Jerusalem Under Barak
- Part
1
January 2001
(This report is published by the Palestinian
Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment. It is a
non-governmental organization dedicated to preserving human rights through legal
advocacy. It is affiliate to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ),
Fédération Internationale des Ligues de Droits de l’Homme (FIDH), World Organization
Against Torture (OMCT) and Member of the Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights
Network).
This
Brief is intended to highlight settlement expansion and house demolitions, which
occurred in East Jerusalem during the period of Ehud Barak’s tenure as Prime
Minister of the State of Israel. The Brief is set within the context of
international humanitarian law.
Background
Concerning
Jerusalem, according to unconfirmed reports, the Israeli negotiators posited two
principle “concessions”:
· The handing over of East Jerusalem’s northern suburbs to the Palestinian Authority,
·
Devolved administration in the central areas of East
Jerusalem to Palestinian bodies.
It
was also proposed that Israel would divide up the administration of the Old
City, with the Palestinian Authority having control over the Muslim and
Christian Quarters while Israel would retain control over the Jewish and
Armenian Quarters. In all the scenarios discussed, Israel would retain over all
sovereignty and security control. Israeli proposals on East Jerusalem were
rejected by the Palestinian negotiators.
Though, this was the first time that an Israeli government
had been party to negotiations about the future of Jerusalem, a closer look at
Barak’s proposals illustrated the hollowness of the Israeli “concessions”.
Barak was effectively offering autonomy to Palestinians in East Jerusalem where
de facto autonomy already exists. The noted scholar on Jerusalem, Michael
Dumper, is correct in his assessment when he stated that in most Palestinian
neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, the Israeli State is only visible in its
restrictive planning laws and in the presence of its security personnel. The
Palestinians are already autonomous in such areas as their school curriculum and
the administration of the Haram compound. Many Palestinian residents also
receive social services from Palestinian bodies like Orient House and many
Palestinian officials act as mediators in personal disputes. Moreover, the vast majority of the City’s Palestinian
residents get their electrical power from the Palestinian owned East Jerusalem
Electrical Company and water in the northern suburbs is supplied by the Ramallah
water under taking. Palestinian Authority security operatives are also active in
East Jerusalem, with the knowledge of the Israeli authorities. To quote Dumper,
“the Israeli concessions are illusionary when measured against the realities
on the ground”.
What is particularly noteworthy is during the negotiations
there was apparently little reference to international law on the part of the
Israeli negotiators and the American “mediators” and certainly no
acknowledgement of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to The Protection Of
Civilian Persons In Time Of War Of August 12, 1949 as a guiding principle. On
the issue of Jerusalem, Israel has sovereignty in neither east nor west
Jerusalem, merely administrative control, which in East Jerusalem should be
governed by the provisions on belligerent occupation which are an integral part
of international humanitarian law. It is not for Israel nor the Americans to
demand concessions from the Palestinians, rather, it is for Israel to abide by
the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law and comply with the
relevant United Nations resolutions, particularly Security Council resolutions
242 and 338 and United Nations General Assembly resolution 194.
Nonetheless, Barak’s supposed “concessions” were received positively by the international community and this was clearly evident in the reception Barak received at the U.N. Millenium Summit in September 2000. However, this international perception belies a reality that has seen the expansion of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories continue at an alarming rate and the continuation of efforts to strengthen Israeli control over occupied East Jerusalem. Since Barak took office in July 1999, construction has started on an estimated 1,924 new residential units in the Occupied Territories and in the first half of 2000, settlement construction grew by 96%. Even more alarmingly, the Barak administration has already budgeted 292 million US $ for the settlements for the year 2001.
From what can be gathered from statements and from
unconfirmed reports concerning Israel’s negotiating position at Camp David,
Barak was committed to winning international acceptance of Israeli sovereignty
over the Haram al Sharif and much of East Jerusalem, and was determined to keep
Israel’s strategic control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip including
airspace, land borders, settlements and their transport routes to and from
Israel. As an example, the
settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, which is the largest in the West Bank and which
Israel plans to annex as part of a final status agreement, will ensure that
Israel will be able to control all traffic between the north and south of the
West Bank. Under the proposed agreement at Camp David, large Jewish settlement
blocs in the Occupied Territories would be annexed to Israel. Moreover,
Barak’s supposed “concessions” on Jerusalem would result in the expansion
of Jerusalem’s boundaries deep into Palestinian territory with the annexation
of settlements like Givat Ze’ev to Jerusalem.
Barak, like his immediate Labour party predecessors Yitzhak
Rabin and Shimon Peres, is attempting to use the Oslo process as a means to
consolidate Israeli control over the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is
note worthy that an unprecedented expansion of the settlements occurred during
Rabin’s tenure, particularly in the Jerusalem region. The controversial
decision to start construction work on the Har Homa settlement on Jabel Abu
Ghneim as well as the expansion of the Ma’ale Adumim settlement, though
carried out by the Netanyahu administration, were actually prepared by the
previous Labour government.
Moreover, what is particularly striking, is that since the
signing of the Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements
in September 1993, there has been a marked increase in the number of settlers
residing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. At the time of the signing of
the accords, the settler population, excluding those residing in East Jerusalem
numbered 110,000; in June of 2000 the population had reached 195,000. The
settler population in East Jerusalem is at present estimated to be 170,000.
Bearing this in mind, there exists a serious misperception on
the part of the international community and many commentators on the role of the
Labour party in the peace process. This invariably impacts on the increasingly
systematic denial of the most elementary rights of the Palestinian people. An
example was the non-meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva
Convention in June 1999. The meeting came in the wake of the deteriorating peace
process under the Netanyahu administration and Israel’s reluctance to
implement in full the Wye River Memorandum of the 23 October 1998. What was
particularly significant about the meeting was the intention to focus on ways to
force Israel to comply with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
However, the electoral victory of Barak in May 1999 led to a decision to meet
symbolically and not to pursue the conference’s original aim. Many of the High
Contracting Parties were lukewarm about such a conference and some were
vehemently opposed. In the end Barak’s victory at the polls and his endless
declarations that no stone would be left on turn in the search for peace led to
a loss of political will among many of the High Contracting Parties to pursue
the original objectives of the conference and hence the symbolic non-meeting.
The outbreak of the Al Aqsa intifada on the 28 September 2000
in the wake of Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Haram compound only highlighted the
sensitivity of the Jerusalem issue in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The
conflict that engulfed the region pursuant to Sharon’s visit to the compound
spawned a number of negotiation attempts to de-escalate the volatile situation
and return to the final status negotiations. All of these attempts, including
the most recent Clinton initiative of early January 2001 have so far failed to
resolve the outstanding issues between the parties.
The Clinton initiative touched on many of the outstanding
issues in the conflict, including Jerusalem. According to unconfirmed reports,
concerning East Jerusalem, Clinton articulated the position that Arab areas are
Palestinian and Jewish areas are Israeli. Apparently, the American formulation
provided for formal Palestinian control over the Haram al Sharif and Israeli
control over the Wailing Wall. Clinton’s formulations did not appear to be
detailed and no maps were presented to the parties carefully illustrating how
the territorial carve up would look on the ground. Israel accepted the proposals
while the PLO gave a conditional acceptance to the Americans with an extensive
list of reservations. The proposals in question are problematic in many
respects. The reference to Israeli areas refers to settlements that have been
established in East Jerusalem by Israel. The settlements, coupled with
Israel’s planning policies in the city, has to a large extent destroyed any
contiguity between the Arab neighbourhoods. In contrast, the Israeli authorities
have invested considerable efforts to create contiguity between the Jewish
settlements and Israeli controlled West Jerusalem. Moreover, the annexing of the
“Greater Jerusalem” settlements to Israel would have an adverse effect on
East Jerusalem and any Palestinian state that emerges on the West Bank as
highlighted above. If the proposals are formally adopted and accepted by the
international community, it would be a breach of the inter-state obligations of
the Fourth Geneva Convention as it is detrimental to the rights of protected
persons. The State Parties to the Convention are under an obligation to ensure
that the rights of protected persons are not violated, even in a peace
agreement.
