Legal Background Israel and Palestine
What national and international Laws govern the conflict? What of Geneva Conventions? UN resolutions? US Law?
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Yesh Gvul petitions court on assassinations
Yesh Gvul petitions court on assassinations: "Yesh Gvul petitions court on assassinations By Lily Galili Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Yesh Gvul, the draft resisters movement, as well as writers S. Yizhar, Sami Michael, Ronit Matalon, Natan Zach and Amos Keinan are bringing a petition to the High Court of Justice today asking the court to order the judge advocate general and the attorney general to investigate whether crimes were committed in the planning of the July 2002 Saleh Shehadeh assassination when a one-ton bomb was dropped on his Gaza house in a densely populated neighborhood, killing him, his aide and 15 Palestinian civilians, including 11 children.
...
... According to Yishai Menuhin, a Yesh Gvul leader, if the High Court does
not provide a satisfactory answer, the group intends to ask one of the international courts, such as in Ireland or Spain, where they deal with war crimes, to examine the issue
...
The judge advocate general (JAG) has already turned down a request from Yesh Gvul to investigate, and the attorney general's office turned down a similar request asking the attorney general to order JAG to investigate. "The military police investigate every loss of army equipment, or theft, but refuses to investigate who decided to drop a one-ton bomb in the heart of a crowded neighborhood and if indeed there was no other solution," said a Yesh Gvul spokesman.
Yesh Gvul petitions court on assassinations: "Yesh Gvul petitions court on assassinations By Lily Galili Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Yesh Gvul, the draft resisters movement, as well as writers S. Yizhar, Sami Michael, Ronit Matalon, Natan Zach and Amos Keinan are bringing a petition to the High Court of Justice today asking the court to order the judge advocate general and the attorney general to investigate whether crimes were committed in the planning of the July 2002 Saleh Shehadeh assassination when a one-ton bomb was dropped on his Gaza house in a densely populated neighborhood, killing him, his aide and 15 Palestinian civilians, including 11 children.
...
... According to Yishai Menuhin, a Yesh Gvul leader, if the High Court does
not provide a satisfactory answer, the group intends to ask one of the international courts, such as in Ireland or Spain, where they deal with war crimes, to examine the issue
...
The judge advocate general (JAG) has already turned down a request from Yesh Gvul to investigate, and the attorney general's office turned down a similar request asking the attorney general to order JAG to investigate. "The military police investigate every loss of army equipment, or theft, but refuses to investigate who decided to drop a one-ton bomb in the heart of a crowded neighborhood and if indeed there was no other solution," said a Yesh Gvul spokesman.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Fair terror trials vital, says [UK] attorney general [... any similar standard in Israel? assassination? ed.]
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Fair terror trials vital, says attorney general: "Fair terror trials vital, says attorney general Press Association Thursday September 18, 2003
The [UK] attorney general today hinted heavily at the kind of steps the US should take to avoid accusations that it is running prejudiced trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
Lord Goldsmith QC, the minister responsible for negotiating with the US over the future of the nine Britons at Camp Delta, made the comments in a speech to an International Bar Association conference in San Francisco.
...
The speech provides the clearest picture yet of negotiations that have taken place behind closed doors between Washington and London.
...
Certain rights were non-negotiable - such as the right to life and the prohibition on torture and on slavery, he added.
There could be no compromise on the principles of other rights, such as the presumption of innocence and a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, "even if we may recognise that there may sometimes be a need to guarantee these principles in new or different ways.
"We cannot allow our long established and hard won system of justice and of liberty to be swept away in the aftershock of a suicide bomb. Otherwise the terrorists will have robbed us of our freedoms and will have won."
He went on: "So those suspected of being terrorists are not outside the law, nor do they forfeit their fundamental rights by virtue of that fact.
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Fair terror trials vital, says attorney general: "Fair terror trials vital, says attorney general Press Association Thursday September 18, 2003
The [UK] attorney general today hinted heavily at the kind of steps the US should take to avoid accusations that it is running prejudiced trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
Lord Goldsmith QC, the minister responsible for negotiating with the US over the future of the nine Britons at Camp Delta, made the comments in a speech to an International Bar Association conference in San Francisco.
...
The speech provides the clearest picture yet of negotiations that have taken place behind closed doors between Washington and London.
...
Certain rights were non-negotiable - such as the right to life and the prohibition on torture and on slavery, he added.
There could be no compromise on the principles of other rights, such as the presumption of innocence and a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, "even if we may recognise that there may sometimes be a need to guarantee these principles in new or different ways.
"We cannot allow our long established and hard won system of justice and of liberty to be swept away in the aftershock of a suicide bomb. Otherwise the terrorists will have robbed us of our freedoms and will have won."
He went on: "So those suspected of being terrorists are not outside the law, nor do they forfeit their fundamental rights by virtue of that fact.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
United States vetoes U.N. resolution to protect Arafat
Excite News: "Palestinians Impute U.S. Veto on Arafat Sep 17, 8:22 AM (ET) By RANJAN ROY
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States vetoed a U.N. resolution that called on Israel to halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from the West Bank, saying it was 'lopsided' and didn't condemn terrorist groups attacking Israel.
...
The rejected draft resolution would have demanded "that Israel, the occupying power, desist from any act of deportation and to cease any threat to the safety of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority."
It would have condemned Israel's targeted assassinations of militant leaders and Palestinian suicide bombings, "all of which caused enormous suffering and many innocent victims." It would also have called for a cessation of "all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction."
...
The last veto of a Mideast resolution was also by the United States on Dec. 20, 2002 - an Arab-backed resolution condemning Israel for the killings of three U.N. workers that U.S. officials termed one-sided.
...
Excite News: "Palestinians Impute U.S. Veto on Arafat Sep 17, 8:22 AM (ET) By RANJAN ROY
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States vetoed a U.N. resolution that called on Israel to halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from the West Bank, saying it was 'lopsided' and didn't condemn terrorist groups attacking Israel.
...
The rejected draft resolution would have demanded "that Israel, the occupying power, desist from any act of deportation and to cease any threat to the safety of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority."
It would have condemned Israel's targeted assassinations of militant leaders and Palestinian suicide bombings, "all of which caused enormous suffering and many innocent victims." It would also have called for a cessation of "all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction."
...
The last veto of a Mideast resolution was also by the United States on Dec. 20, 2002 - an Arab-backed resolution condemning Israel for the killings of three U.N. workers that U.S. officials termed one-sided.
...
Friday, September 12, 2003
The legal obligations of an occupying power
Israel/Occupied Territories:Amnesty International's Human Rights Concerns: Surviving under siege:: "
The duties of an occupying power include:
Relief provided by others in no way relieves the occupying power of any of its responsibilities under Articles 55, 56 and 59 (Article 61, IV Geneva Convention).
An occupying power may NOT:
Israel/Occupied Territories:Amnesty International's Human Rights Concerns: Surviving under siege:: "
The duties of an occupying power include:
- treating the occupied population humanely at all times (Article 27, IV Geneva Convention);
- ensure the food and medical supplies of the occupied population (Article 55, IV Geneva Convention);
- ensure and maintain the medical services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, and ensuring that medical personnel of all categories can carry out their duties (Article 56, IV Geneva Convention);
- allow and facilitate relief for the occupied population (Article 59, IV Geneva Convention).
Relief provided by others in no way relieves the occupying power of any of its responsibilities under Articles 55, 56 and 59 (Article 61, IV Geneva Convention).
An occupying power may NOT:
- use collective punishment or intimidation against the occupied population (Article 33, IV Geneva Convention);
- forcibly transfer inhabitants of the occupied territory to its territory or elsewhere nor transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies (Article 49, IV Geneva Convention);
- take measures aiming at creating unemployment or at restricting employment opportunities in the occupied territory, in order to induce the occupied population to work for the occupying power (Article 52, IV Geneva Convention);
- destroy private or public property, except where absolutely necessary for military operations (Article 53, IV Geneva Convention);
- appropriating private or public property or natural resources, for which the occupying power shall be regarded only as administrator (Article 55, Hague Regulations).
Thursday, September 11, 2003
The Right to Return ... Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN rulings
Israel/Occupied Territories:Amnesty International's Human Rights Concerns for: "The Right to Return: The Case of the Palestinians
...
1. In line with international law, Amnesty International opposes forcible exile -- when a government forces individuals to leave their own country on account of their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs or by reason of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or other status, and then prohibits their return, or, if they are already outside their own country, prevents them from returning for the same reasons. Amnesty International also opposes deportation from territories under military occupation in all cases.
...
3. Among the key human rights principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the right to return. Article 13 of the UDHR states: ''Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.''
4. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the treaty which gives legal force to many of the rights proclaimed in the UDHR, codifies the right to return, stating in Article 12.4: ''No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.''
The case of the Palestinians
...Their right to return has been recognized by the United Nations since UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, which states:
''refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.''
...
13. The UN General Assembly in Resolution A/RES/51/129 of December 1996 affirms that ''Palestinian Arab refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of justice and equity''. It ''requests the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps... for the protection of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel and to preserve and modernize the existing records.'' Regarding Palestinians in exile since the 1967 war, the General Assembly resolved in Resolution A/RES/52/59 of December 1997 that it: ''Reaffirms the right of all persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.''
Israel/Occupied Territories:Amnesty International's Human Rights Concerns for: "The Right to Return: The Case of the Palestinians
...
1. In line with international law, Amnesty International opposes forcible exile -- when a government forces individuals to leave their own country on account of their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs or by reason of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or other status, and then prohibits their return, or, if they are already outside their own country, prevents them from returning for the same reasons. Amnesty International also opposes deportation from territories under military occupation in all cases.
...
3. Among the key human rights principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the right to return. Article 13 of the UDHR states: ''Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.''
4. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the treaty which gives legal force to many of the rights proclaimed in the UDHR, codifies the right to return, stating in Article 12.4: ''No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.''
The case of the Palestinians
...Their right to return has been recognized by the United Nations since UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, which states:
''refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.''
...
13. The UN General Assembly in Resolution A/RES/51/129 of December 1996 affirms that ''Palestinian Arab refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of justice and equity''. It ''requests the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps... for the protection of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel and to preserve and modernize the existing records.'' Regarding Palestinians in exile since the 1967 war, the General Assembly resolved in Resolution A/RES/52/59 of December 1997 that it: ''Reaffirms the right of all persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.''
[Israeli] positions ... particularly ... deviate significantly from what is called for by relevant international norms
THE ROLE OF LAW IN A PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI ACCOMMODATION By John Quigley (Professor of Law, Ohio State University. LL.B., M.A., Harvard University)
A tension runs through the Palestinian-Israeli efforts at accommodation, and its resolution may be key to the success of the endeavor. The tension is between solutions that are based on the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, on the one hand, and solutions that are deemed politically feasible, on the other. Ideally, the two would coincide, so that the parties could readily agree on terms that would be widely acknowledged as protecting the rights of all concerned.
The positions taken to date, however, particularly on the Israeli side, deviate significantly from what is called for by relevant international norms. As a result, the prospect looms of an agreement that will violate rights on the Palestinian side. Such an agreement would likely be challenged by Palestinians adversely affected, a challenge that could be expressed in an individual manner, as persons seek redress for themselves, or collectively, in the form of concerted political action in opposition to the agreement. If such challenges occur, the agreement will be in jeopardy, and violence is likely to result.
This Article explores the issues to be addressed in the final status negotiations between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. It examines the public position taken by each party on these issues and the legal norms relevant to them. It then examines the part played by the international community with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and in particular the international community's attitude to the role of legal norms. Finally, the Article seeks ways of implementing an approach that would maximize the conformity of the solutions reached to applicable legal norms.
THE ROLE OF LAW IN A PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI ACCOMMODATION By John Quigley (Professor of Law, Ohio State University. LL.B., M.A., Harvard University)
A tension runs through the Palestinian-Israeli efforts at accommodation, and its resolution may be key to the success of the endeavor. The tension is between solutions that are based on the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, on the one hand, and solutions that are deemed politically feasible, on the other. Ideally, the two would coincide, so that the parties could readily agree on terms that would be widely acknowledged as protecting the rights of all concerned.
The positions taken to date, however, particularly on the Israeli side, deviate significantly from what is called for by relevant international norms. As a result, the prospect looms of an agreement that will violate rights on the Palestinian side. Such an agreement would likely be challenged by Palestinians adversely affected, a challenge that could be expressed in an individual manner, as persons seek redress for themselves, or collectively, in the form of concerted political action in opposition to the agreement. If such challenges occur, the agreement will be in jeopardy, and violence is likely to result.
This Article explores the issues to be addressed in the final status negotiations between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. It examines the public position taken by each party on these issues and the legal norms relevant to them. It then examines the part played by the international community with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and in particular the international community's attitude to the role of legal norms. Finally, the Article seeks ways of implementing an approach that would maximize the conformity of the solutions reached to applicable legal norms.
Palestinian resistance to occupation is a legally protected right
"International Law and the al-Aqsa Intifada," by Richard Falk Winter 2000
... Palestinian resistance to occupation is a legally protected right. For 33 years, Israel has administered a military occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem in consistent and relentless defiance of the overwhelming will of the organized international community. The international consensus has been expressed through widely supported resolutions passed by the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations (hereafter UNSC and UNGA). UN Resolutions 242 and 338 affirmed the legal obligation of Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories obtained in the 1967 Six Day War. This must be the end point of any peace process that can bring lasting peace. Until such time as Israel respects this obligation, the relevant principles of international law are contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (August 12, 1949), in particular those provisions of the Convention that require an occupying power to protect the status quo, human rights and prospects for self-determination of the occupied people, and oblige all signatories to enforce the Convention in the face of "grave breaches." Since 1967 and during the current uprising, Israel has refused to accept this framework of legal obligations. Its refusal has been pronounced, blatant and undisguised. Not onl¥ has Israel failed to withdraw from the Occupied Territories, during the occupation Israel has "created facts" -- heavily armed settlements, bypass roads and security zones in the midst of a future Palestinian state -- that seriously compromise basic Palestinian rights.
...
...
As long as Israel maintains its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, it is bound to respect the fundamental human rights of the Palestinian people under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva IV). Geneva IV imposes an underlying obligation on an occupying power to protect the civilian population as specified in considerable detail in Articles 47-78. Of particular importance is Article 47 that affirms "the inviolability of rights" granted to the civilian population that can in no circumstances be suspended or evaded. Article 49 has been interpreted as prohibiting both forced deportations of Palestinians and population transfers of the sort associated with the establishment and continuous expansion of Israeli settlements. Article 50 imposes a special burden on the occupying power to protect children from the effects of war and accompanying hardships. ...
