NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PROJECT

ON

ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT THROUGH THE LENSE OF

GENEVA CONVENTION

Submitted to:

DR.B. HYDERVALI (PROF. OF LAW)

SUBHAPRAD MOHANTY

Submitted by:

Bishwa Prakash Behera (2016/B. A LLB/026)

Chiranjeeb Prateek (2016/B. A LLB/028)

Ahwan Mohapatra (2016/B. A LLB/010)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project was done by conducting extensive research and it would not have been completed
without a few things. First we would like to express our gratitude to our subject teacher, Dr. B
Hydervali & Mr. Subhaprad Mohanty for his classroom teaching and notes which gave me the
firsthand idea about the project. Secondly I would like to thank the University for having a
library as good as it is. The books from there were pivotal for us in completing this project. I
would also like to mention the importance of internet had we not been getting 24 hr internet
service, this project would have been incomplete.

Thank you.

2|Page
 CONTENTS
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER-1...................................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 5
THE CONFLICT:............................................................................................................................. 5
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CONCERNS: ....................................................................... 6
THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION AND ITS ROLE IN UPLIFTING
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW & PEACEBUILDING: ...................................... 7
CHAPTER-2.................................................................................................................................... 10
UNSC RESOLUTION 446 ............................................................................................................. 10
UNSC RESOLUTION 452 ............................................................................................................. 12
UNSC RESOLUTION 465 ............................................................................................................. 12
UNSC RESOLUTION 471 ............................................................................................................. 14
UNSC RESOLUTION 476 ............................................................................................................. 14
UNSC RESOLUTION 2334 ........................................................................................................... 15
BACKGROUND: ............................................................................................................................ 16
OBJECTIVE: .................................................................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................................... 17
ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT; VIOLATIONS UNDER GENEVA CONVENTION .... 17
COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT: .................................................................................................. 19
ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS – ........................................................................................................ 21
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 25

3|Page
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology adopted for the completion of this project is doctrinal. This method has been
adopted to give the topic a new dimension and a new output within a short period of time by closely
examining and analyzing the legal doctrine, legal framework and case laws in a logical, systematic
and scientific way. Some legal propositions have been taken as a starting point to shift the focus
towards the research objective and the structure of the project has been designed accordingly. Facts
have been assembled from various sources such as textbooks, journals, legal encyclopedias and
online databases. The citation style is OSCOLA.

4|Page
 CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
THE CONFLICT:

The Israeli-Palestinian clash goes back to the finish of the nineteenth century, principally as a
contention over region. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Holy Land was partitioned into three
sections: The State of Israel, the West Bank (of the Jordan River), and the Gaza Strip.

Progressive wars brought about minor movements of region until the Yom Kippur War in October
1973, when Egypt and Syria propelled an unexpected assault on Israel in view of Israel's control
of the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. The contention was quieted by the Camp David
Accords in 1979, which bound Egypt and Israel in a peace settlement.

However once the wars over an area were finished, Israel and the Palestinian regions encountered
a surge in viciousness and uprisings among the Palestinians. The main intifada (1987) was a mass
uprising of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, including a huge number of
Palestinians. It was interceded by the Oslo Accords in 1993, which set up a system for the
Palestinians to administer themselves and certain rules between the recently settled Palestinian
Authority and Israel's legislature. In any case, the second intifada (2000), motivated by proceeded
with Palestinians grievances, was a substantially more crimson uprising than the primary intifada.1

Before the current influx of conflicts amongst Israelis and Palestinians, there have been numerous
flare-ups of savagery and precariousness. In the late spring of 2014, the killings of three Israeli
young people and one Palestinian adolescent touched off conflicts in the Palestinian domains and
encouraged a military showdown between the Israeli military and Hamas.

In August 2014, infringing upon the November 2012 truce, Hamas let go almost three thousand
rockets at Israel. In countering, Israel propelled air strikes on rocket launchers and other speculated
psychological militant focuses in Gaza. The encounter finished in late August with a truce bargain
expedited by Egypt, however had slaughtered 71 Israelis and 2,220 Palestinians concurring a report

1
Prof. Schindler D., "Significance of Geneva Conventions for Contemporary World", International Review of Red
Cross, No. 836, 1999

5|Page
by the United Nations.

Since 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has endeavored to resuscitate the peace procedure
amongst Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, keeping in mind the end goal
to secure a two-state arrangement. Notwithstanding, peace talks were upset when the Fatah—the
PA's decision body—framed a solidarity government with its adversary group, Hamas. Kerry
reestablished isolate converses with Israeli and Palestinian pioneers in October 2015 keeping in
mind the end goal to control the developing brutality.