The
aforementioned diplomatic initiatives have as their backdrop the looming Israeli
elections scheduled to be held on the 6 February 2001, with the main contenders
being the sitting Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and Likud head Ariel Sharon.
Sharon’s record vis-à-vis the Palestinians is well known. Barak however, is
still portraying his candidacy within the context of some sort of rapprochement
with the Palestinians.
The
Continuing Infraction of International
Human Rights & Humanitarian Law:
East
Jerusalem is subject to the laws of belligerent occupation and the Palestinian
Arab residents of the city are regarded as protected persons under the Fourth
Geneva Convention. The 1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs
of War on Land (Hague Regulations) is also applicable. Article 42 of the Hague
Regulations defines occupation: “Territory is
considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the
hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority
has been established and can be exercised.” Article 4 of the
Geneva Civilians Convention defines protected persons as: “those
who at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves in case of
conflict or occupation in the hands of a Party to the conflict or occupying
power of which they are not nationals.”
International humanitarian law places upon the occupying
power certain legal obligations. The belligerent occupant is obliged to refrain
from annexing any part of the territory occupied and must also refrain from
settling its own citizens in occupied territory. The occupying power is also
obliged to ensure the well being of the occupied population and to refrain from
introducing its own laws to govern the lives of the population under occupation.
Both article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and article 43 of the Hague
Regulations require the occupying power to respect the penal legislation in
force at the commencement of the occupation. The existing laws of the land are
regarded as valid, regardless of the occupation. The occupying power is also
obliged under the laws of belligerent occupation to refrain from confiscating
land in occupied territory. Article 46 of the Hague Regulations expressly
stipulates that private property must be respected. Private property cannot be
confiscated. Under the general rules of belligerent occupation, the occupant
does not acquire any sovereignty over territory, it merely exercises de facto
control. The occupation is regarded as a provisional situation and hence the
rights of the occupant over territory are transitory.
Under the Fourth Geneva
Convention, “The occupation of territory in
wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the
occupied power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty; it merely
interferes with its power to exercise its rights. That is what distinguishes
occupation from annexation…Consequently, occupation as a result of war, while
representing the actual possession to all appearances, cannot imply any right
whatsoever to dispose of territories.” (Commentaries on the
Fourth Geneva Convention Jean Pictat)
Israel
continues to systematically violate international humanitarian law. The ongoing
settlement expansion in East Jerusalem violates article 49, which prohibits an
occupying power from transferring its own citizens to occupied territory. This
specific infraction of international humanitarian law is included in the 1998
Rome Statute of the soon to be established International Criminal Court. Though
the Statute has a retroactive clause implying that crimes committed before the
formal establishment of the Court would not be admissible, if the two parties to
the conflict fail to reach an agreement before the Court is formally
established, then those responsible for settlements could conceivably be tried.
This would have potentially serious repercussions for Israel’s political and
military establishment.
Article
29 of the Geneva Civilians Convention addresses the responsibility that an
occupying power has towards protected persons. “The
Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible
for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual
responsibility which may be incurred.” In addition to article 27
article 32 emphatically prohibits certain acts:
The
High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from
taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or
extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not
only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or
scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected
person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian
or military agents.
Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem in June 1967 does not
in anyway affect the status of its Palestinian residents as protected persons.
If anything, those protected persons living under a regime of annexation should
be accorded a heightened degree of protection. Article 47 of the Convention
stipulates that protected persons shall not be deprived of the benefits of the
Convention due to annexation. The commentary on article 47 states that an
occupying power continues to be bound by the Convention as a whole even when, in
disregard of the rules of international law, it claims during a conflict to have
annexed all or part of an occupied territory.
Barak’s government like all previous Israeli governing administrations continues to deny the applicability of the Geneva Civilians Convention to East Jerusalem and the continued settlement expansion highlighted below will only have the effect of consolidating Israel’s illegal annexation.
