29 December 2009 By Stephen Lendman
On June 6, 1967, when Israeli forces invaded Gaza and
the West Bank, on the second day of the so-called
Six-Day War (June 5 - 10, 1967), they entered three
Palestinian villages in the Latroun salient - Imwas,
Yalo and Beit Nouba, forcibly expelling the residents,
numbering over 10,000 at the time. By the next day,
most were gone while Israel began razing village lands
and erasing their memory in an area well-known for its
water resources and fertility, located northwest of
Jerusalem along the Green Line. One soldier at the
time explained that they:
"were told to take up positions around the approaches
to the villages in order to prevent those villagers -
who had heard the Israeli assurances over the radio
that they could return to their homes in peace - from
returning to their homes. The order was - shoot over
their heads and tell them there is no access to the
village," even though Fourth Geneva's Article 49
states:
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as
deportations of protected persons from occupied
territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or
to that of any other country, occupied or not, are
prohibited, regardless of their motive." Doing so is a
"grave breach," and those responsible are criminally
liable.
Forty-two years later, their former homes gone and
land expropriated, the survivors remain displaced,
unable to return in violation of international law and
Article 11 of UN Resolution 194:
"Resolv(ing) that the refugees wishing to return to
their homes and live in peace with their neighbors
should be permitted to do so at the earliest
practicable date, and that compensation should be paid
for the property of those choosing not to return and
for loss of or damage to property, under principles of
international law or in equity, should be made good by
the Governments or authorities responsible."
Israel never complied even though its admission to the
UN was conditional on accepting this and other
relevant UN resolutions.
Established in 1979, Al-Haq is a Ramallah, West
Bank-based independent Palestinian human rights NGO
dedicated to protecting and promoting these rights and
the rule of law in Occupied Palestine. In December
2007, it published a report still relevant titled,
"Where Villages Stood: Israel's Continuing Violations
of International Law in Occupied Latroun, 1967 -
2007," and dedicated it "To the people of Imwas, Yalo
and Beit Nouba, and to all Palestinians who remain
displaced from their homes, their villages, their
land."
Focusing on the Latroun villages, it highlights the
plight of all Palestinians - denied their rights by
forced displacements, prevented from returning, and in
the Occupied Territories still living under an
oppressive 42-year military occupation. Al Haq's
purpose was to document an international crime,
disclose the policy behind it, provide victims the
evidence they need to seek justice, and the world
community ample reason to demand it. After 42
repressive years, Israel's occupation "has acquired
some of the (worst) characteristics of colonialism and
apartheid" with no redress in sight to end it.
Following the Six-Day War, Israel expropriated 400
square km from displaced persons and refugees, and
threatened Palestinians along the Green Line with
more, especially in the three Latroun villages,
targeted for annexation prior to the occupation by
establishing irreversible "facts on the ground" when
completed.
Al-Haq's study uncovered official Israeli political
and military documents and compiled firsthand accounts
from interviews with former soldiers who participated
in the operation and were willing to discuss it
freely. Thankfully so because their truths must be
told.
The Story of the Latroun Villages: Their Destruction
and Displacement
In Israel's 1948 "War of Independence," the Old City
of Jerusalem (in East Jerusalem) and Latroun salient
were key targets fought hard for, lost, and thereafter
"engrained in the collective psyche of the Israeli
military." As a result, Latroun remained a West Bank
enclave along the Green Line, separated from Israel by
a "No Man's Land" buffer zone.
The Six-Day War achieved the earlier loss, erased a
"bitter memory" according to Israeli historian Ilan
Pappe, and provided an opportunity for more land and
its valuable resources by expelling Palestinian
residents and denying their right to return.
From the start, no resistance was met because the
Jordanian military withdrew the night before, knowing
it would be outnumbered so prioritized its defense of
Jerusalem. As a result, Palestinian residents began
fleeing as soon as Israeli tanks approached, and those
remaining were forcibly expelled, in many cases with
no time to take essentials, including food and water
for a 20 km walk to Ramallah (in intense heat), their
only way to get there not knowing their fate, yet
believing at the time they'd be allowed to return.
Unknown to them then:
-- expulsion meant permanent displacement;
-- Latroun was to be part of Israel and all traces of
their former land destroyed, except in their
collective memories;
-- village destruction was a punitive land grab
accomplished by bulldozing and blasting with
explosives, not the result of war; reportedly, some
residents who remained were buried under their homes,
a willful act of murder;
-- destruction was complete, including homes, schools,
mosques, archaeological landmarks, a medical clinic,
wells, an agricultural association, and a police
station - everything leveled to Judaize it.
One participating soldier said it was "the blackest
hour of my life. Things were done here which should
not have been done, and I participated in an action
that I shouldn't have been part of." Others felt the
same way as they witnessed innocent civilians,
including the sick and elderly, persecuted and
displaced. Those too frail to leave were buried alive,
an act too horrifying for some to bear.
Dr. Moussa Abu Ghosh remembered his cousin, Hasan
Shukri, buried beneath his home:
He "was nineteen, an invalid, paralyzed from polio.
They found his wheelchair outside and found his body
underneath the house." Others recalled similar
incidents, but how many is unknown, perhaps dozens of
civilians willfully murdered, guilty of being Arabs on
land Israel wanted and took.
After the war, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol told Israeli
ministers:
"For the first time since the establishment of the
state, the security threat to Israel from the West
Bank has been removed, and here I am reminded
particularly of Latroun, which for us was a worry, as
(in 1948) the territory in that area cost us much
blood even though in the end it remained on the other
side."
No security threat existed, but Israel got its revenge
and the territory it sought. The major Western media
was silent, much like today, so most people accept the
mythology of a beleaguered Israel surrounded by
hostile Arabs, acting heroically in self-defense.
After the Six-Day War, Israeli Defence Forces and
Defence Ministry Archive (IDFA) Military Organising
Orders, June 1967 IDFA 901/2/281, section 4 stipulated
that the GOC Central Command would be in charge of the
area west of the Green Line, including Latroun, to
secure it permanently for Israel. Judaizing followed
in violation of international law, amounting to what
former UN Special Human Rights Rapporteur for Occupied
Palestine, John Dugard, called:
a "form of colonialism of the kind declared to be a
denial of fundamental human rights and contrary to the
Charter of the United Nations as recalled in the
General Assembly's Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples."
It "solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a
speedy and unconditional end (of) colonialism in all
its forms and manifestations" because it's
fundamentally contrary to international law and the
very notion of human rights.
Not for Israel, however, acting outside the law
thereafter to colonize the Territories (focusing on
the West Bank) and incorporate them into greater
Israel, with borders yet to be determined because land
seizures keep expanding them for new settlements and
enlarging established ones.
In 1970, Mevo Horon was built on Beit Nouba land,
initially for ideologically religious settlers in
prefabricated buildings, now greatly expanded in more
permanent form. "The settlement contains a Jewish
religious school and it exploits the surrounding land,
to which Palestinian access is banned, for
agricultural purposes." The entire settlement, of
course, is built on Palestinian land, stolen to
provide new homes for Jews.
Canada Park
In 1973, Bernard Bloomfield, president of the Jewish
National Fund (JNF) of Canada, led a campaign to raise
$15 million for a recreational park for Israelis. His
vision was realized where Imwas and Yalo once stood:
"a proud tribute to Canada," in his words, "and to the
Canadian Jewish community whose vision and foresight
helped transform a barren stretch of land into a major
national recreational area for the people of Israel."
Unmentioned was that it was on stolen, occupied land,
the village names now erased, forgotten, and forbidden
to be mentioned until the JNF and Civil Administration
agreed under pressure, in March 2006, to erect two
signs acknowledging its former existence. It was
short-lived, however, as within weeks the signs were
vandalized, uprooted and stolen to preserve the new
name - Ayalon Park or Ayalon/Canada Park under the
administration of the Canada JNF.
It's a recreational area solely for Jews on former
Palestinian land, where its former owners can't enter.
Canada's JNF calls it "Israel's Central Park." Knowing
their history, Palestinians are justifiably outraged.
The Tel Aviv-Jerusalem Railway
Israel Railways Ltd. is the independent state-owned
company running the nation's rail network, and since
March 2003 began building a high-speed line connecting
Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, via Modi'in. By early 2008,
trains were to be operating between Tel Aviv and
Modi'in Central Station, but the entire line to
Jerusalem won't be in service until 2016, according to
current estimates.
The final portion from Modi'in to Jerusalem will go
through Latroun between Canada Park, Mevo Horon, and
Beit Sourik. As a result in May 2006, the Civil
Administration issued military orders to seize
Palestinian land, the way the Separation Wall is
expropriating about 12% of the West Bank. The rail
line is taking more.
Denying Latroun Residents Their
Right to Return
Before the Six-Day War, Israel planned to expel
Latroun residents and prevent their return, although
at the time there was debate on how and whether to do
it. On June 25, 1967, disagreement arose between the
military and government ministers over whether
destruction and displacement was justified and about
how to deal with refugees post-conflict, mainly from
Qalqiliya and Latroun. At issue was Israel's image, a
matter of less concern to the military that wanted
full control over a strategic area, the position that
finally prevailed.
In the end, a compromise let Qalqiliya residents
return but not Latroun ones on the premise that
showing some concern would be diplomatically
beneficial. Former Imwas, Yalo and Beit Nouba
residents in Jordan were forced to stay while a
grossly inadequate resettlement proposal was offered
others in the West Bank, one they never accepted.
Thereafter on October 23, 1967, Military Order No. 146
barred them from returning and declared Latroun a
"closed area," effectively confiscating their land and
declaring that "persons using the road will not delay
their travel nor will they leave the road" in order to
prevent their return to Latroun. The order is still in
force.
Nonetheless, village residents kept petitioning for
their rights, each time without response, most
recently in November 2007, but as time passes, the
more embedded facts on the ground become.
Legal Analysis
Fourth Geneva Convention's relevance affected Article
35 of Israel's Military Proclamation No. 3 stating
that its military courts "must apply (its)
provisions....In case of conflict between this Order
and the said Convention, the Convention shall
prevail." So why hasn't it?
Because the ruling was subsequently reversed despite
the international community's firmness that it applies
universally and Israel has no right to disregard it.
In its 2004 ruling on the Separation Wall, the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed this
interpretation, and so did the 1907 Hague Regulations.
In addition, international humanitarian and human
rights laws apply, according to the UN General
Assembly, ICRC, and independent judicial bodies.
"Israel's claim that customary and conventional human
rights laws do not apply to the OPT as the Palestinian
population is not within its sovereign territory has
been almost universally refuted."
Forcible Transfer
Under Fourth Geneva's Article 4, Latroun villagers
were protected persons prohibited from being forcibly
displaced, yet they were and prevented from
returning.
This principle goes back to the 1863 Lieber Code that
says "private citizens are no longer (to be) carried
off to distant parts," and the Hague Regulations state
that "the practice of deporting persons was regarded
at the beginning of (the 20th) century as having
fallen into abeyance," stopping just short of
prohibition but inferring that interning or expelling
civilians falls below minimal civilized standards and
are hence unacceptable and effectively illegal.
Israel is bound under international law but disregards
it nonetheless. Yet two weeks after the Six-Day War
ended, serious cabinet debate considered compliance
because keeping legitimate residents displaced served
no military or security purpose. Nonetheless, Latroun
ones lost everything, so for them the consequences
were grim. Families were separated and unprotected,
and accounts reported road side deaths from exhaustion
and exposure.
The ICRC's Appeals Chamber (ICTY) emphasized the link
between prohibiting deportation, forced transfer, and
residents' right to their property stating:
The "protection interests underlying the prohibition
against deportation include the right of the victim to
stay in his or her home and community and the right
not to be deprived of his or her property by being
forcibly displaced to another location." Latroun
villagers lost everything. For some, including their
lives.
Property Destruction and
Appropriation
Article 23(g) of the 1907 Hague Regulations affirms a
well-established international law principle that it's
"especially forbidden (to) destroy or seize the
enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure
be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war."
This applies to property owned privately, publicly,
and by institutions related to religions, charities,
education, and the arts and science.
According to Article 6(b) of the Nuremberg Charter:
War crimes include "violations of the laws or customs
of war (including) plunder of private property, wanton
destruction of cities, towns or villages, or
devastation not justified by military necessity."
Under Fourth Geneva's Article 53:
"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or
personal property belonging individually or
collectively to private persons, or to the State, or
to other public authorities, or to social or
cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where
such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by
military operations."
These provisions apply to occupied territory, and thus
relate to Israel's wanton looting and destruction of
Imwas, Yalo and Beit Nouba. No military necessity
warranted it. After fighting ended and Israeli forces
occupied the area, it was done solely to displace the
residents and seize their land for Jews only use.
"That the villages were destroyed in the context of
occupying forces exercising effective control over the
area as opposed to in the course of battle between two
armies is significant in rendering Article 53 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention applicable to all property
destroyed in Latroun."
Military Necessity
The 1868 Petersburg Declaration first recognized the
principle, stating that:
"the only legitimate object which States should
endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the
military forces of the enemy."
Thereafter, the concept was interpreted to mean acts
of war must be warranted by "absolute military
necessity." An authoritative ICRC study also prohibits
property destruction "unless required by imperative
military necessity."
The post-WWII Hostages Trial of Wilhelm List and
Others (United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg)
established that the:
"destruction of property to be lawful must be
imperatively demanded by the necessities of war....
Destruction as an end in itself is a violation of
international law. There must be some reasonable
connection between the destruction of property and the
overcoming of the enemy forces."
This was "patently not the case in Imwas, Yalo or Beit
Nouba." The IDF brazenly violated established
international law. Fighting had ceased. There was no
resistance. Those displaced were non-combatants, and
the property destroyed served no military objective.
Collective Punishment
According to IDF chief of staff, Uzi Narkiss (1925 -
1997), destroying the Latroun villages was done for
"revenge" after failure to capture the area in 1948.
For Defense Minister Moshe Dayan (1915 - 1981), it was
done "not as a result of battle, but of punitive
action." It led Israeli writer Amos Kenan (1927 -
2009) to question "this idiotic approach (of)
collective punishment," forbidden under Fourth
Geneva's Article 33 stating:
"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. Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property
are prohibited."
Destroying Latroun continued what began during
Israel's War of Independence that expelled about
800,000 Palestinians, slaughtered many others, and
destroyed 531 villages, crops and agricultural land,
and 11 urban neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv,
Haifa, and elsewhere.
After expelling 650 Palestinians on June 11, 1967,
Israeli forces destroyed the entire Mughrabi Quarter
of East Jerusalem's Old City, and thereafter continued
a state policy of displacement and demolition:
-- for punitive reasons;
-- to build and expand settlements;
-- establish military zones; and to
-- create public areas solely for Jews and tourism.
According to the Israeli Committee Against House
Demolitions, an estimated 24,145 homes have been
demolished in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza
from 1967 - July 2009 - 4,247, according to the UN,
during Operation Cast Lead alone.
Settlement Construction
All Israeli settlements are illegal under Article
49(6) unequivocally stating:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer
parts of its own civilian population into the
territory it occupies."
However, according to Israeli authorities, this
provision only prohibits "forcible" transferring of
the occupying power's population from its territory
unrelated to "voluntary or induced migration." Not so,
however, as is clear and unequivocal. Again, Fourth
Geneva's Article 49 states:
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as
deportations of protected persons from occupied
territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or
to that of any other country, occupied or not, are
prohibited, regardless of their motive."
In addition, the International Criminal Court (ICJ)
affirmed that Article 49:
"prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers
of population....but also any measures taken by an
occupying Power in order to organize or encourage
transfers of parts of its own population into the
occupied territory." As a result, "the Israeli
settlements in the OPT (including East Jerusalem) have
been established in breach of international law."
They represent a calculated scheme to displace
Palestinians and expropriate as much of their land as
possible. From 1967 - 2007, Israel established 121
settlements, 106 outposts, and a dozen (de facto
settlement) neighborhoods, now home to about 500,000
Jews. As of summer 2009, construction continues. No
settlement freeze exists, and official state policy is
to keep expanding them, seize all of East Jerusalem,
and all valued West Bank land, expelling Palestinians
in the process.
Grave Breaches and Individual Criminal Responsibility
The Nuremberg Tribunal established the principle of
individual responsibility for committing international
crimes directly or by "order(ing), solicit(ing) or
induc(ing) the commission of such a crime (as well as)
aid(ing), abet(ting) or otherwise assist(ing) in its
commission."
These are "grave breaches" under Fourth Geneva's
Article 147 and are considered among the most serious
war crimes requiring "effective penal sanctions"
against persons committing them or ordering them to be
committed. As such, all High Contracting Parties are
obligated to seek justice by arresting and bringing
those responsible before a domestic or foreign court.
In other words, for crimes this heinous and others as
severe, the well-established universal jurisdiction
principle applies.
For Imwas, Yalo and Beit Nouba, at issue are protected
persons and property rights under Fourth Geneva and
other long-standing international law provisions. As
explained above, they're unambiguous so parties in
violation must be fully held accountable.
However, in prosecuting war crimes, it's often
challenging to establish a clear link between senior
commanders and civilian authorities on the one hand
and acts committed by their subordinates. Yet the
highest authorities can be held responsible if they
knew, should have known, and/or failed to take all
necessary measures to assure no laws of war were
broken.
"In the case of the Latroun villages, evidence of the
direct responsibility and complicity of figures (at)
the (highest levels of the) political and military
leadership presents itself," including the prime
minister, members of his cabinet, IDF chief of staff,
and his top commanders. They ordered and agreed to
actions on the ground by a 10 - 3 cabinet vote.
In addition, "the forcible expulsion and continuing
displacement of the Latroun residents was not a
once-off occurrence, never to be repeated elsewhere in
the OPT." The policy continues unabated and is
ongoing through home demolitions, land seizures,
settlement expansions, daily harassment, house
searches, arrests, killings, torture, cutting off
water and power, restricting free movement, curtailing
economic activity, denying farmers access to their
land, and more in grave violation of international
law.
The Right of Return
Besides being established under numerous UN
Resolutions, including UN Resolution 194, Fourth
Geneva's Article 49 requires that persons forcibly
displaced "shall be transferred back to their homes as
soon as hostilities in the area in question have
ceased."
In addition, Principle 28 of the UN Guiding Principles
on Internal Displacement says it's the:
"primary duty and responsibility (of combatants and/or
occupiers) to establish conditions, as well as provide
the means, which allow internally displaced persons to
return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to
their homes or places of habitual residence."
Latroun villagers "hold an inalienable right to return
to the OPT under instruments of international human
right law....This right is held not only by those who
fled to Jordan in 1967, but also their descendants,
once they have maintained genuine links with the
territory of origin." In addition, those unable to
return or whose homes have been destroyed, are legally
entitled to compensation for their loss and
suffering.
Corporate Responsibility
Businesses benefit prominently from the spoils of war
and occupation, yet their responsibility has "yet to
be clearly defined or regulated by international law."
However, "precedents....have arisen....primarily in
the context of reparations for victims of human rights
abuses and violations of international humanitarian
law."
The Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation
in East Timor's finding is pertinent to Latroun and
other occupied territories. It held that:
"Indonesian business companies, including State Owned
Enterprises, and other international and multinational
corporations and businesses (that) benefited from the
occupation" must contribute to reparations to
compensate East Timorese occupation victims.
According to the ICRC, international humanitarian law
obligates states, soldiers, other armed groups, and
corporations, whose activities were involved in a war
or military occupation. In other words, war
profiteering has a price, but who'll enforce payment.
Conclusion
After 42 years of military occupation, Israeli policy
remains defined by its:
-- lawlessness and belligerency;
-- ruthless incivility and suppression of human and
civil rights;
-- "voracious desire" (for) permanent control over as
much of the West Bank as possible, including East
Jerusalem,"
-- refusal to seek an equitable durable peace; and
-- determination to fragment the population into
powerless, servile, isolated cantons under an
oppressive Kafkaesque "matrix of control."
No easy solutions exist. None are proposed, nor will
there be any from the top down. With their growing
grassroots support, it's for committed Palestinians to
achieve their long-denied equity, justice and
self-determination. That's how change always comes. Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Lendman News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://republicbroadcasting.org/Lendman
Comments 💬 التعليقات |
Add Comments