”6 april 2023, wetsvoorstel – Met Israël zijn afspraken gemaakt over de juridische status van defensiepersoneel dat aanwezig is op elkaars grondgebied. De Kamer debatteert met minister Ollongren (Defensie) en minister Hoekstra (Buitenlandse Zaken) over het verdrag waarin dit is vastgelegd.
Het verdrag met Israël is een bilaterale overeenkomst zoals we die ook met andere landen hebben, leggen Ollongren en Hoekstra uit. Het zegt niets over de inhoud van samenwerking. Er is vastgelegd dat de bevoegde autoriteiten jaarlijks afspraken maken. Het zou bijvoorbeeld kunnen gaan om wederzijds gebruik van trainings- en oefenfaciliteiten, gezamenlijke innovatiestudies en kennisuitwisseling.”
Op donderdag 6 april vond een Kamerdebat plaats over een met Israël te sluiten defensieverdrag. Vrijwel geen partij kwam opdagen en antwoorden van het kabinet blonken uit door vrijblijvende vaagheid. Toch werd het verdrag deze week aangenomen.
Donderdag 6 april debatteerde de Tweede Kamer over goedkeuring van een verdrag tussen Israël en Nederland dat de juridische ‘status van hun strijdkrachten’ op elkaars grondgebied regelt. Volgens het kabinet is dat een noodzakelijke stap voor nauwere samenwerking met het Israëlische defensie-apparaat. Ondanks de structurele mensenrechtenschendingen van het Israëlische leger en het annexatie- en nederzettingenbeleid van de Israëlische regering stemde een Kamermeerderheid voor goedkeuring van het verdrag.
Treurig was dat bij het debat vrijwel geen Kamerleden aanwezig waren. Alleen DENK, de initiator van het debat, de SP en PVV waren vertegenwoordigd. Regeringspartijen VVD en D66 hadden zich weliswaar aangemeld, maar trokken zich om onduidelijke redenen terug.
Nederlandse hypocrisie
Tijdens het debat hekelde Tunahan Kuzu van DENK de Nederlandse hypocrisie ten aanzien van de Israëlische bezetting en onderdrukking van de Palestijnen. Ook wees hij erop dat Israël kampioen-schender is van VN-resoluties. SP-Kamerlid Frank Futselaar vroeg zich vooral af wat de aanleiding voor het verdrag was, en waarom het inhoudelijk verschilt van vergelijkbare verdragen die Nederland eerder heeft gesloten.
De vraag is waarom je een militair verdrag zou sluiten met een land dat zich aanhoudend schuldig maakt aan schendingen van het internationaal recht.
Namens het kabinet slaagde minister van Defensie Kajsa Ollongren (D66) er niet in om deze en andere vragen te beantwoorden. De samenwerking zou volgens het kabinet bijdragen aan de versterking en innovatie van de Nederlandse krijgsmacht; Israël beschikt over waardevolle kennis en technologie, aldus Ollongren. Volgens Futselaar van de SP is dat niet het punt; hij vroeg zich terecht af waarom je een militair verdrag zou sluiten met een land dat zich aanhoudend schuldig maakt aan schendingen van het internationaal recht. Het antwoord daarop werd begraven in vaagheden.
Uitzonderen van Israël
Ook werd de vraag gesteld waarom met Israël maar liefst negen jaar over het verdrag is onderhandeld, terwijl er volgens het kabinet geen concrete plannen voor defensiesamenwerking bestaan. Doen we dat ook met willekeurige andere landen?, wilde de Kamer weten. Volgens Ollogren is negen jaar ‘geen ongebruikelijk lange duur’. Zij noemde een paar landen, waaronder Burkina Faso en Jordanië, als andere voorbeelden. De vraag is of dat klopt. Maar de crux is dat er in het geval van Israël wel degelijk concrete plannen bestaan, in de vorm van de aanschaf van een raketsysteem van leverancier Elbit, zoals wij eerder deze week schreven.
Daarnaast is het zorgwekkend dat bij dit verdrag, vergeleken met andere verdragen die Nederland heeft getekend, andere regels gelden met betrekking tot het dragen van wapens. Zo is met Israël afgesproken dat de wetten en regels van de zendstaat gelden, en niet die van de ontvangende staat. Ook voor deze uitzonderingspositie kon minister Ollongren geen reden geven.
Rechten van de Palestijnen
Een terechte vraag die meermaals door Kuzu en Futselaar werd gesteld is hoe de rechten van de Palestijnen in dit verdrag en overige onderlinge afspraken worden gewaarborgd, en hoe wordt voorkomen dat de Nederlands-Israëlische samenwerking (in)direct bijdraagt aan rechtenschendingen. In haar reactie volstond Ollongren met de opmerking dat het verdrag ‘niet indruist tegen artikel 90 van de Grondwet of de Nederlandse grondhouding ten aanzien van het internationaal recht en mensenrechten’.
Dat tekortschietende antwoord is opmerkelijk. Ollongren stelde namelijk in hetzelfde debat dat het kabinet geen screening zal uitvoeren om te voorkomen dat Israëlische militairen die zich schuldig hebben gemaakt aan volkenrechtelijke misdaden of terreurdaden bij de samenwerking betrokken raken. Dat betekent dat het kabinet met het sluiten van dit verdrag in de toekomst mogelijk een samenwerking aangaat met militairen die misdaden hebben begaan. Of, zoals Kuzu dit heikele punt tijdens het debat illustreerde:
Deze militaire samenwerking tussen Israël en Nederland betekent dat de sniper die Shireen Abu Akleh heeft gedood gewoon kan deelnemen aan militaire activiteiten op Nederlands grondgebied. Zonder deze screening is het reëel dat er oorlogscriminelen zullen trainen op Nederlands grondgebied.
Het voorbeeld illustreert de bredere praktijk waarin het kabinet voorbeelden van Israëls schendingen van het internationaal recht keer op keer van tafel veegt met de bewering dat ‘Nederland Israël consequent aanspreekt op de voortgang en uitkomsten van verschillende onderzoeken’. Wat dat betreft is het onderzoek naar de moord op Shireen Abu Akleh tekenend: ondanks Nederlands gemopper is de dader door Israël niet aangeklaagd, laat staan veroordeeld.
Israëlische bezetting
Ollongren benadrukte dat het verdrag op geen enkele manier kan worden gezien als goedkeuring van de Israëlische bezetting en dat alleen zal worden samengewerkt binnen Israëls internationaal erkende grenzen van voor 1967. Daarnaast is het verdrag volgens de minister ‘opgesteld met het oog op respect voor het internationaal recht en mensenrechten en wordt elke vorm van samenwerking daarom zorgvuldig en afzonderlijk afgewogen’. Ook onderstreepte zij dat de samenwerking met Israël de bezetting van de Palestijnse gebieden niet mag faciliteren of versterken: ‘Er wordt geen Nederlandse kennis overgedragen die concreet bijdraagt aan de instandhouding van de bezetting.’
Hoe Ollongren die afspraak gaat waarborgen bleef volstrekt onduidelijk. Het Israëlische leger vormt immers de spil van de bezetting en is verantwoordelijk voor het geweld, de onderdrukking en de apartheid waarmee de Palestijnse bevolking al decennia dag in, dag uit wordt geconfronteerd. Het leger faciliteert de bezetting en beschermt de kolonisten die pogroms aanrichten in bezet gebied. Daar kun je als Nederland niet omheen werken.
Verdrag aangenomen
Ondanks het onbevredigende debat werd het verdrag op dinsdag 11 april met een ruime meerderheid aangenomen. Alleen DENK, BIJ1, SP, PvdD en FvD stemden tegen. Opvallend is dat ook GroenLinks, de PvdA en D66 voor het verdrag stemden. Een motie van Kuzu om een jaarlijkse planning voor defensiesamenwerking met Israël voor te leggen aan de Kamer kreeg meer steun, waaronder van regeringspartij D66, maar werd desondanks verworpen. Volgende week debatteert de Kamer over de aanschaf van het Israëlische wapensysteem. In een volgend artikel gaan we daar dieper op in.
In de marge van het het debat meldde minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Wopke Hoekstra (CDA) dat op aandringen van Nederland in Europees verband een demarche (diplomatiek protest) wordt voorbereid tegen Israëls ‘annexatiebeleid’. In een eerdere nietszeggende reactie op schriftelijke Kamervragen van Sjoerd Sjoerdsma (D66) hierover ging de minister antwoorden nog uit de weg. Luxemburg sprak tijdens een recente vergadering van de VN-Mensenrechtenraad wel al van de jure en de factoannexatie van Palestijns gebied.
EINDE
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 12/Astrid Essed strikes again
”Ik kan en wil die hier niet allemaal opsommen [trouwens, die lijst is onuitputtelijk], maar ernstige voorbeelden zijn Israelische luchtaanvallen op Gaza uit 2021 [niet zo lang geleden dus], waarbij
in de periode tussen 10 en 21 mei 260 mensen zijn omgekomen,
onder wie tenminste 129 burgers [waaronder 66 kinderen] [10]
Mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch wees in het
byzonder op een specifieke Israelische luchtaanval op vier dichtbevolkte
gebouwentorens, waarin zich huizen, zaken en persagentschappen
bevonden.
Weliswaar leidde het niet tot dodelijke slachtoffers, maar drie Torens
werden met de grond gelijkgemaakt, velen werden dakloos en
verloren hun baan [11], in een gebied, wat door de wurgende
Blokkade van Gaza al economisch kapot gemaakt is [12]
Ik som niet alle bloedige Israelische aanvallen op Gaza op,
maar noem nog, te uwer opwekking, uit het Jaarrapport van Amnesty International over 2022 het gewelddadige Israelische militaire
optreden in Gaza, waarbij 1700 huizen werden verwoest en honderden
mensen dakloos werden en zeker [volgens Amnesty rapportage] 17 burgers werden gedood, onder wie acht kinderen, excessief gewelddadig
militair optreden in de bezette Westbank, waaronder buitengerechtelijke
executies [13], administratieve detentie [14] en foltering tierden welig. [15]”
BRON
MAIL ASTRID ESSED AAN SUPERMARKT VOMAR DD 14 APRIL
”A new report published by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) outlines the nature of the legal regime currently operating in the West Bank. Two systems of law are applied in a single territory: one – a civilian legal system for Israeli citizens, and a second – a military court system for Palestinian residents. The result: institutionalized discrimination.”
ACRI [ASSOCIATION FOR CIVIL RIGHTS IN ISRAEL]
ONE RULE, TWO LEGAL SYSTEMS: ISRAEL’S REGIME OF LAWS
”Officially, military courts are authorized to try anyone who commits an offense in the West Bank, including settlers, Israeli citizens residing in Israel, and foreign nationals. However, in the early 1980s, the Attorney General decided that Israeli citizens would be tried in the Israeli civilian court system according to Israeli penal laws, even if they live in the Occupied Territories and the offense was committed there, against residents of the Occupied Territories. That policy remains in effect to this day. This means that people are tried in different courts, under different laws, for the exact same offense committed in the exact same place: Palestinian defendants are tried in military courts, their guilt or innocence determined according to the evidence laws followed in this court system, and their sentences according to the provisions of military orders. Israeli defendants are tried in a civilian court in Israel, exonerated or convicted under Israeli evidence laws, and sentenced under Israeli law as well.”
By resolution ES-10/14, adopted on 8 December 2003 at its Tenth Emergency Special Session, the General Assembly decided to request the Court for an advisory opinion on the following question :
“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the Report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions ?”
The resolution requested the Court to render its opinion “urgently”. The Court decided that all States entitled to appear before it, as well as Palestine, the United Nations and subsequently, at their request, the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, were likely to be able to furnish information on the question in accordance with Article 66, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Statute. Written statements were submitted by 45 States and four international organizations, including the European Union. At the oral proceedings, which were held from 23 to 25 February 2004, 12 States, Palestine and two international organizations made oral submissions. The Court rendered its Advisory Opinion on 9 July 2004.
The Court began by finding that the General Assembly, which had requested the advisory opinion, was authorized to do so under Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter. It further found that the question asked of it fell within the competence of the General Assembly pursuant to Articles 10, paragraph 2, and 11 of the Charter. Moreover, in requesting an opinion of the Court, the General Assembly had not exceeded its competence, as qualified by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides that while the Security Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests. The Court further observed that the General Assembly had adopted resolution ES-10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377 A (V), whereby, in the event that the Security Council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States. Rejecting a number of procedural objections, the Court found that the conditions laid down by that resolution had been met when the Tenth Emergency Special Session was convened, and in particular when the General Assembly decided to request the opinion, as the Security Council had at that time been unable to adopt a resolution concerning the construction of the wall as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member. Lastly, the Court rejected the argument that an opinion could not be given in the present case on the ground that the question posed was not a legal one, or that it was of an abstract or political nature.
Having established its jurisdiction, the Court then considered the propriety of giving the requested opinion. It recalled that lack of consent by a State to its contentious jurisdiction had no bearing on its advisory jurisdiction, and that the giving of an opinion in the present case would not have the effect of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, since the subject-matter of the request was located in a much broader frame of reference than that of the bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine, and was of direct concern to the United Nations. Nor did the Court accept the contention that it should decline to give the advisory opinion requested because its opinion could impede a political, negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It further found that it had before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give its opinion, and empha- sized that it was for the General Assembly to assess the opinion’s usefulness. The Court accordingly concluded that there was no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion.
Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right.
