|
The Oslo process suffered from three
severe, related flaws. First, it was a negotiating process between
two vastly unequal parties, without any mechanism to meaningfully
mediate the imbalance of power between them. Second, it placed
political expediency above basic human rights and protections granted
under international humanitarian law. Third, it implicitly
legitimised Israel’s settlements in the OPT, even though they are
prohibited by international humanitarian law. This allowed Israel, as
the stronger side in the negotiations, to evade its obligations while
continuing to expand its illegal settlements and violate human rights
with impunity. Instead of ending the occupation and withdrawing
Israeli forces and colonists from the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(OPT), Oslo repackaged the occupation as a form of de facto apartheid
and economic strangulation. The central element of PCHR’s philosophy
is that a just and lasting peace is only possible if built on
respect for human rights and international humanitarian law.
-
The Fourth Geneva
Convention (1949) is a cornerstone of international humanitarian
law that ensures minimum protections for civilians in armed conflict
and occupation. It forbids, among other things: the construction of
settlements on occupied land (Article 49), unilateral annexation
(Article 47), willful killing of civilians (Articles 146-147),
collective punishment (33), torture (Articles 31-32, 146-147), and
the destruction of property without a compelling military reason
(Articles 53, 146-147). It also requires judicial accountability
for those who commit war crimes (defined as “grave breaches” listed
in Article 147 of the Convention). The Convention fully takes
into account military necessity and cannot be violated for
“security” reasons.
-
Special
agreements cannot negatively effect the protections afforded for
civilians under the Convention
(Articles 7, 47). Yet during the Oslo process, Israeli violations
of the Convention continued, including: expansion of settlements,
killings of unarmed civilians, use of torture, and collective
punishment (closure). Moreover, Israel transferred 2,000
Palestinian prisoners from jails in the OPT into Israel proper after
signing the accords, in further violation of the Convention. These
violations, especially the expansion of settlements, were key
factors in undermining the peace process and setting the stage for a
return to violence in 2000. Since September 2000, Israeli
violations of the Convention have escalated to an unprecedented
level.
-
Israel is one of 189 states that have
signed the Convention (“High Contracting Parties”) and is legally
bound to it. Yet Israel refuses to apply the Convention in the
OPT, despite the fact that the international community has
repeatedly affirmed that the Convention continues to apply in all
areas seized in 1967, including east Jerusalem. Not only is Israel
legally bound to respect the Convention, but all High
Contracting Parties are obligated under Article 1 to “ensure respect
for the [Convention] in all circumstances.”
-
The
international community has failed to abide by its obligations
under Article 1 to ensure Israel’s
respect for the Convention. In July 1999, a meeting of High
Contracting Parties called by the United Nations General Assembly to
discuss ways of enforcing Israel’s respect for the Convention
adjourned after only 15 minutes to “give peace a chance.” The
unprecedented expansion of illegal settlements under the Barak
government continued, followed by a breakdown in negotiations and a
return to violence. In December 2001, after 14 months of escalating
Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians, a similar meeting
adjourned without taking any enforcement measures. The US and
Israel boycotted both meetings with impunity, while the remaining
states did nothing more than reaffirm the applicability of the
Convention in the OPT. The US and Israel have consistently opposed
any attempts to deploy international monitors or peacekeepers, with
the former wielding its veto at the UN Security Council numerous
times to this effect. The failure to
enforce Israel’s respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention has
allowed it to consistently act as a state above the law.
-
Under the Article 1
obligation, and given Israel’s persistent refusal to apply the
Convention since 1967, states must take immediate and practical
steps to ensure that Israel fully applies international
humanitarian law in the OPT, and should pressure other states to do
so as well. Such steps could include sanctions such as: a
ban on transfers of arms and military equipment, an end to economic
aid, suspension of signed agreements, a trade embargo (especially
enforcing already-existing laws banning imports made in Israeli
settlements in the OPT), downgrading or severance of diplomatic
relations, and censure in various international forums.
-
Israel’s occupation and settlement
system in the OPT is a form of de facto apartheid that is the
root cause of instability in the region. As most of these
policies violate Israel’s existing legal obligations under the
Fourth Geneva Convention, it is clear that the enforcement of
international humanitarian law presents a clear, consistent, and
effective means of addressing violence in the region. By compelling
Israel to dismantle settlements, refrain from attacks against
civilians, end its policies of collective punishment, and ensure
judicial accountability for suspected war criminals, the
international community can create a stable environment in which
Palestinians and Israelis can resolve outstanding political issues
and conclude a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace.
|
