Do Fences Make Good Neighbours? An Analysis of Israel's Security Policy Choices
Is Israeli security best assured by strategic contraction or expansion? Does Israel's decision to build a security fence and the nation's security policies of contracting, rather than expanding, mark a major strategic shift in policy to make Israel more secure in the long run? Or should more attention be focused on the 2006 invasion of Lebanon as signalling a return to the older security policies based on expansion of the country's security sphere, placing Israel more in context with the American-led war on terrorism, with an emphasis on pre-emption to eliminate short-run terrorist threats? This article analyses Israel's recent security policy choices, especially the decision to erect the wall separating Israelis from Palestinians, combined with the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, followed by the decision to return to Gaza and invade Lebanon in July 2006. Did these events represent the failure of Israeli security initiatives of the early 2000s and a return to old security dynamics of expansion vs. contraction?
Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel and Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank
189War and armed conflict — Belligerent occupation — West Bank territories occupied by Israel since 1967 — Whether the law of belligerent occupation still applicable — Hague Regulations on Land Warfare, 1907 — Whether declaratory of customary international law — Geneva Convention No IV respecting the Protection of Civilian Persons, 1949 — Whether applicable — Powers of occupation authorities — Taking of land — Construction of security barrier — Whether permitted — Whether proportionate Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Customary law — General principles — Proportionality — Whether a general principle of international law — Applicability in Israeli courts — Conditions of proportionality — The law of Israel
Definitions of efficiency
This is the third in a series of occasional notes on economics

Decision makers are increasingly faced with the challenge of reconciling growing demand for health care services with available funds.1 Economists argue that the achievement of (greater) efficiency from scarce resources should be a major criterion for priority setting. This note examines three concepts of efficiency: technical, productive, and allocative.

Efficiency measures whether healthcare resources are being used to get the best value for money.1 Health care can be seen an intermediate product, in the sense of being a means to the end of improved health. Efficiency is concerned with the relation between resource inputs (costs, in the form of labour, capital, or equipment) and either intermediate outputs (numbers treated, waiting time, etc) or final health outcomes (lives saved, life years gained, quality adjusted life years (QALYs)). Although many evaluations use intermediate outputs as a measure of effectiveness, this can …