10 November 2001
Dear Representative,
Please find enclosed a copy of “The Obligation to Ensure Respect: A Call for the High Contracting Parties on the Enforcement of Israel’s Respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention” published by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.
12 August 2001 was the fifty-second anniversary of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Convention). Israel has long been a High Contracting Party to the Convention, yet since its occupation in 1967 of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, including Jerusalem, Israel has refused to recognize the de jure applicability of the Convention to these Occupied Palestinian Territories. During the last thirty-four years of this occupation, Israel has consistently and repeatedly violated many of the provisions of the Convention. However, the first year of the Al-Aqsa Intifada has borne witness to an unprecedented escalation in violence against Palestinian civilians. Willful killings, torture, ill-treatment of prisoners, willful destruction of homes and property, population transfer (settlements), and collective punishments are just some of the violations that Israel has committed and continues to commit against Palestinian civilians. As grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, these violations constitute war crimes, as recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross, international human rights organizations and some High Contracting Parties to the Convention.
The High Contracting Parties’ meeting held on 15 July 1999 in response to a call by the United Nations General Assembly was intended to discuss ways of ensuring Israel’s respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention. Under pressure from the United States, Canadian and Australian governments, political interests compromised the conference and although its convening was a manifestation of the legal obligation embodied in Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which calls upon all High Contracting Parties to “respect, and ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances”, the conference essentially failed to constitute any step towards the fulfilment of this obligation.
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights notes with appreciation the recent call of the Swiss Government to reconvene the meeting on December 5, 2001 and urges the High Contracting Parties not to allow its subjugation to political interests as occurred in the conference in 1999. The outcome of this conference must not be merely a statement of condemnation of Israel’s violations. Palestinian civilians are daily paying a heavy price for
the inaction of the international community and it is time for this conspiracy of silence to be broken. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights therefore demands that the outcome of this meeting of the High Contracting Parties be a plan of action, consisting of practical measures, to be implemented with immediate effect to ensure Israel’s respect of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights condemns the US government’s decision to boycott the meeting and is concerned that this action undermines their commitment to the eradication of terrorism, in all its forms, around the world. State terrorism, as perpetrated by Israel against Palestinian civilians, must be combated with the same commitment and efforts as all other forms of terrorism. No state which commits or supports terrorism can be allowed to enjoy impunity.
The meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to be held on December 5, 2001 is an essential step in ensuring the implementation of the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in protecting Palestinian civilians and in halting war crimes and acts of state terrorism which have been or are currently being perpetrated in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights wishes the international community to recognize and accept that the resolution of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories can be found only in the application and implementation of international, human rights and international humanitarian law.
Please also find enclosed a copy of a Press Release issued by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in cooperation with LAW, the Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment, on 10 November 2001.
Yours sincerely,
Raji Sourani
Director
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
The Obligation to ‘Ensure Respect’
A Call for a High Contracting Parties on the Enforcment of Israel’s Respect of the Fourth Geneva Convention
Table of Contents
Part I Israeli Violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention Against Palestinian Civilians
Medical Care, Personnel, and Patients
Ill-Treatment of Palestinian Prisoners
House Demolitions and Sweeping of Agricultural Land
Part II : Legal Basis for a Meeting of the High Contracting Parties
The Obligation to ‘Ensure Respect’
A Call for a High Contracting Parties on Enforcing Israel’s Respect of the Fourth Geneva Convention
The Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, including Jerusalem, have been living under a belligerent occupation since the deployment of Israeli forces to these territories in 1967. For 34 years, Palestinians have been denied their inalienable right to self-determination. As the Occupying Power, Israel owes the Palestinian civilians living under the occupation protective guarantees as provided under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949 (hereinafter Fourth Geneva Convention or “Convention”). All members of the international community, except Israel, have repeatedly recognised that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure to the ongoing situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the official representative of the Palestinian people, have in no way changed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. According to Articles 7 and 47 of the Convention, no agreement concluded between the belligerents shall deprive the protected persons of their rights as guaranteed under the Convention.
A series of resolutions passed during the United Nations General Assembly’s tenth emergency special session reaffirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These resolutions further made an unprecedented recommendation to the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention to “convene a conference on measures to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and to ensure its respect, in accordance with common Article 1.”[1]
At the conference that convened on 15 July 1999, the United States strongly pressured the other High Contracting Parties to abandon the intended purpose of the meeting and to effectively ignore their legal commitment to ensure respect of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The conference became subject to political interests and there was no serious discussion regarding the implementation of the Convention. Indeed, the High Contracting Parties adjourned the meeting after approximately fifteen minutes with the following concluding statement:
Taking into consideration the improved atmosphere in the Middle East as a whole, the Conference was adjourned on the understanding that it will convene again in the light of consultations on the development of the humanitarian situation in the field.[2]
In the two years since the conference, there has not been, nor does there exist at present, an “improved atmosphere in the Middle East as a whole.”[3] The second intifada has entered its second year. It has borne witness to some of the worst and most systematic violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention by Israel since the commencement of the occupation. The main reason for the early adjournment of the first conference of the High Contracting Parties – “to give peace a chance” – does not exist at this time, assuming it once did. It is more timely than ever – imperative actually – for the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to reconvene to consider the means available to enforce Israel’s de jure implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The purpose of this report is to highlight those violations of human rights law and humanitarian law perpetrated by Israel and to obtain the commitment of the High Contracting Parties to fulfill their responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention. To this end, Part I shall address the violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention perpetrated by Israel during the Al-Aqsa intifada, and Part II shall highlight the legal obligation of the High Contracting Parties to “ensure respect for the [Fourth Geneva Convention] in all circumstances.” It is imperative that there are immediate moves to fulfill this obligation, and we hope that the meeting of the High Contracting Parties on 05 December, 2001 well be the first effective step towards achieving that goal.
Part I: Israeli Violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention against Palestinian Civilians
Article 147
Grave breaches … shall [include] … willful killing, … willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health …
At least 631 Palestinians have been killed in the OPT since 29 September 2000, including 164 under the age of eighteen and 19 women.[4] About 83 percent of those killed were civilians. At least 16,275 Palestinians have been injured.[5] Both Israeli occupation forces and Jewish settlers have been responsible for these deaths and injuries.
In the majority of cases, Israeli occupation forces have stated that the resort to lethal force was in response to direct threats to the lives of soldiers. In reality, however, few of those Palestinians killed were shot in incidents in which there was any real danger to the life of Israeli soldiers, settlers, or other Israeli citizens. Indeed, there are many cases in which Palestinians were unarmed and/or were targeted apparently without provocation.
In some cases of willful killing, Palestinian demonstrators were participating in stone-throwing demonstrations. Their actions, however, have rarely posed any threat, either real or reasonably feared, to the safety of the soldiers; Israeli soldiers, wearing protective military clothing, have often remained within military jeeps or tanks, have been located in military posts fortified with cement blocks and towers, or have been positioned above the location of demonstrations. In addition, demonstrators have usually been shot when they were at a significant distance from Israeli soldiers. In such circumstances, it is extremely doubtful that Palestinian demonstrators actually presented a danger to the lives of Israeli soldiers in all of the cases involving the use of lethal violence against Palestinians.
In those situations in which the actions of Palestinian demonstrators have posed a threat to the safety of Israeli soldiers, the latter’s response should have been proportionate to the threat itself. However, an analysis of the kinds of ammunition which have caused injuries to Palestinians indicates that this has not been the case:[6]
? 21% live ammunition,
? 32% rubber-coated steel bullets or plastic bullets,
? 29% tear gas, and
? 18% miscellaneous (mostly bomb fragments and shrapnel).
Over half of the reported injuries involved the use of live or rubber-coated bullets. The above statistics clearly indicate a pattern of disproportionate and excessive use of force by Israeli soldiers against Palestinians.
Extra-Judicial Killings
Israel has pursued a policy of assassination of Palestinians in the OPT suspected of hostile activity against Israel. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has repeatedly reaffirmed Israel’s right to extra-judicially kill Palestinians who are on Israel’s ‘most wanted’ list. In flagrant violation of international and national laws on judicial processes of arrest, charge, and trial of those suspected of criminal acts, Israel has assassinated at least 37 targeted individuals whom it alleges were a threat to its security. The assassinations have involved direct shootings, booby-trapped telephones or cars used by the victims, and helicopter-launched missile attacks. At least 11 civilian bystanders have been killed in these illegal operations and many more have been injured.
Killings by Jewish Settlers
Since the outbreak of the intifada, Jewish settlers have been responsible for the wilful killings of at least 24 Palestinian civilians. To date, Israeli prosecutors have not brought a single charge against any settler in connection with these killings.
Medical Care, Personnel, and Patients
Article 16
The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect.
During the intifada, Israel has subjected the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to a near-complete closure of all border crossings into Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. As a result, Israel has obstructed the transfer of the wounded to hospitals abroad and the entry of necessary medical equipment to Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In addition, Palestinians who previously visited Israeli hospitals for regular treatment before the intifada have been denied access to those medical facilities. Israeli forces have also obstructed internal movement and the transfer of patients to Palestinian hospitals within the territories. At least 22 Palestinian civilians in urgent need of medical care have died after long delays imposed by Israeli forces at border crossings and checkpoints.
Persons regularly and solely engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals, including the personnel engaged in the search for, removal and transporting of and caring for wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected.
Attacks or reprisals on medical personnel, ambulances, or installations constitute violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Yet, during the intifada, Israeli occupation forces have attacked ambulances of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society 156 times, causing damage to 66 emergency vehicles.[7] Similarly, 116 of the Red Crescent’s emergency medical personnel have been injured since 29 September 2000, and one medical worker killed.[8] Israeli forces have either denied or restricted access to Red Crescent emergency vehicles at least 185 times during the current intifada.
No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.
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 … of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, … but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
Grave breaches … shall [include] … torture or inhuman treatment.
On 6 September 1999, the Israeli High Court of Justice delivered its decision in a number of applications submitted by human rights groups and individual Palestinian detainees against the use of torture by the Israeli General Security Service (GSS). The Court found that the GSS had been systematically using physical force during its interrogations, “imping[ing] upon the suspect’s dignity, his bodily integrity and his basic rights beyond what is necessary.”[9] In spite of the finding that the physical interrogation methods were contrary to the Israeli Basic Law and to Israel’s international legal obligations, the Court ruled that “[i]f the State wishes to enable GSS interrogators to utilise physical means in interrogations, it must seek the enactment of legislation for this purpose.”[10]
The Israeli government accepted the Court’s tacit invitation to reopen the debate about the legalisation of torture. Although then Prime Minister Barak agreed on 15 February 2000 to shelve all legislation pertaining to the use of torture, the Israeli Attorney General, in direct violation of Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, countered with a declaration that he retained the prerogative not to prosecute individual GSS interrogators if they chose to use physical force against Palestinian suspects when they deemed it ‘necessary.’
As the matter presently stands, Israel is in breach of international laws on torture in the following respects:
? Reports about the use of various forms of physical force by GSS interrogators continue to emerge even after the High Court of Justice ruled that the use of physical force was unlawful. Forms of torture include beatings, using Palestinian collaborators to physically pressure detainees into disclosing information, and imprisoning Palestinian minors with common law criminals.
? The Israeli Knesset still has not passed legislation to formally outlaw the use of all torture by GSS interrogators. The failure to do so constitutes a breach of Article 2(1) of the Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment [hereinafter Convention against Torture] to which Israel is a state party.
? GSS interrogators who committed acts of torture against Palestinian suspects before the ruling have not yet been prosecuted in accordance with Article 146 of the Convention. Further, the Israeli Attorney General officially stated that he would not necessarily prosecute GSS interrogators who individually choose to use physical pressure against Palestinian suspects when they deem it necessary, even after the High Court of Justice ruled that such practices were unlawful.
? Article 15 of the Convention against Torture states that evidence extracted by means of torture shall not be admitted in court against the accused. No steps have been taken to re-try those Palestinian prisoners whose convictions rested upon evidence obtained by physical methods of interrogation that the High Court of Justice declared unlawful.
? Palestinian detainees who were subjected to torture before the ruling have still not been provided with compensation or rehabilitation. This is in direct violation of Article 14 of the Convention against Torture.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained … as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall … nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention.
Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible.
Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence.
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power … are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein.
Under the Oslo Agreements, Israeli occupation forces redeployed from parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip had to abandon prisons located in those areas. As a result, Israel transferred Palestinians detained and imprisoned in those locations to prisons inside Israel. Before the intifada, approximately 2,000 Palestinians were imprisoned in jails located within Israel. Since the beginning of the intifada, several hundred more Palestinians have been and are currently being held in Israeli prisons. These detentions are a clear and repeated violation of Article 49, which prohibits the transfer of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power, and of Article 76, which calls for prison sentences to be served by protected persons in the occupied territory.
The transfer of these detainees to prisons and detention facilities inside Israel has resulted in the denial of access to family members. Family visits to prisons in Israel have been rendered almost impossible due to the continued restrictions imposed by the Israeli authorities on the freedom of movement of Palestinians both within the OPT and from the OPT into Israel. Additionally, family members of Palestinian prisoners have often been denied permission to visit them without reason.
Prison Conditions
Protected persons [convicted] of offences … shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtained in prisons in the occupied country.
They shall receive the medical attention required by their state of health.
…
Proper regard shall be paid to the special treatment due to minors.
Palestinian prisoners are held in deteriorating and overcrowded quarters, exposed to extremes of temperature and inadequate standards of hygiene in prison accommodation. In addition, there is clear discrimination between the standards of prison conditions for Israeli prisoners and for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons.
The quality and the quantity of food provided to Palestinian prisoners contravene international normative standards. The inadequate provision of food to Palestinian prisoners has a direct impact on their health and increases their vulnerability to illness. Due to illness or to particular conditions, some Palestinian prisoners require special diets, which Israeli prison authorities do not provide. Poor health has been exacerbated by a substandard nutritional regime.
There is also inadequate provision of medical facilities and care for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. For instance, there is a serious shortage of medical personnel in prisons. Some prisons do not have a resident doctor while others have doctors who are available only for a short time each day. The doctors who work in prison facilities are usually qualified in general practice only, and Palestinian prisoners requiring special attention are subjected to long delays in access to specialist medical care.
Minors held in Israeli jails are not afforded the specific care that Israeli prison authorities are required to provide. Indeed, Palestinian minors held as political prisoners in Telmond prison in Israel have been imprisoned in the Israeli criminal population holding areas, thereby exposing them to physical and psychological dangers.
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
…
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
For the duration of the occupation, Israel has maintained a policy of house demolitions. In the past, the state has justified its demolition of houses on the basis of owners having built their homes without a permit, on Israeli state land, inside “green areas,” on land not zoned for building, or on land zoned for agricultural or security purposes.
Since the outbreak of the intifada, there has been an alarming increase in the number of demolitions of Palestinian homes, buildings, and agricultural lands in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel has completely demolished at least 308 houses in the Gaza Strip alone, leaving thousands of people homeless. In addition, Israel has swept at least 13,500 dunums of Palestinian agricultural land in the Gaza Strip, approximately 9% of the total agricultural land in the Strip. This has had and will continue to have devastating effects on the economy of the OPT, where agriculture is a primary sector.
The official Israeli justification for the demolitions and the leveling of land has changed. The reason for any particular demolition or sweeping has not always been announced, either before or after the act of destruction. When giving reasons for this destruction, Israeli authorities invariably claim that the property or land destroyed was providing cover for Palestinian gunmen and its destruction was therefore necessary in the interests of security. In reality, such claims have been largely unfounded and no evidence has been provided of the use of these properties or land by Palestinian gunmen. Preemptive demolitions have also occurred in areas and on properties which cannot reasonably have been used as cover for Palestinian attacks on Israeli forces or Israeli settlers.
Article 53 of the Convention prohibits the destruction of civilian property by the Occupying Power unless the destruction is absolutely necessitated by military operations. Military necessity refers to a situation in which a state cannot escape from a danger of war in any other way than by committing an act which would otherwise constitute a violation of international law. The term absolutely stresses that the article is to be read narrowly, and any ambiguity in the application of the article should be interpreted in favour of the civilians for whom the protection is intended.
Israel has alternatively claimed that the demolitions are justified on the basis of self-defence. However, these arguments are misapplied by the Israeli state in at least two respects. To rely upon self-defence, the violent act must be in response to an act of violence or to an imminent threat of violence, and the response must be directed at the perpetrators of the attacks. In the case of the demolitions and land sweeping, the immediate quality of the risk has been absent, and the acts of destruction taken in response to the Palestinian attacks have been directed at innocent civilians rather than at the perpetrators of the attacks.
On the ground, all the facts indicate that the Israeli destruction of Palestinian property constitutes reprisals against and indiscriminate punishment of civilians, both of which are prohibited by Article 33 of the Convention. The excessive nature of the Israeli response to Palestinian attacks violates the principle of proportionality that underlies the arguments of self-defence and military necessity. Palestinian owners of the properties around which violence occurs have had little or no control over the clashes that have occurred between Palestinian militants and Israeli forces. Israel fails to provide any evidence indicating that the property owners have participated in, assisted, or encouraged the attacks against Israelis. The demolitions are thus reprisatory and constitute a violation of Article 33.
…
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Since the beginning of the occupation, Israel has pursued an aggressive policy of settlement, increasing both the number and the size of settlements in the OPT. The establishment of settlements in land illegally occupied by Israel is a violation of Article 49 and a grave breach of the Convention. Israel is responsible for planning, approving, funding, and constructing the settlements, and it offers Israelis financial incentives to move to the territories. Presently, about 400,000 Jewish settlers live in more than 200 settlements in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.[12] On 30 April 2001, the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, headed by former American senator George J. Mitchell, recommended that all settlement activity be halted in an effort to bring peace to the region. Israel has not complied with these recommendations. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon maintains that he will restrict expansion to the ‘natural growth’ requirements of existing settlements, but only after a period of complete calm. On the ground, about 950 new housing units were added to settlements in the last quarter of 2000.[13]
Israel has argued that its settlements are strategic and necessary to maintain security. The facts on the ground, however, belie these claims. Since their establishment and, particularly during this intifada, the existence and the growth of settlements in the OPT have been a cause of increasing Palestinian anger. During this intifada that anger has manifested itself in Palestinian demonstrations that have drawn a violent response from Israeli occupation forces, a great number of which have been deployed near settlements to guard them. All facts establish that the settlements threaten Israel’s security rather than enhance it and that the settlements are more about creating demographic ‘facts on the ground,’ making the creation of a viable Palestinian state an impossibility.
Israel has defended its settlement policy by arguing that settlements are an issue that the PLO, as the representative of the Palestinian people, agreed to discuss in the final peace negotiations of the Oslo Agreements. These negotiations were scheduled for 1999 but have yet to take place. Such negotiations are, however, violate Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that protected persons shall not be deprived of the benefits of the Convention by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power. Consequently, any agreement between Israel and the PLO on this issue does not negate the fact that the existence of the settlements constitutes a grave breach of the Convention.
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
…
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
Since the beginning of the occupation, Israel has retained the ability to control the free movement of Palestinians and commodities into and out of the territories through imposition of a general closure. In 1989, strict closures were introduced, along with the magnetic card system for all Palestinian residents over the age of sixteen. Periodically, Israel has tightened its control of the borders of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, imposing even absolute closures – blockades that prevent all movement of Palestinians and goods in and out of these territories.
Since 29 September 2000, Israeli occupation forces have imposed a near-total air, sea, and land siege on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Its effect has been to isolate these territories from Israel and from the outside world, severing links between the two territories and restricting movement even within these territories themselves.
Israeli occupation forces have severely restricted, and at times have entirely halted:
? movement through all border crossings from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into Israel,
? movement through all border crossings between the Palestinian territories and Jordan and Egypt,
? movement along the Safe Passage, linking the Gaza Strip and the West Bank,
? flights to and from Gaza International Airport, the sole air outlet for the Gaza Strip, and
? use by fishermen of the Mediterranean Sea.
In addition, travel within the Gaza Strip itself has been severely hampered by the periodic closure of the main roads that link the south of the Strip to the north and the imposition of tight Israeli control along all major roads. In the West Bank, in addition to the restrictions on movement resulting from the increasing number of Israeli checkpoints, strict curfews have been imposed upon many Palestinian towns, cutting them off from the rest of the territories. The network of checkpoints, roadblocks, and access roads reserved exclusively for Israeli use have fragmented the West Bank into some 64 separate areas.
The closures of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have had devastating effects on a Palestinian economy that is almost entirely dependent upon the Israeli economy and Israeli control of territorial borders. Near-total restrictions on the movement of Palestinians into Israel have resulted in approximately 120,000 unemployed Palestinian labourers. This represents a 75% reduction in the number of Palestinians working in Israel[14], and a $US 750 million annual loss in revenues from labour services to the Palestinian economy.[15] In addition, the restrictions on the movement of goods imposed through the closure of border crossings into Israel have resulted in the loss of at least $US 60 million worth of exports to Israel since the outbreak of the intifada.[16]
Not a single Palestinian in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank has remained unaffected by the closures imposed by Israel. Approximately 14.2% of households have lost their sources of income during the intifada while 47.4% have lost at least half of their usual income in the same period.[17] The median monthly income of Palestinians has decreased from 2500 NIS to 1300 NIS.[18]
For its part, Israel has cited security concerns, and in particular its vulnerability to suicide bombers, as the reason for the tightening of its control over the territories. However, the closures have not prevented suicide bombers from entering Israel during the intifada, a fact that demonstrates that the siege has not had the effect that Israel allegedly desires. In fact, the crippling and sweeping effects the siege has had on the lives of the normal civilian population serves to inspire acts of violence against Israel rather than quell them. In addition, the closures indiscriminately punish all Palestinians, including innocent civilians, and thus constitute a form of collective punishment. Collective punishments are a clear violation of international humanitarian law.
Part I has demonstrated that Israel has contravened multiple provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. There is little to indicate that Israel will change its illegal practices in the future, especially when it continues to refuse to recognise the de jure applicability of the Convention in the OPT. The High Contracting Parties of the Convention have an obligation to ensure Israel’s respect of the Convention in all circumstances. It is on the basis of Article 1, which clearly sets out this responsibility, that the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights urges the High Contracting Parties to convene a meeting at the earliest possible time to discuss ways of securing Israel’s compliance with the Convention.
Article 1 creates not only a