Fig 3: The north-transept façade of the Abbey offered the most direct connection between the Palace and the Abbey. The reconstruction of the nave continued into the 15th century. Westminster Abbey photographed for Country Life magazine by Paul Highnam.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY, THE CROWNING PLACE OF ENGLISH KINGS
CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III/”I COME NOT TO BE SERVED, BUT TO SERVE”
CORONATION OATH OF KING CHARLES III
The King stands and the Archbishop says:
”Our Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law.
Are you willing to take the Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
The King places his hand on the Bible, and the Archbishop administers the Oath
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
The King replies
I solemnly promise so to do.
The Archbishop says
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
The King replies
I will.
The King kneels at the Chair of Estate. The Archbishop says
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
The King replies
All this I promise to do.
The King places his hand on the Bible and says
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
The King kisses the Bible. The Archbishop says
Your Majesty, are you willing to make, subscribe, and declare to the statutory Accession Declaration Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
The King signs copies of the Oaths, presented by the Lord Chamberlain,whilst the choir sings
Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
God of compassion and mercy whose Son was sent not to be served but to serve, give grace that I may find in thy service perfect freedom and in that freedom knowledge of thy truth. Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and belief, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
On 6 May 2023, the Coronation of Charles III, King of the United Kingdom and
the Commonwealth Realms, took place. [1]
Actually, he acceded the throne on 8 september 2022, upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II [2]
At the age of 73, he became the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having been the longest heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history [3]
His coronation took place at Westminster Abbey, where traditionally
the English monarchs are crowned, [4]
Simultaneously, his wife, Queen Camilla, was also crowned [5],
as is usually the case [6]
ANCIENT MONARCHY/ANCIENT TRADITIONS
A QUICK WALK WITH ASTRID ESSED THROUGH HISTORY!
What I love about this Coronation [and those before] are
the old traditions, which is logically, since the English kings
stand in an impressive tradition of more than thousand years!
The eldest Royal House I can recall is the House of Wessex, in
899 to begin with, under king Alfred the Great! [7]
Before the House of Wessex under Alfred the Great, there was the
”old” House of Wessex, founded by Cerdic of the Gewisse [The West Saxon dynasty], but in those times England was not united, but
consisted of different kingdoms [8]’
[By the way, The House of Wessex was by times interrupted
by the House of Denmark, when England was under Danish control] [9]
It was under Alfred the Great, the first to call himself
”King of the Anglo Saxons [instead of just the West Saxons], that the first steps were
taken to unify England, which was completed by Alfred the Great’s
descendants. [10] The last king from the House of Wessex was king Edward the Confessor [11]I will refer to him later in this Coronation article, with respect to the St Edward’s Crown”…….You will see, o Readers.
And the present English monarchy descents from William the Conqueror,the Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in the Battleof Hastings in 1066, defeating king Harold II [brother in lawof Edward the Confessor], the last Anglo Saxon king [12]
FASCINATING, when you realize, that the Dutch Monarchy only
exists since 1813, being one of the youngest monarchies in
Europe! [13]
I
THE CORONATION CEREMONY
A SACRED CEREMONY
The Coronation Ceremony is firstly a spiritual and sacred one.
But also one of traditional symbols.
Sacred are of course the Oath and the Anointing with the Holy Oil:
THE OATH
ANOINTING THE OIL [Behind Curtains]
THE OATH
The Coronation Ceremony of King Charles III was, like those of
his predecessors, firstly a SACRED Ceremony, which is seen, not only as performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but in the Kings’ Oath:[The Archbishop]”
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?”
[The King]
”All this I promise to do”
[And the King, placing his hand on the Bible]
”The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.” [14]
Now this Holy Oath has everything to do with the fact, that
king Charles III is Head of the Anglican Church [the Church of England] [15], which is tradition since king Henry VIII, who broke with thePope and subsequently the old Catholic Church [called
”Holy Church” in Medieval England] [16]
Yet apart from that breach with the Holy Church, Coronation Ceremonies were always sacred:
See a part from the Oath that king Edward II, one of the forefathers
of king Charles III, took at his Coronation in 1308:[English translation from the original French text]”
Sire, will you in all your judgments, so far as in you lies, preserve to God and Holy Church, and to the people and clergy, entire peace and concord before God?
[Edward II]
I will preserve them.[17] HOWEVER:Oaths, based on the Church of England or on the Catholic Holy Church or not, those Sacred Customs were all based on the concept ofSacred Kingship, or in Western history: the concept of theDivine Right of Kings [18], which also has a pre Christian tradition [19] and is a universal concept from Old Historian Times. [20] Because in old Times [and perhaps the divine right of kingsis based upon that] there was that concept of a king, who wasalso high priest [21]
II ANOINTING THE OIL [SPIRITUAL] The English Coronation Ceremonies are ancient, very ancient,and main elements of
the coronation service and the earliest form of oath can be traced to the ceremony devised by Saint Dunstan for King Edgar’s coronation in 973 AD at Bath Abbey.
It drew on ceremonies used by the kings of the Franks and those used in the ordination of bishops.[22]
But that was then.
Through the centuries, there were different versions of coronation
services [23], but untill the Reformation, based on catholic traditions [24]
With the Reformation, there were changes [25], but some things,
especially regarding the Place of Coronation, the Holy Oil Anointing,
the Crown, the Chair and other traditions, remained largely unchanged.
I refer to those in a moment, a five minutes reading!
ANOINTING THE OILA MOST SACRED CEREMONY, STEMMING FROM THE BIBLE!
The anointing is the most sacred part of the coronation ceremony, and takes place before the crowning.
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head [26]
And this Anointing Tradition is based on
the Old Days, especially Biblical Ones!
I refer to the Old Testimony, Book ”Kings”
and quote about the Coronation of King Salomon:
”Then Zadok the priest took a horn of
oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon. And they blew the horn, and all the people said, “Long live King Solomon!”
[Book ”Kings” 1:39] [27]
Anointing was one of the medieval holy sacraments and it emphasised the spiritual status of the sovereign. Until the seventeenth century the sovereign was considered to be appointed directly by God and this was confirmed by the ceremony of anointing. Although the monarch is no longer considered divine in the same way, the ceremony of Coronation also confirms the monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. [28]
BEHIND CURTAINS
And since the anointing is considered as that holy
and sacred, it is NOT for others to see, but hidden for public view.
To hide the anointing for public, king Charles III’s
mother, Queen Elizabeth II, used a canopy, while
king Charles III kicked things up a notch with a full-blown screen [29]
Like I said before, the Coronation Ceremony
is firstly a sacred and religious One and emphasizing
the Divine Right of Kings [although that Divine Right Concept is ancient
and historical], the anointing has to be done in private!
See for important facts and events about the Coronation Ceremonies of English kings since the
Anglo Saxon king Edgar [Reign, 959-975] [30], under note 31!Exciting, isn’t it!
THE ANOINTING OILCHANGED TIMES….. Although the Anointing Ceremony of king Charles IIIwas largerly the same as his predecessors, there were some changes, especially in the use of the AnointingOil:
The holy oil that was traditionally used for coronations past contained civet oil, from the glands of the small mammals, and ambergris from whale intestines. The formula was used at Queen Elizabeth’s ceremony and is hundreds of years old. [32]
However, the holy oil that will be used at Charles’ coronation is vegan-friendly, in order to reflect modern anti-animal cruelty sentiments. It is made with olive oil, pressed just outside Bethlehem, and perfumed with essential oils such as sesame, rose, jasmine, cinnamon, neroli, benzoin and amber and orange blossom. [33]A 21st Century Monarch, Changed timesBut the Essentials of the Coronation are still maintained, despite different personal touchs ofkings throughout the centuries [and sometimes memorable things happened at Coronations] [34] and the change fromthe old Holy Church to the present, protestant Church of England. [35]
III WESTMINSTER ABBEY Interesting historical tradition is, that sincethe ancestor of all English kings [after his conquest ofEngland in 1066], William the Conqueror, allEnglish kings have been crowned at WestminsterAbbey [36] [although according to some sources, the lastAnglo Saxon king, Harold II, who was defeated byWilliam the Conqueror, was also crowned at Westminster Abbey [37]Although…[and forgive me Readers, that my historicalheart takes it over again….] there were apart crowning ceremonies….Because king Henry III, father of the more famous king Edward I and [I mean king Henry III] the son of king John I [alsomentioned ”Lackland”, a brother of kingRichard Coeur de Lion and a greatgreatgrandsonof William the Conqueror] [38], that king Henry III was crowned twice!Firstly at Gloucester Cathedral in 1216 and only in 122o at Westminster Abbey! [39]REASON?When Henry’s father, king John died [Henry was only nine years old], there was stilla rising of noblemen against his father’s government, ”the War with the Barons”, which by the way resulted in the Magna Charta [40]And to make things worse, there was a French invasionalso See for more information, note 41So Henry III was hastily crowned in Gloucester Cathedral in 1216, since at that moment the French occupied London and after more stable times, in 122oin Westminster Abbey! [42]And to make it more fascinating than it already was…..When king Henry had been crowned for the first time,THERE WAS NO ROYAL CROWN!Because during the Baron’s War the Crown had been lost, probably lost as king John crossed oneof the tidal estuaries which empties into the Walsh,being sucked in by quicksand and whirpools…[43]So at his first Coronation, Henry had no Crown andtherefore was crowned with a golden Corolla[headdress] [44], belonging to his mother Isabella ofAngouleme! [45]Interesting, isn’t it? IV ST EDWARD’S CROWN!We’ll stay in the king Henry III times awhile! Because when he was crowned at the second time,and now in Westminster Abbey [See above], he neededa real crown, since his father John’s crown was lost during the Baron’s War.And since king Henry III was a great admirer of Edward the Confessor, one of the last Anglo Saxon kings [the direct predecessor of King Harold, the king who was defeated by William the Conqueror in 1066], he calledthe crown, that was made for him ”St Edward’s Crown”[46]According to some sources it really WAS the crownof Edward the Confessor, but that is open todiscussion I think [47]HOWEVER, the crown with which king Charles III iscrowned, is called ”St Edward’s Crown, but not theoriginal, since a new Crown was made for king Charles II, since after the deposition and executionof his father King Charles I most of the British CrownJewels, the Crown included, were destroyed, broken upor sold off. [48]So the Crown, that is used by the Coronationof king Charles III is the crown of king Charles II from the 17th Century! [49] V CORONATION SPEECH IN ENGLISH! What I found really exciting to learn was this:KingHenry IV, who by the way usurped the thronefrom his cousin Richard II [50] which eventually would cause the Wars of the Roses [51], was the firstEnglish king, who at his Coronation made a speechin English! [52]
Before this, the official language of the court was French, ever since William I conquered England [53]
VI
MORE TRADITIONS AND SYMBOLS AT THE CORONATION
CEREMONY/THE SPOON, THE ANCIENT SPOON!
THE SPOON
What makes the Coronation so fascinating, are,
as I said before, the ancient traditions.
Like the use of the Coronation Spoon, dated from the 12th century and probably made for either king
Henry II or his son king Richard Coeur de Lion
[respectively the father and brother of king John, alsonamed ”Lackland”, from whom all present Englishkings descent] It is also the only
piece of royal goldsmiths’ work to survive from the 12th century! [54]
So unique!
The spoon is first recorded in 1349 as preserved among St Edward’s Regalia in Westminster Abbey. Already at this date it is described as a spoon of ‘antique forme’ [55]
About the role of the Coronation Spoon:
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) [the ampulla was made for the
Coronation of king Charles II] into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head. [56]
Interesting is, that the Spoon may originally have been used for mixing wine and water in a chalice, but it was certainly used for anointing the sovereign during the coronation of James I in 1603, son of the executed Mary, Queen of Scots, successor
of Queen Elizabeth I and the first Sovereign from the House of
Stuart and a unified England and Scotland, and at every subsequent coronation. [57]
VII
THE CHAIR/THE CORONATION CHAIR!
Also a very ancient and fascinating symbol
is the 700 years old Coronation Chair!
The Coronation Chair was made by order of Edward I [58] to enclose the famous Stone of Scone [59], which he brought [stole, remark bij Astrid Essed see note 60] from Scotland to the Abbey in 1296, where he placed it in the care of the Abbot of Westminster.
The Stone of Scone had been used by Scottish kings for centuries to sit upon when they were crowned! [61]
The Chair has been in use at the coronation ceremony since 1308 although opinion is divided as to when it was actually used for the crowning, but this was certainly the case from 1399 when
Henry IV was crowned in the Chair. [62]And after king Henry IV, nearly all English kings were crownedin that Chair [63] Just fascinating, when you think that the present king Charles III is crowned in a Chair, that his ancestor king Edward I has ordered to make at the beginning of the 14th century! [64]
VIII AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST:THE KING’S CHAMPION! I described some fascinating symbols and aspects ofthe Coronation, which is [see above] a Sacred CeremonySee about yet more details, note 65 However, the last fascinating aspect I want to share with you,o Readers, is ….”The King’s Champion!”……. which is atypically Medieval symbol! [66] As far as my investigation reaches, King’s Championtraditions stems from William the Conqueror, that Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in 1066 and laid the foundation of the present British Monarchy [all subsequent kingsare his descendants] [67] This is how it went and how the King’s Champion tradition took shape:
When William, the Conqueror seized the English throne in 1066, he asked his friend Robert Marmion to act as his Champion. Marmion’s role was to literally throw down the gauntlet, openly challenging anyone doubting the new king’s legitimacy, to prove their case through armed combat. [68]
This was not a formality or a mere ceremony in the Middle Ages, but,
given the violent times then, a real Danger……
To make a long story short, out of gratitude for risking his life, Marmion was given an estate at Scrivelsby, in
Lincolnshire.
