Prof. Paul Leslie is member of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East

a) The Agreement on Movement and Access, and Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing.

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/Agreed+documents+on+movement+and+ access+from+and+to+Gaza+15-Nov-2005.htm

b) Critique.(by SPME Member Prof. Paul Leslie )

It has never ceased to be generally accepted, according to the various conventions and treaties governing relations between nations, that, when confronted with threats to the lives and physical safety of their citizens from terrorist groups, whether the latter receive or do not receive support from those governing a country or countries with which they are in a state of war, national governments have the right to take security measures within their own territories and along their borders – as well as in disputed territories captured in the course of a defensive war. Road blocks can be set up, body searches of suspected terrorists can be conducted and borders can be closed without the obligation to consult second or third parties or to receive their authorisation.

Most of the more detailed coverage of the negotiations which led to the signing of the two documents containing the Agreement on Movement and Access and the Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing. focussed upon the decision by the Israeli government to relinquish any claim to an Israeli presence in the Rafah zone. This decision was taken despite the fact that the Israelis can reasonably invoke ample precedents for the legitimacy of a security presence (as, for example, American military bases in various countries, including Guatanamo Bay), especially against a background of persistent attempts to carry out suicide and other bombings, accompanied by thousands of missile attacks continuing to be launched against Sderot, as well as other populated areas in the Western Negev, since the Gaza evacuation. In many cases the perpetrators are “militants” affiliated with Abbas’s Fatah faction and not Islamic Jihad or Hamas members. Further concessions have been made, however, which have not received as much media attention.

1) In the “preamble” all the territories in Gaza and the West Bank are termed “Palestinian Territories” – seeming to prejudge subsequent negotiations.

2) In the clause dealing with Movement within the West Bank, provision is made for Israel to continue to take security precautions:

Consistent with Israel’s security needs, to facilitate movement of people and goods within the West Bank and to minimize disruption to Palestinian lives, the ongoing work between Israel and the U.S. to establish an agreed list of obstacles to movement and develop a plan to reduce them to the maximum extent possible will be accelerated so that the work can be completed by December 31.

The clause dealing with the Gaza Seaport, however, seems to place an absolute obligation upon Israel not to intervene even if there is a clear threat to the security of its citizens.

Gaza Seaport

Construction of a seaport can commence. The GoI will undertake to assure donors that it will not interfere with operation of the port. The parties will establish a U.S.-led tripartite committee to develop security and other relevant arrangements for the port prior to its opening. The 3rd party model to be used at Rafah will provide the basis for this work.

3) In the clause dealing with the Link between Gaza and the West Bank, the phrase taking account of Israel’s security needs, “appropriate arrangements to ensure security”, can reasonably be interpreted as being included in the “detailed implementation arrangements” which the Government of Israel (GoI) undertakes to work out in a bilateral committee comprising its representatives and those of the Palestinian Authority. Israel therefore has to consult the Palestinian Authority even on matters of security, even when these concern convoys passing through territory the Israeli status of which is not questioned even by the most anti-Israeli of diplomats representing countries with which the Jewish state has relations.

Link between Gaza and the West Bank
Israel will allow the passage of convoys to facilitate the movements of goods and persons. Specifically:
-Establish bus convoys by December 15.
-Establish truck convoys by January 15.
-Work out detailed implementation arrangements in a bilateral committee of the GoI and PA with

participation as needed from the Quartet team and the USSC.
It is understood that security is a prime and continuing concern for Israel and that appropriate
arrangements to ensure security will be adopted.

Post-Scriptum (Washington Post article with revealing quote by unnamed diplomat)

Rice Negotiates Deal to Open Gaza Crossings (Washington Post) by Robin Wright http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111500144.html