A breakdown on Settlements – Thousands new homes planned for East Jerusalem, West Bank

“Settling” constitutes a warcime according to international law and ICC statute. Even under US’ own military legislations’
Law resources below this article

profile_resources

A breakdown of the myriad of settlement plans being aggressively pursued in recent weeks.

By Hagit Ofran and Lior Amihai | 972 Magazine

The past few weeks may have been confusing for those who try to keep track of Israeli settlement activity. So many plans and approvals, some of which are lethal for the two-state solution, make it clear that the Netanyahu government has decided to push forward as many plans as possible in order to determine facts on the ground before the elections in Israel, as long as there is no “threat” of any renewal of the peace process.

Following are the details of the recent developments in settlements:

1. E1 and 3,000 new tenders
2. Plans for 6,600 units in East Jerusalem
3. Givat Hamatos
4. Tenders in Efrat, Karnei Shomron and Givat Ze’ev
5. A Palestinian family is threatened with eviction in Sheikh Jarrah

1. E1 and 3,000 new tenders – Following the UN resolution on a Palestinian state, the government of Netanyahu announced the intention to promote planning in E1 and to issue 3,000 tenders in settlements in East Jerusalem. On December 5, the plans for the construction of 3,426 units in E1 were approved for depositing.

See more here: Everything you need to know about E1

2. Plans for 6,600 units in East Jerusalem – in parallel, almost all of the main pending plans for East Jerusalem were promoted. Using a fast track planning process, the planning committee in Jerusalem is approving plans in Givat Hamatos, Ramat Shlomo and Gilo.

See more details here.

3. Givat Hamatos – Givat Hamatos is a plan that, if built, could prevent territorial continuity between Bethlehem and the Palestinian neighborhood of Beit Zafafa in South Jerusalem, and could thus prevent the possibility for a two-state solution with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

The plan in Givat Hamatos is divided into four plans (A, B, C and D). The largest and the most lethal of them is Givat Hamatos A, for 2,610 units, which was approved by the local planning committee this past week. The regional planning committee surprisingly rejected plan C. However, the rejection unfortunately does not prevent the damage from the other plans.

See more here.

4. Tenders in Efrat, Karnei Shomron and Givat Ze’ev – On December 18, Israeli Channel 2 reported that next week, the Ministry of Housing will publish several tenders for hundreds of units in West Bank settlements of Efrat, Karnei Shomron and Givat Ze’ev. These are part of the 3,000 units announced by the government following the UN bid.

5. And in addition to all that, a Palestinian family in Sheikh Jarrah is under threat of being kicked out of its home in order to enable settlers to move in. The issue of settlements at the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Sheikh Jarrah in particular became a central political issue after, in 2009, two Palestinian families were kicked out of their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and settlers moved in. Another eviction would add more tension and friction to the fragile and sensitive situation in East Jerusalem.

The involvement of an official government authority in the eviction is of specific concern. See more here.

Finally, and unfortunately, it seems that there will be more to come, all too soon.

Hagit Ofran is the director the Settlement Watch project of Peace Now. Lior Amihai is a staff member on the Settlement Watch project.





LAW

“States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy.”

Summary

State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international armed conflicts.
International armed conflicts

The prohibition on deporting or transferring parts of a State’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies is set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention.[1]

It is a grave breach of Additional Protocol I.[2]

Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[3]

Many military manuals prohibit the deportation or transfer by a party to the conflict of parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.[4]

This rule is included in the legislation of numerous States.[5]

Official statements and reported practice also support the prohibition on transferring one’s own civilian population into occupied territory.[6]

Attempts to alter the demographic composition of an occupied territory have been condemned by the UN Security Council.[7]

In 1992, it called for the cessation of attempts to change the ethnic composition of the population, anywhere in the former Yugoslavia.[8]

Similarly, the UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have condemned settlement practices.[9]

According to the final report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, “the implantation of settlers” is unlawful and engages State responsibility and the criminal responsibility of individuals.[10]

In 1981, the 24th International Conference of the Red Cross reaffirmed that “settlements in occupied territory are incompatible with article 27 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.[11]

In the Case of the Major War Criminals in 1946, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found two of the accused guilty of attempting the “Germanization” of occupied territories.[12]

References

[1] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, sixth paragraph (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 334).

[2] Additional Protocol I, Article 85(4)(a) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 335).

[3] ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(viii) (ibid., § 336).

[4] See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 346–347), Australia (ibid., § 348), Canada (ibid., § 349), Croatia (ibid., § 350), Hungary (ibid., § 351), Italy (ibid., § 352), Netherlands (ibid., § 353), New Zealand (ibid., § 354), Spain (ibid., § 355), Sweden (ibid., § 357), Switzerland (ibid., § 357), United Kingdom (ibid., § 358) and United States (ibid., § 359).

[5] See, e.g., the legislation of Armenia (ibid., § 361), Australia (ibid., §§ 362–363), Azerbaijan (ibid., §§ 364–365), Bangladesh (ibid., § 366), Belarus (ibid., § 367), Belgium (ibid., § 368), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ibid., § 369), Canada (ibid., §§ 371–372), Congo (ibid., § 373), Cook Islands (ibid., § 374), Croatia (ibid., § 375), Cyprus (ibid., § 376), Czech Republic (ibid., § 377), Germany (ibid., § 379), Georgia (ibid., § 380), Ireland (ibid., § 381), Mali (ibid., § 384), Republic of Moldova (ibid., § 385), Netherlands (ibid., § 386), New Zealand (ibid., §§ 387–388), Niger (ibid., § 390), Norway (ibid., § 391), Slovakia (ibid., § 392), Slovenia (ibid., § 393), Spain (ibid., § 394), Tajikistan (ibid., § 395), United Kingdom (ibid., §§ 397–398), Yugoslavia (ibid., § 399) and Zimbabwe (ibid., § 400); see also the draft legislation of Argentina (ibid., § 360), Burundi (ibid., § 370), Jordan (ibid., § 382), Lebanon (ibid., § 383) and Trinidad and Tobago (ibid., § 396).

[6] See, e.g., the statements of Kuwait (ibid., § 405) and United States (ibid., §§ 406–407) and the reported practice of Egypt (ibid., § 402) and France (ibid., § 403).

[7] See, e.g., UN Security Council, Res. 446 , 452 and 476 (ibid., § 408), Res. 465 (ibid., § 409) and Res. 677 (ibid., § 410).

[8] UN Security Council, Res. 752 (ibid., § 411).

[9] See, e.g., UN General Assembly, Res. 36/147 C, 37/88 C, 38/79 D, 39/95 D and 40/161 D (ibid., § 412) and Res. 54/78 (ibid., § 405); UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/7 (ibid., § 413).

[10] UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Final report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements (ibid., § 415).

[11] 24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Res. III (ibid., § 419).

[12] International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Case of the Major War Criminals, Judgement (ibid., § 421).


Still live in fairy-tale-land about Israel? Time to wake up: The Map of the “Greater Israel” even is hammered on the currency:All facts at Storify continuously updated. Read what Israeli ‘leaders’ have said and done even before (peace) talks and how their actions contradict the reality and ugly facts which they try to hide from you:

You can forget all details. Save yourself time. It is only about Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israel. Not looking for Peace. Nor Talks. But this…

The facts. Mainly Israeli sources. Continuously updated


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: