PRESS RELEASE
Released @ 15 December 1997
PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
“HUMAN RIGHTS AND FINAL STATUS ISSUES”
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights held the fourth and final day of its International Conference on “Human Rights and Final Status Issues” on Monday, December 15 at Rashad Shawa Cultural Center in Gaza City.
The first session of the day was on the subject, “Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories.” The session was chaired by Iyad Barghouthi, Professor of Political Sociology at An-Najah National University and Director of Al-Haq – Law for the Service of Man, Ramallah..
The first speaker was Geoffrey Aronson, Editor of Report on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories and author of Israel, Palestinians, and the Intifada: Creating Facts on the West Bank. His talk was entitled, “Settlement Policy of the Netanyahu Government.” The vast majority of settlers are not “extraordinary people,” Aronson said. They represent the mainstream in Israeli society. If such were not the case there would not be as strong a coalition as there is in Israel in support of settlement maintenance and expansion.
Addressing the question, “How do settlements affect the status of the Occupied Territories,” Aronson said that international law would conclude that settlements are illegal and temporary manifestations of Israeli occupation. Oslo marked the first time that someone other than the Israeli government recognized the settlements as anything other than “illegal and temporary manifestations of occupation.” Aronson asked a second question, “What rights do the previous owners have to land that the Israelis now hold?” He answered that unfortunately Oslo has addressed the rights of the settlers to “their” land, but made no mention of the previous owners of that land. Aronson then posed the question of whether land could be returned in the Occupied Territories. The Israeli decision to dismantle settlements in Sinai may be a good guide as to what may happen, he said. Finally he asked whether settlements are an obstacle to peace. It depends, he answered, on the kind of peace one is talking about. Settlements are an impediment to peace, but there are ways that they can be accommodated. Unfortunately, the Oslo Accords have established Palestinian recognition of settlements as the centerpiece of Israel’s claim to exercise permanent military control of the Territories. Netanyahu has changed the context in which settlements are viewed. The Labor party had previously succeeded in the construction of a framework in which peace and settlements were not mutually exclusive. But the more pertinent question is whether a peace which brings Palestinian sovereignty can be achieved with settlements.
Musa Dweik, Professor of International Law, College of Law, Al-Quds University, Jerusalem, explored the legal basis of Palestinian sovereignty and the illegal basis of the settlements in his talk, “Israeli Settlements and Palestinian Human Rights.” Self-determination, Dweik said, was once a political right, but after the International Declaration of Human Rights was passed, it became a legal right as well. As a legal right, it has an economic aspect, that the Palestinians cannot be deprived of the natural resources in their territory. These rights, Dweik contended, are legitimate and inalienable. There is even legal basis for “an armed struggle” to resist any power that denies a people such rights. Also, under international law, settlements are illegal. “The continuation of settlements,” Dweik said, “dissects and divides the Palestinian people.” They interfere with the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. This of course chafes with the Israeli position, which considers the cessation of settlements, in Rabin’s words, “a violation of Israeli human rights.” Dweik quoted Israel Shahak as saying, “I oppose settlements because…they represent land confiscation based on racial discrimination.” These settlements create conditions in which Palestinians are unable to exercise self-determination, Dweik said. They are the bomb that will explode the peace process.
Isam Younis, the Coordinator of the Economic and Social Rights Unit at the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, analyzed the “Israeli Settlements in the Gaza Strip.” He said that between 1992 and 1996 the Labor party managed to increase the settlement expansion rate by 39%, with 3,000 dunams of land having been confiscated. After Labor, Netanyahu declared his commitment to expand settlements. In terms of settlements in Gaza, settlement construction has proceeded at a slower pace. Younis stated that Israel has less interest in the region because Gazans have been known to be more resistant to an Israeli presence, and because Gaza is a less religiously significant area than the West Bank for the Israelis. Also, of course, the West Bank is more strategic politically. Nevertheless, settlements do occupy 42% of Gaza, and part of the percentage is built on top of the fresh water supply in Gaza. Thirty-seven thousand dunams were controlled by 5,227 settlers in 1995. Since 1992 the number of settlers in Gaza has increased by 55%. The main aim of such settlements is to guarantee the continuity of Israeli control, to divide the north and south of Gaza, and to prevent any viable political integrity from developing.
Khader Shkirat, Director of the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment, Jerusalem, discussed the “Environmental Impact of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories.” He described the various ways the Israelis manage to “confiscate” land in order to build or to expand settlements. Uncultivated land is often declared state land, he said. Or the Israelis intentionally spoil land for farming and then annex it. Land is sometimes declared a “green area,” that is, the pretext of preserving land for environmental purposes is used; however, while such land is off-limits to Palestinians, settlements are sometimes built on such areas. Natural resources are also being usurped. Settlements are being built on top of strategic areas such as reservoirs. There is a spring in Nablus, for example, which the Israelis use for irrigating their land. It has been declared a “green area,” however, and Palestinian farmers are barred from tapping into it. Thus, their land goes uncultivated, providing the necessary pretext for the Israelis to annex it. And of course the very presence of the settlements, Shkirat said, has had a “catastrophic” environmental impact.
Participants in the second session discussed “Water, Environment and Cultural Rights.” The session was chaired by Dr. Haider Abdel Shafi, Head of the Red Crescent Society in the Gaza Strip.
Yousef Abu Safieh, Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy of The Palestinian Legislative Council, spoke on “Environment, Water, and Human Rights in the Palestinian-Israeli Agreement.” Abu Safieh asserted that Israel has purposefully denied Palestinians the right to use water and other resources through resort to military orders. He presented statistics indicating that Israeli settlers use approximately 20 times as much water, on a per capita basis, as Palestinians every year. Furthermore, on an annual basis, Palestinians use approximately one-fourth of the world average in water consumption. Abu Safieh stated that according to the Cairo Agreement, Palestinians are permitted to operate, manage, and develop water and sewage so long as it is done in a manner that prevents any harm to water quality. This provision on not harming water quality, however, has the effect of preventing Palestinian control.
Khawar Quereshi, Barrister Specializing in Commercial, Constitutional and International Law in London, delivered a speech on “Water and Natural Resources.” Quereshi maintained that after security, the most important issue for Palestinians is water. There is a major problem in Gaza, according to Quereshi, with more groundwater being taken out than can be replenished. The result is sea water penetration. Fur, sewage is also making its way into the water supply. A 1991 survey of Gaza’s water supply determined that the water is unfit for human consumption. The situation has not in fact improved with the take-over of responsibilities by the Palestinian Authority, but rather has been exacerbated by the increased drilling of wells. Quereshi differed with Abu Safieh over whether the Cairo Agreement’s provision on not harming water quality indeed served as a veto over Palestinians exercising control of water resources in Gaza.
Quereshi expressed alarm that it will be difficult to monitor Israeli breaches of agreements in regard to use of water as changes in water level and flow take time to recognize. In order to prevent this, Quereshi suggested joint water committees be established in order to coordinate water use. In this way, water could help bring the parties together, rather than divide them.
Jamal Safi, Associate Professor of Pesticides, Chemistry, and Toxicology at Al Azhar University and Chairman of the Environmental Protection and Research Institute in Gaza, delivered a presentation on “The State of the Environment in Gaza.” Safi stated a number of facts meant to illustrate the dangerous conditions in Gaza. The population density in refugee camps can reach 50,000 people per square kilometer. The Infant Mortality Rate is 32 per 1,000 — four to five ties higher than in Europe and Israel. The birth rate is 51 per 1,000. Gaza has 1,000 hospital beds serving a population of one million.
Water from Gaza’s 2,000 wells is unfit for human consumption or for use in agriculture. Israel is altering the course of groundwater and surface water which is contributing to the pollution problem in Gaza.
There is heavy use of pesticides in Gaza. In a recent study, Safi determined that 19 pesticides prohibited internationally are still used in Gaza. This is contributing to the growing rate of cancer. There is no control over the dumping of pesticides and no control over hospital waste disposal.
Moain Sadek, PhD in Archeology and Director General of the Department of Antiquities in the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities of the Palestinian National Authority, talked about “Antiquities of Palestine: Between Realities and Ambitions.” Sadek asserted that the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 35, prohibits occupiers from destroying cultural property. Nevertheless, Israel has taken possession of cultural property in the Occupied Territories, illegally excavated, and destroyed historical sites. Many of the illegal excavations have not been constructive or protective, but undertaken with the intent of exporting cultural property inside the Green Line.
Sadek asserted that Israeli archeologists dug straight through Palestinian time periods in their zeal to discover early Jewish artifacts. By digging tunnels under the Old City, constructions above the tunnels were damaged. Moreover, in expanding the area around the Western Wall, the Israelis made 300 families homeless by destroying their houses.
Sadek advocated that Palestinian human rights centers sharpen their attention in regard to the protection of cultural property. He added that international institutions should not participate in excavations in the Occupied Territories and should not accept artifacts taken from the Occupied Territories.
The first afternoon session engaged the subject of “Framework Issues.” Tore Lindhom, Associate Professor of the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights at the University of Oslo, gave a speech on “The Role of Rights in the Peace Process: A Case for Soliciting Religious Grounds for Human Rights.” In his paper Lindhom asserted, “I am…confident that Muslim elaborations of principled and internally convincing Islamic approaches in support of human rights will move much faster than did the Catholic church, even though their initial encounters with human rights claims…have not been conducive to accommodation of human rights on Muslim soil. In a word: Islam is not, essentially, a minefield of human rights, far from it. I offer this paper as my humble prodding toward seeing Islam as a seedbed for human rights.”
Stephen Bowen, Program Director of the International Human Rights Law Group in Washington, D.C. and Editor of Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, delivered a presentation on “Human Rights: The Way Other Major Peace Initiatives Regulate Civil Society within the Peace Process and a Comparison with the Oslo Agreements.”
Franco Faora, The Legal Advisor of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), spoke on the “International Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Territories.” Faora stated that the “ICRC considers that Israel remains bound by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in particular as concerns the territorial and administrative powers it is actually exercising there.” The ICRC is particularly concerned about settlement activities, freedom of movement, and the transport of ill people.
Charles Shamas, a senior partner in the MATTIN group and Special Advisor and Executive Committee Member of the Palestinian Trade Promotion Organization, gave a talk about the “EU-Israel Interim Agreement on Trade.” He first defined human rights not as norms which should be applied in the context of the final status talks, but as measures which can be applied. The relevant political actors, he said, can be compelled to act by aligning political expediency and international human rights law. The final status talks relate to “democratic enfranchisement in a viable state.” Such cannot be achieved without the right framework. He said that the Fourth Geneva Convention must be more frequently invoked to achieve political purposes, as it recognizes “the kind of belligerent occupations that occur.” The responsibility for protecting the rights of a people who have been denied self-determination belongs to the international community.
The “Final Remarks and Closing Session” included statements from session chairman Greg Nott, a lawyer from South Africa; Raji Sourani, Director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights; and Per Stadig, Coordinator of Activities with Human Rights Organizations in the Middle East and East Europe for the International Commission of Jurists, Swedish Section. Sourani read the conference statement and fielded suggestions for amendments and alterations. (The final conference statement is now available from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.)
Stadig urged the PA to use all of the competence inside and outside of the Occupied Territories. He urged that human rights be respected and in that regard announced that President Yasser Arafat, in a meeting held earlier in the day, stated, “We will support the work of human rights.”
