Kiryat Arba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Qiryat Arba)
Jump to: navigation, search
Kiryat Arba
Hebrew קִרְיַת־אַרְבַּע
(Standard) Qiryat Arbaʻ
Arabic قرية أربع
Name Meaning Town of the Four [Giants]
Government Local council
Also Spelled Qiryat Arba (officially)
District Judea and Samaria Area
Population 7000 (2006)
Jurisdiction 5 000 dunams (5 km²)

Kiryat Arba or Qiryat Arba is an urban Israeli settlement in Southern Judea (Southern West Bank) adjoining the city of Hebron.

Contents

The Hebrew name is קִרְיַת־אַרְבַּע, meaning "Town of the Four [Giants]", and transliterated in Standard Hebrew as Qiryat Arbaʻ and in Tiberian Hebrew as Qiryaṯ-ʼarbaʻ. The equivalent Arabic name is قرية أربع Qiryat ʼArbaʻ. The place is mentioned in the English Bible as Kirjath-arba. Biblically, it is generally regarded as another name for Hebron.[1]

In 1968, a group of future Jewish Gush Emunim members led by Rabbi Moshe Levinger and Rabbi Eliezer Waldman founded Kiryat Arba immediately to the east of Hebron. Settlements around Hebron like this are claimed to be justified also in light of the 1929 Hebron massacre and the continuing presence of Jews in the area until then. Building began on an abandoned military base in 1970, and residents moved in 1971. The town is a self-sufficient community, with pre-nursery though post-secondary educational institutions, medical facilities, shopping centers, a bank and a post office. Kiryat Arba attained Local council status in 1979. The population in December 2006 was approximately 7,000, with an additional 2,700 Israelis living in a number of smaller surrounding settlements, including immigrants from the CIS and a community of Bnei Menashe from Manipur and Mizoram.[4] While Kiryat Arba is located within the territory of the Har Hebron Regional Council, it is an independent local council. Beit HaShalom, was established in 2007. [5] [6] [7]

The town is home to the Meir Kahane Memorial Park, in memory of the founder of Kach, an Jewish Far-Right organization designated as a terrorist group by the US, the EU and Israel. The grave of Baruch Goldstein, who perpetrated the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre also lies within the park and has become a place of pilgrimage for the Far Right[2].

The chief rabbi of the town is Dov Lior, who also serves as rosh yeshiva of the local Nir Yeshiva.

In the Book of Joshua (14:15) it says: "Now the name of Hebron previously was Kiryat Arba, he [Arba] was the great man among the giants [Anakim]..." [8]. According to the rabbinical commentator Rashi, Kiryat Arba ("Town of Arba") means either the town (kirya) of Arba himself, the giant who had three sons, or is referring to four giants: Arba and his three sons, Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmi who are described as being the sons of a "giant" in Numbers 13:22: "On the way through the Negev, they (Joshua and Caleb) came to Hebron where [they saw] Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmi, descendants of the Giant (ha-anak)..." [9] which is according to the Targum and Saadia Gaon, but some say that Anak ("Giant", see Anak) is a proper name (Targum Jonathan and the Septuagint). [10], and that he, Anak, may have been the father of the three others mentioned in the Book of Numbers as living in Hebron which the Book of Joshua says was previously called Kiryat Arba.


See also International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict

The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been described as "having no legal validity" by the UN Security Council in resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471. These resolutions were made under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter which relates to the "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" between parties, and as such have no enforcement mechanisms. The International Court of Justice has interpreted that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding, [3] in its 1971 Namibia non-binding advisory opinion. Some have argued that this non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative views on important issues of international law and, in arriving at them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states. An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. [4] Many politicians and legal scholars have argued that UN Security Council resolutions are only legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII of the Charter. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention [11] states in paragraph 6: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". Based on this article, the International Court of Justice has asserted in paragraph 120 of its Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 that the settlements are illegal. [17] Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention on 6-7-1951. [12]

Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute defines "[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a war crime. [13] Israel has not ratified the Statute.

The European Union[18] and the General Assembly of the United Nations[19] consider the settlements to be illegal.

International human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also denounced the settlements as illegal[14][15], though the Anti-Defamation League has argued that they are legal. [20]

  1. ^ Genesis 23:2
  2. ^ "Graveside party celebrates Hebron massacre." BBC News, 21 March, 2000 [1]
  3. ^ Legal Consequences for States of the Contitiued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 at paras. 87-116, especially 113: "It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to "the decisions of the Security Council" adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter."
  4. ^ The UN General Assembly Requests a World Court Advisory Opinion On Israel's Separation Barrier, Pieter H.F. Bekker, ASIL (American Society of International Law) Insights, December 2003.
  5. ^ "Some analysts have pointed out that Security Council resolutions condemning or criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, which are different from the Chapter VII resolutions against Iraq." (Ayoob, Mohammad. "The war against Iraq: normative and strategic implications", in Robinson, Mary & Weiss, Thomas G. & Crahan, Margaret E. & Goering, John (eds). Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: human rights, unilateralism, and U.S. foreign policy, Routledge (UK), May 1, 2004, p. 164).
  6. ^ "Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter" (De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, p. 371).
  7. ^ "Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding". (Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113).
  8. ^ "Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations". (Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 66).
  9. ^ "The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI". (Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 33).
  10. ^ "Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". (Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1998, pp. 47-4 ).
  11. ^ "The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?, The Economist, October 10, 2002.
  12. ^ "There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war, The Guardian, November 25, 2002.
  13. ^ "...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black, The New York Times, February 25, 2004.
  14. ^ "There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, September 24, 2002.
  15. ^ "There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on February 4, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2003.
  16. ^ "There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here? (Microsoft Word document), Greenpeace position paper on Iran.
  17. ^ Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, July 9, 2004: "That provision [article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention] prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory"; "The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law."
  18. ^ [2] EU Committee Report.
  19. ^ [3] General Assembly 1998 vote
  20. ^ How to Respond to Common Misstatements About Israel: Israeli Settlements, Anti-Defamation League website. URL accessed April 10, 2006.
Advanced Search
Included Web Search Engines


Safe Search

close

Top Matching Results

Occasionally Search.com will highlight specialized results that are based on the context of your query. Examples of specialized results include specific links to news, images, or video.

Top Matching Results may highlight information from other Search.com pages, content from the CNET Network of sites, or third party content. The listings are based purely on relevance. Search.com does not receive payment for listings in this section but our partners that provide this data may get paid for listing these products.

Sponsored Links

This section contains paid listings which have been purchased by companies that want to have their sites appear for specific search terms and related content. These listings are administered, sorted and maintained by a third party and are not endorsed by Search.com.

Search Results

Search.com sends your search query to several search engines at one time and integrates the results into one list which has been sorted by relevance using Search.com's proprietary algorithm. You can customize the list of search engines included in your metasearch from the preferences.

The search engines that are used in your metasearch may allow companies to pay to have their Web sites included within the results. To view the Paid Inclusion policy for a specific search engine, please visit their Web site. Search.com does not accept payment or share revenue with any search engine partner for listings in this section.