The grant for this sets out that:
”The manor of Scrivelsby is holden … the service of finding on the day of Coronation, an armed knight who shall prove by his body, if need be, that the King is true and rightful heir to the kingdom.” [69]
Interesting is, that over the centuries, not only
the tradition of ”The King’s Champion” survived, but
that the role of King’s Champion remained with
Marmion’s descendants, who, since 1350, have been
the Dymoke Family [70]
Their family motto is the Latin phrase ”Pro Rege Dimico”
a play on their name, implying ”I contend for the King” [71]
See under note 72 the role of the Dymoke Family at theCoronation of King Edward IV [during the Wars of the Roses, with the Astrid Essed remark, that the PlantagenetBranch of the House of Edward IV, the House of York,had a superior claim to the English throne [73] THE KING’S CHAMPION IN ACTION! I already referred to the violent ancient times in whichthe role of the King’s Champion was notjust a ceremony.The last time however, the King’s Champion reallyperformed the ancient role of throwing down the gauntletwas at the coronation of King George IV! [74] THE KING’S CHAMPIONMODERN TIMES We are living in modern times now and F
rancis Dymoke won’t ride into King Charles III’s coronation on horseback and challenge any pretender to the throne to single combat as his ancestor did in 1066, but he will carry the Royal Standard into Westminster Abbey. [75]
Dymoke, a 67-year-old farmer from eastern England, will be the King’s Champion at the coronation, fulfilling a role performed by members of his family since William the Conqueror was crowned nearly 1,000 years ago……
An old tradition, anyway, although not so ”romantic” anymore
like in the ancient times……
Although I like Dymoke’s comment on his ceremonial
role as ”King’s Champion”
”“This is the one moment in my life that really matters,” ,
as he had told the Daily Telegraph [76]
Apart from the modern times we live in, one of
the reasons the King’s Champion doesn’t fullfill his
original role is this:
The King’s Champion originally rode into the coronation banquet on horseback, threw down a gauntlet and challenged anyone who doubted the king or queen’s right to rule.
BUT:
there hasn’t been a coronation banquet since 1821, so Champions now perform other roles, usually bearing a flag or standard, the palace said. [77]
MODERN TIMES…..END You and I, readers, have watched the Coronation ofthe new English king, Charles III [78], followedthe symbols and traditions.Travelled through the Ages in which the Coronationstook shape, with the fascinating history of the CrownJewels, the 12th century Coronation Spoon, the 700years old Coronation Chair, the St Edward’s Crown,the King’s Champion, all those ancient andmeaningful traditions, from the Middle Ages untillModern Times. Much is changed, yet the tradition and the Bond with History remains.I will end with the words, king Charles III uttered at his Coronation:”I come not to be served, but to serve” [79] Readers, it was nice to travel with you to history againand….end in those modern times! Hope you enjoyed it [I CERTAINLY DID!] See to my next article Then I travel with you to the Middle Ages againThe Time of the Wars of the Roses! My next article will be about Richard Neville, the 16th Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker! [80] See you then ASTRID ESSED NOTES NOTES 1 AND 2
It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy — but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.
Bestselling author, ‘The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot’
Apr 24, 2007, 01:07 PM EDT|Updated May 25, 2011
Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody.
They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy – but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.
As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.
Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree – domestically – as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government – the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens’ ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors – we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don’t learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of “homeland” security – remember who else was keen on the word “homeland” – didn’t raise the alarm bells it might have.
It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable – as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise.
Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the US.
1 Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a “war footing”; we were in a “global war” against a “global caliphate” intending to “wipe out civilisation”. There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda has noted, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space – the globe itself is the battlefield. “This time,” Fein says, “there will be no defined end.”
Creating a terrifying threat – hydra-like, secretive, evil – is an old trick. It can, like Hitler’s invocation of a communist threat to the nation’s security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the “global conspiracy of world Jewry”, on myth.
It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain – which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks – than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.
2 Create a gulag
Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal “outer space”) – where torture takes place.
At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, “enemies of the people” or “criminals”. Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders – opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists – are arrested and sent there as well.
This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.
With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA “black site” prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.
Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can’t investigate adequately.
But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don’t generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: “First they came for the Jews.” Most Americans don’t understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.
By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People’s Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.
3 Develop a thug caste
When leaders who seek what I call a “fascist shift” want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.
The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America’s security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution
Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode – but the administration’s endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.
Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for “public order” on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station “to restore public order”.
4 Set up an internal surveillance system
In Mussolini’s Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China – in every closed society – secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.
In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens’ phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.
In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about “national security”; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.
5 Harass citizens’ groups
The fifth thing you do is related to step four – you infiltrate and harass citizens’ groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.
Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 “suspicious incidents”. The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track “potential terrorist threats” as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as “terrorism”. So the definition of “terrorist” slowly expands to include the opposition.
6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release
This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a “list” of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.
In 2004, America’s Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela’s government – after Venezuela’s president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.
Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, “because I was on the Terrorist Watch list”.
“Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that,” asked the airline employee.
“I explained,” said Murphy, “that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.”
“That’ll do it,” the man said.
Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of “enemy of the people” tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.
James Yee, a US citizen, was the Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling classified documents. He was harassed by the US military before the charges against him were dropped. Yee has been detained and released several times. He is still of interest.
Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen and lawyer in Oregon, was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist. His house was secretly broken into and his computer seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation against him, he is still on the list.
It is a standard practice of fascist societies that once you are on the list, you can’t get off.
7 Target key individuals
Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don’t toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile’s Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.
Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not “coordinate”, in Goebbels’ term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically “coordinate” early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7 1933.
Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fire academics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publicly intimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening to call for their major corporate clients to boycott them.
Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a closed blog that “waterboarding is torture” was stripped of the security clearance she needed in order to do her job.
Most recently, the administration purged eight US attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service in April 1933, attorneys were “coordinated” too, a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.
8 Control the press
Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s – all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.
The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened “critical infrastructure” when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.
Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy – a form of retaliation that ended her career.
Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the US is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the US military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organisations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC’s Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN’s Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.
Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.
You won’t have a shutdown of news in modern America – it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it’s not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can’t tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.
9 Dissent equals treason
Cast dissent as “treason” and criticism as “espionage’. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of “spy” and “traitor”. When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times’ leaking of classified information “disgraceful”, while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the “treason” drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.
Conason is right to note how serious a threat that attack represented. It is also important to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and “beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death”, according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.
In Stalin’s Soviet Union, dissidents were “enemies of the people”. National Socialists called those who supported Weimar democracy “November traitors”.
And here is where the circle closes: most Americans do not realise that since September of last year – when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – the president has the power to call any US citizen an “enemy combatant”. He has the power to define what “enemy combatant” means. The president can also delegate to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the right to define “enemy combatant” any way he or she wants and then seize Americans accordingly.
Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we turn out to be completely innocent of what he has accused us of doing, he has the power to have us seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow, or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation, possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why Stalin’s gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo’s, in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)
We US citizens will get a trial eventually – for now. But legal rights activists at the Center for Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get around giving even US citizens fair trials. “Enemy combatant” is a status offence – it is not even something you have to have done. “We have absolutely moved over into a preventive detention model – you look like you could do something bad, you might do something bad, so we’re going to hold you,” says a spokeswoman of the CCR.
Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder: it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every closing society, at a certain point there are some high-profile arrests – usually of opposition leaders, clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet. After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts, TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There just isn’t real dissent. There just isn’t freedom. If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.
10 Suspend the rule of law
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency – which the president now has enhanced powers to declare – he can send Michigan’s militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state’s governor and its citizens.
Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears’s meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole’s baby, the New York Times editorialised about this shift: “A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night … Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any ‘other condition’.”
Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act – which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: having seen citizens bullied by a monarch’s soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militias’ power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.
Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini’s march on Rome or Hitler’s roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.
Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.
It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere – while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: “dogs go on with their doggy life … How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster.”
As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are “at war” in a “long war” – a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president – without US citizens realising it yet – the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.
That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions – and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the “what ifs”.
What if, in a year and a half, there is another attack – say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani – because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.
What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing; but they would suddenly be very polite.
Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us – staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody’s help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.
We need to look at history and face the “what ifs”. For if we keep going down this road, the “end of America” could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before – and this is the way it is now.
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … is the definition of tyranny,” wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.
”The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.
Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.”
Israeli Government Still Holds Responsibility for Welfare of Civilians
The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.
Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Under the plan, Israel is scheduled to remove settlers and military bases protecting the settlers from the Gaza Strip and four isolated West Bank Jewish settlements by the end of 2005. The Israeli military will remain deployed on Gaza’s southern border, and will reposition its forces to other areas just outside the territory.
In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, Israel will continue to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory. Gaza will also continue to use Israeli currency.
A World Bank study on the economic effects of the plan determined that “disengagement” would ease restrictions on mobility inside Gaza. But the study also warned that the removal of troops and settlers would have little positive effect unless accompanied by an opening of Gaza’s borders. If the borders are sealed to labor and trade, the plan “would create worse hardship than is seen today.”
The plan also explicitly envisions continued home demolitions by the Israeli military to expand the “buffer zone” along the Gaza-Egypt border. According to a report released last week by Human Rights Watch, the Israeli military has illegally razed nearly 1,600 homes since 2000 to create this buffer zone, displacing some 16,000 Palestinians. Israeli officials have called for the buffer zone to be doubled, which would result in the destruction of one-third of the Rafah refugee camp.
In addition, the plan states that disengagement “will serve to dispel the claims regarding Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” A report by legal experts from the Israeli Justice Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the military made public on Sunday, however, reportedly acknowledges that disengagement “does not necessarily exempt Israel from responsibility in the evacuated territories.”
If Israel removes its troops from Gaza, the Palestinian National Authority will maintain responsibility for security within the territory—to the extent that Israel allows Palestinian police the authority and capacity. Palestinian security forces will still have a duty to protect civilians within Gaza and to prevent indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians.
“Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”
Under international law, the duties of an occupying power are detailed in the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations. According to The Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
The “disengagement plan,” as adopted by the Israeli Cabinet on June 6, 2004, and endorsed by the Knesset on October 26, is available at:
Israel’s Obligations to Gaza under International Law
Israeli authorities claim “broad powers and discretion to decide who may enter its territory” and that “a foreigner has no legal right to enter the State’s sovereign territory, including for the purposes of transit into the [West Bank] or aboard.” While international human rights law gives wide latitude to governments with regard to entry of foreigners, Israel has heightened obligations toward Gaza residents. Because of the continuing controls Israel exercises over the lives and welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, Israel remains an occupying power under international humanitarian law, despite withdrawing its military forces and settlements from the territory in 2005”
(Gaza) – Israel’s sweeping restrictions on leaving Gaza deprive its more than two million residents of opportunities to better their lives, Human Rights Watch said today on the fifteenth anniversary of the 2007 closure. The closure has devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians.
Israel’s closure policy blocks most Gaza residents from going to the West Bank, preventing professionals, artists, athletes, students, and others from pursuing opportunities within Palestine and from traveling abroad via Israel, restricting their rights to work and an education. Restrictive Egyptian policies at its Rafah crossing with Gaza, including unnecessary delays and mistreatment of travelers, have exacerbated the closure’s harm to human rights.
“Israel, with Egypt’s help, has turned Gaza into an open-air prison,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “As many people around the world are once again traveling two years after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, Gaza’s more than two million Palestinians remain under what amounts to a 15-year-old lockdown.”
Israel should end its generalized ban on travel for Gaza residents and permit free movement of people to and from Gaza, subject to, at most, individual screening and physical searches for security purposes.
Between February 2021 and March 2022, Human Rights Watch interviewed 20 Palestinians who sought to travel out of Gaza via either the Israeli-run Erez crossing or the Egyptian-administered Rafah crossing. Human Rights Watch wrote to Israeli and Egyptian authorities to solicit their perspectives on its findings, and separately to seek information about an Egyptian travel company that operates at the Rafah crossing but had received no responses at this writing.
Since 2007, Israeli authorities have, with narrow exceptions, banned Palestinians from leaving through Erez, the passenger crossing from Gaza into Israel, through which they can reach the West Bank and travel abroad via Jordan. Israel also prevents Palestinian authorities from operating an airport or seaport in Gaza. Israeli authorities also sharply restrict the entry and exit of goods.
They often justify the closure, which came after Hamas seized political control over Gaza from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in June 2007, on security grounds. Israeli authorities have said they want to minimize travel between Gaza and the West Bank to prevent the export of “a human terrorist network” from Gaza to the West Bank, which has a porous border with Israel and where hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers live.
This policy has reduced travel to a fraction of what it was two decades ago, Human Rights Watch said. Israeli authorities have instituted a formal “policy of separation” between Gaza and the West Bank, despite international consensus that these two parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory form a “single territorial unit.” Israel accepted that principle in the 1995 Oslo Accords, signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israeli authorities restrict all travel between Gaza and the West Bank, even when the travel takes place via the circuitous route through Egypt and Jordan rather than through Israeli territory.
Due to these policies, Palestinian professionals, students, artists, and athletes living in Gaza have missed vital opportunities for advancement not available in Gaza. Human Rights Watch interviewed seven people who said that Israeli authorities did not respond to their requests for travel through Erez, and three others who said Israel rejected their permits, apparently for not fitting within Israeli’s narrow criteria.
Walaa Sada, 31, a filmmaker, said that she applied for permits to take part in film training in the West Bank in 2014 and 2018, after spending years convincing her family to allow her to travel alone, but Israeli authorities never responded to her applications. The hands-on nature of the training, requiring filming live scenes and working in studios, made remote participation impracticable and Sada ended up missing the sessions.
The “world narrowed” when she received these rejections, Sada said, making her feel “stuck in a small box.… For us in Gaza, the hands of the clock stopped. People all over the world can easily and quickly book flight and travel, while we … die waiting for our turn.”
The Egyptian authorities have exacerbated the closure’s impact by restricting movement out of Gaza and at times fully sealing its Rafah border crossing, Gaza’s only outlet aside from Erez to the outside world. Since May 2018, Egyptian authorities have been keeping Rafah open more regularly, making it, amid the sweeping Israeli restrictions, the primary outlet to the outside world for Gaza residents.
Palestinians, however, still face onerous obstacles traveling through Egypt, including having to wait weeks for permission to travel, unless they are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to travel companies with significant ties to Egyptian authorities to expedite their travel, denials of entry, and abuse by Egyptian authorities.
Sada said also received an opportunity to participate in a workshop on screenwriting in Tunisia in 2019, but that she could not afford the US$2000 it would cost her to pay for the service that would ensure that she could travel on time. Her turn to travel came up six weeks later, after the workshop had already been held.
As an occupying power that maintains significant control over many aspects of life in Gaza, Israel has obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure the welfare of the population there. Palestinians also have the right under international human rights law to freedom of movement, in particular within the occupied territory, a right that Israel can restrict under international law only in response to specific security threats.
Israel’s policy, though, presumptively denies free movement to people in Gaza, with narrow exceptions, irrespective of any individualized assessment of the security risk a person may pose. These restrictions on the right to freedom of movement do not meet the requirement of being strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve a lawful objective. Israel has had years and many opportunities to develop more narrowly tailored responses to security threats that minimize restrictions on rights.
Egypt’s legal obligations toward Gaza residents are more limited, as it is not an occupying power. However, as a state party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, it should ensure respect for the convention “in all circumstances,” including protections for civilians living under military occupation who are unable to travel due to unlawful restrictions imposed by the occupying power. The Egyptian authorities should also consider the impact of their border closure on the rights of Palestinians living in Gaza who are unable to travel in and out of Gaza through another route, including the right to leave a country.
Egyptian authorities should lift unreasonable obstacles that restrict Palestinians’ rights and allow transit via its territory, subject to security considerations, and ensure that their decisions are transparent and not arbitrary and take into consideration the human rights of those affected.
“The Gaza closure blocks talented, professional people, with much to give their society, from pursuing opportunities that people elsewhere take for granted,” Shakir said. “Barring Palestinians in Gaza from moving freely within their homeland stunts lives and underscores the cruel reality of apartheid and persecution for millions of Palestinians.”
Israel’s Obligations to Gaza under International Law
Israeli authorities claim “broad powers and discretion to decide who may enter its territory” and that “a foreigner has no legal right to enter the State’s sovereign territory, including for the purposes of transit into the [West Bank] or aboard.” While international human rights law gives wide latitude to governments with regard to entry of foreigners, Israel has heightened obligations toward Gaza residents. Because of the continuing controls Israel exercises over the lives and welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, Israel remains an occupying power under international humanitarian law, despite withdrawing its military forces and settlements from the territory in 2005. Both the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross, the guardians of international humanitarian law, have reached this determination. As the occupying power, Israel remains bound to provide residents of Gaza the rights and protections afforded to them by the law of occupation. Israeli authorities continue to control Gaza’s territorial waters and airspace, and the movement of people and goods, except at Gaza’s border with Egypt. Israel also controls the Palestinian population registry and the infrastructure upon which Gaza relies.
Israel has an obligation to respect the human rights of Palestinians living in Gaza, including their right to freedom of movement throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory and abroad, which affects both the right to leave a country and the right to enter their own country. Israel is also obligated to respect Palestinians’ rights for which freedom of movement is a precondition, for example the rights to education, work, and health. The UNHuman Rights Committee has said that while states can restrict freedom of movement for security reasons or to protect public health, public order, and the rights of others, any such restrictions must be proportional and “the restrictions must not impair the essence of the right; the relation between the right and restriction, between norm and exception, must not be reversed.”
While the law of occupation permits occupying powers to impose security restrictions on civilians, it also requires them to restore public life for the occupied population. That obligation increases in a prolonged occupation, in which the occupier has more time and opportunity to develop more narrowly tailored responses to security threats that minimize restrictions on rights. In addition, the needs of the occupied population increase over time. Suspending virtually all freedom of movement for a short period interrupts temporarily normal public life, but long-term, indefinite suspension in Gaza has had a much more debilitating impact, fragmentating populations, fraying familial and social ties, compoundingdiscrimination against women, and blocking people from pursuing opportunities to improve their lives.
The impact is particularly damaging given the denial of freedom of movement to people who are confined to a sliver of the occupied territory, unable to interact in person with the majority of the occupied population that lives in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and its rich assortment of educational, cultural, religious, and commercial institutions.
After 55 years of occupation and 15 years of closure in Gaza with no end in sight, Israel should fully respect the human rights of Palestinians, using as a benchmark the rights it grants Israeli citizens. Israel should abandon an approach that bars movement absent exceptional individual humanitarian circumstances it defines, in favor of an approach that permits free movement absent exceptional individual security circumstances.
Israel’s Closure
Most Palestinians who grew up in Gaza under this closure have never left the 40-by-11 kilometer (25-by-7 mile) Gaza Strip. For the last 25 years, Israel has increasingly restricted the movement of Gaza residents. Since June 2007, when Hamas seized control over Gaza from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA), Gaza has been mostly closed.
Israeli authorities justify this closure on security grounds, in light of “Hamas’ rise to power in the Gaza Strip,” as they lay out in a December 2019 court filing. Authorities highlight in particular the risk that Hamas and armed Palestinian groups will recruit or coerce Gaza residents who have permits to travel via Erez “for the commission of terrorist acts and the transfer of operatives, knowledge, intelligence, funds or equipment for terrorist activists.” Their policy, though, amounts to a blanket denial with rare exceptions, rather than a generalized respect for the right of Palestinians to freedom of movement, to be denied only on the basis of individualized security reasons.
The Israeli army has since 2007 limited travel through the Erez crossing except in what it deems “exceptional humanitarian circumstances,” mainly encompassing those needing vital medical treatment outside Gaza and their companions, although the authorities also make exceptions for hundreds of businesspeople and laborers and some others. Israel has restricted movement even for those seeking to travel under these narrowexceptions, affecting their rights to health and life, among others, as Human Rights Watch and other groups have documented. Most Gaza residents do not fit within these exemptions to travel through Erez, even if it is to reach the West Bank.
Between January 2015 and December 2019, before the onset of Covid-19 restrictions, an average of about 373 Palestinians left Gaza via Erez each day, less than 1.5 percent of the daily average of 26,000 in September 2000, before the closure, according to the Israeli rights group Gisha. Israeli authorities tightened the closure further during the Covid-19 pandemic – between March 2020 and December 2021, an average of about 143 Palestinians left Gaza via Erez each day, according to Gisha.
Israeli authorities announced in March 2022 that they would authorize 20,000 permits for Palestinians in Gaza to work in Israel in construction and agriculture, though Gisha reports that the actual number of valid permits in this category stood at 9,424, as of May 22.
Israeli authorities have also for more than two decades sharply restricted the use by Palestinians of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters. They blocked the reopening of the airport that Israeli forces made inoperable in January 2002, and prevented the Palestinian authorities from building a seaport, leaving Palestinians dependent on leaving Gaza by land to travel abroad. The few Palestinians permitted to cross at Erez are generally barred from traveling abroad via Israel’s international airport and must instead travel abroad via Jordan. Palestinians wishing to leave Gaza via Erez, either to the West Bank or abroad, submit requests through the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee in Gaza, which forwards applications to Israeli authorities who decide on whether to grant a permit.
Separation Between Gaza and the West Bank
As part of the closure, Israeli authorities have sought to “differentiate” between their policy approaches to Gaza and the West Bank, such as imposing more sweeping restrictions on the movement of people and goods from Gaza to the West Bank, and promote separation between these two parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The army’s “Procedure for Settlement in the Gaza Strip by Residents of Judea and Samaria,” published in 2018, states that “in 2006, a decision was made to introduce a policy of separation between the Judea and Samaria Area [the West Bank] and the Gaza Strip in light of Hamas’ rise to power in the Gaza Strip. The policy currently in effect is explicitly aimed at reducing travel between the areas.”
In each of the 11 cases Human Rights Watch reviewed of people seeking to reach the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, for professional and educational opportunities not available in Gaza, Israeli authorities did not respond to requests for permits or denied them, either for security reasons or because they did not conform to the closure policy. Human Rights Watch also reviewed permit applications on the website of the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee, or screenshots of it, including the status of the permit applications, when they were sent on to the Israeli authorities and the response received, if any.
Raed Issa, a 42-year-old artist, said that the Israeli authorities did not respond to his application for a permit in early December 2015, to attend an exhibit of his art at a Ramallah art gallery between December 27 and January 16, 2016.
The “Beyond the Dream” exhibit sought to highlight the situation in Gaza after the 2014 war. Issa said that the Palestinian Civil Affairs committee continued to identify the status of his application as “sent and waiting for response” and he ended up having to attend the opening of the exhibit virtually. Issa felt that not being physically present hampered his ability to engage with audiences, and to network and promote his work, which he believes limited his reach and hurt sales of his artwork. He described feeling pained “that I am doing my own art exhibit in my homeland and not able to attend it, not able to move freely.”
Ashraf Sahweel, 47, chairman of the Board of Directors of the Gaza Center for Art and Culture, said that Gaza-based artists routinely do not hear back after applying for Israeli permits, forcing them to miss opportunities to attend exhibitions and other cultural events. A painter himself, he applied for seven permits between 2013 and 2022, but Israeli authorities either did not respond or denied each application, he said. Sahweel said that he has “given up hope on the possibility to travel via Erez.”
Palestinian athletes in Gaza face similar restrictions when seeking to compete with their counterparts in the West Bank, even though the Israeli army guidelines specifically identify “entry of sportspeople” as among the permissible exemptions to the closure. The guidelines, updated in February 2022, set out that “all Gaza Strip residents who are members of the national and local sports teams may enter Israel in transit to the Judea and Samaria area [West Bank] or abroad for official activities of the teams.”
Hilal al-Ghawash, 25, told Human Rights Watch that his football team, Khadamat Rafah, had a match in July 2019 with a rival West Bank team, the Balata Youth Center, in the finals of Palestine Club, with the winner entitled to represent Palestine in the Asian Cup. The Palestinian Football Federation applied for permits for the entire 22-person team and 13-person staff, but Israeli authorities, without explanation, granted permits to only 4 people, only one of whom was a player. The game was postponed as a result.
After Gisha appealed the decision in the Jerusalem District Court, Israeli authorities granted 11 people permits, including six players, saying the other 24 were denied on security grounds that were not specified. Al-Ghawash was among the players who did not receive a permit. The Jerusalem district court upheld the denials. With Khadamat Rafah prevented from reaching the West Bank, the Palestine Football Federation canceled the Palestine Cup finals match.
Al-Ghawash said that West Bank matches hold particular importance for Gaza football players, since they offer the opportunity to showcase their talents for West Bank clubs, which are widely considered superior to those in Gaza and pay better. Despite the cancellation, al-Ghawash said, the Balata Youth Center later that year offered him a contract to play for them. The Palestinian Football Federation again applied for a permit on al-Ghawash’s behalf, but he said he did not receive a response and was unable to join the team.
In 2021, al-Ghawash signed a contract with a different West Bank team, the Hilal al-Quds club. The Palestinian Football Federation again applied, but this time, the Israeli army denied the permit on unspecified security grounds. Al-Ghawash said he does not belong to any armed group or political movement and has no idea on what basis Israeli authorities denied him a permit.
Missing these opportunities has forced al-Ghawash to forgo not only higher pay, but also the chance to play for more competitive West Bank teams, which could have brought him closer to his goal of joining the Palestinian national team. “There’s a future in the West Bank, but, here in Gaza, there’s only a death sentence,” he said. “The closure devastates players’ future. Gaza is full of talented people, but it’s so difficult to leave.”
Palestinian students and professionals are frequently unable to obtain permits to study or train in the West Bank. In 2016, Augusta Victoria Hospital in East Jerusalem agreed to have 10 physics students from Al-Azhar University in Gaza come to the hospital for a six-month training program. Israeli authorities denied five students permits without providing a rationale, two of the students said.
The five other students initially received permits valid for only 14 days, and then encountered difficulties receiving subsequent permits. None were able to complete the full program, the two students said. One, Mahmoud Dabour, 28, said that when he applied for a second permit, he received no response. Two months later, he applied again and managed to get a permit valid for one week. He received one other permit, valid for 10 days, but then, when he returned and applied for the fifth time, Israeli authorities rejected his permit request without providing a reason. As a result, he could not finish the training program, and, without the certification participants receive upon completion, he said, he cannot apply for jobs or attend conferences or workshops abroad in the field.
Dabour said that the training cannot be offered in Gaza, since the necessary radiation material required expires too quickly for it to be functional after passing through the time-consuming Israeli inspections of materials entering the Gaza Strip. There are no functioning devices of the kind that students need for the training in Gaza, Dabour said.
One of the students whose permit was denied said, “I feel I studied for five years for nothing, that my life has stopped.” The student asked that his name be withheld for his security.
Two employees of Zimam, a Ramallah-based organization focused on youth empowerment and conflict resolution, said that the Israeli authorities repeatedly denied them permits to attend organizational training and strategy meetings. Atta al-Masri, the 31-year-old Gaza regional director, said he has applied four times for permits, but never received one. Israeli authorities did not respond the first three times and, the last time in 2021, denied him a permit on the grounds that it was “not in conformity” with the permissible exemptions to the closure. He has worked for Zimam since 2009, but only met his colleagues in person for the first time in Egypt in March 2022.
Ahed Abdullah, 29, Zimam’s youth programs coordinator in Gaza, said she applied twice for permits in 2021, but Israeli authorities denied both applications on grounds of “nonconformity:”
This is supposed to be my right. My simplest right. Why did they reject me? My colleagues who are outside Palestine managed to make it, while I am inside Palestine, I wasn’t able to go to the other part of Palestine … it’s only 2-3 hours from Gaza to Ramallah, why should I get the training online? Why am I deprived of being with my colleagues and doing activities with them instead of doing them in dull breakout rooms on Zoom?
Human Rights Watch has previously documented that the closure has prevented specialists in the use of assistive devices for people with disabilities from opportunities for hands-on training on the latest methods of evaluation, device maintenance, and rehabilitation. Human Rights Watch also documented restrictions on the movement of human rights workers. Gisha, the Israeli human rights group, has reported that Israel has blocked health workers in Gaza from attending training in the West Bank on how to operate new equipment and hampered the work of civil society organizations operating in Gaza.
Israeli authorities have also made it effectively impossible for Palestinians from Gaza to relocate to the West Bank. Because of Israeli restrictions, thousands of Gaza residents who arrived on temporary permits and now live in the West Bank are unable to gain legal residency. Although Israel claims that these restrictions are related to maintaining security, evidence Human Rights Watch collected suggests the main motivation is to control Palestinian demography across the West Bank, whose land Israel seeks to retain, in contrast to the Gaza Strip.
Egypt
With most Gaza residents unable to travel via Erez, the Egyptian-administered Rafah crossing has become Gaza’s primary outlet to the outside world, particularly in recent years. Egyptian authorities kept Rafah mostly closed for nearly five years following the July 2013 military coup in Egypt that toppled President Mohamed Morsy, whom the military accused of receiving support from Hamas. Egypt, though, eased restrictions in May 2018, amid the Great March of Return, the recurring Palestinian protests at the time near the fences separating Gaza and Israel.
Despite keeping Rafah open more regularly since May 2018, movement via Rafah is a fraction of what it was before the 2013 coup in Egypt. Whereas an average of 40,000 crossed monthly in both directions before the coup, the monthly average was 12,172 in 2019 and 15,077 in 2021, according to Gisha.
Human Rights Watch spoke with 16 Gaza residents who sought to travel via Rafah. Almost all said they opted for this route because of the near impossibility of receiving an Israeli permit to travel via Erez.
Gaza residents hoping to leave via Rafah are required to register in advance via a process the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has deemed “confusing” and “obscure.” Gaza residents can either register via the formal registration process administered by Gaza’s Interior Ministry or informally via what is known as tanseeq,or travel coordination with Egyptian authorities, paying travel companies or mediators for a place on a separate list coordinated by Egyptian authorities. Having two distinct lists of permitted travelers coordinated by different authorities has fueled “allegations of the payment of bribes in Gaza and in Egypt to ensure travel and a faster response,” according to OCHA.
The formal process often takes two to three months, except for those traveling for medical reasons, whose requests are processed faster, said Gaza residents who sought to leave Gaza via Rafah. Egyptian authorities have at times rejected those seeking to cross Rafah into Egypt on the grounds that they did not meet specific criteria for travel. The criteria lack transparency, but Gisha reported that they include having a referral for a medical appointment in Egypt or valid documents to enter a third country.
To avoid the wait and risk of denial, many choose instead the tanseeqroute. Several interviewees said that they paid large sums of money to Palestinian brokers or Gaza-based travel companies that work directly with Egyptian authorities to expedite people’s movement via Rafah. On social media, some of these companies advertise that they can assure travel within days to those who provide payment and a copy of their passport. The cost of tanseeq has fluctuated from several hundred US dollars to several thousand dollars over the last decade, based in part on how frequently Rafah is open.
In recent years, travel companies have offered an additional “VIP” tanseeq, which expedites travel without delays in transit between Rafah and Cairo, offers flexibility on travel date, and ensures better treatment by authorities. The cost was $700, as of January 2022.
The Cairo-based company offering the VIP tanseeq services, Hala Consulting and Tourism Services, has strong links with Egypt’s security establishment and is staffed largely by former Egyptian military officers, a human rights activist and a journalist who have investigated these issues told Human Rights Watch. This allows the company to reduce processing times and delays at checkpoints during the journey between Rafah and Cairo. The activist and journalist both asked that their names be withheld for security reasons.
The company is linked to prominent Egyptian businessman Ibrahim El-Argani, who has close ties with Egypt’s president, Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi. Ergany heads the Union of Sinai Tribes, which works hand-in-hand with the Egyptian military and intelligence agencies against militants operating in North Sinai. Ergany, one of Egypt’s few businessmen able to export products to Gaza from Egypt, owns the Sinai Sons company, which has an exclusive contract to handle all contracts related to Gaza reconstruction efforts. Human Rights Watch wrote to El-Argani to solicit his perspectives on these issues, but had received no response at this writing.
A 34-year-old computer engineer and entrepreneur said that he sought to travel in 2019 to Saudi Arabia to meet an investor to discuss a potential project to sell car parts online. He chose not to apply to travel via Erez, as he had applied for permits eight times between 2016 and 2018 and had either been rejected or not heard back.
He initially registered via the formal Ministry of Interior process and received approval to travel after three months. However, on the day assigned for his exit via Rafah, an Egyptian officer there said he found his reason for travel not sufficiently “convincing” and denied him passage. A few months later, he tried to travel again for the same purpose, this time opting for tanseeq and paying $400, and, this time, he successfully reached Saudi Arabia within a week of seeking to travel.
He said that he would like to go on vacation with his wife, but worries that Egyptian authorities will not consider vacation a sufficiently compelling reason for travel and that his only option will be to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to do tanseeq.
A 73-year-old man sought to travel via Rafah in February 2021, with his 46-year-old daughter, to get knee replacement surgery in al-Sheikh Zayed hospital in Cairo. He said Gaza lacks the capacity to provide such an operation. The man and his daughter are relatives of a Human Rights Watch staff member. They applied via the Interior Ministry process and received approval in a little over a week.
After they waited for several hours in the Egyptian hall in Rafah on the day of travel, though, Egyptian authorities included the daughter’s name among the 70 names of people who were not allowed to cross that day, the daughter said. The father showed the border officials a doctor’s note indicating that he needed someone to travel with him given his medical situation, but the officer told him, “You either travel alone or go back with her to Gaza.” She said she returned to Gaza, alongside 70 other people, and her father later traveled on his own.
Five people who did manage to travel via Rafah said that they experienced poor conditions and poor treatment, including intrusive searches, by the Egyptian authorities, with several saying that they felt Egyptian authorities treated them like “criminals.” Several people said that Egyptian officers confiscated items from them during the journey, including an expensive camera and a mobile phone, without apparent reason.
Upon leaving Rafah, Palestinians are transported by bus to Cairo’s airport. The trip takes about seven hours, but several people said that the journey took up to three days between long periods of waiting on the bus, at checkpoints and amid other delays, often in extreme weather. Many of those who traveled via Rafah said that, during this journey, Egyptian authorities prevented passengers from using their phones.
The parents of a 7-year-old boy with autism and a rare brain disease said they sought to travel for medical treatment for him in August 2021, but Egyptian authorities only allowed the boy and his mother to enter. The mother said their journey back to Gaza took four days, mostly as a result of Rafah being closed. During this time, she said, they spent hours waiting at checkpoints, in extreme heat, with her son crying nonstop. She said she felt “humiliated” and treated like “an animal,” observing that she “would rather die than travel again through Rafah.”
A 33-year-old filmmaker, who traveled via Rafah to Morocco in late 2019 to attend a film screening, said the return from Cairo to Rafah took three days, much of it spent at checkpoints amid the cold winter in the Sinai desert.
A 34-year-old man said that he planned to travel in August 2019 via Rafah to the United Arab Emirates for a job interview as an Arabic teacher. He said, on his travel date, Egyptian authorities turned him back, saying they had met their quota of travelers. He crossed the next day, but said that, as it was a Thursday and with Rafah closed on Friday, Egyptian authorities made travelers spend two nights sleeping at Rafah, without providing food or access to a clean bathroom.
The journey to Cairo airport then took two days, during which he described going through checkpoints where officers made passengers “put their hands behind their backs while they searched their suitcases.” As a result of these delays totaling four days since his assigned travel date, he missed his job interview and found out that someone else was hired. He is currently unemployed in Gaza.
Given the uncertainty of crossing at Rafah, Gaza residents said that they often wait to book their flight out of Cairo until they arrive. Booking so late often means, beyond other obstacles, having to wait until they can find a reasonably priced and suitable flight, planning extra days for travel and spending extra money on changeable or last-minute tickets. Similar dynamics prevail with regard to travel abroad via Erez to Amman.
Human Rights Watch interviewed four men under the age of 40 with visas to third countries, whom Egyptian authorities allowed entry only for the purpose of transit. The authorities transported these men to Cairo airport and made them wait in what is referred to as the “deportation room” until their flight time. The men likened the room to a “prison cell,” with limited facilities and unsanitary conditions. All described a system in which bribes are required to be able to leave the room to book a plane ticket, get food, drinks, or a cigarette, and avoid abuse. One of the men described an officer taking him outside the room, asking him, “Won’t you give anything to Egypt?” and said that others in the room told him that he then proceeded to do the same with them
EINDE ARTIKEL
”“Israel has the responsibility as the Occupying Power to protect the civilian population. But instead of allowing a healthy people and economy to flourish, Israeli authorities have sealed off the Gaza Strip”
GENEVA, 14 June 2013 – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, Richard Falk, called today on Israel to end its blockade over the Gaza Strip, six years after it was tightened following the Hamas takeover in June 2007. The human suffering of the land, sea and air blockade imposed on the 1.75 million Palestinians living in one of the most densely populated and impoverished areas of the world has been devastating.
“Six years of Israel’s calculated strangulation of the Gaza Strip has stunted the economy and has kept most Gazans in a state of perpetual poverty and aid dependency,” said the UN expert. “Whether it is fishermen unable to go beyond six nautical miles from the shore, farmers unable to access their land near the Israeli fence, businessmen suffering from severe restrictions on the export of goods, students denied access to education in the West Bank, or patients in need of urgent medical attention refused access to Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank, the destructive designs of blockade have been felt by every single household in Gaza. It is especially felt by Palestinian families separated by the blockade,” he added.
“The people of Gaza have endured the unendurable and suffered what is insufferable for six years. Israel’s collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza must end today,” said the Special Rapporteur.
“Israel has the responsibility as the Occupying Power to protect the civilian population. But instead of allowing a healthy people and economy to flourish, Israeli authorities have sealed off the Gaza Strip. According to statistics released by the Israeli Ministry of Defense, last month’s exports out of Gaza consisted of 49 truckloads of empty boxes, three truckloads of spices, one truckload of cut flowers, and one truckload of furniture,” he said. In 2012, the total number of truckloads of exports leaving Gaza was 254, compared to 9,787 in 2005 before the tightening of the blockade.
“It does not take an economist to figure out that such a trickle of goods out of Gaza is not the basis of a viable economy,” noted the UN expert. “The easing of the blockade announced by Israel in June 2010 after its deadly assault on the flotilla of ships carrying aid to the besieged population resulted only in an increase in consumer goods entering Gaza, and has not improved living conditions for most Gazans. Since 2007, the productive capacity of Gaza has dwindled with 80 percent of factories in Gaza now closed or operating at half capacity or less due to the loss of export markets and prohibitively high operating costs as a result of the blockade. 34 percent of Gaza’s workforce is unemployed including up to half the youth population, 44 percent of Gazans are food insecure, 80 percent of Gazans are aid recipients,” he said.
“To make matters worse, 90 percent of the water from the Gaza aquifer is unsafe for human consumption without treatment, and severe fuel and electricity shortage results in outages of up to 12 hours a day. Only a small proportion of Gazans who can afford to obtain supplies through the tunnel economy are buffered from the full blow of the blockade, but tunnels alone cannot meet the daily needs of the population in Gaza.”
“Last year, the United Nations forecast that under existing conditions, Gaza would be uninhabitable by 2020. Less optimistic forecasts presented to me were that the Gaza Strip may no longer be viable only three years from now,” said the Special Rapporteur. “It’s clear that the Israeli authorities set out six years ago to devitalize the Gazan population and economy,” he said, referring to a study undertaken by the Israeli Ministry of Defense in early 2008 detailing the minimum number of calories Palestinians in Gaza need to consume on a daily basis to avoid malnutrition. The myriad of restrictions imposed by Israel do not permit civilians in Gaza to develop to their full potential, and enjoy and exercise fully their human rights.
ENDS
In 2008, the UN Human Rights Council designated Richard Falk (United States of America) as the fifth Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. The mandate was originally established in 1993 by the UN Commission on Human Rights.
”Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza,[26] the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel, supported by additional restrictions placed on Gaza by Egypt. Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza’s air and maritime space, as well as six of Gaza’s seven land crossings”
WIKIPEDIA
GAZA STRIP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
”Under the “Disengagement” Plan, Gazans will still be subjected to the effective control of the Israeli military. Although Israel will supposedly remove its permanent military presence, Israeli forces will retain the ability and right to enter the Gaza Strip at will.[28]
Further, Israel will retain control over Gaza’s airspace, sea shore, and borders.[29] Under the Plan, Israel will unilaterally control whether or not Gaza opens a seaport or an airport. Additionally, Israel will control all border crossings, including Gaza’s border with Egypt.[30] And Israel will “continue its military activity along the Gaza Strip’s coastline.”[31] Taken together, these powers mean that all goods and people entering or leaving Gaza will be subject to Israeli control. ”
UNITED NATIONS
THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE
THE ISRAELI ”DISENGAGEMENT” PLAN”GAZA STILL OCCUPIED
THE ISRAELI “DISENGAGEMENT” PLAN: GAZA STILL OCCUPIED
UPDATED SEPTEMBER 2005
“The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process . . . . Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda . . . . All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”.”
– Dov Weisglass, Senior Advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
Legal Analysis:
Israel’s “Disengagement” plan from the Gaza Strip states that once fully enacted “there will be no basis to the claim that the Strip is occupied land,”[1] even though the Plan envisages indefinite Israeli military and economic control over the Gaza Strip. over the Gaza Strip.
Israel’s eagerness to declare an end to the Gaza Strip’s occupation illustrates the strategy behind the Plan. First, Israel seeks to proclaim an end to the Gaza Strip’s occupation—ostensibly in order to absolve Israel of all legal responsibilities as an “occupying power”—while simultaneously retaining effective military control over the Gaza Strip and its inhabitants. Second, it hopes to garner international support for retaining and even expanding illegal colonies in the Occupied West Bank in exchange for a withdrawal from Gaza. This strategy’s success was most apparent in the April 14, 2004 Bush-Sharon press conference during which President Bush praised Sharon’s withdrawal plan and announced that “existing Israeli population centers” in Occupied Palestinian Territory would become part of Israel in any permanent status agreement.[2] Third, as Israeli Bureau Chief Dov Weisglass confessed, Israel hopes to indefinitely freeze the peace process.
