{"id":183493,"date":"2001-12-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-11T21:33:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=183493"},"modified":"2019-03-11T21:33:40","modified_gmt":"2019-03-11T21:33:40","slug":"auto-insert-183493","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-183493\/","title":{"rendered":"Human rights situation in the OATs – CHR 58th session\/Sp. Rapporteur (Dugard) report – Response from Israel, note verbale"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Question of the violation of human rights in the<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

occupied Arab territories, including Palestine<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Note verbale dated 7 December 2001 from the Permanent Mission of Israel<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the secretariat of the <\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Commission on Human Rights<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the secretariat of the Commission on Human Rights and has the honour to enclose herewith Israel’s response to the report of Mr. John Dugard, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights dealing with the West Bank and Gaza.*<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Permanent Mission of Israel requests that this document be circulated as an official document of the fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights under item 8 of the provisional agenda.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t\t\t<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

*  Reproduced in the annex as received, in the language of submission only.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Annex<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Response of Israel to the Report submitted by Professor John Dugard<\/u><\/strong>,<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Special Rapporteur, pursuant to Commission on Human Rights<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

resolutions 1993\/2a and 2001\/8 and Economic and Social Council decision 2001<\/u><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

General<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Israel feels compelled to respond to the Report submitted by Professor John Dugard, Special Rapporteur, pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolutions <\/span>1993\/2A<\/a> and <\/span>2001\/8<\/a> and Economic and Social Council decision 2001.<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur is a clearly political document. To his credit, the Special Rapporteur makes no attempt to hide his political agenda, and even states with pride that his aim is "to restore occupation to the center, of the stage."<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The thesis advanced by the Special Rapporteur is that the occupation of the territories is the root of all aspects of the current conflict, and that while 'immediate causes' may be found for violence and terrorism, the,'ultimate explanation is occupation'.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In advancing this thesis the Special Rapporteur disregards the concerted attempts by Israel to end the current situation, most notably its far reaching peace proposals that were rejected out of hand by the Palestinian side, and repeatedly asserts that the measures taken by Israel to protect civilian lives are more serious violations of international law than the terrorist acts which threaten them.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The result, regrettably, is a document which is likely to give succor to extremists in the Palestinian camp and to further convince them that the path of violence will generate more support from the international community than the path of negotiation.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Mandate or the Special Rapporteur<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Special Rapporteur opens the substantive part of his report by defending his mandate.  In doing so, he places himself at odds not only with all those states that have pointed out its obvious failings but also with numerous previous Rapporteurs who have reached the conclusion (several of them resigning) that the mandate is obsolete, one-sided and inapplicable to the current situation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Special Rapporteur's comments in this regard need to be addressed in some detail since they attempt not only to justify the mandate, but also to give it an unprecedentedly expansive interpretation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In seeking to defend his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has a difficult task, particularly since it violates the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter principle of the sovereign equality of states in so many respects. Most significantly:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n