Home · Background · Links · Contact

Main Menu
Home
Background
Dove & Dolphin
Articles Of Interest
Press Articles
Media Materials
Press Releases
Contact Us
Links


Letter to Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, UK Foreign Secretary. Print E-mail

18th July 2005
17163-0001/DAM

Rt Hon Jack Straw MP
Foreign Secretary
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
King Charles’ Street
London
SW1A 2AH

Dear Mr Straw,

UK and EU actions regarding Israeli human rights violations in occupied Palestinian territories, including the construction of the ‘separation barrier’ on Palestinian territory

We are instructed by the UK-registered charities War on Want and The Dove & The Dolphin Charity and also by a number of affected individuals of several nationalities, including British citizens. Our clients wish to establish what action (if any) you have taken and intend to take, including in your role in respect of General Affairs and External Relations during the presidency of the EU, to prevent or curtail Israel’s human rights abuses against Palestinians under Israeli occupation and specifically with regard to the construction of the ‘separation barrier’.

Introduction 
Our clients have noted that at the joint press conference with you and the Quartet's special envoy to the Middle East, Jim Wolfenson, held on 23rdJune 2005, you asserted that: 

‘the roadmap is alive, it is there and so is the Quartet which was the parent of the roadmap, and what we are all seeking to do is to ensure that the withdrawal from Gaza and from those four settlements in the northern West Bank is a first step on the way back to the roadmap which is there for one purpose only to make a reality out of the policy of the whole of the international community that there should be these two states, a secure State of Israel living alongside a separate and viable and secure State of Palestine.’

However, our clients have asked us to point out to you that a major obstacle achieving the ‘reality’ referred to above are the Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights, which violate, inter alia, the provisions in the Road Map. Further, it is our client’s view that, regardless of the Road Map or any political imperatives of the day, the UK and EU are bound by international legal obligations to ensure respect for Israel’s compliance with human rights and international humanitarian law. Our clients seek urgent assurances from you in this regard.

The structure of this letter is:

  • Background
  • EU-Israel Association Agreement
  • Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights and of international humanitarian law since 9th July 2004
  • The actions of the British Government and EU since 9th July 2004
  • Formal request for action by the UK and the provision of more information, including under the FOI
Background including the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ of 9th July 2004
We attach a document that brings together various extracts from Hansard, which provides several examples of the Government’s stance, at least in part, on many of the issues raised in this letter. It is therefore clear to our clients that the UK Government maintains its long-held stance regarding the de jure applicability to Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territories, known as the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip, of:
  • the Hague Regulations 1907; and
  • the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949
Further, our clients have noted the following extracts from Phase I of the Road Map:

‘Security
GOI takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians; confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction; destruction of Palestinian institutions and infrastructure; and other measures specified in the Tenet work plan.

Humanitarian Response
Israel takes measures to improve the humanitarian situation. Israel and Palestinians implement in full all recommendations of the Bertini report to improve humanitarian conditions, lifting curfews and easing restrictions on movement of persons and goods, and allowing full, safe, and unfettered access of international and humanitarian personnel.

Settlements
GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.

Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).’

Our clients consider that the above provisions simply recite certain matters that are required of Israel so as to comply with its international legal obligations as an Occupying Power, rather than being matters of choice or subject to political expediency. However, if in supporting these requirements it was the intention of the UK Government and the EU to seek to ensure Israel’s respect for, inter alia, the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, then those terms of the road map need to be enforced effectively.

Our clients have also noted the views expressed on your website.1 We attach a relevant extract from those web pages for ease of reference.

Your views do not appear to include any consideration of the legal consequences of the ICJ ruling of 9th July 2004, while the subsequent section on trade relations with Israel does not appear to address the possible moral and legal imperatives to take effective economic and political measures to ensure Israeli compliance with its international obligations. Instead that issue is (wrongly) seen as the need to act in a politically balanced manner in what is (also wrongly) presented as a symmetrical set of power relations between the Israeli occupiers and the occupied Palestinians. Our clients consider that the rule of law should not bend to such political considerations. Further, the legal reality is that international humanitarian law has been framed by nations in such a way that the (obvious) imbalance between an occupied people and an occupying power can be corrected, to some extent, through third party interventions (for example, the prosecution of war criminals under articles 146-147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949).

Accordingly, notwithstanding your clearly expressed support for the ICJ’s conclusion that the separation barrier is unlawful to the extent that it is built on occupied Palestinian land, it does seem necessary to our clients to spell out to you their understanding of the legal consequences of the Advisory Opinion for ‘third parties’. First, it is necessary to appreciate what Israel is obliged to do, according to the ICJ.

We respectfully draw your attention to the following extracts from the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ of 9th July 2004 as to ‘The legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory’:

“149. The Court notes that Israel is first obliged to comply with the international obligations it has breached by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory…Consequently, Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Furthermore, it must ensure freedom of access to the Holy Places that came under its control following the 1967 War (see paragraph 129 above).

150. The Court observes that Israel also has an obligation to put an end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The obligation of a State responsible for an internationally wrongful act to put an end to that act is well established in general international law, and the Court has on a number of occasions confirmed the existence of that obligation (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 149; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 44, para. 95; Haya de la Torre, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 82).

151. Israel accordingly has the obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built by it in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. Moreover, in view of the Court’s finding… that Israel’s violations of its international obligations stem from the construction of the wall and from its associated régime, cessation of those violations entails the dismantling forthwith of those parts of that structure situated within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem…

152. Moreover, given that the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has, inter alia, entailed the requisition and destruction of homes, businesses and agricultural holdings, the Court finds further that Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned….

153. Israel is accordingly under an obligation to return the land, orchards, olive groves and other immovable property seized from any natural or legal person for purposes of construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the event that such restitution should prove to be materially impossible, Israel has an obligation to compensate the persons in question for the damage suffered. The Court considers that Israel also has an obligation to compensate, in accordance with the applicable rules of international law, all natural or legal persons having suffered any form of material damage as a result of the wall’s construction.

154. The Court will now consider the legal consequences of the internationally wrongful acts flowing from Israel’s construction of the wall as regards other States.

155. The Court would observe that the obligations violated by Israel include certain obligations erga omnes. As the Court indicated in the Barcelona Traction case, such obligations are by their very nature “the concern of all States” and, “In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection.” (Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 32, para. 33.) The obligations erga omnes violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and certain of its obligations under international humanitarian law.

156. As regards the first of these, the Court has already observed (paragraph 88 above) that in the East Timor case, it described as “irreproachable” the assertion that “the right of peoples to self-determination, as it evolved from the Charter and from United Nations practice, has an erga omnes character” (I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29). The Court would also recall that under the terms of General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), already mentioned above (see paragraph 88),

“Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle . . .”

157. With regard to international humanitarian law, the Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, it stated that “a great many rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict are so fundamental to the respect of the human person and ‘elementary considerations of humanity’ . . .”, that they are “to be observed by all States whether or not they have ratified the conventions that contain them, because they constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law” (I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 257, para. 79). In the Court’s view, these rules incorporate obligations which are essentially of an erga omnes character.

158. The Court would also emphasize that Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a provision common to the four Geneva Conventions, provides that “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” It follows from that provision that every State party to that Convention, whether or not it is a party to a specific conflict, is under an obligation to ensure that the requirements of the instruments in question are complied with.

159. Given the character and the importance of the rights and obligations involved, the Court is of the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It is also for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 are under an obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

160. Finally, the Court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”

The Advisory Opinion clearly indicates that the UK and EU are obliged not to recognize the ‘barrier’ or assist Israel in its construction, but non-recognition and non-assistance entail in this context, where necessary, the severance of diplomatic, treaty and economic and other forms of relations. The EU is obliged, for example, to pursue collective responses through the UN to ensure compliance. The UK and the EU collectively, as its member States are parties to the Geneva Conventions, have an obligation not only to respect but “to ensure respect” for international humanitarian law. Through the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the EU is in a unique position to ensure compliance by Israel with international norms.

EU-Israel Association Agreement
You are of course familiar with the key provisions for present purposes of the above agreement, which are:

Article 2
Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.

Article 79
    1. The Parties shall take any general or specific measures required to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement. They shall see to it that the objectives set out in the Agreement are attained.

    2. If either Party considers that the other Party has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Agreement, it may take appropriate measures. Before so doing, except in cases of special urgency, it shall supply the Association Council with all relevant information required for a thorough examination of the situation with a view to seeking a solution acceptable to the Parties.

      In the selection of measures, priority shall be given to those which least disturb the functioning of the Agreement.

      These measures shall be notified immediately to the Association Council and shall be the subject of consultations within the Association Council if the other Party so requests.
We respectfully refer you to the recent report published by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), a network of 80 Arab, European, Israeli and Turkish human rights organisations, institutions, and individuals committed to universal human rights and based in more than 20 countries of the Euro-Mediterranean region. You will be aware of the recommendations contained in that report, one of which was as follows:

‘The conclusion and implementation of an Action Plan with Israel under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) should be conditioned on a clear acknowledgement by Israel of its status and duties as an Occupying Power, and on the incorporation within the Action Plan of a provision for technical dialogue and practical cooperation aimed at promoting the implementation of international human rights and humanitarian law in occupied Palestinian territory.’

We welcome your views as to the lawfulness of proceeding with an Action Plan at this stage without ensuring Israel’s respect for the terms of the ICJ ruling, bearing in mind the ruling itself and the above provisions of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights and of international humanitarian law since 9th July 2004
Notwithstanding Israel’s planned unilateral ‘disengagement’ from the Gaza Strip, and certain political developments since the death of Yasser Arafat, the past twelve months have seen continued violations of international law by Israel in the OPT. No doubt you are aware of the Weekly Briefing Notes (WBN) published by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in occupied Palestinian territory.2

Since July 2004, OCHA has documented:
  • many deaths and injuries
  • the displacement of many people
  • house demolitions and the service of demolition orders
  • significant damage to natural resources, including land levelling, requisitions and tree uprooting (relating mostly to the continued construction of the ‘barrier’) and
  • the land seizures associated with the building of the ‘barrier’ and the consequent damage to the lives of affected Palestinians.
  • incidents involving safety and movement of ambulances, medical teams and humanitarian organisations
  • the imposition of curfews; and
  • problems with access to education, access to employment, closures/movement restrictions.
You will also be aware of, inter alia, the reports of:
  • the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food (September 2004); and
  • the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 (December 2004 and March 2005)
that set out continuing human rights violations in the OPT.

Further, at the beginning of April 2005, OCHA published its March 2005 Update no. 5, The Humanitarian Impact of the West Bank Barrier on Palestinian Communities.3

Section 1 of that report provides an overview, which includes the following:
  1. On 20 February 2005, the Israeli cabinet approved a revised route of the West Bank Barrier and published a map on the Ministry of Defense’s website, (www.seamzone.mod.gov.il)...
  2. An analysis of the map of the new route includes six categories: completed, under construction, planned, special security area, route subject to the completion of further inter-ministerial examination, and road protection.
  3. Once completed, the total length of the new Barrier route will be 670 km long compared to 622 km of the previous route. This includes the sections around the Ma’ale Adumim settlement and Ari’el/Emmanuel settlement ‘fingers’ which are marked on the Ministry’s map as, “subject to completion of further interministerial examination”. Together these two areas total 108 km or 16% of the route.
  4. As of February 2005, approximately 209 km of the Barrier has been completed. This section consists of a combination of ditches, trenches, roads, razor wire, electronic fences and concrete walls. The Head of the Knesset Economics Committee estimated that the Barrier will cost $3.4 billion.

    Analysis of Humanitarian Impact

    Land affected

  5. If the Ma’ale Adumim and Ari’el/ Emmanuel sections, marked as “subject to the completion of further inter-ministerial examination” are included, then approximately 57,056 hectares or about 10.1% of West Bank and East Jerusalem land will lie between the Barrier and the Green Line.
  6. The previous Barrier route incorporated 69,744 hectares or 12.7% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The 2.5% decrease in the land area located between the Green Line and the Barrier, is largely due to the shift of the Barrier back to the Green Line in the South Hebron area…

    Palestinian population affected

  7. The land between the Barrier and the Green Line constitutes some of the most fertile in the West Bank. It is currently the home for 49,400 West Bank Palestinians living in 38 villages and towns.
  8. The previous Barrier route had approximately 93,200 West Bank Palestinians living between the Green Line and Barrier. The reduction in population is due to an easing of the closures in Qalqiliya (population 45,800). While the city remains encircled by the Barrier, the checkpoint at the entrance of Qalqiliya is not manned.
  9. Approximately 230,000 Palestinians hold East Jerusalem residency permits. About one-quarter of these people are located on the West Bank side of the Barrier and will need to cross the Barrier to access services which they are entitled inside Jerusalem.
  10. The Barrier will also affect those people living east of it who may need to cross it to get to their farms, jobs and services. More than 500,000 Palestinians, for example, live within a one kilometre strip of the Barrier.

    Affect of the Planned Ma’ale Adumim Section

  11. Extending 14 km east across the most narrow section of the West Bank, the planned Ma’ale Adumim section will impede movement between the northern and southern areas of the West Bank, blocking the current roads used by Palestinians to travel between these areas.
  12. For Palestinians residing in and around East Jerusalem, the addition of the Ma’ale Adumim section will increase existing movement restrictions created by the constructed parts of the Barrier.

    Barrier length

  13. Stretching a total of 670 kilometres, the new Barrier route will run from the northern Jordan River in Eastern Tubas to the southernmost tip of the West Bank in the Hebron Governorate.’
OCHA’s weekly reports since April 2005 record very intensive Israeli activity in the continued construction of the barrier and its increasing impact on local communities.

We enclose a Position Paper published by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in April 2005, entitled Securing the Wall from International Law: an initial response to the Israeli State Attorney. As PCHR point out in that Paper, despite the clear terms of the ICJ Advisory Opinion, Israel has not only refused to put an end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the construction of the wall, but ‘accelerated the pace of construction of the Wall, announced the expansion of existing settlements and continued to impose [an] “associated regime”.

As part of pending litigation before the Israeli High Court, the first official Israeli response to the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the wall was issued on 23 February 2005, in the form of a 180 page statement from the State Attorney, prepared by Osnat Mandel, Head of the High Court Section of the State Attorney’s Office, and Avi Licht, a Senior Deputy to the State Attorney. The document, thus-far released only in Hebrew, seeks to argue that the Advisory Opinion has no effect on the cases before the Israeli High Court. Crucially, the State Attorney asserts that the factual situation has dramatically changed since the Advisory Opinion, and that the judgment is therefore not relevant any more. In particular, statistics are provided by the State Attorney which claim that Israel will now only include a small part of Palestinian territory on the Israeli side of the Wall. PCHR’s Paper shows that, despite Israeli claims, ‘the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion not only remains relevant, but is in need of urgent implementation.’

PCHR show that the Israeli State Attorney used flawed methodology in asserting that the planned route of the wall would alienate to Israel just 3.3% of the West Bank:

‘The Israeli authorities do not take into account East Jerusalem, which was formally annexed by the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, in 1980. Under international law and according to several UN resolutions, East Jerusalem remains occupied territory and should be included in the statistics. A high Wall now surrounds the eastern Jerusalem area (part of Jerusalem Municipality under Israeli law), forbidding access to the holy city for Palestinians from the West Bank. The statistics provided by Israel deal only with the already approved route of the Annexation Wall, however, many sections are still to be added. The areas which will be on the Israeli side of the Wall will, certainly, significantly increase the overall percentage of de facto annexed land….Instead of the declared 3.3%, and according to our statistics, 7.4% of Palestinian land will be on the Israeli side of the Wall. A further 2.1% should be added to this figure if a wall was to be erected around the Ariel Bloc of settlements, which is very likely. The other settlement blocs which will remain behind the Wall will represent another 8%, while the Jordan Valley, a prohibited area for Palestinians, counts for 28.5% of the West Bank. As of yet the Israeli authorities have not announced any decision regarding the future path of the Wall in the Jordan valley. However, the land there has effectively been annexed already and the continued construction of the Wall along the ‘obvious’ north-south link path would only seek to confirm this annexation. Altogether, the remaining areas on which the Palestinian Authority will have control will reach a small 54%. In fact, the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion remains, today, up to date.’

Indeed, the wall and the gate and permit regime is causing additional costs, delays and blockages to the delivery of humanitarian services and effectiveness of service providers, including EU funded organisations such as UNRWA.4

Case Studies
The above matters are particularly evident from OCHA’s March 2005 update (see above), which includes case studies on the impact on Palestinian lives. The difficulties that the gates present for affected residents and humanitarian agencies trying to service them are exemplified by UNRWA in its document concerning UNRWA’s access to Barta’a enclave disrupted by IDF restrictions.5 (See also the most recent report on Barta’a in general.)6

Both UNRWA and OCHA have recently reported in detail on the loss of access to lands by local farmers because of tightening restrictions on permit eligibility in the Qalqilya area. Contrary to Israel’s claims, the status of the ‘seam zone’ has changed, affecting services in the areas concerned and causing restrictions to humanitarian providers; and landowners’ access to land is being severely restricted in the seam zone. All this violates the ICJ opinion and any number of IHL and IHRL provisions.

We attach the following additional documents/ ‘case studies’:
  1. UNRWA’s ‘Village Profile’ of Beit Iksa, from January 2004, which is currently being severely affected by the wall-building north-west of Jerusalem.
  2. UNRWA’s profile of Jayyous.
  3. UNRWA profile of the Baqa Sharqiya Enclave & Qafin.
  4. UNRWA profile of Ramadin village, July 2004.
  5. UNRWA’s profile of Barta’a Sharqiya, April 2004.
  6. UNRWA up-date on Barta’a Sharqiya, June 2005.
  7. The Ultimate Barrier, the Impact of the Wall on the Palestinian Health Care System, published in February 2005 by Medecins du Monde.7
  8. OCHA’s February 2005 up-date, published on 22nd March 2005.
  9. Selected extracts from OCHA’s March 2005 up-date, including case studies on the following towns and villages nearby them: Jayyous, Tulkarm, Qalqiliya, Salfit, Ramallah, Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
  10. A brief account relating to British citizen, Kevin Daromar, affected by the construction of the barrier in Ar-Ram.
  11. An appeal for the Zira’i family, whose house near Azaria was demolished on 5th April 2005 to make way for the wall.
  12. B’Tselem’s map of the barrier route in the Jerusalem area, May 2005
  13. In the Shadow of the Apartheid Wall, June 2005 newsletter of Stop the Wall, which mentions cases from Bethlehem, Husan village, Walaja village, Jayyus, Ar-Ram, Azzun Atma, Beit Hanina and Budrus.
  14. A report on Wadi Fuqin by Abu Murad Manasra, 24th June 2005.
  15. An appeal regarding the closure of ‘Gate 46’ depriving farmers in Mas’ha from access to their farmlands, 4th July 2005.
Accordingly, all the evidence indicates that:
  1. Israel has not dismantled the completed section of the wall as called for in the ICJ Advisory Opinion;
  2. Israel has continued to build the wall, also contrary to the Opinion.
  3. Israel has not dismantled the ‘legislative and regulatory acts’ (i.e. the gate-and-permit regime), as called for in the Opinion
The actions of the British Government and EU since 9th July 2004

We note with disappointment that at para 98 of the recently published paper ‘Prospects for the EU in 2005:The UK Presidency of the European Union’, you restrict the objectives of the EU in the next six months to

‘support Prime Minister Sharon’s plan for disengagement (set to begin on 16 August) and continued reform of Palestinian institutions as set out at the London Meeting on 1 March 2005. In this context, the European Union will work closely with James Wolfensohn, Quartet Special Envoy for disengagement, in order to help realise plans to make Gaza economically viable post Israeli withdrawal. The EU will also continue to support the work of the US Security Coordinator, Lt General Ward, in particular through support for Palestinian police. In addition, the EU will continue its work to reform donor structures and will assist the Palestinian Authority in its democracy-building efforts through monitoring Palestinian Legislative Council elections.

We enclose a document setting out the Government’s responses to relevant Parliamentary Questions and debates in both Houses of Parliament.

We also attach a document that gathers together EU statements since 9th July 2004 as to Israel and the Middle East peace process, which includes some passing references to the legal consequences of the ICJ ruling of 9th July 2004.

Our clients have noted that you and your ministers have raised various matters with Israeli officials from time to time. We also note that recent answers leave some doubt as to what emerged from the meetings in April 2005. However, there is no evidence that either acting alone or through the EU you have acted in a sustained manner to ensure Israel’s compliance with its international obligations. Indeed, we note that none of the EU or UK documents we have seen that discuss trade relations with Israel since July 2004, address the possible moral and legal imperatives to take effective economic measures to ensure Israeli compliance with its international obligations.

Formal request for action by the UK and provision of information, including under the FOI

Our clients have noted that you have done nothing in the past 12 months which has succeeded in preventing the Israeli authorities from literally ‘ploughing on’ with the erection of the ‘separation barrier’, with all the suffering that has caused and will cause to communities up and down the West Bank (see above). Accordingly, please now provide our clients with details of all actions that you now propose to take, both in terms of EU initiatives and on a bi-lateral basis, to ensure that Israeli human rights violations cease and, in particular, that all further work on the ‘separation barrier’ cease forthwith and that Israel comply with the terms of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. If you are unable or unwilling to take effective measures please provide your reasons for your refusal.

Further, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, kindly provide our clients with all the following documents that have come into existence since 9th July 2004 (or reasons under the Act why any of the items cannot be supplied):
  1. Every written communication (such as letters, e-mails etc) from the British authorities to the Israeli authorities requiring the cessation of construction of the separation barrier or its removal, whether at a specific place or generally; and
  2. Every written communication (such as letters, e-mails etc) passing between the UK Government (including its representatives at all UN bodies and agencies) and all UN bodies, officials or Special Rapporteurs, including (but not limited to) the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food, concerning the operation of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and/or the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the separation barrier.
  3. Minutes of all meetings held between Israeli and British officials at which the question of Israeli compliance with human rights or IHL, including but not limited to the separation barrier, has been mentioned or discussed; and
  4. Memoranda, minutes of meetings, e-mails and the like passing between the British authorities and officials of the EU Commission in which the question of Israeli compliance with human rights or IHL, including but not limited to the separation barrier, was mentioned.
  5. Internal memoranda, minutes of meetings, e-mails and the like within and between Government departments in which the question of Israeli compliance with human rights or IHL, including but not limited to the separation barrier, was mentioned.
We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

HICKMAN AND ROSE


References:

  1. http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1115148780942

  2. http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/

  3. http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/OCHABarRprt05_Full.pdf

  4. In addition to the OCHA material cited above, we respectfully refer you to the UNRWA website: http://www.un.org/unrwa/emergency/barrier/index.html

  5. http://www.un.org/unrwa/emergency/barrier/case_studies/bartaa_feb2005.pdf

  6. http://www.un.org/unrwa/emergency/barrier/profiles/bartaa.html

  7. This reports that almost a third of West Bank Palestinian villages will be denied free and open access to healthcare facilities if the West Bank barrier is completed, the worst hit being the villages confined within the "seam zone," the territory between the green line (the 1949 armistice line that delineates Israel's pre-1967 border with the West Bank) and the barrier. Villages situated in the enclaves formed by the route of the barrier will also be badly affected. Palestinians wanting to leave these areas to travel to another town in the West Bank will have to apply for a permit and pass through a checkpoint or gate guarded by a soldier. People requiring emergency health treatment in Palestinian hospitals in other parts of the West Bank face an even longer journey than at present and may not be able to access emergency care at all during the night. In Abu Dis and Aizaria, two Palestinian towns where the barrier has already been completed, the average time for an ambulance to travel to the nearest hospitals in Jerusalem has increased from about 10 minutes to over one hour and 50 minutes, according to the report. If the barrier is completed this problem will affect many more villages.


cc. Dr. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy
&
Secretariat-General, Unit SG/B/2 — Openness, access to documents, relations with civil society, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium, Fax (32-2) 296 72 42
&
Karen Betts This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]
Popular Pages:
 

Designed and Maintained By SCS Web Design
Website Enquiries Contact webmaster@thewall.org.uk