Posted on: JANUARY 2012 

Key facts 

-Almost 1,100 Palestinians, over half children, were displaced due to home demolitions by Israeli forces in 2011, over 80% more than in 2010.

-4,200 additional people were affected by the demolition of structures related to their livelihoods.

-Israeli forces destroyed 622 structures owned by Palestinians, a 42% increase compared to 2010. This included 222 homes, 170 animal shelters, two classrooms and two mosques (one twice).

-The number of rainwater cisterns and pools destroyed in 2011 (46), was more than double last year (21), with tens of other related structures vulnerable to future demolition.

-Most demolitions (90%) and displacement (92%) occurred in already vulnerable farming and herding communities in Area C; thousands of others remain at-risk of displacement due to outstanding demolition orders.

-In East Jerusalem, there was a significant decrease compared to previous years, with 42 structures demolished*. However, at least 93,100 residents, who live in structures built without a permit, remain at risk of displacement.

-Over 60% of the Palestinian-owned structures demolished in 2011 were located in areas allocated to settlements.

-70% of Area C is off-limits for Palestinian construction, allocated instead for Israeli settlements or the Israeli military; an additional 29% is heavily restricted.

-Only 13% of East Jerusalem is zoned for Palestinian construction – much of which is already built up, compared with 35%, which has been expropriated and zoned for the use of Israeli settlements.

-Ten out of 13 communities visited by OCHA in Area C reported that families are being displaced because Israeli policies make it difficult for them to meet basic needs. The inability to build was one of the main triggers for this displacement.

1. The forced displacement of Palestinian families and the destruction of civilian homes and other property by Israeli forces in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, have a serious humanitarian impact. Demolitions deprive people of their homes, often their main source of physical and economic security. They also disrupt their livelihoods, reducing their standard of living and undermining their access to basic services, such as water and sanitation, education and health care.
2. The impact on families’ psychosocial well-be­ing can be devastating. Women often feel a loss of control over domestic matters and a heightened sense of insecurity while men experience increased stress and anxiety. For many children, the demolition, along with the disruption to education and increased tension in the home, results in depression, anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
3. According to Israeli authorities, demolitions are car­ried out because structures lack the required build­ing permits. In reality, it is almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain permits. The zoning and planning regime enforced by Israel in Area C and East Jerusalem restricts Palestinian growth and development, while providing preferential treatment for unlawful Israeli settlements. This treatment includes the approval of master plans and the provision of essential infrastructure, participation in the planning process, and the allocation of land and water resources.
4. In Area C, a combination of Israeli policies and practices, including restrictive zoning and planning, settlement expansion, settler violence, and restric­tions on movement and access, have resulted in fragmentation of land and shrinking space for Palestinians, undermining their presence. Israeli authorities have also indicated that they intend to transfer several Palestinian communities out of stra­tegic parts of Area C, raising further humanitarian and legal concerns.
5. Israel, as the occupying power in the West Bank, has the obligation to protect Palestin­ian civilians and to administer the territory for their benefit. International law prohibits the forced displacement or transfer of civilians as well as the de­struction of private property, unless absolutely nec­essary for military operations. Demolitions of homes and other civilian structures should end immediately and Palestinians should have access to fair and effec­tive zoning and planning for their communities.

To keep reading the full report click on here

Source:

http://unispal.un.org

Posted on: June/July 2014

By Dale Sprusansky

Kareem Issa Jubran (l) and Amira Hass note that home demolitions in Area C of the West Bank are increasing. (Staff Photo D. Sprusansky)

 Two long-time observers of the Israeli occupation of Palestine appeared at the New America Foundation (NAF) in Washington, DC on April 3 to discuss Israel’s treatment of Palestinians living in Area C of the West Bank. The event, organized by NAF’s new Israel-Palestine Initiative, was titled “Unrecognized and Unwanted: Demolition and Forced Displacement in Area C.”

Haaretz West Bank correspondent Amira Hass began the conversation by providing some background on Area C. Comprising 61 percent of the West Bank, she noted, Area C, which is under total Israeli civilian and military control, is home to approximately 300,000 Palestinians and 350,000- 400,000 Jewish settlers.

Area C’s borders are an inorganic creation of the Oslo II accords, Hass pointed out. “Area C is completely an artificial designation,” she stated. “It has nothing to with people’s organic development, the organic development of Palestinian communities.”

Israel is determined to rid Area C of Palestinians, Hass charged. “The Israeli intention is to guarantee that there are as few Palestinians as possible in this area so that they will be able to annex it to Israel,” she said. Indeed, Hass noted, Israeli soldiers have candidly told Palestinians living in Area C that they should move to Area A.

To advance this goal, Hass reported, Israel in recent years has increased the number of home demolitions it carries out in Area C. While one or two structures once were targeted for demolition, now entire communities are being destroyed, she said, adding, “There is more chutzpah to the orders.”

The Israelis legitimize these demolitions by saying that many Palestinian buildings are constructed without permits, Hass noted. But, she explained, Palestinians are forced to construct without permission because Israeli authorities rarely grant permits and refuse to develop master plans for Palestinian communities. (Israel is required to issue master plans for Palestine under international law.)

The sad irony, Hass said, is that Israel is always quick to issue master plans for illegal settlements in Area C. “Israeli authorities have developed thousands of master plans for Israeli settlers, but they do not develop master plans for Palestinian inhabitants,” she said.

Kareem Issa Jubran, field research director for the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, used recent statistics to illustrate the unequal distribution of building permits. Between 2000 and 2012, he noted, only 211 of 3,700 Palestinian building permit requests were approved. During the same time span, however, more than 15,000 permits were issued for settlers.

Jubran explained that there is a similar disparity in access to water and electricity. As an example, he pointed to the Jordan Valley, where 10,000 Jewish settlers consume one-third of the available water and the remaining two-thirds is available to the area’s 2.5 million Palestinians.

Hass expressed outrage at Palestine’s unequal access to resources. “As an Israeli Jew, I’m filled with shame to see this discrepancy,” she said. “This is a policy of such blatant discrimination and double standards.”

While Israelis once felt some sympathy for Palestinians, Hass lamented that this is no longer the case. “Thirty or forty years ago I could sense some shame among the Israeli politicians and others,” she said. Young Israelis born in the settlements now believe they are entitled to more land and resources than the Palestinians, she lamented. “There is willful ignorance…and I see it everywhere,” Hass concluded.

Source:

http://www.wrmea.org/2014-june-july/human-rights-home-demolitions-and-land-seizures-in-area-c-of-the-west-bank.html

Posted on: February 2, 2015

By Ben Norton

Israel destroyed 590 Palestinian buildings in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 2014, displacing 1,177 people, according to a new study by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). This constitutes the highest level of displacement in the West Bank since the UN began monitoring the issue in 2008.

Amira Hass summarizes the findings of the OCHA report in Haaretz. She indicates that, in 2014, the Civil Administration of the Israel Defense Forces destroyed

• 493 buildings in the West Bank;
• the homes of 969 Palestinians in the West Bank;
• 97 buildings in East Jerusalem;
• the homes of 208 Palestinians in East Jerusalem; and
• an average of 9 Palestinian buildings per week.

In three days, from 20-22 January, 77 Palestinians, over half of whom were children, were made homeless by these demolitions. In just the week of 19-26 January, Israel destroyed 41 Palestinian buildings and delivered 45 construction stop orders and two demolition orders. All of these structures were owned by Bedouins and other pastoral communities.

Some of the destroyed buildings had been donated by European humanitarian organizations, and Israel issued an order to stop construction on a park funded by foreign donor countries. Israel’s extrajudicial demolitions continue into 2015. In January alone, Israel destroyed 77 buildings belonging to Palestinians in the West Bank, leaving 110 people, roughly half of whom were children, homeless in the cold of the winter.

UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator James W. Rawley argues the demolitions violate international law. “Demolitions that result in forced evictions and displacement run counter to Israel’s obligations under international law and create unnecessary suffering and tension,” he said. “They must stop immediately.OCHA writes, in an official statement,

The planning policies applied by Israel in Area C and East Jerusalem discriminate against Palestinians, making it extremely difficult for them to obtain building permits. As a result, many Palestinians build without permits to meet their housing needs and risk having their structures demolished. Palestinians must have the opportunity to participate in a fair and equitable planning system that ensures their needs are met.

Hass also draws attention to the fact that “Israel does not allow Palestinians additional construction relative to the natural population growth, and does not allow connecting hundreds of communities with some 300,000 Palestinian residents to infrastructure.” This leaves Palestinians with three options, she saysa.

a. Living in crowded housing and poor conditions, (b) moving to Areas A and B of the West Bank, which is difficult to do and expensive, or (c) building without permits. Given their lack of opportunities and resources, most Palestinians have no other choice but to repeatedly rebuild their homes without permits, Hass explains.

Area C

 493 West Bank buildings destroyed were located in Area C, an administrative division, outlined in the 1995 Oslo II Accord, which comprises close to three-quarters of the West Bank. Area C remains under control of the Israeli military, after Israel illegally occupied it in the 1967 war. The October 1998 Wye River Memorandum required that Israel withdraw from 13% of Area C, but, after only pulling its troops from 2% of the land, Israel reoccupied all of it in its 2002 Operation “Defensive Shield.”

Today, Palestinians do not have control over 99% of Area C—61% of the entire West Bank. This is the region in which the West Bank’s most important and lucrative natural resources are concentrated. In a 2013 report, the World Bank said that without “the ability to conduct purposeful economic activity in Area C, the economic space of the West Bank will remain crowded and stunted, inhabited by people whose daily interactions with the state of Israel are characterised by inconvenience, expense and frustration.”

Almost 300,000 Palestinians live in Area C, under complete control of the Israeli military. In an additional 2014 report in Haaretz, Hass notes that:

The Palestinian population in Area C is considered to be especially vulnerable and in need of international assistance because of limited access to educational and health-care institutions, harassment by settlers, proximity to firing zones and insufficient connection to water and electricity infrastructure.

Between 300,000 and 400,000 Israeli settlers also illegally live in Area C. More are flooding in, as the region is increasingly colonized. In May 2014, ultra-nationalist Construction and Housing Minister Uri Ariel said the possibly of a Palestinian state was in its “dying throes” and declared that the settler population would be 550,000 or 600,000 by 2019.

100,000 Homes Destroyed in Gaza

Palestinians in the West Bank were not the only ones Israel made homeless in 2014. In its 51-day summer attack on Gaza, codenamed Operation “Protective Edge,” Israel destroyed or damaged 100,000 homes, affecting more than 600,000 people, according to UN estimates.

Moreover,

• 26 schools were destroyed;
• 232 schools were damaged;
• 73 mosques were destroyed;
• 205 mosques were damaged;
• 13 public hospitals were destroyed or damaged;
• 17 private and non-governmental hospitals were destroyed or damaged;
• 23 ministry health centers were destroyed or damaged;
• 4 private and non-governmental health centers were destroyed or damaged;
• 50% of farmland was greatly damaged;
• 419 businesses and workshops were damaged; and
• Gaza’s only power plant was destroyed.

In all, 100,000 Gazans were made homeless in the aftermath of the attack. The UN estimates it will take $7.8 billion and more than 20 years to rebuild Gaza. Although $5.4 billion in aid was pledged in an international conference in Egypt in October 2014, “virtually none” of this has reached Gaza, according to UNRWA. Thousands of Palestinians have been left homeless during a frigid winter. Several people, including infants, have died from the cold.

UNRWA Director in Gaza Robert Turner commented:

It is easy to look at these numbers and lose sight of the fact that we are talking about thousands of families who continue to suffer through this cold winter with inadequate shelter. People are literally sleeping amongst the rubble; children have died of hypothermia. US$ 5.4 billion was pledged at the Cairo conference last October and virtually none of it has reached Gaza. This is distressing and unacceptable.

Source:

http://mondoweiss.net

Posted on: 2003

By Shane Darcy

Introduction

The military occupation by Israel of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is now in its fourth decade and the litany of human rights abuses that have been committed throughout this occupation are both widely known and well documented.

One of the most noticeable and altogether inhumane practices that the occupying army has continuously employed since 1967 is that of demolishing Palestinian houses. Over nine thousand houses have been completely destroyed since the beginning of the occupation. Houses have been razed for the creation of “no-go areas” around illegal Israeli settlements, along settler roads and along the border with Egypt in the Gaza Strip. Buildings have been destroyed or damaged in the course of military operations; all too frequently such destruction has not been justified by military necessity.