The Israeli authorities continue to facilitate the forced
eviction of Palestinians from their property in East Jerusalem and replacing
them with Israeli Jewish citizens. Under the Geneva Civilians Convention the
Occupying power can move protected persons from their original place of abode so
long as there is an overwhelming security imperative. This is certainly not the
case in circumstances in which forced eviction has been carried out in East
Jerusalem. Rather, there has been a clear ideological basis for the continuing
evictions based on the premise that Israel’s Jewish citizens have a right to
live wherever they please, even in occupied territory and in the homes of
protected persons who have been evicted. This is clearly contrary to the Geneva
Civilians Convention as it is tantamount to transferring the citizens of the
occupying power into occupied territory. Moreover, forced evictions of
Palestinians from their homes constitute a gross violation of international
human rights law. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights has repeatedly asserted that forced evictions are wholly incompatible
with the Covenant. In its general comment no 7 on forced evictions at its
meeting held in May 1997, the United Nations Committee asserted that all persons
should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees equal protection
against forced eviction and harassment.
It should be pointed out that one of the central failings of
the Oslo process has been its neglect of a number of substantial international
legal references. Nowhere in the series of agreements from the Declaration of
Principles to the latest, the Sharm el Sheikh Memorandum, which make up the Oslo
process, is there any reference to the Geneva Civilians Convention. Thus, there
is no acknowledgment of the status of the Palestinian population as protected
persons and in essence scant regard is given to any human rights protection
mechanism within the documents. For the Palestinians of Jerusalem, up until
recently, their fate has been at the periphery of the whole Oslo Process with
Jerusalem issues only recently being addressed in a concerted manner at the
failed Camp David summit in July 2000 and the recent Clinton initiative of
January 2001.
HOUSE
DEMOLITIONS
The
first house demolition to take place after the Barak government took office was
the demolition of the Halasa family home in Sawahira al-Sharqiya. On 24 July
1999 the Israeli Civil Administration demolished the house of Ibrahim Halasa
that was located near Ma’ale Adumim settlement on the claim that the house was
built on state land. The house sheltered nine persons. This was the fourth time
that the Halasa home has been demolished. The first demolition took place in
1988. The Israeli army and police used excessive force during the demolition and
arrested Ibrahim (then 65 years old) and his daughter Aliyah (then 16 years).
Ibrahim and Aliyah were held incommunicado for a number of days and
Aliyah was released only in late August.
·
On
11 July 1999, the Israeli authorities demolished two houses in al-Walajeh owned
by Muhammad and Ahmad Khalifeh on the pretext that they were built without a
permit. Ten people were injured as a result of the excessive use of force
deployed by the Israeli security forces. Ahmad Khalifeh had been living in the
house since the end of April and Muhammad since the beginning of May.
·
On
30 August 1999, a house under construction, owned by Bassam Adama, was
demolished in at-Tor neighbourhood on the Mount of Olives. The house was
intended to shelter seven persons.
·
Israeli
bulldozers demolished a 240m² house in Beit Hanina on 25 October 1999. The
house was owned by Kamel Abu Dheileh, Odeh Khader and Najwah Imteir and
sheltered 24 persons. The house had been built in 1991 without the requisite
permit and the Jerusalem municipality had already imposed a fine of 7,000 NIS on
the owners. Because the case was still being examined by the court, the
owners’ lawyer assured them that the demolition would be postponed. Furniture
and other personal belongings were destroyed with the house.
·
The
next day, 26 October 1999, the house of Ihab Naser in Issawiya was demolished.
Naser lived in the 100m² house with his wife and his mother. The family was
informed on the day of the demolition that the land had been confiscated. The
demolition came unexpectedly, because the municipality had requested that the
family initiate licensing procedures only three months earlier. The area was
designated as a green area by the municipality and 37 other houses in the area
received demolition orders.
·
On
15 November 1999, the Jerusalem municipality demolished the house under
construction of Muhammad al-Jabari in Jabal al-Mukabber. The house was intended
to shelter 16 persons.
· On 23 November 1999, the Israeli authorities demolished the house that Ihab Naser from Issawiya was rebuilding after it had been demolished on 26 October. Another house in Issawiya owned by Hussein Khalil was demolished the same day. Khalil and 15 family members had been living in the house that covered about 140m².
·
On
1 February 2000, the municipality demolished the house of Abderraziq al-Sheikh
from Issawiya for the second time in less than ten months. The bulldozers were
accompanied by a large group of Israeli soldiers. Al-Sheikh was temporarily
living in rented accommodation in Sheikh Jarrah and was preparing to move into
the new house that had just been completed. The construction of the house had
cost an estimated 40,000 US$.
·
On
8 March 2000, the Jerusalem municipality demolished the house of Abdallah as-Salaymeh
in the Wadi Qaddoum area in Silwan on the claim that the house was built without
a permit. The demolition made nine persons homeless. The Israeli security forces
severely beat two sons of Salaymeh when they tried to prevent the bulldozers
from demolishing their home.
·
Three
rooms owned by Muhammad Dirbas, Omar Dari and Yousef Muhaysen were demolished in
Issawiya on 18 April 2000. Muhaysin had built the room in preparation to build a
house for his family. Muhammad Dirbas and Omar Dari had both built their rooms
for agricultural purposes.
·
On
5 June 2000, the Jerusalem municipality demolished the house of Hasan Shehadeh
in al-Walajeh. The demolition made seven people homeless. The bulldozers were
accompanied by an estimated 200 Israeli Border Police officers. Twelve
inhabitants of al-Walajeh, some of them elderly people, were injured in clashes
with the police when they tried to stop the demolition. The Israeli authorities
claimed that the house was built without a permit.
·
On
Israeli Interior Ministry orders, the house of Hamza al-Mughrabi in Jabal al-Mukabber
was demolished on 13 June 2000. The house sheltered ten persons. Al-Mughrabi
stated that he had obtained a permit from the Jerusalem municipality to renovate
his house in 1992. Because part of the house started to collapse, he had to
conduct renovations. The Interior Ministry then claimed that the house was built
illegally. Al-Mughrabi had received an order to appear in a court hearing over
the planned demolition on 12 July, but the bulldozers arrived before the case
was heard. The family was given half an hour to evacuate the house and the
furniture was destroyed along with the house. One demonstrator who tried to stop
the bulldozers was arrested. The demolition caused anger within the Israeli
political arena. Chaim Ramon, the Minister for Jerusalem Affairs was not
informed in advance of the demolition, whereas he should have been according to
an agreement between him and the Ministry of Interior. The demolition was seen
as an attempt by the then Interior Minister Natan Sharansky to assert Jewish
sovereignty over all Jerusalem.
· On 14 August 2000, the municipality demolished two houses in Silwan under the pretext that they had been built without a permit. Early in the morning, bulldozers, accompanied by large forces of police and Border Police came to demolish the house of Jamal Dakaydik. Dakaydik, his wife and three children had been living in the house for only two months. According to Jamal Dakaydik’s affidavit to LAW, the Israeli authorities did not give him time to salvage the furniture before the demolition. Later that morning, the municipality bulldozers demolished the house of Muhammad al-Tawil. The house had cost 100,000 Jordanian Dinars to build and the 17-member family was preparing itself to move in. Al-Tawil stated to LAW that he had applied for a building permit from the municipality numerous times in the past three years, but to no avail.
·
Three
houses under construction were demolished on 29 August 2000 in the Ras Khamis
neighbourhood of Shu’fat. Early in the morning, Israeli security forces closed
the Shu’fat refugee camp. The bulldozers came from the nearby settlement of
Pisgat Ze’ev and demolished the houses under construction that belonged to
Ibrahim ‘Alqam, Ahmad Hushiyeh al-Zghari and Muhammad Abu Ghalieh. Ibrahim
‘Alqam told LAW that he had built his house two months earlier in order to
house his family of 12 persons. Muhammad Abu Ghalieh’s 120 m²-house was intended to
shelter his family, which includes nine children.
·
The Aqel family is currently struggling against the demolition of their
home on Mount Scopus. The Hebrew University is pressuring the municipality to
demolish the house so that it can construct a parking lot for its students. The
family received a demolition order from the municipality on 11 May 2000, on the
basis that they had undertaken illegal renovations, although the family had
obtained a permit for the renovation work. The Aqel family was expelled from the
village of Lifta during the 1948 war and eventually settled on land that they
owned on Mount Scopus where they built a house in 1951. In 1968 the Jerusalem
municipality informed the family that their land would be confiscated for
“public use”. The family refused to leave the house and got entangled in a
protracted legal struggle. The family is left with only a few hundred square
meters surrounded by the Hebrew University dormitories and the Hyatt hotel.
Settlement
Expansion Under Barak
Prime
Minister Ehud Barak has continued the policy of previous Israeli governments of
supporting the establishment of settlements in Occupied East Jerusalem. So far,
construction work on key strategic settlements like Har Homa on Jabel Abu Ghneim,
which will close the ring of settlements in the south east of the city, and Ras
al Amoud, which will help to segregate the Old City from the eastern Palestinian
neighbourhoods, continues unabated. Moreover, Barak has failed to rescind the
order passed by the former Defence Minister in the previous Netanyahu
administration, Moshe Arens, to extend the boundaries of Ma’ale Adumim to
Jerusalem. Ma’ale Adumim, being the largest settlement in the West Bank, is
the cornerstone of the greater Jerusalem project intended to expand the
boundaries of the city further eastwards which would result in the further
annexation of more Palestinian land effectively reconfiguring the city’s
eastern boundary and driving a wedge deep into any Palestinian entity that may
be established in the West Bank. To lay the groundwork for the expansion of
Ma’ale Adumim, the Jahalin Bedouin tribe was forcibly removed from the
vicinity of the settlement and resettled next to the Jerusalem Municipal garbage
dump in 1997.
In
July 2000 it was announced in the Israeli press that Barak had approved a plan
aimed at accelerating the development of Jerusalem as a national Jewish project.
According to the Ha’aretz newspaper, 1.25 billion US dollars have been put
aside to invest in all aspects of the city’s life with a special emphasis on
East Jerusalem. This can only mean increased spending aimed at enhancing the
already extensive Israeli foothold in the occupied east. Below are short notes
on settlement plans that were announced for the Jerusalem region during the
period of the current Government:
·
In May 2000 a preliminary plan was announced to build a new
settlement consisting of 200 dwelling units on 64 dunams of land in the portion
of Abu Dis that is within the Israeli defined Jerusalem municipality. The
settlement is to be called Kidmat Zion. It is believed that Irving Moscowitz is
involved in this project. Moscowitz is a well known supporter of Jewish
settlement in East Jerusalem.
·
The continuing construction of 119 dwelling units that will
make up the new Jewish settlement in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Ras al
Amoud. According to the latest information, 60 families have so far made known
their desire to live in the compound upon its completion. Irving Moscowitz is
also heavily involved in this project.
·
There is continuing construction to complete the 6,500
dwelling units that is projected for the new settlement of Har Homa on Jabel Abu
Ghneim. According to information gleaned from the Israeli press, up to February
2000, about 1,600 housing units have been put up for sale. Another 650
apartments in stage A of the project plus an additional 700 have been sold.
Moreover, on May 17 2000, the Israel Lands Authority (ILA) published a tender in
the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharanot for the construction of a further 582
housing units in Har Homa. On 30 October 2000, it was announced in the
Ha’aretz newspaper that the Jerusalem municipality intends to discuss the
construction of an additional 4,000 residential units in Har Homa.
·
It was reported on the 3 January 2000 that the ILA issued a
tender for the construction of 122 dwelling units in Pisgat Ze’ev and on the 3
September the Jerusalem municipality approved the construction of a
technological park on a further 53 dunams in the settlement.
·
On March 10 2000 the Israeli Jerusalem paper Kol Ha’ir
reported initial planning for a 2,000-unit development project on 253 dunams of
land near the southern Jerusalem settlement of Gilo.
· In March 2000 658 dunams were expropriated for the construction of the Eastern ring road. The expropriated land belonged to five villages: Issawiya, A-Tur, al Azariya, Abu Dis and Ras al Amoud.
·
In May 2000 Israeli Cabinet Ministers approved a plan to set
up a 176 dunam national park on the slopes of the Mount of Olives. The fruition
of the plan will aid in efforts to isolate the Old City from the surrounding
Arab neighbourhoods. The park is apparently intended to be one of 17 projects
aimed at creating Jewish contiguity around the Old City.
·
According to reports in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz
dated 23rd July 2000, Jewish settler organizations have accelerated
efforts to acquire Arab homes mostly in the Old City and along the seam between
East and West Jerusalem in the wake of the negotiations at Camp David.
·
Plans were made public in August 2000 for the construction of
a new prison in Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. According to reports, the
prison complex will be built on 29 dunams out of a total of 354 dunams that the
government of Israel expropriated in 1968. Note an Israeli government complex
has been in Sheikh Jarrah for a while, and the Palestinian neighbourhood is also
home to the Israeli National Police Headquarters as well as to the Border Police
Headquarters.
A large part of official settlement activity seems to be
taking place in the so called Greater Jerusalem region. According to Ha’aretz
journalist Nadav Shragai, statistics for settlement construction in the first
half of 2000 show that the bulk of settlement expansion is taking place in the
so called greater Jerusalem district with the construction of 860 dwelling units
compared with 207 in settlements in other parts of the West Bank. For
example:
·
On the 27 August 1999 the Israeli Housing Ministry started
preparations for the expansion of Ma’ale Adumim. The plan is for the
construction of 2,000 housing units. On the 22 November 1999 work began on a
tunnel road under Jerusalem’s Mount Scopus which will be part of a road
network linking Ma’ale Adumim to Israel. In April 2000 the then Housing
Minister Yitzhak Levy approved tenders for 174 apartments in Ma’ale Adumim.
·
The expansion of Givat Ze’ev and the ongoing construction
of a new additional neighbourhood in the Har Adar settlement continues unabated.
·
Development projects are being pursued in the Etzion Bloc settlements of
Efrata and Betar. The development projects include the construction of an
industrial area as well as a tourist site. In July 1999 plans were announced for
the construction of 600 dwelling units in the settlement of Betar Illit south
west of Jerusalem.
Conclusion
The
violent eruption in the Occupied Territories following the visit to the Haram
compound by Likud leader Ariel Sharon has done a great deal to dampen the
international enthusiasm for Barak and his government and has exposed in a very
dramatic way the pervasive brutality that Palestinian protected persons are
subjected to by elements of the Israeli security forces. The ongoing settlement
construction within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem as well as in the
surrounding region pose serious questions about Barak’s willingness to comply
with the relevant legal instruments pertinent to the Occupied Territories,
particularly in the case of Jerusalem.
It
is essential that the international community press Israel to uphold the
relevant provisions of the Geneva Civilians Convention. It is the particular
responsibility of the other High Contracting Parties to ensure Israel’s
compliance. This inter-state responsibility is set out in article 1 of the
Civilians Convention:
“The
High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and ensure respect for the present
Convention in all circumstances.”
Thus
article 1 confers upon the High Contracting Parties two obligations. The
obligation to ensure that in a conflict situation their agents apply the
provisions of the Convention and that other states apply the Convention also.
According to Jean Pictat in his authoritative commentary on article 1 of the
Convention:
“…. In the event of a power failing to fulfil its obligations, the other contracting parties (neutral, allied or enemy) may, and should endeavour to bring it back to an attitude of respect for the Convention. The proper working of the system of protection provided by the Convention demands in fact that the contracting parties should not be content merely to apply its provisions themselves, but should do everything in their power to ensure that the humanitarian principles underlying the convention are applied universally.”
It is important for
commentators and officials of member states of the international community to be
fully aware of the past history of previous Labour administrations. After all,
it was under a government headed by the Labour leader Levi Eshkol that the first
settlements were established in the Occupied Territories shortly after the 1967
war. Moreover, it should be remembered that Shimon Peres, who was one of the
chief architects of the Oslo process, had a close connection to the Gush Emunim
settlement movement during the first Rabin government (1974-1977). It is this
close connection to the settlement movement within the Labour party that Barak
hails. Barak himself stated that he is much closer to Yitzhak Levy of the Mafdal
than he is to the left leaning Meretz party. With such a statement, Barak’s
intentions should have been obvious and with that its implications for both East
Jerusalem and the Oslo process. In short, ever since the beginning of the Oslo
process, Labour governments have pursued actions that have been vehemently at
odds with the spirit of peace and public international law. Barak’s government
has been no exception.
Click
here for Part 2
|
|