Variations of this strategy are not new: during the interim period of the Oslo Accords, Israel similarly carved away Palestinian population centers while retaining control over Palestinian movement, economy, and natural resources. Although Israel maintained effective military control over the evacuated areas (“Area A”)—and was therefore legally bound by its legal obligations as an occupying power—some Israeli government advisors argued that Area A was no longer occupied territory and absolved themselves of all legal responsibility.[3] In public and even some diplomatic discourse the occupation disappeared,
occupied territory became “disputed” territory, and the conflict was no longer one between an occupying power and an occupied population but rather a land dispute between two equal parties.
Notwithstanding the terms of the Plan, Israel will remain an occupying power under international law after disengagement from Gaza and is therefore bound by the obligations of an Occupying Power under international customary law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
This updated legal analysis was originally released in October 2004 and is still accurate today, despite recent developments along the occupied Gaza Strip’s border with Egypt and coordination activities with the Palestinian Authority.
I. ISRAEL OCCUPIES THE GAZA STRIP
A. Israel Occupies the Palestinian Territories
The term “occupation” describes a regime of control over territory and population by a foreign sovereign’s military.[4] When a foreign sovereign occupies land, international law obligates that sovereign to uphold basic standards to protect both the population under its control and the land on which that population lives.[5]
The Hague Regulations of 1907 set forth the basic legal standard: “Territory is occupied when it has actually been placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation only extends to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”[6] This definition represents customary international law [7] and has been reaffirmed and expounded upon at the Nuremberg Tribunal,[8] in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) and in its First Additional Protocol (1979),[9] in state practice, in United Nations’ resolutions, and in the judgment of the International Court of Justice.[10]
In June 1967, the Israeli military took control over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip (together, the “Palestinian Territories”).[11] Ever since, Israel has maintained actual and effective control over the Palestinian Territories and the indigenous Palestinian population thereon. Consequently, Israel belligerently occupies the Palestinian Territories as a matter of law.
B. The International Community Recognizes Israel as the Occupying Power of the Palestinian Territories
Since 1967, the International Community has consistently held that Israel occupies the Palestinian Territories. United Nations Security Council resolution 242 called, in part, for Israel to withdraw from territories it “occupied.”[12] Since then, the international community—including the United States[13] —has consistently reaffirmed that the territories, including East Jerusalem, are “occupied” as a matter of law. Indeed, both the U.N. Security Council and the General Assembly reiterated in May 2004 that the Palestinian Territories are “occupied” as a matter of law.[14]
C. Israel’s Supreme Court Recognizes Israel as the Occupying Power of the Palestinian Territories
The Israeli Supreme Court routinely refers to the Palestinian Territories [15] as occupied and selectively enforces international law with respect to the Israeli military presence there.[16]
In 1979, for example, the Israeli Supreme Court stated: “This is a situation of belligerency and the status of [Israel] with respect to the occupied territory is that of an Occupying Power.”[17] In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court held again that the West Bank and Gaza Strip “are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel.”[18]
Most recently, in June, 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Territories are occupied under international law.[19] In order to find the putative legal authority to confiscate thousands of acres of Palestinian land to construct its Wall, the High Court proclaimed: “Since 1967, Israel has been holding [the Palestinian Territories] in belligerent occupation.”[20]
Therefore, even though Israeli politicians may rhetorically dispute Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories, Israeli courts continually recognize the Israeli military as the Occupying Power of the Palestinian Territories.
D. The International Court of Justice Recognizes Israel as the Occupying Power
In July 2004, the International Court of Justice held that “. . .[t]he territories occupied by Israel have for over 37 years been subject to its territorial jurisdiction as the occupying Power.”[21]
E. Israel Remains an Occupying Power under the Oslo Accords
Israel maintained effective military control over the Palestinian Territories during the Oslo period (roughly 1993-2000), satisfying the general international legal standard for occupation. During Oslo, the Israeli military continued land confiscation and nearly doubled the population of its illegal colonies. Further, it continued building bypass roads and infrastructure, rendered Palestinian movement even more difficult, and frequently conducted military operations in and around the areas in which it had putatively ceded control.
Since Oslo, the erection of Israel’s wall inside the Occupied West Bank provides another example of Israel’s ongoing control over Palestinians and their land.[22] The Wall—a regime of concrete, electrified fences, trenches, razor wire and sniper towers—effectively divides Palestinians from their agricultural and water resources, limits access of Palestinians to their property and restricts the freedom of movement of Palestinians within their own territory.
Moreover, the Oslo Accords specifically affirmed that the Palestinian Territories would remain under Israeli occupation until the conclusion and implementation of a final peace treaty. Although the Accords permitted limited self-administration for some Palestinians, the Accords expressly reiterated that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank will continue to be considered one territorial unit, and that withdrawal from Palestinian population centers will do nothing “to change the status” of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the duration of the Accords.[23]
Finally, the United Nations,[24] the international community,[25] the Israeli Supreme Court,[26] and the International Court of Justice all held during and after Oslo that Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The ICJ specifically emphasized that “[s]ubsequent events [to 1967’s War]…have done nothing to alter [the status of occupation].”[27]
II. THE GAZA STRIP REMAINS OCCUPIED TERRITORY EVEN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “DISENGAGEMENT” PLAN
A. Israel Will Retain Effective Control over the Gaza Strip and Will Therefore Remain the Occupying Power
Under the “Disengagement” Plan, Gazans will still be subjected to the effective control of the Israeli military. Although Israel will supposedly remove its permanent military presence, Israeli forces will retain the ability and right to enter the Gaza Strip at will.[28]
Further, Israel will retain control over Gaza’s airspace, sea shore, and borders.[29] Under the Plan, Israel will unilaterally control whether or not Gaza opens a seaport or an airport. Additionally, Israel will control all border crossings, including Gaza’s border with Egypt.[30] And Israel will “continue its military activity along the Gaza Strip’s coastline.”[31] Taken together, these powers mean that all goods and people entering or leaving Gaza will be subject to Israeli control.
Finally, Israel will prevent Gazans from engaging in international relations.[32] Accordingly, if it enacts the “Disengagement” Plan as envisaged, Israel will effectively control Gaza—administratively and militarily.[33] Therefore, Israel will remain the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip.
B. Israel Will Remain the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip so long as Israel Retains the Ability to Exercise Authority over the Strip
In The Hostages Case, the Nuremburg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations’ basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.[34] It held that “[t]he test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power.”[35] In that case, the Tribunal had to decide whether Germany’s occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany had ceded de facto control to non-German forces of certain territories. Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the Tribunal held that Germany indeed remained the “occupying power”—both in Greece and Yugoslavia generally and in the territories to which it had ceded control—since it could have reentered and controlled those territories at will.
Similarly, Israel will retain ultimate authority over Gaza and to a much greater degree than Germany in The Hostages Case: The Israeli military expressly reserves itself the right to enter the Gaza Strip at will. Further, Israel will not just retain the ability to exercise control over Gaza, but it will also retain effective control over Gaza’s borders, air and sea space, overall security, and international relations.
Moreover, even if Israel should devolve some of its duties to third parties—either as co-occupying powers or as designees—Israel will remain an occupying power so long as it retains the ability to effectively control the Gaza Strip at will, whether with Israel’s own troops or those of its agents or partners.
C. As an Occupying Power, Israel Must Protect Palestinians and Their Lands
Since Israel will continue to occupy the Gaza Strip, Israel will still be bound by its obligations under International Law—namely 1907’s Hague Regulations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international customary law. Under international law, an occupying power must uphold certain obligations to the people and land it occupies. For example, an occupying power must maintain the status quo of occupied territory and may never unilaterally annex territory or transfer its civilian population into occupied territory.[36] Moreover, the occupying power’s activity in occupied territory must, inter alia, be for the benefit of the population it occupies.[37]
Nevertheless, the absence of a “permanent” Israeli military presence and illegal settlers will mark a significant change in Gaza’s 37-year-history of belligerent Israeli occupation. The Fourth Geneva Convention does indeed contemplate changes in the degree of occupation; changes in circumstances, however, do not necessarily translate into the end of occupation.[38] Since Israel will retain such a high-degree of administrative and military authority over Gaza—control over air space, sea space, the provision of public utility services, all border crossings, military security, and international relations[39]—Israel will still be bound to all relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1907’s Hague Regulations, and applicable customary international law.[40]
III. THE STRATEGY BEHIND THE DISENGAGEMENT PLAN
A. THE DISENGAGEMENT PLAN IS DEMOGRAPHICALLY MOTIVATED
Israel’s greatest battle is not against “terrorism,” but against demography. Statistical analyses project that Palestinian Christians and Muslims will comprise the majority of persons in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories by the year 2020.[41] If Israel wants to remain a “Jewish state,” then it will be very difficult to maintain its Jewish identity if an ethno/religious minority continues to rule over an ethnic majority. Israeli journalist David Landau noted in a statement made to a British journalist that the Gaza plans represents “the simplest, crudest solution [to Israel’s demographic time bomb]: to dump Gaza and its 1.3 million Arabs in the hope that that would ‘buy’ [Israel] 50 more years.”[42]
Therefore, one of the primary motivations behind Israel’s “Disengagement” Plan is to “dump” 1.3 million non-Jews while illegally confiscating as much Palestinian land in the West Bank as possible.
B. ISRAEL SEEKS TO CONSOLIDATE GAINS IN THE WEST BANK IN EXCHANGE FOR “CONCESSIONS” IN GAZA
While the world publicly debates the “Disengagement” Plan, Israel has been constructing the Wall in the Occupied West Bank. The Wall severs Palestinians from their lands, communities, and homes, while illegally appropriating more land and natural resources for Israeli colonies. In addition, Israel continues to expand illegal colonies in the Occupied West Bank. Since the ICJ issued its ruling on July 9, 2004 holding that the colonies are illegal, Israel has announced tenders for more than 2,300 housing units in the West Bank.
The success of Israel’s strategy became evident during a press conference on April 14, 2004, when U.S. President Bush, ostensibly in an effort to support the Gaza Plan, endorsed Israel’s plans to keep illegal West Bank colonies (which he termed “Israeli population centers”) in any permanent status agreement. President Bush further expressed U.S. opposition for Palestinian refugees’ right to return to homes and property inside Israel, which international law guarantees to them.
Unlike the Gaza settlements, however, the West Bank settlements that Israel would keep “in exchange” for its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza house tens of thousands of illegal colonists and stretch many miles into Occupied Palestinian Territory. In fact, just as Israel has evacuated 8,500 settlers from the occupied Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank, it has embarked on plans to make room for 30,000 new settlers this year alone, primarily in and around occupied East Jerusalem.
Thus, Israel will demographically, and perhaps permanently, entrench its presence in the West Bank. Therefore, the Gaza withdrawal plan has less to do with what Israel is giving up in Gaza and more to do with what Israel plans on taking from the West Bank.
IV. CONCLUSION: CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTIONS
Israel will retain effective military, economic, and administrative control over the Gaza Strip and will therefore continue to occupy the Gaza Strip—even after implementation of its “Disengagement Plan” as proposed. Because Israel will continue to occupy Gaza, it will still be bound by the provisions of 1907’s Hague Regulations, the Fourth Geneva Convention and relative international customary law.
This is not to say, however, that removing Gaza’s settlers or reducing the Israeli military presence in and around the Gaza Strip could not usher in a better age for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Palestinians appreciate any movement on Israel’s part towards compliance with international law. Compliance with international law brings Palestinians closer to liberation and the region closer to stability. By providing non-violent channels to achieve fair results, international law helps silence extremist positions and activity while bringing both sides closer to a negotiated peace. Additionally, respect for international law affirms the credibility of more powerful nations who routinely invoke it as the legitimate basis for their own actions.
Israel’s “Disengagement” Plan however does not represent a good faith effort at advancing peace. Rather, Israel is selectively complying with some international legal standards in the Gaza Strip to preempt criticism for massive violations in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem). In so doing, Israel ensures that the conflict will continue and perhaps intensify. If Israel maintains effective control over the Gaza Strip, denying it the ability to develop internally or trade externally, Gaza could become a greater humanitarian disaster than it already is. Or if Israel eventually proclaims Gaza the “State of Palestine,” the freedom guaranteed under international law might become ever more distant for Palestinians elsewhere.
The international community should ensure that whatever unilateral measures Israel takes conform to international law and are not used to justify violations of international law elsewhere.
Today, however, Israel is making room for over 30,000 new settlers in the occupied West Bank this year alone, especially in and around occupied East Jerusalem—or almost four times the number of settlers that were evacuated from the occupied Gaza Strip as part of “Disengagement.”
We now have an historic opportunity for peace in the Middle East. Rather than an illegal declaration of an end of occupation on less than 4% of the Palestinian territory that Israel occupies, Israel should join the new Palestinian Leadership in negotiating an end of conflict.
Peace is the best security for both Palestinians and Israelis and the only secure peace is an agreed peace. We know the contours of any final status agreement; we have the opportunity; and both the Palestinian and Israeli people have the will. An immediate return to bilateral negotiations, with the international community as mediator, would help to bring permanent and positive change to the Middle East.
[2] George W. Bush, Letter of Assurances to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,
[3]See, e.g., Dore Gold, From ‘Occupied Territories’ to ‘Disputed Territories,’ January, 2002, available at <http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm>, last checked July 25, 2004. Cf. Joel Singer, legal adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who stated after the signing of the Oslo Accords that “notwithstanding the transfer of a large portion of the powers and responsibilities currently exercised by Israel to Palestinian hands, the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip will not be changed during the interim period.” Joel Singer, “The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements,” I Justice 4, 6 (Int’l Assn of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, 1994).
[4] Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 3 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 3) 461, 187 Consol. T.S. 227, entered into force Jan. 26, 1910, hereinafter “The Hague Convention.”
[5] Customary international law governs these basic obligations, which are articulated in 1907’s Hague Convention, 1949’s Fourth Geneva Convention, and 1977’s First Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
[7] Robbie Savel, The Problematic Fourth Geneva Convention: Rethinking the International Law of Occupation, The Jurist, available at <http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php>, last checked June 9, 2004 (asserting that the Hague Regulations have achieved status as customary international law—that is, a set of binding international norms recognized by the community of nations—and that most of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and its 1st Additional Protocol have also achieved that status).
[8] U.S. v. Wilhelm List, Nuremberg Tribunal, 1948.
[9] Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 U.N.T.S 287 (1949); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 (1979).
[11] Israel also assumed control over Syria’s Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. While Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt, Israel still occupies Syria’s Golan Heights.
[12] United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967).
[13]See, e.g., U.S. State Department Country Report on Israel and the Occupied Territories, 2003, released February 25, 2004, available at <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm#occterr>, last checked June 27, 2004 (referring to the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem as “occupied territories”).
[14] United Nations Security Council resolution 1544 (2004) (cites Israel’s obligations as an “occupying Power” under international law and references the Territories “occupied” since 1967); United Nations General Assembly resolution 58/292 (2004) (affirming “that the status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation”).
[15] Israel, however, claims to have annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights pursuant to domestic Israeli law, which the international community has rejected en masse. See, e.g., United Nations Security Council Resolution 252.
[16] Although the Israeli Supreme Court does recognize Palestinian territories as “occupied” under international law, it does not recognize de jure application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, contrary to universal international opinio juris. For a discussion on this distinction and its lack of legal foundation, see Claude Bruderlein, “Legal Aspects of Israel’s Disengagement Plan under International Humanitarian Law,” Harvard University Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (August, 2004).However, the Supreme Court selectively does apply some humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
[17] 606 Il. H.C. 78, Ayub, et al. v. Minister of Defence, et al. (The Beth Case); 610 Il. H.C. 78, Matawa et al. v. Minister of Defence, et al. (The Bekaot Case), reprinted in Antoine Bouvier and Marco Sassoli, How Does Law Protect in War? Cases, Documents and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, pps. 812-817, Geneva, 1999, hereinafter “ICRC 1999.” Ironically, the Supreme Court terms the Palestinian Territories “occupied” so that it can confiscate Palestinian land: Under the Law of Occupation, the occupying power’s military boasts authority to temporarily confiscate land necessary to achieve military objectives.
[26]See notes 15 et seq. and accompanying text, emphasizing, however, that the Israeli Supreme Court does not consider East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights to be “occupied,” since Israel unilaterally annexed those territories, which the international community recognizes as “null and void.” See, e.g., United Nations Security Council Res. 478 (1980).
[27] Int’l C.J. Advisory Opinion on the L. Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, at 78 (2004).
[28] Sharon’s Gaza Disengagement Plan, May 28, 2004, Section III.A.3(stating that “[t]he State of Israel reserves the basic right to self defense, which includes taking preventive measures as well as the use of force against threats originating in the Gaza Strip”).
[33] Claude Bruderlein, “Legal Aspects of Israel’s Disengagement Plan under International Humanitarian Law,” Harvard University Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (August, 2004), available upon request.
[40]See, e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention of the Rights of Child.
[41] See, e.g., Jonathan Freedland, A Gift of Dust and Bones: Sharon’s Plan for a Pullout Owes More to Demographic Shifts than a Belated Conversion to Peace-Making, The Guardian, Wed. June 2, 2004.
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.
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.
”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.”
The illegality of the Israeli settlements is based on article 49, Fourth Geneva Convention and on the Hague Convention of 1907
THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION, ARTICLE 49
”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.”
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
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 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.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal under International Law/Why?
CHRISTMAS MESSAGE 2022/TEN YEARS WANDERING THROUGH AMSTERDAM/TEN YEARS REFUGEE VICTIMS OF THE SADISTIC DUTCH GOVERNMENT
A Poor Couple on their way to their PLace of Birth, on the orders of a foreign occupier, who wants to registrate the occupied people.
So is nthe World.
Rulers want to have, they NEED control on everything and everyone.
It is a journey full of hardships, the Wife is pregnant and travels
on the only way poor people can, when they are not walking:
On a Donkey.
And of course she can not walk, for she is full of
Child and the Birth can happen anytime.
When they arrive in their PLace of Birth, there is nowhere a shelter
or Place and the Mother is obliged to deliver her Child in a sort
of Cave, facilitated by a compassionate innkeeper
The Couple gets a warm welcome, not by the authorities,
who don’t care about poor people [just as in our Times],
but by common people.
Like shepherds and local residents.
But also by three Wise Men, who were intrigued by a
miraculous natural phenomenon……
But Hardship is not the end of their Trouble, for the Couple has
to flee, because the occupiers puppet king wants to kill
the newborn child, since a prediction says, that a child, born in
that city, will overshadow the king, when it grows up.
They flee to Egypt, where they can take shelter until
the Danger is over.
Glad for them, that they lived two thousand years ago:
For in this Time, they were, fleeing from Asia [where their
country is situated] stopped at some Wall or deported again [1]
especially when they had the nerves to go to Europe……
2012-2022
That’s what happened in Christmas Night.
It’s all about persecution, exclusion, discrimination.
That’s NOT something from the past
IT HAPPENS NOW!
Because I know a Group of Refugees, who are hunted down
for ten years by a cruel Dutch government, that throws her responsibility from government to municipality, etc
No one to blame?
THEY ARE ALL TO BLAME, ALL SEGMENTS OF
THE DUTCH STATE!
It concerns the Refugee from the ”WE are Here Group”, originally
coming from asylum refugee Centre Ter Apel [2] to the city
of Amsterdam, because they couldn’t be deported [their asylum had
been rejected] to their country of origin, but were not permitted to remain in the Netherlands either. [3]
Is that not sadistic?
Like throwing people in purgatory! [4]
Yes, there is a socalled ”No Fault Criterium”, implying, that when
refugees can’t possibly return to their country, after tried their
stinking best to leave [for departure is entirely the responsibility of
rejected refugees], that they can get a permit to stay in the Netherlands [5, text alas in Dutch].
But in practice the criteria are that strict, that no one can meet
them……..
This also implies also this Group, composed of people,
coming from all sort of war and conflict countries [6] [which makes that they can’t be deported and also the fact, that their country of origin refuses to give travel documents to return to the country]
WANDERING FROM PLACE TO PLACE
So what’s their Fate?
Wandering from place to place, from squatter centre to squatter centre, mostly helped by leftist radical quatter activists, but
also organizing their own group, their own resistance [7]
With no help whatsoever from the municipality Amsterdam,
only evictions from their poor shelterings, making them homeless…
[8]
It;s a shame
Those people are totally without rights
As undocumented refugees they have only right to an advocate and
medical service in case of an emergency
That’s NOT the way you deal with people
People have the right to flee, the right on elementary
necessities of life, the right on a warm Shelter, the right on
enough food to live, the right to build a decent life
I AM FURIOUS BECAUSE OF THIS AND MORE THAN ONCE I CONFRONTED THE DUTCH AMSTERDAM MUNICIPALITY
GOVERNMENT WITH THIS! [9]
CHRISTMAS 2022
Long ago a Poor Couple was rejected and excluded
After 2022 years, on and on refugees are rejected,
as the We are here Group
We, people who seek Justice, will not stand by and let it pass
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Christmas Message 2022/2012-2022/Ten Years wandering through Amsterdam/Ten years refugee victims of a sadistic Dutch Government!
Please see below the feedback from the Editorial Team regarding the feedback that you have given.
OK, we’ve made a couple of small changes to this article, based on the reader’s message. Here’s the description of the revision in the article history (http://www.britannica.com/top ic/653692/history):
“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”
”House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet of England. In the 15th century, having overthrown the house of Lancaster, it provided three kings of England—Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.”
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890”
THAT WAS THEIR REACTION!
You can understand I was a little proud on that and see the
text about the House of York you can read now!
SEE TEXT ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA UNDER NOTE 1
[NOTE 1, A]
And as an extra Source, under Note 1, my whole Correspondence with the Encyclopaedia Britannica
The house was founded by King Edward III’s fifth son, Edmund of Langley (1341–1402), 1st Duke of York, but Edmund and his own son, Edward, 2nd Duke of York, had for the most part undistinguished careers. Edward, dying childless, passed on the dukedom to his nephew Richard (whose mother was a descendant of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence). Richard, 3rd Duke of York (1411–60), was the initial Yorkist claimant to the crown, in opposition to the Lancastrian Henry VI. It may be said that his claim, when it was advanced, was rightly barred by prescription, the house of Lancaster having then occupied the throne for three generations, and that it was really owing to the misgovernment of Queen Margaret of Anjou and her favourites that it was advanced at all. Yet it was founded upon strict principles of lineal descent, for the 3rd Duke of York was descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second surviving son of Edward III, whereas the house of Lancaster came of John of Gaunt, a younger brother of Lionel. One thing that might possibly have been considered an element of weakness in Richard’s claim was that it was derived through females—an objection actually brought against it by Chief JusticeJohn Fortescue (probably a reflection of the increasingly common practice among the English nobility of passing on their estates to a male heir). But apart from strict legality, Richard’s claim was probably supported in the popular view by the fact that he was descended from Edward III through his father no less than through his mother.
After seeking for many years to correct the weakness of Henry VI’s government, Richard first took up arms and at length claimed the crown in Parliament as his right. The Lords, or those who did not purposely stay away from the House, admitted that his claim was unimpeachable but suggested as a compromise that Henry should retain the crown for life and that Richard and his heirs succeed after his death. This was accepted by Richard, and an act to that effect received Henry’s own assent. But the act was repudiated by Margaret of Anjou and her followers, and Richard was slain at Wakefield fighting against them. In little more than two months, however, his son was proclaimed king at London by the title of
Edward IV, and the bloody victory in the Battle of Towton immediately after drove his enemies into exile and paved the way for his coronation.
After his recovery of the throne in 1471, Edward IV had little more to fear from the rivalry of the house of Lancaster. But the seeds of distrust had already been sown among the members of his own family, and in 1478 his brother Clarence was put to death—secretly, indeed, within the Tower of London, but still by his authority and that of Parliament—as a traitor. In 1483 Edward himself died; and his eldest son, Edward V, after a nominal reign of two months and a half, was put aside by his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, who became Richard III, and then, it is said, caused him and his brother Richard, Duke of York, to be murdered. But in little more than two years Richard was slain at Bosworth Field by the Tudor Earl of Richmond, who, being proclaimed king as Henry VII, shortly afterwards fulfilled his pledge to marry the eldest daughter of Edward IV and so unite the houses of York and Lancaster.
Here the dynastic history of the house of York ends, for its claims were henceforth merged in those of the house of Tudor.
This article was most recently revised and updated by Jeff Wallenfeldt. END OF NOTE 1
B
MY CORRESPONDENCE IN EMAIL WITH THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
ADDED
MY LAST REACTION ABOUT THE CHANGES OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA
Please see below the feedback from the Editorial Team regarding the feedback that you have given.
OK, we’ve made a couple of small changes to this article, based on the reader’s message. Here’s the description of the revision in the article history (http://www.britannica.com/top ic/653692/history):
“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”
”House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet of England. In the 15th century, having overthrown the house of Lancaster, it provided three kings of England—Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.”
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890
______________________________ __ From: Astrid Essed [astridessed@yahoo.com] Sent: 25 February 2015 04:38 To: ukcustomerservice Subject: Re: (ESSED, Astrid) Britannica [AM]
TO BRITANNICA CUSTOMER SERVICE
Dear Sir/Madam,
You’re welcome. I passed this feedback to you with great pleasure. Thanks very much for your reaction and the trouble you have taken to pass my feedback to your Editorial Team.
To make things easier I send you the letter to Encyclopaedia Britannica as posted on my website, as a later comment on the same subject
See
THE WARS OF THE ROSES/LANCASTER AND YORK/ USURPATION AND THE RIGHT TO THE THRONE BY FEMALES/LETTER TO ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
We have passed your comprehensive feedback on to our Editorial Team for review. Thank you for taking the time to review this content and provide all of this feedback. When they have reviewed your comments we will let you know their response.
Kind regards
Britannica Customer Service
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890
______________________________ __ From: Astrid Essed [astridessed@yahoo.com<mailto: astridessed@yahoo.com>] Sent: 16 February 2015 22:19 To: enquiries – General Enquiries at Britannica.co.uk Subject: Comments on your Page about the House of York
TO THE EDITORS OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA YOUR ARTICLE ABOUT THE HOUSE OF YORK SOME COMMENTS
Dear Editors,
At first I want to express my great admiration for your large scale History Page about ther various periods of human history,
I especially paid attention on your contributions to the English Late Medieval History and visited your page about the Hundred Years War between England and France with pleasure, learning much of your information
However I want to make some comments on your contribution, referring to your remarks about the ”usurpation” of the House of Lancaster by the House of York, as the ”weakness” of the claim to the throne by Richard, Duke of York, being derived by females.
But first, the usurpation:
FIRST:
USURPATION OF THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE OF LANCASTER BY THE HOUSE OF YORK
I think you are wrong here, since, according to my opinion, there was no ”usurpation” here, in the classic meaning of the definition. To go to the definition of ”usurpation”:
”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.” [3]
I will not go extensively into your remark that the House of York ”passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty”, which is wrong. Because, although there was a certain [not Tudor, but Beaufort/Lancaster] claim to the English throne [4], the House of York had a far stronger claim to the throne. I refer to that later. And smart Henry Tudor [who became King Henry VII and was undoubtedly aware of that stronger York claim] claimed the throne as ”right of conquest”,not by ”right of inheritance”, after his victory in the Battle of Bosworth, where he defeated the Yorkist King Richard III. [5] And as a ”right of conquest” the legality of Henry’s kingship was considered generally. [6]
I said it before According the definition, usurpation is ”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.”
That means not only deposing a King (which was almost a deadly sin in the Middle Ages), but also through someone who had none or lesser right to the throne.
In this case, at first there was no deposal of the throne at all, since there was ”the Act of Accord” and later, when King Edward IV ascended the throne, the deposal of King Henry VI was not as ”illegal” as it seemed, because of two factors: The stronger claim of the House of York to the throne, [the Mortimer claim to the throne], as the fact, that the House of Lancaster itself rose into power by usurpation. But first the Act of Accord
I referred to the fact, that there was no deposal at all at first, mentioning the Act of Accord in 1460. [8]. that included, that King Henry VI remained King of England, but that Richard, Duke of York and his heirs would succeed Henry, thus desinheriting Henry´s son, Edward of Westminster. [9]
Of course one can put questions by disinheriting the Kings´s son, but that’s another story. The Act of Accord was a legal document, as a result of negociations between the Duke of York and the Parliament.(10), after his come back from Ireland and (indeed) seemed to have tried to seize the throne.[11]
Admitted, that [the deal of the Duke of York with the Parliament] was power play, since the party of the Duke of York was on the winning hand in the Wars of the Roses at that moment, but the Act of Accord did not come ´´out of the blue´´ either.