Thousands of houses have also been demolished on the basis that they had been built in violation of the Israeli authorities housing permit ‘policy’. It is estimated that presently there are several thousand houses in East Jerusalem alone that are threatened with demolition.

Most notoriously, Israel has throughout the occupation implemented a policy whereby the houses of suspected, detained or convicted Palestinians are demolished as a punitive measure for their actual or suspected crimes. This paper will examine the legality of this practice, whereby families are punished by house demolition for the unlawful actions of a single member of that family. These demolitions are ordered by Military Commanders, carried out by the soldiers of the occupying army and have been repeatedly validated by the Israeli judiciary.

It will be specifically argued that these demolitions constitute acts of collective punishment, expressly prohibited under international law.

It is worth noting that frequently, the Israeli occupation forces have demolished houses in response to the commission of illegal acts, although it has claimed that such demolitions were not punitive but were for security or military purposes.

For example, on 10 January 2002 sixty houses were completely demolished and four partially demolished by the army in the Rafah Refugee Camp in the Gaza Strip. Six hundred people were left homeless as a result of this action.

These demolitions were carried out the day after four Israeli soldiers were killed in that area by two gunmen. Although it was claimed otherwise, the effect of this action was undoubtedly punitive in nature. Such demolitions are quite common.

This report, however, will focus on those demolitions which the Israeli authorities openly admit to be punitive.

In this regard, the domestic legal basis for the demolitions relied upon by Israel will be examined and the various justifications which the authorities put forward for the use of this legislation will be critiqued. Following this, it is intended to examine the prohibition of collective punishment under international law. Focusing on this prohibition within the humanitarian law regime the customary nature of this legal norm will also be assessed. In the course of this discussion, recourse will be made to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Israel and to case examples of demolitions the details of which have been gathered by Al-Haq fieldworkers. It will then be assessed whether these punitive house demolitions amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Some general aspects of demolitions

It is a common and recurring practice in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that the army of the Occupying Power, the Israeli army, demolish or seal the houses of persons who have committed offences or who are suspected of having committed such. In particular, the homes of persons who have carried out suicide bombings within Israel or against Israeli settlers or soldiers, are always demolished in the aftermath of such attacks. This punitive demolition policy also targets persons, and thereby their families, for less serious offences or for suspicion that offences have been committed. For example, over the course of two days at the end of November 2002 the army demolished eight homes in the Bethlehem area; the house of a suicide bomber who had killed eleven people in Jerusalem the previous day, the house of an Islamic Jihad activist, the home of a member of Fatah, the house of Abdullah abu-Hadid, suspected of being involved in shooting attacks prior to Operation Defensive Shield, the home of an activist in Fatah‘s military wing who was detained in Israeli at the time, the homes of two “ Tanzim” activists and the home of Ibrahim Abayat, a former Fatah leader who had been deported to Cyprus after the siege of the Church of the Nativity. The army demolished houses of persons involved in recent offences, in addition to persons who had or were suspected of carrying out “old” attacks and of persons already detained or deported.

Where it is intended that a demolition will be carried out following the commission of illegal acts, a Military Commander will issue a military order directing that the house in question is to be demolished or sealed. The occupying army employs various methods for carrying out these demolitions. Bulldozers are most commonly used for demolishing houses although the army also frequently uses explosives for this purpose. To facilitate these demolitions, a curfew is usually imposed in the locality and tanks and armoured personnel carriers will accompany the unit carrying out the demolition. In a number of cases, very little notice is given to inhabitants that their home is about to be destroyed; often as little as fifteen minutes is allowed for the residents to remove all their belongings from the house that is about to be demolished. On other occasions, soldiers have informed families that their home may be demolished in the future and no further information is supplied. Under such circumstances, these persons are forced to live in uncertainty, not knowing when, or if, their home will be destroyed. For families whose houses have been completely demolished, the severe impact is made worse by the fact that they are prohibited from rebuilding on the site of their former home. On occasion, the site of their former home may be declared a “closed area” by the army, thus preventing the family having any access whatsoever to their property. The land is confiscated and declared as no longer belonging to the owners.

The less severe sanction of sealing a house or particular rooms is also imposed as a punitive measure. Using concrete blocks or metal sheeting rooms or entire houses are sealed off, preventing access to them by the former inhabitants. Although this measure is seen as reversible, there are few cases of sealed houses being allowed to be re-opened and the overall effect is thus the same; families are denied access to their house and are rendered homeless. As the next section will demonstrate, the punitive measures of demolition and sealing have been employed by the Israeli authorities throughout their entire occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Empirical data relating to punitive house demolitions and sealings  

The Early Years of the Occupation

Exact figures for the number of punitive house demolitions which were carried out during the first half of Israel‘s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are unavailable, although it is widely known that the Israeli authorities employed this sanction extensively. A variety of sources point to the widespread use of house demolitions as a means of punishment and it is clear that such use was particularly intense during the first years of the occupation. The former Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Dayan, told the Knesset that 516 houses had been demolished, expropriated or sealed between June 1967 and 1st December 1969.

The ICRC reported in 1978 that 1,224 houses had been demolished since 1967, a thousand of which had taken place in the first five years of the occupation. Al-Haq estimates that during the first decade of the occupation at least one thousand homes were demolished punitively. The number of demolitions dropped during the mid-1970’s and approximately one hundred houses were demolished or sealed from this time until the early 1980’s. As the below table shows, demolitions and sealing became much more frequent in the period beginning in 1985. With the onset of the first intifada at the end of 1987, the Israeli authorities escalated the implementation of the punitive house demolition policy with considerable fervour.

Between 1987 and the end of the first intifada the Israeli authorities completely demolished nearly four hundred houses and either partially demolished, sealed or partially sealed another four hundred as punishment. The demolition policy employed by Israel during the first intifada led to the destruction or putting beyond use of over 3,500 individual rooms and caused the displacement of approximately eight thousand Palestinian people.

Use of demolitions as a punitive measure waned with the falling levels of violent resistance during the mid-1990’s, to the point where no demolitions or sealings were carried out between 1998 and 2000.

During 2001 and over the course of the past year the Israeli authorities have once again renewed their punitive house demolition policy in the face of the violence of this, the second intifada. From August 2002 to January 2003 the army carried out over one hundred punitive house demolitions in the West Bank and Gaza. This represents the highest number of demolitions in such a short period for over a decade.

There is a worrying difference in Israel‘s punitive demolition policy between the two intifadas. Since the resumption of this policy during the second intifada, the Israeli authorities have almost constantly chosen the most severe sanction permitted by Regulation 119(1), that of total demolition. Taking the figures in the below table into account, it is clear that whereas during the first intifada 57% of those houses affected were demolished, either completely or partially, during the second intifada 98% of houses affected have been totally demolished.

There have been few cases of houses being in the past two years. The number of demolitions has not yet reached the level witnessed during the first intifada, although this year in particular has shown a marked increase in the use of the demolition policy. Opting for complete demolition over the less harsh, and reversible, sanction of sealing displays a worrying trend in the Israeli authorities’ employment of this illegal policy.

To keep reading click here

Source:

http://www.alhaq.org

Posted on: September 2011

By Mahmoud Al-Mubarak

Observers of the systematic Israeli abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs), especially the demolition of houses and the resultant forced expulsion of the Palestinian population, may be surprised at the absence of any international legal action by Palestinian officials against Israel. They would probably conclude that the Palestinians have a “successful case in the hands of an unsuccessful lawyer”.

The demolition of houses and confiscation of Palestinian land is now well-documented in United Nations reports and by many human rights organizations around the world, and even in Israel. The Palestinian Authority (PA), however, has not fulfilled its duty by initiating legal action internationally against these serious violations by the Zionist state.

In fact, the PA’s official position on Israel’s criminal demolition of Palestinian homes has been limited to mere condemnation; this does not live up to the level of required legal responsibility. Expressions of concern about Israel’s Judaisation policies are made even by pro-Israel states, so it is totally inadequate for the PA to make such statements and little else.

That the PA is loath to take the matter further was confirmed two years ago by Hatem Abdul Qader, the former Minister of Jerusalem Affairs, who revealed that Ramallah pursues a policy of “tolerance” towards Israel and the Judaisation of Jerusalem. This tolerance extends to the absence of any legal challenges in Israeli courts against decisions to demolish homes and confiscate Palestinian land.

In this brief study, the issue of house demolitions in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 will be assessed from an international legal point of view. I will try to identify the legal avenues that can be followed to prosecute the Israeli government and the parties involved in these violations of international law.

Before delving into the legal details of violations related to the demolition of Palestinian homes, I will determine the international legal status of the Palestinian territories which have been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of June 1967.

The international legal status of the Palestinian territories

When talking about the Palestinian territories captured by Israel during the 1967 war, we often refer to the famous Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). These resolutions establish the legal basis of determining that Israel is an occupying power in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and demand that it withdraws from territories so occupied. However, the reality is that there are many Security Council resolutions which confirm that the territories occupied by Israel since the war of June 1967 are considered to be occupied territory under international law and which call on Israel to withdraw from them.

For example, Security Council resolutions 237 (1967), 248 (1968), 252 (1968), 258 (1968), 259 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969 ), 298 (1971), 339 (1973), 368 (1975), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 468 (1980), 469 (1980), 471 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 484 (1980), 497 (1981), 500 (1982), 592 (1986), 605 (1987), 608 (1988), 636 (1989), 641 (1989), 672 (1990), 673 (1990), 681 (1990), 694 (1991), 726 (1992), 1073 (1996), 1322 (2000), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009). The resolutions confirmed that the Arab territories seized by Israel during the 1967 war, are all occupied territory.

Formal resolutions aside, similar statements have been issued by the presidency of the Security Council, including, but not limited to, statements by the incumbent Presidents of the Council on 26 January 1984, 26 August 1988, 19 June 1990, 4 January 1991, 27 March 1991 and 4 April 1992. All these statements called on Israel to abide by international legal obligations towards this land, as stipulated in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 as occupied territory.

In the same vein, several resolutions have been issued by the UN General Assembly confirming that the Palestinian lands seized by Israel after the 1967 war are considered in international law to be occupied territories and to which the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 apply. For example, General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) (1967) and 2254 (ES-V) (1967), 3236 (XXIX) (1974), 3237 (XXIX) (1974), 32/5 (1977) and 33/113 (1978), ES-7/2 (1980), ES-9/1 (1982), 37/135 (1982), 38/144 (1983), 4/47 (1991), 46/76 (1991), 46/82 (1991), 50/84 (1995) and 50/129 (1995).

In the advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice on the legality of Israel’s construction of the separation wall inside the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, the Court emphasized that the status of these territories in international law is that they are under Israeli occupation.

In addition to these international resolutions and documents, there are many legal documents and international legal and Human Rights Council resolutions, including the report of the UN fact-finding mission on the conflict in Gaza, known as the Goldstone Report. All emphasize the status of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, which include Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Based on “international legitimacy”, therefore, the territories occupied by Israel since the Six Day War of June 1967, are under an “illegal occupation”. Accordingly, the related provisions of international law are applicable, including the Hague Convention of 1907, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the two additional Protocols to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949,signed in 1977. Israeli claims to the contrary mean that it is rejecting its obligations towards the occupied territories and the population therein.

Israel’s policy of demolishing Palestinian homes

The long-standing Israeli policy and practice of demolishing Palestinian homes serves as a tool of the ethnic cleansing pursued by successive Israeli governments. It is perhaps useful to recall that ethnic cleansing is one of the main pillars of the policies upon which the Jewish state was built, something that has been documented not only by international jurists, but also by Israeli historians. In his book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”, the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe presented evidence of the crime of ethnic cleansing carried out by Israeli forces in 1948; Dr. Pappe concluded that Israel’s crime resulted in the expulsion of more than 800,000 Palestinians from their country.

Three years ago, the Israeli occupying forces demolished all the houses in the village of Taweel Abu Jarwal in the Negev Desert and confiscated property belonging to the Palestinian population, including their livestock and their tents. In an example of what could be classified as the worst, most prolonged example of ethnic cleansing in human history, the people were left without shelter under a harsh sun; even their water tanks were destroyed by the Israelis.

In keeping with the illegal historical acts of the Zionist state, Israel’s current government has continued the policy of house demolition and confiscation of Palestinian land. According to the Palestinian Strategic Report 2010, the Israeli army and the Israeli-led Jerusalem Municipality demolished 194 Palestinian homes in 2010 alone. Of these, 44 houses in the Jerusalem Governorate were knocked down mostly on the pretext of having no building permit. The Israeli occupation forces also warned the owners of 1,393 Palestinian homes, including 119 homes in Jerusalem, of evacuation and the “need” for demolition. The Israeli authorities often resort to the argument of construction without a permit to give a fig-leaf of legitimacy to the demolition process.

Similarly, in 2010 the Israeli government confiscated and destroyed 13,149 dunums (1 dunum = 1,000 sq.m) of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank, uprooting 10,364 trees. This brought the number of trees uprooted by Israeli occupation forces to 2.5 million since 1967.

It is apparent that the Israeli authorities choose the Palestinian land deliberately for its so-called development projects. Arab member of the Knesset Jamal Zahalka, head of the parliamentary National Democratic Gathering, revealed recently the Israel intention to confiscate more than 700 dunums of Palestinian land in the next few weeks to build a centre for the maintenance and repair of trains.

All of this appears to pass without any international legal accountability even though every single one of these cases falls under the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits and criminalises all acts of the confiscation of Palestinian land and the forced expulsion of the population to change the country’s demographics. Every such case is worthy of independent legal pursuit.

Demolition of houses in international law

If international laws were designed originally to protect human life and dignity, regardless of colour, gender or race, then the first thing to honour someone is not to deprive them of a decent place to live with their family.

The preamble to the Charter of the United Nations includes an indication that the objectives of the establishment of the United Nations is to maintain “fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the individual… And creating conditions under which justice can prevail… pushing towards promoting social progress, and the quality of life…”

Needless to say that these noble goals cannot be achieved by those deprived of their homes, or who have had their property confiscated unlawfully and had themselves and their children put on the streets by the state of Israel when it destroys Palestinian homes and confiscates land from its owners.

Israel’s policy of confiscating houses is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, in which Article 21 stipulates that no one shall be subjected to “arbitrary interference in his private life or home…” This also violates Article 8 (1) of the European Charter of Human Rights, which affirmed the sanctity of the private residence of individuals. Article 11 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stressed on the “decent life” and having “adequate housing” for all individuals in all societies. How does someone get a “good life” when he has been pushed out of his home into the open, without shelter, with no acceptable legal reason?

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits collective punishment, which is committed frequently by Israel against the Palestinians; family homes are often destroyed as a punishment for one family member. The same Article 33 also stipulates the “Prohibition of Reprisals against protected persons and their property”.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, meanwhile, banned forcible transfer of people, individually or collectively. Article 8/2/a/7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court also prohibits illegal deportation or transfer, which is inherent in Israel’s policy of demolition and confiscation of Palestinian property.

In is clear, therefore, that the Israeli policy of house demolitions and land confiscation represents two grave crimes, a “crime against humanity” under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, and a “war crime” under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

The Israeli authorities seek to justify their violations of the law on the grounds of “self-defence”, even though the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on building the separation wall inside the occupied Palestinian territories, and the resultant confiscation of property, rejected the Israeli argument The Court emphasized that Israel, as an occupier, may not invoke Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations relating to the principle of self-defence for any attack coming from the land it occupies, and said:

“And so Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations acknowledges that there is a natural right to self-defence in the case of a state launching an armed attack on another country, however, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it can be attributed to a foreign country. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the threat which Israel considers as a justification for the construction of the wall originates within the land and not outside and thus Israel cannot in any way, claim to exercise the right to self-defence. And therefore the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance to this case.”

Despite all of this, Israel persists in what it claims to be one of its rights represented in the demolition and confiscation of Palestinian property. Adding insult to injury, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) approved a while back to force the house owner to pay for the demolition costs. This is unprecedented.

Legal steps that can be taken

There are six international legal remedies which can be taken to address Israel’s violations of international law regarding house demolitions:

1. A request can be made for a special session of the UN Security Council after each case of a house being demolished or land confiscated. This is well-known to experienced politicians. The negative impact on the people under occupation must be stressed, as the demolition represents a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

2. The UN General Assembly carries major political and international weight, and approaches can be worked through the resolution “Uniting for Peace” and the establishment of a special court for war crimes under Article 22 of the Charter to look into these serious legal violations carried out by Israel.

3. The Human Rights Council of the United Nations can be requested to form an independent commission to study the demolition of Palestinian homes in the occupied territories, such as the UN mission tasked with examining the Israeli attack on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, which produced the Goldstone Report.

4. A request can be made for an advisory opinion of the ICJ on the legitimacy of demolishing Palestinian homes in the occupied Palestinian territories, based on article 65 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Such an opinion of the court, similar to the advisory opinion on the separation wall, would be a valuable legal document for use in international bodies or national courts in Western countries against the Israeli government and parties involved in such violations. The legal value gained by the Palestinians from the opinion of the Court regarding the separation wall in the occupied territories is priceless, as that judicial opinion became a source of reference and a basis on which to respond to Israeli claims in international legal forums.

5. Construction companies and parties involved in the demolition of Palestinian homes can be sued under the principle of “universal jurisdiction” as per Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, in the courts of states which are signatories as demolition of homes in these circumstances is a grave breach of the Convention.

It is perhaps useful to note in this regard that in autumn 2007, the French courts agreed to look into two cases against two French companies which had agreed to build a railway in Israel, part of which passed through the occupied Palestinian territories. The railway would change the landscape it passed through and lead to the forced displacement of the local population. French legislation allows the consideration of cases in which individuals or companies are involved in violations of international law. It is unfortunate that there was no involvement by the Palestinian government in this significant legal effort.

6. Member States of the International Criminal Court can be requested to file a case in the court against Israel and to investigate the demolition of Palestinian homes and the forced expulsion of the Palestinian population. Both acts represent a “crime against humanity” under Article 7/1/d of the Statute of the Court, and a “war crime” under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

In this regard, Jordan, which is a member of the International Criminal Court, has arguably a special legal responsibility, as the damage inflicted on Palestinians is often deflected onto the kingdom’s territory because of the links between Palestinians and Jordanians.

It is important to stress that all of these options are important; one cannot take the place of another. The mere threat of using international law as a weapon frightens the Israeli government – which coined the term “lawfare” to describe legal action against it because criminals fear nothing as much as the sword of justice.

If the Goldstone Report gave the Israeli authorities a legal jolt, unprecedented in the history of the Zionist state, it should have encouraged the Arabs to follow the path of international law to seek justice for the Palestinians. This is especially important as the law is often the weapon of choice of our adversaries.

The level of official Palestinian indifference to the crime of ethnic cleansing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has to cause us to question the Palestinian Authority’s lack of legal action against what is, after all, one of the most serious of crimes. This, despite the fact that the legal options cited above would be obvious to any first-year Law student.

Perhaps that old adage of the “successful case in the hands of an unsuccessful lawyer” is beginning to look more like a “successful case in the hands of a conspiring lawyer”.

The author is a professor of international law at King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia

Source:

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com

Posted on: April 2009

More than 300,000 people are under threat of house demolition and of being displaced, without warning, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This report outlines what we’ve found and what we’re calling for.

This report looks at the impact of house demolitions on children and their parents, the cumulative impact on the family unit (in terms of its mental, physical and economic health and access to familial and wider social support), and the responsibilities of duty bearers to protect and assist.Based on its findings, the study recommends that all stakeholders—Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the international community and donor governments—act immediately to respond to house demolitions within the OPT.Stakeholders would achieve this by fulfilling their obligations to protect children and their families according to international humanitarian and international human rights law, in particular the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sincé Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank, including Jerusalem and Gaza, it is estimated that Israeli civil and military authorities have destroyed 24,000 Palestinian homes in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT). The rate of house demolitions has risen significantly since the second Intifada began in September 2000 and, as this study shows, house demolitions have become a major cause of forced displacement in the OPT. When a home is demolished, a family loses both the house as a financial asset and often the property inside it. For the families surveyed in this study these losses respectively totaled an average of approximately $105,090 and $51,261 per family. But the impact goes beyond loss of physical property and economic opportunity. This report is unique in the connection it makes between the impact of house demolitions on children and their families, and the responsibility of duty bearers to protect and assist.

Using structured mental health questionnaires, semi-structured questionnaires of the family’s demolition experience and socioeconomic conditions, and open interviews with families, this study depicts a portrait of Palestinian families who have experienced house demolitions. This depiction enables the humanitarian community to better advocate for an end to demolitions and, in the interim, put in place a comprehensive and coordinated response for families who are facing displacement due to demolition or other factors.

To keep reading the full report click here

Source:

http://www.savethechildren.org.uk

Posted on: November 2014

Israeli violations remain systematic throughout the occupied part of Palestine known as “Area C.”

Area C constitutes more than 61% of land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and is inhabited by some 18% of the Palestinian population [NSU].

As designated under the Oslo Accords, Areas A include major Palestinian population centres in the West Bank and most of the Gaza Strip where the Palestinian Authority assumes jurisdiction, while subject to occasional siege. Areas B consist of other Palestinian-populated regions of the West Bank, including some small towns and villages with Palestinian administrative jurisdiction controlled by Israel security forces. Area C covers all remaining territory in the West Bank and is the only part of theOslo Agreements map that is contiguous. The 1995 Agreements further provided that Area C, “except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations [Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations], will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction” [Art. XI(3)(c)] as part of the three-stage “further redeployments” [Art. II(2)(b)(8)] that never took place.

Area C is now characterized as the zone of concentrated Israeli demolition of houses and destruction of property belonging to indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This practice is accompanied by land grabbing for building settler colonies and their associated Separation Wall, all of which are strictly prohibited under international humanitarian and criminal law. In the relatively small and vulnerable population in Area C, the humanitarian situation is especially grave for the diffuse Bedouin community.

Illustrative Cases

The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory (OCHA) has reported that Israel’s demolition of Palestinian homes has dramatically increased since the beginning of this year. As of April, the 2012 demolitions already have reached 84 in Area C, and displaced 116 Palestinians. Added to that are arbitrary evictions such as that reported against the family of `Adil Zamil at the village of `Ayn al-Hilwa, in the Jordan Valley.

The OCHA weekly report also revealed in May–June that the occupation authorities in the Jordan Valley forcibly evicted four Palestinian families on 5 June, and issued eviction orders to 24 families from an area Israeli declared to be a closed military zone. The report noted that 56% of the 3,400 Palestinian land-based families living in the occupied Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea area are threatened with demolition of their homes and forcible displacement.

Israeli forces have demolished 307 buildings since the beginning of 2012, and displaced 508 people. Their grabbing of large areas of West Bank land is further isolating farmers from their fields and denying them their land-based livelihood. Access to the agricultural land behind the Wall or adjacent to settler colonies requires a permit, and most Palestinian permit applications are categorically rejected.

A group of human rights organizations has launched a new campaign to condemn the Wall and its adverse effects on all aspects of life, as well as the failure of the international community accountable for the violations. On 16 May, the Land Research Center and Applied Research Institute: Jerusalem—ARIJ released a case study of al-Khadhr village, and confirmed that Hafradah Wall will extend a length of 6.7 km onto the territory of the southern West Bank village of al-Khadhr, running from the north to the south and taking most of the village’s agricultural land.

Observers have concluded that Israel is conducting a policy of population transfer, deprivation of natural resources and demographic manipulation at the expense of indigenous Palestinians in the occupied territory.

“Bantustans”

By increasing the spread of Israeli settler colonies, the colonization process divides the West Bank and Gaza into the eight regions, apart from Jerusalem. Palestinians are generally prohibited to travel outside their permitted zone. The construction of the Wall and settler colony construction work to isolate the Palestinian areas from each the other in the form of Bantustans [see definition in Terminology Corner].

Eyewitness Bishop Desmond Tutu drew the analogy to apartheid in South Africa when he said that occupied Palestine “reminded me so much of what happened to us Black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.That Israeli behavior in the occupied territories, particularly the West Bank, has proliferated especially after the Oslo Accords.

As a mirror to this scenario in the Naqab, in the Naqab, inside the State of Israel, the month of May saw Israeli planning authorities destroyed the Bedouin village of al-Araqīb for the thirty-eighth time. It is one of the unrecognized villages steadfastly populated by displaced Palestinian villagers, now citizens of Israel, whose removal the state seeks in favor of Jewish National Fund projects and the transfer of lands to permanent Jewish-only ownership. At present,13,000Bedouin villagers in the Naqab are under demolition orders for building without a permit under statutory plans that the Catch 22 institutions and laws deny them proper physical planning. The infamous Prawer Plan, now one year old, seeks to dispossess tens of thousands more.

Source:

http://landtimes.landpedia.org

Posted on: Jyly 2011

Area C Fast facts

•  Over 60 percent of the West Bank is considered Area C, where Israel retains extensive control, including over security, planning and zoning.
• An estimated 150,000 Palestinians live in Area C, including 27,500 Bedouin and other herders.
• More than 20% of communities in Area C have extremely limited access to health services.
• Water consumption dips to 20 litres/capita/day (l/c/d) in communities without water infrastructure, one fifth of the World Health Organisation’s recommendation.
• Communities depending on tankered water pay up to 400% more for every liter than those connected to the water network.
• 70% of Area C is off-limits to Palestinian construction; 29% is heavily restricted.
• Less than 1% of Area C has been planned for Palestinian development by the Israeli Civil Administration.
• 560 Palestinian-owned structures, including 200 residential structures and 46 rainwater collection cisterns and pools, were demolished by the Israeli authorities in 2011.
• 1,006 people, including 565 children, lost their homes in 2011, over twice as many in 2010.
• Over 3,000 demolition orders are outstanding, including 18 targeting schools.
• The planned expansion area of the around 135 Israeli settlements in Area C is 9 times larger than their built-up area. (B’Tselem).
• Approximately 300,000 settlers currently live in Area C.

1. Most of Area C has been designated as military zones and for expansion of Israeli settlements, severely constraining the living space and development opportunities of Palestinian communities. While it is virtually impossible for a Palestinian to obtain a permit for construction, Israeli settlements receive preferential treatment in terms of allocation of water and land, approval of development plans, and law enforcement.

2. There has been a marked increase in demolitions in Area C this year. More Palestinians lost their homes in Area C in the first half of 2011 than in either of the past two years.

3. Most demolitions in 2011 affected livelihood structures, negatively affecting the sources of income and living standards of some 1,300 people.

4. In addition to restrictive planning policies, Palestinians living in Area C also have to contend with a range of other Israeli policies and practices, including restrictions on movement and access, harassment from the Israeli military and settler attacks, making daily life a struggle.

5. Demolitions drive already poor families deeper into poverty. Most demolitions in 2011 have targeted already vulnerable Bedouin / herding communities, who live in very basic structures, with no infrastructure and very limited access to services. Demolitions increase the dependency of these families on humanitarian assistance and have a range of negative psycho-social impacts, particularly on children. Many of these communities have suffered multiple waves of demolitions.

6. In some communities, families are being forced to move as a result of Israeli policies applied in Area C. Ten out of 13 communities recently visited by OCHA reported that families are leaving because policies and practices implemented there make it difficult for residents to meet basic needs or maintain their presence on the land.

Restrictions on Palestinian Access in the West Bank

Source:

http://www.ochaopt.org

Posted on:January 2015

How are Palestinians living under the Occupation in the West Bank and Gaza?

Academic, writer and commentator Peter Slezak took a tour of the Palestinian Occupied Territories in 2012 and met with a range of Palestinians and Israelis including members of the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence, who take tours around hotspots in the West Bank and Gaza.

His journey, as the son of holocaust survivors, was confronting and harrowing as he witnessed what this Occupation means in terms of the human rights abuses that occur routinely, and the annexation of Palestinian lands to large Israeli settlements and to the 700 km long Separation Wall.

Clarification: In this documentary, Peter Slezak makes reference to ‘illegal phosphorus bombs’. The ABC notes that, it has not been established that Israel’s use of white phosphorus during Operation Cast Lead was ilegal.

Supporting Information

Posted on: Aug 2012

By Jillian Kestler-D’Amours

Susya, occupied Palestinian territories – Dozens of tents, made of wooden planks, small boulders and plastic tarps, cling to the rocky hilltop. Tires, garbage, shoes, children’s clothes and broken electronic equipment are strewn between the tents, home to the 400 Palestinian residents of Susya in South Mount Hebron.

More than 60 per cent of the West Bank is classified as ‘Area C’, under Israeli administrative and military control [EPA]

“I’m 66 years old. 66 years. I was on this land before Israel [was created]. I was born here,” Mohammad Al-Nawaja’ah, a community leader and elder in Susya, said from inside his family’s tent. “[Israel] is a racist state. They want to take the land from us and give it to the settlers. There is no hope.”

An Israeli settlement, also named Susya, was built in 1983 on a hilltop just across the valley from Palestinian Susya. Today, just beyond an electric gate operated by a gun-wielding Israeli soldier, the settlement has paved roads, two-storey homes, a supermarket, playgrounds and trees lining its streets.Despite being inhabited since before the creation of Israel, Palestinian Susya isn’t connected either to the electricity or water grids, and lacks school and health facilities. Israel has deemed the village “illegal”.

In June, the Israeli Supreme Court issued six immediate demolition orders for Palestinian Susya. The destruction of more than 50 structures – including residential homes, water cisterns and solar energy panels – could happen any day now, and would effectively wipe the entire village off the map.

“If they begin to demolish, we will stay in our land,” Al-Nawaja’ah said. “Where can we go? This is our land.”

Under the Oslo Accords

And Susya isn’t alone. In fact, the village’s fate is similar to nearly all other Palestinian communities located in what is known as “Area C” of the occupied West Bank.

Area C was first delineated in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self Government Arrangements, otherwise known as the Oslo I agreement, which divided West Bank territory into three separate categories.

Area A is under the control of the Palestinian Authority and encompasses most of the major Palestinian cities. Area B comprises most Palestinian rural communities and is under Palestinian administrative and joint Palestinian-Israeli security control.

Area C is under complete Israeli administrative and military control, and comprises all Israeli settlements – including roads, buffer zones, and other infrastructure – and Israeli military training areas. Less than five per cent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank lives in Area C – yet it covers more than 60 per cent of the Palestinian territory.

In 1995, the Interim Agreement, or Oslo II, was passed. Article 27 of this agreement stipulated that in Area C, “powers and responsibilities related to the sphere of Planning and Zoning will be transferred gradually to Palestinian jurisdiction” by 1999.

But this transfer of powers has yet to be implemented.

Today, some 150,000 Palestinians live in Area C, where they face severe restrictions on planning, building and accessing services and the area’s natural resources. It is estimated that more than 350,000 Jewish-Israeli settlers now also live in Area C, an increase of more than 15,000 in the past year alone, in contravention of international law.

Inequalities in planning and construction

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that 70 per cent of Area C is off-limits to Palestinian construction, while 29 per cent is heavily restricted. The Israeli Civil Administration, the Israeli military body that oversees Area C, has planned less than one per cent of Area C for Palestinian development, OCHA also found.

According to Alon Cohen-Lifshitz, an Israeli architect and director of the Community Planning Department in Area C for Israeli group Bimkom, Planners for Planning Rights, Israeli planning laws make life unbearable for Palestinians in the área.

“The goal is not to allow any development of Palestinians in Area C besides what they must approve. They are creating all the obstacles in planning. Their wish [is] that all the Palestinians which live in Area C will move to Areas A and B,” Cohen-Lifshitz said.

According to the latest official figures obtained by Bimkom, of the 444 building permit applications Palestinians submitted in 2010 in Area C, only four (less than one per cent) were approved. Cohen-Lifshitz also said that only about 15 building plans had been approved for Palestinians in Area C over the past decade. “(Palestinians are) building houses because they don’t have any other opportunities. After they build, they receive a demolition order and after the order, they will try to achieve a building permit. It’s the only chance for them to try to save (their) house or to save time,” he said.

OCHA reported that in 2011, the Israeli authorities demolished 560 Palestinian-owned structures, including 46 rainwater collection pools, in Area C. That same year, Israel’s demolition policy made more than 1,000 people, more than half of whom were children, homeless.

By contrast, Israeli settlements, illegal under international law, are expanding at a rapid pace – and at least 125 settlement outposts, considered illegal even under Israel’s own laws, have been set up on hilltops throughout the West Bank.

“People are living their lives above themselves, for the betterment of the nation of Israel, not just because ‘here’s where I can live’,” said Ariela Deitch, a mother of six and resident of the Israeli outpost of Migron.

Perched on a hilltop overlooking the Palestinian villages of Deir Dibwan and Burqa, just east of Ramallah, 49 Jewish-Israeli families live in a series of 45-square-metre caravan homes in Migron. Set up in the late 1990s, Migron has paved roads, a large water tank, electricity and telecommunication towers, a kindergarten, playgrounds, and a horseback riding child behavioural therapy centre.

But it was illegally built on privately owned Palestinian land and the Israeli government has said it must be evacuated.
Court hearings are ongoing regarding whether 17 families, who say they recently purchased the land legally, can remain in Migron. The rest will be relocated to temporary caravans down the road – a “refugee camp”, according to Deitch – at a reported cost of at least 65m NIS ($16.3m).

“You become very quickly become part of this mountain. It becomes like tearing a tree out by the roots. It’s not going to be simple,” Deitch said. “You feel an importance in that, in that people came up here fair and square. There’s a justice to it.”

A pattern of destruction

In mid-July, the Israeli government announced its intention to forcibly displace ten Palestinian villages in Area C, in the South Mount Hebron area, in order to use the land for military training exercises.

An estimated 3,000 demolition orders remain in place in Palestinian communities of Area C. International agencies are becoming increasingly involved in projects in the area, in what appears to be an attempt to safeguard Palestinians against forced displacement.

This international support drew the ire of the Israeli government in mid-July, when it threatened to withhold work visas and travel documents for employees of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the UN agency that works on Palestinian humanitarian projects.

Despite this pressure, Palestinians in Area C are increasingly submitting building plans to the Israeli Civil Administration in an effort to legally develop their towns and villages.

“Master plans could resolve some things; [they] could help in freezing the implementation of these [demolition] orders and could help in the future to legalise the construction inside the adopted and approved Master plans,” said Dr Azzam Hjouj, General Director of the Department of Planning in the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) Ministry of Local Government.

Hjouj explained that while the PA doesn’t have direct authority over Area C, it is currently playing a consultative role and helping local Palestinian councils draft “Master Plans”. To date, almost two dozen Palestinian communities submitted master plans to the Israeli Civil Administration, and another 30 to 40 have expressed a desire to do so.

“The Israelis first, before the Palestinians, said in the final resolution… [that Area C] should return back to the Palestinian Authority,” said Hjouj. “So if the PA looks [to] this area as an integral part of its territory, and wants to help [its] communities in their essential needs – networks, roads, health and education – I think the Israeli party should collaborate in this.”

De facto Israeli annexation

In February, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu established a committee to determine the legality of Israeli settlement outposts in the West Bank. Known as the Levy Committee, it was composed of two Israeli former judges and an Israeli foreign ministry attorney, all major supporters of the settlement project.

The committee concluded that Israel was not an occupying power in the West Bank, that Israeli settlements were legal and that the government should legalise outposts. These findings have led many Israeli, Palestinian and international analysts to conclude that Israel is preparing to annex parts of the West Bank, namely Area C.

“They want to annex more land with less Palestinians and I think Area C gives them this opportunity,” said Shawan Jabarin, Director of Palestinian human rights group Al Haq. “They expanded their jurisdiction over the area by expanding Israeli laws on the settlers in that area, by expanding the authority and the responsibility of the Israeli official and government agencies. It’sde facto annexation.”

According to Mark Regev, spokesperson for the Israeli prime minister’s office, however, allegations that Israel is preparing to annex Area C are “ludicrous”.

“Do you really believe these conspiracy theories that Israel wants to depopulate area C? I mean, it’s rubbish,” Regev told Al Jazeera. “We are prepared to continue peace negotiations with the Palestinians and hopefully sign new agreements. But in the absence of signing new agreements, it’s clear that Israel remains to have jurisdiction in Area C.”

Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states, however, that the protected population of an occupied territory – in this case, the Palestinians – continue to be protected by the Convention regardless of “any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories [the Palestinian Authority] and the Occupying Power”.

“Any agreement with the Palestinian side doesn’t give [Israel] the right to annex the area,” Jabarin said. “That’s the main plan: less Palestinians and annex more land.”

Source: 

Al Jazeera