While the current talks created wary idealism in the United States, relations amongst Israeli and
Palestinian residents stay dubious.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CONCERNS:

In December 2017, President Donald J. Trump perceived Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and
reported his goal to build a U.S. government office there, turning around longstanding U.S.
strategy. Israel considers the "total and joined Jerusalem" its capital, yet Palestinians assert East
Jerusalem for the capital of their future state.

An influx of savagery amongst Israelis and Palestinians rose after conflicts ejected at a Jerusalem
heavenly site in September 2015. In the midst of calls from the United Nations Security Council
to ease pressures, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas significantly declared that Palestine
could never again be bound by the Oslo Accords, which gave the structure to an Israeli-Palestinian
peace bargain since 1993.

Fall 2015 saw additionally increments in savagery with close every day stabbings of regular folks
and Israeli security constrain crackdowns. These incorporated the capture of Hassan Yousef, prime
supporter and senior authority of Hamas.

There is worry that a third intifada could break out if the truce does not hold and the reestablished
October 2015 strains grow into vast scale brutality. The United States has an enthusiasm for
ensuring the security of its long haul partner Israel and accomplishing an enduring arrangement
amongst Israel and the Palestinian domains, which would enhance local security

6|Page
THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION AND ITS ROLE IN UPLIFTING
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW & PEACEBUILDING:

As far as the advancements made by public international law in the last 50 years, three periods
might be recognized. In the first time frame , covering the time between the finish of World War
II and the mid-1960s, the most imperative occasion was clearly the reception of the four Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the assurance of war casualties, the fiftieth commemoration of
which we are currently celebrating.2

It is fortunate that their adoption proved possible not long after World War II and was not
postponed, just like the update of the previous Geneva Conventions in the years after World War
I. Around then the conviction won that the League of Nations had conveyed changeless peace to
the world. That conviction discounted any thought of new traditions on fighting.

It was therefore not until 1929 that two new traditions, one on the injured and wiped out, the other
on detainees of war, were received. Be that as it may, a third tradition and maybe the most pressing
one, managing the insurance of regular folks, met with political restriction and had not yet been
received when the world was again inundated by war.

After World War II, no desires of permanent peace kept the update of the Geneva Conventions.
The United Nations by the by kept reserved from this undertaking since it was thought that UN
cooperation in the modification of the law of war would undermine trust in the association's
capacity to look after peace. In similarity with prior training, the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) arranged the new settlements and the Swiss government assembled the global
gathering embracing them.

Despite its abstention, the United Nations applied a significant, however minimal, saw impact on
the Geneva Conventions, for its endeavors to achieve a global assurance of human rights left their
engraving upon them. This isn't astonishing, as the Conventions were embraced just a couple of
months after the announcement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.3

2
Grotius Publications, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
3
The Geneva Conventions were adopted on 12 August 1949, the Universal Declaration on 10 December 1948

7|Page
The consideration paid to human rights had the impact that the conventional law of war was bit by
bit changed into a human rights-situated law. Hints of this would already be able to be found in
the 1949 Conventions, which talk about the "rights" of ensured people rather than just forcing
commitments on the belligerents, and furthermore stipulate that secured people can't repudiate
their rights.4

Furthermore, Article 3 regular to the four Conventions constitutes a sort of human rights
arrangement; it controls the connection amongst governments and their own particular nationals
in case of an inside equipped clash, in this way an inquiry customarily managed by human rights
arrangements as it were. Moreover, the beforehand obscure term "public international law" was
presented by the ICRC in the mid-1950s, to a great extent supplanting the expressions "law of war"
and "law of armed conflicts".5

It soon turned out to be by and large utilized, fairly obscuring the qualification between the law
pertinent in equipped clashes and the law of human rights and offering ascend to periodic
perplexity between these two branches of international law.

A second period in the improvement of global helpful law began in the 1960s when a few more
broad wars broke out, prominently the war in Vietnam, the common war in Nigeria/Biafra, the
wars between the Arab States and Israel and the wars of national freedom in Africa. The last kind
of contentions specifically impelled the United Nations to ever-more prominent movement.

As from 1968, the General Assembly embraced periodical resolutions requesting that wars of
national freedom be viewed as universal furnished clashes in which the Geneva Conventions were
to be connected overall and flexibility contenders to be dealt with as detainees of war. Likewise in
1968, the International Conference on Human Rights in Teheran6 and the UN General Assembly7
received resolutions under the title "Regard for human rights in equipped clashes", asking for the
Secretary-General, in interview with the ICRC, to make strides (a) for the better use of existing

4
Article 7 of the First, Second and Third Conventions, Article 8 of the Fourth Convention.
5
The Annual Report of the ICRC for 1953 was the first one to use the term “international humanitarian law”
6
International Conference on Human Rights (Teheran), Resolution XXIII of 12 May 1968, reprinted in
Schindler/Toman, op. cit. (note 5), No. 30, p. 261.
7
United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 2444 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, reprinted in
Schindler/Toman, op. cit. (note 5), No. 31, p. 263.

8|Page
worldwide compassionate traditions, and (b) for the selection of extra philanthropic traditions to
guarantee better assurance of victims and the preclusion and constraint of the utilization of specific
techniques and methods for fighting.

These resolutions opened the entryway for the elaboration of the two Additional Protocols which
were received in 1977.

In this period between the 1960s and the 1980s, the United Nations turned out to be completely
engaged with inquiries of international humanitarian law and, by joining that law with human
rights, achieved the appropriation of new universal helpful law instruments. As Frits Kalshoven
expressed, with UN Resolution 2444 of 1968 "the beginning shot had been given for a quickened
development which brought the three ebbs and flows: Geneva, The Hague and New York, together
in one standard". 8

Disregarding the imperative pretended by the United Nations in such manner, the arrangement of
the Additional Protocols was left to the ICRC and the assembly of the meeting receiving them to
the Swiss government. The UN itself likewise received a few arrangements on inquiries of fighting
amid this period, eminently the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or some other Hostile
Use of Environmental Modification Techniques of 19769 and the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions
or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be
Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.10

A third period, set apart by an especially serious and relatively progressive advancement of global
helpful law indicating relatively progressive attributes, started after the finish of the Cold War in
1989. At no other time had philanthropic issues and compassionate law pulled in so much global
consideration as in this period. What's more, at no other time did the need of helpful activity and
compassionate law turn out to be so clear as it has today.

Since 1989, most equipped clashes have been inward clashes. Amid the Cold War, the ill will
between the superpowers eclipsed every other clash. Interior divergences, originating from ethnic,

8
Frits Kalshoven, Constraints on the Waging of War , ICRC, Geneva, 1987, pp. 22/23.
9
Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 31/72 of 10 December 1976, reprinted in Schindler/Toman, op.
cit. (note 5), No. 18, p. 163.
10
Adopted on 10 October 1980, reprinted in Schindler/ Toman, op. cit. (note 5), No. 20, p. 179.

9|Page
religious or political contrasts, were monitored by outer dangers or totalitarian administrations.

When it finished, notwithstanding, numerous administrations crumbled and inner clashes were
never again kept under tight restraints. In a few States match gatherings, regularly actuated by
ethnic or religious enthusiasm, wound up occupied with disenthralled battles. The desire that the
finish of the Cold War would prompt a time of peace and just administrations everywhere
throughout the world soon vanished. Inward clashes started to cause significantly more noteworthy
philanthropic issues than had happened amid the Cold War time frame.

It was soon understood that exclusive the universal group could resolve this circumstance. For
quite a while, the United Nations got palatable outcomes by sending onlooker missions or peace-
keeping powers into States influenced by inside clashes. This was the situation in El Salvador,
Cambodia and Mozambique.

Be that as it may, such tasks, which depended on the assent of the warring gatherings, turned out
to be incomprehensible or insufficient in later and more perplexing clashes, for example, those in
the previous Yugoslavia, in Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia and Sierra Leone. I might not go into these
contentions and the measures taken, however should bind myself to pointing out five noteworthy
advancements which universal helpful law has experienced in this period.

CHAPTER-2
UNSC RESOLUTION 446

United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted on 22 March 1979, concerned the issue
of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".11
This alludes to the Palestinian regions of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip and
the Syrian Golan Heights.

