NOTEN 1 EN 2

NOOT 3

NOOT 4

NOOT 5

NOOT 6

NOTEN 7 EN 8

NOTEN 9 T/M 11

NOOT 12

NOTEN 13 EN 14

13]

OEKRAIENSE VLUCHTELINGEN, EUROPA EN CHRISTENHONDEN/

SOLIDARITEIT OF TROUBLE IN PARADISE?

ASTRID ESSED’

24 JULI 2022

ZIE OOK

[14]

TWITTERPAGINA MINISTER HOEKSTRA

https://twitter.com/WBHoekstra/status/1496974375790206982?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1496974375790206982%7Ctwgr%5E365fa7aaa4e726afdf12ce1a55bd11995ae48bb9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.astridessed.nl%2Fnoot-12-oproep-aan-minister-hoekstra-treed-op-tegen-de-israelische-misdaden%2F

Wopke Hoekstra

@WBHoekstra

Nederlandse overheidsfunctionaris

#Rusland kiest er met laffe oorlogsdaden voor internationale afspraken in de wind te slaan, en de fundamenten van internationaal recht & internationale veiligheid ernstig te beschadigen. Vandaag met mijn collega’s van OVSE-landen overlegd over de aanval in Oekraïne. 1/3

[12]

”6 april 2023, wetsvoorstel – Met Israël zijn afspraken gemaakt over de juridische status van defensiepersoneel dat aanwezig is op elkaars grondgebied. De Kamer debatteert met minister Ollongren (Defensie) en minister Hoekstra (Buitenlandse Zaken) over het verdrag waarin dit is vastgelegd.

Het verdrag met Israël is een bilaterale overeenkomst zoals we die ook met andere landen hebben, leggen Ollongren en Hoekstra uit. Het zegt niets over de inhoud van samenwerking. Er is vastgelegd dat de bevoegde autoriteiten jaarlijks afspraken maken. Het zou bijvoorbeeld kunnen gaan om wederzijds gebruik van trainings- en oefenfaciliteiten, gezamenlijke innovatiestudies en kennisuitwisseling.”

TWEEDE KAMER

VERDRAG MET ISRAEL OVER DE STATUS VAN ELKAARS

STRIJDKRACHTEN

6 APRIL 2023

THE RIGHTS FORUM

ONTLUISTEREND KAMERDEBAT LEIDT TOT GOEDKEURING

DEFENSIEVERDRAG MET ISRAEL

13 APRIL 2023

Op donderdag 6 april vond een Kamerdebat plaats over een met Israël te sluiten defensieverdrag. Vrijwel geen partij kwam opdagen en antwoorden van het kabinet blonken uit door vrijblijvende vaagheid. Toch werd het verdrag deze week aangenomen.

Donderdag 6 april debatteerde de Tweede Kamer over goedkeuring van een verdrag tussen Israël en Nederland dat de juridische ‘status van hun strijdkrachten’ op elkaars grondgebied regelt. Volgens het kabinet is dat een noodzakelijke stap voor nauwere samenwerking met het Israëlische defensie-apparaat. Ondanks de structurele mensenrechten­schendingen van het Israëlische leger en het annexatie- en nederzettingenbeleid van de Israëlische regering stemde een Kamermeerderheid voor goedkeuring van het verdrag.

Treurig was dat bij het debat vrijwel geen Kamerleden aanwezig waren. Alleen DENK, de initiator van het debat, de SP en PVV waren vertegenwoordigd. Regerings­partijen VVD en D66 hadden zich weliswaar aangemeld, maar trokken zich om onduidelijke redenen terug.

Nederlandse hypocrisie

Tijdens het debat hekelde Tunahan Kuzu van DENK de Nederlandse hypocrisie ten aanzien van de Israëlische bezetting en onderdrukking van de Palestijnen. Ook wees hij erop dat Israël kampioen-schender is van VN-resoluties. SP-Kamerlid Frank Futselaar vroeg zich vooral af wat de aanleiding voor het verdrag was, en waarom het inhoudelijk verschilt van vergelijkbare verdragen die Nederland eerder heeft gesloten.

De vraag is waarom je een militair verdrag zou sluiten met een land dat zich aanhoudend schuldig maakt aan schendingen van het internationaal recht.

Namens het kabinet slaagde minister van Defensie Kajsa Ollongren (D66) er niet in om deze en andere vragen te beantwoorden. De samenwerking zou volgens het kabinet bijdragen aan de versterking en innovatie van de Nederlandse krijgsmacht; Israël beschikt over waardevolle kennis en technologie, aldus Ollongren. Volgens Futselaar van de SP is dat niet het punt; hij vroeg zich terecht af waarom je een militair verdrag zou sluiten met een land dat zich aanhoudend schuldig maakt aan schendingen van het internationaal recht. Het antwoord daarop werd begraven in vaagheden.

Uitzonderen van Israël

Ook werd de vraag gesteld waarom met Israël maar liefst negen jaar over het verdrag is onderhandeld, terwijl er volgens het kabinet geen concrete plannen voor defensiesamen­werking bestaan. Doen we dat ook met willekeurige andere landen?, wilde de Kamer weten. Volgens Ollogren is negen jaar ‘geen ongebruikelijk lange duur’. Zij noemde een paar landen, waaronder Burkina Faso en Jordanië, als andere voorbeelden. De vraag is of dat klopt. Maar de crux is dat er in het geval van Israël wel degelijk concrete plannen bestaan, in de vorm van de aanschaf van een raketsysteem van leverancier Elbit, zoals wij eerder deze week schreven.

Daarnaast is het zorgwekkend dat bij dit verdrag, vergeleken met andere verdragen die Nederland heeft getekend, andere regels gelden met betrekking tot het dragen van wapens. Zo is met Israël afgesproken dat de wetten en regels van de zendstaat gelden, en niet die van de ontvangende staat. Ook voor deze uitzonderingspositie kon minister Ollongren geen reden geven.

Rechten van de Palestijnen

Een terechte vraag die meermaals door Kuzu en Futselaar werd gesteld is hoe de rechten van de Palestijnen in dit verdrag en overige onderlinge afspraken worden gewaarborgd, en hoe wordt voorkomen dat de Nederlands-Israëlische samenwerking (in)direct bijdraagt aan rechtenschendingen. In haar reactie volstond Ollongren met de opmerking dat het verdrag ‘niet indruist tegen artikel 90 van de Grondwet of de Nederlandse grondhouding ten aanzien van het internationaal recht en mensenrechten’.

Dat tekortschietende antwoord is opmerkelijk. Ollongren stelde namelijk in hetzelfde debat dat het kabinet geen screening zal uitvoeren om te voorkomen dat Israëlische militairen die zich schuldig hebben gemaakt aan volkenrechtelijke misdaden of terreurdaden bij de samen­werking betrokken raken. Dat betekent dat het kabinet met het sluiten van dit verdrag in de toekomst mogelijk een samenwerking aangaat met militairen die misdaden hebben begaan. Of, zoals Kuzu dit heikele punt tijdens het debat illustreerde:

Deze militaire samenwerking tussen Israël en Nederland betekent dat de sniper die Shireen Abu Akleh heeft gedood gewoon kan deelnemen aan militaire activiteiten op Nederlands grondgebied. Zonder deze screening is het reëel dat er oorlogscriminelen zullen trainen op Nederlands grondgebied.

Het voorbeeld illustreert de bredere praktijk waarin het kabinet voorbeelden van Israëls schendingen van het internationaal recht keer op keer van tafel veegt met de bewering dat ‘Nederland Israël consequent aanspreekt op de voortgang en uitkomsten van verschillende onderzoeken’. Wat dat betreft is het onderzoek naar de moord op Shireen Abu Akleh tekenend: ondanks Nederlands gemopper is de dader door Israël niet aangeklaagd, laat staan veroordeeld.

Israëlische bezetting

Ollongren benadrukte dat het verdrag op geen enkele manier kan worden gezien als goedkeuring van de Israëlische bezetting en dat alleen zal worden samengewerkt binnen Israëls internationaal erkende grenzen van voor 1967. Daarnaast is het verdrag volgens de minister ‘opgesteld met het oog op respect voor het internationaal recht en mensenrechten en wordt elke vorm van samenwerking daarom zorgvuldig en afzonderlijk afgewogen’. Ook onderstreepte zij dat de samenwerking met Israël de bezetting van de Palestijnse gebieden niet mag faciliteren of versterken: ‘Er wordt geen Nederlandse kennis overgedragen die concreet bijdraagt aan de instandhouding van de bezetting.’

Hoe Ollongren die afspraak gaat waarborgen bleef volstrekt onduidelijk. Het Israëlische leger vormt immers de spil van de bezetting en is verantwoordelijk voor het geweld, de onderdrukking en de apartheid waarmee de Palestijnse bevolking al decennia dag in, dag uit wordt geconfronteerd. Het leger faciliteert de bezetting en beschermt de kolonisten die pogroms aanrichten in bezet gebied. Daar kun je als Nederland niet omheen werken.

Verdrag aangenomen

Ondanks het onbevredigende debat werd het verdrag op dinsdag 11 april met een ruime meerderheid aangenomen. Alleen DENK, BIJ1, SP, PvdD en FvD stemden tegen. Opvallend is dat ook GroenLinks, de PvdA en D66 voor het verdrag stemden. Een motie van Kuzu om een jaarlijkse planning voor defensiesamenwerking met Israël voor te leggen aan de Kamer kreeg meer steun, waaronder van regeringspartij D66, maar werd desondanks verworpen. Volgende week debatteert de Kamer over de aanschaf van het Israëlische wapensysteem. In een volgend artikel gaan we daar dieper op in.