ACT OF ACCORD WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE
Susan Higginbotham, historical fictional writer of Margaret Anjou, mentions the Act of Accord as ´´York, after all, had bullied her husband (Henry VI, my remark) into disinheriting his own son in favor of York´´ (12) and it is her right to see it like that, but I have another vision, because I take the whole history, which preceeded the Accord Act. into consideration.
Since King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, died in 1447, Richard, Duke of York, was heir presumptive to the then childless King Henry VI. [13] But from various reasons, King Henry VI, and his wife, Queen Margaret of Anjou [14] favourited the party of the Duke’s adversary, Edmund Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset [who was of the Lancaster Swynford line] [15] and sent Richard as Lieutenant to Ireland, obviously in a sort of exile.[16] Tensions grew high in the 50ths between York and the Duke of Somerset [with the Queen as his ally], the King got mental ill and in 1453 became father, which ended York’s position as heir presumptive, but due to the mental illness of the King, he became Protector of the Realm twice. Enmity between York and Somerset [and Margaret of Anjou] rose farther and probably they wanted York to be arrested, so he and his allies armed themselves. A military confrontation was enevitable and broke out between York [with his brother in law and his nephew, Warwick the Kingmaker as allies] and the King [actually the Queen and Somerset], which was the start of the Wars of the Roses. After several bloody battles, in 1459, the Coventry Parliament [probably instigated by Margaret of Anjou] attainted York and his allies [declared them to ”traitors” without trial] and forfeited their lives and estates [17], which left York [according to my opinion] no choice than first flee to Ireland and later trying to seize the throne, resulting in the Act of Accord.
I don’t think either York, however ambitious, was after the throne, before 1460. He had enough opportunities to have taken the throne before that [especially when the King was in his power after the First Battle of St Albans in 1455], but he never made an attempt untill he was pushed to the edge by the attainder of 1459. [18]
THE ACT OF ACCORD AFTERMATH BLOODY WAR, WAKEFIELD
When the Act of Accord had been accepted by the Lancastrian party, probably King Henry should have remained King till his death, but the bloody battles intensified. Understandably, Margaret of Anjou was furious about her son’s disinheritance and refused to accept it. She went to Scotland, asking Mary of Guelders, the Queen Regent, military support against the Yorkist party[19] and the military confrontations went on. In her absence, the Battle of Wakefield took place,where the Duke of York [higly probable] died in battle and his son Edmund Earl of Rutland, as the Dukes brother in law, the 5th Earl of Salisbury [the father of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the ”Kingmaker], were executed after the battle. [20] Unlike popular belief, Margaret of Anjou was not present at Wakefield, so she couldn’t have ordered their executions. [21] She returned to England and defeated Warwick in the 2nd Battle of St Albans [22], where she was responsible for the executions following. [23] However, she spared the life of John Neville, brother of the Earl of Warwick, probably since the brother of her commander the 3rd Duke of Somerset [son to the late 2nd Duke of Somerset, enemy of Richard of York] was a captive in Yorkist hands. [24]
But relieved as she might have been to get rid of the Duke of York, she had a more formidable military adversary in his son and heir Edward, now Duke of York, who defeated the Lancastrian forces in the bloody and decisive Battle of Towton. [25]
THE ACT OF ACCORD/AFTERMATH THE DUKE OF YORK’S SON AND HEIR’S ASCENDANCY TO THE THRONE KING EDWARD IV
Edward of York was not like his father, who had a loyalty to the throne till he was pushed to the extremes. Probably hardened by the loss of his father and brother at Wakefield [where Warwick also lost his father and brother Edward’s maternal uncle and cousin],as by an attitude of machiavellistic politics, he was not inclined to hold on to the Act of accord, remaining Henry VI King of England. In fact, since his mental instability, as the reality of Edward’s victories, he wouldn’t have ruled anyway. He was imprisoned in the Tower.
At march 1461, Edward was declared King of England, fulfilling his father’s wishes for his sons.
USURPATION OR NOT? THE CLAIMS TO THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE OF YORK
Although you call the overthrowing of the Act of Accord an usurpation, to my opinion it is no usurpation at all, since the Lancasters should not have to be kings all along, due to the superior claim to the throne of York, as the Lancaster usurpation of King Richard II. [26]
The claims to the throne first.
Richard, Duke of York had superior claims to the throne. He was the grandson of Edmund of Langley, the fourth son of King Edward III, but that was not his superior claim, since the House of Lancaster [The ”King Henry’s” as the Beauforts} descended from John of Gaunt, the third son of King Edward III. But it was his mother” side, that gave him the superior claim.[27]
York’s maternal grandfather, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March, was the materrnal grandson of Lionel of Antwerp, the SECOND son of King Edward III and that gave him a greater claim than that of the Lancaster. See the Family Tree
King Edward III
Lionel of Antwerp [second son to Edward III]
Philippa P lantagenet [Lionel’s daughter], married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd 3th Earl of March
Roger, 4th Earl of March [Philippa Plantagenet’s son]
Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March [son to Roger]
Anne Mortimer [daughter to Roger], maried Richard Conisburtgh [son of Edmund of Langley, first Duke of York]
Richard, Duke of York [son to Anne Mortimer, descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward II]
Isabel Plantagenet [daughter to Anne Mortimer and sister to Richard, Duke of York] [28]
MORTIMERS CLAIM TO THE THRONE
But there was more, which asserted the superior York claims. Since King Richard II was childless, he appointed as his heir presumptive, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March [Richard of York’s maternal grandfather]. Roger was the son of Richard II’s cousin Philippa [Richard II and Philippa were the children of two brothers, The Black Prince and Lionel of Antwerp, the first and second son of King Edward III]. [29]
Roger Mortimer never became King, since he died a year before Richard II, but his heir presumptive right passed to his son, Edmund, 5th Earl of March, who was the maternal uncle of Richard of York. [30]
However, since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from Richard II, Edmund, only a boy, was overlooked, so also his superior right to the throne. [31] However, when Edmund Mortimer [brother to Richard the Duke’s mother, Anne Mortimer]died childless, York not only inherited his lands and estates, as his titles, but also his heir presumptive right.
After the death of King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, [brother of his father Henry V],York became heir presumptive till the birth of Henry’s son in 1453, Edward of Westminster. [32]
WHO WERE THE REAL USURPERS? LANCASTER USURPATION OF RICHARD II
I have shown above, that it was Henry IV, founder of the House of Lancaster, who usurped not only the throne of England by deposing the rightful King Richard II [33], but also overlooked the rightful heir presumptive, Edmund Mortimer. When the right to the throne was justly followed, not King Henry IV, but Edmund Mortimer had ascended the throne and was probably succeeded by his nephew Richard, Duke of York.
Therefore it is [with all respect] utter nonsense to speak of an ”usurpation of the throne” by Edward, son of Richard of York, in 1461. The only usurpators were the Lancasters.
Amitted, due to the military succesful reign of King Henry V [34], the usurpation was forgotten, but that didn’t make it undone. Therefore it were the Mortimers and their descendant Richard of York, who should have been Kings from the beginning.
I think that was the reason, that York was ousted of power and sent to Ireland in the late 40s. And probably the reason, Margaret of Anjou didn’t trust him. [35]
SECOND:
THE ”WEAKNESS” OF THE CLAIM OF RICHARD OF YORK, SINCE IT WAS DERIVED FROM FEMALES?
You justly confirmed the superior claim of York to the House of Lancaster, as you correctly state, that was the reign of Henry VI succesful, the claim was never advanced at all. I also think, that the only reason York advanced his claim was the unsuccesful rule of Henry VI, due to his mental problems, his corrupt advisors, as the great losses in the Hundred Years War.
But I disagree with you on the point, that the weakness in the claim of York was, that it was derived from females.
Because although men had the first rights to the throne, there was no Salic Law in England, that exclude women from the throne, nor from claims to the throne, which passed through their descendants.
For example Queen Maud [mother to the later King Henry II and daughter to King Henry I, who was the son to William the Conqueror] was declared heiress to the throne by her father after the death of his only son. [36] Granted, the Norman barons didn’t accept her after the death of her father and civil war burst out [37], but were women excluded, her father should not have declare his daughter heiress.
But moreover, claiming rights to the throne from female line is done in English history at several occasions and was considered legally and valid.
FOUR IMPORTANT HISTORICAL OCCASIONS BY WHICH MEN CLAIMED OR INHERITED THE THRONE FROM FEMALE LINE
There are at least four important occasions by which men claimed the throne from female descent.
First: Stephen of Blois, cousin to Queen Maud [daughter of King Henry I and heiress to the throne], who claimed the right to the throne through female line [being a maternal grandson to William the Conqueror]
The first was in the time of Queen Maud [called also ”Empress Maud because of her earlier marriage with the Holy Roman Emperor]. Her right to the English throne was challenged by her cousin, Stephen of Blois, who claimed the throne through his grandfather, William the Conqueror, who was his maternal grandfather. [38] He had men enough, prepared to support his maternal claim, took the throne, drove his cousin Mathilda and her husband Henry of Anjou out of the country and a yearlong military struggle, the anarchy, started. [39] Eventually, after the death of Stephen’s son and heir, a deal was made, that Stephen would rule, but had to recognise Maud’s son, Henry of Anjou, as his heir. [40]
Second: Henry of Anjou [King Henry II], son to Queen Maud, who inherited the throne through his mother.
After Stephen’s death, Henry of Anjou would become King Henry II [41], father to Richard Lion Heart [Richard I] (42) and John, King of England [John Lackland] [43] Henry II was the founder of the Plantagenet Dynasty. [44]
So here are two men who claimed or inherited their throne from females. Stephen of Blois, claiming the throne as a grandson of William the Conqueror from his mother’s side as King Henry II, who inherited the throne from his mother’s side. No ”weakness” here.
Third King Edward III, who claimed the French throne through his mother, Isabella of France Resulting in the Hundred Years War with France, being the maternal grandson of the French King Philip IV.
Perhaps most famous is the claim to the French throne, laid by King Edward III [45], through is mother, Queen Isabella of France (46), who was the daughter of the French King, Philip IV (47) That made Edward III the maternal grandson to a French King. When the last son of King Philip IV, named Charles IV (48), died in 1328 without a male heir, the question was Who is going to be the new King! His sister Isabella, mother of Edward III, claimed the throne for her son, but problem was, that since 1316 the Salic Law was introduced in France (which excluded women as heirs to the throne). (49) This was no coincidence, but due to an adultery scandal, involving the wives of Charles IV and his brother Louis X (50), The Tour de Nesle Affair (51), questioning the paternity of the sons of the King. This was particularly urgent after the death of Louis X, since the legitimacy of his daughter Joan was in question, (52) due to her mother´s alleged adultery. (53)
Anyway, Isabella´s claim to the throne for Edward III was rejected, since she, being a woman, was excluded from the rights to the throne and couldn´t transmit a right what she didn´t possess. (54) But that was the French Law. Point I want to make is, that claiming through a female was quite strong in England, which didn´t know the Salic Law. Eventually Edward III would claim the French throne anyway [55], which was one of the causes of the Hundred Year´s war with France. And that´s my second point I want to state. Since no one in England questioned Edward´s claim through a female and the nobles wholeheartedly supported him in the war with France, female claims were neither unusual nor ´´weak´´.
FOURTH LANCASTER CLAIM TO THE THRONE THROUGH FEMALE LINE/THE QUESTION EDMUND CROUCHBACK
Since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne of Richard II in 1399, becoming King Henry IV, a Lancaster right to the throne was of the greatest importance, that was superior to that of Richard II, son of the first son of Edward III as the Mortimer right to the throne [descendants of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III. So Henry IV was clever enough not to base his claim on his fathers side, since John of Gaunt [his father] was the third son of Edward III. In stead of that, he based it on the side of his mother, Blanche, of Lancaster [56], who was the great granddaughter of Edmund Crouchback.[57] And Edmund Crouchback was the son of King Henry III [58] and the younger brother of King Edward I. [59] One could say? So what about the claim. Well, here it is. According to Henry IV [Lancastrian views], this Edmund Crouchback was not the second son of Henry III, but his first son in stead of Edward I, but disinherited because of his bodily deformity [a twisted back]
You see the consequences? That makes King Edward I, II, III and Richard II a sort of usurpers and the rights to the throne of Richard II as the Mortimers claim null and void, since Edward III would be an usurper king. However, it’s a pity for Henry IV and the other Lancasters, who claimed the Crouchback case, that there is no proof whatsoever, that Edward I was not the first son of King Henry III. So its pure Lancastrian propaganda. [60]
I mentioned this ”Edmund Crouchback claim” as the fourth historfical example of men, who based their claims on females or inherited the throne by females.
A proof, that deriving a right to the throne from females, as has done by Richard, Duke of York, was not ”weak” at all, but has proven valid and generally accepted through English history.
EPILOGUE
To my opinion, the deposing of King Henry VI by Edward of York, son of Richard, Duke of York, was no usurpation, since The Duke of York [who passed the right to the throne to his eldest son, Edward] had a superior right to the throne than King Henry VI, [called the Mortimer claim] being the descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III, while Henry was the descendant of the third son of Edward III, John of Gaunt. In fact, after the death of King Richard II, the Dukes uncle, Edmund Mortimer, who was heir presumptive to Richard II should have become King of England. So by deposing Henry VI, Edward of York took his rightful place on the throne.
The reason why Edmund Mortimer didn’t become King was lain in the usurpation of Henry IV [grandfather to Henry VI] of the throne of Richard II, which was not only illegitimate, but also overlooking the superior Mortimer claim of Edmund Mortimer.