...
Richard Falk Albert G. Milibank Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University and author of Human Rights Horizons [London: Routledge, 2000]
"International Law and the al-Aqsa Intifada," by Richard Falk Winter 2000
... Palestinian resistance to occupation is a legally protected right. For 33 years, Israel has administered a military occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem in consistent and relentless defiance of the overwhelming will of the organized international community. The international consensus has been expressed through widely supported resolutions passed by the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations (hereafter UNSC and UNGA). UN Resolutions 242 and 338 affirmed the legal obligation of Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories obtained in the 1967 Six Day War. This must be the end point of any peace process that can bring lasting peace. Until such time as Israel respects this obligation, the relevant principles of international law are contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (August 12, 1949), in particular those provisions of the Convention that require an occupying power to protect the status quo, human rights and prospects for self-determination of the occupied people, and oblige all signatories to enforce the Convention in the face of "grave breaches." Since 1967 and during the current uprising, Israel has refused to accept this framework of legal obligations. Its refusal has been pronounced, blatant and undisguised. Not onl¥ has Israel failed to withdraw from the Occupied Territories, during the occupation Israel has "created facts" -- heavily armed settlements, bypass roads and security zones in the midst of a future Palestinian state -- that seriously compromise basic Palestinian rights.
...
- UNGA Resolution 181 (II) concerning the Future Government of Palestine (November 29, 1947) establishes the parity of the two peoples with respect to their respective rights to establish states on the former mandated territory of Palestine, and the duty of both states to respect both minorities and the special juridical status of Jerusalem.
- UNGA Resolution 194 (III) (December 11, 1948) affirms the right of Palestinians to return to their original homes and lands, and to receive compensation for any losses incurred, as well as the right of resettlement for those Palestinian refugees choosing not to return, and compensation for their losses. The UN established the UN Conciliation Commission to uphold the rights of Palestinian refugees.
- UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 (November 22, 1967 and October 22, 1973) require Israeli withdrawal from territory occupied during the 1967 and 1973 wars, and call for a just settlement of the refugee problem."
- UNGA Resolution 34/70 (December 6, 1979) asserts the need for any solution of the conflict to be in accordance with the right of self-determination, regardless of what the parties might negotiate.
- UNGA Resolution 43/177 (December 15, 1988) acknowledges the 1988 Palestinian proclamation of a Palestinian state as consistent with UNGA Resolution 181.
- UNSC Resolutions 476, 480 and 1322 (June 30, 1980, November 12, 1980 and October 7, 2000) reaffirm the basic principle of international and UN law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by force or conquest, as well as the unconditional applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the civilian population of occupied territory.
...
As long as Israel maintains its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, it is bound to respect the fundamental human rights of the Palestinian people under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva IV). Geneva IV imposes an underlying obligation on an occupying power to protect the civilian population as specified in considerable detail in Articles 47-78. Of particular importance is Article 47 that affirms "the inviolability of rights" granted to the civilian population that can in no circumstances be suspended or evaded. Article 49 has been interpreted as prohibiting both forced deportations of Palestinians and population transfers of the sort associated with the establishment and continuous expansion of Israeli settlements. Article 50 imposes a special burden on the occupying power to protect children from the effects of war and accompanying hardships. ...
...
Richard Falk Albert G. Milibank Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University and author of Human Rights Horizons [London: Routledge, 2000]
Monday, September 08, 2003
Court rules to permit Israeli army's use of flechette shells
THE HANDSTAND: "Israeli High Court rules to permit Israeli army's use of flechette shells
PCHR, report,
As further evidence of the seemingly unconditional support of the Israeli judiciary for the Israeli military and its actions, the Israeli High Court this morning issued a decision effectively permitting the Israeli military�s use of flechette anti-personnel tank shells against Palestinian civilians.
In their decision, the judges rejected a petition submitted by PCHR and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel which demanded an absolute prohibition on the use of flechette tank shells, which are being used with increasing frequency by Israeli occupying forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, particularly in the Gaza Strip.
International humanitarian law prohibits the use of weapons that are indiscriminate, and classifies indiscriminate attacks that cause excessive suffering to civilians, as a war crime. Flechette tank shells are designed specifically to injure or kill as many persons as possible within as wide an area as possible. They cannot be directed at a specific target, and therefore cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets. They are an intentionally indiscriminate weapon and as such their use in civilian populated areas is prohibited. "
THE HANDSTAND: "Israeli High Court rules to permit Israeli army's use of flechette shells
PCHR, report,
As further evidence of the seemingly unconditional support of the Israeli judiciary for the Israeli military and its actions, the Israeli High Court this morning issued a decision effectively permitting the Israeli military�s use of flechette anti-personnel tank shells against Palestinian civilians.
