The right to education is an internationally protected right under international law and an integral part of the international law foundation. In the case of Palestine, education has always been a challenge like every aspect of Palestinian lives. Frequent closures of cities, hundreds of military checkpoints and the construction of the annexation wall prevents thousands of students and teachers from reaching their schools and universities. Palestinian students are regularly subjected to intimidation, assault and arbitrary arrest by Israeli soldiers, many schools have been closed down, raided and attacked by military orders, making it harder for them to practice and pursue their education freely and fulfil their potential.

The continuing Israeli occupation significantly impedes education in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education: “military occupations are another appreciable curb on the human right to education, the most egregious example being the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” There is substantial evidence that Israel is failing in its duties under international human rights and humanitarian law with regard to education. In this research; the researcher will focus mainly on the challenges that women face in practicing their right to education and the definition of the right to education under international law; with a focus on the effect of the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian authorities' funding and quality for education concluded with an overall impact of these aspects on the right to education in Palestine and the role of international law in protecting this right.

The right to education has been recognized in a number of international and regional legal instruments: treaties (conventions, covenants, charters) and also in general comments, recommendations, declarations, United Nations resolutions and frameworks for action. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948, states in Article 26: 'Everyone has the right to education. Since then, the right to education has been reaffirmed in various international treaties including:

• UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960)
• International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)
• International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (1966)
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (1979)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
• International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their families (1990)
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

The right to education has also been recognized in ILO Conventions and international humanitarian law, as well as in regional treaties. International human rights law guarantees the right to education. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights adopted in 1948, proclaims in Article 26: “everyone has the right to education. The right to education is legally guaranteed for all without any discrimination, states have the obligation to protect, respect, and fulfil the right to education and there are ways to hold states accountable for violations or deprivations of the right to education”. Article 26 must be read along with Article 2 UDHR, which sets out the principle of non-discrimination: [E]veryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The principle of non-discrimination and equality is a general principle of international human rights law which is essential to the exercise of and enjoyment of all human rights, including the right to education. It is also enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the ICESCR and the ICCPR,8 as well as all the major international human rights treaties. Furthermore, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has commented on the principle of non-discrimination, underlining that it is an “immediate and cross-cutting obligation” for States parties to the ICESCR. As a result, States’ constitutions and other legal and policy texts must not contain any form of discrimination, and States must also ensure that non-discrimination is applied in practice. The principle of non-discrimination and equality is particularly important for the realization of the right to education. Indeed, before the right to education was even adopted in the Covenants, a specific treaty was adopted to prohibit discrimination in education

The right to education under international law encompasses both entitlements and freedoms, including the :

• right to free and compulsory primary education.
• right to available and accessible secondary education.
• right to equal access to higher education.
• right to fundamental education for those who have not received or completed primary education.
• right to quality education both in public and private schools.
• freedom of parents to choose schools for their children which are in conformity with their religious and moral convictions.
• freedom of individuals and bodies to establish and direct education institutions in conformity with minimum standards established by the state.
• academic freedom of teachers and students.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (1979) mentioned the right to education under article 10: -

Article 10 States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in order to ensure to them equal rights with men in the field of education and in particular to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:

(a) The same conditions for career and vocational guidance, for access to studies and for the achievement of diplomas in educational establishments of all categories in rural as well as in urban areas; this equality shall be ensured in pre-school, general, technical, professional and higher technical education, as well as in all types of vocational training;

(b) Access to the same curricula, the same examinations, teaching staff with qualifications of the same standard and school premises and equipment of the same quality;

(c) The elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education by encouraging coeducation and other types of education which will help to achieve this aim and, in particular, by the revision of textbooks and school programmes and the adaptation of teaching methods;

(d) The same opportunities to benefit from scholarships and other study grants;

(e) The same opportunities for access to programmes of continuing education, including adult and functional literacy programmes, particularly those aimed at reducing, at the earliest possible time, any gap in education existing between men and women;

(f) The reduction of female student drop-out rates and the organization of programmes for girls and women who have left school prematurely;

(g) The same Opportunities to participate actively in sports and physical education; (h) Access to specific educational information to help to ensure the health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family planning.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) devotes two articles to the right to education, articles 13 and 14. Article 13, the longest provision in the Covenant, is the most wide-ranging and comprehensive article on the right to education in international human rights law. The general comment 13, adopted by the committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights provide interpretation and clarification of Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

Article 13 (2): The right to receive an education - some general remarks

- While the precise and appropriate application of the terms will depend upon the conditions prevailing in a particular State party, education in all its forms and at all levels shall exhibit the following interrelated and essential features:

(a) Availability - functioning educational institutions and programmes have to be available in sufficient quantity within the jurisdiction of the State party. What they require to function depends upon numerous factors, including the developmental context within which they operate; for example, all institutions and programmes are likely to require buildings or other protection from the elements, sanitation facilities for both sexes, safe drinking water, trained teachers receiving domestically competitive salaries, teaching materials, and so on; while some will also require facilities such as a library, computer facilities and information technology.

(b) Accessibility - educational institutions and programmes have to be accessible to everyone, without discrimination, within the jurisdiction of the State party. Accessibility has three overlapping dimensions:

(i) Non-discrimination - education must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds (see paras. 31-37 on non-discrimination);

(ii) Physical accessibility - education has to be within safe physical reach, either by attendance at some reasonably convenient geographic location (e.g. a neighbourhood school) or via modern technology (e.g. access to a “distance learning” programme);

(iii) Economic accessibility - education has to be affordable to all. This dimension of accessibility is subject to the differential wording of article 13 (2) in relation to primary, secondary and higher education: whereas primary education shall be available “free to all”, States parties are required to progressively introduce free secondary and higher education;

(c) Acceptability - the form and substance of education, including curricula and teaching methods, have to be acceptable (e.g. relevant, culturally appropriate and of good quality) to students and, in appropriate cases, parents; this is subject to the educational objectives required by article 13 (1) and such minimum educational standards as may be approved by the State (see art. 13 (3) and (4));

(d) Adaptability - education has to be flexible so it can adapt to the needs of changing societies and communities and respond to the needs of students within their diverse social and cultural settings.When considering the appropriate application of these “interrelated and essential features” the best interests of the student shall be a primary consideration.

II. STATES PARTIES' OBLIGATIONS AND VIOLATIONS

General legal obligations:-

43. While the Covenant provides for progressive realization and acknowledges the constraints due to the limits of available resources, it also imposes on States parties various obligations which are of immediate effect. States parties have immediate obligations in relation to the right to education, such as the “guarantee” that the right “will be exercised without discrimination of any kind” (art.2 (2)) and the obligation “to take steps” (art. 2 (1)) towards the full realization of article 13. Such steps must be “deliberate, concrete and targeted” towards the full realization of the right to education.

44. The realization of the right to education over time, that is “progressively”, should not be interpreted as depriving States parties’ obligations of all meaningful content. Progressive realization means that States parties have a specific and continuing obligation “to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible” towards the full realization of article 13.

46. The right to education, like all human rights, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil. In turn, the obligation to fulfil incorporates both an obligation to facilitate and an obligation to provide.

47. The obligation to respect requires States parties to avoid measures that hinder or prevent the enjoyment of the right to education. The obligation to protect requires States parties to take measures that prevent third parties from interfering with the enjoyment of the right to education. The obligation to fulfil (facilitate) requires States to take positive measures that enable and assist individuals and communities to enjoy the right to education.

Finally, States parties have an obligation to fulfil (provide) the right to education. As a general rule, States parties are obliged to fulfil (provide) a specific right in the Covenant when an individual or group is unable, for reasons beyond their control, to realize the right themselves by the means at their disposal. However, the extent of this obligation is always subject to the text of the Covenant.

Violations

59. By way of illustration, violations of article 13 include: the introduction or failure to repeal legislation which discriminates against individuals or groups, on any of the prohibited grounds, in the field of education; the failure to take measures which address de facto educational discrimination; the use of curricula inconsistent with the educational objectives set out in article 13 (1); the failure to maintain a transparent and effective system to monitor conformity with article 13 (1); the failure to introduce, as a matter of priority, primary education which is compulsory and available free to all; the failure to take “deliberate, concrete and targeted” measures towards the progressive realization of secondary, higher and fundamental education in accordance with article 13 (2) (b)-(d); the prohibition of private educational institutions; the failure to ensure private educational institutions conform to the “minimum educational standards” required by article 13 (3) and (4); the denial of academic freedom of staff and students; the closure of educational institutions in times of political tension in non-conformity with article 4.

Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) states: "The Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children." Israel is therefore obligated to ensure the orderly operation of the educational institutions in the territories.

ICL prohibits persecution as a crime against humanity in the treaty statutes of the ad hoc tribunals as well as the ICC. The Rome Statute defines persecution as the “intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group of collectively”. Unlike other expressions of the crime, the Rome Statute also requires that persecution be committed in connection with another crime or at least one inhumane act. Although untested, it is possible that the intentional and severe deprivation or prevention of education of a particular group can, if the other elements of the crime are fulfilled, constitute persecution. In order for the deprivation of education to amount to a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute, it must meet the following criteria:

• education must be defined as a “fundamental right”;
• its deprivation must be intentional and severe. Further, it must be contrary to international law, and not, for example, consistent with limitations permitted by IHRL;
• the denial of education of a particular group must on discriminatory grounds: based on a group’s political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or gender identity (or other grounds universally recognized by international law, potentially including disability);
• the deprivation of education must be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population or in connection with any other act prohibited by the Rome Statute; and
• the perpetrator or perpetrators of this deprivation knew it was part of a widespread or systemic attack. International criminal jurisprudence has so far recognized examples of persecution including murder, imprisonment, deportation and other related conduct. However, persecution can include other conduct that “severely deprives political, civil, economic or social rights”. In particular, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia “ICTY” has recognized that the exclusion of members of an ethnic or religious group from educational institutions can potentially constitute persecution under the ICTY Statute, even though it was not specifically listed as an example therein. This demonstrates the potential protection that the crime of persecution offers to ensuring education in situations of insecurity and armed conflict.

The right of children to receive an education belongs to this category of rights which are irrevocable under any claim or pretext. Historically, peoples and states that prevented children from exercising their right to education have been viewed as barbaric. Humanity having recognized, in the lengthy course of the formation of civilization, that children have the right to education - that is, that education is no mere favor conferred by parents, states, churches, or whoever implements the right -considers all those who infringe this right to be acting inhumanely. Categorically, such behavior is no different from any other abridgement of human rights.

The Right to Education in Palestine

Since the start of the Intifada in 1987, the Israeli authorities have closed down the majority of the education institutions in different areas under occupation for extended periods. The education system has also suffered from strikes and from clashes with the Israeli occupation forces have forcibly entered schools, sometimes opening fire; many students and teachers have been arrested, killed, or physically injured.

For decades Israel has been violating Palestinians' right to education through numerous education-related incidents, such as attacks or threats of attacks on schools, delays at checkpoints, military presence at school entrances, closed military areas in addition to the use of live ammunition and tear gas in and around schools, school search, confiscation of education items, detention of students and school staff, settler related violence, or school demolitions and stop-work orders . Israel’s measures prevent the development of the Palestinian educational system. Not at once, Israel was held accountable for its violation of the Palestinian right to education or any violation.

These violations play a huge role in creating obstacles to Palestinians' education, making it hard for them to have quality education and to enjoy their right safely. These violations affect Palestinian women the most with a consideration that the Palestinian society is a patriarchal society that may stand in the face of women education if they may face such obstacles and violations. Even though these violations affect the life and education of Palestinians and especially women; the percentage of educated women in Palestine is remarkable and one of the highest around the world with a 99.6% in 2020 for completion of different educational levels (elementary education, secondary education, upper/senior secondary education) and according to data of 2019-2020, the net enrollment ratio in the elementary stage increased for 98.4% .

One of many measures Israel undertakes is the demolition and closure of schools, especially in the South Hebron Hills area. Since the start of 2021, Israel has demolished 1,032 Palestinian-owned structures across the occupied West Bank. The list includes homes, schools, shops and farming facilities. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has said that Israeli demolitions have displaced 1,347 Palestinians in that period . Usually, the “reason” behind the demolishing in Area C is building without a permit which is nearly impossible to be issued in Area C.

One of these schools is located in the Bedouin village Abu Nuwar, where 670 Palestinians live in tents and sheet-metal shacks. The only school in the village was partially demolished for the sixth time since 2016. The 26 children study in a local community center and barbershop.

One of the most targeted villages is “Burin”. Burin is home to about 3000 Palestinian and is surrounded by two illegal settlements, an illegal outpost, and a military base. The only school in Burin sits at the entrance of the village and is attended by about 300 boys and girls. The school is often on the frontline of settler and soldier raids on the village. According to Middle East Eye interview with an activist from Burin, “Every week there are at least two or three attacks, from both settlers and soldiers. “The settlers will come down from the mountain and try to break the school windows and attack teachers and students with rocks. Sometimes they even shoot live bullets”.

Masafer Yatta area of the Hebron hills, 210 Palestinian children living in a cluster of 12 small villages face daily challenges getting to class in an active military training zone. There are only three schools in the entire area, and most of the communities do not have access to school buses, forcing kids to walk several kilometers to and from school, any busses secured for children were often stopped and turned around by Israeli forces in addition, during active training periods, soldiers will close certain areas leading to the school for up to 10 days, leaving teachers and children sitting at home until the army reopens the area. Recently Israel's court paves way for the eviction of over 2000 Palestinians from Masafer Yatta which will lead to the displacement of thousands of Bedouin Palestinians and cause a severe effect on education. According to the Palestinian ministry of education report in 2021; 26,808 students and 1,029 teachers were either prevented from getting to school or faced long delays at checkpoints, resulting in "35,895 classes wasted".

Even though human rights are inherent to all human beings, they cannot be given or taken away. Israel slips Palestinians of their basic human rights on a daily basis even the simplest ones including their right to education. In many cases many Palestinian women stop their education in the early stages because of the obstacles that they face, many women do not feel safe going to school or college for many days and sometimes years. The lost feeling of safety that every Palestinian feel prevent many from pursuing their passion, many dreams were killed because of these violations. These challenges do not affect only the lives and rights of the people affected; they have a huge effect on the social and economic aspects too and it leads to early dropouts from school.

According to a report published by MIFTAH; the Palestinian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research spending in 2020-2021 on education is (3.140.7) Millions ILS from (16.120.3) Millions ILS annual budget, meaning overall (19.5%) of the overall annual budget. Meaning that the spending from the side and the budget provided by the Palestinian authority for education are very low compared to the needs and the development that the education sector in Palestine needs. Manny Palestinian villages do not have more than one school in the whole village and that leaves a lot of students to go to another village which adds to transportation expenses. On the other side; In 2021 the youth unemployment rates reached 40% in the West Bank and 62% in Gaza and about half a million children in Palestine need humanitarian assistance to access quality education. The high rates of unemployment leave no choice to many Palestinian than to dropout from school and in many cases go to work inside the green line or in settlements. Despite the impact of conflict on education, very low levels of humanitarian funding are provided for education. This prevents the education sector from responding swiftly to needs after periods of intense conflict – including responding to the effects of attacks on education and restoring schooling

Children and women are the vast majority of those adversely affected by the occupation and in the reaffirming of the implementation of international humanitarian law and human rights law that protect the rights of women and girls during and after conflict. These two majorities require a special lens that can provide detailed protection and recognition; after many movements towards creating this lens for the protection of women and children; the women, peace and security (“WPS”) agenda was formally initiated by the united nations security council (UNSCR) 1325 resolution in 2000, that was the first landmark resolution on women, peace and security that addresses the impact of war on women and the importance of women’s full and equal participation in conflict resolution, peacebuilding, peacekeeping, humanitarian response and in post-conflict reconstruction. The resolution also calls for special measures to protect women and girls from conflict-related sexual violence and outlines gender-related responsibilities of the United Nations in different political and programmatic areas . The 1325 United Nations Security Council Resolution has four pillars: - protection, prevention, participation and relief and recovery.

When we talk about any aspect of Palestinian lives there is a cycle of connection between every aspect of the obstacles that women face in practicing their right to education from the Israeli occupation, the quality and funding from the Palestinian authorities to the education sector and the high rates of unemployment leaves too many social, economic, psychological effects. The 1325 UNSCR main purpose is to provide the four pillars (protection, prevention, participation and relief and recovery) to women and children. In the case of Palestine, it is strongly believable according to the reality and data provided that the 1325 UNSCR is not fulfilling its obligations towards Palestinian women and children and this falls on the state parties. It should provide protection to women and women are not being protected in any aspect of their lives including in pursuing their education, it should provide prevention from assaults and harassment but on the other side women are facing harassment from the Israeli soldiers and settlers on a daily basis, it should provide participation for women but they can’t participate in decision making if they can’t pursue their education freely and enjoy their basic human rights, it should provide relief and recovery and I don’t even think we are in this stage because women are still facing these violations on the day to day life and in every moment of their lives. Many women lives are being slipped because of these violations on every side, especially in the educational sector. The state parties of the 1325 UNSCR and the International bodies and community must hold Israel accountable of the continuous commitment of Human rights violations which amount to crimes against humanity, of which is the right of education to women and girls; Violence against women in all its forms is a source of grave concern that threatens women education and future potential. Children experience distress, fear and intimidation when going to and from school in high-risk areas, often having to pass through checkpoints or walk-through settlements. Constant exposure to soldiers and settlers' violence in addition to the mentality that women have that they need to protect themselves when they go to school should be stopped and it won’t stop without action from every international body.

Challenges that Palestinian women and girls face to exercise their education rights under military occupation, they are exposed to violent and terrorist attacks due to settlement expansion, forceful displacement, mobility restrictions imposed by Israeli occupation forces.

At the end, education is not a privilege that is asked for, it is a human right and human rights are inherent to all human beings, they cannot be given or taken away.

Education is a sacred right that is protected in every international convention and under international law. Israel is committing human rights violations towards every aspect of Palestinian lives, under the eye of the international community and the world, the Israeli occupation is violating its obligations towards the Palestinian making their lives miserable by every aspect.

The violations towards education and specially regarding Palestinian women by the Israeli authorities is a gender-based violence that is directed against women because she is a woman and it affects women disproportionately and according to the 1325 UNSCR, the party states should protect women from all kinds of violence against women, including by prosecuting those responsible for violations of international law. The application of women, peace and security agenda that is supposed to protect women rights and prevent a violation towards it is not serving it required obligations towards empowering Palestinian women rights and protecting it, day by day women rights are descend more and more and in my opinion, even though 1325 UNSCR is created and centered towards the protection of women in times of conflict, the women in Palestine are still facing many obstacles and restrictions, it is crystal clear to any eye that the Israeli occupation have no respect to the international law, conventions and resolutions related to the protection of human rights and it’s failing its obligations, therefore it’s time to stop calling for respect and start calling for an end to the lifelong impunity and accountability.

This paper was written by Ola Sami, the second scholarship recipient from the Folke Bernadotte Academy (FBA ) of Sweden in support of women, peace and security in memory of Zaida Catalan.

To view the full article as PDF

A.H. is undemanding in the life she wants to live. A resident of Hebron’s Old City, she dreams of a normal life for herself and her family, her little girl in particular. “My daughter always clutches her dolly to her chest, crying. She tells me she wants to go outside or go shopping, but she is afraid they might shoot her or shoot us. I swear, this is no life.”

A.H.’s testimony is one among many women living in Hebron’s Old City, who suffer from severe restrictions to their freedom of movement, due to Israeli measures and regulations that dictate to Palestinians where, when and how they are allowed to move throughout their own city.

The Old City of Hebron is a small, enclosed bubble in a larger Israeli system of racial discrimination, set up to protect the few thousand illegal Israeli settlers living in its heart, over the hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians who have lived there for centuries. According to OCHA, there ae 22 Israeli settlements in the Hebron district, in addition to 15 illegal settlement outposts and four industrial settlements, in which around 19,000 settlers live in total. The armed settlers in Hebron are deemed the most hostile, even among the other 200,000 West Bank settlers, attacking and harassing Palestinians who live in close proximately to their enclaves. What’s more, there are nearly 100 Israeli military checkpoints peppered throughout the Old City, closing it almost completely off from the rest of Hebron.

While Israeli restrictions curtail the movement and everyday lives of all residents of Hebron, women and girls are affected. Economic hardships hit families in general, but like in the case of “A.H’ the financial squeeze resulting from Israel’s measures has impacted her even more. “My husband used to work in a shoe factory and he used to take additional shifts and stay late so we could cover expenses. But then Israeli occupation authorities imposed stricter curfews and my husband is no longer allowed to stay out late. He has to be home by sunset and this has had a negative impact on our economic and social lives.”

The women living in the Old City think twice about having visitors over because they worry the Israeli occupation army may invade or, even worse, settlers could attack. They are also hesitant to leave their homes to visit family or friends, in fear that they will not be able to return since they are forced to go in and out of Israeli checkpoints whose soldiers harass or close the checkpoints at whim. “I would love to go to a wedding or to visit my parents, but I am always nervous that I won’t be able to get back to my house. The latest I have ever stayed out is 9:00 p.m.” A.H. says.

Freedom of movement is a basic right, guaranteed in all international treaties and conventions and protected under international humanitarian law. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

Israel is in flagrant violation of this and other treaties that safeguard this right, given it is the occupying power. For Palestinian women, this violation is compounded in the patriarchal society in which they live. UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was passed in order to provide protection for women in areas of conflict, but the international community has sorely fallen short of guaranteeing this to Palestinian women under the yoke of Israeli occupation.

As the situation stands, the Israeli colonial-occupation in place has severely stymied the basic right of movement, among other rights. The hundreds of military checkpoints throughout the West Bank and Jerusalem, the Annexation Wall and the sporadic, but systematic closure of entrances to cities, towns and villages are some of Israel’s many forms of collective punishment. Palestinian residents of the West Bank cannot visit Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, or Palestinian areas inside the Green Line. They are subject to a humiliating and endless system of permits for travel, whether inside Palestine or abroad. They are insulted, harassed and detained for hours at military checkpoints between cities, camps, towns and villages, and in the Gaza Strip, Palestinians are confined to what has been called the biggest open-air prison due to Israel’s siege on it for the past 16 years.

