1_March 2019, Ramallah – On the occasion of the International Women’s Day (8 March), a week-long joint campaign “My Rights, Our Power” was launched today in Palestine to raise awareness on women’s fundamental human rights. The joint effort, with participation from over 30 national and international partners from civil society organizations, media outlets, and international development agencies, targets youth, women, and men in various geographic areas in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza to promote women’s human rights in Palestine.

The campaign comes at a crucial moment when the anticipated adoption of the Family Protection Bill is at a standstill, raising concerns among national and international stakeholders about the consequences of such delay on safeguarding women’s fundamental human rights in Palestine. According to the Palestine report of the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), nearly one in five Palestinian men (17 percent) surveyed said they had perpetrated act of physical intimate partner violence against female partners, while 21 per cent of women surveyed reported having experienced such violence.

“Family violence, usually committed by a family member who has social or economic power over others in the family, causes enormous pain and suffering to all members of the family, especially the women and children,” said a spokesperson from civil society, which has vigorously initiated the development of the Family Protection Bill (FPB), and has strongly pushed its adoption since 2004.

“The violation of women’s human rights manifests in various levels and should be also understood from economic, cultural, and social aspects,” the spokesperson added, highlighting the lack of opportunities and freedom of choice, as well as limited access to justice and services that women in Palestine still experience.

The joint campaign aims to raise awareness of the general public, especially youth, women, and men on women’s fundamental rights in line with international standards and embedded in the Family Protection Bill draft endorsed by the previous Cabinet at the end of December 2018. Five key messages, addressing women’s right to a life free of violence, right to achieve justice and seek help in case of violation of such life, as well as the right to equal opportunities and right to make one’s own choices, will be distributed through various channels such as radio, social media, helpline (121), outreach activities, and on-site events. The closing event of the joint campaign will take place on 8 March in Jerusalem and will celebrate women’s achievements using TED-style talks, followed by art performances.

“My Rights, Our Power” joint campaign is part of the global International Women’s Day 2019 campaign under the theme of “Think equal, build smart, innovate for change”. The theme focuses on innovative ways in which we can advance gender equality and the empowerment of women, particularly in the areas of social protection systems, access to public services and sustainable infrastructure, echoing the theme of the 63rd session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 63) taking place in New York on 11-22 March 2019.

The participating organizations of the “My Rights, Our Power” are (in alphabetical order): 17 Palestinian women’s organizations represented by Al-Muntada (coalition), British Consulate-General, Business Women Forum, CARE International, Consulate General of Sweden, Consulate General of Belgium, EUPOL COPPS, EU Representative Office, FAO, General Union of Palestinian Women, Government of Japan, CowaterSogema/GROW Project, International Labour Organization, Italian Agency for Development Cooperation, Ma’an TV, MIFTAH, Netherlands Representative Office, Nisaa FM, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development, Palestinian Family Planning and Protection Association, Representative Office of Canada, Representative Office of Denmark, SAWA, Sawasya II, Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, Sports for Life, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Representative Office of Norway, UNDP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNOPS, UN Women, Women's Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling, Women’s Studies Center.

For more information, please contact Eunjin Jeong at UN Women via eunjin.jeong@unwomen.org or 059 2321 308, Majd Beltaji at UNESCO via m.beltaji@unesco.org or 059 4501 506.

Mr. President,

We thank France for organizing this important meeting and extend our appreciation to the Chef de Cabinet of the Secretary General, the Executive Director of UN Women, the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security and the Secretary-General of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie for their efforts and important briefings.

The issue before us is of relevance not only for half the planet, but to all, given the role and contribution of women in the fields of peace and security and the untapped potential that could be unleashed by mainstreaming their participation. Since the adoption by consensus of resolution 1325 by this Council, a lot has happened, and yet we are still far from the goal of full and equal participation, including in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-building, and from ensuring the protection and empowerment of women. Gender equality and non-discrimination remain prerequisites for the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of this organization and all of our lofty, collective commitments, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The State of Palestine welcomes the Secretary General’s report and his commitment to implementing the women and peace and security agenda, including by placing gender at the centre of his prevention platform and surge in diplomacy. We appreciate all efforts by the UN in this regard, including by UN Women, OHCHR and UNDP, notably in the field of human rights, capacity building, employment and rule of law. We urge UN bodies, notably those operating in Palestine, including the Special Representative, to intensify their engagement and collaboration with women organizations.

Mr. President,

I wish to highlight some of Palestine’s own important efforts in this regard. The Palestinian women’s movement is one of the oldest and strongest in the region and beyond, with institutional and representative structures established as early as the 19th century. Within the PLO, the General Union of Palestinian Women was among the first unions to be established. A coordination of women frameworks within PLO political parties and other organizations has also been established as the “Women’s Affairs Technical Committee” in the aftermath of the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference.

There have been many achievements thereafter. Among them: In 2012, Palestine inaugurated a High-Level National Committee for the implementation of resolution 1325, led by the Ministry of Women Affairs in partnership with relevant Ministries and NGOs. In 2016, the State of Palestine was among the 68 countries and areas that adopted a National Action Plan on women, peace and security.

This Action Plan (2017-2019), adopted by both the Government and civil society organizations, identifies three primary objectives: 1. ensuring protection for women and girls both domestically and in the face of the Israeli occupation; 2. ensuring accountability through national and international mechanisms, with a particular focus on crimes and violations committed by the occupation; and 3. furthering women’s political participation in decision making at the national and international level. The State of Palestine also joined core IHL and human rights instruments, including CEDAW, without reservations. Women’s participation and empowerment are also important and cross-cutting objectives in the context of the National Policy Agenda (2017-2022).

We are, however, conscious that, despite all these efforts, much more work remains to be done. Only in 2009 was a women elected to the highest executive body of the PLO. Quotas are still decisive in allowing women’s election to Parliament and local councils. And while women organizations were among the strongest advocates of national reconciliation, they have been unfairly absent from reconciliation talks. The relevant legislative framework applicable in Palestine is also outdated and must be revised to ensure consistency with Palestine’s international commitments and obligations and avail women the protection and rights they are entitled to and the opportunities they deserve.

Mr. President,

The Palestinian women’s movement since its establishment over a century ago pursued the struggle on two fronts – the struggle for the independence of Palestine and the struggle for women’s rights and empowerment – a dual struggle the movement continues to pursue to this day. The Israeli occupation remains the main source of the violations of our women’s rights and their vulnerability and violence against their person. We have repeatedly called for protection of the Palestinian people, especially women and children. We have also called for accountability, a key element of resolution 1325, the first resolution to address the disproportionate and unique impact of armed conflict on women, as the only way to put an end to violations and crimes.

While Palestine stands ready to do its part to advance women rights and the role of women in the fields of peace and security, it is clear that the enjoyment of these rights in our country necessitates ending the Israeli occupation. We will thus continue to work for an end of the occupation and true progress on the path to independence, justice and peace, with the equal and full involvement of women, leading to an independent State of Palestine ensuring human rights for all its citizens without discrimination.

On the occasion of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office to Palestine, the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325, which consists of twelve different Palestinian women’s organisations, is urging the Prosecutor’s Office to take concrete actions towards investigating war crimes committed against Palestinians. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom remains deeply concerned with the complete impunity of Israeli war crimes and firmly supports the Coalition’s call for a just accountability mechanism for Palestinian victims. WILPF also calls on the international community to recognise and fully support Palestinian women’s organisations substantial role in paving the paths to justice, accountability and peace. Read the statement of the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325 below.

We, the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325,welcome the visit of the delegation of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office as a step in the right direction. But we are deeply disappointed that the purpose of this visit was restricted to preliminary examination, while Palestinian victims of Israeli war crimes, including women, continue to suffer and urgently await justice and an end to Israel impunity.

We do not understand the decision to exclude the Gaza Strip from this visit, when Gaza has been the site of the most war crimes and where women have been most systematically impacted by Israeli collective punishment policies; a prolonged imposed siege and a severe humanitarian deterioration resulting from Israeli military aggressions .

We are further disappointed that women who have been systematically impacted, and their women’s organisations, have been excluded from the delegation’s agenda.