In their decision, the judges rejected a petition submitted by PCHR and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel which demanded an absolute prohibition on the use of flechette tank shells, which are being used with increasing frequency by Israeli occupying forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, particularly in the Gaza Strip.
International humanitarian law prohibits the use of weapons that are indiscriminate, and classifies indiscriminate attacks that cause excessive suffering to civilians, as a war crime. Flechette tank shells are designed specifically to injure or kill as many persons as possible within as wide an area as possible. They cannot be directed at a specific target, and therefore cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets. They are an intentionally indiscriminate weapon and as such their use in civilian populated areas is prohibited. "
Old Ottoman law used by Israel to confiscate Palestinian territory
Telegraph | News | Model community split by a fence (Filed: 02/August/2003)
...
More than 2,200 acres of land belonging to Jayous are now on the wrong side of the fence, including six wells.
...
The people of Jayous, about 25 miles north-east of Tel Aviv, say it will be a recruiting sergeant for extremists.
...
More than 40 families from the village are now camping on their plots, fearful that one day the gates will be locked shut - which is likely to happen if any terrorist uses them to enter Israel - and they will never be allowed to return to their land.
Under an old Ottoman law used by Israel to confiscate Palestinian territory, farmland not used for three years reverts to the Sultan - that is to Israel, the occupying power.
Telegraph | News | Model community split by a fence (Filed: 02/August/2003)
...
More than 2,200 acres of land belonging to Jayous are now on the wrong side of the fence, including six wells.
...
The people of Jayous, about 25 miles north-east of Tel Aviv, say it will be a recruiting sergeant for extremists.
...
More than 40 families from the village are now camping on their plots, fearful that one day the gates will be locked shut - which is likely to happen if any terrorist uses them to enter Israel - and they will never be allowed to return to their land.
Under an old Ottoman law used by Israel to confiscate Palestinian territory, farmland not used for three years reverts to the Sultan - that is to Israel, the occupying power.
Saturday, September 06, 2003
United States should tie aid to Israel to Israel's respect for human rights
Boston Globe Online / Editorials | Opinions / US 'tough love' needed toward Israel By Edmund R. Hanauer, 1/20/2003
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. Bush's double standard on the cycle of Palestinian and Israeli violence and terror is clear: He says that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a ''man of peace,'' while Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat should be replaced by a ''Palestinian leadership not compromised by terror.''
Bush's stance has strengthened extremists on both sides, undercut moderates, and given Sharon a blank check to continue Israeli violence and settlement expansion. This makes it harder for Arafat to condemn, let alone prevent, Palestinian violence without appearing to be a collaborator with the Israeli occupation - especially since Sharon is unwilling to make the concessions Arafat needs to curb violence without bringing on civil war among Palestinians.
While Bush denounces Palestinian terrorism and Saddam Hussein for violating the rights of Iraqis, his silence on Israeli violations of Palestinian rights is deafening. According to B'Tselem, Israel's leading human rights group, Israel has violated 29 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its treatment of 3 million Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
The 200,000 Palestinian Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem suffer ''dispossession [and] systematic discrimination'' under Israeli rule, B'Tselem has reported.
The Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands, is violated by numerous Israeli policies: exile, torture and beatings, collective punishment, seizure of land and water resources, the settling of hundreds of thousands of Jews on confiscated land, the destruction of thousands of homes as well as olive and citrus trees, and denial of access to employment, medical care, education, water, and food. In December 2001, 114 signatories of the Geneva Convention, meeting in Geneva, reaffirmed that the convention applies to Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands, that Jewish settlements violate the convention, and that Israel should cease ''grave breaches'' of the convention, including ''willful killing, torture, collective penalties, and unlawful deportation'' (''grave breaches'' are defined as war crimes). Israel and the United States, both signatories, boycotted the meeting. Israel, alone, denies the applicability of the convention.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights groups have determined that Israel, under both Labor and Likud parties, has been guilty of war crimes in its treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs. Recognition of the brutality of the occupation has led over 600 Israeli army reservists to declare that they ''shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve, and humiliate an entire people.'' While Arafat's ability to stop Palestinian violence is doubtful - especially given Israel's destruction of Arafat's security forces - violence by Israel's army, Jewish settlers, and prison authorities is the direct result of Israeli governmental policies and could be ended immediately.
Along with demanding that Arafat prevent violence, Bush should insist that Sharon arrest, jail, and prosecute Israeli soldiers who, according to human rights groups, use ''excessive force'' against Palestinian civilians, resulting in hundreds of unnecessary deaths, including scores of children. Veteran foreign correspondent Chris Hedges visited Gaza in 2001 and reported in Harper's magazine that Israeli soldiers were killing Palestinian children ''for sport.'' Sharon should also be urged to end the systematic torture of thousands of Palestinian prisoners, and to punish all Jewish settlers who physically attack and shoot at Palestinians, as well as destroy their crops, orchards, and wells. Israeli soldiers and settlers who terrorize Palestinians should receive prison sentences as severe as those meted out to Palestinian terrorists.
