishes, the unmarked international boundary should pass through the center of both communities, without barriers, just as in Jerusalem.
Ruling: The bases of support cited by the government of Israel are ruled to be inadmissible, as the current use of the park is irrelevant, and highway 1 could be rerouted round or could pass through Palestinian territory without obstructions.
The objections of the government of Palestine are partly upheld; their plans to rebuild Palestinian villages I and Y are ruled as equivalent in weight to existing villages, which must be connected to the rest of Palestine. On these grounds the contiguity of MH to the southern border with Israel is broken. Its contiguity with the north side is granted, however, and its territorial exchange to Israel goes ahead, including the access roads connecting it with Israel to the north and northwest. The right of the government of Palestine to rebuild BN directly on the site of MH is therefore denied; the right of the present inhabitants to continued occupation takes precedence. Palestine can rebuild BN, but must do so to the south, east or west of MH.
The right of LM and NW to be bi-national parity zones if they so wish is upheld. The final border position passes round MH on the east, south and west sides, then north of Y. The park is mostly in Palestine, but is directed to be declared a bi-national parity zone so far as use is concerned, regardless of the rebuilding and re-occupation of Y. The border passes right through the center of LM and NW and then follows the outer line of no-man's-land eastwards, allowing enough space south of MH for a road to connect the Palestinian salient with the rest of Palestine. The border in the entire region is to be open, with any border checks taking place at the outer limits and the access roads.
A 15.7 Complex Case "KE"
The township of KE, together with other nearby townships E, BS, RT, ND and MO vote unanimously for territorial exchange to Israel, citing their connections via roads 2 and 3, and historical rights based on pre-1948 habitation, descent from those killed in the 1948 massacre and the presence of important religious institutions. The Arab towns of S and N and the village of J object to exchange, claiming road 3 is vital to their connections with each other and the rest of Palestine. They also strongly object to the existing security barrier nearby.
Ruling: The objections of the Arab towns are upheld on the grounds that their road connection does block the contiguity of the settlements with Israel; all the settlements will therefore become Palestinian sovereign territory. However, the pre-1948 habitation by several of the townships is acknowledged and the government of Palestine is directed to grant permanent residence status to the inhabitants of KE, ND and MO and to also waive their withdrawal as civilian occupiers. In consideration of the interconnections of the whole complex of settlements, the government of Palestine is directed to grant temporary resident status for a period of five years to inhabitants of most of the other townships and to consider creating a parity zone to include them and the nearby Palestinian towns, with a view to granting permanent resident status in due course.
The security barrier must be removed.
Alternate Ruling?:
A 15.8 Complex Case "MA"
The large township MA is contiguous with the eastern, Palestinian half of the City of Jerusalem. Along with the neighboring town of NS, it votes almost unanimously for territorial exchange to become part of Israel, claiming contiguity through highway 1 with Israel proper and immediate contiguity with the eastern boundary of Jerusalem city. The claim is supported by the government of Israel. However, many inhabitants of the towns also apply for permanent residence status as Israeli citizens in Palestine, claiming long-term habitation of the area, economic contributions, local employment, good relations with Palestinian neighbors and in some cases fluency in Arabic. The government of Palestine objects on the grounds that the contiguous region of Jerusalem and the relevant part of highway 1 is entirely in Palestinian Jerusalem. They also point out that they have ambitious published plans for the entire area from MA eastwards, including industrial areas, as a Palestinian resettlement and development zone.
Ruling: The claim of contiguity is denied, on the grounds that road 1 connects the Palestinian half of Jerusalem with the rest of Palestine and, while it is within the city boundaries, must remain sovereign Palestinian territory. Moreover, the contiguity with east Jerusalem is discounted as a basis for claiming contiguity with Israel, as the relevant part of the city is Palestine.
The government of Palestine is directed to deal sympathetically with the applications for permanent residence status, granting the applications where possible and otherwise granting temporary residence for five years with a view to converting this to permanent residence status at the end of the five-year period. The ruling also adds an opinion that part of the area designated in the plans of the government of Palestine as resettlement and development zones, including both townships MA and NS and related industrial areas and settlements further east, should be declared a parity zone under the terms of the JPA.
A 15.9 Complex Case "GL"
Residential area GL is included within the new boundaries of the City of Jerusalem. It is in Palestinian territory just to the south of and very close to the Green Line. The inhabitants are Jewish and vote unanimously for territorial transfer to Israel, within the city, citing connections to Israeli neighborhoods though roads 5 and 6. The Arab inhabitants of BS and S object, saying that these roads pass right through their neighborhoods and that they must have contiguous connections via road 3 to Palestinian Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine. Noting this objection, GL submit a further claim that the park GF is part of their neighborhood and establishes their contiguity with Israel independently of roads 5 and 6. They also say a road though GF can be built to connect them with Israel unambiguously.
Ruling: the objections of BS and S are upheld and their status in Palestine and connections to the rest of Palestine are safeguarded. The secondary claim of GL to the park GF is also granted and their claim of contiguity with Israel through the park. The territorial exchange of GL along with GF goes ahead, without any condition of a new road being built, as the international border within the city is open.
I want to learn more before supporting the agreement
Peacemaker 2009