In the Resolution, the Security Council decided: "that the strategy and practices of Israel in
building up settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab regions involved since 1967 have no
legal validity and constitute a genuine hindrance to accomplishing a thorough, just and enduring
peace in the Middle East". The Resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions

11
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, 22 March 1979

10 | P a g e
from Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Resolution 446 affirms "once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection
of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied
by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem". Tomis Kapitan reports that:

"In the eyes of the world community, its [Israel's] presence there [in the Occupied Territories] is
subject to international law dealing with belligerent occupancy, specifically, the Fourth Geneva
Convention of 1949... Allowing for measures of military necessity, the Convention forbids
alterations of the legal system, forcible transfer or deportation of the resident population, and
resettlement by the occupying power of its own civilian population within the occupied territory.
Israel has violated these provisions, but contested their application on the grounds that the West
Bank (in particular) is "disputed" or "unallocated" rather than the occupied territory of a nation
that is party to the Geneva Convention."12

Israel's argument against the applicability of the Convention was formulated by Meir Shamgar and
is based on an interpretation of Article 2, which reads:

"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention
shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between
two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of
them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of
a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."13

The government's contention (first made by Moshe Dayan in a discourse to the UN in 1977) is that
neither the West Bank nor Gaza were the domain of a "High Contracting Power" at the time they
were involved by Israel and that in this way the Convention does not make a difference.

In 1993 the UN Security Council "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter on the United Nations"
approved a report by the Secretary General which concluded beyond doubt that the law applicable
in armed conflict as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and The Hague

12
Tomis Kapitan, Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (M. E. Sharpe 1997) 28
13
David Kretzmer, The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (SUNY
Press 2002) 33

11 | P a g e
Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 had become part of international customary law. Breaches of
the principles contained in the conventions were subsequently placed within the competence of
international criminal tribunals, including International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia and International Criminal Court.

Israel's positions have not been accepted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, nor
has it been endorsed by the other High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Article 1 of the Convention states that "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to
ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances".14

Israel left the Gaza Strip in September 2005, and evacuated the greater part of the settlements and
military powers that were in it. Parts of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights stay
under control of Israel as of today. Israel remains in control for Gaza's airspace and regional waters.
It has not controlled the Rafah crossing into Egypt since the unilateral disengagement plan of 2005
took effect.

UNSC RESOLUTION 452

United Nations Security Council Resolution 452, adopted 20 July 1979, was on the issue of the
Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, specifically the
illegality thereof15. It states "the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab
territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention
relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949" and "calls upon
the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction
and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. “The
resolution was adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States).

UNSC RESOLUTION 465

United Nations Security Council resolution 465, adopted unanimously on 1 March 1980, was on
the issue of the Israeli settlements and administration in "the Arab territories occupied since 1967,

14
Alex Takkenberg, The Status of Palestinian Refugees in International Law (Oxford University Press 1998) 214
15
United Nations Security Council Resolution 452, 20 July 1979

12 | P a g e
including Jerusalem", referring to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank including East
Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights16.

After noting a report by the Security Council Commission established in Resolution 446 (1979),
the Council accepted and commended its work while criticizing Israel for not cooperating with it.
It expressed concern at Israeli settlement policy in the Arab territories and recalled resolutions 237
(1967), 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969) and 298 (1971). It further called upon the State and
people of Israel to dismantle such settlements.

The resolution continued by condemning Israel for prohibiting the travel of the Mayor of Hebron,
Fahd Qawasma, to the Security Council, requesting it allow him travel to the United Nations
Headquarters. It then ends by asking the Commission to continue investigating the situation in the
occupied territories with regard to depleted natural resources, while monitoring the
implementation of the current resolution, asking it to report back to the Council by 1 September
1980.

The resolution calls on all states ‘not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically
in connection with settlements in the occupied territories’.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Donald McHenry stated in the Security Council immediately after the
vote that the U.S. considered the resolution recommendatory and not binding17. On March 3, 1980
President Carter clarified the US's position saying dismantling Israeli settlements is "neither proper
nor practical" and that "Jerusalem should be undivided" with its status determined in peace
negotiations. He further said the US approved the vote with the understanding that all references
to Jerusalem were to be removed18. In a statement to the United States Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations on March 20, 1980 Secretary of State Cyrus Vance accepted "full responsibility
for the misunderstanding.

16
United Nations Security Council Resolution 465, 1 March 1980
17
"Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Secretary of State Vance on US policy in the Middle
East." Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 20 March 1980.
18
"Israeli Settlements and the Status of Jerusalem Statement on the U.S. Vote in the Security Council of the United
Nations." The American Presidency Project, 3 March 1980.

13 | P a g e
UNSC RESOLUTION 471

United Nations Security Council Resolution 471, adopted on 5 June 1980 under Chapter VI of the
United Nations Charter was on the issue of the Israeli occupation and settlement activity in the
Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights19.

It criticized the Israeli occupation of these territories. In addition, it expressed concern that Israel
had failed to protect the civilians in the occupied territories and asked Israel to make compensation
for damages suffered by civilians due to this lack of protection. Finally, it called upon Israel to
comply with all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva
Convention.

Resolution 471 was adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention from the United States.

UNSC RESOLUTION 476

United Nations Security Council resolution 476, adopted on 30 June 1980, declared that "all
legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which
purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and
constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”20. The resolution was adopted by
14 votes to none, with the United States abstaining.

The Security Council recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the
physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City
of Jerusalem, gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the
aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories
occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the
relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

19
United Nations Security Council Resolution 471, 30 June 1980
20
United Nations Security Council Resolution 476, 30 June 1980

14 | P a g e
 3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel,
the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of
Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also
constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the
Middle East;
4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and
historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be
rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;
5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security
Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures
affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem;
6. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this resolution,
to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter
of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of this resolution.

UNSC RESOLUTION 2334

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 was followed on 23 December 2016. It is related
to the Israeli settlements in "Palestinian regions occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"21.
The resolution was agreed upon in a 14– 0 vote by members of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC).
Four nations with United Nations Security Council veto power, China, France, Russia, and the
United Kingdom, voted in favor of the resolution, however the United States abstained.

The resolution expresses that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "glaring infringement" of
international law and has "no lawful legitimacy". It demands that Israel stop such action and satisfy
its commitments as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It was the first UNSC resolution to pass in regards to Israel and the Palestine territories since 2009,
and the first to address the issue of Israeli settlements with such specificity since Resolution 465
in 1980. While the resolution did exclude any sanction or coercive measure and was adopted under

21
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, 23 December 2016

15 | P a g e
the non-binding Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, Israeli daily paper Haaretz expressed
it "may have serious ramifications for Israel in general and specifically for the settlement
enterprise" in the medium-to-long term."

The resolution was invited by a great part of the international community in the following days.
Accordingly, the government of Israel countered with a series of diplomatic actions against a few
members from the Security Council and blamed the administration of U.S. President Barack
Obama of having secretly facilitated the passage of the resolution. Palestine's delegates expressed
this was a chance to end the occupation and set up a Palestinian state to live next to each other
with the province of Israel on the 1967 line.

BACKGROUND:

Israeli settlements are Jewish Israeli nonmilitary personnel groups built on Palestinian lands
occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. Resolution 2334 concerns such settlements in the
West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Fourth Geneva Convention makes it illegal for countries to
move populations and build up settlements in regions gained in a war, and a majority of nations
view the Israeli settlements as unlawful on that premise. Israel expresses that these are not
"occupied" but rather "disputed" territories in light of the fact that "there were no established
sovereigns in the West Bank or Gaza Strip prior the Six Day War". This contention was dismissed
by the International Court of Justice in 2004.

The UN Security Council previously tended to Israeli settlements in UN Security Council

Resolution 446 and Resolution 465. The Council additionally embraced the Road map for peace,
which required a stop to settlement extension in Resolution 1515.

In February 2011, during Barack Obama's first administration, the US utilized its veto power to
hinder a similar UN Security Council resolution and settlement activity has developed
substantially. No less than 100,000 settlers have been included since Obama took office, and The
Quartet report in July 2016 said that 570,000 Israelis lived in the settlements. Before voting on the
resolution, representatives anticipated that US disappointment with the growth of settlements, and
also the poor relationship between President Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin
Netanyahu, may cause the US to abstain, instead of veto the resolution. Netanyahu was sure that

16 | P a g e
Israel's diplomatic standing was on the ascent, and that the world was not any more very keen on
the Palestinian issue. Until the U.S. abstention prompted the section of UNSCR 2334, Obama had
been unique among American Presidents for not permitting any resolution critical of Israel to pass
through the Security Council.

OBJECTIVE:

The resolution expresses that all measures taken for changing the demographic composition and
status of Palestinian regions occupied by Israel, including development and expansion of
settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, appropriation of land, demolition of homes and relocation
of Palestinian citizens are in violation of international humanitarian law, Israel's obligation as the
occupying Power as indicated by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and passed resolutions.

The resolution likewise denounces all demonstrations of brutality against civilians, including
terrorism, incitement and destruction. As indicated by the New York Times, this is "aimed at
Palestinian leaders, whom Israel accuses of encouraging attacks on Israeli civilians". It reiterates
support for the two-state solution and noted that settlement activities are "imperiling" its viability.

The document additionally "underlines" that the UN Security Council "won't perceive any
alterations to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those concurred
by the parties through negotiations"; and "calls" upon all states "to recognize, in their pertinent
dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the regions occupied since 1967."

CHAPTER 3
ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT; VIOLATIONS UNDER GENEVA CONVENTION

The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, commonly
referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention is one amongst the series of Geneva Conventions that
was started in 1864. The Fourth Geneva Convention was the first treaty amongst the series of
treaties that talked about the saving of civilian lives during the times of conflict. Currently, there

17 | P a g e
are about 196 countries that are signatories to the treaty. Towards the later part in 1993, a report
by a committee of experts finally asserted that the Fourth Geneva Convention had passed into the
category of international customary law and hence, it would apply even to those states that are
non-signatories to the treaty in times of armed conflict.

Article 2 states that “signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed
conflicts where war has not been declared, and in an occupation of another country's territory.”
These articles have become actual parameters of diplomatic and humanitarian behaviour during
times of conflict which often, although unwittingly, involves a lot of innocent civilians. The main
purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention has been to address the serious issue of dealing with
those who are not the consenting participants of war but the unwanting victims of the crimes that
ensue thereafter. This particular convention tries to act as a backbone to the already existing area
of international humanitarian law that has been existing for quite a while and it envisages an idea
or an understanding of human values that are acceptable and dictate the terms and conditions of
the war-time soldiers and the civilians who are helplessly trapped by the people in the conflict
that that takes place around them.22

It was before the Fourth Geneva Convention came into the formal picture that Israel decided to
declare independence from the former British province of Palestine. This declaration, that is the
root of all causes of unrest within that territory of Palestine that is a cause of changing approaches
in international law as well, makes a description only about the land of “Eretz 23
Israel” or the
“Greater Israel” that is in contention and that does not make any mention about Palestine as an
independent territory or a separately existing piece of land that represents itself as a state. There
is no mention about the formation of Palestine in the near future. The irony, or rather, the
contradiction that is seen under this is the fact that Israel itself at that point of time was an infant
state, newly formed and was considered to be the officially created and allotted to the Jews,
however the laws that came into the picture and the manner in which the Israeli state was formed,
by wiping out thousands of Palestinian villages and settlements, is a matter of awe. The very
foundation of an emerging nation-state is smudged by the blood of hundreds and thousands of

22
Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 4, Geneva Convention relative
to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1958, pp. 3–9.
23
Quigley, John B. (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. 93and
226.

18 | P a g e
innocents that originally resided in that territory and considered that region to be their very own
home. In present day Israel, the nation-state continues its meticulous and rigorously systematic
approach to the violation of the regulations laid down under the Fourth Geneva Convention that
was specifically meant to deal with the other side of the war: the civilians. This entire process has
been taking place for a while and there are particular means by which this is being achieved. 24

On the first day that Israel25 came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan
and Egypt, respectively, the IDF declared its authority over the territories, and that the
international law of belligerent occupation would be the law of the land in those territories. Much
to Israel’s credit, it has been the only state since the end of World War II to have formally applied
the international law of occupation in a territory it has conquered through war. Occupation law26
in the territories is still enforced to this day, 46 years after it was established.

As Yoram Dinstein, former rector of Law at Tel Aviv University and world authority on the
international laws of war, notes, any confusion about whether the 4th Geneva Convention is
applicable in the West Bank is cleared up by Article 4 of the Convention (Dinstein 2009), which
states: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner
whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the
conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
By the fact that Israel conquered a territory that was inhabited by civilians who are not Israeli
citizens (i.e. Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank), this makes the Fourth Geneva Convention
applicable, and de jure, makes Israel’s control of the West Bank a military occupation.

COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT:

Article 33 clearly states that “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has
not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of
terrorism are prohibited.”

Certain Israeli policies as per the framework violate the mandate provided for in the legal

24
"UN rules against Israeli barrier". BBC News. 2004-07-09.
25
Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel, HCJ 2056/04.
26
Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II), Washington, D.C., 28
September 1995.

19 | P a g e
document regarding the Convention. Israel government’s settlement policy puts it under a lot of
scrutiny and merits discussion and criticism under this category.

If proper research is to be done into the language and the interpretation of the mandates provided
for by the Convention, it can be seen that the document which was drafted during the Post- World
War II scenario was made up in a hurry and it never properly dealt with the issue of the settlement
of civilians while one of the underlying motives behind the signing of this Convention is the
resettlement of the displaced victims of war, namely the civilians. If the reason behind the
jurisprudence of this article were to be seen, it can be safely assumed that the main intention
behind this was to provide the superior powers with the coercing factor so that it could take over
those areas and deal with them as their own territories.

According to the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions, statistics show that Israeli
Occupied Territories have demolished around 48,000 homes most of which were previously the
homes of the families. If seen in the general sense, it is in fact, a huge figure. The reason behind
most of these demolitions has been to extract the punitive damages from the residents of that area.
As per the Israeli authorities, it has been claimed that these people attack only those Palestinians
that are doing direct acts of violence on the Israeli civilians or the military bases that act as targets.
Many of these houses have been demolished only upon the presumption that the activities of these
Palestinian civilians are ‘suspicious’ and based on that, they attack those who are under the radar
for hostile activities or rebellious outbursts. Many of the houses have also been destroyed only
due to the ulterior territorial motives of the Israeli authorities- to expand their colony. However
and how much these people want to justify their acts of demolishing houses containing extended
families including older citizens and little children and people who cannot even be considered to
be liable for acts of crime upon the state of Israel, it is clearly an act of atrocity and this can easily
be derived from all these activities on the behalf of the Israeli state as an act of “collective
punishment” and it is in violation of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that is
against the same.

Another glaring example of “collective punishment” that has been making headlines under the
ambit of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the issue of the Gaza Strip that has been under a lot of
observation in the international scenario for a while now. The siege placed on the Gaza Strip in

20 | P a g e
2006, that continues to this day, is an everlasting example amongst the acts of violence done by
the Israeli government in the area of “collective punishment”. After the “Six Day War” done by
the Israelis, they took over the entire Western parts of Samaria, Judea, eastern Jerusalem and the
Gaza Strip, which was previously held by the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan and Egypt till the
time Israel went into war against them in 1948, often referred to as the Arab Wars in which neither
Egypt nor Jordan held proper sovereign territories and were parties to the contract of the Fourth
Geneva Convention. Israel had consistently supported the view that as per the definition of
occupation provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention never included Israel as one of the
sovereign territories. The sanctions against Gaza Strip has been so harsh- restrictions done by air,
land and by sea- has been done in such a restrictive scale that it has lead to a severe humanitarian
crisis in Gaza. According to the UN, it has been claimed that if the current blockade continues, it
could result in Gaza becoming uninhabitable by the end of 2020. Presently, the unemployment
rate is at above 40 per cent and around 80 per cent of the families live below the poverty line.

As per the Israeli military and governmental figures, the blockade of Gaza is a response to the
presence of Hamas, a politically motivated religious outfit as a governmental head of the territory.
Putting aside the deliberations regarding the Hamas’ democratic election to the post and the
respective administrative jobs in the legislative assembly elections and the placing of a military
blockade across all three modes of transportation, i.e. by air, land and sea of a population reaching
upto 2 million, allegedly because of the actions of their government is an example of “collective
punishment”.

“Collective punishment” is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and is considered to be

a war crime.

ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS –

Article 49(1) reads that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.”

The international community at large has repeatedly admitted to the fact that Hamas has brutally
taken over the Palestinian Authority creating a lot of bloodshed along the way. Ever since the
overtaking of the Gaza Strip in 2005, the Hamas accompanied with its terrorist activities has

21 | P a g e
created a ruckus in that area and caused a lot of unrest to the civilians. Officially, it is a scene of
armed conflict. Hamas has installed a form of government whose main propaganda is the
preaching of Islamic Fundamentalist principles and removal of any kind of democratic access to
the government. All of this has been happening in lieu of opposition to any form of democratic
governance and in this process, the Palestinian authorities have also engaged themselves in
systematic and voluminous oppression of the masses, i.e. the Palestinian civilians as well as the
Israeli citizens who are near to the Gaza Strip have been continuously targeted and in these times
of conflict, it is the innocent civilians who are in the middle of the storm. They did that through
indiscriminate firing of rockets upon the Israeli civilian population and sending people to Israel
and places in Sinai and Egypt only for the specific purpose of killing the Israelis. The Hamas has
also been up to no good.

To disregard the animosity of Palestine with that of Israel which it does by targeting the Israeli
population and concentrates upon specific military locations and stockpiles weaponry and
ammunition against Israel is something that cannot be ignored on face value.

But that does not undermine the fact that Israel is equally at fault for the present scenario that is in
place. Since 1967, Israel has directly violated, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention by
building Israeli i.e. Jewish only settlements in the Palestine occupied territories. The number of
Israeli settlers, living in the West Bank and East of Jerusalem is more than 500,000, with the
construction of new settlement units unimpeded by any significant internal or external political
pressure. That these settlements directly violate international law is a position held by the United
Nations, the United States and even, at one time, the Israeli Foreign Ministry. In 1967, Theodor
Meron, then legal counsel to the Foreign Ministry, stated that, in his opinion, “...civilian settlement
in the administrated territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva
Convention.”

As such, the continued expansion of illegal settlements within the Occupied Palestinian Territories
is a war crime.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Current Israeli policies also infringe upon or directly violate
articles of the Geneva Conventions that deal with disproportionate force, the treatment of children,
protection of civilian areas, and more. These examples do, however, adequately illuminate the

22 | P a g e
way in which Israel is allowed to operate outside of the largely accepted framework of
international law in its endeavor to actively deny Palestinian self-determination and the
establishment of a Palestinian state. It is the whitewashing of these violations that, in part,
perpetuates a false paradigm of parity, one that suggests an equal share of responsibility for the
current political impasse in historic Palestine. In actuality, it has been the assertion of an Israeli
settler colonial project – one that necessarily employs policies of domination and displacement
that are antithetical to the sentiments of the Geneva Conventions – that has led to the current state
of the “conflict.”

To be sure, international law itself is not a panacea for addressing social, political, and economic
disparities. The paradigm often privileges the globe’s most powerful states while leaving
marginalized communities unsatisfied. It is fair to say, however, that if a state such as Israel cannot
even be expected to abide by the Geneva Conventions, even after it has become a signatory to the
agreements, then the ability to hold it materially accountable for the way in which it treats the
population it militarily occupies becomes increasingly difficult. An alternative such as the boycott,
divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement – a movement that pursues a rights-based approach,
is formulated and fostered at the grassroots level, and exposes the inability of international law to
wholly address the situation in Palestine/Israel – is one tool that we can turn to as a viable
alternative.

One could argue that international legal community is simply biased against Israel anyway, and
therefore Israel does not need to follow laws that other nations have ignored with impunity. Or,
two, they could say that Jewish law supersedes international law, and that it is the law of the Torah
that truly governs Israel’s rule in the West Bank. But what they cannot say is that international
law is on the side of the settlement project. Nothing could be further from the truth.

CONCLUSION

The law of occupation, designed to regulate the exceptional and temporary situation in which a
foreign military power displaces the lawful sovereign and rules by force, grants an occupier broad
but limited powers to restrict individuals and their rights to meet security needs.

However, in a prolonged occupation in which occupiers have the opportunity to develop more

23 | P a g e
narrowly tailored responses to security threats, exemptions to rights protections should be reduced
and the balance shifted toward respecting, protecting, and fulfilling all fundamental rights of the
population. In addition, the occupier’s obligation to restore normal civilian life for the local
population increases with the passage of time, as do its obligations to progressively realize the
social, economic, and cultural rights of residents of the occupied territory.

After decades of failure to rein in abuses associated with the occupation, the international
community should take more active measures to hold Israeli and Palestinian authorities to their
obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. Other countries and
businesses should cease activities carried out inside settlements and change policies that support
settlement-related activities and infrastructure, in keeping with their respective human rights
responsibilities.

Governments should use their leverage to press Israel to end the generalized travel ban for
Palestinians from Gaza and permit the free movement of people and goods to and from Gaza,
subject to individualized security screenings and physical inspection. The International
Criminal Court should open a formal investigation into serious international crimes committed
in Israel and Palestine both by Israelis and Palestinians.

24 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

JOURNALS:

• Schindler D, ‘Significance of Geneva Conventions for Contemporary World’ (1999) 836

International Review of Red Cross
• Kalshoven Frits, ‘Constraints on the Waging of War’ (1987) ICRC, Geneva

BOOKS:

• Kapitan T, Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (M. E. Sharpe

1997)
• Kretzmer D, The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied
Territories (SUNY Press 2002)
• Takkenberg A, The Status of Palestinian Refugees in International Law (Oxford University
Press 1998)
• Quigley, John B, The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective (Duke
University Press 2005)

RESOLUTIONS:

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, 22 March 1979

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 452, 20 July 1979
• United Nations Security Council Resolution 465, 1 March 1980
• United Nations Security Council Resolution 471, 5 June 1980
• United Nations Security Council Resolution 476, 30 June 1980
• United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, 23 December 2016

WEBSITES:

• www.en.wikipedia.org
• www.un.org
• www.jstor.org

25 | P a g e