Because US governmental support of $3 billion yearly enables Israel to commit these crimes in violation of international law and scores of UN resolutions, the United States is complicit in those crimes and violations. The sooner the United States ties aid to Israel to Israel's respect for human rights, the sooner Israel will withdraw from all the occupied Palestinian lands and allow Palestinians to have a viable independent state alongside Israel.
If the Bush administration opposes all, not some, terrorism, supports human rights, a strengthened UN, and international law, seeks to undermine, not increase, the appeal of anti-American terrorists, and wants to save Israeli lives by reconciling Israel with her Arab neighbors, then it is time the United States practiced ''tough love'' with Israel.
[Edmund R. Hanauer is an American Jewish human-rights activist and director of Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel,a Boston-based human rights group].
This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 1/20/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
[ Send this story to a friend | Easy-print version | Search archives ]
Boston Globe Online / Editorials | Opinions / US 'tough love' needed toward Israel By Edmund R. Hanauer, 1/20/2003
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. Bush's double standard on the cycle of Palestinian and Israeli violence and terror is clear: He says that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a ''man of peace,'' while Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat should be replaced by a ''Palestinian leadership not compromised by terror.''
Bush's stance has strengthened extremists on both sides, undercut moderates, and given Sharon a blank check to continue Israeli violence and settlement expansion. This makes it harder for Arafat to condemn, let alone prevent, Palestinian violence without appearing to be a collaborator with the Israeli occupation - especially since Sharon is unwilling to make the concessions Arafat needs to curb violence without bringing on civil war among Palestinians.
While Bush denounces Palestinian terrorism and Saddam Hussein for violating the rights of Iraqis, his silence on Israeli violations of Palestinian rights is deafening. According to B'Tselem, Israel's leading human rights group, Israel has violated 29 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its treatment of 3 million Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
The 200,000 Palestinian Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem suffer ''dispossession [and] systematic discrimination'' under Israeli rule, B'Tselem has reported.
The Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands, is violated by numerous Israeli policies: exile, torture and beatings, collective punishment, seizure of land and water resources, the settling of hundreds of thousands of Jews on confiscated land, the destruction of thousands of homes as well as olive and citrus trees, and denial of access to employment, medical care, education, water, and food. In December 2001, 114 signatories of the Geneva Convention, meeting in Geneva, reaffirmed that the convention applies to Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands, that Jewish settlements violate the convention, and that Israel should cease ''grave breaches'' of the convention, including ''willful killing, torture, collective penalties, and unlawful deportation'' (''grave breaches'' are defined as war crimes). Israel and the United States, both signatories, boycotted the meeting. Israel, alone, denies the applicability of the convention.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights groups have determined that Israel, under both Labor and Likud parties, has been guilty of war crimes in its treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs. Recognition of the brutality of the occupation has led over 600 Israeli army reservists to declare that they ''shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve, and humiliate an entire people.'' While Arafat's ability to stop Palestinian violence is doubtful - especially given Israel's destruction of Arafat's security forces - violence by Israel's army, Jewish settlers, and prison authorities is the direct result of Israeli governmental policies and could be ended immediately.
Along with demanding that Arafat prevent violence, Bush should insist that Sharon arrest, jail, and prosecute Israeli soldiers who, according to human rights groups, use ''excessive force'' against Palestinian civilians, resulting in hundreds of unnecessary deaths, including scores of children. Veteran foreign correspondent Chris Hedges visited Gaza in 2001 and reported in Harper's magazine that Israeli soldiers were killing Palestinian children ''for sport.'' Sharon should also be urged to end the systematic torture of thousands of Palestinian prisoners, and to punish all Jewish settlers who physically attack and shoot at Palestinians, as well as destroy their crops, orchards, and wells. Israeli soldiers and settlers who terrorize Palestinians should receive prison sentences as severe as those meted out to Palestinian terrorists.
Because US governmental support of $3 billion yearly enables Israel to commit these crimes in violation of international law and scores of UN resolutions, the United States is complicit in those crimes and violations. The sooner the United States ties aid to Israel to Israel's respect for human rights, the sooner Israel will withdraw from all the occupied Palestinian lands and allow Palestinians to have a viable independent state alongside Israel.
If the Bush administration opposes all, not some, terrorism, supports human rights, a strengthened UN, and international law, seeks to undermine, not increase, the appeal of anti-American terrorists, and wants to save Israeli lives by reconciling Israel with her Arab neighbors, then it is time the United States practiced ''tough love'' with Israel.
[Edmund R. Hanauer is an American Jewish human-rights activist and director of Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel,a Boston-based human rights group].
