The Israeli Supreme Court has allowed Israeli companies to continue to take mineral resources of Palestine. Video of such mining above is from Who Profits?
Noam Sheizaf at +972 has the report and analyzes the role of the Supreme Court in institutionalizing apartheid. Read the whole post here:
Who owns and is allowed to use the sand and rocks of the West Bank? This question was at the center of a petition to the Israeli High Court of Justice, submitted by Israeli human rights NGO Yesh Din in 2009. Yesh Din asked the court to stop the operations of eight quarries under Israeli ownership, claming that they take away valuable resources from the Palestinian people and from a future Palestinian state.
Some 94 percent of the materials produced in the Israeli quarries in the West Bank is transported to Israel, accounting for the needs of more than a quarter of the market.
The petition relied on an article in the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, allowing an occupier to use the resources in the occupied land only for the needs and benefits of the occupied people.
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
Yesterday (Monday) the Israeli High Court rejected the petition, allowing the quarries to continue their work.
Here is a link to the full ruling [Hebrew only]
The whole verdict is worth reading. Clearly the NGO that brought the case to court was wasting everybody’s time by not focusing on one specific quarry, since the details of each case are important.
As for the interpretation of international law, the British, American and Canadians interpret article 55 as allowing the occupier to use mines as the verdict points out:
American interpretation:
402. Occupant’s Disposition of Real Property of a State
Real property of the enemy State which is essentially of a nonmilitary nature, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged or destroyed unless such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations (see Art. 53, GC; par. 393 herein). The occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of such property. As administrator or usufructuary he should not exercise his rights in such a wasteful and negligent manner as seriously to impair its value. He may, however, lease or utilize public lands or buildings, sell the crops, cut and sell timber, and work the mines. The term of a lease or contract should not extend beyond the conclusion of the war. [ההדגשה הוספה – ד.ב.]
British:
“The occupying power is the administrator, user, and, in a sense, guardian of the property. It must not waste, neglect, or abusively exploit these assets so as to decrease their value. The occupying power has no right of disposal or sale but may let or use public land and buildings, sell crops, cut and sell timber, and work mines. It must not enter into commitments extending beyond the conclusion of the occupation and the cutting or mining must not exceed what is necessary or ususal”
U.K. Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, 303 (2004).
Canadian:
“Section B. Immovable public property in occupied territory
III. Military Manuals
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides that, in occupied territory:
Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated.
…
Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless their destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The occupant becomes the administrator of the property and is liable to use the property, but must not exercise its rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease its value. The occupant has no right of disposal or sale.
Public real property which is of an essentially military nature such as airfields and arsenals remain at the absolute disposal of the occupant.
“eee” may well be right — about the meaning of “usufructuary” adopted by those governments. “HarryLaw” (as I recall) had something recently about exactly this case and mentioned additional legal materials (some 1943 agreements between the USA, UK, USSR, and China) that — he said, as I recall — purported to prevent the sort of use of mines and forests that Israel does, and which eee’s quotations make part of USA and UK interpretations of the Hague materials of 1907.
Wonder how the dumping, inside occupied territories, of trash and sewage and toxics from inside pre-1967 Israeli territory, would be treated by USA, UK, and Canada — do they permanently decrease the value of any property?
Anybody got the American interpretation of Art 55 in English from an objective source?
Art 55 allows Israel administrative and usufruct rights pertaining to OT.
[ˈjuːsjʊˌfrʌkt]
n
(Law) the right to use and derive profit from a piece of property belonging to another, provided the property itself remains undiminished and uninjured in any way
Mining and shipping what’s mined to Israel proper (and making Palestinians pay for the operation and policing of it) is simply pillage under color of law. With such an Israeli high court, who needs laws at all? It’s yet another example of Israel’s contempt for the rule of law (unless it benefits Israeli jews).
Under the laws of war the Hague and Geneva conventions the Commander of the IDF is allowed to administer the territory under occupation as a form of trust, he is allowed to use the land under the rules of usufruct Hague 55,He must use the land and buildings only for military needs or to benefit the local protected population, not the settlers obviously since the are not part of the protected population,here is Geneva convention article 4…..Persons protected by the convention are those who, at any given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of conflict or occupation, in the hands of a party to the conflict or occupying power of which they are not nationals.The Israeli High court do not agree with Yesh Dins sensible reading of that article, The Israeli High court justice ruled that the hague regulations prohibit the exploitation of resources of Occupied Territory for the economic needs of the occupying country.” The millitary commander may not weigh national, economic, or social interests of his country in so far as they have no ramifications on his security interests in the area, or on the interest of the local population. Even military needs are his [i.e. the military commander’s] needs and not national security needs in the broad sense. Territory held in belligerent occupation is not an open field for economic or other kinds of exploitation ” [ HCJ393/92 Teachers Housing Cooperative v Commander of IDF forces. Honorable justice A Barak 1983. The issue of exploitation of natural resources of occupied territory arose following the occupation of Iraq by the forces of the USA and UK, the two countries made a commitment to the UN security council that all receipts from the Iraqi oil sector would be used for the Iraqi people, and would be kept in a separate fund from which only a recognised representative of the Iraqi people could draw [see UN resolution 1483 May 22nd 2003] Clearly the granting of concessions is in excess of the powers of the Commander since they benefit the occupying power only, pillage is the only word that is suitable here. Please see my comment on 24th Dec BDS victory for link to quarries case Yesh Din v Commander of IDF and others.I need to contribute more to this discussion unfortunately Ihave had computer trouble,
RE: “The Israeli Supreme Court has allowed Israeli companies to
continue to take mineral resources of Palestine… Noam Sheizaf at +972 has the report and analyzes the role of the Supreme Court in institutionalizing apartheid. ” ~ Weiss
A SOMEWHAT RELATED FILM: Paradise Now , 2005, PG-13, 91 minutes [Streaming available from Netflix until 1/1/12]
Hany Abu-Assad’s disturbing yet moving tale examines two young Palestinians who are drafted as suicide bombers for an assignment in Tel Aviv. Both commit to their mission, but have second thoughts after spending a final night with friends and family. Instead of portraying the men as soulless monsters, Abu-Assad attempts to humanize them and find reasons why they would accept such a drastic, tragic fate. The film was shot on location in the West Bank. [IMDb rating – 7.5 out of 10]
Language: Arabic (English subtitles)
Netflix Availability: Streaming and DVD (Streaming until 1/1/12)
NETFLIX LISTING – http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Paradise_Now/70038943
ALSO ON YouTube (in nine parts) – http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Paradise+Now+of+9+sidibill&oq=Paradise+Now+of+9+sidibill&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=86881l105584l0l107448l13l13l0l10l0l0l180l404l1.2l3l0
Paradise Now, Theatrical Trailer (VIDEO, 02:30) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyz15qG22Ec