The Court then went on to consider the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, finding that the construction of the wall and its associated régime were contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that they impeded the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as their exercise of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Court further found that, coupled with the establishment of settlements, the construction of the wall and its associated régime were tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, thereby contravening the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court then considered the qualifying clauses or provisions for derogation contained in certain humanitarian law and human rights instruments, which might be invoked inter alia where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so required. The Court found that such clauses were not applicable in the present case, stating that it was not convinced that the specific course Israel had chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives, and that accordingly the construction of the wall constituted a breach by Israel of certain of its obligations under humanitarian and human rights law. Lastly, the Court concluded that Israel could not rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall, and that such construction and its associated régime were accordingly contrary to international law.
The Court went on to consider the consequences of these violations, recalling Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under humanitarian and human rights law. The Court stated that Israel must put an immediate end to the violation of its international obligations by ceasing the works of construction of the wall and dismantling those parts of that structure situated within Occupied Palestinian Territory and repealing or rendering ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated régime. The Court further made it clear that Israel must make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction. As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court held that all States were under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It further stated that it was for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination be brought to an end. In addition, the Court pointed out that all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention were under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention. Finally, in regard to the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Court indicated that they should consider what further action was required to bring to an end the illegal situation in question, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.
The Court concluded by observing that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context, noting the obligation on Israel and Palestine to comply with international humanitarian law, as well as the need for implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, and drawing the attention of the General Assembly to the need for efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems on the basis of international law and the establishment of a Palestinian State.
END
PRESS UN
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ADVISORY OPINION
FINDS ISRAEL’S CONSTRUCTION OF WALL ”CONTRARY TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW”
https://press.un.org/en/2004/icj616.doc.htm
THE HAGUE, 9 July (ICJ) — The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).
In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by 14 votes to 1 to comply with that request.
The Court responds to the question as follows:
“A. By 14 votes to 1,
The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law”;
“B. By 14 votes to 1,
Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;
“C. By 14 votes to 1,
Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;
“D. By 13 votes to 2,
All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;
“E. By 14 votes to 1,
The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”
Reasoning of Court
The Advisory Opinion is divided into three parts: jurisdiction and judicial propriety; legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory; legal consequences of the breaches found.
Jurisdiction of Court and Judicial Propriety
The Court states that, when it is seized of a request for an advisory opinion, it must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give that opinion. It finds that the General Assembly, which requested the opinion by resolution ES-10/14 of 8 December 2003, is authorized to do so by Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter.
The Court, as it has sometimes done in the past, then gives certain indications as to the relationship between the question on which the advisory opinion is requested and the activities of the General Assembly. It finds that the General Assembly, in requesting an advisory opinion from the Court, did not exceed its competence, as qualified by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides that, while the Security Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation, the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests.
The Court further refers to the fact that the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377A (V), which provides that if the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States. The Court finds that the conditions laid down by that resolution were met when the Tenth Emergency Special Session was convened; that was particularly true when the General Assembly decided to request an opinion, as the Security Council was at that time unable to adopt a resolution concerning the construction of the wall as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member.
The Court then rejects the argument that an opinion could not be given in the present case on the ground that the question posed in the request is not a legal one.
Having established its jurisdiction, the Court considers the propriety of giving the requested opinion. It recalls that the lack of consent by a State to its contentious jurisdiction has no bearing on its jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion. It adds that the giving of an opinion would not have the effect, in the present case, of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, given that the question on which the General Assembly requested an opinion is located in a much broader frame of reference than that of the bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine, and that it is of direct concern to the United Nations. Nor does the Court accept the contention that it should decline to give the advisory opinion requested because its opinion could impede a political, negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It further finds it has before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give its opinion, and emphasizes that it is for the General Assembly to assess the usefulness of that opinion. The Court concludes from the foregoing that there is no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion.
Legality of Construction by Israel of Wall
Before addressing the legal consequences of the construction of the wall (the term which the General Assembly has chosen to use and which is also used in the Opinion, since the other expressions sometimes employed are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense), the Court considers whether or not the construction of the wall is contrary to international law.
The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law. It further cites the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the occupied Palestinian territory.
The Court ascertains whether the construction of the wall has violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. It first observes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (between the wall and the “Green Line”) some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the occupied Palestinian territory. Recalling that the Security Council described Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law. It further considers certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine; it considers that the construction of the wall and its associated regime “create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, … [the construction of the wall] would be tantamount to de facto annexation”. The Court notes that the route chosen for the wall gives expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel, and deplored by the Security Council, with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements, and that it entails further alterations to the demographic composition of the OccupiedPalestinianTerritory. It finds that the “construction [of the wall], along with measures taken previously … severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and is, therefore, a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right”.
The Court then considers the information furnished to it regarding the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the occupied Palestinian territory (destruction or requisition of private property, restrictions on freedom of movement, confiscation of agricultural land, cutting-off of access to primary water sources, etc.). It finds that the construction of the wall and its associated regime are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention; that they impede the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and that they also impede the exercise by the persons concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lastly, the Court finds that this construction and its associated regime, coupled with the establishment of settlements, are tending to alter the demographic composition of the occupied Palestinian territory and thereby contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions.
The Court observes that certain humanitarian law and human rights instruments include qualifying clauses or provisions for derogation which may be invoked by States parties, inter alia where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so require. It states that it is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives and, holding that none of such clauses are applicable, finds that the construction of the wall constitutes “breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments”.
In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated regime are contrary to international law.
Legal Consequences of Violations Found
The Court draws a distinction between the legal consequences of these violations for Israel and those for other States.
In regard to the former, the Court finds that Israel must respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under humanitarian law and human rights law. Israel must also put an end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory and must accordingly cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall, dismantle forthwith those parts of that structure situated within the occupied Palestinian territory and forthwith repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated regime, except in so far as such acts may continue to be relevant for compliance by Israel with its obligations in regard to reparation. Israel must further make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction.
As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court finds that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. The Court further finds that it is for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, in the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.
Finally, the Court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and its associated regime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.
The Court concludes by stating that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context. In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”. In the Court’s view, the tragic situation in the region can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court further draws the attention of the General Assembly to the “need for … efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region”.
Composition of Court
The Court was composed as follows: Judge Shi, President; Judge Ranjeva, Vice-President; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma and Tomka; Registrar Couvreur.
Judges Koroma, Higgins, Kooijmans and Al-Khasawneh append separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion. Judge Buergenthal appends a declaration. Judges Elaraby and Owada append separate opinions.
A summary of the Advisory Opinion is published in the document entitled “Summary No. 2004/2”, to which summaries of the declaration and separate opinions appended to the Advisory Opinion are attached. This Press Communiqué, the summary of the Advisory Opinion and the latter’s full text can also be accessed on the Court’s Web site by clicking on “Docket” and “Decisions” (www.icj-cij.org).
Information Department: Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary of the Court, (tel.: + 31 70 302 23 36); Laurence Blairon and Boris Heim, Information Officers, (tel.: + 31 70 302 23 37); e-mail address: information@icj-cij.org.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 6/Astrid Essed strikes again
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.”
