\n| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n Page<\/u><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \n INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \n I.<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n III.<\/p>\n IV.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n General legal requirements under military occupation<\/p>\n The 黑料专区 and the question of settlements<\/p>\n The nature and purpose of settlements<\/p>\n Acquisition of land and impact on the Arab residents<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 7<\/p>\n 17<\/p>\n 26<\/p>\n 32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \n CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| <\/td>\n | \n Notes and references<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 43<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \n Annexes<\/u><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \n I.<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n III.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n | \n List of settlements<\/p>\n Settlements already established or being established in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n Map showing Israeli settlements established, planned or under construction<\/p>\n in the territories occupied in June 1967<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 48<\/p>\n 63<\/p>\n 65<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| \n IV.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Map showing areas of expropriation in the West Bank and Gaza<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n \n
\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/div>\n <\/p>\n The establishment of settlements in the occupied territories started immediately after the 1967 war. In July 1967, a group of young Israelis founded the first settlement in the Golan (Herom ha Golan). In September 1967, near the city of Hebron (West Bank), children of the pre-1948 settlers persuaded the Government to let them rebuild a kibbutz known as the Etzion Bloc. During Passover 1968, a group of religious nationalists went to Hebron and stayed there despite government reluctance to let them establish themselves in an Arab town.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, a settlement was established (Kirvat Arba) on the north-east side of Hebron with the Government’s permission.\u00a0\u00a0(An ancient Jewish community had been settled in Hebron until 1929).<\/div>\n The first official support to settlement construction came in June 1967, when 160 Arab houses were demolished in the old city of Jerusalem in order to open a court in front of the Western Wall. Immediately, 600 buildings were expropriated and approximately 6,500 Arabs, both tenants and land owners, were removed. New buildings were late\u00bb occupied by Israeli residents.<\/div>\n From 1967 to 1970, the Government’s settlement priorities appeared to be the southern part of the Golan Heights, where agricultural settlements were established, and the north side of East Jerusalem. 1<\/u>\/<\/div>\n“Both sets of settlements had acknowledged strategic purpose: the Government signalled its intention to prevent the Syrians from returning to the heights overlooking the Sea of Galilee, from which they could train their guns on the Israeli fishermen and farmers below.\u00a0\u00a0The Jerusalem suburbs were popularly dubbed the ‘Rogers Plan Housing’, indicating that their construction sought to pre-empt American pressure on Israel to leave East Jerusalem.” 2<\/u>\/<\/div>\nThe construction of settlements continued at an increased rate after the Likud Government came into power in 1977.\u00a0\u00a0According to a document of the World Zionist Organization entitled “Master plan for the development of settlement in Judea and Samaria, 1979-1983”, 3<\/u>\/ 46 new settlements in Judea and Samaria would be added within five years, and inhabited by 16,000 families.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, following the policy of “thickening” the already established settlements, in five years 27,000 families will have settled down in the area.\u00a0\u00a0This plan has already been amended so that 22 more settlements will have been established there by the same date.<\/div>\nA more recent report entitled “Settlement in Judea and Samaria – strategy, policy and plans” by Matityahu Drobles, author of the master plan, is said to have been adopted by the Government of Israel in January 1981.\u00a0\u00a0In sending a copy of this report to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People stated:\u00a0\u00a0“The perusal of this document leaves one in no doubt of Israel’s intention to annex the Arab territories it has illegally occupied”.<\/div>\n The report reads, in part:<\/div>\n “Forty-four settlements have so far been established – or are in the process of being established – in Judea and Samaria:\u00a0\u00a021 communal settlements, 12 urban settlements, 3 moshavim, 3 kibbutzim, 3 industrial villages, 1 regional centre and 1 industrial centre.\u00a0\u00a0Thirty-five settlements have been or are being established in Judea and Samaria over the past 3 years, since 1977 (see attached list of settlements in Judea and Samaria).\u00a0\u00a0The Jewish population in these regions totals some 10,000 people today.<\/div>\n “The majority of the settlements in Judea and Samaria are communal villages.\u00a0\u00a0The communal settlement is a relatively new form of settlement.\u00a0\u00a0Such a settlement is designed to have a population of 300 families, in order to enable the development of an intensive and productive form of communal life, a closed rural society capable of generating a quality of life and services on a higher level than normally found in larger and open urban societies on the same economic level.<\/div>\n “In light of the current negotiations on the future of Judea and Samaria, it will now become necessary for us to conduct a race against time. During this period, everything will be mainly determined by the facts we establish in these territories and loss by any other considerations. This is therefore the best time for launching an extensive and comprehensive settlement momentum, particularly on the Judea and Samaria hilltops which are not easily passable by nature and which preside over the Jordan Valley on the east and over the Coastal Plain on the west.<\/div>\n “It is therefore significant to stress today, mainly by means of actions, that the autonomy does not and will not apply to the territories but only to the Arab population thereof.\u00a0\u00a0This should mainly find expression by establishing facts on the ground.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, the state-owned lands and the uncultivated barren lands in Judea and Samaria ought to be seized right away, with the purpose of settling the areas between and around the centres occupied by the minorities so as to reduce to the minimum the danger of an additional Arab state being established in these territories. Being cut off by Jewish settlements, the minority population will find it difficult to form a territorial and political continuity.<\/div>\n “There mustn’t be even the shadow of a doubt about our intention to keep the territories of Judea and Samaria for good. Otherwise, the minority population may get into a state of growing disquiet which will eventually result in recurrent efforts to establish an additional Arab state in these territories.\u00a0\u00a0The best and most effective way of removing every shadow of a doubt about our intention to hold on to Judea and Samaria forever is by speeding up the settlement momentum in these territories.<\/div>\n “…<\/div>\n “The population in these settlements will amount at the first stage to between 50 and 300 families which will find their means of livelihood mainly in industry, tourism and services and to a much lesser extent in sophisticated agriculture, owing to the shortage of agricultural means of production in these territories. Regional services in the educational, health and cultural spheres are planned to set up at the very first stage of the implementation of the settlement program – in each and every bloc, in one of the central settlements thereof. The setting up of these services as early as possible will contribute to the welfare of the new settlements. The establishment of the settlements is preceded by forming a group of potential settlers and getting them ready for taking occupancy of the land. The absorption unit of the Settlement Division sets up the framework for social assimilation activities among the settlers (both new immigrants and veteran citizens), in co-ordination with the various settlement movements and with other social bodies.\u00a0\u00a0It should be noted that the current potential for settlement is very high.\u00a0\u00a0There is an increasing stream of applications submitted by people wishing to settle in Judea and Samaria, and the number of families wishing to settle in these territories – either by setting up new settlements or by joining existing ones – amounts to many thousands, both in Israel and in the diaspora.<\/div>\n “Over the next five years it is necessary to establish 12 to 15 rural and urban settlements per annum in Judea and Samaria, so that five years from now the number of settlements will grow by 60 to 75 and the Jewish population thereof will amount to between 120,000 and 150,000 people.” 4<\/u>\/<\/div>\nAccording to the report of the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979):<\/div>\n “Between 1967 and May 1979, Israel has established altogether 133 settlements in the occupied territories, consisting of 79 in the West Bank, 29 in the Golan Heights, 7 in the Gaza Strip and 18 in the Sinai.<\/div>\n “…<\/div>\n “As a whole, therefore, leaving aside the Sinai area, where settlements have been vacated. Israel has established 33 new settlements since the adoption by the Security Council of its resolution 446 (1979) referred to above, wringing the total number to 148.\u00a0\u00a0In addition, a number of the existing settlements have been expanded, sometimes to more than twice their original size.”<\/div>\n The number of settlers has also increased. According to the same source:<\/div>\n “Since the Government came to power in 1977, the number of settlers in the West Bank alone has risen from 3,200 to 17,400. Those figures do not include the settlers in East Jerusalem and the Jerusalem area, which by now number approximately 80,000.” 5<\/u>\/<\/div>\nA more recent (1981) estimate places the number of Jews in the West Bank at 20,000, an increase of 620 per cent.\u00a0\u00a0Including the settlers in East Jerusalem and the Jerusalem area, therefore, there were approximately 100,000 settlers.\u00a0\u00a0According to The Jerusalem Post<\/u>, the Council of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza had appointed a special team to seek ways to increase the Jewish population to 40,000 during 1981, 6<\/u>\/ not including Jerusalem.<\/div>\nIn connexion with the acquisition of land, the Security Council Commission reported:<\/div>\n “The extent of the land confiscated in the West Bank had increased from 27 per cent of the total area in May 1979 to 33.3 per cent in September 1980. No precise figure has been given for additional confiscation of land in the Golan Heights. However, on the basis that only 5 Arab villages have been left and that only some 8,000 inhabitants have been able to remain out of the original population of 142,000, it seems fair to conclude that the occupying authorities control virtually all the land.<\/div>\n “Similarly in the Gaza Strip, according to witnesses, confiscation of land is final; however, no reliable figures have been made available to show the extent of the land confiscated so far.” 7<\/u>\/<\/div>\nAccording to figures supplied by the 黑料专区 Special Committee on Palestine, in 1947, on the eve of the Israeli statehood, Jewish possession of land in all of Palestine represented between 9 and 12 per cent of the cultivable land of the country, in 1977, of the total land surface of mandated Palestine, Arabs held 19 per cent and Israelis slightly more than 81 per cent. 8<\/u>\/<\/div>\nThe 黑料专区 General Assembly and Security Council have determined that the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories “constitute a serious obstruction to efforts aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” 9<\/u>\/<\/div>\nOn 27 January 1981, the following statement was made on behalf of the Secretary-General of the 黑料专区:<\/div>\n “The Secretary-General would like to repeat that he regrets any decision which may result in the expansion or increase of settlements in the occupied territories. Such a decision would clearly be in contravention of resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council and can only hamper the search for a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement of the Middle East problem.”<\/div>\n <\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0GENERAL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER MILITARY OCCUPATION<\/div>\n Israeli conduct in the occupied territories is assessed in light of the international law of military occupation.\u00a0\u00a0The basic rules of international law generally accepted as applicable to the Israeli occupied territories are given below.<\/div>\n The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (referred to as the fourth Geneva Convention), and the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed on 18 October 1907.\u00a0\u00a0The fourth Geneva Convention has been ratified by all States party to the Middle East problem.\u00a0\u00a0Israel ratified the Convention on 10 April 1951;<\/div>\n The articles of the fourth Geneva Convention applicable to the situation are:<\/div>\n ( a<\/u>) <\/i>Article 2, first paragraph, which reads:<\/div>\n“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”;<\/div>\n ( b<\/u>) Article 47, which provides:<\/div>\n“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived in any case or any manner whatsoever of the benefits of the present convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, or by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the occupying power, and nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”;<\/div>\n ( c<\/u>) Article 49 is directly concerned with the question of transfer of civilian population.\u00a0\u00a0It states:<\/div>\n“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.<\/div>\n “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”;<\/div>\n ( d<\/u>) Article 53, which provides:<\/div>\n“Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or the state, or to any other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operation.”<\/div>\n The Government of Israel, which participated in the negotiations of the fourth Geneva Convention and was one of the first to ratify them, has not recognized its legal applicability to the occupied Arab territories and has not applied it.<\/div>\n According to Leonard C. Meeker, Attorney, Centre for Law and Social Policy, and former legal adviser to the United States Department of Labor, 10<\/u>\/ the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV on the Laws and Customs of War on land are also applicable to the occupied territories.\u00a0\u00a0Article 2 of the Convention states:<\/div>\n“The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in article 1 as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between the Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.”<\/div>\n In connexion with the applicability of this Convention, it is stated: 11<\/u>\/<\/div>\n“This article [2] appears on its face to limit the applicability of the Regulations. However, the general acceptance of the rules set forth in the Regulations over the course of 70 years has led to the rules now being considered as rules of customary international law binding on all countries whether or not they ever became parties to Hague Convention IV.”<\/div>\n Article 46 of the Hague Regulations provides:<\/div>\n “Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.”<\/div>\n Leonard C. Meeker further notes: 12<\/u>\/<\/div>\n“Testimony presented to the Subcommittees at a certain hearing indicates that in various instances Israeli settlements in the occupied territories have been established through the expropriation or confiscation of private property. It does not seem possible to conclude that expropriation of private property in these territories – even if accompanied by compensation – has been in conformity with the laws in force in the territories prior to their occupation by Israel. As to confiscation of private property, article 46 flatly bans it.”<\/div>\n Articles 55 and 56 of the Hague Regulations are relevant here. They provide:<\/div>\n “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forest and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with these rules of usufruct.<\/div>\n “The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when state property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.”<\/div>\n In this connexion, Meeker argues; 13<\/u>\/<\/div>\n“So far as the property of local communities is concerned, article 56 requires that it is to be treated in the same way as private property. Thus, confiscation is prohibited, and expropriation would not be in conformity with the laws in force in a territory before the Israeli occupation, as required by article 43.<\/div>\n “With respect to public lands, belonging to or administered by a national government such as that of the Syrian Arab Republic, Egypt or Jordan, Israel, as military occupant, would be entitled to administer those lands and to derive current revenues from their accustomed use.\u00a0\u00a0But Israel would not be entitled to appropriate such lands on a permanent basis for new uses of its own choosing.\u00a0\u00a0An authority on the law applicable to international conflict [Julius Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict 714 (1954)] has written as follows:<\/div>\n ‘Real property belonging to the state, which is of military character (ports, arsenals, dock yards, magazines, aerodromes, barracks and railways, lands, bridges, piers and wharfs, submarine bases) remains in the hands of the occupant until the end of the occupation.\u00a0\u00a0Such property may be damaged and destroyed in the interest of the military occupation.\u00a0\u00a0State property, on the other hand, which is essentially of a civil, non-military character is, under article 55, on a somewhat different basis.<\/div>\n ‘The occupying state shall regard itself only as administrator and usufructuary of such public buildings, immovable property, forests and agricultural undertakings belonging to the hostile state (and situated in the occupied country). It must protect the capital of these properties and administer them according to the rules of usufruct. The usufructuary principle forbids wasteful or negligent destruction of the capital value, whether by excessive cutting or mining or other abusive exploitation, contrary to the rules of good husbandry.\u00a0\u00a0And though it permits the occupant to let or utilize public land and buildings, sell crops on public lands, cut and sell timber, and work mines, such contract or lease must not extend beyond the termination of the war’.”<\/div>\n As regards the fourth Geneva Convention, the Government of Israel has refused its applicability in toto<\/u>\u00a0and in particular article 49 on the occupied territories.\u00a0\u00a0The main argument for the denial of the application of the Geneva Conventions given by the Israeli Government is that, previous to the 1967 war. Jordan and Egypt were not the legitimate sovereigns of the West Bank and Gaza Strip respectively. 14<\/u>\/<\/div>\nHowever, the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied territories has been asserted unequivocally by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by the 黑料专区, through both the General Assembly and the Security Council, and by most Governments in the world. 15<\/u>\/ Moreover, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 465 (1980) “Affirming once more<\/u>\u00a0that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.<\/div>\nIn connexion with article 2 of the Convention, Professor W. T. Mallison from George Washington University explained:<\/div>\n “Even if the claim that Jordan annexed the West Bank unlawfully should be accepted for purposes of legal argument, this does not mean that this territory is not ‘the territory of a high contracting party’ within the meaning of article 2.\u00a0\u00a0It is well established that the word ‘territory’ includes, in addition to the jure<\/u>\u00a0title, a mere de facto<\/u>\u00a0title to the territory. Otherwise, civilians in disputed territory would be denied the protection of law on the basis of a trivial, and indeed a non-existent, technicality.<\/div>\n“… the idea that in order to apply the law of belligerent occupation it is necessary for the belligerent to recognize the displaced government’s title to the territory finds no support in either the text of the Convention or its negotiating history. In addition, it is contrary to the well-established customary law based upon state practice. For example, during the American Civil War, the United States treated territory which it claimed as sovereign but which the Confederate States had held as de facto<\/u>\u00a0possessor as being subject to the law of belligerent occupation up until the conclusion of the Civil War. This was the widely accepted customary international law, with the exception of the Nazi and Japanese militarist practices of the Second world War, and there is nothing in the Geneva Convention which changes it.”<\/div>\nHe continues:<\/div>\n “… the Government of Israel claims the right unilaterally to categorize the opponent’s title to land as being the result of aggression with the effect that civilians do not receive the protection of the international humanitarian law.\u00a0\u00a0If the humanitarian law were to be changed so that its application was made contingent upon recognition by the belligerent occupant of the justness of the war aims of its opponent, it is perfectly clear that the humanitarian law would be rarely, if ever, applied.” 16<\/u>\/<\/div>\nIn Professor Mallison’s opinion, the Governments represented at the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1949, including the Government of Israel, stated in the preamble to the Convention that they met “for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”. He argues, therefore, that the attempt to avoid humanitarian protection for civilians by alleging the existence of non-specified governmental rights is to turn the entire Convention upside down.<\/div>\n The same interpretation of article 2 of the fourth Geneva Convention has been given by other international lawyers. For instance, Stephen M. Boyd, Assistant Legal Adviser for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, United states Department of State, in 1971 stated:<\/div>\n “I do not think that the ICRC (International Commission of the Red Cross) expressly considered the sovereignty question in drafting the Convention.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Their interest was to provide a substantial regime under international law \u2014 a widely accepted Convention for the protection of the inhabitants of occupied territories, with the. language broad enough to include the type of situation in which Israel finds itself now.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It does not say ‘the sovereign territory of a High Contracting Party’ but merely ‘the territory’.\u00a0\u00a0The Red Cross has interpreted this language consistently with the purpose and interest of the Convention, which is protection of individuals in a humanitarian way, not the settlement of disputed questions of sovereignty, which, obviously, the Convention was not intended to do.” 17<\/u>\/<\/div>\nThe establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is closely linked with the issue of self-determination contained in Article 73 of the Charter of the 黑料专区.<\/div>\n Leonard C. Meeker gives the following view on the issue:<\/div>\n “It is inconsistent with their right of self-determination for Israel to move Israeli settlers into those areas in the absence of agreement, thereby complicating substantially the demographic situation. As pointed out earlier, such actions are incompatible with Israel’s obligations as military occupant of the territories in question.<\/div>\n “The Gaza Strip and the West Bank stand on a footing somewhat different from Golan and Sinai because they were part of the former Palestine mandate.\u00a0\u00a0There it should be noted that the whole mandate system, originally proposed by President Wilson, was designed to protect non-self-governing peoples and to lead to their exercise of the right of self-determination.\u00a0\u00a0The 黑料专区 partition plan of <\/i>1947 had attempted to respect, in an approximate way, the location of Jewish and Arab communities within Palestine.\u00a0\u00a0However, the plan was not put into effect, and in the spring and summer of 1948 a large number of Arab residents were displaced and became refugees as a result of the hostilities. Today, both the Gaza Strip and West Bank continue to be areas inhabited by a large number of Palestinian Arabs; others became and still are refugees in neighbouring countries.<\/div>\n“It seems clear that the Palestinian Arabs constitute people entitled to self-determination within the meaning of various international instruments containing provisions on self-determination.<\/div>\n “It would seem clear that Israel, a member of the 黑料专区, assumed responsibility for the administration of territories ‘whose peoples have not yet obtained a full measure of self-government’, when it occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The Israeli Government asserts claims to those territories that are in no way related to the principle of self-determination of peoples and that, indeed, run counter to self-determination. Strategic and security considerations are among the arguments advanced. Establishing settlements within those occupied territories has been undertaken to bolster the Israeli claims, and the whole process of colonization appears designed to defeat exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian Arabs resident there.<\/div>\n “It might be noted in connexion with the principle of self-determination that it occupies a very prominent place in the 黑料专区 Covenants on Human Rights.\u00a0\u00a0Article 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are identical.<\/div>\n “Israel and Egypt have signed these Covenants but not ratified them, while Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic have both signed and ratified.<\/div>\n “…<\/div>\n “Similarly, resolution 2633 (XXV) of the General Assembly adopted in 1970 …<\/div>\n “This declarative resolution of the General Assembly was adopted through consensus procedures without a vote, meaning that all members concurred, or at least had no objection to the resolution.\u00a0\u00a0The General Assembly does not have law-making power.\u00a0\u00a0However, when the members join without dissent in a declaration expressing their view concerning the content of international law in a particular area, their expression constitutes strong and persuasive evidence of what the law is.\u00a0\u00a0The declaration confirms the rights and obligations with respect to self-determination that are set forth in Article 73 of the Charter.<\/div>\n “To sum up, I believe that the Israeli establishment of settlements in the occupied territories contravenes the obligations of Israel both under customary international law and under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. In addition, the establishment of these settlements are incompatible with Israel’s obligation to respect and to promote the rights of self-determination of the peoples of these territories.”\u00a0\u00a0 18<\/u>\/<\/div>\n <\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE QUESTION OF SETTLEMENTS<\/div>\n The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, established by the General Assembly in resolution 2443 (XXIII), has expressed grave concern in several of its reports about the implications of the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories.<\/div>\n In its second report, of 17 September 1971, the Special Committee observed:<\/div>\n “The evidence, including testimony before the Special Committee regarding annexation and settlement, supports the allegations that the Government of Israel is following the policy of annexing and settling occupied territories in a manner calculated to exclude all possibility of restitution to lawful ownership.<\/div>\n “The distinction between annexation of conquered territory and occupation of territory in wartime is clarified in the following passage in the commentary published by the International Committee of the Red Cross on the fourth Geneva Convention:<\/div>\n ‘As was emphasized in the commentary on article 4, the occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto<\/u>\u00a0situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty; it merely interferes with its power to exercise its rights.\u00a0\u00a0That is what distinguishes occupation from annexation, whereby the Occupying Power acquires all or part of the occupied territory and incorporates it in its own territory.<\/div>\n‘Consequently, occupation as a result of war, while representing actual possession to all appearances, cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory.\u00a0\u00a0As long as hostilities continue, the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts.<\/div>\n ‘…<\/div>\n ‘A fundamental principle emerges from the foregoing considerations: an Occupying Power continues to be bound to apply 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 …’<\/div>\n “The Special Committee reaffirms the validity of this proposition.\u00a0\u00a0It would furthermore reiterate that every attempt on the part of the Government of Israel at carrying out a policy of annexation and settlement amounts to a denial of the fundamental human rights of the local inhabitants, in particular the right of self-determination and the right to retain their homeland, and a repudiation by the Government of Israel of accepted norms of international law.<\/div>\n “The following facts tend to support the conclusion that it is the Government of Israel’s policy to annex and settle the occupied territories:<\/div>\n “( a<\/u>) The existence, in the Government of Israel, of a ‘Ministerial Committee for Settlement of the Territories’;<\/div>\n“( b<\/u>) Express pronouncements to this effect by Israeli Ministers and leaders;<\/div>\n“( c<\/u>) A memorandum presented on 8 July 1971 to the Special Committee by Mr. Rouhi El-Khatib, Mayor of Jerusalem at the time of the June 1967 hostilities, the facts of which are confirmed by other evidence;<\/div>\n“( d<\/u>) Uncontradicted reports, appearing in the information media, of the planned establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories;<\/div>\n“( e<\/u>) Allegations, as yet unrefuted but consistent with other facts and contained in several letters addressed by the Governments of Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic concerning measures by the Government of Israel in violation of the human rights of the persons living in occupied territories;<\/div>\n“( f<\/u>) The absence of any serious attempt at repatriation of the refugees to their homes in the occupied territories;<\/div>\n“( g<\/u>) The mass expulsion and continued deportation of individuals from the occupied territories;<\/div>\n“( h<\/u>) The continued transfer of the population of the occupied territories to other areas within the occupied territories.” 19<\/u>\/<\/div>\nIn its fifth report, of 25 October 1973, the Special Committee expressed:<\/div>\n “On the basis of its investigation, the Special Committee finds that there is conclusive evidence that the Government of Israel is following a policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories, populating them with Israeli nationals, some of whom are new immigrants and, with regard to certain parts of the occupied territories, such as Hebron (West Bank), Rafah and Sharm el-Sheikh (Sinai) and the Golan Heights, the Government of Israel has adopted long-range plans for settlement.<\/div>\n “The evidence before the Special Committee clearly established that the fact that the Government of Israel is continuing with its policy of the unilateral annexation of the occupied part of Jerusalem and the enlargement of the municipal boundaries of the city by the incorporation of considerable areas of land forming part of the occupied West Bank.”<\/div>\n On 20 December 1971, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2851 (XXVI) in which it strongly called upon Israel to rescind forthwith all measures and to desist from all policies and practices such as:<\/div>\n ( a<\/u>) The annexation of any part of the occupied Arab territories;<\/div>\n( b<\/u>) The establishment of Israeli settlements on those territories and the transfer of parts of its civilian population into the occupied territory;<\/div>\n( c<\/u>) The destruction and demolition of villages, quarters and houses and the confiscation and expropriation of property.<\/div>\nGeneral Assembly resolution 3525 (XXX) of 15 December 1975 condemns in particular the following Israeli policies:<\/div>\n ( a<\/u>) The annexation of parts of the occupied territories;<\/div>\n( b<\/u>) The establishment of Israeli settlements therein and the transfer of an alien population thereto;<\/div>\n( c<\/u>) The destruction and demolition of Arab houses;<\/div>\n( d<\/u>)\u00a0\u00a0The confiscation and expropriation of Arab property in the occupied territories and all other transactions for the acquisition of land involving the Israeli authorities, institutions or nationals on the one hand, and the inhabitants or institutions of the occupied territories on the other.<\/div>\nGeneral Assembly resolution 32\/5 of 28 October 1977 reads, in part:<\/div>\n “1. Determines<\/u>\u00a0that all such measures and actions taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction of efforts aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;<\/div>\n“2. Strongly deplores<\/u>\u00a0the persistence of Israel in carrying out such measures, in particular the establishment of settlements in the occupied Arab territories;<\/div>\n“3. Calls upon<\/u>\u00a0Israel to comply strictly with its international obligations in accordance with the principles of international law and the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;<\/div>\n“4.\u00a0\u00a0 Calls once more upon<\/u>\u00a0the Government of Israel, as the occupying Power, to desist forthwith from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status, geographical nature or demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;<\/div>\n“5.\u00a0\u00a0 Urges<\/u>\u00a0all States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to ensure respect for and compliance with its provisions in all the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”.<\/div>\nBy Security Council resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, a Commission was established of which the main purpose is “to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem”.<\/div>\n In the same resolution, the Security Council further determines;<\/div>\n “… that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”<\/div>\n and:<\/div>\n “3.\u00a0\u00a0 Calls once more<\/u>\u00a0upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;<\/div>\n“4.\u00a0\u00a0 Establishes<\/u>\u00a0a commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be appointed by the President of the Council after consultation with the members of the Council …”.<\/div>\nIn its third report, the Commission came to the following conclusions:<\/div>\n “Consequently after having carefully examined all the elements of information which the Commission has been in a position to gather in the implementation of its mandate, the Commission would like to reaffirm the entirety of the conclusions contained in its two previous reports and more specifically the following:<\/div>\n “( a<\/u>) The Israeli Government is actively pursuing its wilful, systematic large-scale process of establishing settlements in the occupied territories;<\/div>\n“( b<\/u>) A correlation exists between the establishment of Israeli settlements and the displacement of the Arab population;<\/div>\n“( c<\/u>) In the implementation of its policy of settlements, Israel is resorting to methods -often coercive and sometimes more subtle – which include the control of water resources, the seizure of private property, the destruction of houses and the banishment of persons in complete disregard for basic human rights;<\/div>\n“( d<\/u>) The settlement policy has brought drastic and adverse changes to the economic and social pattern of the daily life of the remaining Arab population; and is causing profound changes of a geographical and demographic nature in the occupied territories including Jerusalem;<\/div>\n“( e<\/u>) Those changes constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 and of the relevant decisions adopted by the Security Council in the matter.<\/div>\n“Consequently, the Commission wishes to reiterate that Israel’s policy of settlement, by which, as an example, 33.3 per cent of the West Bank has been confiscated to date, has no legal validity and constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the area.<\/div>\n “In view of the recent deterioration of the situation in the occupied Arab territories, the Commission considers that Israel’s settlement policy, with the unjustified sufferings which it imposes on a defenceless population, is an incitement to further unrest and violence.<\/div>\n “The Israeli policy of settlements has led to major displacements and dispossession of Palestinians, adding to the ever-growing number of refugees with all the attendant consequences.<\/div>\n “Available evidence shows that Israeli occupying authorities continue to deplete the natural resources, particularly water resources, in the occupied territories for their advantage and to the detriment of the Palestinian people.<\/div>\n “As water is a scarce and precious commodity in the area, its control and apportionment means control of the most vital means of survival.\u00a0\u00a0It would seem, therefore, that Israel employs water both as an economic and even political weapon to further its policy of settlements.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently, the economy and agriculture of the Arab population is adversely affected by the exploitation of water resources by the occupying authorities.<\/div>\n “On Jerusalem, the Commission has noted with grave concern that tension and confrontation between Israel and the Islamic world have increased, especially following the enactment of a basic law in the Israeli Knesset, proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City, which has also affected Christendom.” 20<\/u>\/<\/div>\nTaking note of the reports of the Commission established under resolution 446 (1979), the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 465 (1980) that reads, in part:<\/div>\n “ Affirming once more<\/u>\u00a0that the Geneva convention relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,<\/div>\n“…<\/div>\n “5. Determines<\/u>\u00a0that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;<\/div>\n“6. Strongly deplores<\/u>\u00a0the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;<\/div>\n“7. Calls upon<\/u>\u00a0all states not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;<\/div>\n“8. Requests<\/u>\u00a0the Commission to continue to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly the water resources, with a view to ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation, and to keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the present resolution;”.<\/div>\n <\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0NATURE AND PURPOSE OF SETTLEMENTS<\/div>\n | | |