This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 1/20/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
[ Send this story to a friend | Easy-print version | Search archives ]
Was Israel's assassination of Salah Shehada a war crime and, if so, can any court try it?
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | John Jones: Toothless in Gaza By John Jones, Saturday July 27, 2002
Israel's 'targeted killing' of the head of the military wing of Hamas in Gaza this week unleashed a storm of protest, for the missile fired into a densely packed residential block at midnight killed not only Salah Shehada but also 15 other people, including nine children, and injured some 150 others. The result could hardly have been unexpected.
The Bush administration and other governments have criticised the attack for the effect it would have on the tottering 'peace process'.
...
The position of the international community on extra-judicial killings was summarised by Sir Crispin Tickell, the UK's former permanent representative to the United Nations, in relation to the assassination by Israelis of Abu Jihad: "it is a betrayal of the natural expectation of the international community that governments will uphold the rule of law."
Coexisting with the laws of war is international human rights law, which applies at all times. This body of law is set out in particular in the international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR), to which Israel is a party. Human rights law applies during military occupation, so Palestinians in the occupied territories fall within the ambit of Israel's human rights obligations. The right to life is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the ICCPR. It is considered so fundamental that no derogation is permitted, even when there is a "public emergency which threatens the life of the nation".
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | John Jones: Toothless in Gaza By John Jones, Saturday July 27, 2002
Israel's 'targeted killing' of the head of the military wing of Hamas in Gaza this week unleashed a storm of protest, for the missile fired into a densely packed residential block at midnight killed not only Salah Shehada but also 15 other people, including nine children, and injured some 150 others. The result could hardly have been unexpected.
The Bush administration and other governments have criticised the attack for the effect it would have on the tottering 'peace process'.
...
The position of the international community on extra-judicial killings was summarised by Sir Crispin Tickell, the UK's former permanent representative to the United Nations, in relation to the assassination by Israelis of Abu Jihad: "it is a betrayal of the natural expectation of the international community that governments will uphold the rule of law."
Coexisting with the laws of war is international human rights law, which applies at all times. This body of law is set out in particular in the international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR), to which Israel is a party. Human rights law applies during military occupation, so Palestinians in the occupied territories fall within the ambit of Israel's human rights obligations. The right to life is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the ICCPR. It is considered so fundamental that no derogation is permitted, even when there is a "public emergency which threatens the life of the nation".
Thursday, September 04, 2003
UN report details West Bank wreckage
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | UN report details West Bank wreckage | UN report details West Bank wreckage | Banned by Israel, Kofi Annan's fact-finders were left with only second-hand accounts of the spring invasion | Brian Whitaker | Friday August 2, 2002
The UN released yesterday its report on events during the Israeli offensive in the West Bank last spring.
The report is all that remains of what was originally intended as a detailed fact-finding mission backed by the UN security council.
After initially agreeing to cooperate, Israel objected to members of the fact-finding team and then imposed a series of conditions which led the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, to call off the mission. "
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | UN report details West Bank wreckage | UN report details West Bank wreckage | Banned by Israel, Kofi Annan's fact-finders were left with only second-hand accounts of the spring invasion | Brian Whitaker | Friday August 2, 2002
The UN released yesterday its report on events during the Israeli offensive in the West Bank last spring.
The report is all that remains of what was originally intended as a detailed fact-finding mission backed by the UN security council.
After initially agreeing to cooperate, Israel objected to members of the fact-finding team and then imposed a series of conditions which led the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, to call off the mission. "
Still waiting for No 242 ...
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Comment: Paul Foot on UN resolutions | Still waiting for No 242 | Paul Foot | Wednesday November 13, 2002
... My father, Hugh Foot, later Lord Caradon ... By far his proudest achievement was as UK representative to the UN in 1967 when he managed, after five months of delicate and dedicated negotiation, to persuade all 15 members of the security council to vote for resolution 242. He had the photograph of the vote framed, and it sat proudly on his desk until he died in 1990.
Resolution 242 referred to the seizure and occupation in the 1967 six-day war by Israeli military forces of lots of other countries' land inhabited in the main by Palestinians. Resolution 242 called for the 'withdrawal of Israel's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict'. The terms of the resolution have been hotly debated ever since. Clever pro-Israeli lawyers observe that the word 'all' does not appear in the text before the words 'territories occupied'; and that therefore the resolution leaves it open to Israeli forces to withdraw only from 'some', not all, of the occupied territories. So I was very glad to read an article in last month's International and Comparative Law Quarterly by the London solicitor John McHugo. He meticulously and comprehensively demolishes what he calls "the rightwing interpretation" of the resolution. "
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Comment: Paul Foot on UN resolutions | Still waiting for No 242 | Paul Foot | Wednesday November 13, 2002
... My father, Hugh Foot, later Lord Caradon ... By far his proudest achievement was as UK representative to the UN in 1967 when he managed, after five months of delicate and dedicated negotiation, to persuade all 15 members of the security council to vote for resolution 242. He had the photograph of the vote framed, and it sat proudly on his desk until he died in 1990.
Resolution 242 referred to the seizure and occupation in the 1967 six-day war by Israeli military forces of lots of other countries' land inhabited in the main by Palestinians. Resolution 242 called for the 'withdrawal of Israel's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict'. The terms of the resolution have been hotly debated ever since. Clever pro-Israeli lawyers observe that the word 'all' does not appear in the text before the words 'territories occupied'; and that therefore the resolution leaves it open to Israeli forces to withdraw only from 'some', not all, of the occupied territories. So I was very glad to read an article in last month's International and Comparative Law Quarterly by the London solicitor John McHugo. He meticulously and comprehensively demolishes what he calls "the rightwing interpretation" of the resolution. "
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Commander charged with torturing Palestinian boy
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Commander charged with torturing Palestinian boy, Chris McGreal Tuesday October 22, 2002
An Israeli army commander has been relieved of his post after being charged with torturing a young Palestinian boy in Bethlehem while interrogating him as to the whereabouts of his father.
Lieutenant Colonel Geva Saguy is awaiting a court martial on several charges, including ordering the boy to strip naked, holding a burning paper under his testicles, threatening to ram a bottle into his anus and threatening to shoot him. The boy's name and age have not been revealed. "
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Commander charged with torturing Palestinian boy, Chris McGreal Tuesday October 22, 2002
An Israeli army commander has been relieved of his post after being charged with torturing a young Palestinian boy in Bethlehem while interrogating him as to the whereabouts of his father.
Lieutenant Colonel Geva Saguy is awaiting a court martial on several charges, including ordering the boy to strip naked, holding a burning paper under his testicles, threatening to ram a bottle into his anus and threatening to shoot him. The boy's name and age have not been revealed. "
What's illegal: occupation or refusal to serve? Ha'aretz - Article By Moshe Gorali
Ha'aretz - Article
Tomorrow the High Court of Justice will discuss the petition of eight men who refused to report for reserve duty, who want a ruling that their refusal is legal, because since the Al Aqsa Intifada, the occupation and IDF [Israel Defense Forces] activities in the territories are what is illegal. The appeal was submitted after IDF Attorney General Major General Menahem Finkelstein refused to accept this argument and to cancel the indictments against them for disciplinary infractions: non-compliance with an order and refusing an order.
...
The main argument in the petition, which is spread out over 26 pages, is that the occupation has become illegal during the past two years, and therefore, orders aimed at supporting and continuing it should not be obeyed
...
War crimes
The results of this denial of responsibility, the petition claims, have reached the point of war crimes, expressed in the targeted assassinations during which dozens of passersby have been killed, in the destruction of homes and orchards, in the harm done to medical teams, in the abuse at checkpoints, in the hunger, unemployment and economic ruin that are caused as a result of collective punishment such as curfews, closures and encirclements. In addition, the petition claims, "IDF soldiers are now exposed to standing trial in the International Criminal Court [ICC] in The Hague."
Ha'aretz - Article
Tomorrow the High Court of Justice will discuss the petition of eight men who refused to report for reserve duty, who want a ruling that their refusal is legal, because since the Al Aqsa Intifada, the occupation and IDF [Israel Defense Forces] activities in the territories are what is illegal. The appeal was submitted after IDF Attorney General Major General Menahem Finkelstein refused to accept this argument and to cancel the indictments against them for disciplinary infractions: non-compliance with an order and refusing an order.
...
The main argument in the petition, which is spread out over 26 pages, is that the occupation has become illegal during the past two years, and therefore, orders aimed at supporting and continuing it should not be obeyed
...
War crimes
The results of this denial of responsibility, the petition claims, have reached the point of war crimes, expressed in the targeted assassinations during which dozens of passersby have been killed, in the destruction of homes and orchards, in the harm done to medical teams, in the abuse at checkpoints, in the hunger, unemployment and economic ruin that are caused as a result of collective punishment such as curfews, closures and encirclements. In addition, the petition claims, "IDF soldiers are now exposed to standing trial in the International Criminal Court [ICC] in The Hague."
Security Council resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities
Security Council OKs Mideast Measure Excite News
Sep 24, 6:43 AM (ET) By DAFNA LINZER
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States decided not to veto a Security Council resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities, clearing the way for its passage early Tuesday and handing a diplomatic victory to the Palestinians.
The resolution, which passed 14-0 with America abstaining, was negotiated by the European Union and cobbled together with language from competing U.S. and Arab proposals. "
Security Council OKs Mideast Measure Excite News
Sep 24, 6:43 AM (ET) By DAFNA LINZER
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States decided not to veto a Security Council resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities, clearing the way for its passage early Tuesday and handing a diplomatic victory to the Palestinians.
The resolution, which passed 14-0 with America abstaining, was negotiated by the European Union and cobbled together with language from competing U.S. and Arab proposals. "
