Concealed Intentions- JLAC-.pdf

Bank into an intricate and well-serviced
network of connected settlements for
Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of
besieged and non-contiguous enclaves
for Palestinians” reflects “the Israeli policy
to fragment the oPt for the purposes of
segregation and domination.” 175 Finally,
the extensive use of military orders to
appropriate Palestinian land, the ongoing
home demolitions, establishment of
the Annexation Wall, and the closure of
numerous areas, all based on security
purposes are arguably a way for Israel to
use the law under the pretext of “security
necessity” to suppress any opposition to
the occupying regime.
If not apartheid, Israel’s discriminatory
planning and zoning policies can be
Ma’ale Levona Settlement in “Area C” of the West Bank
categorized as a tool of a larger ethnic
cleansing policy. 176 This term is usually
used in reference to the 1948 massacres, destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages, and massive expulsion of
Palestinians from their land. 177 Use of the term “ethnic cleansing” unfortunately still remains applicable in the context
of Israel’s planning and zoning policies in East Jerusalem and “Area C”. The discriminatory policies create a series of
perpetual obstacles aimed at stifling Palestinian economic and social development and, a significant deterioration
of quality of life, results that can be understood as an attempt at forcing or encouraging Palestinians to leave their
homes and land. Israel’s systematic and consistent violations of human rights in the oPt are characteristic of an ethnic
cleansing and apartheid policy. 178
While the purpose of this study is not to answer whether an apartheid system currently exists in the oPt, it is important to
note how the facts lend to the argument that the situation meets the requirements of the legal definition of apartheid
and is comparable to the implementation of apartheid in South Africa. The situation on the ground raises important
questions regarding Israel’s responsibility as the occupying power and its consistent violations of internationally
recognized human rights and humanitarian law.
e. Israel's Responsibility for Violations of International Law
An analysis of Israel’s discriminatory zoning and planning policies in “Area C” demonstrates how Israel’s behavior
vis-à-vis the Palestinian population in the oPt (especially in “Area C”) is in direct contravention of major principles
of international law and fundamental human rights provisions. While Israel denies the applicability of international
human rights conventions to the oPt, many of the conventions it is a party to stipulate that the obligations apply to
all persons brought under the jurisdiction or effective control of that state. 179 The occupied Palestinian population,
therefore, is entitled to the protections afforded by such human rights treaties. Thus, in spite of Israel’s arguments,
Israel must be held accountable for the wrongful acts it perpetrates in direct defiance of IHRL and IHL. 180
175 Human Sciences Research Council, Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid, op. cit.
176 Ethnic cleansing is a term that describes all forms of ethnically-motivated violence, ranging from murder, rape, and torture to the forcible removal of
populations. Cathie Carmichael, Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans, Nationalism and Destruction of Tradition, Routledge, 2002. A 1993 UN Commission defined
it more specifically as, “the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to
render that area ethnically homogenous.”
177 Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications, 2006.
178 Terry Rempel, Housing and Property Restitution, op. cit. p. 282.
179 Al-Haq, Waiting for Justice, Annual Report 2004, p. 43.
180 International Law Commission, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2005. Article 1: “Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails
the international responsibility of the state.”. Article 2: “There is an internationally wrongful act a state when conduct consisting of an action or omission: a)
is attributable to a state under international law and; b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.”
35