In de marge van het het debat meldde minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Wopke Hoekstra (CDA) dat op aandringen van Nederland in Europees verband een demarche (diplomatiek protest) wordt voorbereid tegen Israëls ‘annexatiebeleid’. In een eerdere nietszeggende reactie op schriftelijke Kamervragen van Sjoerd Sjoerdsma (D66) hierover ging de minister antwoorden nog uit de weg. Luxemburg sprak tijdens een recente vergadering van de VN-Mensenrechtenraad wel al van de jure en de facto annexatie van Palestijns gebied.

EINDE

[9]

ZIE NOOT 3

[10]

”DE FASCISTISCHE ISRAELISCHE REGERING EN HAAR MISDADEN/

EN/OF FACILITERING DAARVAN

Maar mijn Oproep geldt de huidige, wanhopige situatie onder

de nieuwe Israelische regering, die je gerust fascistisch mag noemen

met kolonisten hardliners in de regering, die het naakte bestaan van

Palestijnen als mens en als volk ontkennen [5]

Uit een dergelijk wereldbeeld komt alleen maar ellende voort en

dat bleef niet uit!

Door de Staat gesteund geweld van kolonisten tegen de bezette Palestijnse

bevolking was al jaren common practice [6], maar nu neemt het

huiveringwekkende vormen aan!

EEN POGROM IN DE STAD HAWARA WAARBIJ DOLGEDRAAIDE KOLONISTEN HUIZEN IN DE BRAND STAKEN! [7]

DE ZOVEELSTE UITBREIDING VAN DE ILLEGALE NEDERZETTINGEN

TEN KOSTE VAN DE PALESTIJNEN! [8]

DE ETNISCHE ZUIVERING VAN MASAFAR YATTA! [9]”

MAIL ASTRID ESSED DD 23 MAART AAN MINISTER

HOEKSTRA/NEDERLANDSE REGERING, TREEDT OP TEGEN DE

ISRAELISCHE MISDADEN!

[11]

Artikel 90

• 2

De regering bevordert de ontwikkeling van de internationale rechtsorde.

GRONDWET

[7]

”Ik kan en wil die hier niet allemaal opsommen [trouwens, die lijst is onuitputtelijk], maar ernstige voorbeelden zijn  Israelische luchtaanvallen op Gaza uit 2021 [niet zo lang geleden dus], waarbij

in de periode tussen 10 en 21 mei 260 mensen zijn omgekomen,

onder wie tenminste 129 burgers [waaronder 66 kinderen] [10]

Mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch wees in het

byzonder op een specifieke Israelische luchtaanval op vier dichtbevolkte

 gebouwentorens, waarin zich huizen, zaken en persagentschappen

bevonden.

Weliswaar leidde het niet tot dodelijke slachtoffers, maar drie Torens

werden met de grond gelijkgemaakt, velen werden dakloos en

verloren hun baan [11], in een gebied, wat door de wurgende

Blokkade van Gaza al economisch kapot gemaakt is [12]

Ik som niet alle bloedige Israelische aanvallen op Gaza op,

maar noem nog, te uwer opwekking, uit  het Jaarrapport van Amnesty International over 2022 het gewelddadige Israelische militaire

optreden in Gaza, waarbij 1700 huizen werden verwoest en honderden

mensen dakloos werden en zeker [volgens Amnesty rapportage] 17 burgers werden gedood, onder wie acht kinderen, excessief gewelddadig

militair optreden in de bezette Westbank, waaronder buitengerechtelijke

executies [13], administratieve detentie [14] en foltering tierden welig. [15]”

BRON

MAIL ASTRID ESSED AAN SUPERMARKT VOMAR DD 14 APRIL

2023 OVER DE GECONTINUEERDE VERKOOP VAN PRODUCTEN

UIT BEZETTINGS EN APARTHEIDSSTAAT ISRAEL

”A new report published by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) outlines the nature of the legal regime currently operating in the West Bank. Two systems of law are applied in a single territory: one – a civilian legal system for Israeli citizens, and a second – a military court system for Palestinian residents. The result: institutionalized discrimination.”

