Concealed Intentions- JLAC-.pdf

and Security Arrangements, Section XI, Sub-section 2(b), further establishes that “all the civilian authorities and
responsibilities, including planning and building in Areas A and B as these are determined in Appendix III, shall be
transferred to the Council and shall be assumed thereby in the first stage of the realignment.”
Section 27(2) establishes that “in Area C, the powers and responsibilities relating to the sphere of planning and
building shall be transferred gradually to the Palestinian sphere of authority, which shall cover the area of the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the exception of matters to be discussed in the negotiations on the final status during
the stages of the realignment…” Thus, in accordance with the Oslo Agreement itself, the authorities in the sphere of
planning and building were supposed to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority. As of now, this has not yet been
implemented, and the powers and authorities relating to the sphere of planning and building in Area C are still under
the absolute responsibility of the Civil Administration.
The non-implementation of the Oslo model on political grounds violates the obligation to
maintain public order in accordance with international humanitarian law
It emerges from the above that the State of Israel itself paved the path to the cessation of the systematic violation
of human rights in the West Bank in the sphere of planning and building, in the form of the transfer of authorities to
the Palestinian Authority in accordance with the Oslo Agreement. However, this path was not implemented due to
political considerations. Such considerations are illegitimate insofar as they delay the implementation of the legal
obligation incumbent on the occupying power in accordance with international humanitarian law to maintain public
order in an occupied territory. The Oslo model was based on the assumption that the two planning entities of the
two political entities – the State of Israel, through the Civil Administration, on the one hand, and the Palestinian
Authority, on the other – cannot in either principled or practical terms plan a common area, namely the West Bank, in
the medium term, let alone the long term. The second assumption is that the occupying authority cannot, in either
principled or practical terms, engage in sustainable planning for the local population. These assumptions have been
proved, at least in terms of practical implementation, during the 15 years from 1995 through 2010.
The West Bank constitutes a single physical and planning space that maintains social, economic, and demographic
contiguity. In legal terms, too, this is a single territorial unit – an area subject to belligerent seizure. In this respect,
the division into Areas A, B, and C is a purely technical and administrative one that is not supposed to halt the normal
pursuit of life in these areas. It is certainly evident to all that the division of a single physical space, which continues
to maintain contiguity between its constituent parts, between bureaucratic bodies that have a different national
identity, but which are identical in their authorities (planning and building) is problematic on the principled level.
Rival interests such as those manifested in the project of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which emerge due
to the different identity of these bodies, are frequently manifested in and impair the planning process. This influences
the inherent ability of this model to protect the interests of the population.
In terms of practical implementation, this assumption has been contradicted and the model has failed. Thus, for
example, the division of the area between the two political entities is incompatible with the dispersion of the
population. While many villages lie completely or partly within Area C, and are subject to the Israeli planning
regime, their municipal functioning and other spheres of life, such as health and so forth, are subject to the
administrative authority of the Palestinian Authority. In many cases, a village may be found some of whose homes
fall under the Israeli planning regime of the Civil Administration, while others fall under the Palestinian planning
regime. It should be emphasized that this situation applies despite the fact that the entire area is subject to Israeli
belligerent seizure and complete Israeli control over the division of planning and building authorities.
Moreover, the current lack of cooperation between the two planning entities, at least since 2000, has paralyzed the
possibility for the Palestinian population to develop in a reasonable manner in Area C. The reason for this is that for so
long as planning authorities have not been transferred to the official Palestinian representative body, in accordance
with the Oslo Agreement, no planning authority applies in those parts of Area C inhabited by a Palestinian population.
This, it should be recalled, is exacerbated by the absence of any realistic possibility of including official Palestinian
representatives in the planning and decision-making bodies in the Civil Administration.
We turn now to the second assumption. On the principled level, an occupying power, as a coercive military regime,
is alien to the local population and meets with a significant level of mistrust. Planning is an essentially civilian sphere
51