Sterke 9/11-vibes na de aanval van Hamas op Israël. In navolging van EU-voorzitter Ursula von der Leyen verklaarden zowel Mark Rutte als Jesse Klaver dat Israël het recht heeft zich tegen deze terreur te verdedigen. We weten inmiddels hoe Israël zich verdedigt: door zoveel mogelijk Palestijnen aan gort te bombarderen.
Daar moeten wij het verplicht mee eens zijn in dit vrije deel van de wereld. Wierd Duk laat weten dat Afshin Ellian en VVD-Kamerlid Ruben Brekelmans op de staatstelevisie hebben verklaard dat je nú laat zien dat je solidair bent. Wie daar bezwaren tegen heeft, wordt door De Telegraaf als een misdadiger geschandpaald, te boek gesteld als antisemiet en als staatsgevaar. Duk hangt al drie dagen de Opiniepolizei uit, en hij niet alleen. Iedereen die erop wijst dat de Palestijnen de afgelopen decennia ook wat voor hun kiezen hebben gehad, wordt verrot gescholden, voor antisemiet uitgemaakt en bedreigd. Fanatiek sturen de Vrienden van Israël gruwelfilmpjes rond van verminkte lijken, de slachtoffers van Hamas.
Gruweldaden
En het zijn gruweldaden, die Hamas pleegt. De website Electronic Intifada spreekt van een “rechtvaardige bevrijdingsoorlog”, maar in een rechtvaardige bevrijdingsoorlog sleep je niet de naakte lijken van je slachtoffers door de straat, schiet je niet honderden jonge bezoekers van een muziekfestival dood en trek je niet moordend door woonwijken.
Extreemlinkse toetsenbordridders, geretweet door BIJ1-aanhangers, oordelen als kille schrijftafelmoordenaars dat er “geen onschuldige zionisten zijn” en dat “zionisten die blijven als ze de keuze hebben te vertrekken, ophouden burgers te zijn.”
“You don’t get freedom peacefully”, citeert iemand Malcolm X, maar er is verschil tussen “not peacefully” en de barbarij die Hamas tentoonspreidt. Ik ben geen Sun Tzu maar ik zou, als ik Hamas was, uiterst gedisciplineerd zijn geweest, alleen krijgsgevangenen hebben genomen en alle burgers met het uiterste respect hebben behandeld.
Maar het gaat er natuurlijk om Israël zo razend mogelijk te maken zodat het terugslaat met een wrede genadeloosheid die mensen kotsend het theater zal doen verlaten. Dat begrijp ik heus wel.
Israëlische doden
Dit afschuwelijke geweld komt niet uit het niets, al willen de Vrienden van Israël dit ons graag doen geloven. Ruben Brekelmans, bijvoorbeeld, deelt op Twitter een staafdiagram met alleen het aantal Israëlische doden van de afgelopen 15 jaar als gevolg van het “conflict met de Palestijnen.” Fact-checker Marieke Kuypers laat in zo’n zelfde diagram zien dat het aantal Israëlische doden in het niet valt bij het aantal Palestijnse doden.
En hoe Israël het voor elkaar krijgt zo onnoemelijk veel Palestijnse slachtoffers te maken, krijgen we bijna dagelijks in filmpjes te zien waarin we soldaten kinderen zien doodschieten alsof het kalkoenen zijn, Gaza bombarderen waar de bewoners niet uit wegkunnen en waarin kolonisten Palestijnen vernederen die ze net uit hun huis hebben weggejaagd, als ze ze niet gewoon doodschieten.
“Collateral damage” zei een Vriend van Israël tegen mij. Dode Israëlische burgers zijn slachtoffers van terreur, dode Palestijnen zijn “collateral damage”.
Palestijnen zijn ongedierte
Esther Voet zei, toen op het strand van Gaza een groepje voetballende Palestijnse kinderen vanuit een gevechtsvliegtuig aan stukken werd gereten: “Het is wel oorlog, hè!”
Palestijnse levens betekenen hier in Nederland gewoon niks. Palestijnen zijn vuil, uitschot, het is ongedierte, anders praat je niet zo makkelijk over dode kinderen. Zo achteloos, zo zonder enig gevoel.
En dan ben je geschokt dat Hamas net zo achteloos met Israëlische burgers omspringt, en dan ben je kwaad dat Nederlanders hier wijzen op de context van dat geweld.
Feestvieren om slachtparijen
Ik zag filmpjes van mensen die feestvierden vanwege de aanval van Hamas. Ik vind mensen, die juichen om dodelijke slachtoffers, nare mensen. Maar de Vrienden van Israël zijn nogal hypocriet als ze beweren dat zij nooit juichen als er Palestijnen worden gedood. Ze staan op film, de Israëlische jongeren die een soort feestje maakten van het kijken naar de Israëlische beschietingen van Gaza, applaudisserend bij elke inslag. In straatinterviews zeggen Israëliërs dat alle Arabieren moeten worden uitgegroeid, dat hun land en hun huizen eerlijk zijn veroverd in oorlogen.
En hier in Nederland viert GeenStijl feest bij dode Palestijnen, en Laurence Blik en haar vrienden, onder wie zich heel wat prominente Vrienden van Israël bevinden.
Doe niet net of je beter bent dan Hamas. Je bent net zo bloeddorstig, net zo barbaars, net zo wreed en genadeloos.
Gekoloniseerde volken
Waar Nederland nog aan moet wennen, merk ik, is dat de tijd voorbij is dat iedereen braaf ja knikte als er werd gepreekt dat lam Israël was omsingeld door bloeddorstige Arabische leeuwen die het land wilden vernietigen alléén omdat er Joden woonden. Meer pluriformiteit in het medialandschap, want Al Jazeera en sociale media, en een andere samenstelling van de bevolking dan in 1973, maken dat het “conflict” vanuit meerdere perspectieven bekeken wordt. Nazaten van gekoloniseerde volkeren en telgen van nog steeds gekoloniseerde volken zien alles in een andere context.
En je kunt boos worden en schelden en dreigen wat je wilt, met je “Hamas-vriendje” en je “antisemiet” en wat dan ook, die context hoort erbij. Je bent niet meer gezaghebbend, je bepaalt niet meer wat andere mensen denken. Je bent niet meer de baas.
EINDE
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [Artikel Frontaal Naakt]/Hamas-vriendje
The following questions and answers (Q&A) address issues relating to international humanitarian law (the laws of war) governing current hostilities between Israel and Hamas, and other Palestinian armed groups in Gaza. The purpose is to facilitate analysis of the conduct of all parties involved in the conflict with the aim of deterring violations of the laws of war and encouraging accountability for abuses.
This Q&A focuses on international humanitarian law governing the conduct of hostilities. It does not address whether Palestinian armed groups or Israel were or are justified in their attacks or other matters concerning the legitimacy of resorting to armed force, such as under the United Nations Charter. In accordance with our institutional mandate, Human Rights Watch does not take positions on issues of jus ad bellum (law concerning acceptable justifications to use armed force); our primary goal is documenting violations of the laws of war, and encouraging all parties in armed conflict to respect the laws of war, or jus in bello.
International humanitarian law recognizes the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as an ongoing armed conflict. Current hostilities and military attacks between Israel and Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups are governed by the conduct of hostilities standards rooted in international humanitarian law, consisting of international treaty law, most notably Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and customary international humanitarian law applicable in so-called non-international armed conflicts, which are reflected in the Additional Protocols of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. These rules concern the methods and means of combat and fundamental protections for civilians and combatants no longer participating in hostilities for both states and non-state armed groups.
Foremost among the rules of international humanitarian law is the rule that parties to a conflict must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Civilians may never be the target of attack. Warring parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects, such as homes, shops, schools, and medical facilities. Attacks may target only combatants and military objectives. Attacks that target civilians or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or that would cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population compared to the anticipated military gain, are prohibited.
Additionally, Common Article 3 provides a number of fundamental protections for civilians and persons who are no longer taking part in hostilities, such as captured combatants, and those who have surrendered or become incapacitated. It prohibits violence against such persons – particularly murder, cruel treatment, and torture – as well as outrages against their personal dignity and degrading or humiliating treatment, and the taking of hostages.
The laws of war make no formal distinction between parties to a conflict on the basis of power imbalances or other criteria. The fundamental principles of international humanitarian law still apply. Violating them by deliberately targeting civilians or carrying out indiscriminate attacks can never be justified by pointing to the injustice of the political situation or other political or moral arguments. To permit the targeting of civilians in circumstances in which there is a disparity of power between opposing forces, as is the case in many conflicts, would create an exception that would virtually negate the rules of war.
The laws of war recognize that some civilian casualties may be inevitable during armed conflict, but impose a duty on warring parties at all times to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to target only combatants and other military objectives. The fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law are “civilian immunity” and the principle of “distinction.”
Combatants include members of a country’s armed forces and commanders and full-time fighters in non-state armed groups. They are subject to attack at all times during hostilities unless they are captured or incapacitated.
Civilians lose their immunity from attack when and only for such time as they are directly participating in hostilities. According to guidance by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the laws of war distinguish between members of the organized fighting forces of a non-state party, who may be targeted during an armed conflict, and part-time fighters, who are civilians who may only be targeted when and only for such time as they are directly participating in hostilities. Similarly, reservists of national armed forces are considered civilians except when they go on duty, in which case they are combatants subject to attack. Fighters who leave the armed group, as well as regular army reservists who reintegrate into civilian life, are civilians until they are called back to active duty.
For an individual’s act to constitute direct participation in hostilities, it must imminently be capable of causing harm to opposing forces and must be deliberately carried out to support a party to the armed conflict. Direct participation in hostilities includes measures taken in preparation for executing the act, as well as deployment to and return from the location where the act is carried out.
ICRC guidance also sets out that people who have exclusively non-combat functions in armed groups, including political or administrative roles, or are merely members of or affiliated with political entities that have an armed component, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, may not be targeted at any time unless and only for such time as they, like any other civilian, directly participate in the hostilities. That is, membership or affiliation with a Palestinian movement with an armed wing is not a sufficient basis for determining an individual to be a lawful military target.
The laws of war also protect civilian objects, which are defined as anything not considered a legitimate military objective. Prohibited are direct attacks against civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals and other medical facilities, schools, and cultural monuments. Civilian objects become subject to legitimate attack when they become military objectives; that is, when they are making an effective contribution to military action and their destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage, subject to the rules of proportionality. This would include the presence of members of armed groups or military forces in what are normally civilian objects. Where there is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be civilian.
The laws of war prohibit indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Examples of indiscriminate attacks are those that are not directed at a specific military objective or that use weapons that cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Prohibited indiscriminate attacks include area bombardment, which are attacks by artillery or other means that treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in an area containing a concentration of civilians and civilian objects.
An attack on an otherwise legitimate military target is prohibited if it would violate the principle of proportionality. Disproportionate attacks are those that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.
Hostage-taking is prohibited in non-international armed conflicts under Article 1(b) of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law. The ICRC Commentary on Common Article 3 defines hostage-taking as “the seizure, detention or otherwise holding of a person (the hostage) accompanied by the threat to kill, injure or continue to detain that person in order to compel a third party to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release, safety or well-being of the hostage.” Hostages can include civilians and people taking no active part in hostilities, such as members of armed forces who have surrendered or who have been detained. Hostage-taking is a war crime, including under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. People taken as hostages, like all held in custody, must be treated humanely, and cannot be used as human shields.
The ICRC Commentary also notes that hostages are often people, such as civilians posing no security threat, who are taken into custody and detained unlawfully. However, unlawful detention is not necessary for there to be a hostage-taking. An individual whose detention may be lawful, such as a captured soldier, could still be used as a hostage.
A threat to continue detaining someone legally held would not amount to a hostage-taking. For instance, it is not unlawful as part of a negotiation over a prisoner exchange to continue to detain someone, such as a captured combatant, whose release is not legally required. It would, however, be unlawful to make such a threat against a detained civilian unlawfully held.
Hostage-taking is prohibited regardless of the conduct that the hostage-taker aims to impose. So it is still unlawful even when seeking to compel the opposing force to cease an unlawful conduct.
International humanitarian law does not prohibit fighting in urban areas, although the presence of many civilians places greater obligations on warring parties to take steps to minimize harm to civilians. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
The laws of war require that the parties to a conflict take constant care during military operations to spare the civilian population, and to “take all feasible precautions” to avoid or minimize the incidental loss of civilian life and damage to civilian objects. These precautions include doing everything feasible to verify that the objects of attack are military objectives and not civilians or civilian objects, giving “effective advance warning” of attacks when circumstances permit, and refraining from an attack if the rule of proportionality will be violated. In populated areas with buildings or other structures, both above and underground, parties should take into account the difficulty of identifying civilians who may be obscured from view even from advanced surveillance technology.
Forces deployed in populated areas must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives – including fighters, ammunition, weapons, equipment, and military infrastructure – in or near densely populated areas, and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. “Shielding” refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack.
At the same time, the attacking party is not relieved from its obligation to take into account the risk to civilians, including the duty to avoid causing disproportionate harm to civilians, simply because it considers the defending party responsible for having located legitimate military targets within or near populated areas. That is, the presence of a Hamas commander or rocket launcher, or other military facility in a populated area would not justify attacking the area without regard to the threatened civilian population, including the duty to distinguish combatants from civilians and the rule of proportionality.
The use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas is one of the gravest threats to civilians in contemporary armed conflict. In addition to causing civilian casualties directly, explosive weapons with wide-area effects have frequently damaged or destroyed civilian infrastructure, such as bridges, water pipes, power stations, hospitals, and schools, causing long-term harm to civilians, including the disruption of basic services. These weapons have a wide-area effect if they have a large destructive radius, are inherently inaccurate, or deliver multiple munitions at the same time. Their use in populated areas forces people to flee their homes, exacerbating humanitarian needs.
Weapons that have a large destructive radius include those that detonate a large amount of explosive material and those that propel fragments over a large area, or both. Munitions with large amounts of explosive material can produce fragmentation that spreads unpredictably over a wide area, and a powerful blast wave that can cause severe physical injuries to the human body and physical structures, cause blunt force trauma and physical damage from flying debris, and cause or exacerbate other injuries or existing illnesses. Munitions that have preformed fragmentation warheads are designed to spread scores of fragments over an area, making it difficult or impossible to limit the effects of the weapon.
The use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in the densely populated Gaza Strip, where 2.2 million Palestinians live in a strip of territory that is 41 kilometers (25 miles) long and between 6 and 12 kilometers (3.7 and 7.5 miles) wide, and the targeting at times of critical infrastructure, could be expected to cause serious harm to civilians and civilian objects. In addition, rockets launched from Gaza that are fundamentally inaccurate or designed to saturate a large area and are likely to strike civilians and civilian objects inside Israel, also cause foreseeable harm to civilians and civilian objects.
The laws of war require, unless circumstances do not permit, that warring parties give “effective advance warning” of attacks that may affect the civilian population. What constitutes an “effective” warning will depend on the circumstances. Such an assessment would take into account the timing of the warning and the ability of civilians to leave the area. A warning that does not give civilians adequate time to leave for a safer area would not be considered “effective.”
Civilians who do not evacuate following warnings are still fully protected by international humanitarian law. Otherwise, warring parties could use warnings to cause forced displacement, threatening civilians with deliberate harm if they did not heed them. Moreover, some civilians are unable to heed a warning to evacuate, for reasons of health, disability, fear, or lack of anyplace else to go. So, even after warnings have been given, attacking forces must still take all feasible precautions to avoid loss of civilian life and property. This includes canceling an attack when it becomes apparent that the target is civilian, or that the civilian loss would be disproportionate to the expected military gain.
The laws of war also prohibit “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.” Statements that called for the evacuation of areas that are not genuine warnings, but are primarily intended to cause panic among residents or compel them to leave their homes for reasons other than their safety, would fall under this prohibition. This prohibition does not attempt to address the effects of lawful attacks, which ordinarily cause fear, but rather those threats or attacks on civilians that have this specific purpose.
Healthcare facilities are civilian objects that have special protections under the laws of war against attacks and other acts of violence including bombing, shelling, looting, forced entry, shooting into, encircling, or other forceful interference such as intentionally depriving facilities of electricity and water.
Healthcare facilities include hospitals, laboratories, clinics, first aid posts, blood transfusion centers, and the medical and pharmaceutical stores of these facilities, whether military or civilian. While other presumptively civilian structures become military objectives if they are being used for a military purpose, hospitals lose their protection from attack only if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit “acts harmful to the enemy.” Several types of acts do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy,” such as the presence of armed guards, or when small arms from the wounded are found in the hospital. Even if military forces misuse a hospital to store weapons or shelter able-bodied combatants, the attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse, setting a reasonable time limit for it to end, and attacking only after such a warning has gone unheeded.
Under the laws of war, doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel must be permitted to do their work and be protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection only if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, “acts harmful to the enemy.”
Likewise, ambulances and other medical transportation must be allowed to function and be protected in all circumstances. They could lose their protection only if they are being used to commit “acts harmful to the enemy,” such as transporting ammunition or healthy fighters in service. As stated above, the attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse, and can only attack after such a warning goes unheeded.
Mosques and churches – like all houses of worship – and schools are presumptively civilian objects that may not be attacked unless they are being used for military purposes, such as a military headquarters or a location for storing weapons and ammunition.
The principle of proportionality also applies to these objects.
All sides were obligated to take special care in military operations to avoid damage to schools, houses of worship, and other cultural property.
As parties to the armed conflict, the armed wings of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian armed groups are obligated to abide by international humanitarian law. The targeting of military installations and other military objectives is permitted under the laws of war, but only if all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm are taken. The laws prohibit Palestinian armed groups from targeting civilians or launching indiscriminate attacks or attacks that would cause disproportionate harm to civilians compared to the expected military advantage. Commanders of Palestinian armed groups are also obligated to choose such means of attack that they could direct at military targets and minimize incidental harm to civilians. If the weapons used were so inaccurate that they could not be directed at military targets without imposing a substantial risk of civilian harm, then the group should not have deployed them.
Human Rights Watch has found in prior hostilities that rockets launched by Palestinian armed groups – including locally made short and upgraded long-range rockets, “Grad” rockets, and rockets imported from other sources – are so inaccurate as to be incapable of being aimed in a manner to discriminate between military targets and civilian objects when they were launched toward populated areas. This inaccuracy and inability to target military objectives are exacerbated at the longer ranges that some rockets were fired into Israel.
The use of such rockets against civilian areas violates the prohibition on deliberate and indiscriminate attacks. Likewise, a party that launches rockets from densely populated areas, or co-locates military objectives in or near civilian areas – thus making civilians vulnerable to counterattacks – may be failing to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians under its control against the effects of attacks.
International humanitarian law allows the targeting of military commanders in the course of armed conflict, provided that such attacks otherwise comply with the laws that protect civilians, including being proportionate. Political leaders not taking part in military operations, as civilians, would not be legitimate targets of attack.
Palestinian armed groups’ leaders who are commanding belligerent forces are legitimate targets. However, because Hamas engages in civil governance beyond its military component, merely being a Hamas leader in and of itself does not make an individual lawfully subject to military attack.
Combatants do not have immunity from attacks in their homes and workplaces. However, as with any attack on an otherwise legitimate military target, the attacking force must refrain from attack if it would disproportionately harm the civilian population – including civilian family members of combatants – or be launched in a way that fails to discriminate between combatants and civilians. Under this duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm, the attacking force should also consider whether there may be alternative sites where the combatant can be targeted without endangering civilians.
Attacking the home of a combatant who was not physically present at the time of the attack would be an unlawful attack on a civilian object. If such an unlawful attack were carried out intentionally, then it would constitute a war crime. A civilian home does not lose its protected status as a civilian object merely because it is the home of a militant who is not present there. Insofar as the attack is designed to harm the combatants’ families, it would also be a prohibited form of collective punishment.
Personnel or equipment being used in military operations are subject to attack, but whether that justifies destroying an entire large building where they might be present depends on the attack not inflicting disproportionate harm on civilians or civilian property.
The laws of war prohibit the punishment of any person for an offense other than one that they have personally committed. Collective punishment is a term used in international law to describe any form of punitive sanctions and harassment, not limited to judicial penalties, but including sanctions of “any sort, administrative, by police action or otherwise,” that are imposed on targeted groups of persons for actions that they themselves did not personally commit. The imposition of collective punishment – such as, in violation of the laws of war, the demolition of homes of families of fighters, or other civilian objects such as multi-story buildings as a form of punishment – is a war crime. Whether an attack or measure could amount to collective punishment depends on several factors, including the target of the measure and its punitive impact, but of particular relevance is the intent behind a particular measure. If the intention was to punish, purely or primarily as a result of an act committed by third parties, then the attack is likely to have been collective punishment.
Journalists and their equipment benefit from the general protection enjoyed by civilians and civilian objects and may not be targets of an attack unless they are taking direct part in hostilities. Journalists may be subject to legitimate limitations on rights, such as freedom of expression or freedom of movement, imposed in accordance with the law and only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. But they may not be arrested, detained, or subjected to other forms of punishment or retaliation simply for doing their work as journalists.
Radio and television facilities are civilian objects and as such enjoy general protection. Military attacks on broadcast facilities used for military communications are legitimate under the laws of war, but such attacks on civilian television or radio stations are otherwise prohibited because they are protected civilian structures and not legitimate military targets. Moreover, if the attack is designed primarily to undermine civilian morale or to psychologically harass the civilian population, that is also a prohibited war purpose. Civilian television and radio stations are legitimate targets only if they meet the criteria for a legitimate military objective; that is, if they are used in a way that makes an “effective contribution to military action,” and their destruction in the circumstances ruling at the time offers “a definite military advantage.” Specifically, Hamas-operated civilian broadcast facilities could become military targets if, for example, they were used to send military orders or otherwise concretely to advance Hamas’s armed campaign against Israel. However, civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets simply because they are pro-Hamas or anti-Israel, or report on the laws of war violations by one side or the other. Just as it is unlawful to attack the civilian population to lower its morale, it is unlawful to attack news outfits that merely shape civilian opinion by their reporting or create diplomatic pressure; neither directly contributes to military operations.
Should stations become legitimate military objectives because of their use to transmit military communications, the principle of proportionality in attack must still be respected. This means that Israeli forces should verify at all times that the risks to the civilian population in undertaking any such attack do not outweigh the anticipated definite military advantage. They should take special precautions in relation to buildings located in urban areas, including giving advance warning of an attack whenever possible.
Under international humanitarian law, parties to a conflict must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartially distributed humanitarian aid to the population in need. The belligerent parties must consent to allow relief operations to take place and may not refuse such consent on arbitrary grounds. They can take steps to ensure that consignments do not include weapons or other military materiel. However, deliberately impeding relief supplies is prohibited.
In addition, international humanitarian law requires that belligerent parties ensure the freedom of movement of humanitarian relief personnel essential to the exercise of their functions. This movement can be restricted only temporarily for reasons of imperative military necessity.
International human rights law is applicable at all times, including during armed conflict situations in which the laws of war apply, as well as during times of peace. Israel and Palestine are party to core international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. These treaties outline guarantees for fundamental rights, many of which correspond to the protections to which civilians are entitled under international humanitarian law (such as the prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, nondiscrimination, right to a fair trial).
While the ICCPR permits some restrictions on certain rights during an officially proclaimed public emergency that “threatens the life of the nation,” any derogation of rights during a public emergency must be of an exceptional and temporary nature, and must be “limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation,” and should not involve discrimination on grounds of race, religion, and other grounds. Certain fundamental rights – such as the right to life and the right to be secure from torture and other ill-treatment, the prohibition on unacknowledged detention, the duty to ensure judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, and the right to a fair trial – must always be respected, even during a public emergency.
Serious violations of the laws of war that are committed with criminal intent are war crimes. War crimes, listed in the “grave breaches” provisions of the Geneva Conventions and as customary law in the International Criminal Court statute and other sources, include a wide array of offenses, including deliberate, indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks harming civilians, hostage-taking, using human shields, and imposing collective punishments, among others. Individuals also may be held criminally liable for attempting to commit a war crime, as well as assisting in, facilitating, aiding, or abetting a war crime.
Responsibility also may fall on persons planning or instigating the commission of a war crime. In addition, commanders and civilian leaders may be prosecuted for war crimes as a matter of command responsibility when they knew or should have known about the commission of war crimes and took insufficient measures to prevent them or punish those responsible.
States have an obligation to investigate and fairly prosecute individuals within their territory implicated in war crimes.
Alleged war crimes committed during the fighting between Israel and Palestinian armed groups could be investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor. On March 3, 2021, the ICC prosecutor opened an investigation into alleged serious crimes committed in Palestine since June 13, 2014. The ICC treaty officially went into effect for Palestine on April 1, 2015. The court’s judges have said this gives it jurisdiction over the territory occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, committed in this territory, regardless of the nationality of the alleged perpetrators.
Israel signed but has not ratified the ICC treaty, and in 2002 announced that it did not intend to become a member of the court.
Since 2016, Human Rights Watch has called on the ICC prosecutor to pursue a formal Palestine investigation given strong evidence that serious crimes have been committed there and the pervasive climate of impunity for those crimes. The recent hostilities between Hamas and Israel highlight the importance of the court’s investigation and the urgent need for justice to address serious crimes committed in Palestine. Human Rights Watch has also called on the ICC prosecutor to investigate Israeli authorities implicated in the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against Palestinians.
Certain categories of grave crimes in violation of international law, such as war crimes and torture, are subject to “universal jurisdiction,” which refers to the ability of a country’s domestic judicial system to investigate and prosecute certain crimes, even if they were not committed on its territory, by one of its nationals, or against one of its nationals. Certain treaties, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture, obligate states to extradite or prosecute suspected offenders who are within that country’s territory or otherwise under its jurisdiction. Under customary international law, it is also generally agreed that countries are allowed to try those responsible for other crimes, such as genocide or crimes against humanity, wherever these crimes took place.
National judicial officials should investigate and prosecute those credibly implicated in serious crimes, under the principle of universal jurisdiction and in accordance with national laws.
In May 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council established an ongoing Commission of Inquiry to address violations and abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Israel, to monitor, document, and report on violations and abuses of international law, advance accountability for perpetrators and justice for victims, and address the root causes and systematic oppression that help fuel continued violence.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Human Rights Watch: Questions and answers: October 2023 hostilities between Israel and Armed Palestinian Groups
When a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army, the rules of international humanitarian law dealing with occupation apply. Occupation confers certain rights and obligations on the occupying power.
Prohibited actions include forcibly transferring protected persons from the occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power. It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited.
”The establishment of the settlements contravenes international humanitarian law (IHL), which states that an occupying power may not relocate its own citizens to the occupied territory or make permanent changes to that territory, unless these are needed for imperative military needs, in the narrow sense of the term, or undertaken for the benefit of the local population.”
The illegality of the Israeli settlements is based on article 49, Fourth Geneva Convention and on the Hague Convention of 1907
THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION, ARTICLE 49
”Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WARON LAND AND ITS ANNEX: REGULATIONS CONCERNINGTHE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.
The situation in the OPT is primarily governed by two international legal regimes: international humanitarian law (including the rules of the law of occupation) and international human rights law. International criminal law is also relevant as some serious violations may constitute war crimes.
STATUS OF SETTLEMENTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.
The extensive appropriation of land and the appropriation and destruction of property required to build and expand settlements also breach other rules of international humanitarian law. Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, the public property of the occupied population (such as lands, forests and agricultural estates) is subject to the laws of usufruct. This means that an occupying state is only allowed a very limited use of this property. This limitation is derived from the notion that occupation is temporary, the core idea of the law of occupation. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the occupying power “has a duty to ensure the protection, security, and welfare of the people living under occupation and to guarantee that they can live as normal a life as possible, in accordance with their own laws, culture, and traditions.”
The Hague Regulations prohibit the confiscation of private property. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the destruction of private or state property, “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”.
As the occupier, Israel is therefore forbidden from using state land and natural resources for purposes other than military or security needs or for the benefit of the local population. The unlawful appropriation of property by an occupying power amounts to “pillage”, which is prohibited by both the Hague Regulations and Fourth Geneva Convention and is a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and many national laws.
Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, does not respect any of these rules and exceptions. Transferring the occupying power’s civilians into the occupied territory is prohibited without exception. Furthermore, as explained earlier, the settlements and associated infrastructure are not temporary, do not benefit Palestinians and do not serve the legitimate security needs of the occupying power. Settlements entirely depend on the large-scale appropriation and/or destruction of Palestinian private and state property which are not militarily necessary. They are created with the sole purpose of permanently establishing Jewish Israelis on occupied land.
In addition to being violations of international humanitarian law, key acts required for the establishment of settlements amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Under this body of law, the “extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly” and the “transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” constitute war crimes. As stated above, “pillage” is also a war crime under the Rome Statute.
Israel’s settlement policy also violates a special category of obligations entitled peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed that the rules of the Geneva Conventions constitute “intransgressible principles of international customary law”. Only a limited number of international norms acquire this status, which is a reflection of the seriousness and importance with which the international community views them. Breaches of these norms give rise to certain obligations on all other states, or “third states”, which are explained below.
SETTLEMENTS, DISCRIMINATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
States have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of people under their jurisdiction, including people living in territory that is outside national borders but under the effective control of the state. The ICJ confirmed that Israel is obliged to extend the application of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other treaties to which it is a state party to people in the OPT. Israel is a state party to numerous international human rights treaties and, as the occupying power, it has well defined obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of Palestinians.
However, as has been well documented for many years by the UN, Amnesty International and other NGOs, Israel’s settlement policy is one of the main driving forces behind the mass human rights violations resulting from the occupation. These include:
Violations of the right to life: Israeli soldiers, police and security guards have unlawfully killed and injured many Palestinian civilians in the OPT, including during protests against the confiscation of land and the construction of settlements. UN agencies and fact-finding missions have also expressed concern about violence perpetrated by a minority of Israeli settlers aimed at intimidating Palestinian populations.
Violations of the rights to liberty, security of the person and equal treatment before the law: Amnesty International has documented how Palestinians in the OPT are routinely subjected to arbitrary detention, including through administrative detention. Whereas settlers are subject to Israeli civil and criminal law, Palestinians are subject to a military court system which falls short of international standards for the fair conduct of trials and administration of justice.
Violations of the right to access an effective remedy for acts violating fundamental rights: Israel’s failure to adequately investigate and enforce the law for acts of violence against Palestinians, together with the multiple legal, financial and procedural barriers faced by Palestinians in accessing the court system, severely limit Palestinians’ ability to seek legal redress. The Israeli High Court of Justice has failed to rule on the legality of settlements, as it considered the settlements to be a political issue that that it is not competent to hear.
Violations of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly: Amnesty International has documented Israel’s use of military orders to prohibit peaceful protest and criminalize freedom of expression in the West Bank. Israeli forces have used tear gas, rubber bullets and occasionally live rounds to suppress peaceful protests.
Violations of the rights to equality and non-discrimination: Systematic discrimination against Palestinians is inherent in virtually all aspects of Israel’s administration of the OPT. Palestinians are also specifically targeted for a range of actions that constitute human rights violations. The Israeli government allows settlers to exploit land and natural resources that belong to Palestinians. Israel provides preferential treatment to Israeli businesses operating in the OPT while putting up barriers to, or simply blocking, Palestinian ones. Israeli citizens receive entitlements and Palestinians face restrictions on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity and religion, in contravention of international standards.
The Israeli authorities have created a discriminatory urban planning and zoning system. Within Area C, where most settlement construction is based, Israel has allocated 70% of the land to settlements and only 1% to Palestinians. In East Jerusalem, Israel has expropriated 35% of the city for the construction of settlements, while restricting Palestinians to construct on only 13% of the land. These figures clearly illustrate Israel’s use of regulatory measures to discriminate against Palestinian residents in Area C.
The UN has also pointed to discrimination against Palestinians in the way in which the criminal law is enforced. While prosecution rates for settler attacks against Palestinians are low, suggesting a lack of enforcement, most cases of violence against Israeli settlers are investigated and proceed to court.
Violations of the right to adequate housing: Since 1967, Israel has constructed tens of thousands of homes on Palestinian land to accommodate settlers while, at the same time, demolishing an estimated 50,000 Palestinian homes and other structures, such as farm buildings and water tanks. Israel also carries out demolitions as a form of collective punishment against the families of individuals accused of attacks on Israelis. In East Jerusalem, about 800 houses have been demolished since 2004 for lack of permits. Israel also confiscates houses inhabited by Palestinians in the city to allocate them to settlers. By forcibly evicting and/or demolishing their homes without providing adequate alternative accommodation, Israel has failed in its duty to respect the right to adequate housing of thousands of Palestinians.
Violations of the right to freedom of movement: Many restrictions on freedom of movement for Palestinian residents are directly linked to the settlements, including restrictions aimed at protecting the settlements and maintaining “buffer zones”. Restrictions include checkpoints, settler-only roads and physical impediments created by walls and gates.
Violations of the rights of the child: Every year, 500-700 Palestinian children from the occupied West Bank are prosecuted in Israeli juvenile military courts under Israeli military orders. They are often arrested in night raids and systematically ill-treated. Some of these children serve their sentences within Israel, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The UN has also documented that many children have been killed or injured in settler attacks.
Violations of the right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health: Restrictions on movement limit Palestinians’ access to health care. Specialists working with Palestinian populations have also documented a range of serious mental health conditions that stem from exposure to violence and abuse in the OPT.
Violations of the right to water: Most Palestinian communities in Area C are not connected to the water network and are prevented from repairing or constructing wells or water cisterns that hold rainwater. Water consumption in some Area C communities is reported by the UN to be 20% of the minimum recommended standard. Israel’s failure to ensure Palestinian residents have a sufficient supply of clean, safe water for drinking and other domestic uses constitutes a violation of its obligations to respect and fulfil the right to water.
Violations of the right to education: Palestinian students face numerous obstacles in accessing education, including forced displacement, demolitions, restrictions on movement and a shortage of school places. An independent fact-finding mission in 2012 noted an “upward trend” of cases of settler attacks on Palestinian schools and harassment of Palestinian children on their way to and from school. Such problems can result in children not attending school and in a deterioration in the quality of learning.
Violations of the right to earn a decent living through work: The expansion of settlements has reduced the amount of land available to Palestinians for herding and agriculture, increasing the dependency of rural communities on humanitarian assistance. Settler violence and the destruction of Palestinian-owned crops and olive trees have damaged the livelihoods of farmers. The UN has reported that in Hebron city centre, the Israeli military has forced 512 Palestinian businesses to close, while more than 1,000 others have shut down due to restricted access for customers and suppliers.
SUSTAINED INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION
Most states and international bodies have long recognized that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. The European Union (EU) has clearly stated that: “settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, constitutes an obstacle to peace and threatens to make a two-state solution impossible.”
The settlements have been condemned as illegal in many UN Security Council and other UN resolutions. As early as 1980, UN Security Council Resolution 465 called on Israel “to dismantle the existing settlements and, in particular, to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.” The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have reaffirmed that settlements violate international humanitarian law. The illegality of the settlements was recently reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2334, passed inDecember 2016, which reiterates the Security Council’s call on Israel to cease all settlement activities in the OPT. The serious human rights violations that stem from Israeli settlements have also been repeatedly raised and condemned by international bodies and experts.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal under International Law/Why?
I STAND WITH WILL SMITH!/A TRUE HUSBAND DEFENDS HIS WIFE WHY? Usually I don’t focus on Celebrity news, finding that world, although sometimesamusing,childish, brainless, superficial and hyper sensational, but this is a matterof principle!
WHAT HAPPENED HERE? On Oscars stage, actor, rapper and filmproducer Will Smith [1] slappedcomedian Chris Rock [2] in the face on stage after the comic made a joke aboutWill Smith’s wife Jada Pinkett. [3] When reading this, one will ask:Where is all the fuss about?Why Chris Rock should not make a joke about Will Smith’s wife?Is that a reason to act violently? That would be a reasonable question and when it were ”just a joke”I would consider the act of Will Smith unjustified and unreasonable too. But it was not ”just a joke”, neither was it the first time that Chris Rockwas provoking and insulting [these are my very words, yes] Will Smith’s wife: CHRIS ROCK’S SICK JOKES The socalled ”Joke” of Chris Rock, referring to Will Smith’s wife, was aboutJada’s appearance.Now that is not necessary a reason for any husband to go bananas [4], butwhere was Rock talking about?He referred to something very painful:at Jada’s closely shaven head. [5] Is that some of a problem, one of my readers will ask? YES, DEAR READERS, IT IS!AND WHY? Because Jada Pinkett has ALOPECIA, a n auto-immune disorder that causes hair loss! [6] BBC suggested, that perhaps Chris Rock didn’t know aboutthis illness of Jada Pinkett [7], but I can’t believe that, sinceJada Pinkett revealed the information about her sickness in 2018 [8] and if BBC knows, how in the earth the Afro American Chris Rock doesn’t? But that’s not all: BBC reveals, that Chris Rock didn’t mock and in sult Jada Pinkettfor the first time, but regularly: See note 9 ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! So there comes a time, that enough is enough!Not only Chris Rock mocked Jada Pinkett whileshe has a serious hair loss illness, which isfar below level, he also did this repeatedly. Therefore I can fully imagine, that Will Smith, who ismostly very correct, thought:Enough is enough.
THE PUNCH! So Will Smith punched Rock.Is that justified? Of course, I agree that there are other ways to handle this: He could have yelled during the Oscar Awards performance ofChris Rock:”Don’t insult my wife!”
But a human being is just a human being andhe choose not to.
I can understand that:What goes around, comes around. And remember readers, that being a comedian andmaking all sort of jokes on a stage, gives someonea position of Power at the cost of one in the audience,who is mocked by him or her and is usually not in a positionof advantage to react on that moment. In most cases that’s not such a big deal, because thesocalled ”jokes” are relatively innocent. And after all, there is freedom of opinion and comediansare supposed to say more than others, since it isentertainment and light humour. But humour has it’s limits and ends when peopleare really hurt on the ground of race, colour, religion,sexual orientation etc. And certainly when it refers to someones illness, THAT’S a line comedian must never cross andChris Rock did that, not one time, but regularly. [10] So I can understand, that Will Smith, furious of course,thought that this was the ultimatum way to makeit clear to this coward [because insulting peopleon their health issues IS an act of cowardice]that he went to far. EPILOGUE According to my opinion, a real husband defendshis wife and doesn’t allow another human being, especially aman, to hurt and insult his wife A punch may not be the best solution, but if ever, this so-called ”comedian” Chris Rock provoked it. And because I like men, who defend the people they love, I STAND WITH WILL SMITH!
ASTRID ESSED
And in honour of Will Smith, a major, impressive piecefrom my favourite Will Smith film:The pursuit of happyness ENJOY! YOUTUBE.COMTHE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS: CHRIS IS HIRED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_6vjb1cJkE NOTES NOTES 1 T/M 8
The recent verdict of the Israeli High Court, which states that the building of the Israeli Wall at the West Bank must be adjusted with 30 kilometers because of the violations of human rights is not only a partial fullfilling of the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population, but is also in contarily with International Law.
In the first place the motivation for the verdict is being based on the fact that because of the building of the Wall the inhabitants of the Beit Surik community had no entrance to their agricultural grounds and schools, but in the named verdict the Court doesn’t refer to the other Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank [85.000 people], who are likewise excluded from their agricultural grounds.
In the second place the Israeli building of the Wall is as such a violation of International Law, because it cuts deeply in the occupied Palestinian areas which is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 dd 1967 by which Israel was summoned to withdraw from the in the june-war occupied Palestinian areas.
Further the building of the Wall is being made possible by hugh Palestinian landownings which is yet apart from the flagrant injustice a violation of International Law [the 4th Geneva Convention] which forbids land and house-ownings of ”protected people” [people who are living under an occupation] It is therefore highly recommendable, that the Israeli High Court adjusts its vedict according to the principles of International Law.
Although I fully agree with holding a trial for leaders of the former Iraqi regime, it is a matter of justice that British and Americans also be put on trial for war crimes. In their air strikes, the United States and Britain used cluster bombs, which are internationally forbidden by the Treaty of Ottawa because of the big risk to civilians. According to international law, the use of weapons with an enlarged risk for civilians is a war crime. Several times Iraqi civilians were shot by American troops at checkpoints. The justification by military spokesmen, referring to a suicide attack by an Iraqi soldier in civilian clothes, made no sense, because shooting civilians is always a war crime, according to international law.
by Astrid Essed
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [From 2003/Astrid Essed]/Warcrimes in Iraq were widespread
Perhaps I’ll write more about the Ukrain Tragedy, but I don’t promise anything
Although it was to be expected, yet I was shocked by that pure act ofagression, the Russian attack on the sovereign State of Ukraine.I am certainly no supporter of president Putin [1], committer of serioushuman rights violations in Russia and still worse, in Chechnya [2]like his predecessors, but that being said:The ones that condemn Putin most for his unlawful attack, namely the USA and the EU, are birds of the same feather:What about the US led attack on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? [3]Was the attack on Iraq in contrary to International Law or not! [4]Were not those countries sovereign States, like Ukraine?Are warcrimes not committed on large scale in those US led wars? [5] Certainly I am NOT a supporter of Putin at all and I am a fervent opponentof the division of the world into international Power Blocs, as if the world werea sort of mighty Cake [Ukraine for the Ukrainian people!].
But seen from a geopolitical point of view [not mine], I do understand, thatPutin is furious about the disturbed Game of Power since the late eightiesof the 20th century, called ”Perestroika” [6] and the fall of the Sovjet Empire,from which Western Europe took advantage by practically incorporate the Eastern European countries by the EU, countries, that back in the days belonged to the Warsaw Pact, the great enemy of the US led Western European NATO [7]
Granted, membership of the EU [8] was the own will of the new European governments and their people and the former Russian occupation and oppression of Eastern Europe was not right at all, but here I am talking, not about Eastern European rights, but the INTENTION of Western Europe.And that was:To weaken what was left of the Russian Empire…..
And we’ve witnessed the desastrous consequences of a world, ruled byone Super Power, the USA.Look at the bloody wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc! [9]
EU, TWO FACED LIAR! And the EU is a two faced liar anyway!Now, when they can use it against Russia and for their own propaganda,they welcome Ukrainian refugees ‘[10] and don’t get me wrong:I am pleased with the saving of those war-refugees!But when desperate Syrian and Iraqi refugees [in both wars US and the EU took partand committed warcrimes] fled to Poland, via Belarus, EU member Polandbuilt a Wall and pushed the refugees back, letting them freeze and starvein the wintercold…….[11]
With the ”blessing” of the EU…….[12]
HELP ME, PLEASE I will never forget the sight of an old Ukrainian Lady,who seemed to have nobody to support here, bursting out in tearsand begging to the camera, begging to us:”HELP ME, PLEASE” That touched me deeply: I have no sympathy for and nothing to do with leaders of State, whether Russianor US/Western European and their deadly and sick game powers.NO, my sympathy lies with common Ukrainian people, who are thereal victims of the military adventures of powerseeking countriesand rulers:
”When Elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers”
JULIAN ASSANGE ARRESTED/ATTACK ON THE FREEDOM OF PRESS WIKILEAKS HOPE FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE POWER POLICY OF SUPERPOWER USA AND THEIR ALLIES
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS/ FIRST AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. – Wikipedia
In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win”
Rupert Murdoch
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell
This world is full of injustice. Julian Assange is in jail, while top American and allies war-criminals are free to go
Wise woman
What was feared by many adherents of whistleblower site Wikileaks has come to reality.
Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has been arrested by the British police, after he voluntarily surrendered [1]
O fficially this arrest was on behalf of the Swedish Justice, which had issued an European Arrest Warrant agianst him with charges of alleged rape and molestation of two Swedish women[2]
On request of the Swedish police Interpol also issued an International Arrest Warrant against him [3]
However it is clear, that this arrest is motivated by the political interests of the USA and their allies, considering the spectacular revealings of Wikileaks and the American political hysteria, from extreme right wing death treaths and hunting Assange down ”like a terrorist”, [4] till governmental plans to prosecute him [5]
Also State Secretary of Defense mr Gates called the arrest of Assange ”good news” [6]
Releasement on bail :
Initially it seemed, that Swedish Justice appealed against the decision of the UK Court [dd 14th december] to grant bail to Assange. [7]
Mr Stephens, solicitor of Assange, spoke of the ”continuing vendetta by the Swedes” [8]
Later however rumour spread, that the British prosecution had appealed However, Assange is released on bail now [9]
IN DEFENSE OF THE POWERLESS :
Wikileaks, which has been founded by Assange, is an international new media with a whistlerblower function, revealing otherwise unavailable documents and thus exposing injustice, committed by States, especially Superpower the USA and their allies [10]
As a new medium, Wikileaks has won several prices, as in 2009, Amnesty International’s UK Media Award [in the category ”New Media”] for the 2008 publication of “Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances” [11]
RELEASED DOCUMENTS
What has infuriated the US and allies are the released documents about US and alles warcrimes and scandals about secret diplomacy This happened in close cooperation with The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, which publicized them
And although Assange has been arrested, the releasements go on
An overview:
Video in US killings in Iraq:
”Exposing warcrimes is not a crime!” Bradley Manning Support Network
In April 2010, Wikileaks posted video from an American airstrike on Badghdad [2007] [12] in which Iraqi civilians and journalists were killed by US forces, including a Reuters journalist and his driver, on a website called Collateral Murder [13]
A courageous American soldier with a conscience, Sgt Bradley Manning, is supposed to have leaked it
He now possibly faces a trial and a yearlong prison sentence [14]
Afghan war-logs
In July the same year, Wikileaks released Afghan War Diary , a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan [15], not previously available for public review.
Iraq war-logs
In October, Wikileaks released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War [16] in coordination with major commercial media organisations [17]
As well as the Afghan as Iraq war-logs documents showed shocking details about American and allied warcrimes as torture practices
The moat horrifying however is the total American indifference for Afghan and Iraqi civilian lives
US Embassy Cables
In November, Wikileaks began releasing US State Department diplomatic cables [18]
Those are the most important revelations, internationally known
However, already in 2007 Wikileaks disclosed the ”Standard Operation Procedure for Camp Delta”, a guideline for the American military, how to handle prisoners in Guantanamo Bay [19]
Shocking details were the detention [by arrival] of prisoners in an isolation cell [in the Manual called ” the’Brhaviour Managment Plan”] ’to make them more ”cooperative” for interrigations
Placing in isolation was litterary meant to ”ENHANCE AND EXPLOIT THE DISORIENTATION AND DISORGANISATION BY A NEWLY ARRIVED DETAINEE” [20] In other words: Cruel and inhumane treatment
Lack of access to the Red Cross:
The manual also revealed, that some of the prisoners were denied access to the Red Cross
Also on arrival, the prisoners were denied basics and access to a Qu’ran [21]
CREDIBILITY: REACTIONS OF STATES AND HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Although it is impossible for the common civilian to control the hundred and thousands of document on their credibility, a clear confirmation is been showed in the website ”Collateral Murder, where the video proof of the US attack in Iraq, where 13 civiilians were killed, is clear [22] Besides, this Iraq document and thousands of others have been controlled by a team of journalists, who work with Wikileaks
Also the close cooperation with quality papers like the New York Times, Der Spiegel and The Guardian, which have their own investigative journalists, confirms the credibility
The Guardian has since then published all Wikileaks documents in her paper [23]
Credibility is also shown by the aggressive and hostile reactiions of several States, especially the USA, which seek to prosecute Assange on the ground of an old ”Espionage Act” , which is ridiculous, since a native Australian and not in American government service, he can’t be a ”spy”
This American use of the Espionage Act to silence critics is not new: Many critical intellectuals, journalists, film producers and pacifist religious figures were prosecuted. [24]
Human Rights Watch has emphasized her concern about the planned US prosecution in a letter to president Obama, that prosecitung Assange is a violation of the freedom of press and expression [25] But despite the furious reactions of governing States, no charge on the ground of defamatiion or slander [the socalled libel suit] has followed
THE ”RAPE” CASE
”There’s something rotten in the State of Denmark” Hamlet, Shakespeare
Let’s make this clear: Nobody is above the Law
When there is really substantial and hard evidence, that Assange should have raped this women, he should be prosecuted and, by enough proof, condemned after a fair trial
However, there are clear indications, that this whole case is politically motivated
That would not be the first or the last time:
Using rape and sexual contact as a political or personal means is as old as Mankind
In the Old Testimony the wife of Potiphar accused Joseph, son of Patriarch Jacob, than slave in Egypt, of rape, when he refused to be intimate with her [26]
Whistleblower Vanunu, who exposed Israel’s nuclear power, was trapped by a gallgirl and so was abducted by Israel, which led to a yearlong imprisonment [27]
From the very start, this real or alleged ”rape case” had some strange and clumsy aspects, which make the whole case look fishy
After two Swedish women, in press called ”Miss A” and ”Miss W” went to the police with accusations about rape and molestation, at 21 august Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange [28] Within hours, Stockholm’s chief prosecutor Eva Finne, reviewed the case and dropped the rape investigation, saying there was insufficient evidence to suggest rape [the charge on molestation, a far lesser crime, had been maintained] [29]
However, despite the dropping of the case, at 1 september, Swedish Justice reopened the rape case again [30] At least that sounds very strange
But there were more fishy elements on this case
Accompanied with the European Arrest Warrant, Interpol issued an International Arrest Warrant against Assange [30 november], which is highly out of proportion, seen the charges against him Then, on request of the British Serious and Organised Crime Agency, Sweden issued a new Arrest Warrant because of incorrectness of the earlier one [31]
Allegations of the women:
Without going into details, at least some of the allegations of the women were dubious
For example:”Miss A”
Despite her accusations ”Miss A” organised a party for the same man whe accused of rape and molestation
And moreover: Even after her alleged ”rape” or ”molestation” she let him stay in her appartment [32]
Timing
Not long after the revelations of Wikileaks Afghan war logs, the rape accusations of Miss A and W followed
What is a better moment for slander against Wikileaks and his founder, seen American hysterical reactions?
Assange himself commented on Twitter ”The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing.” [33]
Of course there is no proof for a political set-up, but overviewing the strang behaviour of Swedish Justice, the out of propiortion Interpol Arrest Warrant, the initially ”wrong” Swedish Arrest Warrant, the contradictional story of the women involved and the ”timing” of the charges, raise a serious doubt and show political intrigue.
OPERATION PAYBACK CYBERATTACKS ON LARGE CORPORATIONS, CUTTING OFF WIKILEAKS OF FINANCIAL MEANS
PAMPHLET OF ANONYMOUS
WE ARE ANONYMOUS. WE ARE LEGION
Several corporations now have been involved in the censoring of Wikileaks
The censoring of free speech and free information
The censoring of a free world
Amongst these corporatiions are MasterCard, VISA, PayPal, Amazon- some of the largest corporations in the world
We, the people, will make a stand, no matter how large these corporations are
We, the people, won’t budge for government pressure We, the people, won’t fall for bribery and corruption We, the people, won’t submit to this attempt by our so-called leaders to protect their own interests and power
We, the people, will fight back. We will not forgive. We will not forget Expect us
Apparently due to American political pressure, large corporations like Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, Amazon and the Swiss Bank cutt of the financial means of Wikileaks [34]
Later the Bank of America joined [35]
Due to this cutting off of financial means, Assange was obliged to sell the rights of his autobiography for his legal fight in Sweden and to keep the website afloat [36]
As a reaction, a group of hackers [socalled ”hacktivists”] of the Group ”Anonymous” systematically attacked and attacks large corporations like Mastercard, Visa, Paypal and Swiss Bank,to protect the right to free information [37]
Also the office of Mr Borgstrom, the laywer of the two women who accused Assange of socalled ”rape” has been under attack [38]
Dutch authorities arrested and later released a Dutch 16 year old, in connection with the Cyberattacks Also a Dutch man [19 year old] had been arrested [and later released] in connection with an attack on the Dutch public prosecution office, in connection with the arrest of the 16 year old [39]
Cyberattacks:
Attacks on the laywer of the two Swedish women are unacceptable, since any person has a right to a laywer, however controversial his or her case
However, although somewhat extreme, the Cyberattacks on the financial corporations which cut off Wikileaks, are legitimate resistance, since Mastercard and co are supporting American government policy against Wikileaks, violating freedom of press
In this respect and given the American hatred policy against Wikileaks, also attacks on American governmental organisations is legitimate.
Anonymous is an important weapon in the struggle for Wikileaks freedom of press
Also the Also UN Commissioner of Human Rights, mrs Pilay, has criticized websites, that have refused to host Wikileaks, as an attack on the freedom of expression of Wikileaks [40]
EPILOGUE
The arrest of Assange is directly connected with the American political interest to stop the revelations of Wikileaks at all costs
Therefore it is an attack on the freedom of press and the freedom of expression
Journalism feels that, by working together with Wikileaks and saving material, as The Guardian and other papers do
But there’s more at stake:
Whole Internetjournalism may be treathed
When Assange is to be extradited to Sweden and in the horrorscenario, that Sweden extradites him to the USA [41], after British consent [42], there is more to it than a probably unfair US trial
From that moment all critical Internetjournalists, who write unpleasant truths about the US and human rights violating allies, can be prosecuted, persecuted and intimidated
The freedom of press and speech, consolidated in the first Amendment of the American Constitution, will be a dead letter.
However, most bizarre point: Real or alleged American warcriminals are free to go, while the messengers are shooted at [42]
BUT US AND ALLIES, MAKE NO MISTAKE
Their dirty secrets will always be unmasked and Wikileaks, or a successor, will go on
To defend the victims of US power policy
Astrid Essed Amsterdam The Netherlands
NOTES
[1]
ARTICLE JULIAN ASSANGE THE AUSTRALIAN DON’T SHOOT THE MESSENGER FOR REVEALING UNCONFORTABLE TRUTHS 8 DECEMBER 2010
”At 9.15am last Tuesday a thin, white-haired figure left the Frontline Club, the west London establishment dedicated to preserving freedom of speech, and voluntarily surrendered to police.”
Source:
THE GUARDIAN WIKILEAKS BACKLASH: THE FIRST GLOBAL CYBER WAR HAS BEGUN 11 DECEMBER 2010
”Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, had earlier handed himself in to British police after Sweden had issued a European Arrest Warrant for him. Assange, who denies the allegations, will remain behind bars until a fresh hearing on December 14.”
Source:
REUTERS WIKILEAKS FOUNDER ASSANGE REFUSED BAIL BY UK COURT 7 DECEMBER 2010
” US At torney General Er ic Holder said officials were pursuing a “very serious criminal investigation” into the matter. Yet while Mr Assange has widely acknowledged his role in disseminating classified documents, legal experts say US criminal statutes and case law do not cleanly apply to his case. US espionage law has been used to prosecute US officials who provided secrets to foreign governments or foreign spies who pursued US secrets. But Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, former computer hacker and self-described journalist, did not work for the US government, has no known links to foreign governments, and operates on the internet, by all accounts far from US soil”
SOURCE:
BBC NEWS BARRIERS TO POSSIBLE US ASSANGE PROSECUTION 8 DECEMBER 2010
” US Attorn ey General Eric Holder said officials were pursuing a “very serious criminal investigation” into the matter. Yet while Mr Assange has widely acknowledged his role in disseminating classified documents, legal experts say US criminal statutes and case law do not cleanly apply to his case. US espionage law has been used to prosecute US officials who provided secrets to foreign governments or foreign spies who pursued US secrets. But Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, former computer hacker and self-described journalist, did not work for the US government, has no known links to foreign governments, and operates on the internet, by all accounts far from US soil”
SOURCE:
BBC NEWS BARRIERS TO POSSIBLE US ASSANGE PROSECUTION 8 DECEMBER 2010
” There is a Sweden-US extradition treaty, signed in 1961, which provides a legal foundation for extraditions between the countries. But there is still discretion for Sweden to refuse extraditions for “political offences” or where the suspect has reason to fear persecution on account of their membership of a social group or political beliefs. The treaty also specifies the offences which qualify for extradition, and espionage is not one of them. If the treaty doesn’t apply, there would still be scope for the country to agree to his extradition to the US – Swedish law permits extradition more generally to countries outside Europe, but this could only take place after the current rape proceedings were concluded.”
SOURCE:
THE GUARDIAN JULIAN ASSANGE’S EXTRADITION WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? 8 DECEMBER 2010
” 4.1 8pm: Speaking outside the court, Ken Loach said it was “good news” that Assange had been granted bail.
Clearly, if the Swedish government opposes bail it will show there is some vindictiveness beyond this case. It will show there is some political element that goes beyond the case.”
Source:
THE GUARDIAN JULIAN ASSANGE GRANTED BAIL/LIVE UPDATES 14TH DECEMBER 2010
”WikiLeaks has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award.[10] In June 2009, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International’s UK Media Award (in the category “New Media”) for the 2008 publication of “Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances”,[11] a report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.[12] ”
”David Schlesinger, Reuters editor in chief, said Tuesday that the video was disturbing to watch “but also important to watch.” He said he hoped to meet with the Pentagon “to press the need to learn lessons from this tragedy.”
Source:
THE NEW YORK TIMES AIRSTRIKE VIDEO BRINGS NOTICE TO A WEBSITE 6TH APRIL 2010
”David Schlesinger, Reuters editor in chief, said Tuesday that the video was disturbing to watch “but also important to watch.” He said he hoped to meet with the Pentagon “to press the need to learn lessons from this tragedy.”
Source:
THE NEW YORK TIMES AIRSTRIKE VIDEO BRINGS NOTICE TO A WEBSITE 6TH APRIL 2010
” US Attorn ey General Eric Holder said officials were pursuing a “very serious criminal investigation” into the matter. Yet while Mr Assange has widely acknowledged his role in disseminating classified documents, legal experts say US criminal statutes and case law do not cleanly apply to his case. US espionage law has been used to prosecute US officials who provided secrets to foreign governments or foreign spies who pursued US secrets. But Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, former computer hacker and self-described journalist, did not work for the US government, has no known links to foreign governments, and operates on the internet, by all accounts far from US soil”
SOURCE:
BBC NEWS BARRIERS TO POSSIBLE US ASSANGE PROSECUTION 8 DECEMBER 2010
””The fact that one prosecutor dismissed the charges against Assange and another picked them up afterwards, makes the case look fishy. The prosecuting authorities should have acted more expeditiously and speedily.”
Source:
THE GUARDIAN JULIAN ASSANGE FURORE DEEPENS AS NEW DETAILS EMERGE OF SEX CRIME ALLEGATIONS 18 DECEMBER 2010
”Assange’s supporters point out that, despite her complaints against him, Miss A held a party for him on that evening and continued to allow him to stay in her flat.
Source:
THE GUARDIAN 10 DAYS IN SWEDEN: THE FULL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE 17 DECEMBER 2010
MAIL ONLINE SUPPORTERS DISMISSED RAPE ACCUSATION AGAINST WIKILEAKS FOUNDER JULIAN ASSANGE…BUT THE TWO WOMEN INVOLVED TELL A DIFFERENT STORY 29 AUGUST 2010
TOCAF Director and ManagementSubject: Your continuing involvement with the illegal Israeli settlements
Dear Director,Dear Management,
As you’ll probably know:This is not the first time I wrote to you to give you hell about your despicablerole concerning the illegal Israeli settlements:See below, under notes!And since you obviously felt any shame and are still involved in thosecriminal practices of your company, serving Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. [1], I’ll target you again and I’m sure that I am NOTthe only one!Must I-again- remind you of the fact, that, as I stated above, the Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory [you serve the settlements inoccupied East Jerusalem!] are illegal according International Law? [2]Therefore, by serving those illegal settlements, you are not only complicit in stealing occupied Palestinian land, worse still:You are serving and maintaining the illegal Israeli occupation, thus defending and maintaining a criminal regime of opression and apartheid! [3]And by maintaining a regime of apartheid, you are complicit incrimes against humanity. [4]All the water in the world can’t wash the blood on your hands [5] by doing thus! ISRAELI TERROR IN EASTERN JERUSALEM’ Of course you are aware of the Israeli terror in Eastern Jerusalem:The house evictions of Palestinians in favour of the illegal settlementsyou facilitate , the storming of the Al Aqsa Mosque the excessive policeviolence against the Palestinian population [6]Especially neigbourhood Sheikh Jarrah is victim of Israeli etniccleansing operations and The Jerusalem Light Rail, hosted andfacilitated by your company, passes through Sheikh Jarrah, facilitating thug settlers and the Israeli occupation! [7]Have you no shame.Is your money deserving obsession that big, that you are willing to be complicit in warcrimes and crimes against humanity?For make no mistake:The crimes that Israel commits in occupied Gaza [8] are also yourco responsibility, since you facilitate the Israeli occupationregime! CONCLUSION I have said and written enoughAnd what says more:I’ve written the things you already knew, but ignored.So Directors and Management of CAF, again:You are complicit in warcrimes and crimes against humanity,as long as you facilitate the illegal settlements and the Israelioccupation regime of apartheid!So STOP IT! Withdraw your interests in the occupied territories as quick as the Light!Stop your criminal Work AND:I call on your shareholders [see cc] to stop you and pressure you todo the only right thing: To wash the blood of your hands and don’t support the Dark Powers that Be, which is this Regime of Occupation and Apartheid DIXI [Latin for: I have spoken] [9] Kind greetings Astrid EssedAmsterdam NOTES SEE ALSO THE LINK TO THE NOTES https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-t-1-m-9-at-letter-to-caf-about-involvement-in-the-illegal-israeli-settlements/
JERUSALEM Transportation Masterplan Team (JTMT) has awarded the TransJerusalem J-Net consortium, comprised of CAF and the construction firm Shapir, a €1.8bn contract to undertake an extension to the Jerusalem light rail network.
The Private-Public Partnership (PPP) includes the construction of 27km of new track, 53 new stations and various depots covering a 6.8km extension to the Red Line, and the new 20.6km Green Line. The Red Line is currently 13.8km long with 23 stations, and carries around 145,000 passengers daily.
The consortium will also design and supply 114 new Urbos LRVs for the Green Line, and the refurbishment of the 46 vehicles currently in service on the Red Line.
The contract includes the signalling, energy and communication systems, as well as the operation and maintenance of both lines for 15 and 25 years respectively, with the possibility of extending the term of operation.
CAF’s share of the contract is worth more than €500m, and includes the vehicle’s supply and refurbishment, signalling, energy and communication systems and project integration. CAF will also have a 50% stake in the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company that will manage the operation and maintenance of both lines, which is expected to have a €1bn turnover.
Construction is expected begin later this year with the new extensions fully operational by 2025.
Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland) also submitted bids for the contract.
END OF THE ARTICLE
]URBAN TRANSPORT MAGAZINECAF-SAPHIR CONSORTIUM WINS JERUSALEM GREEN LINELIGHT RAIL TENDER
The transport authority JTMT (Jerusalem Transportation Masterplan Team) has chosen the TransJerusalem J-Net Ltd consortium, consisting in the CAF Group and the construction firm Saphir, for the Jerusalem light rail project. The project value is 1.8 billion EUR.
The so-called Green line is a PPP (Private-Public Partnership) scheme and includes the construction of 20.6 kilometres of new track, 53 stations and a depot. Jerusalem opened its’ first light rail line, the red line in 2011. The new Green line uses the current Red Line on a stretch of 6.8 km. The contract also includes the design and supply of 114 low-floor Urbos trams (which will be operated as double-tractions) for the new Green Line and the refurbishment of the 46 units which are currently in service on the existing Red Line.
114 Urbos trams and 25 years of operation
The project scope of the consortium will also include the supply of the signalling, energy and communication systems, as well as the operation and maintenance of both lines for 15 and 25 years respectively, with the possibility of extending the term of operation. The CAF Group’s scope of this project exceeds 500 million EUR. The Group will also have a 50% stake in the company that will manage the operation and maintenance of both lines. The project is expected to be implemented this year with the new network fully operative by 2025.
The future network
The tram’s Red Line currently extends along 13.8 km with 23 stations distributed on the route, was inaugurated in 2011 and providing transport to over 145,000 passengers on average per day. The Green lines is expected to have a ridership of 200,000 passengers per day. It will link the two campuses of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and continue south via Pat junction to Gilo while using a common section with the Red line in the city centre until the terminus of the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem railway station which was inaugurated in 2018.
Of the eight entities that participated in the preliminary stages, only two consortiums submitted bids in the final stage. The other consortium consisted in the companies Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland). Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier are reported to have left the tender process at an earlier stage. The companies did not officially withdraw from the process due to political reasons. Nevertheless, the light rail development in Jerusalem has been criticized in the past as both lines run through the disputed area of East Jerusalem.
END OF THE ARTICLE
CAF
GET OFF ISRAEL APARTHEIDTRAIN
https://bdsmovement.net/boycott-caf
WHY?
Israel is only able to maintain its regime of occupation, colonisation and apartheid over the Palestinian people because of international complicity. Corporations play a key role in this.
The Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR) project is so blatantly illegal that other multinationals which had participated in the initial stages of bidding for the project, including Alstom, Siemens, Systra, Bombardier and Macquarie withdrew from the call for tenders, leaving just two consortiums bidding.
The French company Veolia was forced to pull out of the same illegal Israeli JLR project in 2015 after losing billions of dollars in international tenders due to sustained BDS campaigning in Europe, the US and several Arab countries.
The Israeli business publication Globes claimed, expectedly, that the other firms did not “officially withdraw from the process for political reasons” but admitted that “for most of the international transportation and infrastructure companies, Jerusalem is ‘outside the pale.’”
Corporate involvement in the crimes of Israel’s regime of occupation and apartheid is not only morally reprehensible and a legal liability. It can hurt business, too.
MILESTONES
2020
October:
In the Spanish state over 100 people have asked the public train company RENFE not to contract CAF, due to its involvement in the illegal Israeli Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR), in partnership with the Israeli company Shapir that is in the UN database of companies that enable and profit from Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise.
Eighteen human rights groups have asked the Spanish Minister of transport José Luis Abalos to exclude from public tenders CAF and all companies listed in the UN database, such as Alstom. Over thirty organisations in solidarity with Palestine sent a letter to Reyes Maroto the Spanish Minister of Industry and the publicly owned company RENFE. This letter was sent because the Minister had offered more public contracts to CAF in light of the company’s announcement of its plans to shut down one of its factories, Trenasa, causing 118 people to lose their jobs. This decision is incomprehensible seeing that the company ended 2019 with its highest record of earnings and its best record in sales. This and the fact that CAF is involved in an illegal Israeli project that serves settlements, which will expose the company to boycott campaigns globally, are clear evidence that CAF cares very little about its workers’ rights and about human rights in general.
In Oslo, Norway, the Palestine Committee and two railway unions received new trams from the Basque firm CAF with a protest. They’re asking Norway’s public sector not to work with CAF until it stops building Israel’s illegal Jerusalem Light Rail, entrenching apartheid.
Eight trade unions in Norway have joined the call to boycott CAF: Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees (National), Norwegian Union of Railway workers (National), National Union of Norwegian Locomotivemen (National), Fagforbundet- Helse, Sosial og Velferd, Oslo (Local), Norwegian Civil Service Union at OsloMet (Local), Lokomotivpersonalets forening Oslo (Local), Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions, local 850 (Local), and Oslo Sporveiers Arbeiderforening (Local).
CAF and Shapir are close to signing one of the largest project financing agreements ever agreed in Israel for the construction and operation of a network of lines in the illegal Jerusalem Light Rail project. The financing will be extended by a consortium of banks led by Bank Hapoalim, which like Shapir is included in the UN database of companies profiting from business in Israel’s illegal settlements.
END OF THE ARTICLE
” The Jerusalem light rail connects large Israeli settlement blocs in occupied East Jerusalem with the western part of the city, expropriating occupied Palestinian land and promoting increased territorial contiguity for settlements alongside growing territorial fragmentation for East Jerusalem’s Palestinian neighborhoods.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHO PROFITS.ORGFLASH REPORTTRACKING ANNEXATION:THE JERUSALEM LIGHT RAIL AND THE ISRAELIOCCUPATION
”Development of the light rail line is bringing prosperity and growth to the city’s real estate and business sectors, an upsurge in cultural and entertainment centers, and accessibility to the downtown area for residents of large neighborhoods, such as Pigat Ze’ev.”
”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.”
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. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
”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.
[QUESTION] 6 HOW CAN YOU ACCUSE ISRAEL OF APARTHEID WHEN ISRAELIVOTE IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS, HAVE PASSPORTS, MOVE FREELY,AND SERVE IN THE KNESSET? HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHQ & A: A TRESHOLD CROSSEDISRAELI AUTHORITIES AND THE CRIME OF APARTHEIDAND PERSECUTION
”We found the three elements of the crime of apartheid all come together in the OPT, pursuant to a single Israeli government policy. That policy is to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. In the OPT, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression and inhumane acts committed against Palestinians living there.”
[QUESTION] 7ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS APARTHEIDWITHIN THE GREEN LINE , THE INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS OFTHE STATE OF ISRAEL?OR ONLY IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA? HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHQ & A: A TRESHOLD CROSSEDISRAELI AUTHORITIES AND THE CRIME OF APARTHEIDAND PERSECUTION
”The 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” examines Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It presents the present-day reality of a single authority, the Israeli government, ruling primarily over the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, populated by two groups of roughly equal size, and methodologically privileging Jewish Israelis while repressing Palestinians, most severely in the occupied territory.”
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHABUSIVE ISRAELI POLICIES CONSTITUTE CRIMES OFAPARTHEID, PERSECUTIONCRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY SHOULD TRIGGER ACTION TO END REPRESSION AGAINST PALESTINIANS
(Jerusalem) – Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The finding is based on an overarching Israeli government policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians and grave abuses committed against Palestinians living in the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem.
The 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” examines Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It presents the present-day reality of a single authority, the Israeli government, ruling primarily over the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, populated by two groups of roughly equal size, and methodologically privileging Jewish Israelis while repressing Palestinians, most severely in the occupied territory.April 27, 2021
Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution
“Prominent voices have warned for years that apartheid lurks just around the corner if the trajectory of Israel’s rule over Palestinians does not change,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “This detailed study shows that Israeli authorities have already turned that corner and today are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”
The finding of apartheid and persecution does not change the legal status of the occupied territory, made up of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, or the factual reality of occupation.
Originally coined in relation to South Africa, apartheid today is a universal legal term. The prohibition against particularly severe institutional discrimination and oppression or apartheid constitutes a core principle of international law. The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court (ICC) define apartheid as a crime against humanity consisting of three primary elements:
An intent to maintain domination by one racial group over another.
A context of systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group.
Inhumane acts.
The reference to a racial group is understood today to address not only treatment on the basis of genetic traits but also treatment on the basis of descent and national or ethnic origin, as defined in the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Human Rights Watch applies this broader understanding of race.
The crime against humanity of persecution, as defined under the Rome Statute and customary international law, consists of severe deprivation of fundamental rights of a racial, ethnic, or other group with discriminatory intent.
Human Rights Watch 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.
Drawing on years of human rights documentation, case studies, and a review of government planning documents, statements by officials, and other sources, Human Rights Watch compared policies and practices toward Palestinians in the occupied territory and Israel with those concerning Jewish Israelis living in the same areas. Human Rights Watch wrote to the Israeli government in July 2020, soliciting its perspectives on these issues, but has received no response.
Across Israel and the occupied territory, Israeli authorities have sought to maximize the land available for Jewish communities and to concentrate most Palestinians in dense population centers. The authorities have adopted policies to mitigate what they have openly described as a “demographic threat” from Palestinians. In Jerusalem, for example, the government’s plan for the municipality, including both the west and occupied east parts of the city, sets the goal of “maintaining a solid Jewish majority in the city” and even specifies the demographic ratios it hopes to maintain.
To maintain domination, Israeli authorities systematically discriminate against Palestinians. The institutional discrimination that Palestinian citizens of Israel face includes laws that allow hundreds of small Jewish towns to effectively exclude Palestinians and budgets that allocate only a fraction of resources to Palestinian schools as compared to those that serve Jewish Israeli children. In the occupied territory, the severity of the repression, including the imposition of draconian military rule on Palestinians while affording Jewish Israelis living in a segregated manner in the same territory their full rights under Israel’s rights-respecting civil law, amounts to the systematic oppression required for apartheid.
Israeli authorities have committed a range of abuses against Palestinians. Many of those in the occupied territory constitute severe abuses of fundamental rights and the inhumane acts again required for apartheid, including: sweeping movement restrictions in the form of the Gaza closure and a permit regime, confiscation of more than a third of the land in the West Bank, harsh conditions in parts of the West Bank that led to the forcible transfer of thousands of Palestinians out of their homes, denial of residency rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and their relatives, and the suspension of basic civil rights to millions of Palestinians.
Many of the abuses at the core of the commission of these crimes, such as near-categorical denial of building permits to Palestinians and demolition of thousands of homes on the pretext of lacking permits, have no security justification. Others, such as Israel’s effective freeze on the population registry it manages in the occupied territory, which all but blocks family reunification for Palestinians living there and bars Gaza residents from living in the West Bank, use security as a pretext to further demographic goals. Even when security forms part of the motivation, it no more justifies apartheid and persecution than it would excessive force or torture, Human Rights Watch said.
“Denying millions of Palestinians their fundamental rights, without any legitimate security justification and solely because they are Palestinian and not Jewish, is not simply a matter of an abusive occupation,” Roth said. “These policies, which grant Jewish Israelis the same rights and privileges wherever they live and discriminate against Palestinians to varying degrees wherever they live, reflect a policy to privilege one people at the expense of another.”
Statements and actions by Israeli authorities in recent years, including the passage of a law with constitutional status in 2018 establishing Israel as the “nation-state of the Jewish people,” the growing body of laws that further privilege Israeli settlers in the West Bank and do not apply to Palestinians living in the same territory, as well as the massive expansion in recent years of settlements and accompanying infrastructure connecting settlements to Israel, have clarified their intent to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis. The possibility that a future Israeli leader might someday forge a deal with Palestinians that dismantles the discriminatory system does not negate that reality today.
Israeli authorities should dismantle all forms of repression and discrimination that privilege Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians, including with regards to freedom of movement, allocation of land and resources, access to water, electricity, and other services, and the granting of building permits.
The ICC Office of the Prosecutor should investigate and prosecute those credibly implicated in the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. Countries should do so as well in accordance with their national laws under the principle of universal jurisdiction, and impose individual sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, on officials responsible for committing these crimes.
The findings of crimes against humanity should prompt the international community to reevaluate the nature of its engagement in Israel and Palestine and adopt an approach centered on human rights and accountability rather than solely on the stalled “peace process.” Countries should establish a UN commission of inquiry to investigate systematic discrimination and repression in Israel and Palestine and a UN global envoy for the crimes of persecution and apartheid with a mandate to mobilize international action to end persecution and apartheid worldwide.
Countries should condition arms sales and military and security assistance to Israel on Israeli authorities taking concrete and verifiable steps toward ending their commission of these crimes. Countries should vet agreements, cooperation schemes, and all forms of trade and dealing with Israel to screen for those directly contributing to committing the crimes, mitigate the human rights impacts and, where not possible, end activities and funding found to facilitate these serious crimes.
“While much of the world treats Israel’s half-century occupation as a temporary situation that a decades-long ‘peace process’ will soon cure, the oppression of Palestinians there has reached a threshold and a permanence that meets the definitions of the crimes of apartheid and persecution,” Roth said. “Those who strive for Israeli-Palestinian peace, whether a one or two-state solution or a confederation, should in the meantime recognize this reality for what it is and bring to bear the sorts of human rights tools needed to end it.”
”Israel has maintained military rule over some portion of the Palestinian population for all but six months of its 73-year history. It did so over the vast majority of Palestinians inside Israel from 1948 and until 1966. From 1967 until the present, it has militarily ruled over Palestinians in the OPT, excluding East Jerusalem. By contrast, it has since its founding governed all Jewish Israelis, including settlers in the OPT since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, under its more rights-respecting civil law.”
REPORT HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHA TRESHOLD CROSSEDISRAELI AUTHORITIES AND THE CRIME OF APARTHEID AND PERSECUTION
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
Here’s the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh! MAC BETH ACT V, SCENE I http://shakespeare.mit.edu/macbeth/full.html
Forcible takeovers of homes, brutal suppression of demonstrators, places of worship under assault, identity-based communal violence, indiscriminate rocket attacks, children killed in strikes: what to make of the dizzying headlines out of Israel and Palestine in recent days?
Without doubt, the recent events in Gaza and Jerusalem have given rise to grave abuses. We are investigating and will take some time as we gather the facts. There are, though, some preliminary takeaways based on what we do know.
The escalation began over the move to take over several Palestinian homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed but is occupied territory under international law. Israel planned to evict the Palestinian residents and transfer their longtime homes to Jewish settlers. Israeli courts allowed these moves under a 1970 Israeli law that facilitates the return of property to Jewish owners or their heirs, including Jewish associations acting on their behalf, that they claim to have owned in East Jerusalem prior to 1948, when Jordanian authorities assumed control until 1967.
The Palestinian families involved had earlier been displaced from inside what is today Israel. They are barred by law from reclaiming their land and homes, which the Israeli authorities confiscated, along with land belonging to many other displaced Palestinians, as “absentee property” in the aftermath of the events around the establishment of the state of Israel between 1947 and 1949. A final court ruling on the matter is expected soon.
This discriminatory treatment, with the exact opposite legal outcomes for claims of pre-1948 title to property based on whether the claimant is a Jewish Israeli or a Palestinian, underscores the reality of apartheid that Palestinians in East Jerusalem face. Nearly all Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem hold a conditional, revocable residency status, while Jewish Israelis in the same area are citizens with secure status. Palestinians live in densely populated enclaves that receive a fraction of the resources given to settlements and effectively cannot obtain building permits, while neighboring Israeli settlements built on expropriated Palestinian land flourish.
Israeli officials have intentionally created this discriminatory system under which Jewish Israelis thrive at the expense of Palestinians. The government’s plan for the Jerusalem municipality, including both the west and occupied east parts of the city, sets the goal of “maintaining a solid Jewish majority in the city” and even specifies the demographic ratios it hopes to maintain. This intent to dominate underlies Israel’s crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution, which Human Rights Watch documented in a recent report.
To protest the planned Sheikh Jarrah evictions, Palestinians held demonstrations around East Jerusalem, some of which included incidents of rock-throwing. Israeli forces responded by firing teargas, stun grenades, and rubber-coated steel bullets, including inside al-Aqsa Mosque, injuring 1000 Palestinians, 735 by rubber bullets, between May 7 and May 10, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). At least 32 Israeli officers have also been injured, according to figures cited by OCHA.
These practices stem from a decades-long pattern of Israeli authorities using excessive and vastly disproportionate force to quell protests and disturbances by Palestinians, often resulting in serious injury and loss of life.
Protests later broke out both in the West Bank and inside Israel.
Seeking to take advantage of the opportunity to brandish their image as defenders of al-Aqsa Mosque, Hamas and Palestinian armed groups in Gaza fired rockets at Israeli population centers. Three people in Israel have been killed as a result, as of May 11. Such attacks, which are inherently indiscriminate and endanger the lives, homes, and properties of tens of thousands of Israeli civilians, are war crimes, as Human Rights Watch has extensivelydocumented over the years.
In response, Israeli forces launched airstrikes in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Health Ministry reported on May 11 that these strikes killed 30 Palestinians, including 10 children, though there are reports that some may have been killed in errant rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups. The legality of each strike requires thorough investigations, but the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in the densely populated Gaza Strip, where more than 2 million Palestinians live in a strip of territory that is 41 kilometers long and between 6 and 12 kilometers wide, and targeting at times of residential buildings is likely to harm civilians.
During armed hostilities over the last decade plus, Human Rights Watch has documented the regular use of excessive and vastly disproportionate force by Israeli authorities, at times deliberately targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure.
For years, this cycle of escalation has played on loop, at varying degrees of intensity. Even if the immediate crisis subsides, the vicious cycle will continue so long as impunity for serious abuses remains the norm and the international community fails to take the sort of measures to ensure accountability that a situation of this gravity warrants.
END OF THE ARTICLE
[7]
6. Basque company CAF is contracted to extend Israel’s Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR) tram service to illegal settlements. Settlements are defined as war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The JLR passes through Sheikh Jarrah where illegal settlers backed by the Israeli state, their military, and police forces, are attempting to ethnically cleanse Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah.
Use social media to demand #CAFGetOffIsraelsApartheidTrain
EAST JERUSALEM: WHAT IS HAPPENING AND HOW YOU CAN TAKE ACTION NOW
Watching apartheid Israel’s bloody crushing of popular Palestinian protests in Sheikh Jarrah and occupied Jerusalme calls us to action. We have proven before our collective power in the form of #BDS. Here are 9 actions you can take to fight Israeli impunity and #SaveSheikhJarrah.
Over the last number of weeks Palestinian protests to #SaveSheikhJarrah, in occupied East Jerusalem, have grown in size. They have been met with brutal repression by Israeli apartheid security forces, including police officers trained in Israel’s police training academy partially owned by G4S and Allied Universal.
Indigenous Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah have fought lengthy legal battles in Israeli courts against eviction orders which would see them ethnically cleansed, forcefully evicted from their homes, and replaced with illegal Israeli settlers.
At the beginning of May, Israeli settlers submitted their response to the rightful claims of the residents of Sheikh Jarrah to the Israeli court, an apparatus of Israel’s apartheid regime.
The Palestinian families were then given time to reach an “agreement” with the settlers regarding the right to their homes. Sheikh Jarrah belongs to the Palestinian families. It is part of the occupied Palestinian territory, and therefore any Israeli settler presence in it amounts to a war crime under international law. Israel’s settlement enterprise is an integral part of its apartheid system against all Palestinians.
The Israeli court decision to give a period of time to “both sides” to seek a compromise and reach an agreement is colonial gaslighting. It is also a tactic used to exhaust the ongoing protests and public pressure to #SaveSheikhJarrah. More protests are scheduled to take place over the coming days, and residents vow to remain steadfast.
In Silwan, another East Jerusalem neighbourhood, extremist settlers backed by the Israeli state want to take over the homes of seven Palestinian families who are also fighting lengthy legal battles in Israeli courts.
In occupied Jerusalem, Israel keeps a 60:40 demographic ratio between Jews and Arabs. All ‘excess’ Palestinians are under threat of forced transfer.
In Jerusalem, the government’s plan for the municipality, including both the west and occupied east of the city, sets the goal of “maintaining a solid Jewish majority in the city” and a target demographic “ratio of 70% Jews and 30% Arabs”—later adjusted to a 60:40 ratio after authorities acknowledged that “this goal is not attainable” in light of “the demographic trend.”
Watching from afar Israel’s brutal violence against unarmed Palestinian protestors defending their homes and dignity can evoke feelings of anger mixed with powerlessness. We have proven before that collective action in the form of #BDS works best to express true and effective solidarity. Here are 9 actions you can take to fight Israeli impunity and #SaveSheikhJarrah
TAKE ACTION
First, use the power of social media to highlight what is happening. Use #SaveSheikhJarrah and #SaveSilwan in all of your social media posts. Share images and videos from activists who are facing social media censorship. Amplify the voices of the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan.
Last week Human Rights Watch stated in their groundbreaking report what Palestinians have been saying for decades. Israel is an apartheid state. Now the global consensus is building. Israel’s regime of oppression, including its actions in Sheikh Jarrah, fits the UN definition of apartheid. We can work together to dismantle Israeli apartheid, as global solidarity and boycotts helped to end South African apartheid.Support our campaign and use #UNInvestigateApartheid on social media to add your voice to the global call.
Israeli security companies make millions of dollars in global exports every year by selling goods and services tested on Indigenous Palestinians, including those struggling against ethnic cleansing in occupied Jerusalem. AnyVision’s facial recognition system and NSO’s spying technology are among the most obvious examples of apartheid Israel’s tools of mass surveillance and repression. Israel tries them on Palestinians and exports them to dictatorships and far-right governments worldwide to support their crimes and human rights violations.Pressure your parliament/government to impose a #MilitaryEmbargo against Israel.
G4S and now Allied Universal own a 25% stake in Israel’s national police academy where Israeli police learn brutal & violent repression being used against residents and activists in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan. Some of these militarized tactics end up being shared with U.S. and other police forces during joint training.Join our letter-writing campaign and urge Allied Universal executives to divest from Israeli apartheid.On social media use #StopG4S to demand they divest from Israeli apartheid.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Hewlett Packard (HPE and HP) play key roles in Israel’s regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid against the Indigenous Palestinians. They provide computer systems to the Israeli army and maintain data centres through their servers for the Israeli police who are violently repressing peaceful protestors defending their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan.Sign the international pledge and use #BoycottHP on social media.
Basque company CAF is contracted to extend Israel’s Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR) tram service to illegal settlements. Settlements are defined as war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The JLR passes through Sheikh Jarrah where illegal settlers backed by the Israeli state, their military, and police forces, are attempting to ethnically cleanse Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah.Use social media to demand #CAFGetOffIsraelsApartheidTrain
German sportswear manufacturer PUMA sponsors the Israel Football Association, which includes teams and pitches in illegal Israeli settlements, including Givat HaMivtar, just north of Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem. Join the campaign launched by 200 Palestinian teams to #BoycottPuma.Share social media actions hijacking PUMA’s #OnlySeeGreat campaign with Palestinians #OnlySeeApartheid.
Boycott all products from Israel’s colonial settlements! Israeli produce like dates and avocados, many of which are produced by companies operating in settlements, can be found in local supermarkets. Demand your supermarket to stop stocking them.
International action can help stop Israel in its tracks. Email or call the elected officials in your country and urge them to adopt Human Rights Watch findings on Israeli apartheid and, crucially, its recommendations to condition all relations with Israel on dismantling its apartheid regime.
This Saturday June 5 is the annual shareholder meeting of CAF, a Basque company that is building the Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR), a tram line serving Israel’s illegal settlements in Jerusalem.
The JLR passes through occupied Jerusalem including the Palestinian neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, which Israel wants to ethnically cleanse.
We need your help to pressure CAF shareholders: CAF must end its complicity with Israel’s violent occupation of Jerusalem.
Four Palestinian families are facing eviction from their Jerusalem homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. Over the past few weeks, Israeli settlers, with the backing of lsrael’s military and police forces, have violently attacked Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah and the rest of occupied Jerusalem.
This last wave of attacks is not new and is a core part of Israel’s systemic ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Jerusalem- which is illegal under international law.
Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah are resilient and defiant, and despite Israel’s brutal attacks, they will not give up their rights to their homes.
You can stand with them by pressuring CAF to abandon the project to build Israel’s colonial tramway.
Pressure works, and there is a precedent. Two weeks ago, the Norwegian Oil Fund divested from CAF’s partner in the Jerusalem Light Rail, the Israeli company Shapir, due to its complicity in human rights violations. The Norwegian Oil Fund is also a shareholder of CAF.
On Saturday, CAF shareholders have a choice to make: take the company out of Sheikh Jarrah, and occupied Jerusalem, or face losing lucrative contracts around the world through BDS action.
END OF ARTICLE
[8]
”Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Israeli Government Still Holds Responsibility for Welfare of Civilians
The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.
Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Under the plan, Israel is scheduled to remove settlers and military bases protecting the settlers from the Gaza Strip and four isolated West Bank Jewish settlements by the end of 2005. The Israeli military will remain deployed on Gaza’s southern border, and will reposition its forces to other areas just outside the territory.
In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, Israel will continue to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory. Gaza will also continue to use Israeli currency.
A World Bank study on the economic effects of the plan determined that “disengagement” would ease restrictions on mobility inside Gaza. But the study also warned that the removal of troops and settlers would have little positive effect unless accompanied by an opening of Gaza’s borders. If the borders are sealed to labor and trade, the plan “would create worse hardship than is seen today.”
The plan also explicitly envisions continued home demolitions by the Israeli military to expand the “buffer zone” along the Gaza-Egypt border. According to a report released last week by Human Rights Watch, the Israeli military has illegally razed nearly 1,600 homes since 2000 to create this buffer zone, displacing some 16,000 Palestinians. Israeli officials have called for the buffer zone to be doubled, which would result in the destruction of one-third of the Rafah refugee camp.
In addition, the plan states that disengagement “will serve to dispel the claims regarding Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” A report by legal experts from the Israeli Justice Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the military made public on Sunday, however, reportedly acknowledges that disengagement “does not necessarily exempt Israel from responsibility in the evacuated territories.”
If Israel removes its troops from Gaza, the Palestinian National Authority will maintain responsibility for security within the territory—to the extent that Israel allows Palestinian police the authority and capacity. Palestinian security forces will still have a duty to protect civilians within Gaza and to prevent indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians.
“Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”
Under international law, the duties of an occupying power are detailed in the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations. According to The Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
Israeli forces have displayed a shocking disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians by carrying out a number of airstrikes targeting residential buildings in some cases killing entire families – including children – and causing wanton destruction to civilian property, in attacks that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, said Amnesty International today.
The organization has documented four deadly attacks by Israel launched on residential homes without prior warning and is calling for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to urgently investigate these attacks. The death toll in Gaza continues to climb with at least 198 Palestinians killed including 58 children and more than 1,220 injured. Ten people in Israel, including two children, have been killed and at least 27 injured by Palestinian attacks.
“There is a horrific pattern emerging of Israel launching air strikes in Gaza targeting residential buildings and family homes – in some cases entire families were buried beneath the rubble when the buildings they lived in collapsed. In the cases documented below, no prior warning was given to the civilian residents to allow them to escape. Under international humanitarian law, all parties must distinguish between military targets and civilian objects and direct their attacks only at military objectives. When carrying out attacks, parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians,” said Saleh Higazi, Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Although the Israeli military has given no explanation of what military objectives it was targeting in these attacks, it is hard to imagine how bombing residential buildings full of civilian families without warning could be considered proportionate under international humanitarian law. It is not possible to use large explosive weapons, like aircraft bombs that have a blast radius of many hundreds of meters, in populated areas without anticipating major civilian casualties.
“By carrying out these brazen deadly attacks on family homes without warning Israel has demonstrated a callous disregard for lives of Palestinian civilians who are already suffering the collective punishment of Israel’s illegal blockade on Gaza since 2007.”
The Israeli army claims that it only attacks military targets and has justified airstrikes on residential buildings on that basis. However, residents told Amnesty International that there were no fighters or military objectives in the vicinity at the time of the attacks documented.
“Deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian property and infrastructure are war crimes, as are disproportionate attacks. The International Criminal Court has an active investigation into the situation in Palestine and should urgently investigate these attacks as war crimes. States should also consider exercising universal jurisdiction over those who commit war crimes. Impunity only works to fuel the pattern of unlawful attacks and civilian bloodshed, which have we have repeatedly documented in previous Israeli military offensives on Gaza,” said Saleh Higazi.
At least 152 residential properties in Gaza have been destroyed since 11 May, according to the Gaza-based human rights organization, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Public Works and Housing in Gaza, Israeli strikes have destroyed 94 buildings, comprising 461 housing and commercial units while 285 housing units have been severely damaged and rendered uninhabitable.
According to United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) more than 2,500 people have been made homeless due to the destruction of their homes and more than 38,000 people have been internally displaced and have sought shelter in 48 UNRWA schools across Gaza.
Indiscriminate rocket-fire by Palestinian armed groups towards civilian areas of Israel has also killed and injured civilians and damaged homes and other civilian properties. The rockets fired from Gaza into Israel are imprecise and their use violates international humanitarian law which prohibits the use of weapons that are by nature indiscriminate. These attacks should also be investigated by the ICC as war crimes.
Amnesty International has previously published evidence that the Israeli military had a deliberate policy of targeting family homes during the 2014 conflict.
Devastating attacks on family homes
In one of the heaviest episodes of bombardment since the latest fighting began, between 1am and 2am on 16 May Israel carried out airstrikes against residential buildings and streets in Gaza City. The attacks completely destroyed two residential buildings belonging to the Abu al-Ouf and al-Kolaq families – killing 30 people – 11 of them children.
Gaza’s Ministry of Labour building was also destroyed in the attacks. The attack blocked al-Wehda Street, one of the main roads leading to the main hospital in Gaza, al-Shifa.
The families residing in the four-storey al-Ouf building, which included residential apartments and shops, received no prior warning – they were buried beneath the rubble in the attack.
Yousef Yassin, a medic from al-Shifa Hospital, was one of the first to arrive on the scene of al-Ouf Building after the attack and helped pull survivors from the wreckage with the Red Crescent. He described the scene to Amnesty International as one of “great destruction”.
“I helped get out four dead [bodies], but there were many more. It was very hard. There was no warning, so people were inside their home sitting together, and this is a lively, bustling area,” he said.
Shortly before midnight on 14 May Israeli air strikes hit the three-storey building of the al-Atar family in Beit Lahia killing 28-year-old Lamya Hassan Mohammed Al-Atar her three children Islam, seven, Amira, six, and Mohammed an eight-month-old baby.
Lamya’s father, Hassan Al-Atar, a civil defence officer told Amnesty International he headed to the scene of the attack with an ambulance and rescue team after a relative called him with news of the attack. “He told me that our home had been bombed and [he was] stuck under the rubble [with his] wife and children,” he said.
“I arrived at the house, which is made up of three stories – 20 people live there – I tried to find people, but I could not. Then the rescue team arrived to help and we eventually found my daughter, a mother of three, with her children, one of whom was a baby, under one of the cement pillars of the house; all of them were dead. The other residents seem to have managed to escape from an opening after the bombing and got to the hospital. I was shocked,” he said.
Nader Mahmoud Mohammed Al-Thom, from al-Salatin neighbourhood in Beit Lahia, described how his home where he lives with eight others was attacked without any warning shortly after midnight on 15 May.
“There was no warning missile, no warning call, the house was bombed, and we were inside. Thank God that the civil defence and by sheer chance was close by and saved us from under the rubble, thank God no one died. We had injuries but not serious, when we got out I saw a fire at the gate of the house, then the ambulance took us to the hospital. I think this is when I lost consciousness. Thank God no one was badly hurt but we lost our house. We are now in the street; we do not know where to go what to do.”
His family sought shelter at an UNRWA school but the school they arrived at was closed when they arrived and they had to sleep outside in the school yard. His entire home was destroyed including his clothes, money and paperwork and all their belongings.
In addition to residential homes, Israeli attacks have damaged water and electricity infrastructure as well as medical facilities and halted the operations of the North Gaza Seawater Desalination plant, which supplies water to more than 250,000 people.
TOCAF Director and ManagementSubject: Involvement with the illegal Israeli settlements
Dear Director,Dear Management,
Sometimes I ask myself, how on earth it is possible, that there arestill companies, that work with notorious thieves and villains likeoccupation countries, helping them with stealing and robbering!Alas I have learnt, that your company, the Basque Spanish multinational CAF [Construcciones Y Auxiliar de Ferocarilles], is notorious for that, sincein August 2019, a consortium, led by your CAF and the Israeli infrastructurecompany Shapir was selected by Israel’s finance ministry, to lead the expansionof the Jerusalem Light Rail, serving Israel’s illegal settlements in occupiedPalestinian territory. Look for all the information under note 1! I think it is a shame and disgrace, that your company signed for openly violatingInternational Law and human rights!Your company must be beaten virtually for this. ISRAELI OCCUPATION Although it should not be necessary, for your sake someinformation about the Israeli settlements.Of course you know about the now 53 years Israeli occupation of thePalestinian territories the West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem and Gaza [2],despite UN Security Resolution 242 [3] and all subsequent resolutions.As an occupation regime, Israel is responsible for and guilty ofstructural repression, human rights violations and systematic warcrimes [4] and crimes of humanity like ethnic cleansings. [5] So even when there were no illegal settlements, you should notcooperate with the Israeli occupation State!
ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS You know, or else you should know, that all Israeli settlements, built onthe occupied Palestinian territories are illegal according under International Law,according to article 49. 4th Geneva Convention, as the the Hague Convention. [6] Not only this settlement building is pure land theft, not seldom the settlers [theIsraeli inhabitants of the illegal settlements] are very agressive towards theoccupied Palestinian population as the Israeli human rights organization Btselem mentions.[7]And the worst part is, that those agressive settlers are often supported by Israeli Security Forces! [8]
EPILOGUE I have presented you with the facts.The facts you already knew, or should have known otherwise.I don’t know, what’s worse.
By leading the expansion of the Jerusalem Light Railand thus serving Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, you are notonly tainted by your cooperation with a criminal occupation regime, alsoyou are complicit in landtheft and de fcato expulsion of the occupiedPalestinian population from their own ground. Is that the way you earn your money.Your BLOODmoney? Shame on you!
If you have any conscience and decency, withdraw from youractivities, helping the illegal settlements in occupied Palestinianterritory.Evil practices. If not: Then History will put you on the black list, ading war criminalsand criminals against humanity. DIXI! [Latin: I have said, I have spoken] [9]
Kind greetings Astrid EssedAmsterdam The Netherlands
JERUSALEM Transportation Masterplan Team (JTMT) has awarded the TransJerusalem J-Net consortium, comprised of CAF and the construction firm Shapir, a €1.8bn contract to undertake an extension to the Jerusalem light rail network.
The Private-Public Partnership (PPP) includes the construction of 27km of new track, 53 new stations and various depots covering a 6.8km extension to the Red Line, and the new 20.6km Green Line. The Red Line is currently 13.8km long with 23 stations, and carries around 145,000 passengers daily.
The consortium will also design and supply 114 new Urbos LRVs for the Green Line, and the refurbishment of the 46 vehicles currently in service on the Red Line.
The contract includes the signalling, energy and communication systems, as well as the operation and maintenance of both lines for 15 and 25 years respectively, with the possibility of extending the term of operation.
CAF’s share of the contract is worth more than €500m, and includes the vehicle’s supply and refurbishment, signalling, energy and communication systems and project integration. CAF will also have a 50% stake in the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company that will manage the operation and maintenance of both lines, which is expected to have a €1bn turnover.
Construction is expected begin later this year with the new extensions fully operational by 2025.
Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland) also submitted bids for the contract.
END OF ARTICLE
”Of the eight entities that participated in the preliminary stages, only two consortiums submitted bids in the final stage. The other consortium consisted in the companies Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland). Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier are reported to have left the tender process at an earlier stage. The companies did not officially withdraw from the process due to political reasons. Nevertheless, the light rail development in Jerusalem has been criticized in the past as both lines run through the disputed area of East Jerusalem” URBAN TRANSPORT MAGAZINECAF-SAPHIR CONSORTIUM WINS JERUSALEM GEEN LINELIGHT RAIL TENDER
The transport authority JTMT (Jerusalem Transportation Masterplan Team) has chosen the TransJerusalem J-Net Ltd consortium, consisting in the CAF Group and the construction firm Saphir, for the Jerusalem light rail project. The project value is 1.8 billion EUR.
The so-called Green line is a PPP (Private-Public Partnership) scheme and includes the construction of 20.6 kilometres of new track, 53 stations and a depot. Jerusalem opened its’ first light rail line, the red line in 2011. The new Green line uses the current Red Line on a stretch of 6.8 km. The contract also includes the design and supply of 114 low-floor Urbos trams (which will be operated as double-tractions) for the new Green Line and the refurbishment of the 46 units which are currently in service on the existing Red Line.
114 Urbos trams and 25 years of operation
The project scope of the consortium will also include the supply of the signalling, energy and communication systems, as well as the operation and maintenance of both lines for 15 and 25 years respectively, with the possibility of extending the term of operation. The CAF Group’s scope of this project exceeds 500 million EUR. The Group will also have a 50% stake in the company that will manage the operation and maintenance of both lines. The project is expected to be implemented this year with the new network fully operative by 2025.
The future network
The tram’s Red Line currently extends along 13.8 km with 23 stations distributed on the route, was inaugurated in 2011 and providing transport to over 145,000 passengers on average per day. The Green lines is expected to have a ridership of 200,000 passengers per day. It will link the two campuses of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and continue south via Pat junction to Gilo while using a common section with the Red line in the city centre until the terminus of the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem railway station which was inaugurated in 2018.
Of the eight entities that participated in the preliminary stages, only two consortiums submitted bids in the final stage. The other consortium consisted in the companies Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland). Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier are reported to have left the tender process at an earlier stage. The companies did not officially withdraw from the process due to political reasons. Nevertheless, the light rail development in Jerusalem has been criticized in the past as both lines run through the disputed area of East Jerusalem.
END OF ARTICLEBDS MOVEMENTCAF/GET OF ISRAEL’S APARTHEID TRAIN
https://bdsmovement.net/boycott-caf
[2] ”Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Israeli Government Still Holds Responsibility for Welfare of Civilians
The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.
Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Under the plan, Israel is scheduled to remove settlers and military bases protecting the settlers from the Gaza Strip and four isolated West Bank Jewish settlements by the end of 2005. The Israeli military will remain deployed on Gaza’s southern border, and will reposition its forces to other areas just outside the territory.
In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, Israel will continue to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory. Gaza will also continue to use Israeli currency.
A World Bank study on the economic effects of the plan determined that “disengagement” would ease restrictions on mobility inside Gaza. But the study also warned that the removal of troops and settlers would have little positive effect unless accompanied by an opening of Gaza’s borders. If the borders are sealed to labor and trade, the plan “would create worse hardship than is seen today.”
The plan also explicitly envisions continued home demolitions by the Israeli military to expand the “buffer zone” along the Gaza-Egypt border. According to a report released last week by Human Rights Watch, the Israeli military has illegally razed nearly 1,600 homes since 2000 to create this buffer zone, displacing some 16,000 Palestinians. Israeli officials have called for the buffer zone to be doubled, which would result in the destruction of one-third of the Rafah refugee camp.
In addition, the plan states that disengagement “will serve to dispel the claims regarding Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” A report by legal experts from the Israeli Justice Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the military made public on Sunday, however, reportedly acknowledges that disengagement “does not necessarily exempt Israel from responsibility in the evacuated territories.”
If Israel removes its troops from Gaza, the Palestinian National Authority will maintain responsibility for security within the territory—to the extent that Israel allows Palestinian police the authority and capacity. Palestinian security forces will still have a duty to protect civilians within Gaza and to prevent indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians.
“Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”
Under international law, the duties of an occupying power are detailed in the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations. According to The Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
”(Jerusalem) – At least 18 Israeli airstrikes during the fighting in Gaza in November 2012 were in apparent violation of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said today after a detailed investigation into the attacks. These airstrikes killed at least 43 Palestinian civilians, including 12 children.” HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHISRAEL: GAZA AIRSTRIKES VIOLATED LAWS OFWAR https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/12/israel-gaza-airstrikes-violated-laws-war
” Article 7 Crimes against humanity 1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (a) Murder; (b) Extermination; (c) Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
”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.”
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. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
”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.
.jpg)