You also remarked the ”weak point” of the Mortimer claim [York’s right to the throne] his deriving from females. I’ve shown you four historical examples, by which claims to the throne [or even inheritance] by females were made, the most famous Edward III claim to the French throne by his mother, Queen Isabella [wife to Edward II] I think I have stated clearly, that the female right is valid and not weak.
I wrote this letter out of appreciation with your work. Thank you for reading it.
Much succes with your wortful historical research.
Kind greetings
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam The Netherlands
NOTES
[1]
ENGLISH HISTORY/THE WARS OF THE ROSES/ MARGARET OF ANJOU, TWO MAJOR PLAYERS ASTRID ESSED
The Swynford branch of the Lancaster line [the children of John of Gaunt, son to Edward III and his mistress Kathryn Swynford], called the ”Beauforts”, were legitimised first by King Richard II and later by King Henry IV [as legitimate son of John of Gaunt, the halfbrother of the Beauforts], on condition that they should not claim the throne.
”So Henry VII didn’t claim the throne through right of inheritance: he claimed it through the right of conquest, not through any of his own royal lineage.”
WOMEN’S HISTORY LEGITIMATE ENOUGH HERITAGE? TUDOR’S CLAIM TO THE THRONE [1485]
” Henry VII acknowledged the necessity of marrying Elizabeth of York to ensure the stability of his rule and weaken the claims of other surviving members of the House of York<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/House_of_York>, but he ruled in his own right and claimed the throne by right of conquest and not by his marriage to the heir of the House of York.”
”Margaret undoubtedly rejoiced over York’s death—York, after all, had bullied her husband into disinheriting his own son in favor of York, and Margaret had every reason to fear for her husband’s future in a government controlled by York—but she did not have what to her might well have been the pleasure of seeing her enemy fall.”
”The death of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, in 1447 left York next in line for succession to the throne, and the Beauforts had him sent—virtually banished—to Ireland<http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/293754/Ire land> as lord lieutenant.”
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA RICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK
Kings favouritism of the Somerset and Suffolk party [which was the ”peace” party to France, more open for negociations] against the Gloucester [the Kings uncle Humphrey Duke of Gloucester] and York party [the war party to France]
”His attitude toward the Council’s surrender of Maine<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Maine_(province_of_France )>, in return for an extension of the truce with France and a French bride for Henry, must have contributed to his appointment on 30 July as Lieutenant of Ireland<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Lord_Lieutenant_of_Irel and>. In some ways it was a logical appointment, as Richard was also Earl of Ulster<http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Earl_of_Ulster> and had considerable estates in Ireland, but it was also a convenient way of removing him from both England and France.”
”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”
”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.” ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry
”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”
”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.” ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry
”While Mary was still mourning the death of King James II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/James_II_of_Scotland>, the Lancastrian Queen Margaret of Anjou<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou> fled north across the border seeking refuge from the Yorkists. Mary sympathetically aided Margaret and took Edward of Westminster<http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Edward_of_Westminst er> into her household to keep them out of Yorkist hands. Mary’s dealings with Margaret were mainly to provide aid to the deposed queen. Mary gave a number of Scottish troops to help Margaret and the Lancastrian cause”
”John Neville had been captured but was spared execution, as the Duke of Somerset feared that his own younger brother who was in Yorkist hands might be executed in reprisal”
”Though Parliament conceded that Richard had the better claim to the throne, they were unwilling to depose him outright. A compromise was reached, and that compromise was the Act of Accord.”
´´Louis’ second wife Clementia was pregnant at the time of his death, leaving the succession in doubt. A son would have primacy over Louis’ daughter, Joan<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Joan_II_of_Navarre>.[32]<h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo uis_X_of_France#cite_note-32> A daughter, however, would have a weaker claim to the throne, and would need to compete with Joan’s own claims – although suspicions hung over Joan’s parentage following the scandal in 1314´´
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Encyclopaedia Britannica versus Astrid Essed about the superior claim of the House of York on the English throne/Encyclopaedia Britannica corrects a mistake [2015]
RISHI SUNAK NEW UK PRIME MINISTER/A BLESSING AND A CURSE
”I will bring that same compassion to the challenges we face today.
The government I lead will not leave the next generation, your children and grandchildren, with a debt to settle that we were too weak to pay ourselves.
I will unite our country, not with words, but with action.
I will work day in and day out to deliver for you.
This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.
On 25 november 2022, Rishi Sunak was appointed by king Charles III
as UK prime minister, making him the first British Asian prime minister
in the British history! [1]
I call it a Blessing and a Curse.
Why I call it a Blessing, the reader will soon know.
Why I call it a Curse, likewise.
WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE
Rishi Sunak, who had made career in the Conservative Party from
2014 [2] became UK’s Prime Minister after the former Conservative Prime
Minister, Liz Truss, made a mess of her prime ministership
with her ”cutting taxes for the riches” plan [together with
her Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng], which even was
criticized by the IMF [3] and
had to resign after 45 days! [4]
AND ironically, Sunak initially lost the UK prime minister
race from Liz Truss…….[5]
And then, dramatically SHE vanished and HE won
CONSERVATIVE, RICH, AGAINST POOR AND REFUGEES
Look, I am not naive or either a Fool and I know exactly,
where the Conservative Party, which leader Rishi is now,
stands for:
This is the Party of the anti refugee ”pushbacks” [6] and other migration
regulating plans like the Rwanda deal and the favouritism for the ”Australian refugee system [7], from which human rights organisation Human Rights
Watch called ” abusive offshore processing policy” [8]
This is the Party, that wages war on the poor, not
just by the Kwarteng taxes advantage for the super-rich [9], but in general and decennialong.
By welfare cuts, driving poor people on the edge
of hunger [10], which, yet apart from the fundamental violation of social rights [11], reveals
contempt for the Poor [12]
And so was it in the Tory past….
Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, the ”Iron Lady” [13] destroyed the welfare state [14] and eventhough that’s a time ago, it’s worth remembring.
But back to Sunak:
That he is no Friend of the Poor, is obvious
Wasn’t it Sunak, who said [presently, in this year 2022, during the energy crisis], that it would be “silly” for the government to provide more help to struggling families now. Despite households across the country facing an average £700 ($879) increase in their gas and electricity bills immediately after April, with another 50 percent spike expected in October, Sunak said he won’t act before “knowing what the situation will be in autumn”…….[15]
YEAH, that’s easy for him to say, since his Family
income is worth more than £700 million ($879 million……..[16]
Some say, that Sunak is richer than the British Royal Family! [17]
Yet I don’t think this comparison is fair:
The British Royal Family was born into this wealth,
built his own Empire [18] and regardless men’s few
about capitalism [I certainly am NOT a fan of those
astronomic differences between the riches and
the poor, as my loyal readers should know] [19], I think it is an accomplishment
of a son of Indian immigrants, whose Indian grandparents migrated to East Africa firstly and
then to Great Britain, building up a newlife again. [20]
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Yet there is another side to this Story.Because however true, that the Conservative Party and it’s new leader, Prime Minister Sunak, is noFriend of the poor and refugees [the most neglectedgroups in society], this is different,For whatever Tory Hardliner [Sunak is in favour ofthe infamous ”Rwanda deal” against refugees] [21],Sunak is also the first Indian UK Prime Minister.The first Man of Colour, who ever had the highestpolitical Office in England. [22]That means something.It is a Historical Achievement and made myskin crawl and not only me, but thousandsand thousands people of colour in England anddoubtless over the world! [23][Now that I write it, I feel that crawling again….] BUT WHY IT GAVE ME THAT SKIN CRAWLINGAND IS THE SUNAK ELECTION SUCH A GRAVE ACHIEVEMENT Because in a way, it is a Victory against the century long Western colonial oppression, not onlyof India [24], but all Asia, Africa, parts of South America and other parts of the World.It is ”The Empire strikes back” againstWhite Supremacy, against the White Man’s Burden doctrine [25] And it is not just the colonial White Supremacy policy:Along came all the British colonial atrocities inIndia, in Africa, in the West Indies [26]Admitted:That is history, but it still has it’s consequences:It still bears bitter Fruits in institutional racism,in opression, in poverty and uneqality [27],not only in England, in all Western countries,once colonial Powers.And of course not all is due to colonialismand racism:Hardline capitalism plays it’s ugly part too.And affects many poor white people too.I don’t close my eyes to that. Back to Rishi SunakThe Bitter Fruits of racism, stemming from colonialism and the Western slavery ridden”concept of race” [28], were tasted by Rishi Sunakhimself:I quote him:
“I was just out with my younger brother and younger sister, and I think, probably pretty young, I was probably a mid-teenager, and we were out at a fast food restaurant and I was just looking after them. There were people sitting nearby, it was the first time I’d experienced it, just saying some very unpleasant things. The ‘P’ word.”
“And it stung. I still remember it. It seared in my memory. You can be insulted in many different ways.” [29]
Painful indeed and reading this, one must realize what a
great achievement it has been, descended from Indian immigrants and tasting racist experiences, not only relatively
”silly” remarks from stupid people in a restaurant, or store, or neighbourhood, but also in real challenges like discrimination in
the job market and in other cases, important in someone’s life,
to climb up in a Party like the Conservative Party and eventually:
Reaching the highest political position in the former Colonial
Motherland:
England.
A Motherland, which had in her clubs in India the rule
[this is NO joke, but real]
‘Dogs and Indians not allowed” [30]
EPILOGUE
I wrote it in the title of this article:”
RISHI SUNAK NEW UK PRIME MINISTER/A BLESSING AND A CURSE”
and that’s just the way I feel it, and with me, others also, as well rejoicing that a man of colour has the highest UK political position, as pointing out the fact, that although an Indian man of colour, he defends Conservative Tory interests, which are clearly not advantageous to the poor Indian community, black community or the communities of other people of colour [31]
BUT YET:
From ”’Dogs and Indians not allowed” [32] tothe Rishi Sunak first speech as a UK PrimeMinister [33], is a great step and an achievementthat crawls my skin.
King Charles III has officially delivered his first speech as British monarch. In an address recorded in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace earlier this afternoon, Charles spoke of his beloved mother, who he said always saw the best in people, and promised his lifelong service.
“I shall endeavor to serve you with loyalty, respect, and love,” he said.
Here, read King Charles
Here, read King Charles III’s first speech in full:
I speak to you today with feelings of profound sorrow. Throughout her life, Her Majesty The Queen – my beloved Mother – was an inspiration and example to me and to all my family, and we owe her the most heartfelt debt any family can owe to their mother; for her love, affection, guidance, understanding and example. Queen Elizabeth was a life well lived; a promise with destiny kept and she is mourned most deeply in her passing. That promise of lifelong service I renew to you all today.
Alongside the personal grief that all my family are feeling, we also share with so many of you in the United Kingdom, in all the countries where The Queen was Head of State, in the Commonwealth and across the world, a deep sense of gratitude for the more than seventy years in which my Mother, as Queen, served the people of so many nations.
In 1947, on her twenty-first birthday, she pledged in a broadcast from Cape Town to the Commonwealth to devote her life, whether it be short or long, to the service of her peoples. That was more than a promise: it was a profound personal commitment which defined her whole life. She made sacrifices for duty. Her dedication and devotion as Sovereign never wavered, through times of change and progress, through times of joy and celebration, and through times of sadness and loss. In her life of service we saw that abiding love of tradition, together with that fearless embrace of progress, which make us great as Nations. The affection, admiration and respect she inspired became the hallmark of her reign. And, as every member of my family can testify, she combined these qualities with warmth, humour and an unerring ability always to see the best in people.
I pay tribute to my Mother’s memory and I honour her life of service. I know that her death brings great sadness to so many of you and I share that sense of loss, beyond measure, with you all. When The Queen came to the throne, Britain and the world were still coping with the privations and aftermath of the Second World War, and still living by the conventions of earlier times. In the course of the last seventy years we have seen our society become one of many cultures and many faiths. The institutions of the State have changed in turn. But, through all changes and challenges, our nation and the wider family of Realms – of whose talents, traditions and achievements I am so inexpressibly proud – have prospered and flourished. Our values have remained, and must remain, constant.
The role and the duties of Monarchy also remain, as does the Sovereign’s particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England – the Church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted. In that faith, and the values it inspires, I have been brought up to cherish a sense of duty to others, and to hold in the greatest respect the precious traditions, freedoms and responsibilities of our unique history and our system of parliamentary government. As The Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation. And wherever you may live in the United Kingdom, or in the Realms and territories across the world, and whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love, as I have throughout my life.
My life will of course change as I take up my new responsibilities. It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply. But I know this important work will go on in the trusted hands of others. This is also a time of change for my family. I count on the loving help of my darling wife, Camilla. In recognition of her own loyal public service since our marriage seventeen years ago, she becomes my Queen Consort. I know she will bring to the demands of her new role the steadfast devotion to duty on which I have come to rely so much.
As my Heir, William now assumes the Scottish titles which have meant so much to me. He succeeds me as Duke of Cornwall and takes on the responsibilities for the Duchy of Cornwall which I have undertaken for more than five decades. Today, I am proud to create him Prince of Wales, Tywysog Cymru, the country whose title I have been so greatly privileged to bear during so much of my life and duty. With Catherine beside him, our new Prince and Princess of Wales will, I know, continue to inspire and lead our national conversations, helping to bring the marginal to the centre ground where vital help can be given. I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.
In a little over a week’s time we will come together as a nation, as a Commonwealth and indeed a global community, to lay my beloved mother to rest. In our sorrow, let us remember and draw strength from the light of her example. On behalf of all my family, I can only offer the most sincere and heartfelt thanks for your condolences and support. They mean more to me than I can ever possibly express.
And to my darling Mama, as you begin your last great journey to join my dear late Papa, I want simply to say this: thank you. Thank you for your love and devotion to our family and to the family of nations you have served so diligently all these years. May “flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest”..
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor First Speech of king Charles III as a Monarch/Tribute to his mother Queen Elizabeth II
IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA
Fig 3: The north-transept façade of the Abbey offered the most direct connection between the Palace and the Abbey. The reconstruction of the nave continued into the 15th century. Westminster Abbey photographed for Country Life magazine by Paul Highnam.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES