|
Questions and answers about the permanent Israeli presence in the West Bank
|
|
|
The "occupation" of a country is a specific legal term in international law, referring to a foreign military force establishing effective control over the territory of another state, even without resistance. This control, however, must be provisional and limited to areas where the authority of the hostile army can be effectively exercised, not a full takeover of the entire nation. The occupying power has duties, such as restoring public order and maintaining existing laws, while respecting the rights of the local population. |
|
A settler is a persoon who decided to leave his native country to build a new permannent life elsewhere but peacefully, and who is not seeking to take someone else's land. In fact, modern migrants can be considered as settlers. A colonist is one who decided to leave his native country but to take possession of someone else's land first then start building a new life. That is why the Israelis and those who came from around the world are colonists. |
|
A permanent, irreversible presence, especially one that includes settlements de facto colonies, is a violation of the law of occupation and a step towards annexation. Under international humanitarian law, occupation is supposed to be temporary, and the establishment of permanent structures and settlements by the occupying power is forbidden. When an occupying power seeks to incorporate territory into its own, or creates irreversible facts on the ground through permanent structures, it is a form of de facto or de jure annexation, which is strictly prohibited under international law. |
|
It's not an occupation if there is no actual, effective control over the territory by the foreign power, even if forces are present. Occupation ceases when the occupying forces are driven out or, critically, when they no longer exercise authority and function as a government in the territory, even if they retain a military presence. |
|
In relation to Gaza and the West Bank, in international law, the right to resist is closely related to the principle of self-determination. It is widely recognized that a right to self-determination arises in situations of colonial domination and foreign occupation. So, occupied people have the full right to resist the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. If these people chose to form an armed resistance, they must distinguish themselves from the unarmed civilian population, or based on articles 43 & 44 of the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments. |
|
A civilian court of an occupying power may only exercise criminal jurisdiction over the occupied population for acts posing a threat to its security* or an obstacle to applying the law of occupation, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention. The occupying power must prioritize maintaining public order and essential services, and any laws it introduces or modifies must primarily serve these purposes and comply with international humanitarian law, not the occupying power's own interests. However, resistance against occupation cannot be considered a crime
*) May not include the protection of citizens illegally transfered into the occupied territory. |
|
A military court of an occupying power is allowed to try people in occupied territory if local courts cannot function, or for breaches of the occupying power's security laws*, provided these courts are non-political, properly constituted, and hold sessions within the occupied territory. Civilians directly participating in hostilities or committing violations of the laws of war can also be prosecuted, but POWs cannot be tried for the mere act of fighting. However, the Palestinian Authority operates under its own criminal law, such as its Penal Code. In addition, "the Palestinian Authority also imposes the death penalty pursuant to the PLO Revolutionary Penal Code, of 1979." The PNA utilizes both military and special, state security courts for most death penalty cases. *) May not include the protection of citizens illegally transfered into the occupied territory. The occupying power's security laws in the West Bank are illegal as they are for the benefit of the people it has illegally transferred into the occupied territory, which is a war crime. That makes the Israeli military courts political thus obsolete, and a violation of international law. |
|
An occupying power can primarily make laws related to restoring and maintaining public order, ensuring the security of its forces and the population, and applying the Fourth Geneva Convention (which requires specific measures for protecting the civilian population). However, these new laws cannot be permanent, must not introduce lasting changes to the occupied territory's social or economic status, and must be balanced with the needs of the local population, with the occupying power not allowed to use its authority to further its own political or economic interests beyond its military needs. |
|
No, an occupying power is not allowed to make laws that only protect people it has illegally transferred into the occupied territory; in fact, this action is a violation of international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits such population transfers and thus any laws made to protect them. The purpose of occupation law is to maintain public order and civil life while respecting existing laws and the needs of the protected population, not to benefit the occupying power or further its own interests in the territory. |
|
No, an occupying power is not allowed to implement an apartheid system in an occupied territory; it is a crime against humanity prohibited under international law. Apartheid involves a system of legalized racial segregation and discrimination that systematically deprives a racial group of their rights and freedoms, and its prohibition takes precedence over other bodies of international law, such as the law of occupation. International law requires states to suppress and punish apartheid, and to neither recognize nor assist in maintaining such a system. |
|
International law classifies armed settlers as civilians unless they directly participate in hostilities; they are not legitimate military targets unless they engage in attacks, in which case they lose their civilian protection. |
|
In relation to the West Bank, perfidy is using the status of civilian and or using (unmarked) civilian vehicles with the intent to betray the occupied people's confidence and then kill, injure, or capture them. |
|
International law, particularly Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, prohibits perfidy, defining it as acts that invite an adversary's confidence to believe they are entitled to protection under the law, with the intent to betray that confidence for the purpose of killing, injuring, or capturing them. Examples include feigning injury or civilian status, and misusing protected emblems like the Red Cross or United Nations insignia. Perfidy is distinct from permissible ruses of war, which do not involve abusing the rules of international law. |
|
Seizing a house from an occupied family is considered a war crime, specifically a form of pillage and forced displacement, both of which are prohibited under international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids an occupying power from transferring its own civilians into the occupied territory and from seizing property in this manner, as it aims to prevent long-term territorial changes and protect the rights of the occupied population. |