De Illegaliteit van de nederzettingen is gebaseerd op artikelen
uit de 4e Conventie van Geneve en het Haags Verdrag van 1907
DE VIERDE CONVENTIE VAN GENEVE
ARTIKEL 49, 4E CONVENTIE VAN GENEVE
”Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
De Staat, die een gebied bezet heeft, mag zich slechts beschouwen als beheerder en vruchtgebruiker der openbare gebouwen, onroerende eigendommen, bosschen en landbouwondernemingen, welke aan den vijandelijken Staat behooren en zich in de bezette landstreek bevinden. Hij moet het grondkapitaal dier eigendommen in zijn geheel laten en die overeenkomstig de regelen van het vruchtgebruik beheeren.”
IN HET ENGELS Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WARON LAND AND ITS ANNEX: REGULATIONS CONCERNINGTHE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
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.
De Israëlische regering van premier Benjamin Netanyahu heeft maatregelen goedgekeurd om de uitbreiding van nederzettingen op de bezette Westelijke Jordaanoever te vergemakkelijken. Ook is besloten dat minister van Financiën Bezalel Smotrich, een voorstander van Joodse kolonisatie van het gebied, voortaan de leiding heeft over het toestaan van nederzettingen, meldt de lokale radiozender Galei Tzahal. Voorheen lag die verantwoordelijkheid bij het ministerie van Defensie.
Om de bouw van nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever te versnellen, wordt het aantal stappen dat nodig is voor goedkeuring aanzienlijk verminderd. “Met Gods hulp zullen we het nederzettingenproject verder ontwikkelen en de Israëlische controle over het grondgebied versterken,” schreef Smotrich op Twitter. Het Palestijnse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken veroordeelde de beslissing als “gevaarlijk” en riep de internationale gemeenschap op druk uit te oefenen op Israël om de beslissing terug te draaien.
Het Israëlische beleid om nederzettingen te bouwen in bezet gebied wordt al lange tijd internationaal bekritiseerd en heeft eerder geleid tot conflicten met gewapende Palestijnse groepen. Eind mei lieten de Verenigde Staten nog weten “diep verontrust” te zijn over een decreet van de Israëlische regering dat Joodse kolonisten toestaat zich permanent te vestigen in de nederzetting Homesh.
Unilaterale maatregelen
Tijdens een bijeenkomst in Egypte in maart kwamen Israëliërs en Palestijnen overeen om “unilaterale maatregelen” voor drie tot zes maanden op te schorten. Volgens het Egyptische ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken beloofde Israël destijds zes maanden lang geen nieuwe projecten goed te keuren.
Israël veroverde de Westelijke Jordaanoever en Oost-Jeruzalem, naast andere gebieden, tijdens de Zesdaagse Oorlog van 1967. Tegenwoordig wonen er bijna 600.000 Israëliërs in meer dan 200 nederzettingen. In 2016 noemde de VN-Veiligheidsraad de nederzettingen een schending van het internationaal recht. De Palestijnen willen een eigen staat op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, in de Gazastrook en in Oost-Jeruzalem.
EINDE
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 5/Astrid Essed strikes again
”The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.”
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 4/Astrid Essed strikes again
Israeli authorities must be held accountable for committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, Amnesty International said today in a damning new report. The investigation details how Israel enforces a system of oppression and domination against the Palestinian people wherever it has control over their rights. This includes Palestinians living in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), as well as displaced refugees in other countries.
The comprehensive report, Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law. This system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention.
Amnesty International is calling on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to consider the crime of apartheid in its current investigation in the OPT and calls on all states to exercise universal jurisdiction to bring perpetrators of apartheid crimes to justice.
Our report reveals the true extent of Israel’s apartheid regime. Whether they live in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, or Israel itself, Palestinians are treated as an inferior racial group and systematically deprived of their rights. We found that Israel’s cruel policies of segregation, dispossession and exclusion across all territories under its control clearly amount to apartheid. The international community has an obligation to actAgnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General
“There is no possible justification for a system built around the institutionalized and prolonged racist oppression of millions of people. Apartheid has no place in our world, and states which choose to make allowances for Israel will find themselves on the wrong side of history. Governments who continue to supply Israel with arms and shield it from accountability at the UN are supporting a system of apartheid, undermining the international legal order, and exacerbating the suffering of the Palestinian people. The international community must face up to the reality of Israel’s apartheid, and pursue the many avenues to justice which remain shamefully unexplored.”
Amnesty International’s findings build on a growing body of work by Palestinian, Israeli and international NGOs, who have increasingly applied the apartheid framework to the situation in Israel and/or the OPT.
Identifying apartheid
A system of apartheid is an institutionalized regime of oppression and domination by one racial group over another. It is a serious human rights violation which is prohibited in public international law. Amnesty International’s extensive research and legal analysis, carried out in consultation with external experts, demonstrates that Israel enforces such a system against Palestinians through laws, policies and practices which ensure their prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment.
In international criminal law, specific unlawful acts which are committed within a system of oppression and domination, with the intention of maintaining it, constitute the crime against humanity of apartheid. These acts are set out in the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute, and include unlawful killing, torture, forcible transfer, and the denial of basic rights and freedoms.
Amnesty International documented acts proscribed in the Apartheid Convention and Rome Statute in all the areas Israel controls, although they occur more frequently and violently in the OPT than in Israel. Israeli authorities enact multiple measures to deliberately deny Palestinians their basic rights and freedoms, including draconian movement restrictions in the OPT, chronic discriminatory underinvestment in Palestinian communities in Israel, and the denial of refugees’ right to return. The report also documents forcible transfer, administrative detention, torture, and unlawful killings, in both Israel and the OPT.
Amnesty International found that these acts form part of a systematic and widespread attack directed against the Palestinian population, and are committed with the intent to maintain the system of oppression and domination. They therefore constitute the crime against humanity of apartheid.
The unlawful killing of Palestinian protesters is perhaps the clearest illustration of how Israeli authorities use proscribed acts to maintain the status quo. In 2018, Palestinians in Gaza began to hold weekly protests along the border with Israel, calling for the right of return for refugees and an end to the blockade. Before protests even began, senior Israeli officials warned that Palestinians approaching the wall would be shot. By the end of 2019, Israeli forces had killed 214 civilians, including 46 children.
In light of the systematic unlawful killings of Palestinians documented in its report, Amnesty International is also calling for the UN Security Council to impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel. This should cover all weapons and munitions as well as law enforcement equipment, given the thousands of Palestinian civilians who have been unlawfully killed by Israeli forces. The Security Council should also impose targeted sanctions, such as asset freezes, against Israeli officials most implicated in the crime of apartheid.
Palestinians treated as a demographic threat
Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has pursued a policy of establishing and then maintaining a Jewish demographic majority, and maximizing control over land and resources to benefit Jewish Israelis. In 1967, Israel extended this policy to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Today, all territories controlled by Israel continue to be administered with the purpose of benefiting Jewish Israelis to the detriment of Palestinians, while Palestinian refugees continue to be excluded.
Amnesty International recognizes that Jews, like Palestinians, claim a right to self-determination, and does not challenge Israel’s desire to be a home for Jews. Similarly, it does not consider that Israel labelling itself a “Jewish state” in itself indicates an intention to oppress and dominate.
However, Amnesty International’s report shows that successive Israeli governments have considered Palestinians a demographic threat, and imposed measures to control and decrease their presence and access to land in Israel and the OPT. These demographic aims are well illustrated by official plans to “Judaize” areas of Israel and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which continue to put thousands of Palestinians at risk of forcible transfer.
Oppression without borders
The 1947-49 and 1967 wars, Israel’s ongoing military rule of the OPT, and the creation of separate legal and administrative regimes within the territory, have separated Palestinian communities and segregated them from Jewish Israelis. Palestinians have been fragmented geographically and politically, and experience different levels of discrimination depending on their status and where they live.
Palestinian citizens in Israel currently enjoy greater rights and freedoms than their counterparts in the OPT, while the experience of Palestinians in Gaza is very different to that of those living in the West Bank. Nonetheless, Amnesty International’s research shows that all Palestinians are subject to the same overarching system. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians across all areas is pursuant to the same objective: to privilege Jewish Israelis in distribution of land and resources, and to minimize the Palestinian presence and access to land.
Amnesty International demonstrates that Israeli authorities treat Palestinians as an inferior racial group who are defined by their non-Jewish, Arab status. This racial discrimination is cemented in laws which affect Palestinians across Israel and the OPT.
For example, Palestinian citizens of Israel are denied a nationality, establishing a legal differentiation from Jewish Israelis. In the West Bank and Gaza, where Israel has controlled the population registry since 1967, Palestinians have no citizenship and most are considered stateless, requiring ID cards from the Israeli military to live and work in the territories.
Palestinian refugees and their descendants, who were displaced in the 1947-49 and 1967 conflicts, continue to be denied the right to return to their former places of residence. Israel’s exclusion of refugees is a flagrant violation of international law which has left millions in a perpetual limbo of forced displacement.
Palestinians in annexed East Jerusalem are granted permanent residence instead of citizenship – though this status is permanent in name only. Since 1967, more than 14,000 Palestinians have had their residency revoked at the discretion of the Ministry of the Interior, resulting in their forcible transfer outside the city.
Lesser citizens
Palestinian citizens of Israel, who comprise about 19% of the population, face many forms of institutionalized discrimination. In 2018, discrimination against Palestinians was crystallized in a constitutional law which, for the first time, enshrined Israel exclusively as the “nation state of the Jewish people”. The law also promotes the building of Jewish settlements and downgrades Arabic’s status as an official language.
The report documents how Palestinians are effectively blocked from leasing on 80% of Israel’s state land, as a result of racist land seizures and a web of discriminatory laws on land allocation, planning and zoning.
The situation in the Negev/Naqab region of southern Israel is a prime example of how Israel’s planning and building policies intentionally exclude Palestinians. Since 1948 Israeli authorities have adopted various policies to “Judaize” the Negev/Naqab, including designating large areas as nature reserves or military firing zones, and setting targets for increasing the Jewish population. This has had devastating consequences for the tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouins who live in the region.
Thirty-five Bedouin villages, home to about 68,000 people, are currently “unrecognized” by Israel, which means they are cut off from the national electricity and water supply and targeted for repeated demolitions. As the villages have no official status, their residents also face restrictions on political participation and are excluded from the healthcare and education systems. These conditions have coerced many into leaving their homes and villages, in what amounts to forcible transfer.
Decades of deliberately unequal treatment of Palestinian citizens of Israel have left them consistently economically disadvantaged in comparison to Jewish Israelis. This is exacerbated by blatantly discriminatory allocation of state resources: a recent example is the government’s Covid-19 recovery package, of which just 1.7% was given to Palestinian local authorities.
Dispossession
The dispossession and displacement of Palestinians from their homes is a crucial pillar of Israel’s apartheid system. Since its establishment the Israeli state has enforced massive and cruel land seizures against Palestinians, and continues to implement myriad laws and policies to force Palestinians into small enclaves. Since 1948, Israel has demolished hundreds of thousands of Palestinian homes and other properties across all areas under its jurisdiction and effective control.
As in the Negev/Naqab, Palestinians in East Jerusalem and Area C of the OPT live under full Israeli control. The authorities deny building permits to Palestinians in these areas, forcing them to build illegal structures which are demolished again and again.
In the OPT, the continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements exacerbates the situation. The construction of these settlements in the OPT has been a government policy since 1967. Settlements today cover 10% of the land in the West Bank, and some 38% of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was expropriated between 1967 and 2017.
Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem are frequently targeted by settler organizations which, with the full backing of the Israeli government, work to displace Palestinian families and hand their homes to settlers. One such neighbourhood, Sheikh Jarrah, has been the site of frequent protests since May 2021 as families battle to keep their homes under the threat of a settler lawsuit.
Draconian movement restrictions
Since the mid-1990s Israeli authorities have imposed increasingly stringent movement restrictions on Palestinians in the OPT. A web of military checkpoints, roadblocks, fences and other structures controls the movement of Palestinians within the OPT, and restricts their travel into Israel or abroad.
A 700km fence, which Israel is still extending, has isolated Palestinian communities inside “military zones”, and they must obtain multiple special permits any time they enter or leave their homes. In Gaza, more than 2 million Palestinians live under an Israeli blockade which has created a humanitarian crisis. It is near-impossible for Gazans to travel abroad or into the rest of the OPT, and they are effectively segregated from the rest of the world.
For Palestinians, the difficulty of travelling within and in and out of the OPT is a constant reminder of their powerlessness. Their every move is subject to the Israeli military’s approval, and the simplest daily task means navigating a web of violent controlAgnès Callamard
“The permit system in the OPT is emblematic of Israel’s brazen discrimination against Palestinians. While Palestinians are locked in a blockade, stuck for hours at checkpoints, or waiting for yet another permit to come through, Israeli citizens and settlers can move around as they please.”
Amnesty International examined each of the security justifications which Israel cites as the basis for its treatment of Palestinians. The report shows that, while some of Israel’s policies may have been designed to fulfil legitimate security objectives, they have been implemented in a grossly disproportionate and discriminatory way which fails to comply with international law. Other policies have absolutely no reasonable basis in security, and are clearly shaped by the intent to oppress and dominate.
The way forward
Amnesty International provides numerous specific recommendations for how the Israeli authorities can dismantle the apartheid system and the discrimination, segregation and oppression which sustain it.
The organization is calling for an end to the brutal practice of home demolitions and forced evictions as a first step. Israel must grant equal rights to all Palestinians in Israel and the OPT, in line with principles of international human rights and humanitarian law. It must recognize the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to homes where they or their families once lived, and provide victims of human rights violations and crimes against humanity with full reparations.
The scale and seriousness of the violations documented in Amnesty International’s report call for a drastic change in the international community’s approach to the human rights crisis in Israel and the OPT.
All states may exercise universal jurisdiction over persons reasonably suspected of committing the crime of apartheid under international law, and states that are party to the Apartheid Convention have an obligation to do so.
The international response to apartheid must no longer be limited to bland condemnations and equivocating. Unless we tackle the root causes, Palestinians and Israelis will remain locked in the cycle of violence which has destroyed so many livesAgnès Callamard
“Israel must dismantle the apartheid system and start treating Palestinians as human beings with equal rights and dignity. Until it does, peace and security will remain a distant prospect for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”
Please see the full report for detailed definition of apartheid in international law.
For years, discussions on Israel and Palestine in international fora like this have been rooted in the assumption that Israel’s 54-year occupation is temporary and that a 30-year peace process will soon bring an end to Israeli rights abuses. These assumptions have obscured the reality of Israel’s discriminatory rule over Palestinians.
In April, Human Rights Watch released a 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed,” finding that Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. We reached this determination based on our documentation of an overarching government policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the OPT, coupled with systematic oppression and grave abuses committed against Palestinians living in the OPT, including East Jerusalem.
In the months since, a growing chorus of voices, from former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa and current Knesset members to the ex-UN Secretary General and authorities from South Africa, Namibia, the OIC, France and Luxembourg, among others, have referenced apartheid in relation to Israel’s discriminatory treatment of Palestinians.
Maintaining the status quo is the policy of the Israeli government formed in June. As an official close to Prime Minister Bennett said, “there is no diplomatic process with the Palestinians and neither will there be one.”
It is time for the international community to publicly recognize that apartheid, and parallel persecution, is the reality for millions of Palestinians. Correctly diagnosing a problem is the first step to solving it.
The United Nations played a central role in undoing South Africa’s system of apartheid. It can do so again. As a first step, this Council rightly put in place a Commission of Inquiry to investigate “root causes of recurrent conflict, including systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity.” We urge all states to engage constructively with the COI in fulfilment of its important mandate.
UN member states should also appoint a UN global envoy for the crimes of persecution and apartheid with a mandate to mobilize international action to end persecution and apartheid worldwide.
Crimes against humanity are crimes against all of us. We all need to do our part to end them.
In April, Human Rights Watch released a 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed,” finding that Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. We reached this determination based on our documentation of an overarching government policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians coupled with grave abuses committed against Palestinians living in the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem
In the months since, a growing chorus of voices, from former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa and current Knesset members to the ex-UN Secretary General and the French foreign minister, have referenced apartheid in relation to Israel’s discriminatory treatment of Palestinians, in particular in the occupied territory. Yet many in Germany, including those critical of Israeli human rights abuses, remain hesitant to apply the label to Israeli conduct.
Given history, one can certainly understand Germany’s concern for the welfare of the Jewish people, but that should not carry over to an endorsement of abusive and discriminatory Israeli government conduct, especially in the occupied territory. As recognition grows that these crimes are being committed, the failure to recognize that reality requires burying your head deeper and deeper into the sand.
The problem begins with the Israeli government having exercised primary control for more than a half-century over the land between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River, encompassing Israel and the occupied territory, where two main groups of people of roughly equal size live. Throughout this area, Israeli authorities methodologically privilege one of the groups, Jewish Israelis, who are governed under the same body of laws with the same rights and privileges wherever they live. At the same time, authorities allocate different baskets of inferior rights to the other, Palestinians, systematically discriminating against them wherever they live and most severely in the occupied territory.
Our sense that our research was not capturing this underlying reality led us to write this report. Reporting on “separate, not equal” schools for Palestinians inside Israel, Palestinians being forced out of their homes in occupied East Jerusalem, the serious rights abuses stemming from the Israeli settlement enterprise in the West Bank, and the crushing closure of the Gaza Strip, we felt that our work captured important dynamics, including entrenched discrimination, in particular areas, but did not capture the full scope of Israel’s discriminatory rule over Palestinians.
We set out in the report to evaluate Israel’s treatment of Palestinians across Israel and the occupied territory. As we do in the nearly 100 countries across the world we work in, we began by documenting the facts—drawing on years of our own research, case studies that compared Palestinian areas with predominantly or exclusively Jewish ones, and a review of government planning documents, statements by officials, and a range of other materials.
Across Israel and the occupied territory, Human Rights Watch found that Israeli authorities have pursued an intent to privilege Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians. They have done so by undertaking policies aimed at mitigating what they openly describe as the “demographic threat” Palestinians pose and maximizing the land available for Jewish communities, while concentrating most Palestinian in dense enclaves. The policy takes different forms and is pursued in a particularly severe form in the occupied territory. It includes efforts to, as leading Israelis officials have put it, “Judaize” the Negev and Galilee regions of Israel and to maintain “a solid Jewish majority,” as described in government planning documents, in the Jerusalem municipality, which includes the eastern part of Jerusalem, which Israel unilaterally annexed and occupies. It also encompasses efforts to “settle [Jews in] the land between the [Palestinian] minority population centers and their surroundings” in the West Bank, as set out in plans that have guided the government’s settlement, and to pursue “separation” between the West Bank and Gaza. The policy across the board serves the same fundamental goal: maximum land, minimum Palestinians.
Furthermore, we found that Israeli authorities have carried out the grave abuses needed for the crimes of apartheid and persecution against Palestinians living in the occupied territory. It has done so through, among other policies, sweeping restrictions on movement in the form of the 14-year generalized closure of Gaza and the discriminatory permit system in the West Bank; the confiscation of more than a third of the land in the West Bank; and denial of residency rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and their relatives. Israel has imposed draconian military rule over millions of Palestinians, suspending their basic civil rights, while Jewish Israelis living in the same territory are governed under the permissive Israeli civil law; and imposed harsh conditions in parts of the West Bank that led to forcing thousands of Palestinians out of their homes.
We then evaluated these facts against the relevant areas of international law—in this case, the established law on discrimination—which includes a universal prohibition against apartheid. While the term was coined in relation to specific practices in South Africa, international treaties define apartheid as a universal legal term referring to a particularly severe form of discriminatory oppression.
International criminal law, including the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court, define apartheid as a crime against humanity consisting of three primary elements: (1) an intent by one racial group to dominate another; (2) systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group; and (3) particularly grave abuses known as inhumane acts.
Racial group is understood today also to encompass treatment on the basis of descent and national or ethnic origin. International criminal law also identifies a related crime against humanity of persecution. Under the Rome Statute and customary international law, persecution consists of severe deprivation of fundamental rights of a racial, ethnic, or other group with discriminatory intent.
The ratification by the State of Palestine of these two treaties in recent years has strengthened the legal application of these two crimes in its territory. A ruling by a chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) earlier this year confirmed that it has jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity – including apartheid and persecution – committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 2014.
Applying the facts to the laws, Human Rights Watch concluded that Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. We found that the elements of the crimes come together in the occupied territory as part of a single Israeli government policy. That policy is to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the occupied territory. It is coupled in the occupied territory with systematic oppression and inhumane acts against Palestinians living there.
Sometimes the most important thing someone who cares deeply about you can do is to share hard truths and push you to confront them. The late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and leaders of Israel’s closest ally, the US, including former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State John Kerry, warned of the prospect of apartheid if things did not change.
Today, apartheid is not a hypothetical or future scenario. A 54-year-occupation is not temporary. The threshold has been crossed. Apartheid, and parallel persecution, is the reality for millions of Palestinians. Recognizing and correctly diagnosing a problem is the first step to solving it and ending apartheid is vital to the future of both Palestinians and Israelis and the cause of peace. It is by extension Germany’s special relationship with Israel and history that should prompt them to recognize the reality of apartheid and persecution and bring to bear the sorts of tools needed to end these crimes against humanity.
EINDE
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 3/Astrid Essed strikes again
DEN HAAG (PDC i) – Het kabinet-Rutte IV is gevallen. De vier coalitiepartijen (VVD, D66, CDA en ChristenUnie) zijn het niet eens geworden over een pakket maatregelen om de asielinstroom te beperken. Vanavond nog zal Mark Rutte i schriftelijk het ontslag aanbieden van het gehele kabinet aan de koning.
Het kabinet heeft lang onderhandeld over de asielmaatregelen. De laatste dagen voerde de VVD de druk op. Rutte legde volgens verschillende bronnen een nieuwe eis op tafel, waarbij gezinshereniging voor oorlogsvluchtelingen beperkt zou worden. Dit was voor D66 en de ChristenUnie een onaanvaardbare eis.
In een persconferentie lichtte premier Rutte de kabinetsval toe: “Er is niet één partij die de stekker uit het kabinet heeft getrokken. Het was een beslissing van alle vier de partijen samen.(…) Een kabinetsval is nooit goed, maar het is ook atijd moeilijk in een coalitieland als Nederland.”
Het kabinet zal in zijn huidige vorm in demissionaire status blijven zitten. Naar verwachting zullen er in november Tweede Kamerverkiezingen plaatsvinden. Het kabinet-Rutte IV kwam tot stand na de langste kabinetsformatie uit de Nederlandse geschiedenis en trad op 10 januari 2022 aan.
MISDADEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTINGVERWOESTING VAN GAZA
MISDADEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTINGVERWOESTING VAN GAZA
BEZETTINGSTERREUR foto Oda Hulsen Hebron 2 mei 2017/Verwijst naar foto van een Palestijnse jongen, die tegen de muur wordt gezet doorIsraelische soldaten, die hem toeriepen ”Where is your knife!”/Later vrijgelaten
NB Het is dus NIET de foto van een Palestijnse jongen, die bij de kraag wordt gegrepen
Foto van Oda Hulsen valt soms weg
ILLEGALE ISRAELISCHE NEDERZETTINGEN, BITTEREBIJPRODUCTEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING
Trouwe lezers hebben kunnen zien [lezen], dat ik recentelijk een uitgebreid
[achtergrond] artikel heb geschreven over Caroline van der Plas [BBB} [1], dat
vooral draaide om twee vragen
A
Waar van het politieke spectrum moet ik BBB nu plaatsen
Beter gespecificeerd
Is BBB extreem-rechts, zoals een aantal schrijvers/Bloggers/activisten
vanuit de links-radicale hoek beweren [2], of niet
Voor mijn conclusie, zie noot 3
B
Wat is het BBB standpunt tav Migratie en hoe sta ik daartegenover?
Dat kunt u lezen in mijn recente artikel [4]
Nu wil de snelheid der Ontwikkelingen dat mijn artikel weliswaar
een duidelijk inzicht geeft in het BBB Standpunt over
Migratie ”Streng met Menselijke Maat” [5], maar dat dit dateert van
13 februari 2023 en nu deels is achterhaald door het met het
oog op de 22 november verkiezingen geschreven Concept
Verkiezingsprogramma ”Iedere Dag BBBeter. Van Vetrouwenscrisis
naar Noaberstaat”, ”Visie en Verkiezingsprogramma 2023-2027” [6]
Omdat ik het van belang vind, zeker tegen het Licht van deze Spannende
Verkiezingen [7], de actualiteit zoveel mogelijk te volgen en
ik vooral benieuwd ben, in welke richting BBB zich uiteindelijk ontwikkelt [8],
wil ik nogmaals een Beroemde Astrid Essed Attack op het Asielgedeelte
van dit programma loslaten
FASTEN YOUR SEATBELTS!
ASTRID ESSED
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK OP BBB VERKIEZINGSPROGRAMMA 2023-2027
TAV ASIEL
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK
VERSCHIL IN TOON MET ”STRENG MET MENSELIJKE MAAT”
Misschien minder ”inhoudelijk”, maar toch van belang
Het Hoofdstuk ”Asiel en Migratie” [9] doorlezend, valt het mij allereerst al op,
dat de relatief vriendelijke toon, waarmee de eerdere BBB Visie dd februari 2023 ”Streng met menselijke maat: BBB over Migratie” [10], begint,
in dit concept Verkiezingsprogramma ontbreekt.
Ik citeer uit ”Streng met menselijke maat” [11]
”Nederland is een huis, waarin Nederlanders een familie vormen. Zoals in veel huizen ontvangen wij gasten die weer vertrekken en is er een logeerkamer met een warm bed voor familie of bekenden, die het zwaar hebben en wat langer moeten blijven. Maar in de laatste decennia belden er zo veel hulpbehoevenden aan voor een plekje, dat de grond van de logeerkamer bezaaid ligt met matjes. En ons éigen familieleven wordt aangetast door onze gastvrijheid. Juist om dat originele warme bed te blijven bieden, moeten we voorlopig “nee” verkopen aan veel hulpbehoevende kennissen. ” [12]
Ik heb in mijn recente artikel weliswaar geprotesteerd tegen
de voorstelling van een vluchteling als ”gast” [13], maar toch, deze Beginzin oogt redelijk uitnodigend [ook
al blijkt uit de rest van de tekst, dat dat ook wel meevalt [14].
Een vriendelijke Beginzin kan ik in het Verkiezingsstuk over Asiel en Migratie [15] niet ontdekken.
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK/INHOUDELIJKSTUKJE 1Ik citeer uit ”Asiel en Migratie, Eerlijk en Draagbaar [ookin de komende stukjes], met als bij opmerking, dat ik nietop alle aspecten van het BBB Asielstandpunt inga”
BBB wil de asielinstroom drastisch beperken, de huizen weer eerlijk verdelen en de asielprocedures aan de buitengrenzen van de EU laten doorlopen. Hier gaan we ook hard met onze vuist voor op tafel slaan bij de EU.” [16]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK
ASIELSTROOM BEPERKEN GEVAARLIJK
En dat stuit bij mij al direct op bezwaren.
Want als de asielstroom wordt beperkt, loop je gevaar, dat vluchtelingen,
die door oorlog en/of persoonlijke vervolging moeten vrezen voor leven
en/of welzijn, geen veilig heenkomen kunnen krijgen.
Ik besef wel, dat verder in dit Asielhoofdstuk BBB refereert aan het afkopen
van het te overschrijden quotum van 15 000 asielzoekers per jaar
in de nieuwe EU Migratiedeal [17], maar het Gevaar daarvan is, dat als
meer landen zoiets gaan doen, de vluchtelingen alsnog tussen Wal en
Schip dreigen te belanden.
Kortom:
Het sollen met mensen dus.
STUKJE 2
” Een Europese aanmeldbalie voor verzoek tot asiel voorkomt mensenhandel. De EU kan ook aanmeldcentra in de regio inrichten zodat asielzoekers daar terecht kunnen en de procedure daar ook wordt afgehandeld, zoals bijvoorbeeld in Tanzania, Malawi, Namibië of SenegaL” [18]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK
OPMAAT NAAR EEN ”RWANDA DEAL?”
Het Gevaar van Aanmeldcentra in de regio vind ik, dat het Spook van de
”Rwanda deal” [Asiel aanvragen voor Europa vanuit Rwanda en bij toekenning in Rwanda blijven] [19] weer de Kop op komt steken.
En aangezien BBB een van de partijen was, die voor een onderzoek naar een
mogelijke Rwanda deal gestemd had [20], vind ik dit BBB standpunt
onder Stukje 2 buitengewoon verontrustend.
blijven en niet naar Europa kunnen komen]
STUKJE 3
” Asiel is alleen mogelijk voor mensen die op basis van de gronden van de Conventie van Genève (vervolging politieke en religieuze redenen) hiervoor in aanmerking komen. Niet wegens armoede, ontheemding etc., want daarvoor is opvang in de regio bedoeld” [21]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK
BBB BEROEPT ZICH OP EEN VERDRAG, DAT ZIJ WIL OPZEGGEN
OPVANG IN DE REGIO?/MISLEIDENDE VOORSTELLING VAN
ZAKEN BBB!
Om met de eerste zin te beginnen:
Het staat BBB vrij om te vinden, dat asiel alleen mogelijk is voor oorlogs
en vervolgingsvluchtelingen.
En inderdaad staat dat ook in de definitie van het Vluchtelingenverdrag[zie voor gemak lezer artikel 33, betr het verbod op refoulement] [22], dat
in Geneve is gesloten, vandaar dat BBB het ”De Conventie van Geneve” noemt [23], een beetje een begripsverwarring met de Conventies van Geneve, zoals
vastgelegd in het Internationaal Humanitair oorlogsrecht [24]
Maar daarom gaat het niet.
Wat mij zo frappeert is, dat BBB bij de definitie wie wel of geen vluchteling is
[een definitie, die zij dus hanteert] zich beroept op een Verdrag, dat zij zelf willen opheffen!
Het Vluchtelingenverdrag! [25]
En wat betreft die ”opvang in de regio”
Hoe vaak moet ik nog uitleggen, dat het leeuwendeel van de
vluchtelingen reeds wordt opgevangen in de regio! [26]
Als de BBB daarvan niet op de hoogte is, is het niet uit
te leggen onwetendheid.
En anders platte anti-vluchtelingenpropaganda!
STUKJE 4
” Asielzoekers die geen enkel recht hebben op verblijf in Nederland moeten zo snel mogelijk terug naar het land van herkomst. BBB maakt zich sterk voor goede relaties met de landen waar deze staatsburgers naar terug moeten. Daar waar landen echt niet meewerken, zijn financiële consequenties ook aan de orde.” [27]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK
ASIELZOEKERS IN GEVAAR BIJ UITZETTING
AAN FINANCIELE GEVOLGEN VOOR WEIGERLANDEN ZIJN RISICO’S
VERBONDEN
De eerste zin lijkt vanuit de vastgelegde Vreemdelingenwetgeving [28]
logisch, maar staat nogal eens haaks op Internationale Verdragen. [29]
Want een aantal keren is het voorgekomen, dat uitgezette asielzoekers
grote risico’s liepen in hun herkomstland [30], waaruit blijkt, dat die
Asielprocedure lang niet altijd deugt.
BBB moet dus wat dit aspect betreft, zich beter laten informeren of
een Toontje Lager zingen.
Wat betreft die ”financiele gevolgen” voor weigerlanden:
Zie onder noot 31, wat ik daarover heb geschreven in mijn
recente stuk over het BBB standpunt tav vluchtelingen
Op dus naar noot 31!
STUKJE 5
”Zonder sterke buitengrenzen zijn de binnengrenzen niet te handhaven. Een sterke buitengrens van de Europese Unie is daarbij noodzakelijk. Om deze reden geven we Frontex (Europees agentschap dat de buitengrenzen bewaakt) meer bevoegdheden en vertienvoudigen we in manschappen” [32]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK
GEEN GRENZEN EN MUREN VOOR VLUCHTELINGEN!
FRONTEX GEVAARLIJKE GRENSBEWAKER!
Zie voor wat ik daarover in mijn recente artikel heb geschreven, onder noot 33
Op dus naar noot 33!
STUKJE 6
”Het vluchtelingenverdrag stamt uit 1951. Deze is zeer gedateerd en nooit bedoeld voor de enorme aantallen zoals we die nu kennen. Daarom zet Nederland zich in om deze te vernieuwen of anders op te zeggen” [34]
ASTRID ESSED ATTACK
HANDHAVEN, DAT VLUCHTELINGENVERDRAG!
EEN VAN DE WEINIGE HANDVATEN, DIE EEN VLUCHTELING ANNO
2023 NOG HEEFT!
Zie onder noot 35, wat ik heb opgemerkt over het Vluchtelingenverdrag
TENSLOTTE
Dit was weer een Astrid Essed Attack op het BBB Standpunt tav
vluchtelingen
Omdat het hier om het concept verkiezingsprogramma 2023-2027
gaat [36] vond ik een aanvulling nodig op mijn eerdere stuk [37]
Als u beiden hebt gelezen, o lezers, krijgt u een goed beeld
van mijn standpunten over de zogenaamde ”asielcrisis” [38]
en over het Vluchtelingenstandpunt in het algemeen
Zie ook noot 39!
Ik eindig met de Beginzin:
Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
Vuur en rook boven Gaza-Stad na een Israëlische luchtaanval AFP
