Jerusalem and International Law
Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:
"Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, […] by any annexation by the [Occupying Power] of the whole or part of the occupied territory".
Israel has annexed the Golan Heights and has declared as annexed the eastern part of Jerusalem and a substantial area of the West Bank surrounding Jerusalem. With the closure of "Greater Jerusalem", the more than 150.000 Palestinian residents of the city and the many villages surrounding it have been cut off from the West Bank. Similarly, the Palestinians of the West Bank have been cut off from their religious, cultural, economic, social, medical and educational centres in Jerusalem.
From 1947 through 1996 the UN Security Council has issued 21 resolutions regarding Jerusalem. The General Assembly has also issued similar resolutions (from 1947 through 1992 54 resolutions, excluding those which the US did veto). These resolutions were either issued because of Israeli policies and measures regarding Jerusalem in particular or they referred to Jerusalem in the context of the occupied territories. These resolutions emphasise the illegitimacy of the annexation of Jerusalem, based on the illegitimacy of the acquisition of territory by war. Additionally these resolutions regard the city as an integral part of the occupied territories and emphasise the applicability of international humanitarian law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention. There has been an unheard of international unanimity on these resolutions, which not only won the overwhelming majority of votes, but also often obtained the backing of Israel's traditional friends including the United States.
However, the resolutions lack effective mechanisms for implementation in spite of the provision of such mechanisms in chapter 7 of the UN charter which authorises the Security Council to take compulsive measures to ensure the implementation of its resolutions. The legal force of the Security Council's resolutions, unlike the General Assembly's resolutions, is not enough to ensure their implementation if the country or countries concerned decide not to comply with them.
In the Oslo Agreements Israel has succeeded in excluding anything that contradicts its point of view towards Jerusalem as its "eternal capital". Furthermore it has established its position that Jerusalem should be treated separately from other parts of the 1967 occupied territories. Essentially, the postponement of the negotiations on Jerusalem practically assures its separation from the occupied territories. This conforms with the Israeli annexation and closure of the city to Palestinians.
For its part Israel has intensified its policies and activities in Jerusalem in an effort to change the character of the city and to jeopardise and pre-empt the final solution negotiations. The Interim Agreements clearly prevent any party from "initiating or taking any step that will change the status of the West Bank or Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations".
Again, international law is extremely clear in this issue. It cannot be this way, that the international community formulates international legislation and just leaves it at that. It cannot be this way, that countries can violate international law and are accused in some instances and punished in others, due to national interests of powerful Western countries. Regardless of alignments, history, or any other accuse, countries should abide by these international humanitarian principles, including Israel.
Human rights violated related to the status of Jerusalem consist of house demolitions, revocation of residency rights, freedom of movement and other violations. Beginning in 1995, Israel initiated a policy of mass revocation of the residency and social rights of East Jerusalem Palestinians. This policy, implemented by the Israeli Interior Ministry, has led to the forceful eviction of 2,083 Palestinian Jerusalemites between 1996 and 1998 according to official Israeli data. This policy is discriminatory, unjust, and contrary to international law including the Fourth Geneva Convention (art. 49) and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (art. 12).
Regarding planning and building in East Jerusalem, the Interim Agreement stipulated that the issue of Jerusalem would be discussed in the context of the permanent-status arrangements. The Oslo Accords led to no change in Israeli policy on East Jerusalem. As a result, its policy of intentional and systematic discrimination in planning, building, and demolition of houses built without a permit continues.