Tag Archives: fourth geneva convention

Posted on by

Gaza not Represented in Blockade Whitewash

freegaza-1-1

Stuart Littlewood

Warped “inquiry” invites mega-mischief

“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law… the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.”

That’s the conclusion of the Palmer inquiry, brought to you by that freak-show the United Nation, under its Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

It’s completely at odds with what other experts have said. The UN itself has already accepted that Israel’s blockade is illegal. One of its own fact-finding missions declared that it constituted collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus was illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The action by Israel’s military in intercepting the Mavi Marmara on the high seas was “clearly unlawful” and couldn’t be justified even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations [the right of self-defence]. “No case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal”.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights also concluded that the Israeli blockade was illegal. “Due both to the legal nature of Israel’s relationship to Gaza – that of occupier – and the impact of the blockade on the civilian population, amounting to ‘collective punishment’, the blockade cannot be reconciled with the principles of international law, including international humanitarian law… The flotilla did not seek to travel to Israel, let alone ‘attack’ Israel… Israel could have diplomatically engaged Turkey, arranged for a third party to verify there were no weapons onboard and then peacefully guided the vessel to Gaza.”

Craig Murray also knows a thing or two about such matters, having headed the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was responsible for giving political and legal clearance to Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to enforce the UN authorised blockade against Iraqi weapons shipments. He commented: “Right of free passage is guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas… Israel has declared a blockade on Gaza and justified previous fatal attacks on neutral civilian vessels on the High Seas in terms of enforcing that embargo, under the legal cover given by the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.”

But, he explains, San Remo only applies to blockade in times of armed conflict. “Israel is not currently engaged in an armed conflict… San Remo does not confer any right to impose a permanent blockade outwith times of armed conflict, and in fact specifically excludes as illegal a general blockade on an entire population.”

Furthermore, Security Council resolution 1860 (2009) emphasizes “the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings” and calls for “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”. Israel has imposed a land blockade for decades and until very recently had a hand in keeping Gaza’s land crossing with Egypt closed. The 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority and Israel is also ignored. So the only sensible channel for “unimpeded provision and distribution” is by sea.

Panel “cannot make definitive findings”

The Terms of Reference for the inquiry handed down by Ban Ki-Moon set out a ‘method of work’, which is described in the report this way…

    “The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability…
    “The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States….  the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. The information for the Panel’s work came primarily through its interactions with the Points of Contact designated by Israel and Turkey.”

So it could not summon individuals or approach individuals or organizations direct. It could only do so through the Points of Contact designated by Israel and Turkey. “The legal views of Israel and Turkey are no more authoritative or definitive than our own. A Commission of Inquiry is not a court any more than the Panel is. The findings of a Commission of Inquiry bind no one, unlike those of a court. So the legal issues at large in this matter have not been authoritatively determined by the two States involved and neither can they be by the Panel.”

The 4-man panel included a representative each from the governments of Turkey and Israel, and was headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer (Chair) and Alvaro Uribe, 58th president of Colombia. Palmer was the 33rd prime minister of New Zealand if that’s any consolation.

Note the absence of anyone to represent the views of the party targeted by the blockade. Ban Ki-Moon didn’t think it necessary to invite someone from (horror of horrors) the government of Gaza. Can you imagine, if the tables were turned, the merry hell Israel would kick up if not represented on an inquiry about the legality of a blockade on one of its ports?

Limited to this, couldn’t do that… Ban Ki-Moon’s inquiry was warped from the start. “This Panel is unique. Its methods of inquiry are similarly unique,” says the report, slitting its own throat.

Key passages from Palmer’s nonsensical 105 pages speak for themselves:

    “The naval blockade is often discussed in tandem with the Israeli restrictions on the land crossings to Gaza. However, in the Panel’s view, these are in fact two distinct concepts… the land crossings policy has been in place since long before the naval blockade was instituted. In particular, the tightening of border controls between Gaza and Israel came about after the take-over of Hamas in Gaza in June 2007. On the other hand, the naval blockade was imposed more than a year later, in January 2009. Second, Israel has always kept its policies on the land crossings separate from the naval blockade. The land restrictions have fluctuated in intensity over time but the naval blockade has not been altered since its imposition. Third, the naval blockade as a distinct legal measure was imposed primarily to enable a legally sound basis for Israel to exert control over ships attempting to reach Gaza with weapons and related goods.
    “Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel since 2001. More than 5,000 were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks…. Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The enormity of the psychological toll on the affected population cannot be underestimated. In addition, there have been substantial material losses. The purpose of these acts of violence, which have been repeatedly condemned by the international community, has been to do damage to the population of Israel. It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself.”

Did they never consider the most obvious step of all – ending their illegal occupation?

    “The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case.
     “Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic… the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced.
    “The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel’s right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside territory.”

What about Gaza’s right to similarly defend its territory and population? It sounds like the Panel regards Gaza and the West Bank as the aggressor.

    “It would be illegal if its imposition [i.e. the blockade] was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives… The earliest maritime interception operations to prevent weapons smuggling to Gaza predated the 2007 take-over of Hamas in Gaza. The actual naval blockade was imposed more than one year after that event. These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas.”

A catalogue of distortion

There are several things wrong with these assertions. Israel’s unending acts of violence have also been repeatedly condemned by the international community and there’s a string of UN resolutions to prove it. But they are never implemented.

Israel slapped a naval blockade on Gaza long before January 2009. Israeli gunboats were shelling Gaza and shooting up Gazan fishing boats in 2007 when I was there. An Interim Agreement signed in 1995 allowed the Israelis to weave a tangled web of security zoning in Gaza’s coastal waters and to dictate what happens off-shore and who comes and goes. It’s the sort of agreement no Palestinian would have signed except with a gun to his head.

Being “interim” these restrictions were not expected to last beyond 1999. But they are still in force. They predate rockets from Gaza, speaking of which why doesn’t Palmer, instead of trotting out details of these home-made missiles, tell us how many Israeli bombs, rockets, shells and prohibited ordnance have been fired at the Gazan population by Israeli jets, tanks and warships? Palmer talks about the 25 Israeli deaths and hundreds of injuries and “the enormity of the psychological toll” on the Israeli population. Regrettable as those casualties are, they are nothing compared with the mega-deaths and countless thousands maimed, the wholesale destruction of infrastructure and the psychological toll inflicted by Israel on the Gazans.

The people of Gaza couldn’t care less whether Israel keeps its policies on land and naval blockades “separate”. It’s the combined effect that counts.

As for the claim that the primary purpose of the blockade is security, the Panel clearly hasn’t studied the Wikileaks cables from 2008, one of which reads: “As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to (U.S. embassy economic officers) on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.” Israel wanted it “functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis”.

And according to documents released under a Freedom of Information petition by Gisha, an Israeli law centre, Israel operated “a policy of deliberate reduction” of basic goods in the Gaza Strip. Gisha’s director accused Israel of “paralyzing normal life in Gaza”. The documents confirmed that the siege was not for security reasons but aimed at keeping Gazans at near-starvation level. Since around half the population are growing children this act of collective punishment has meant that hundreds of thousands are undernourished.

The Panel might have asked why, since no rockets have been fired from the West Bank, the shredded remains of that part of Palestinian territory is still under occupation, blockade and cruel restriction?

Palmer, Uribe and Ban Ki-Moon need to wake up to Israel’s never-ending campaign of disinformation. Palmer for example repeatedly refers to “the takeover of Gaza” by Hamas when Hamas, as everyone else knows, was democratically elected.

    “It is Hamas that is firing the projectiles into Israel or is permitting others to do so.  The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel’s right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside its territory.”

There’s nothing about Gaza’s right to self-defence or even self-preservation. Then this warning…

    “Once a blockade has been lawfully established, it needs to be understood that the blockading power can attack any vessel breaching the blockade if after prior warning the vessel intentionally and clearly refuses to stop or intentionally and clearly resists visit, search or capture. There is no right within those rules to breach a lawful blockade as a right of protest. Breaching a blockade is therefore a serious step involving the risk of death or injury.
    “Given that risk, it is in the interests of the international community to actively discourage attempts to breach a lawfully imposed blockade.

“The imposition of a blockade involves the use of force, which can only be employed in the exercise of a right of self-defence. Measures taken by States in the exercise of their right of self-defence are required under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to be notified to the Security Council.”

Occupier is the victim of resistance?