ACRI [ASSOCIATION FOR CIVIL RIGHTS IN ISRAEL]

ONE RULE, TWO LEGAL SYSTEMS: ISRAEL’S REGIME OF LAWS

IN THE WEST BANK

24 NOVEMBER 2014

REPORT

14 OCTOBER 2014

ACRI [ASSOCIATION FOR CIVIL RIGHTS IN ISRAEL]

ONE RULE, TWO LEGAL SYSTEMS: ISRAEL’S REGIME OF LAWS

IN THE WEST BANK

‘BTSELEM.ORG

MILITARY COURTS

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF THE RED CROSS

THE JUDICIAL ARM OF THE OCCUPATION:

THE ISRAELI MILITARY COURTS IN THE

OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

”Officially, military courts are authorized to try anyone who commits an offense in the West Bank, including settlers, Israeli citizens residing in Israel, and foreign nationals. However, in the early 1980s, the Attorney General decided that Israeli citizens would be tried in the Israeli civilian court system according to Israeli penal laws, even if they live in the Occupied Territories and the offense was committed there, against residents of the Occupied Territories. That policy remains in effect to this day. This means that people are tried in different courts, under different laws, for the exact same offense committed in the exact same place: Palestinian defendants are tried in military courts, their guilt or innocence determined according to the evidence laws followed in this court system, and their sentences according to the provisions of military orders. Israeli defendants are tried in a civilian court in Israel, exonerated or convicted under Israeli evidence laws, and sentenced under Israeli law as well.”

BTSELEM.ORG

MILITARY COURTS

[8]

BTSELEM.ORG

TORTURE AND ABUSE IN INTERROGATION

BTSELEM.ORG

ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION

[6]

ICJ

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF

A WALL IN OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

By resolution ES-10/14, adopted on 8 December 2003 at its Tenth Emergency Special Session, the General Assembly decided to request the Court for an advisory opinion on the following question :

“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the Report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions ?”

The resolution requested the Court to render its opinion “urgently”. The Court decided that all States entitled to appear before it, as well as Palestine, the United Nations and subsequently, at their request, the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, were likely to be able to furnish information on the question in accordance with Article 66, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Statute. Written statements were submitted by 45 States and four international organizations, including the European Union. At the oral proceedings, which were held from 23 to 25 February 2004, 12 States, Palestine and two international organizations made oral submissions. The Court rendered its Advisory Opinion on 9 July 2004.

The Court began by finding that the General Assembly, which had requested the advisory opinion, was authorized to do so under Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter. It further found that the question asked of it fell within the competence of the General Assembly pursuant to Articles 10, paragraph 2, and 11 of the Charter. Moreover, in requesting an opinion of the Court, the General Assembly had not exceeded its competence, as qualified by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides that while the Security Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests. The Court further observed that the General Assembly had adopted resolution ES-10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377 A (V), whereby, in the event that the Security Council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States. Rejecting a number of procedural objections, the Court found that the conditions laid down by that resolution had been met when the Tenth Emergency Special Session was convened, and in particular when the General Assembly decided to request the opinion, as the Security Council had at that time been unable to adopt a resolution concerning the construction of the wall as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member. Lastly, the Court rejected the argument that an opinion could not be given in the present case on the ground that the question posed was not a legal one, or that it was of an abstract or political nature.

Having established its jurisdiction, the Court then considered the propriety of giving the requested opinion. It recalled that lack of consent by a State to its contentious jurisdiction had no bearing on its advisory jurisdiction, and that the giving of an opinion in the present case would not have the effect of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, since the subject-matter of the request was located in a much broader frame of reference than that of the bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine, and was of direct concern to the United Nations. Nor did the Court accept the contention that it should decline to give the advisory opinion requested because its opinion could impede a political, negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It further found that it had before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give its opinion, and empha- sized that it was for the General Assembly to assess the opinion’s usefulness. The Court accordingly concluded that there was no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion.

Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right.

The Court then went on to consider the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, finding that the construction of the wall and its associated régime were contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that they impeded the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as their exercise of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Court further found that, coupled with the establishment of settlements, the construction of the wall and its associated régime were tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, thereby contravening the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court then considered the qualifying clauses or provisions for derogation contained in certain humanitarian law and human rights instruments, which might be invoked inter alia where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so required. The Court found that such clauses were not applicable in the present case, stating that it was not convinced that the specific course Israel had chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives, and that accordingly the construction of the wall constituted a breach by Israel of certain of its obligations under humanitarian and human rights law. Lastly, the Court concluded that Israel could not rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall, and that such construction and its associated régime were accordingly contrary to international law.

The Court went on to consider the consequences of these violations, recalling Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under humanitarian and human rights law. The Court stated that Israel must put an immediate end to the violation of its international obligations by ceasing the works of construction of the wall and dismantling those parts of that structure situated within Occupied Palestinian Territory and repealing or rendering ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated régime. The Court further made it clear that Israel must make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction. As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court held that all States were under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It further stated that it was for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination be brought to an end. In addition, the Court pointed out that all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention were under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention. Finally, in regard to the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Court indicated that they should consider what further action was required to bring to an end the illegal situation in question, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

The Court concluded by observing that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context, noting the obligation on Israel and Palestine to comply with international humanitarian law, as well as the need for implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, and drawing the attention of the General Assembly to the need for efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems on the basis of international law and the establishment of a Palestinian State.

END

PRESS UN

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ADVISORY OPINION

FINDS ISRAEL’S CONSTRUCTION OF WALL ”CONTRARY TO

INTERNATIONAL LAW”

THE HAGUE, 9 July (ICJ) — The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).

In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by 14 votes to 1 to comply with that request.

The Court responds to the question as follows:

“A. By 14 votes to 1,

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law”;

“B. By 14 votes to 1,

Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;

“C. By 14 votes to 1,

Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;

“D. By 13 votes to 2,

All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;

“E. By 14 votes to 1,

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”

Reasoning of Court

The Advisory Opinion is divided into three parts:  jurisdiction and judicial propriety; legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory; legal consequences of the breaches found.

Jurisdiction of Court and Judicial Propriety

The Court states that, when it is seized of a request for an advisory opinion, it must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give that opinion.  It finds that the General Assembly, which requested the opinion by resolution ES-10/14 of 8 December 2003, is authorized to do so by Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter.

The Court, as it has sometimes done in the past, then gives certain indications as to the relationship between the question on which the advisory opinion is requested and the activities of the General Assembly.  It finds that the General Assembly, in requesting an advisory opinion from the Court, did not exceed its competence, as qualified by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides that, while the Security Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation, the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests.

The Court further refers to the fact that the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377A (V), which provides that if the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States.  The Court finds that the conditions laid down by that resolution were met when the Tenth Emergency Special Session was convened; that was particularly true when the General Assembly decided to request an opinion, as the Security Council was at that time unable to adopt a resolution concerning the construction of the wall as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member.

The Court then rejects the argument that an opinion could not be given in the present case on the ground that the question posed in the request is not a legal one.

Having established its jurisdiction, the Court considers the propriety of giving the requested opinion.  It recalls that the lack of consent by a State to its contentious jurisdiction has no bearing on its jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion.  It adds that the giving of an opinion would not have the effect, in the present case, of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, given that the question on which the General Assembly requested an opinion is located in a much broader frame of reference than that of the bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine, and that it is of direct concern to the United Nations.  Nor does the Court accept the contention that it should decline to give the advisory opinion requested because its opinion could impede a political, negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  It further finds it has before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give its opinion, and emphasizes that it is for the General Assembly to assess the usefulness of that opinion.  The Court concludes from the foregoing that there is no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion.

Legality of Construction by Israel of Wall

Before addressing the legal consequences of the construction of the wall (the term which the General Assembly has chosen to use and which is also used in the Opinion, since the other expressions sometimes employed are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense), the Court considers whether or not the construction of the wall is contrary to international law.

The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly.  The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law.  It further cites the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV).  As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict.  The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the occupied Palestinian territory.

The Court ascertains whether the construction of the wall has violated the above-mentioned rules and principles.  It first observes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (between the wall and the “Green Line”) some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the occupied Palestinian territory.  Recalling that the Security Council described Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law.  It further considers certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine; it considers that the construction of the wall and its associated regime “create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, … [the construction of the wall] would be tantamount to de facto annexation”.  The Court notes that the route chosen for the wall gives expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel, and deplored by the Security Council, with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements, and that it entails further alterations to the demographic composition of the OccupiedPalestinianTerritory.  It finds that the “construction [of the wall], along with measures taken previously … severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and is, therefore, a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right”.

The Court then considers the information furnished to it regarding the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the occupied Palestinian territory (destruction or requisition of private property, restrictions on freedom of movement, confiscation of agricultural land, cutting-off of access to primary water sources, etc.).  It finds that the construction of the wall and its associated regime are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention; that they impede the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and that they also impede the exercise by the persons concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Lastly, the Court finds that this construction and its associated regime, coupled with the establishment of settlements, are tending to alter the demographic composition of the occupied Palestinian territory and thereby contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions.

The Court observes that certain humanitarian law and human rights instruments include qualifying clauses or provisions for derogation which may be invoked by States parties, inter alia where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so require.  It states that it is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives and, holding that none of such clauses are applicable, finds that the construction of the wall constitutes “breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments”.

In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.  The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated regime are contrary to international law.

Legal Consequences of Violations Found

The Court draws a distinction between the legal consequences of these violations for Israel and those for other States.

In regard to the former, the Court finds that Israel must respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under humanitarian law and human rights law.  Israel must also put an end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory and must accordingly cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall, dismantle forthwith those parts of that structure situated within the occupied Palestinian territory and forthwith repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated regime, except in so far as such acts may continue to be relevant for compliance by Israel with its obligations in regard to reparation.  Israel must further make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction.

As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court finds that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.  The Court further finds that it is for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, in the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end.  In addition, all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

Finally, the Court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and its associated regime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

The Court concludes by stating that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context.  In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”.  In the Court’s view, the tragic situation in the region can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions.  The Court further draws the attention of the General Assembly to the “need for … efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region”.

Composition of Court

The Court was composed as follows:  Judge Shi, President; Judge Ranjeva, Vice-President; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma and Tomka; Registrar Couvreur.

Judges Koroma, Higgins, Kooijmans and Al-Khasawneh append separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion.  Judge Buergenthal appends a declaration.  Judges Elaraby and Owada append separate opinions.

A summary of the Advisory Opinion is published in the document entitled “Summary No. 2004/2”, to which summaries of the declaration and separate opinions appended to the Advisory Opinion are attached.  This Press Communiqué, the summary of the Advisory Opinion and the latter’s full text can also be accessed on the Court’s Web site by clicking on “Docket” and “Decisions” (www.icj-cij.org).

Information Department:  Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary of the Court, (tel.:  + 31 70 302 23 36); Laurence Blairon and Boris Heim, Information Officers, (tel.:  + 31 70 302 23 37); e-mail address:  information@icj-cij.org.

[5]

ILLEGALITEIT VAN DE NEDERZETTINGEN

ICRC.ORG

WHAT SAYS THE LAW ABOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

SETTLEMENTS IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY?

05-10-2010 FAQ

When a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army, the rules of international humanitarian law dealing with occupation apply. Occupation confers certain rights and obligations on the occupying power.

• International Review of the Red Cross, No 885, special issue on Occupation
• Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49.  

Prohibited actions include forcibly transferring protected persons from the occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power. 
It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited. 

EINDE

BTSELEM.ORG

”The establishment of the settlements contravenes international humanitarian law (IHL), which states that an occupying power may not relocate its own citizens to the occupied territory or make permanent changes to that territory, unless these are needed for imperative military needs, in the narrow sense of the term, or undertaken for the benefit of the local population.”

BTSELEM.ORG

SETTLEMENTS

De Illegaliteit van de nederzettingen is gebaseerd op artikelen

uit de 4e Conventie van  Geneve en het Haags Verdrag van 1907

DE VIERDE CONVENTIE VAN GENEVE

ARTIKEL 49, 4E CONVENTIE VAN GENEVE

”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.”

ARTICLE 49, FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION

HET HAAGS VERDRAG VAN 1907

De Staat, die een gebied bezet heeft, mag zich slechts beschouwen als beheerder en vruchtgebruiker der openbare gebouwen, onroerende eigendommen, bosschen en landbouwondernemingen, welke aan den vijandelijken Staat behooren en zich in de bezette landstreek bevinden. Hij moet het grondkapitaal dier eigendommen in zijn geheel laten en die overeenkomstig de regelen van het vruchtgebruik beheeren.”

 ARTIKEL 55, HAAGS VERDRAG 1907

IN HET ENGELS
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, 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 the rules of usufruct.  

CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WARON LAND AND ITS ANNEX: REGULATIONS CONCERNINGTHE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

THE HAGUE 18 OCTOBER 1907

WAT ZEGT AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”. 

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

CHAPTER 3

ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

The situation in the OPT is primarily governed by two international legal regimes: international humanitarian law (including the rules of the law of occupation) and international human rights law. International criminal law is also relevant as some serious violations may constitute war crimes.

STATUS OF SETTLEMENTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”. 

The extensive appropriation of land and the appropriation and destruction of property required to build and expand settlements also breach other rules of international humanitarian law. Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, the public property of the occupied population (such as lands, forests and agricultural estates) is subject to the laws of usufruct. This means that an occupying state is only allowed a very limited use of this property. This limitation is derived from the notion that occupation is temporary, the core idea of the law of occupation. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the occupying power “has a duty to ensure the protection, security, and welfare of the people living under occupation and to guarantee that they can live as normal a life as possible, in accordance with their own laws, culture, and traditions.”

The Hague Regulations prohibit the confiscation of private property. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the destruction of private or state property, “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”.

As the occupier, Israel is therefore forbidden from using state land and natural resources for purposes other than military or security needs or for the benefit of the local population. The unlawful appropriation of property by an occupying power amounts to “pillage”, which is prohibited by both the Hague Regulations and Fourth Geneva Convention and is a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and many national laws.

Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, does not respect any of these rules and exceptions. Transferring the occupying power’s civilians into the occupied territory is prohibited without exception. Furthermore, as explained earlier, the settlements and associated infrastructure are not temporary, do not benefit Palestinians and do not serve the legitimate security needs of the occupying power. Settlements entirely depend on the large-scale appropriation and/or destruction of Palestinian private and state property which are not militarily necessary. They are created with the sole purpose of permanently establishing Jewish Israelis on occupied land.

In addition to being violations of international humanitarian law, key acts required for the establishment of settlements amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Under this body of law, the “extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly” and the “transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” constitute war crimes. As stated above, “pillage” is also a war crime under the Rome Statute.

Israel’s settlement policy also violates a special category of obligations entitled peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed that the rules of the Geneva Conventions constitute “intransgressible principles of international customary law”. Only a limited number of international norms acquire this status, which is a reflection of the seriousness and importance with which the international community views them. Breaches of these norms give rise to certain obligations on all other states, or “third states”, which are explained below.

SETTLEMENTS, DISCRIMINATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

States have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of people under their jurisdiction, including people living in territory that is outside national borders but under the effective control of the state. The ICJ confirmed that Israel is obliged to extend the application of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other treaties to which it is a state party to people in the OPT. Israel is a state party to numerous international human rights treaties and, as the occupying power, it has well defined obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of Palestinians. 

However, as has been well documented for many years by the UN, Amnesty International and other NGOs, Israel’s settlement policy is one of the main driving forces behind the mass human rights violations resulting from the occupation. These include:

Violations of the right to life: Israeli soldiers, police and security guards have unlawfully killed and injured many Palestinian civilians in the OPT, including during protests against the confiscation of land and the construction of settlements. UN agencies and fact-finding missions have also expressed concern about violence perpetrated by a minority of Israeli settlers aimed at intimidating Palestinian populations.

Violations of the rights to liberty, security of the person and equal treatment before the law: Amnesty International has documented how Palestinians in the OPT are routinely subjected to arbitrary detention, including through administrative detention. Whereas settlers are subject to Israeli civil and criminal law, Palestinians are subject to a military court system which falls short of international standards for the fair  conduct of trials and administration of justice.

Violations of the right to access an effective remedy for acts violating fundamental rights: Israel’s failure to adequately investigate and enforce the law for acts of violence against Palestinians, together with the multiple legal, financial and procedural barriers faced by Palestinians in accessing the court system, severely limit Palestinians’ ability to seek legal redress. The Israeli High Court of Justice has failed to rule on the legality of settlements, as it considered the settlements to be a political issue that that it is not competent to hear.

Violations of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly: Amnesty International has documented Israel’s use of military orders to prohibit peaceful protest and criminalize freedom of expression in the West Bank. Israeli forces have used tear gas, rubber bullets and occasionally live rounds to suppress peaceful protests.

Violations of the rights to equality and non-discrimination: Systematic discrimination against Palestinians is inherent in virtually all aspects of Israel’s administration of the OPT. Palestinians are also specifically targeted for a range of actions that constitute human rights violations. The Israeli government allows settlers to exploit land and natural resources that belong to Palestinians. Israel provides preferential treatment to Israeli businesses operating in the OPT while putting up barriers to, or simply blocking, Palestinian ones. Israeli citizens receive entitlements and Palestinians face restrictions on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity and religion, in contravention of international standards.

The Israeli authorities have created a discriminatory urban planning and zoning system. Within Area C, where most settlement construction is based, Israel has allocated 70% of the land to settlements and only 1% to Palestinians. In East Jerusalem, Israel has expropriated 35% of the city for the construction of settlements, while restricting Palestinians to construct on only 13% of the land. These figures clearly illustrate Israel’s use of regulatory measures to discriminate against Palestinian residents in Area C.

The UN has also pointed to discrimination against Palestinians in the way in which the criminal law is enforced. While prosecution rates for settler attacks against Palestinians are low, suggesting a lack of enforcement, most cases of violence against Israeli settlers are investigated and proceed to court.

Violations of the right to adequate housing: Since 1967, Israel has constructed tens of thousands of homes on Palestinian land to accommodate settlers while, at the same time, demolishing an estimated 50,000 Palestinian homes and other structures, such as farm buildings and water tanks. Israel also carries out demolitions as a form of collective punishment against the families of individuals accused of attacks on Israelis. In East Jerusalem, about 800 houses have been demolished since 2004 for lack of permits. Israel also confiscates houses inhabited by Palestinians in the city to allocate them to settlers. By forcibly evicting and/or demolishing their homes without providing adequate alternative accommodation, Israel has failed in its duty to respect the right to adequate housing of thousands of Palestinians.

Violations of the right to freedom of movement: Many restrictions on freedom of movement for Palestinian residents are directly linked to the settlements, including restrictions aimed at protecting the settlements and maintaining “buffer zones”. Restrictions include checkpoints, settler-only roads and physical impediments created by walls and gates. 

Violations of the rights of the child: Every year, 500-700 Palestinian children from the occupied West Bank are prosecuted in Israeli juvenile military courts under Israeli military orders. They are often arrested in night raids and systematically ill-treated. Some of these children serve their sentences within Israel, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The UN has also documented that many children have been killed or injured in settler attacks.

Violations of the right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health: Restrictions on movement limit Palestinians’ access to health care. Specialists working with Palestinian populations have also documented a range of serious mental health conditions that stem from exposure to violence and abuse in the OPT.

Violations of the right to water: Most Palestinian communities in Area C are not connected to the water network and are prevented from repairing or constructing wells or water cisterns that hold rainwater. Water consumption in some Area C communities is reported by the UN to be 20% of the minimum recommended standard. Israel’s failure to ensure Palestinian residents have a sufficient supply of clean, safe water for drinking and other domestic uses constitutes a violation of its obligations to respect and fulfil the right to water. 

Violations of the right to education: Palestinian students face numerous obstacles in accessing education, including forced displacement, demolitions, restrictions on movement and a shortage of school places. An independent fact-finding mission in 2012 noted an “upward trend” of cases of settler attacks on Palestinian schools and harassment of Palestinian children on their way to and from school. Such problems can result in children not attending school and in a deterioration in the quality of learning. 

Violations of the right to earn a decent living through work: The expansion of settlements has reduced the amount of land available to Palestinians for herding and agriculture, increasing the dependency of rural communities on humanitarian assistance. Settler violence and the destruction of Palestinian-owned crops and olive trees have damaged the livelihoods of farmers. The UN has reported that in Hebron city centre, the Israeli military has forced 512 Palestinian businesses to close, while more than 1,000 others have shut down due to restricted access for customers and suppliers.

SUSTAINED INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION

Most states and international bodies have long recognized that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. The European Union (EU) has clearly stated that: “settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, constitutes an obstacle to peace and threatens to make a two-state solution impossible.”

The settlements have been condemned as illegal in many UN Security Council and other UN resolutions. As early as 1980, UN Security Council Resolution 465 called on Israel “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.” The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have reaffirmed that settlements violate international humanitarian law. The illegality of the settlements was recently reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2334, passed inDecember 2016, which reiterates the Security Council’s call on Israel to cease all settlement activities in the OPT. The serious human rights violations that stem from Israeli settlements have also been repeatedly raised and condemned by international bodies and experts.

ZIE OOK

LEIDSCH DAGBLAD

ISRAEL VERSNELT UITBREIDING DORPEN

WESTELIJKE JORDAANOEVER

18 JUNI 2023

De Israëlische regering van premier Benjamin Netanyahu heeft maatregelen goedgekeurd om de uitbreiding van nederzettingen op de bezette Westelijke Jordaanoever te vergemakkelijken. Ook is besloten dat minister van Financiën Bezalel Smotrich, een voorstander van Joodse kolonisatie van het gebied, voortaan de leiding heeft over het toestaan van nederzettingen, meldt de lokale radiozender Galei Tzahal. Voorheen lag die verantwoordelijkheid bij het ministerie van Defensie.

Om de bouw van nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever te versnellen, wordt het aantal stappen dat nodig is voor goedkeuring aanzienlijk verminderd. “Met Gods hulp zullen we het nederzettingenproject verder ontwikkelen en de Israëlische controle over het grondgebied versterken,” schreef Smotrich op Twitter. Het Palestijnse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken veroordeelde de beslissing als “gevaarlijk” en riep de internationale gemeenschap op druk uit te oefenen op Israël om de beslissing terug te draaien.

Het Israëlische beleid om nederzettingen te bouwen in bezet gebied wordt al lange tijd internationaal bekritiseerd en heeft eerder geleid tot conflicten met gewapende Palestijnse groepen. Eind mei lieten de Verenigde Staten nog weten “diep verontrust” te zijn over een decreet van de Israëlische regering dat Joodse kolonisten toestaat zich permanent te vestigen in de nederzetting Homesh.

Unilaterale maatregelen

Tijdens een bijeenkomst in Egypte in maart kwamen Israëliërs en Palestijnen overeen om “unilaterale maatregelen” voor drie tot zes maanden op te schorten. Volgens het Egyptische ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken beloofde Israël destijds zes maanden lang geen nieuwe projecten goed te keuren.

Israël veroverde de Westelijke Jordaanoever en Oost-Jeruzalem, naast andere gebieden, tijdens de Zesdaagse Oorlog van 1967. Tegenwoordig wonen er bijna 600.000 Israëliërs in meer dan 200 nederzettingen. In 2016 noemde de VN-Veiligheidsraad de nederzettingen een schending van het internationaal recht. De Palestijnen willen een eigen staat op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, in de Gazastrook en in Oost-Jeruzalem.

EINDE

[4]

RESOLUTION 242 (1967]

OF 22 NOVEMBER 1967

	Security Council
		S/RES/242 (1967) 22 November 1967

Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967

”The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.”