User:PCMEWiki/sandbox

 Israeli Military Orders

Background

Israeli Military Orders are decrees issued by Israeli military commanders that immediately become law for all Palestinians living in the area (Gordo 2008 p. 27) They were issued "in a constant stream" between 1967 and 1994 (Brown 2003:47), covering criminal and civil matters as well as security and military matters. Although most of these orders have been maintained, the Palestinian National Authority attempts to repeal many of them, deemed to be violations of their rights.

Article 43

In accordance to Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, ratified at the Hague Conventions, Israel acted to implement a vast number of new laws, intending to ensure ‘public order’ (translated from French) in the lands of Israel and Palestine. In reference to “Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State,” Article 43 of the Hague Regulations states, “The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country”  The interpretation and application of this Article was initially analyzed by the Israeli Supreme Court.

Initial Applications: One of the first applications of Article 43, which was deemed valid by the Israeli Supreme Court was the case of the Jerusalem District Electricity Company. The Court concluded that it was the military’s responsibility to address the economic welfare of the local population (in Jerusalem), and therefore should help meet the local demand for electricity for the Palestinians and Jewish settlers, specifically in the settlement of Kiryat Arba alike. However, the Supreme Court also validated the military’s prohibition of the “Al-Talia,” an Arab-centric weekly newspaper.

More significantly, the Supreme Court ruled that the military commander had the right to impose a “value tax” needed to obtain resources in order to fulfill the ‘public order and safety’ clause of Article 43. Much to the petitioners’ dismay, the law remained valid. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in approval of the military’s confiscation of petitioners’ land, in order to build roads ultimately connecting the West Bank with Israel. The Court saw this as ensuring public order and growth. These cases all served to establish the role of the Hague Regulations, specifically that of Article 43, to be played in the context of Israel’s occupancy of the former Palestine.

Defense (Emergency) Regulations

The roots of the Israeli Military laws were can be traced back to 1945, during the time of the British Mandate Palestine. In the British-imposed Law on Authority in States of Emergency, Israeli forces were granted legal use of administrative detention. This allowed the military to detain anyone seen as a threat to the state without a trial. This absence of trial was established with the intention of protecting any sensitive security information, such as the identities of informers or infiltrators. In 1948, the newly formed state of Israel incorporated the Defense (Emergency) Regulations into its national laws, hence and the foundations for Israeli military law, especially in the West Bank. These Regulations included “provisions against illegal immigration, establishing military tribunals to try civilians without granting the right of appeal, allowing sweeping searches and seizures, prohibiting publication of books and newspapers, demolishing houses, detaining individuals administratively for an indefinite period, sealing off particular territories, and imposing curfew”. The regulations for censorship have been the most broadly applied throughout the occupied territories Although there was some debate within the Israeli government, no significant modifications were made. When the Israeli Ministry of Justice voiced its opposition, any plans made to amend the regulations were aborted with the start of the 1967 Six-Day War against their neighboring Arab countries.

Fourth Geneva Convention

Since the arrival of the Hague Regulations in 1907, Israel used their Supreme Court’s interpretation of the principles of Article 43 for decisions regarding their occupied areas. Then in 1951, Israel ratified the fourth installment of the Geneva agreements, the Fourth Geneva Convention which defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone, and outlaws the practice of total war. However, after their ratification, Israel concluded that the agreements could not be applied to the territories they were occupying as they particularly had issues with Article 2Article 2, stating: “In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”  However, Israel later announced that they had decided to act in accordance with the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Military Orders

Officially beginning in 1967, the Israeli Military Orders are issued by the General Commanders and carried out by the Israeli Defense Forces and ultimately affect the infrastructure, law, and administration particularly of the Palestinians of the region.

Selected Orders

•	Military Order No. 1650: One of the most influential and controversial Israeli military orders has been order No. 1650 (link). This law modifies the definition of ‘infiltrator’ of a 1969 law, which allows the IDF to arrest and deport any said ‘infiltrators,’ to include any person present in the West Bank without the appropriate permit. This broadened definition will allow thousands of Palestinians to be deported without a trial and Opposition to this law was voiced by the South African government (comparing it to pass laws of their apartheid), Richard Falk of the United Nations, The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network, as well as Amnesty International.

•	Military Order No. 2: This order was the basis for the eventual “Green Line,” surrounding the West Bank. It “imposes a quarantine on the entire West Bank region,” making it illegal to transport any sort of cargo out of the region. This offense is punishable with three years of imprisonment.

•	Military Order No. 947: This order creates a civilian-run administration in the West Bank. This administration will be led by a “Head of the Civilian Administration” that is chosen by the local Area Commander. Its purpose, as stated in Section 2 of the Order, is to “administer the civilian affairs in the region in accordance with the directives of this Order, for the well-being and good of the population, and in order to supply and implement the public services and taking into consideration the need to maintain an orderly administration and public order in the region”. All powers held by this Head of the Civilian Administration are ones delegated to him by the Area Commander, who can take away or grant power at their discretion. Although the chosen leader of the Civilian administration is someone of unspecified nationality, the headquarters is situated at Beit El, a restricted zone to which only Palestinians summoned or able to schedule an appointment could enter.

•	Military Orders No. 92 and 158: The combination of these two orders gives the Israeli authorities complete control over the entire water supplies in the West Bank and Gaza. Only the Head, appointed by the Area Commander, has influence in any issue regarding “transportation, extraction, export, consumption, sale, distribution, inspection of its use, purification, allotment of shares, the establishment of water projects, measurement, prevention of contamination, carrying out of studies and measurements in anything that deals with water matters, drilling wells, hearing of objections and all proceedings dealing with any of the above laws, etc., fixing and collecting fees, taxes and any payments for any of the above and any other matter which has not been mentioned specifically above which deals in any way whatsoever with water subjects.” For example, Article 4(A) of Order 158 specifically states that “it shall not be permissible for any person to set up or to assemble or to possess or to operate a water installation unless he has obtained a license from the Area Commander.”. And although the exact number of granted licenses is disputed, the percentage is relatively small. Everyday Orders

•	Military Order No. 50: This Order strictly limits the people of the West Bank’s informative sources, as it “prohibits either the bringing to the area of any ‘newspaper’ or its ‘publication’ without a permit from the officer appointed by the Area Commander for the purposes of this Order.” The above definition of publication is used to include and prohibit all forms of publication, regardless of its origin, language, or the quantity it is in.

•	Military Order No. 56: This order serves to ensure that all objections submitted concerning the traffic authority’s decisions to cancel, suspend, or refuse to renew licenses will be reviewed by the Objections Committee, which is to be made up of three military officers.

•	Military Order No. 134: This order makes a certificate/permit from the Area Commander necessary in order to move a tractor from Israel into the West Bank as well as to operate a tractor or any other form of agricultural machinery. This offense is punishable with imprisonment, a fine, or both. Drury, Richard T. and Winn, Robert C. "Plowshares and Swords: The Economics of Occupation in the West Bank". Published by Beacon Press, Boston, MA (1992).

•	Military Order No. 854: This Order was established to control the matriculation of the West Bank’s academic institutions. Under No. 854, the military has total control over who may enter a university as a student, teacher, or administrator. All students must have obtained an identity card distributed by the Area Commander before enrollment.

•	Military Order No. 418: This order served to abolish all local participation in the operations of local road planning. Previously, as laid out by the Jordanian planning law, various local institutions, such as the Engineers’ Union, would take part in a hierarchical structure and participate in the national planning committee. Instead, all planning was to be done by a military committee called the Higher Planning Committee, which was empowered to suspend any other plans or municipalities’ licenses and to exempt any person from the need to obtain a planning license.

•	Military Order No. 164: This order requires permission to be granted for certain witnesses to appear and testify in court. However, this does not apply to any hearings before the Objections Committee (see Order No. 172).

•	Military Order No. 172: This order established the military Objections Committee, which began as a tribunal to hear appeals initially regarding property rights, but has expanded greatly since. Now, for example, the Committee will hear appeals against the decisions of the military government, as well as any matters regarding expropriation of land, “Absentee property,” natural resources, unregistered land, violations of Order No. 818 (regarding decorative flowers), Order No. 1015 (regarding fruit trees), Value Added Tax, registration of companies, pensions for civil servants, pensions for local police employees, etc.

•	Military Order No. 271: This order makes a certificate from the Area Commander necessary that affirms that any damage caused by an operation of the Israeli military or anyone working for the army was carried out “because of security needs.” Once obtained, the case can be heard by the Objections Committee.

•	Military Order No. 474: This order, an amendment to a Jordanian law requiring a certain amount of plants and trees to be maintained, states that the Area Commander can appoint inspectors to the specified areas, who may evict any violators of the law as well as take them to a police station.

•	Military Order No. 514: This order allows the Area Commander to appoint members of the committee, whose decisions are appealable to the Objections Committee, whose decisions serve as recommendations to the Area Commander, for situations regarding the Jordanian Pensions Law.

•	Military Order No. 348: This order establishes a special department in the West Bank that will make final decisions regarding property in the West Bank, as the ultimate authority.

•	Military Order No. 1051: This order establishes an agricultural fund, to be financed by the Civil Administration. This fund will compensate for any excessive agricultural product, its uses, as well as any extra money needed to organize the marketing of that product. The money will come from the issuance of a new tax.

•	Military Order 1252: This order sets the standard for moving any sort of goods across the lines of the West Bank. In order to transport any sort of “merchandise,” one must present their permit, which can be personal or general. As for punishment, one cannot be fined then tried in court, yet they can be tried, and then fined if deemed necessary.

•	Military Order No. 96: This order simply forbids the purchase of goods on a donkey.

Reactions to the Military Orders

Israeli policy has been widely examined by many organizations across the world. Several investigations, including ones done by Amnesty International, The Sunday Times of London, the United Nations Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, al-Haq, and the Israeli International Center for Peace in the Middle East have cited human rights violations with respect to Israel’s policy of deportation, collective punishments, detention without trial, house arrest, torture, arbitrary lethal shootings, and the restrictions placed upon the people’s freedom of speech, press, association, and assembly (cite Dugard, p 461 of International Law). However, relatively few measures have been taken to reprimand Israel. In 1982, as part of its Uniting for Peace Resolution, the UN called upon states to terminate economic, military and diplomatic ties with Israel; however, these resolutions were perceived as recommendatory and yielded little effect.