So Palmer’s bizarre re-framing of the situation – that the illegal occupier Israel is the victim of the Palestinians’ lawful resistance and that Israel’s security must be given priority over everyone else’s – will have given Tel Aviv something to smirk about. Worse, it gives Israel and its stooges around the world reason to think they have a green light for imposing a permanent blockade, for Israel will always dream up bogus threats to its security.

But the Palmer report, surely, cuts both ways. By the same token it gives the green light to Palestine, if ever it obtains the weaponry to impose a blockade of its own, and to Lebanon, Syria, Iran and maybe Free Egypt to play the naval blockade game against Israel, whose unsupervised nuclear arsenal, scant respect for international law and liking for armed trespass pose a much greater threat to the region than random garden-shed rockets from Gaza ever did.

And what does this whitewash mean for the Palestinians’ UN bid for statehood? Is the newly fledged state to begin its young life with a land and sea blockade in place because Palmer and Uribe say it’s all legal and above-board and Israel’s security comes first? Let us not forget that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are under blockade too.

The Turkish representative on the panel, Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, has rightly dissociated himself from some of Palmer’s key ‘findings’: “On the legal aspect of the blockade, Turkey and Israel have submitted two opposing arguments. International legal authorities are divided on the matter since it is unprecedented, highly complex and the legal framework lacks codification. However, the Chairmanship and its report fully associated itself with Israel and categorically dismissed the views of the other, despite the fact that the legal arguments presented by Turkey have been supported by the vast majority of the international community. Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is unlawful.

“Also the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the blockade was unlawful. The Report of the Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission received widespread approval from the member states.

“Freedom and safety of navigation on the high seas is a universally accepted rule of international law. There can be no exception from this long-standing principle unless there is a universal convergence of views.”

The Palmer report deserves condemnation and is getting it. Such dangerous tripe belongs in the wastepaper basket. At the outset the inquiry Panel said it couldn’t make definitive findings and was not competent to determine the legal issues, yet it immediately set about concocting its own distorted judgement based especially on the dubious legal views of Israel, which it admitted are “no more authoritative or definitive than our own”.

So what is the Secretary-General’s mischievous game in setting this up?

As if we didn’t know…

 

 

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood is an industrial marketing specialist turned writer-photographer. In 2005 he was invited to write and shoot pictures for a book about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. ‘Radio Free Palestine’ was published in 2007. For details please see www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

  • The Author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. Find more Articles by Stuart Littlewood on RamallahOnline.

Posted on by

Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood

Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood
Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood

Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood

By Dr. Ismail Salami and Kourosh Ziabari

The plight of the Palestinian people is no closed book to anyone in the world;  a subjugated nation which has been unjustifiably subjected to discrimination and violence for the past 6 decades.

Even the close allies of Israel and those who support the continued occupation of Palestine admit in their privacy that the actions and policies of the Israeli regime are beyond the pale and run counter to the very principles of humanity and morality.

Everyday, the mass media run reports of several Palestinians being killed or injured by the Israeli forces. Hundreds of Palestinian children and women are incarcerated in Israeli jails and their dignity is flagrantly violated. The homes of the Palestinian citizens are demolished by huge bulldozers every day and Zionist settlements are constructed in their place.

In its nature as a colonizing regime, Israel has never spared any efforts to suppress the Palestinian nation. The 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead which claimed the lives of 1,417 Palestinians and destroyed a great deal of the infrastructure of Gaza coastal enclave including schools, mosques, hospitals and even the UN headquarters was only a simple example of Israel’s unrelenting atrocities against the people of Palestine.

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has committed every type of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It constantly violated the international laws and regulations such as The Hague Regulations of 1907, Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the customary laws of belligerent occupation; however, the United States and its European allies endowed Israel with immunity to the law and protected it from accountability before the international community. Since 1982 up to now, the United States vetoed 27 United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Israel and hindered the investigation of Israel’s criminal actions including building illegal settlements on the Palestinian lands, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their hometown, incarcerating children and women without charges or holding tribunals for them and more importantly, building and accumulating nuclear weapons.

However, the Palestinians have realized that it is now time for their sufferings to come to an end and start a new era in the life of their browbeaten country. Actually, they are getting prepared for putting forward a proposal to the United Nations General Assembly to officially become the 194th member of the United Nations.

On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s National Council unilaterally adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence and claimed territories which still remained under the Israeli occupation. Since 1974 when the Arab League summit recognized PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people “and reaffirmed their right to establish an independent state of urgency”, Palestine has been accepted as an observer member of the United Nations without a right to participate in the General Assembly’s voting. After the declaration of independence, the UN General Assembly officially acknowledged the proclamation and voted to use the designation “Palestine” instead of “Palestine Liberation Organization” when referring to the Palestinian permanent observer.

Now after spending two decades as an observer state, Palestine is seeking full membership in the United Nations. When the General Assembly convenes on September 13, it will also decide on whether to accept Palestine as an official and sovereign state or not. However, the Palestinians have a long way to go to realize statehood and it’s almost a far-fetched and complicated journey for them.

According to an article recently published on New York Times and quoted by Stephen Lendman, “last March, Israel told UN Security Council members and other prominent EU countries it will act unilaterally if the General Assembly grants Palestine de jure membership in September inside 1967 borders, 22% of historic Palestine.”

As said by American author and political writer Stephen Lendman, if Palestine is granted full membership, Israel will likely deny recognition, continuing its illegal occupation, this time against a sovereign country; however, even if Israel keeps up with its hostility, the “automatic majority” of the UN General Assembly will take the side of Palestine.

The U.S. President who was recently snubbed by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he said that Israel should recognize the state of Palestine within the pre-1967 borders has rhetorically accepted with Palestine’s plans for submitting a bid for membership in the UN; however, he has implied that its terms, size, locations and timetable should be checked with and verified by Israel. In other words, “he supports Israeli veto power of Palestinian rights, including sovereignty, an unacceptable or illegal condition under international law,” wrote Lendman.

From a legal viewpoint, it’s said that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories should end if Palestine succeeds in gaining a vote of statehood from two-third of the General Assembly members.

Lendman says that Washington has already provisionally recognized Palestine as an independent state and according to the UN Charter Article 80 (1), it cannot reverse its position by vetoing a Security Council resolution calling for Palestine’s UN admission.

Albeit, it should be kept in mind that even though Mahmoud Abbas, the acting chief of Palestinian Authority has made numerous concessions to Israel and tried to please the U.S. and its European allies, he has several enemies in the public sphere, especially among the U.S. congressmen, media personalities and pundits.

An article published by the American conservative FrontPage Magazine says that Palestine cannot meet the requirements of proposing full membership in the UN. “The first problem is that the PA cannot yet demonstrate all of the four characteristics required for statehood by international law.  A sovereign state is a political entity with a defined territory, a permanent population, a functioning government with the ability to exercise sovereignty over that territory (i.e., to command habitual obedience from that population by means of that state’s monopoly on the use of force), and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states,” the article says.

A recent poll conducted on 10,787 people by Press TV shows that 47 percent of the respondents believe the PA’s bid will gain the majority of the votes at the UN but will be vetoed by the US and a total of 24 percent say the US and Israel would prevent the bid from being presented at the UN General Assembly in September. Roughly 13 percent said the bid would fail to garner enough votes on account of the pressure exerted by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Indeed there are repercussions for the Zionist regime if Palestine succeeds in gaining recognition. A source in the Israeli government cites three repercussions in this regard:  1. International perception of Israel as an occupying state will shift to a colonizing one. 2.  The countries voting in favor of recognizing Palestine might impose economic sanctions on Israel and sever all their trade ties. 3. Israel might be forced to depart from international trade organizations. 4. The world may force Israel to approve the construction of the first Palestinian international airport in the West Bank.

These are all the possibilities that may take place but as to the first one that Israel will shift from an occupying state to a colonizing one, one should say that Israel has already been a colonizing state for decades.

Interestingly, the same source predicts that from 192 member states in the UN’s General Assembly, around 180 would vote for the recognition of Palestine, six would abstain and six others would oppose.

This sounds a very optimistic viewpoint and is surely what the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world aspires. However, truth is sour and anyone with some degree of political savvy is aware of the amount of influence the Zionists exercise on the US.

Some pundits rightly see the recognition of Palestine as a political tsunami for the Zionist regime.

If the recognition of Palestine is not a nightmare for Israel and its cronies, what is?

Dr. Ismail Salami is an Iranian journalist and author. He has written numerous books and articles on Middle East and is the website manger of Press TV. Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist and media correspondent. He regularly writes for Press TV, Tehran Times, Media Monitors, Salem News, Opinion Maker, Intifada Palestine, RamallahOnline and Strategic Culture Foundation.

Posted on by

Carter Center Calls for End to East Jerusalem Deportations, Respect for International Law

Carter Center

Carter Center, 22 July 2010

Atlanta, GA….The Carter Center expresses deep concern about the revocation of Jerusalem residency rights for three members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC): Muhammad Abu-Teir, Ahmad Attoun, and Muhammad Totah, as well as the former Palestinian Minister of Jerusalem Affairs Khaled Abu Arafeh. They are affiliated with Hamas, and Israeli authorities stated that they would be allowed to remain in Jerusalem only if they renounce their association with the PLC, to which three of them were elected.
Expelling these officials from Jerusalem is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Expulsion based on political affiliation would set a particularly dangerous precedent.
“Revoking residency rights of these PLC members is another example of Israeli policy designed to change unilaterally the character of Palestinian East Jerusalem,” said former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.  “Home demolitions, settlement construction, the separation of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank and its annexation to Israel, and long-standing efforts to push Palestinian residents out of the city are violations of international law, which may make the creation of a viable Palestinian state impossible.  I call upon the Quartet for Middle East Peace to demand that Israel respect international law in East Jerusalem, including reinstating residency for these PLC members.”
In May 2006, then-Israeli Interior Minister Roni Bar-On revoked the residency of the four PLC members, arguing that they were residents of Israel and therefore obliged to be loyal to Israel, and that their membership in the PLC indicated their allegiance to the Palestinian Authority.  Subsequently, all four were arrested by Israeli authorities, prosecuted by military courts, and sentenced to two to four-year prison terms.  Following their releases, they were summoned by Israeli police and had their Jerusalem identification documents confiscated.  Abu-Teir is currently in Israeli custody, while the other three have sought refuge in the International Committee of the Red Cross compound in East Jerusalem.

####

The Carter Center was founded in 1982 by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, in partnership with Emory University, to advance peace and health worldwide. A not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization, the Center has helped to improve life for people in more than 70 countries by resolving conflicts; advancing democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity; preventing diseases; improving mental health care; and teaching farmers to increase crop production.

Posted on by

Ethnic Cleansing and Measures Aimed at Creating Jewish Majority in Occupied Jerusalem

pchr_banner

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
Ref: 50/2010 22 June 2010

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemns aggressive measures taken by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in East Jerusalem, which are part of a series of measures aimed at ethnic cleansing and creating a Jewish majority in the city. Recent measures with this aim have included: bulldozing activities in northern Jerusalem to build 600 new settlement units; a decision by the Israeli Municipality in Jerusalem to demolish 22 houses in al-Bustan neighborhood in Salwan village in order to establish “King David’s Garden” on the former location of these houses; a Israeli Supreme Court ruling upholding a decision to deport a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), Mohammed Abu Tir; and the closure of Ilaf Association for Education Support in Jerusalem. PCHR holds Israel responsible for the escalation of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). PCHR also confirms that East Jerusalem constitutes an integral part of the OPT, to which international humanitarian law and international human rights law is applicable. PCHR calls upon the international community, particularly the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to fulfill their legal and moral obligations, and to ensure Israel’s respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention in the OPT in accordance with article 1 of the Convention. PCHR believes that if the international community does not make clear its position that it will no longer accept Israel acting as a State above the law, Israel will be encouraged to continue violating international human rights and humanitarian law..

According to PCHR’s daily investigation of Israeli violations in occupied Jerusalem, IOF have taken the following measures during the past two days:

On Sunday, 20 June 2010, the Israeli police closed Ilaf Association for Education Support on Haron al-Rashid Street in Jerusalem on an order issued by Israeli Police General Inspector Dodi Kohen. The pretext given for the closure was that meetings for Hamas were held in offices of the Association. The closure order stated: “In accordance with the powers granted to me and in accordance with Law no. 6a on the Prevention of Terrorism for the Year 1948, I hereby order the closure of Jerusalem Association for Education Support which is known as Ilaf Association, 19, ground floor, Haron al-Rashid street, until 01 July 2010, because it belongs to a terrorist organization and is being used by Hamas. Having reviewed reliable confidential documents proving that the Association is employed by Hamas, we inform you that we are considering the issuance of an additional order to close the Association for one year. Any one who thinks that he/she may be hurt by this order can submit a written appeal to me within 15 days from the publication of this order.” Mustafa Abu Zahra, Chairman of the Association’s Board of Directors, denied the Israeli allegations, explaining that they are false, fabricated and unfounded. Ilaf Association for Education Support in Jerusalem was established seven months ago. Since its establishment, the Association has provided financial assistance in the form of loans to be repaid after graduation to approximately 160 students in different specializations. The value of loans given to students enrolled in medicine, pharmacy and engineering faculties is 400 Jordanian Dinars, and the value of loans given to students enrolled in other faculties is 200 Jordanian Dinars.

Also on Sunday, 20 June 2010, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld an order issued by the Israeli police to deport from Jerusalem Mohammed Abu Tir, a PLC member from the Hamas-affiliated Change and Reform Bloc, until next September when the Court will consider his petition. In its decision, the Court held that this deportation order is valid until the consideration of the petition filed on his behalf in the Court, explaining that if the decision on the petition is in the interest of the deportee, then he will be able to return home. It should be noted that there are another two deportation orders against PLC Members, Ahmed Atwan and Mohammed Totah, and a third one against Eng. Khaled Abu Arafa, former Palestinian Jerusalem Affairs Minister. (For more information, please see PCHR’s press release published on 07 June 2010, Ref: 45/2010).

On Monday morning, 21 June 2010, IOF implemented large-scale bulldozing activities on Palestinian lands between “Pisgat Ze’ev” and “Neve Ya’kov” settlements in the north of occupied Jerusalem in preparation for the construction of 600 new settlement units. The construction of these new settlement units was approved one year ago in order to establish a link between the aforementioned settlements.

Also on Monday, 21 June 2010, the “District Committee of Organization and Construction” in the Israeli Municipality in Jerusalem approved a plan to establish the “King David’s Garden” (a Biblical garden) on the former location of houses in al-Bustan neighborhood in Salwan, according to a press release issued by the Israeli Municipality in Jerusalem. The Garden will include restaurants and a public hotel. The demolitions will affect 22 houses in the northwestern part of al-Bustan neighborhood. It should be noted that the Israeli Municipality in Jerusalem revealed last year that there was a plan to demolish 88 houses and displace 1,500 individuals. (For more information, please see PCHR’s press release published on 24 February 2009, Ref: 30/2009).

PCHR strongly condemns all forms of settlement activities and other arbitrary actions in East Jerusalem, and:

1. Confirms that East Jerusalem, which has been occupied since 05 June 1967, is an integral part of the OPT.

2. Contends that settlement activities in occupied Jerusalem constitute a war crime in accordance with the provisions of the International Humanitarian Law.

3. Argues that the Israeli Supreme Court is one of the tools employed by the Israeli occupation; in its rulings, this Court does not take into consideration the provisions of the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law.

4. Further contend that measures taken by Israel following the occupation of the city, primarily the Israeli Knesset’s decision on 28 June 1967 to annex the occupied city to the Israeli territories, the Knesset’s decision on 30 July 1980 stating that “the whole united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,” and the decision of expanding the Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries, constitute grave violations of the international law and United Nations Resolutions.

5. Declares all decisions taken and plans implemented by Israel in the occupied city of Jerusalem will not change its legal status.

6. Alerts all parties that the actions taken by IOF in Jerusalem may serve to escalate the situation in the OPT.

In light of the above, PCHR calls upon:

A. The High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, individually or collectively, to fulfill their legal and moral obligations, and ensure Israel’s respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention in the OPT, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. PCHR believes that the conspiracy of silence practiced by the international community encourages Israel to act as a State above law and to commit more violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including continued efforts to create a Jewish majority in occupied East Jerusalem.

B. The international community to immediately intervene to compel the government of Israel to stop all settlement activities in the OPT, especially the occupied East Jerusalem.

C. The European Union (EU) and/or its Member States to activate article 2 of the Euro-Israeli Association Agreement, which puts Israel’s respect for human rights as a condition for economic cooperation, and to act to ensure Israel’s respect for human rights. PCHR also calls upon the EU Member States to stop all forms of dealing with Israeli goods, particularly those produced by the Israeli settlements in the OPT.