In Hebron, Israel applies all of these tactics in addition to the especially cruel policy of forced expulsion. According to a MIFTAH research on the commercial and tourist situation in Hebron’s Old City, estimated losses from ongoing Israeli closures amounted to approximately $485 million in the past 25 years, or $1.6 million a month. On Shuhada Street alone, 304 stores shut down, 218 by Israeli military order, forcing dozens of families in the Old City to leave their homes. Forced expulsion is a crime against humanity, according to the ICC Rome Statute and is therefore in violation of international law. Israel widely employs this tactic in several parts of Palestine such as the south Hebron district of Masafer Yatta, where 10,000 Palestinians are at risk of forced expulsion by Israeli military order.

All of these and other Israeli policies affect Palestinian women and girls in a way distinct from the rest of society. A.H. is wracked with anguish over concern for her teenage daughters who are often badgered by Israeli soldiers, slinging sexual innuendos at them every time they pass through a checkpoint. “When they get home they always say: ‘Mama, they [soldiers] tell us things we cannot even repeat’”. The fear of sexual assault is real for these girls and their families and prevents them from exercising aspects of their lives most others take for granted.

Palestinians have lived under this Israeli occupation for over 55 years, while the international community allows it to exist and expand unabated. Basic rights are enshrined in international law for a reason. No person, anywhere, should be deprived of this right and no power should be allowed to deny it with impunity.

It is time for this community to ‘practice what it preaches’ and implement the many international laws, conventions, treaties and resolutions that call for the protection of people under occupation and of women and girls in particular, who are often the most vulnerable in any society.

This paper was written by Ola Sami, the second scholarship recipient from the Folke Bernadotte Academy (FBA ) of Sweden in support of women, peace and security in memory of Zaida Catalan.

Joharah Baker contributed to this article

Introduction:

Since the 1990s, the international community’s view regarding conflicts developed in terms of encompassing broader aspects, and its perspective was no longer confined to threats against a state and its sovereignty. This included observing the ramifications of conflicts on individuals and their welfare, especially among the less fortunate segments of society. Accordingly, the term “Human Security” came to replace the previously used term “Security”. That term (i.e., Human Security) was first mentioned in a 1994 report issued by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Its introduction helped create a new perspective towards militarization and armed conflicts, thus expanding the traditional view of security to include individual security in addition to state security.

Until now, there is no consensus regarding a particular definition of “Human Security”. Nevertheless, this term involves two main aspects, namely: freedom from fear and freedom from want. Due to important changes in the international arena, United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 was issued in the year 2000. This resolution examines the multiplier effect of conflicts on women in four main aspects: protection, prevention, participation, and accountability. However, this resolution – which was followed by a number of similar subsequent resolutions which promote the implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security agenda – did not explicitly refer to the Occupation as a threat to human security, especially with regard to women. Rather, it sufficed by mentioning the “state of conflict”, which is legally different from the case of military occupation. Moreover, it was noticed that UNSCR 1325 and its subsequent resolutions mainly focused on sexual crimes.

The “Women, Peace and Security” agenda is considered a broad field. It includes the concept of “Human Security”, as referred to in the 1994 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report, and later developed to include conflict and post-conflict situations. Seeing that Palestinian women have been suffering from occupation and its association violence since the establishment of Israel on Palestinian soil in 1948, substantial efforts were exerted to promote the Women, Peace and Security agenda and implement the related international resolutions in the Palestinian homeland. However, this requires a clear definition of “Security” and its determinants, components, and measurability.

This study aims to reach a definition of “Human Security” and specify its components and framework in order to highlight the violations of the Israeli occupation under that definition. In particular, we try to assess the effects of the Israeli occupation on the security of Palestinian women in Occupied Jerusalem. This study is based on the premise that the Occupation is the main cause of human insecurity in Palestine, especially vis-à-vis Palestinian women in Occupied Jerusalem.

Based on the aforementioned aspects, the study (through three research sections) will attempt to answer the following question: What is the effect of the Israeli military occupation of Jerusalem on the human security of Palestinians, especially women? The first section studies the concept of Human Security and its components. The second section highlights the human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli occupation in Jerusalem in light of the human security concept. As for the third section, it examines the impact of the Israeli occupation and its practices on Palestinian women, with special emphasis on the Women, Peace and Security agenda.

The term “Human Security” emerged in the early 1990s as a result of several humanitarian crises and conflicts in the aftermath of the Cold War. Since that time, human security came to be considered an approach that can be widely implemented. As previously noted, the term “Human Security” was first mentioned by a UNDP report in 1994, whereby it includes the following aspects: economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security, respectively.

Unfortunately, the international community did not until this moment specify a single consensual definition of the term “Human Security”. However, everyone acknowledges its connection to human rights and the attainment of development. Therefore, conflicts, armed conflicts, and Occupation threaten human security as they directly jeopardize human rights and prevent individual and community development.

First Section: Concept of Human Security and its Connection to Military Occupation:

This section reviews the concept of Human Security, especially in light of military occupation. It also examines the components of human security as set forth in the UNDP report of 1994, in order to create a reference point to assess the fragility of human security in Occupied Jerusalem and its connection to ongoing human rights abuses. This will be analyzed in light of the Women, Peace and Security agenda and the relevant United Nations resolutions.

This section aims to answer the following sub-questions:

1. What is the definition of human security?
2. What are the components of human security?
3. How does the Occupation threaten human security?
4. What is the relationship between human security and the human rights system?

Definition of Human Security:

The term “Human Security” in its modern sense shifted the focus from states to individuals. Hence, the need for intervention and protection was no longer confined to military threats but also encompassed the individual realm, protection of basic human rights, and the achievement of welfare. It is also worth noting that human security does not mean the absence of threats but protection from different threats.

Thus, the most accurate definition of “Human Security” is “freedom from fear and freedom from want”, whereas freedom from fear is based on the traditional meaning of security related to protecting individuals from the use of force or violence or threats to one’s life. The latter acts require serious procedures to hold the perpetrators of international crimes accountable before the International Criminal Court (ICC). This is also in line with UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, which calls for upholding accountability mechanisms and ending the impunity of those who commit crimes against humanity. On the other hand, freedom from want is more broadly related to human security; it considers security threats as a threat to people’s welfare.

Therefore, the concept of Human Security poses several questions beyond individuals’ protection from existential threats by finding ways to enhance safety in their daily lives, at home, and in the street and community. However, this should be done without losing sight of the linkage between violence, lack of security, and human rights violations.

The Human Security approach is considered an integrated one and the international community deals with it in a coherent manner without fragmenting the needs of individuals. They [i.e., the international community] also do not deal with Human Security in a hierarchical manner but focus on the basic rights and freedoms. Therefore, United Nations plans and developmental goals have embedded human security principles in order to reach a “world free of poverty, hunger, disease and want, free of fear and violence, with equitable and universal access to quality education, health care and social protection, where human habitats are safe, resilient and sustainable”.

Components of Human Security:

Human Security is about meeting basic human needs in the environmental, health, food, community, and political spheres, while focusing not only on conflict situations but also on issues of fair trade, access to health care, patent rights, access to education, and basic freedoms.

Recently, the international community became more open to the concept of Human Security and their relevant vision is entrenched through seven dimensions mentioned by the UNDP report of 1994. The said report indicated that the main categories of Human Security are as follows: economic; food; health; environmental; personal; community; and political security, thus expanding the notion of security and going beyond the traditional view of security (the traditional view focused on protecting the land from external aggression and protecting national foreign policy interests).

Due to this approach, the goal shifted from state security to individual security, thus enhancing the linkage between security and sustainable development. The “Human Security” term was thus expanded to include security from perennial threats - such as hunger, disease, and oppression - and protection from the sudden and harmful disruption of daily life patterns.

The concept of Human Security promotes the protection of all human beings in ways that enhance human freedoms and human realization. Therefore, the framework of human security includes several aspects, such as food, environment, housing, and human rights.

Human Security in light of the Occupation:

“The gross violations of human rights and the wide-scale displacement of civilian populations constitute a direct threat to human security.”

Military occupation involves multiple forms of human insecurity, whereas this form of occupation is characterized by violence and lack of security from one side and underdevelopment and poverty from another. In this regard, Arab Human Development Report 2009 indicates that military occupation threatens human security on three levels: institutionally, structurally, and materially/physically, as follows:

• On the institutional level, the Occupation violates international law, as it uses force for purposes other than self-defense, imposes its own laws on the occupied region, and practices its governmental authority to serve the occupier’s interests.
• On the structural level, the Occupation redistributes wealth and power under different terms which widen the social and economic gap between occupied civilians, thus creating internal divisions and a state of fragmentation.
• On the physical/material level, military occupation is imposed on civilians with the power of arms and violence, leading to victims, violent resistance, and substantial human losses. Moreover, military occupation restricts basic freedoms, economic activity, and people’s livelihoods.

Therefore, military occupation contravenes basic human rights, systematically leads to human insecurity, disrupts human development, and substantially undermines people’s lives and freedoms. This negatively affects people’s income, employment, nutrition, health, education, and environment, leading to a lack of human security and affecting its various components.

The said report mentions the compound impacts of military occupation on human security, as follows:

1. Threats to life, especially by murder/assassinations (extrajudicial killings) and the targeting of civilians.
2. Threats to liberty, such as restricting people’s freedom of movement and freedom of opinion and expression.
3. Threats to economic conditions and livelihoods: Military occupation impedes the management of economic affairs and leads to economic destabilization.
4. Threats to people’s access to food, health and education: In light of violence and the displacement of persons due to Occupation, people’s opportunities to obtain sufficient food, appropriate health care, and adequate housing inevitably crumble.
5. Threats to the environment.

The aforementioned report also states that the progress in sustainable development is slower in fragile and conflict-ridden countries, especially those suffering from occupation; where violence is rampant and a distrust is seen between different individuals and institutions. The report proposes an approach that focuses on attaining human security, prevents the exacerbation of crises, and identifies the causes of emerging crises. Therefore, achieving human security in such circumstances is only possible by tackling the main causes and seeking to end the Occupation.

Relationship of Human Security with the Human Rights System:

Human Security emerged as a concept that was greatly affected by and related to conflict. This concept was introduced to urge states and policy makers to focus on vital issues and provide the maximum level of protection to civilians. It is also worth noting that protection is not limited to protecting human lives and providing the minimum level of services.

The relationship of human security with the human rights system stems from international humanitarian law. This is because human security necessitates protection, which is strongly rooted in the human rights system (which highlights “the responsibility of protection in times of armed conflict”). The subject of protection was strongly emphasized in international humanitarian law, especially the Geneva Conventions, which underscores the need to protect people from potential violence. Therefore, when civilians are subjected to harm or injury, the international community is obligated to assist them because the protection of civilians in times of conflict is among the main issues of human security.

The concept of Human Security is also related to post-conflict peacebuilding, which promotes and strengthens respect and adherence to international humanitarian law and International Criminal Court (ICC), along with exerting efforts to protect civilians in conflict situations and holding perpetrators of war crimes accountable and ending their impunity.

Moreover, the concept of Human Security is similar to human rights principles, especially the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The logic of human security is also based on supporting development; and it includes economic security, political security, and the right of human beings to have an adequate standard of living.

Therefore, human security cannot be isolated from the discourse of the human rights system in times of peace and times of conflict. However, human security is characterized by being more implementable and practicable. It also leads to more effectiveness and justice because it is not only concerned with protecting and preserving people’s rights, but also on developing these rights.

The notion of Human Security also takes the issue of social exclusion into consideration, and it highlights the impact of social inequality on development. Therefore, it addresses the exclusion of minorities and the multiplier effects on marginalized groups (including their deprivation of accessing basic public services). Hence, human security calls for providing services to meet the needs of these groups, while taking their different circumstances into consideration. This comes as part of a holistic development vision to reach the most marginalized communities and enhance welfare and social harmony, while aiming to make significant achievements in different countries.

These aspects led to a shift in global attention. Hence, the United Nations Security Council adopted a number of resolutions that cover broader aspects of protecting the rights of marginalized groups in conflict situations, such as countering the deliberate use of rape as a war strategy and considering sexual violence a war crime.

Second Section: Human Rights Violations in Occupied Jerusalem and their Ramifications on Human Security:

The conclusions of the first section indicate the presence of a direct correlation between human security and the human rights condition. For example, an improvement in the human rights condition will lead to a better human security status. On the other hand, a rise in human rights violations will show a declining human security status. And in the case of grave human rights violations, the lack of human security (i.e., “human insecurity”) is likely to be seen.

This section underlines the main human rights violations committed against Palestinians in East Jerusalem in light of the Human Security concept. In this context, we will assess the impact of these violations on human security and its components. This is done while taking gender aspects into consideration, such as examining the effects of these violations on Palestinian women in East Jerusalem.

We will therefore highlight five major violations of the rights of Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem, namely: the closure of cultural institutions and preventing cultural activities; extrajudicial killings; house demolitions; restricting economic rights; and attacking civilians in public spaces.

According to international law, East Jerusalem is under military occupation. Despite the United Nations Security Council’s call for Israeli troops to withdraw from East Jerusalem (as set forth in UNSCR 242), Israel illegally annexed it and imposed its laws on this occupied territory. The Israeli occupation treats the indigenous Palestinian population of Jerusalem as “permanent residents”, while considering Israeli settlers “full citizens”. Israel also enforces Judaization policies on Jerusalem, in violation of basic human rights, such as:

1. Closure of cultural institutions and prevention of cultural activities:

   The Occupation’s actions against East Jerusalem’s cultural sector strengthened Israeli control over the city and promoted the “Rabbinical Jewish” character versus the Palestinian indigenous one. This includes the forced closure of official Palestinian institutions and placing huge obstacles before cultural institutions and civil society organizations.

   Cultural organizations in occupied Jerusalem are forced to abide by administrative orders issued by the Israeli Ministry of Interior and senior Police officers. It is also worth noting that cultural institutions are considered a “security file” according to Israeli occupation authorities and not service entities, hence they are constantly subjected to Police censorship and monitoring.

   Numerous administrative orders prohibit Jerusalemite Palestinians from holding different activities, such as competitions, workshops, and other events. Statistical data shows that, as of 2019, a total of 120 cultural institutions were closed down in East Jerusalem. There are also different types of closure, such as completely closing down an organization by revoking its license; closure of an organization for a certain period of time under an administrative order; or the suspension of a certain cultural activity and prosecuting those who organized it.

   The suspension of cultural activities is accompanied by different forms of violence perpetrated against event attendees and organizers. Moreover, Occupation forces often destroy the properties of cultural venues and attack the audience in such activities.

   These actions violate the right to participate in cultural life, as well as other related rights, such as the freedom of expression. Such practices also weaken community security, which is one of the components of human security, thus undermining the safety of the occupied population. These policies also affect personal security, whereas they consider people’s expression of their culture a “legal violation”. Furthermore, numerous assaults are committed against the participants and attendees of cultural events, thus violating their freedoms.

   This systematic policy aims to minimize Palestinian presence in Jerusalem and obstructs women’s inclusion and participation in the activities of civil society organizations (CSOs), thereby reducing women’s involvement. In the absence of clear protection mechanisms, some women are forced to refrain from participating in community activities – or are reluctant to engage in civil society institutions – out of fear of being attacked by Israeli Police.

   Several reports have documented that the organizers of cultural activities are many times physically assaulted, detained for several hours, and even threatened with revoking their temporary residency.

   Israel’s actions against cultural organizations – which constitute a flagrant violation of cultural rights – greatly weakened these organizations, thus affecting the Jerusalemite community’s participation in cultural life. This led to poor cultural knowledge among Palestinian residents, thus decreasing their national, political, and societal awareness. Unfortunately, the problem of cultural organizations in Jerusalem is rarely mentioned due to considering cultural rights as “complementary rights” and not as a requirement for confronting the violation of the right to housing and decent living, which are the main problems suffered by the Jerusalemite Palestinian community.

2. Extrajudicial Killings:

   On the 16th of June 2021, PhD student Mai Afaneh was killed in cold blood by Israeli occupation soldiers in the district of Jerusalem. The soldiers shot at her while she was in her car and prevented any ambulances from reaching her. They also kept her corpse and prevented her family from bidding her farewell and burying her decently. Israeli news agencies claimed that Mai tried to run over the soldiers. However, Mai’s case is not an exception, and she is only one of more than 2,000 Palestinians who were unjustly killed since 2015.

   Extrajudicial killings deprive Palestinians of their basic right to a fair trial. This is committed through a systematic policy adopted by Israeli forces since the beginning of the Occupation. Extrajudicial killings are also considered a compounded crime because they breach several international violations. This is because international law strongly supports the right to a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial court. The said acts also contravene the “presumption of innocence” (“innocent until proven guilty”) principle. It is also worth noting that, in some cases, extrajudicial killings are considered a war crime.

   In most cases, Israeli authorities claim that these killings are “acts of self-defense”. However, the facts regarding the majority of these incidents clearly show that these acts are arbitrary and unjustified extrajudicial killings. The said circumstances include the following:

   1. Absence of an imminent danger: In most cases, the victims do not pose any threat or danger to soldiers’ lives. For example, there are many cases of shooting at wounded persons or those who flee, as well as shooting at unarmed protesters. Reported cases also showed the extrajudicial murder of women and minors, although these groups are usually harmless and physically incapable of launching effective attacks on well-trained soldiers. Therefore, it is impossible that they would pose an “imminent danger” on the gunmen.

   2. A clear disregard for the principle of neutrality and proportionality: This is a major principle of international humanitarian law. The principle of proportionality seeks to limit the harm caused by military operations by requiring that the means and methods of warfare would not be disproportionate in relation to the desired military advantage. Therefore, this principle should be applied in cases where an Occupation soldier can greatly hamper the movement of the suspect by shooting at the lower parts of his/her body instead of shooting at the upper parts (leading to murder). Documented cases also showed that, in many cases, Israeli soldiers shoot to kill instead of neutralizing the suspects.

   3. [Israeli] Politicians who urge civilians to carry weapons and openly call for executions: For example, Jerusalem District Police Commander Moshe Edri was quoted as saying: “Anyone who stabs Jews or hurts innocent people is due to be killed.” Moreover, Interior Security Minister Gilad Arden declared that “every terrorist should know that s/he will not survive the attack s/he is about to commit.”

   4. Use of Excessive Force by Israeli Soldiers: The use of excessive force has been perpetually practiced since the inception of the Israeli occupation, and it is clearly seen in cases of extrajudicial killings.

      The policy of extrajudicial killings pursued by Occupation authorities constantly threatens the lives of Palestinians and their personal and community security. This led to a state of fear, anxiety, and panic and it violates a number of basic human rights. Such policies enhance societal restrictions imposed on women under the pretext of “protection”. Therefore, the different human rights violations perpetrated by Israeli authorities curtail Palestinian presence in public spaces and restrict their free and safe movement between cities. The effects of these crimes are especially harmful to Palestinian women, who are constantly subjected to significant threats and dangers.

3. Restriction of Economic Rights:

   Since the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and imposition of Israeli law therein, Israeli authorities have constantly exploited the law to limit the different aspects of Palestine life. This was done to undermine the livelihoods of the indigenous population and push them to leave their city under a “silent transfer” policy.

   Israel’s restriction of Palestinian economic rights is a vivid example of exploiting the Israeli law to Judaize the city and expand their control over it.

   The imposition of complicated Israeli laws on occupied East Jerusalem greatly puzzles local merchants and entrepreneurs. The Occupation also imposes exorbitant taxes and fees on East Jerusalem’s commercial enterprises and does not provide them with governmental support. Moreover, it is difficult for these businesses to receive tax reductions because most Palestinian merchants are ignorant of Israeli laws imposed by the occupier.

   In 2021, a quarter of the shops of Jerusalem’s Old City were closed down and had to discontinue their operations. On the other hand, Jerusalem is increasingly witnessing many small enterprises run by women. In this sector, women offer their distinctive handicrafts for sale and positively affect the society. In fact, women seem to be the most motivated to produce, hence they play a leading role in small-sized enterprises in occupied Jerusalem. Due to the restrictions imposed by the Israeli occupation on various business sectors, Jerusalemite women resort to bazaars organized by civil society organizations to present their diverse products. But even the bazaars are sometimes attacked and closed down, similar to what happens in cultural activities. This includes assaults on bazaar participants and organizers, as well as attacking and terrorizing the visitors.

   The economic environment in Jerusalem is in a terrible condition full of challenges. Therefore, small enterprises there need support and empowerment programs. However, empowerment programs are also subjected to limitations, similar to those suffered by cultural organizations. This is because the empowerment of small enterprises is considered a “security file” by the Occupation and not a vital right and service. Hence, empowerment programs require the approval and oversight of Israeli Police.

   These policies, along with excessive tax penalties imposed on Palestinian enterprises, are considered impediments of economic security in occupied Jerusalem. This reduces the opportunity to develop start-up companies and leads to the closure of current businesses. These restrictions prompt young potential entrepreneurs to think about alternative ways to find a livelihood under occupation.

4. House Demolitions:

   House demolitions are among the most obvious forms of forced displacement perpetrated by Occupation authorities. In several cases, these acts also constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity. Israeli occupation authorities use the pretext of “building without a permit” to destroy residential facilities, along with placing heavy restrictions in the procedures for obtaining building permits. During the first quarter of 2021, Palestinian families in Jerusalem witnessed a 40% increase in house demolitions compared to previous years. Also, the Occupation’s executive branch has the power to issue demolition orders which are often non-appealable; meaning that the Israeli judiciary has no authority to review them. These illicit acts are usually based on the “Kaminitz Law”, which grants broad powers to the executive branch regarding demolitions and the imposition of exorbitant taxes on house-related “violations”, thus undermining the power of judicial authorities. The said law also prevents courts from freezing demolition orders, hence the Planning and Building Department can freely issue an administrative order to demolish a building – along with imposing a fine of hundreds of thousands of Shekels - without court permission. The Israeli government boasts that, through this law, they were able to cut down 80 percent of the construction in “unregulated” Arab towns.

   This policy threatens to make many Palestinian families homeless overnight and imposes harsh and unbearable circumstances. The said practice breaches the right to adequate housing and contravenes the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the forcible transfer of protected civilians.

   This also threatens and undermines the personal security of individuals. Women are particularly vulnerable in such cases, as they are forced to adapt to a new situation and assume their previous responsibilities with must less means.

   The said policy also affects the roles of women due to moving to a new area and suffering from different circumstances after their house gets demolished. This transforms the lives of Jerusalemite Palestinian women from stability to displacement. It also affects their ability to access sufficient resources and restore their sense of belonging in light of constant fear and anxiety. It also destabilizes the economic situation and affects the family structure due to the loss of livelihoods, properties, and belongings as well as the loss of privacy.

   International law links the right to adequate housing with human security since the latter is a major component of the right to an adequate standard of living. Therefore, the “indivisible” approach applies to basic human rights, such as the right to food, water, health, work, property, well-being, safe housing, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. The definition of the “Right to Adequate Housing” shows that this term is more than providing a roof for a person to live under, but it also includes a person’s right to live a safe and honourable life in an adequate housing away from threats. Therefore, the international community considers forced displacement a gross violation of international law. This act [i.e., forced displacement] can even constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity in some cases.

5. Attacking Civilians in Public Spaces:

   Israeli occupation authorities intentionally restrict the Palestinian right to access or be present in public places. This is done by attacking civilians in public spaces, conducting arbitrary arrests, and issuing orders to ban persons from approaching their city. The policy of attacking civilians runs contrary to international humanitarian law, as Article (27) of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires Occupation authorities to protect civilians and guarantee their basic rights. It also stipulates that “protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs.” This Convention also states that individuals must be protected from any attack. Furthermore, the Occupation violates the Palestinian right of peaceful assembly, which was protected by Article (21) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

   The said policies directly affect Palestinian women, who are forced to stay in private spaces and are permanently threatened in the public sphere, including threats to their community security and personal security.

Introduction

It has been one year since Israel launched its 22-day long attack codenamed Operation Cast Lead (OCL) on the Gaza Strip. Last week a British court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Kadima opposition leader Tzipi Livni for her role in orchestrating the assault. Livni, who was Israel’s foreign minister at the time, was scheduled to visit the UK but ended up calling off her trip; the arrest warrant was cancelled as a result. However the issuing of the warrant in and of itself is an incredible feat. It is also a direct result of recommendations made in the Goldstone Report concerning how to bring justice to the Palestinian victims of OCL.

Israel launched OCL in what it said was response to years of rocket and mortar fire emanating from armed Palestinian groups operating in the Strip, invoking self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter as justification for the attack. Article 51 of the charter reads “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations...”

Israel maintains that the operation was indeed necessary for self-defense, and stated that the aim of the operation was to end rocket attacks into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip, to dismantle the ability of Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups to launch rockets and mortars into southern Israel, and to restore Israel’s deterrent capability. Yet on the first day of the operation and within the first few minutes of OCL alone, Israeli forces killed 99 members of the Palestinian police force in Gaza. The attack occurred in midday when the streets were full of people, including many school children, which spiked the death toll of the first day to over 200.

In the days that followed, the death toll increased significantly, drawing the condemnation of Palestinians, human rights groups and the international community who decried the operation as having a disproportionate and what seemed an intentional impact on civilians. The number of Palestinians killed during the operation varies, but most human rights groups put the number around 1,400 and say that an overwhelming number of those killed were civilians, including approximately 300 children. Additionally, there was extensive and severe damage to civilian objects and infrastructure; the overall impact of OCL on the civilian population of Gaza caused widespread international outcry and protests, which led to the establishment of the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, and ultimately resulted in the Goldstone Report.

The United Nations Fact Finding Mission to Gaza

The United Nations Fact Finding Mission to Gaza was established on 3 April 2009 by the President of the United Nations Human Rights Council with the purpose of investigating “all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”

The fact-finding mission emerged as a result of UN resolution S-9/1 adopted on 12 January 2009 by the United Nations Human Rights Council at the conclusion of its 9th special session, and was drafted by Cuba, Egypt and Pakistan. Resolution S-9/1 initially sought the investigation only of Israeli violations during OCL, drawing criticism that the resolution was biased against Israel. However, prior to the drafting of the resolution, eight Israeli NGOs wrote to Israeli Attorney General Mr. Meni Mazuz requesting an independent international investigation into the allegations of grave Israeli violations of the laws of war during the Gaza operation. The eight NGOs additionally expressed their concern at the inability of the Military Advocate General’s office to initiate a fair and neutral investigation. Thus there was also a very strong push from within Israel itself for a fair and independent international investigation into the allegations that the laws of war were seriously violated during OCL.

South African Justice Richard Goldstone, former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, was selected by the President of the Human Rights Council to head the commission. Justice Goldstone, a Jew and self-proclaimed Zionist who sits on the board of Governors of Hebrew University, is a man of impressive stature with an impeccable reputation for fairness and justice. He headed the former prosecution for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and agreed to head the fact-finding mission to Gaza only after asking that all violations of international law be investigated, not just allegations against Israel. According to the mandate, “the mission determined it was required to consider any actions by all parties that might have constituted violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law.”

This allowed the mission to investigate and document Palestinian violations as well, making it more difficult to claim that the findings of the report were biased. However, aside from drafting a report that would be deemed fair and balanced, the mission also held the opinion that denying accountability on both sides only serves to reinforce impunity, which has a negative impact on the credibility of the UN, the international community and the peace process itself. Thus the overall aim of the Goldstone Report seemed to be concerned with ending the cycle of violence by halting impunity from violations of international law through holding those violators accountable. The report asserts that accountability would deter the eruption of such extreme violence in the future.

In addition to investigating violations of international law during the military operations, the mandate also required it to review related actions in the entire Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel, thereby providing a larger framework through which to understand the context from which the violence of Operation Cast Lead emerged.” The mission considered both Israeli and Palestinian actions from 1967 through January 2009, placing particular emphasis on the Israeli imposed blockade of the Gaza Strip, and placing OCL within the context of the ongoing blockade of the Strip and overall Israeli policies toward the occupied Palestinian territory.

In this sense the report is exhaustive, thorough and meticulously documents Israeli occupation practices that violate international law and the human rights of Palestinians, drawing a direct correlation between these practices and OCL. The report gives considerable attention to Israeli policies of house demolitions, evictions, construction of the wall and settlements, settler violence against Palestinians, the separation of the West Bank from east Jerusalem and Gaza, Israeli detention policies, and the denial of due process to Palestinian prisoners. The mission also examined discriminatory policies within Israel against its Palestinian citizens and attempts to stifle dissent within Israel. In this regard, the report is extraordinary in its scope and deeply profound in its findings. Simply put, the conclusions of the report cannot and should not be ignored in the pursuit of peace and justice for Palestine and Israel.

The Mission’s Framework and Methodology

The task of the mission was very specific and according to the report itself “interpreted the mandate as requiring it to place the civilian population of the region at the center of its concerns regarding the violations of international law.” The mission conducted its investigation of the impact of the operation on civilians within the framework of general international law, the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law.

Because the mandate of the mission very specifically required it to investigate the impact on civilians according to international humanitarian law (IHL) and the laws of war, it was not intended or permitted to investigate deeper questions of aggression and how Operation Cast Lead was initiated. The framework of the report assumed that Israel had the right to self-defense according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Thus the investigation did not specifically explore whether or not OCL was a war of last resort or if all other diplomatic options had been exhausted in dealing with the rocket fire from Gaza.

The Goldstone Report does document very thoroughly all terms and breaches of the six-month Egyptian-brokered truce between Israel and Hamas, which was intended to halt the rocket and mortar fire and ease the Israeli blockade of the Strip. The report also acknowledges that the Israeli blockade of the Strip was not eased during the truce, and notes that the Israeli incursion into the Strip on 4 November 2008 in which six Hamas operatives were killed played a significant role in the breakdown of the truce. However, it does not provide any recommendations or draw any conclusions regarding the success of the truce in reducing rocket and mortar fire from the Strip. Instead, the mission focused on examining to what extend Israel took feasible precaution in protecting the civilian population of Gaza, to what extent Palestinian armed groups took feasible precaution in protecting the civilian population of Gaza, and to what extent Palestinian armed groups placed the civilian population of southern Israel in danger.

Israel’s Reactions

In response to allegations that OCL had a disproportionate impact and effect on Palestinian civilians, Israel responded that Hamas launched attacks from within civilian areas and near civilian objects including schools, hospitals, ambulances and mosques, thereby using the population of Gaza as a human shield. Because of this, Israel claimed that Hamas had forced the Israeli military into a type of urban warfare that could not distinguish between military and civilian objects and that civilian casualties were an unfortunate but justified result of this type of warfare. Israel’s government officials continue to insist that OCL was not directed at the civilian population of Gaza, but at those responsible for firing rockets and mortars at civilian centers in southern Israel.

For example, in response to the recent arrest warrant issued against her, Livni’s office said she was “proud of all her decisions regarding Operation Cast Lead.” This should not be surprising considering that OCL enjoyed an overwhelming majority of Israeli approval; 90% of the Israeli public supported the operation in Gaza and continue to insist that it was a just war. In fact during the operation some Israelis, many of them from the southern Israeli town of Sderot which has been one of the primary areas impacted by the rocket and mortar attacks, gathered with journalists on a string of sandy hilltops near the Gaza border to watch the bombardment of the coastal enclave. Spectators brought binoculars, lawn chairs, sack lunches and snapped photos of each other with plumes of smoke rising from the besieged Strip in the background. Most expressed gratitude that the Israeli government was finally taking action against the rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza, rejecting accusations that the force used was disproportionate and placing the blame for the assault squarely onto the shoulders of the people of Gaza.

Moreover, last March in the wake of the operation Israeli Major General Yoav Galant reiterated this sentiment about OCL when he said "A feeling of pride washes over me because we have a moral army that adheres to international law." This statement seems to reflect the general Israeli popular opinion concerning OCL, and explains why there was such anger and outrage over the Goldstone Report within Israel, which dismissed the report as unfair, biased and an attempt to undermine Israel’s right to defend itself. It also seems to indicate a severe lack of awareness and understanding amongst the Israeli public concerning the origins of the violence and the reality of Israel’s policies in the Palestinian territories.

It is no surprise then that Israel rejected the report’s findings and that most Israelis have not bothered to read the report, the contents of which are unsettling and deeply disturbing to them, particularly for a population that can easily choose to live in denial about Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories. The conclusions reached by the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict determined that the overall aims of OCL were not based upon self-defense from the rocket attacks but were “directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population.” Thus the conclusions of the report directly contradict and challenge the dominant Israeli narrative that Israel operated according to and with respect for international law. Moreover, the report punches a dramatic hole in the assertion that the Israeli army is the most moral army in the world. It is very difficult for many Israelis to grapple with the assertion that their government and military intentionally target Palestinian civilians. In the collective Israeli consciousness in which Israelis are morally superior, it is imagined that only Palestinians target civilians.

International Law

Under international law, both Israeli military forces and armed Palestinian groups are entitled to engage in military action against the other, and both are entitled to engage in military action for purposes of self-defense. However, any such attacks must be undertaken and designed to achieve military objectives and target military objects. In order for an object to be considered a military object, two criteria must be fulfilled; the object has to contribute effectively to the military action of the enemy, and its destruction, capture or neutralization must offer a definite military advantage for the other side. The principle of distinction under customary IHL prohibits direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects.

In the event that attacks from civilian objects occur, the principle of proportionality must be considered, in which disproportionate harm to civilians that produces no clear military advantage become prohibited. The principle of distinction also holds true even in the event that one party to a conflict does not have the means or the military capability to attack the enemy’s military targets.

This has always been a dilemma for the Palestinians who have never had the military means or military strength to fight Israel equally; as the occupying power Israel has always maintained military and strategic dominance over the Palestinian people. Thus the conflict has always been an asymmetrical one – these are not two equal powers fighting each other on equal ground with equal means. Israel is the world’s 4th strongest military power and has access to the most sophisticated and deadly weaponry. Palestinians, on the other hand remain a stateless and occupied people who have access to very limited military weaponry and capability.

Yet the Goldstone Report undoubtedly recognizes the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to struggle for their inherent right to self-determination. However, the mission and the report reject claims made by a minority of individuals within armed Palestinian groups that the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians with the rocket and mortar attacks is justified. The report rejects that reprisals in response to the killing of Palestinian civilians by Israeli military are legitimate. According to the Goldstone Report, under international law “resistance movements against colonialism and occupation are regarded as international armed conflicts” in which “any action of resistance pursuant to the right of self-determination should be exercised with full respect of other human rights and IHL.”

One can argue the logistics of how an occupied people without the necessary military means to strike at purely military targets ought to resist their occupation, particularly when negotiations and the international community have repeatedly failed them. Nonetheless, the Goldstone Report is clear in its condemnation of the rocket and mortar attacks and Palestinian violence directed at Israeli civilians: this type of violence is intended to spread terror amongst the civilian population, constituting war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, and under no circumstances can it be tolerated.

Yet the report also acknowledges the high number of Palestinian casualties in Gaza during the time period the rocket and mortar attacks have occurred. Death tolls from two particular incidents are worth noting. From the Israeli “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005 until November 2006, Israeli forces killed 525 Palestinians in Gaza. Then in February of 2008 during operation “Hot Winter,” Israeli forces killed 202 Palestinians in Gaza. The report thus asserts that the cycle of violence makes it difficult for Israelis to believe that Palestinians intend to let them live in peace and security in their state, and for Palestinians to believe that Israelis intend to let them live in peace and security in a state of their own. This distrust serves to feed the vicious cycle.

The Mission’s Findings

Despite Israel’s claims that the report singled it out alone, the mission found that both Israel and armed Palestinian groups committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. As the occupying power Israel receives the majority of the attention throughout the report, although all Palestinian abuses are well documented in the report including inter-Palestinian violence between Hamas and Fatah, abuses against the Palestinian people by both the PA and Hamas, Palestinian attacks directed at Israeli civilians and the protections and rights thus denied to captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit as a prisoner of war.

In relation to Israel and OCL, the mission examined very specific incidents and cases in which international humanitarian law was explicitly violated, particularly in relation to the principles of distinction and proportionality. This included the deliberate and intentional disabling of what little remained of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure including the destruction of wells, agricultural land, Gaza’s only operating flour mill, chicken farms and a cement factory in addition to the destruction and razing of civilian homes. The mission found that these actions were not in response to a direct threat to Israeli military forces and that no military advantage was gained from their destruction; the mission concluded these attacks were deliberate and intended to produce increased suffering of the civilian population of Gaza.

The mission also took particular interest in the attack on the UNRWA compound, which seems to offer exceptional representation of Israel’s overall aims and policies during OCL. The UNRWA compound was sheltering some 700 Palestinian civilians when it came under Israeli attack with seven white phosphorous shells and three high explosive missiles on 3 January 2009. What troubled the mission most about the nature of the attack is that the UNRWA compound had a large fuel depot, with 120,000 liters of fuel stored underground and 49,000 liters of fuel stored in tankers above ground, which could have resulted in an immense catastrophe had the fuel ignited. The compound also stored substantial quantities of food, medical supplies and blankets, which according to former UNRWA Director-General Karen AbuZayd were the supplies for all the humanitarian agencies in the Gaza Strip. Fires resulting from Israeli shelling destroyed much of the aid.

UN officials at the compound were in constant communication with Israeli authorities that had coordinates of all UN facilities, including the UNRWA compound. Moreover, Israeli military officials were aware of the most vulnerable parts of the compound, in particular the fuel depot. On the day of the attack on the compound, numerous phone calls were made to inform the Israelis of the attack on the compound and the immediate danger due to the fuel depot. However, the attacks continued unabated for more than three hours despite the exceedingly high level of communication between UN officials in the compound and the Israeli military.

In response to the attack on the UNRWA compound, the Israelis initially asserted that they had been attacked from the compound. Later they backtracked and said that the white phosphorous shells had been fired to produce a smoke screen to provide cover from Hamas fighters who were in the area, and that all remnants of munitions that landed in the compound were unintended. The mission rejected this claim because the munitions landed directly inside the compound in extremely vulnerable parts of it. The mission also concluded that due to the precision of Israeli military technology it is unlikely that mistakes of this nature were made, and also unlikely that the same mistake could have been made ten times over a three-hour time period. Moreover, all witnesses interviewed whom the mission deemed to be credible reported that there was no fire coming from within or near the compound while it was being shelled.

The mission found that even if Israeli claims were taken at face value despite their contradictions the attack on the UNRWA compound failed to strike a balance between risk to civilian life and military advantage gained. In this sense, the mission was more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Israeli military commanders in what would otherwise appear to be a deliberate attack on a well-known and easily identifiable civilian object with an extremely high risk for civilian casualties. Moreover, the fact that fires destroyed much of the humanitarian aid being stored in the compound would seem to indicate that this may have been the intention of the shelling of the compound, fitting into the overall policy of inflicting greater suffering upon the civilian population of Gaza.

Additionally the mission found many instances in which Palestinian civilians, whose status as civilians was known to Israeli military forces, were intentionally targeted and killed. The mission also found that Israeli forces used Palestinians as human shields, forcing them to enter buildings ahead of Israeli soldiers to check for combatants or booby traps. Furthermore, the mission concluded from facts gathered that Israel committed the following grave breaches of the 4th Geneva Convention: “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” The Mission also indicated that the use of human shields constitutes a war crime.

Additionally, the mission concluded that Israel’s efforts to warn Palestinians of imminent attacks through phone calls, dropping of leaflets and the use of lighter explosives as warning indicators were insufficient and did not relieve Israeli forces from taking all additional precautions in protecting the civilian population of Gaza. The mission reached this conclusion because warnings were often unclear, or directed civilians to city centers that had previously come under heavy attack. The report also draws necessary attention to the deadly predicament the population of Gaza found itself in; they were extremely limited in their ability to flee to safety. Gaza is on of the world’s most densely populated areas, of which all borders were sealed and closed. Thus they did not have the option to become refugees – there was literally no place for them to go.

Palestinian Violations

The mission found that Palestinian armed groups were present in urban areas during hostilities and did launch rockets from urban areas. The mission concluded that some armed Palestinians might not have distinguished themselves from civilians at all times. However the mission found no evidence to suggest that civilians were directed to areas where attacks were being launched, nor that they were forced to stay in areas where attacks were underway. In this sense, the mission largely rejects the Israeli assertion that Palestinian armed groups used the civilian population of Gaza as a human shield in order to deter Israeli attacks. Moreover, the mission noted that the government of Israel has produced absolutely no evidence to support its claims that Palestinian combatants “mingle routinely with civilians in order to cover their movements.”

Further, the mission could not conclude that mosques were used for military purposes, nor did they find any evidence that attacks were launched from hospitals or that ambulances were used for military purposes. Moreover, the mission concluded that UN facilities were not used to stage attacks or military activities, though it could not discount the possibility that Palestinian armed groups may have been active in the vicinity of UN facilities. If Palestinian armed groups engaged in military activity in the vicinity of civilian or protected buildings, the mission concluded that this would unnecessarily place the civilian population of Gaza in danger. However the conduct of military action in urban areas does not by itself violate international law.

Rocket Attacks

In relation to the Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks the mission noted their psychological impact on the civilian population of southern Israel. The attacks have killed 19 Israeli civilians within Israel between June 2004 and January 2009. The mission noted that the attacks interfere with their right to education, the ability of Israelis to lead a normal social life, and have caused destruction to property. The mission found that the rocket and mortar fire constitutes indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population of southern Israel, and that such attacks are deliberate and intended to spread terror, which constitutes a violation of international law in the form of war crimes and possibly even crimes against humanity.

The mission also found that public declarations by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups of the intention to target civilians as reprisals to Israeli violence against Palestinians is contrary to international humanitarian law. However, the mission also noted with concern that many Bedouin communities in southern Israel within rocket and mortar range, which remain unrecognized by Israel do not have warning systems, nor are any of their structures reinforced to protect them from rocket attacks. Furthermore, Palestinian towns in southern Israel that lie within rocket range are not afforded reinforcements for any of their structures; only the predominantly Jewish towns are. This finding brings attention to discriminatory policies and practices within Israel against its non-Jewish citizens.

Additionally, the mission concluded that Gilad Shalit meets prisoner of war status and should be afforded all rights due to him under the 3rd Geneva Convention including protection, humane treatment, external communication, and visitation by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) without delay. However the mission noted that the continued blockade of Gaza until Shalit’s release would constitute collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza.

The Israeli Blockade of Gaza

The mission examined OCL as part and parcel of the Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip. Israel began blocking aid to Gaza in 2006, following the success of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections with the intention of convincing the population of Gaza to withdraw their support from Hamas. When Hamas seized power of Gaza in 2007 Israel put much greater restrictions on the flow of goods including fuel, electricity and food into the Strip. Additionally, Israel declared Gaza a hostile entity and insists it is no longer the occupying power of Gaza due to its withdrawal of settlers and military forces from Gaza in 2005; on this basis Israel asserts it is no longer responsible for Gaza’s welfare.

The impacts of the blockade have been severe, and the mission placed much emphasis on examining the effects of the blockade. The mission found that “by December 2008 the destructive impact of the blockade on the local economy had doubled unemployment levels. While in 2007 79% of households lived below the official poverty line (US$ 4 per capita/day) and some 70% below the deep poverty line (US$ 3 per capita/day), these figures were expected to increase by the end of 2008” and this was before OCL, which greatly exacerbated the already dire circumstances. Further, the mission determined that “the blockade and the military hostilities have created a situation in which most people are destitute. Women and children have been particularly affected. The current situation has been described as a crisis of human dignity.”

Finally, the mission concluded that ‘the expected impact” and what it believes was the primary purpose of the blockade “was to bring about a situation in which the civilian population would find life so intolerable that they would leave (if it were possible) or turn Hamas out of office, as well as to collectively punish the civilian population.” The mission saw OCL as a continuation of the policy of punishing the population of Gaza as a whole, intended to increase their level of suffering. The deliberate targeting of the food and sanitation infrastructure, along with the targeting of the UNRWA compound, which destroyed much of Gaza’s humanitarian aid, makes this assertion difficult to refute.

Conclusions of the Report

Given the advanced Israeli military technology and ability for precision, the mission concluded that “the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions.” Tactics used in Gaza were consistent with practices in the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006 and reflect what is known as the Dahiya Doctrine. The Dahiya Doctrine transforms civilians and civilian objects into military targets, and proscribes the infliction of disproportionate force and damage to civilian property and infrastructure, and thereby great suffering to civilian populations to achieve political aims. The mission found little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against Palestinian civilians during OCL were part of deliberate Israeli planning and policy.

The mission further concluded that the blockade on Gaza, which was severely worsened by Operation Cast Lead, constitutes collective punishment in violation of international humanitarian law. In further relation to the blockade, the mission found that the denial to Palestinians of their right to sustenance, employment, housing, water, freedom of movement, and the limitation of their access to a court of law could amount to persecution, which is a crime against humanity. The mission also found that “Israel is still duty bound under the 4th Geneva Convention… to ensure the supply of foodstuff, medical and hospital items and others to meet the humanitarian needs of the population of the Gaza Strip without qualification.” This last finding is particularly important because Israel is trying to escape responsibility for the welfare of the population of Gaza by denying it is still the occupying power there.

Finally, the mission reached a very significant and profound conclusion regarding the source of violence and the way to redress it. According to the Goldstone Report:

“As the Mission focused on investigating and analyzing the specific matters within its mandate, Israel’s continuing occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank emerged as the fundamental factor underlying violations of international humanitarian and human rights law against the protected population and undermining prospects for development and peace. Israel’s failure to acknowledge and exercise its responsibilities as the Occupying Power further exacerbated the effects of occupation on the Palestinian people, and continue to do so. Furthermore, the harsh and unlawful practices of occupation, far from quelling resistance, breed it, including its violent manifestations. The Mission is of the view that ending occupation is a prerequisite for the return of a dignified life for Palestinians, as well as development and a peaceful solution to the conflict.”

Recommendations of the Report

According to international law, when serious violations of human rights occur, investigations must be conducted, and if appropriate, prosecution of allegations of serious violations must ensue. The Goldstone Report was endorsed by the Human Rights Council on 16 October 2009 and will now go on to the Security Council for further consideration. The Security Council can then refer the report to the International Criminal Court (ICC) should Israel and Hamas fail to conduct proper investigations into the allegations of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, which would allow for the trying of those directly involved in the planning and implementing of OCL. However, the report will more than likely not move beyond the Security Council because the US is likely to veto further consideration of it.

If that happens, there are two additional options. The UN Secretary General can refer the matter to the UN General Assembly, which under Resolution 377 can take action if the Security Council fails to act in matters that produce a threat to peace, a breach of peace or an act of aggression. This would potentially allow the General Assembly to refer the matter to the ICC if it does not move beyond the Security Council.

However, the most likely possibility is that those guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity will be arrested and tried under universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction allows national courts to try cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity, even when those crimes are not committed in the nation trying the case, and even when those guilty of the crimes are not nationals of the nation trying the case. The recent arrest warrant issued for Tzipi Livni in the UK was an exercise of this power.

However, it remains to be seen if the Goldstone Report will have enough influence to result in a prosecution. Attempts were made to try former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Belgium for his roles in the attack on the West Bank village of Qibya in 1953, and the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, including the infamous massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The attempts to arrest and try him failed, and given the immense political pressure Israel will exert to avoid the arrest and trial of any of its military commanders or political leaders, it is uncertain if the Goldstone Report will be able to deliver this kind of justice. Case in point, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said in the wake of Livni’s arrest warrant that changes to the UK’s legal system might be necessary to prevent this kind of situation from arising again.

In addition to the recommendation of referral to the ICC should Israel and Hamas fail to conduct proper investigations, civilian victims of war crimes and grave violations of international law are entitled to reparations for damages or losses incurred during hostilities. The mission reached the conclusion that there is very limited room, if any for Palestinians to seek reparations from Israel. Thus the mission recommended the establishment of an international mechanism to provide compensation for Palestinian victims of OCL.

Conclusion

The Goldstone Report took note that Palestinians and human rights organizations have grown weary in the face of numerous reports and initiatives that have failed to produce any meaningful or tangible results in the pursuit of peace and justice. The report further notes the enabling impact this has on the formation and implementation of Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories that violate IHL. Thus we have arrived at a critical juncture for the future of Palestine and Israel; Justice Goldstone has said in interviews that he does not believe there is a genuine peace process. Yet there is an obvious and urgent need for one that incorporates respect for and adherence to international humanitarian law.

The trial and prosecution of war criminals would be a major victory in the pursuit of justice for victims of OCL. However, it will prove futile if it does not deter future inflictions of gross violence from occurring. Perhaps then the most profound revelations of the Goldstone Report do not pertain to the allegations and assertions that war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity were committed during OCL. Perhaps the more important revelations of the report, and the ones we should concern ourselves with are the ones that attempt to uncover the root causes of the violence; the occupation and the denial of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

Finally, the report also cautions against the use of the kind of grotesque military violence witnessed during OCL, drawing much needed attention to the long-term consequences of it. Both Palestinian and Israeli victims are likely to develop feelings of hatred in response to attacks on civilians. However, the level of violence inflicted on the people of Gaza was severe, deep and far-reaching; the impacts will be felt for generations to come. The mission found that 30% of children screened in UNRWA schools in Gaza have mental health problems, while 10% lost family, friends, their homes and all of their belongings. Additionally, the World Health Organization has estimated that 30,000 children in Gaza will need prolonged psychological support, and warned of the potential for many of these children to grow up with aggressive attitudes and hatred.

The question that needs to be asked, and ultimately addressed, is what kind of future will the use of this kind of violence create? OCL demonstrated an escalation in the level of violence, and seems to indicate that the level of violence will only grow more severe. For this, the Goldstone Report condemns Israel for “failing to protect its own citizens by refusing to acknowledge the futility of resorting to violent means and military power.” Thus there is much to be gained and learned from the results of the fact-finding mission to Gaza. Israel should not bury its head in the sand in the face of the report’s findings, nor should the international community continue its failure to act. Justice just might be the first step on the road to peace. In order for that to happen, the era of impunity needs to be replaced by an era of accountability. This is the ultimate message of the Goldstone Report, and one that will hopefully be received.

Britain Eakin is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

To View the Full Special Study as PDF (208 KB)

Things have not been going well for Israel this year. Still reeling from the fallout of the Goldstone Report and the international outcry over Operation Cast Lead, Israel finds itself in the hot seat once again, requiring it to wage yet another “diplomatic campaign” as damage control. Last week the EU heads of commission of Jerusalem released a report which is updated annually and presented to the Palestinian Authority. The report accuses Israel of actively pursuing the annexation of east Jerusalem and undermining hopes for peace with the Palestinians by rendering the two-state solution infeasible. The report was delivered to various institutions in Brussels, and apparently was the impetus behind the recent Swedish initiative calling for formal EU recognition of east Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. The EU foreign ministers voted on it yesterday, but dropped the original Swedish proposal. They did, however reaffirm that Jerusalem should be a joint capital of two states.

The Swedish initiative drew sweeping criticism and condemnation by the Israeli government, which said the initiative would only serve to harm and undermine peace efforts, and warned the EU to keep their hands off Jerusalem. Yet the original initiative was far from controversial and reiterated the basic premise behind the internationally accepted vision of a two-state solution. In fact, the initiative stated that “The European Union calls for the urgent resumption of negotiations that will lead, within an agreed timeframe, to a two-state solution with an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine, comprising the West Bank and Gaza and with east Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side in peace and security with the state of Israel.”

Moreover, the initiative asserts that a comprehensive peace is of fundamental interest to the EU and must be achieved on the basis of previous initiatives such as the Madrid Principles, relevant UN resolutions, the Road Map, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the Arab Initiative. Thus the Swedish initiative did not stray too far from already existing principles and international norms regarding the creation of a Palestinian state, yet Israel has responded with absolute indignation to it.

Perhaps one aspect of what troubled Israel so greatly about the initiative was its expressed support for the resumption of negotiations leading to final status talks where the “core issues” will be resolved. The core issues have been on the backburner of the negotiating table since the peace process commenced in the early 1990s. Yet they are precisely the issues that need to be addressed if any significant progress will ever be made. The most pressing of these issues include borders, Jerusalem, refugees, security and water. It is no coincidence that Israel has insisted these issues be reserved for a “later time.” Time is in fact Israel’s greatest weapon, which it has used very effectively to create what it hopes are irreversible facts on the ground.

The continual delay of final status talks has allowed Israel free reign to do as it pleases, which is precisely what the EU commission of Jerusalem report and the Swedish initiative addressed and called Israel out on. Israel, of course wants to determine and control the borders, annex as much land as it can, have control over Jerusalem, and maintain control of water resources in the West Bank. Moreover, under no circumstances does Israel want to absorb any Palestinian refugees; this would threaten the demographic balance of Israel in which Jews are currently the majority.

Yet more telling was the Swedish initiative’s condemnation of what it termed Israel’s discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in east Jerusalem, expressing grave concern over the situation there within the context of Israel’s ultimate plan for annexation. According to the initiative, the Council of the European Union has never recognized the annexation of east Jerusalem, and called for an unspecified resolution of the issue of Jerusalem as the capital of two states. Israel’s swift campaign to pressure EU officials to withdraw support for the initiative, which resulted in the watered down version they approved, seems to indicate it doesn’t appreciate any interference in the steps it has taken to slowly but surely annex east Jerusalem. Israel’s response to the initiative could not make its intentions any clearer – it wants an undivided Jerusalem entirely under Israeli control, not one shared with the Palestinians.

To this end, the original initiative demanded a cessation of settlement activities and the dismantling of outposts, and also reminded Israel that the settlements, the separation barrier and the policy of house demolitions are all illegal under international law. At this point we all know that reminders, initiatives, resolutions and reports have done nothing to actually stop Israel’s illegal occupation practices in their tracks. This would seem to indicate that the EU vote to back Jerusalem as a joint capital and the EU commission of Jerusalem report will simply join the ranks of all the other failed attempts to hold Israel accountable.

Yet what is interesting is that the EU commission of Jerusalem has never made its report public before, and Israel has always pressured them not to, citing fear that it might exacerbate what it terms is the already negative European image of Israel. The truth is, Israel has enjoyed control over media perceptions of its illegal occupation practices for decades and has a powerful arsenal of weapons with which to turn down the volume of and deflect attention away from those who bring attention to them. Perhaps the decision made by the EU commission of Jerusalem to release the report is an indication that Israel’s impunity is beginning to wane, and its previous strategies of silencing voices of conscience are no longer as effective.

Even if nothing tangible comes from the EU commission of Jerusalem report or the EU vote to back Jerusalem as a joint capital, they nonetheless represent a very positive step in the right direction. Furthermore, they may be an indication that the tide of world opinion of Israel is finally shifting in the favor of justice. Until more governmental bodies have the courage to boldly address Israel’s illegal occupation practices, nothing is likely to change here. I can only hope my own US government will follow the EU’s lead and recognize that maintaining the status quo hasn’t worked. Though it remains to be seen what the impact will be, at least someone is trying a much needed new approach.

Britain Eakin is a Writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org.

On the Muslim holiday of Eid Al Adha, I traveled to Tel-Aviv for a belated Thanksgiving celebration with a dear friend, who I will call Yael. Yael is a Jewish Israeli with dual American citizenship whom I met in the US years ago, long before I knew anything about Israel or Palestine. However, as I’ve become more politically aware concerning Palestine, our friendship has developed an uncomfortable tension. This tension was particularly agitated when I started posting articles on Facebook that were critical of Israeli policies in Palestine, the height of which occurred during Operation Cast Lead, along with my outspoken criticism of it.

My political expressions via Facebook deeply offended Yael, who saw my posts as one-sided and interpreted them as a direct personal attack on her. The hurt ran so deep that even until very recently it was uncertain if our friendship would survive our political differences. This meeting was our first since the tension erupted and since I’ve been in Palestine this time, and was a sincere attempt to repair our damaged friendship.

Last year when I was here, I spent a significant amount of time in Israel, much of it with Yael. This time I’ve mostly stayed in the West Bank and have ventured into Israel on very few occasions. The hassle of crossing Qalandiya checkpoint often deters me, yet when I do go I try to engage with Jewish Israelis, making a point not to shy away from telling them I live in Ramallah. I do this for two reasons: one because I enjoy the looks of shock on their faces when I tell them I live here, and two because I enjoy hearing their responses, which are quite telling.

On this trip the initial responses were the same without fail; with complete looks of surprise on their faces they all asked me if I said “Ramla (an Arab city inside Israel) or Ramallah,” as if I could not possibly have said the latter. Once it becomes clear that I did indeed say “Ramallah” a series of questions inevitably ensues; in my experience, Jewish Israelis become very curious when they encounter someone who actually lives on “the other side.” I am a strange and interesting creature to them.

Yael and I spent Eid preparing a Thanksgiving feast and discussing the tension between us. As we cooked we took turns sharing our feelings with each other and tried to reach an understanding of where the other person was coming from. In the end, we decided to let bygones be bygones but did not come to a decision about how to walk the delicate political line of our friendship. In the past, we mulled over the idea of never discussing politics again. Yet even if we had made that decision I don’t believe it would stick. My life in Ramallah is much too interesting to ignore for a Jewish Israeli who has never been to the West Bank, and my conscience won’t let me shy away from what I have born witness to here.

After we finished cooking, Yael and I took the food over to her friend’s house where five of her friends, all British Jews, joined us for the feast. Halfway into the meal, the daughter of one of Yael’s friends asked me where I live. I told her I live in Ramallah, at which point her eyes grew wide and she asked me “Ramla, or Ramallah?” Once I clarified that I live in Ramallah, the questioning commenced.

The first question asked was whether or not I have to cover my hair here. I told them it’s not necessary, and pointed out the considerable Christian minority in Palestine, to which one of them responded that she thought all Palestinians were Muslims. They were also surprised to learn that you can buy alcohol here, and that some restaurants actually serve it. They asked about my social life, wanting to know if I socialize with Palestinians or other foreigners. I told them my contact with other foreigners is very limited and that I mostly interact with Palestinians. They inquired about what kind of television is available here and if we get any Israeli stations. They also asked if I feel safe here, to which I responded that I feel so safe I have no problem walking home alone late at night.

Additionally, they wanted to know if I was questioned while crossing Qalandiya checkpoint – I told them I only have to show my passport photo and my most recent entry visa. I could tell as they questioned me about the checkpoint that it represents a clear boundary in their minds; one between safety and danger. The idea of a checkpoint seems to put their minds at ease concerning who has access to Israel.

As they questioned me it became very clear that my choice to live in Ramallah politicizes me whether I like it or not, making me a conduit for information. Although many Jewish Israelis I’ve met have expressed a deep-seated fear of Palestine and Palestinians, they are also eager to know what it’s like here, and I represent a portal into what is perceived as a forbidden world of danger. Yet as the girls questioned me, I began to realize just how serious the gap between the two places has grown, and I also realized the lack of accurate information they have about Israeli policies, leading them to be largely unaware of what the reality of life is like for Palestinians.

For example, the Goldstone Report came up briefly and one of the girls stated that the report was a farce because it only criticized Israel. I asked if she had read the report and she said no; this means her beliefs about the report are shaped entirely by the media and hearsay, which clearly omitted the fact that the report condemned the firing rockets into Israeli civilian territory as war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. More accurate information about Palestine and Israeli policies in the territories is readily available – it seems to me a matter of seeking to know or choosing to block it out. Yet even if most of the time the choice is made to block it out, the choice I’ve made to live in Ramallah invariably forces the issue of Palestine to the surface, making it impossible to ignore in my presence.

As someone who has the privilege of being able to travel freely between the two places, I realize that I am at times a bridge between the two worlds, particularly as contact between the two people becomes more severely limited. I am not entirely comfortable in this role and have not yet figured out the best way to navigate the crossing of these boundaries. It is important for me to hear Yael’s perspectives, but it is also important for me to find a way of expressing my own personal truths, whether it be telling my Palestinian friends that I have Israeli friends in Tel-Aviv, or telling my Israeli friends what their government and army is doing in the Palestinian territories. For now I will continue to live in Ramallah and hope that some good, no matter how small it might be, will come from my presence here and my ability to cross boundaries.

Britain Eakin is a Writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org.

Living in Ramallah is like living in a bubble in many ways. The Israeli occupation is not always overtly visible here, but comes clearly into focus once you begin to travel away from the city. I recently made the journey from Ramallah to Jerusalem, which I tend to avoid due of the hassle of crossing Qalandiya checkpoint - I often get stuck at Qalandiya for at least an hour when trying to get to Jerusalem. But once through the checkpoint, I am always glad I made the journey, if not only to expose myself to the reality of life for Palestinians in east Jerusalem, but also to burst the bubble of living in Ramallah.

On the way to Jerusalem from Qalandiya, one can witness many ugly aspects of the occupation. On this trip I took particular interest in the unsightly mess of the slow construction of the Jerusalem Light Rail project, which has disrupted life for many and left an ugly scar on the city’s surface. However, more troubling than the physical scars the rail project has left on the cityscape are the intentions behind the rail’s construction. Israel claims that the rail project was intended to reduce traffic congestion, clean up pollution, and replace Turkish-era infrastructure, but says it would also serve as a model for light rail projects in other Israeli cities, such as Tel-Aviv.

Palestinians, on the other hand, see it as a way for Israel to further entrench its control over east Jerusalem. The rail system would enable Israel to easily connect many of the illegal settlements in east Jerusalem to Central and West Jerusalem, thereby reinforcing these facts on the ground, despite the fact that their existence creates one of the greatest obstacles to the establishment of east Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state.

Additionally, east Jerusalem is internationally recognized as occupied territory; its political status has yet to be determined. On this basis many experts in international law assert that any actions taken to alter the status of the city and which deny Palestinians the protections afforded them by international law have no validity. The laying of the rail tracks takes Israel one giant step closer to permanent annexation of east Jerusalem.

In fact, the Jerusalem Light Rail project should be seen as part of a larger Israeli strategy for east Jerusalem, and within the context of the creation of a “Greater Jerusalem.” The vision of a Greater Jerusalem is one that expands over and controls the central portion of the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, and covers a 100-square mile area reaching deep into the West Bank.

This strategy aims to alter the demographics in Israel’s favor and to annex as much Palestinian land as possible. Thus the Light Rail project works in conjunction with Israeli policies of house demolitions, evictions, and the expansion of Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and surrounding areas, all of which serve the Israeli objective of creating a “Greater Jerusalem.”

The policies that serve to meet this aim play themselves out in a harsh manner. Israel has made construction permits nearly impossible for Palestinians in east Jerusalem to obtain, using the pretext that structures built without such permits are “illegal” as a weak legal justification for house demolitions. A demolition involves the physical destruction of a family’s home with explosives or by bulldozer, often with little warning and with no compensation. To add insult to injury, families whose homes are demolished are often fined by the Jerusalem municipality if they themselves do not clear out the rubble of the remains.

Evictions occur when Israeli settlers commandeer Palestinian homes with the help of hired guards, Israeli police or soldiers, forcing them and their belongings out of the house and onto the streets. Those who forcibly take over Palestinian homes generally insist that they have ownership over the property through court orders. I witnessed this phenomenon in the summer of 2008, when I visited the al Kurd family home in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of east Jerusalem; half of their home was taken over by Jewish settlers, sanctioned by the Israeli Supreme Court who upheld the settlers claim to the property and granted them the keys to the home, despite the fact that the al-Kurd family had lived there since 1956. They were evicted last November.

In addition to house demolitions and evictions, Israel has been hard at work developing settlements in east Jerusalem such as Ne‘eV Ya‘akov, Pisgat Ze‘ev, and the French Hill settlement, all of which are intended to be connected to Central and Western Jerusalem by the Jerusalem Light Rail. Furthermore, the rail line will only serve one Palestinian neighbourhood, despite the fact that the rail line will be crossing through occupied Palestinian territory, drawing into question who the rail service is intended to benefit.

The answer seems clear – the rail service is intended to serve primarily Jewish Israelis and Israeli settlers, and will exclude many Palestinians from its service, highlighting Israel’s true intentions for the eastern portion of the city. In fact, just yesterday a headline on Haaretz declared that in an effort to re-start stalled peace talks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will tout a 10-month settlement freeze to “save” east Jerusalem. The freeze unsurprisingly will not include construction in east Jerusalem.

In recent months the Jerusalem Light Rail project has encountered strong resistance and many delays, including immense pressure from the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement which is pressuring the projects two main investors, Veolia and Alstom to pull out of the project on the basis that their involvement violates international law. This pressure has cost Veolia a purported $7 billion in contracts, and the company is apparently trying to sell its shares to Israeli bus operator Dan.

Despite this, Alstom has recently stated they have no intention of pulling out of the project and construction will move forward as planned. So as construction of the light rail carries on, so do house demolitions, evictions and settlement growth, all of which leave the status of east Jerusalem as the future Palestinian capital uncertain.

Britain Eakin is a Writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org.