We call upon all future delegations of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office to include on their agenda meetings with women’s organisations and women who have experienced direct and indirect impacts of Israeli crimes.

We, the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325, have seen in UNSCR 1325, 2242, and other UN Resolutions a commitment to hold the Israeli perpetrators accountable for their war crimes.

We look to the ICC as the most important mechanism to end impunity for all war crimes committed, finally bringing justice for the Palestinian people. Yet, we are very concerned that the preliminary examinations will be an endless process.

Therefore, we urge, Ms. Fatou Bensouda, the Prosecutor of the ICC, to conclude the preliminary examination and move to investigations into Israeli war crimes, bringing justice to Palestinians.

We have paid the price of non-accountability and impunity of Israeli war crimes for too long. “Delaying justice is justice denied.”

Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325: The General Union of Palestinian Women (GUPW), the Women’s Affairs Technical Committee (WATC), Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development (PWWSD), MIFTAH, Filastinyat, Women Media and Development (TAM), Women Stu Dies Center, Women’s Center for Legal Aid and Counseling (WACLAC), the National, YWCA of Palestine, Center for Women’s Legal Research and Consulting (CWLRC), the Culture and Free thought Association(CWLRC) and Women’s Affairs Center (GWAC).

Occupied Palestine

October 11, 2016

This Bulletin aims to provide a brief overview of issues related to Palestinian Refugee Rights

(November 29 is the anniversary of the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 181 which recommended the partition of Palestine and also the International Day in Solidarity with the Palestinian People.)

Fifty-seven years ago the United Nations recommended that Palestine be split into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish (General Assembly Resolution 181).

The Plan said that each state should adopt a constitution as a condition for international recognition. In the meantime there were to be two provisional governments during a transitional period. The governments were to be elected by one person, one vote.

Since then, the country and the region have been racked by almost continuous violence, including several wars. Two years ago, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine (Resolution 1397). And yet military occupation and violence has continued.

The UN Special Envoy to the Middle East Peace Process Terje Larsen says that the two-state solution is the only viable way out of the conflict. US President George Bush says that America seeks “a democratic, independent and viable state for the Palestinian people.” But he also says that America is “committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state.”

For the last two years President Bush has been saying that he supports a Palestinian state but in those two years:

• Israel began building a wall in the West Bank that the International Court of Justice says will prevent Palestinians from exercising their right to self-determination;
• Israel has established 51 new settlement outposts in the West Bank;
• settlements in Gaza have expanded by 190,000 sq. meters in late 2004 even though Israel says it will disengage from Gaza and the
• United States reneged on its decision to monitor settlement activity.

The Palestinians officially accepted a two-state compromise in 1988. Today a two-state solution is seen by most international observers as being the most practical or viable solution to the conflict. But if this vision is as practical and viable as everyone says it is, why has it caused so much conflict and taken so long to implement?

Two demographic states?

The 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine recommended the establishment of two democratic states in Palestine, one Arab and the other Jewish. The Arab state was never established. During the 1948 war, Israel occupied far more of Palestine than it was allotted under the Plan. Jordan occupied and later annexed the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem; Egypt administered the Gaza Strip. But Israel occupied both of these areas during the 1967 war.

Israel says that the UN Partition Plan recognized Israel as a Jewish state. Israel’s High Court (Ben-Shalom vs. Central Election Committee) states that the Jewish character of the state is defined by three inter-related components: 1) that the Jews form the majority of the state; 2) that the Jews are entitled to preferential treatment such as the Law of Return; and 3) that a reciprocal relationship exists between the state and the Jews outside of Israel.

The UN never defined what it meant by a Jewish state, but the Partition Plan itself provides some good indicators. The population of the Jewish state in the plan, which covered 56 per cent of Palestine, had almost the same number of Jews and Palestinian Arabs. UN officials said it was impossible to create two viable states along strictly ethnic and religious lines because of the dispersion of the population throughout the country. On the ground, the Jewish state in the Partition Plan was a binational entity.

But the UN plan did put immigration under the control of the government of each state. Massive Jewish immigration was the only legitimate means under the UN plan to change the demographic balance in the Jewish state. In fact in 1950 Israel adopted the Law of Return under which any Jew in the world can acquire Israeli citizenship. A million Jewish immigrants came to the country during the first decade after Israel was established in 1948.

Israel’s current Jewish majority came about with immigration but mainly because of the mass displacement and expulsion of Palestinians, 85 per cent of them, from within its boundaries during the 1948 war.

The UN seemed to be concerned about population balance. The Plan stated that “no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State, and no Arab shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Jewish State, except by special leave” during the UN-supervised transition period. In other words there was to be no demographic change in the immediate period after the emergence of the two states.

They city of Jerusalem was to be put under UN administration under the Partition Plan. The Plan also said that “Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.” After one year, Jews and their families living in the Arab state could choose to become citizens of the Jewish state and vis-a-versa.

In other words, every Palestinian Arab who was a resident of the area of the Jewish state on the day of partition (29 November 1947) should also be a citizen of Israel. But in 1952 Israel adopted another law (Nationality Law) which prevents all Palestinian refugees who lived in villages in towns that became part of the territory of Israel from being citizens of the state.

This land is your land, this land is my land

The Partition Plan recommended that a Jewish state be established on 56 per cent of the land of Palestine. Palestinians held ownership rights to about 90 per cent of the land in historic Palestine. The Partition Plan also accorded each state full control over matters of land regulation. But it said the right to individual property ownership should be constitutionally protected.

“No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (or by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes.” When expropriation was necessary for public purposes, the Plan said that full compensation for the property should be fixed by the Supreme Court and shall be paid before dispossession.

But Israel adopted many laws, including the Absentees Property Law, to expropriate Palestinian property and transfer it to the state. This law also applies to Palestinians who are citizens of Israel today but who had temporarily left their villages during the war in 1948. Israel also confiscates land for public purpose, but often only to serve the Jewish population of the country.

The 1960 Basic Law: Israel Lands says that all land held by the state and the Jewish National Fund, the body set up to purchase lands for Jewish settlement “shall not be transferred either by sale or in any other manner.” Today Israel says that 93 per cent of the land is held by the state for the inalienable use of the Jewish people in Israel and elsewhere. This law means that Palestinians have not been able to repossess their lands.

Israel did not compensate the owners previous to dispossession. It did set up a Custodian’s Office for refugee property but then transferred the property to the state. The state paid money to the Custodian which was supposed to be held in an account until the refugee situation was resolved. During final status talks between Israel and the PLO, however, Israel said that the fund was empty.

Equality before the law specified but not realized

The UN Partition Plan also said that each state should adopt a constitution as a condition for international recognition of independence. The Plan even specified what should go into the constitution. This included guarantees “to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association.”

Each state was also supposed to make a declaration to the United Nations that it would uphold freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, non-discrimination, and equal protection before the law. “The stipulations contained in the declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.”

The UN explained that because “there will be an ethnic minority element in the population…it is important, in the interest of orderly society, and for the well-being of all Palestinians, that full safeguards be ensured for the rights of all.” The Plan also said that any member of the UN had the right to raise concerns about any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these stipulations, and the General Assembly could make recommendations as it deemed proper.

But Israel never adopted a constitution. It does have a number of ‘Basic Laws’, which it describes as a constitution in progress. The 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom, empowers the Supreme Court to overturn Knesset laws that are incompatible with the right to dignity, life, freedom, privacy, property and the right to leave and enter the country. But there is no fundamental right to equality.

This 1992 Basic Law does not provide for equality because religious political parties insisted upon maintaining the status quo between the State and religion and the majority sought to protect the character of the state as a Jewish state. Inclusion of a general article on equality was regarded as an obstacle to the passage of the law. This means that Palestinians cannot effectively challenge laws on nationality and property as discriminatory.

Under another Basic Law: the Knesset (Israeli Parliament), political parties and candidates that advocate that Israel be a state of all its citizens rather than a Jewish state may be disqualified from participating in elections.

The rule of law missing for Palestinians

If there were disputes or disagreements about the declaration that each state was supposed to make before it was granted independence, the UN said that any dispute could be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

Some states tried to obtain an advisory opinion from the ICJ about whether the UN Plan itself was legal. They felt that any UN decision on the issue of Palestine should be consistent with international law. These states submitted a draft resolution with eight questions for the court concerning Palestinian rights, the legal status of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, as well as the legal authority of the UN to recommend and enforce future arrangements in Palestine without the democratic consent of the majority of its inhabitants. The General Assembly did not support this draft resolution.

Fifty-seven years later, the International Court of Justice delivered a non-binding advisory opinion on the question of Palestine and the wall being constructed in the West Bank. The Court said that Israel must cease construction of the wall and dismantle sections located in the occupied territories forthwith; repeal or render ineffective all related legislative and regulatory acts; compensate for damage caused; and, return Palestinian property or provide compensation if restitution is not possible.

The Court also recommended that states should neither recognize the wall nor provide aid or assistance to maintain the circumstances created by its construction; prevent any impediment, created by the wall’s construction, to the exercise of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; and, ensure Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. It called on the UN to consider what further action was needed to end the illegal situation caused by the wall’s construction. (See: BADIL Bulletin 20: International Court Rules Against Israel’s Wall)

Solution or source of conflict?

When Israel declared its establishment it said that it was “ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the Resolution of the Assembly of November 29, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the Economic Union over the whole of Palestine.” But it still has not implemented the main provisions of the Partition Plan relating to citizenship, property rights and equality before the law.

Maybe a two-state solution to the conflict is a practical and viable solution but only if the rule of law is respected. Implementation of the 2004 ICJ ruling on the wall will be a test case in this regard.

Even so, there is the possibility that partition and a two-state solution, especially along ethnic and religious lines, is the actual source of conflict and violence. After nearly six decades of trying partition, this cannot be easily dismissed.

Governments usually guarantee protection for their citizens: basic human rights and physical security but Palestinians have no state or international body to provide for their protection. A group of non-governmental organizations, in a statement to the UNHCR Executive Committee meeting in Geneva 4-8 October, drew attention to the "continuing plight of millions of forcibly displaced Palestinians".

If citizens of a country become refugees, their safety net is gone. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has a mandate to help governments protect refugees, protection that lasts until a viable and lasting solution to their predicament is found. The preferred solution is voluntary repatriation in safety and dignity.

But Palestinian refugees who are both homeless and stateless with none of the legal protections of citizenship in a country have been excluded from this protection regime. Protection includes promotion of human rights, issuing of identity papers and travel documents and providing for freedom of movement and access to employment, basic housing, welfare, education and other governmental services.

Protection gap At this year's meeting of the UNHCR Executive Committee, a group of NGOs, that included BADIL, jointly presented a statement on protection. While reaffirming that protection is the primary responsibility of States, they drew attention to "the ongoing plight of millions of forcibly displaced Palestinian. Their situation is unique amongst forcibly displaced persons, as millions of them fall into a protection gap with no access to any form of international protection."

The NGO submission called on the UNHCR and governments to ensure protection under the 1951 Convention to Palestinian asylum-seeking, in light of Article 1D of the Convention. "We also support efforts of the Council of Europe and a growing number of states to give effect to this recommendation."

The UNHCR Executive Committee is made up of 66 countries which meets every autumn to review and approve UNHCR programs and budgets and advise on refugee protection matters.

BADIL reports on initiatives In a paper presented to an NGO consultation before the UNHCR Executive Committee, BADIL reported on its initiatives in the area of protection which included bringing together international experts and agencies to review the 'protection gap' relating to Palestinian refugees.

BADIL recommended that countries which have not incorporated Article ID of the refugee convention into national legislation should do so; Palestinian refugees should, at minimum, be recognized as refugees vis-à-vis Israel under Article ID as recommended by UNHCR and the Council of Europe; countries should grant them a complementary form of protection which entitles them to formal legal status and basic civil rights; and Palestinian refugees must not be returned to countries in which there is no guarantee of effective protection.

2.Protection gap BADIL also called on the international community and the United Nations to continue its search for durable solutions for their situation. International assistance, protection and the search for durable solutions consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, said BADIL, are part of a continuum and should not be seen in isolation.

European NGOs and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), said BADIL, should encourage the Council of Europe to follow up on its 2003 recommendations which included the holding of an international conference dedicated solely to the question of Palestinian refugees. Such a conference, says Badil, would provide a platform for an in-depth study by states, the UN and NGOs of current protection gaps as well as concrete and concerted efforts to remedy such gaps.

The NGO consultations, held before the annual UNHCR Executive Committee meeting attracted some 200 non-governmental organizations. The consultations were held in Geneva 28-30 September.

The joint statement on international protection was endorsed by BADIL and five other national and international NGOs.

September 16 commemorates the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, the day almost a quarter of a century ago, when up to 3,500 civilians, mainly Palestinian refugees, died in Beirut, Lebanon refugee camps.

In 1982, Ariel Sharon was Defense Minister of Israel. An Israeli commission of inquiry found that he and other Israelis were responsible for the massacre. Now Ariel Sharon is Prime Minister of Israel.

Under the Universal Jurisdiction Law of Belgium, Ariel Sharon was charged in relation to the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The case failed when Belgium was forced to abandon its law through U.S. and other pressure. The law simply put Belgian law into agreement with the Geneva Conventions something expected from every state that is a signatory to the Conventions. The Geneva Conventions call for prosecution or extradition of anyone guilty of crimes against humanity. Among others, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have supported the concept of universal jurisdiction.

Others who had a role in the massacre remain in positions of power both in Israel and Lebanon.

Things haven't changed much for the Palestinians. Inquiries into the massacre were not released. Most massacre perpetrators remain at large. Nothing has been done to compensate the victims.

The killing with impunity continues, especially for Palestinians. In the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip more than 3,100 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military and Israel settlers in the past four years. In the same period almost 1,000 Israeli civilians and members of the Israeli security forces have been killed by Palestinians.

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon remain unable to own land and are barred from more than 70 types of work. The Palestinians of West Bank and Gaza remain locked in a land which is growing smaller by the day with illegal takeovers of land and the building of the wall by Israel.

All Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948 and through the years because of Israeli actions have been denied the right of return.

Some say the world changed on September 11, 2001 but on 16 September, 22 years after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, not much has changed for the Palestinians.

The advisory opinion on Israel's wall/separation fence by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will be brought down on Friday 9 July, 15:00 local time.

Currently the wall is being built on Palestinian land illegally taken by Israel in the West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem. The wall is being built around Jewish settlements/colonies, illegal under international law, on land illegally confiscated by the Israel authorities.

In advance of the ICJ opinion, the Israel High Court ruled on petitions against the wall in areas near Jerusalem, 30 June 2004. It ruled that the "separation fence causes injury to the lives of 35,000 local inhabitants, 4,000 dunums of their lands are taken up by the route of the fence itself and thousands of olive trees growing along the route itself uprooted. The fence separates eight villages in which the local inhabitants live from more than 30,000 dunums of their lands."

While upholding that Israel's wall is being constructed for security and not political reasons, the court ruled that the injury to the Palestinian residents of the lands were not proportionate to the security interests of Israel. It said, "There is no escaping, therefore, a renewed examination of the route of the fence, according to the standards of proportionality that we have set out." The court asked for an alternate path for the wall and also said that "only a separation fence built on the base of law will grant security to the state and its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of law will lead the state to the security so yearned for."

Three days before the ICJ is due to announce its opinion, efforts are being made by political figures in Israel and other countries to reroute the wall; make it seem legal under international law; and deny the applicability of the ICJ opinion. Parallel to efforts at softening the effect of the ICJ ruling, Israel's cabinet is preparing for the time when international attention to the wall and the ICJ decreases. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a speech to cabinet as reported in the daily newspaper Haaretz, said he believes the Israeli High Court of Justice will approve the present route of the separation fence, which it recently rejected, if after a thorough examination, no alternative can be found that will satisfy the defense establishment.

BADIL which takes a rights-based approach to the Palestinian question cannot but agree with the Israel High Court opinion that "There is no security without law". The ICJ advisory opinions, says BADIL, are one of the tools for establishing the rule of law.

BADIL is the Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights