ISRAELI DELEGATION QUERIED ON APPLICATION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AND RESPECT FOR RULE OF LAW IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

MORNING
HR/ESC/98/25
17 November 1998


Committee Affirms that Israel Assumes Juridical Responsibility
Over Occupied Territories on Ratifying the Covenant


Members of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights questioned an Israeli Government delegation this morning on why it contended that it had no responsibility for implementation of such rights in occupied territories and on how seizures of land and the closing of borders there could be justified in the face of international legal and human-rights standards.

As Israel presented its initial report to the panel, Government officials also were asked, among other things, how Israel's description of itself as a "Jewish State" could be reconciled with its "bi-national" character; and where exactly the country's borders -- and so its claimed control over economic, social and cultural rights -- ended.

Committee Chairman Philip Alston said the Committee considers that Israel had juridical responsibility over the occupied territories after it ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Israeli officials responded by saying, among other things, that the Palestinian Authority controlled to varying extents such matters as health care, schooling, employment and other aspects of daily life in the territories concerned, so that it was difficult to argue that Israel had "effective" influence over them; and that borders had been established with neighbouring countries with which Israel had signed peace treaties -- Egypt and Jordan -- while only lines of cease-fire remained with Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestine Liberation Organization. As for Israeli settlements in occupied regions, the issue was admittedly a difficult and complex one, they said, and what to do about them would have to be negotiated during final-status talks in the Middle East peace process.

Introducing the Israeli report, Malkiel Blass, of the High Court of Justice Division of the State Attorney's Office, Ministry of Justice, contended that given the obstacles Israel was faced with, the "free, open and vibrant society" that had developed in the country was no small accomplishment; war had been declared on Israel even before its inception and armed attacks against the country and its citizens by those who did not recognize its legitimacy had continued since. If Israel was not forced to allocate such a great portion of its budget to preserving national security, he went on, it would have had more resources to dedicate to promoting implementation of the rights contained in the Covenant. Israel's Arab minority, whose proportion within the population had risen over the years, had suffered the ramifications of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that had impeded its legitimate quest for equal rights, Mr. Blass said, but Israel was a true representative democracy in which all residents had seen improvement in their rights, although it was true that gaps between the Jewish and Arab populations still existed.

Along with Mr. Blass, the Israeli delegation included Michael Atlan, Head of Department, Legal Adviser's Office, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; David Peleg, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva; and Alexandre Galilee, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Israeli Permanent Mission at Geneva.

As one of 137 States parties to the Covenant, Israel must provide periodic reports to the Committee on Government efforts to put the treaty into effect.

Speaking at the meeting were Committee members Valeri I. Kouznetsov; Walid M. Sa'di; Eibe Reidel; Abdessatar Grissa; Mahmoud Samir Ahmed; Philippe Texier; Virginia Bonoan-Dandan; Maria de los Angeles Jimenez Butragueno; Dumitru Ceasu; Oscar Ceville; and Nutan Thapalia.

The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its discussion with the Israeli delegation.

Initial report of Israel

The report (E/1990/5/Add.39) runs to 229 pages, was begun in 1990 and was supplemented with numerous addenda, and includes an article-by-article description of the country's efforts to implement the Covenant. The document contends, among other things, that "as far as State and public agencies are concerned, the non-discrimination principle is totally binding in Israel. The Israeli Declaration of Independence declares the State's commitment to ‘civil and social equality.’" It cites a ruling of the High Court of Justice under which discrimination is prohibited on grounds of race, sex, nationality, ethnic sect, state of origin, religion, opinion or social status. It remarks that "in reality, as opposed to the legal situation, foreign workers are more vulnerable than other workers to the possibility of being exploited by employers and the various employment agencies", and notes that authorities are faced with a "dilemma" -- on the one hand is the need to reduce the foreign workforce and in particular to combat the phenomenon of remaining in Israel illegally. On the other, it is impossible to ignore the vulnerability of foreign workers, including those with proper work permits. Among other topics, the report deals in detail with employment rates and working conditions; the housing situation; health programmes and services and the health status of citizens; environmental matters; education; and the situation of "vulnerable groups". Under the last category the document notes, among other things, that health funds had quickly improved services to Arab communities and that numerous centres for child and maternal health had been established in Arab towns and villages; and that to ameliorate the sub-standard health situation of Bedouin in the south of the country, a "radical solution" had been undertaken to transfer nomadic communities to permanent settlements.

Presentation of report

Introducing the report, MALKIEL BLASS, of the High Court of Justice Division of the State Attorney's Office, Ministry of Justice, Israel, said, among other things, that some 130 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had seen the report, along with Justices of the Supreme Court, other senior judges, and directors-general of all Government Ministries. The country was a Jewish and democratic State, Mr. Blass said; he would not say there was never tension between those two terms, but there was no contradiction between them. Given the obstacles Israel was faced with, the free, open and vibrant society that had developed in the country was no small accomplishment. War had been declared on Israel even before its inception, and armed attacks against the country and its citizens by those who did not recognize its legitimacy had continued since; had the Arab world, including the Arab population of Palestine, accepted the United Nations resolution establishing Israel rather than launching an armed attack, the history of the Middle East in the second half of the century would have been much different, and if Israel was not forced to allocate such a great portion of its budget to preserving national security, it would have more resources to dedicate to promoting implementation of rights secured in the Covenant.

The Arab minority, whose proportion within the population had risen over the years, had suffered the ramifications of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that had impeded its legitimate quest for equal rights, Mr. Blass said. Meanwhile, fundamental differences among Jews who came from different countries around the world were a major cause for difficulties experienced by some groups in finding a place in Israeli society. Despite these obstacles, Israel was a true representative democracy in which all residents had seen improvement in enjoyment of their rights; the rate of improvement for the Arab population had been more pronounced than for the Jewish population, but it was nonetheless true that gaps between the two sectors still existed.

MICHAEL ATLAN, Head of Department, Legal Adviser's Office, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Israel, said that homelessness, starvation, and medical neglect did not constitute a real problem in Israel; there was poverty, but its extreme outcomes were scarce and dealt with swiftly; there was an effective social safety net; illiteracy and school drop-out rates had declined, and infant mortality had dropped by 43 per cent between 1982 and 1995, while immunization percentages of children had reached around 95 per cent. Of course there were problems. The High Court of Justice had characterized as "totally unacceptable" a situation in which 29 Bedouin communities living in unrecognized settlements had no electricity connections for schools there. The Court had given the Government two months to rectify the situation under its close scrutiny.

There was inequality between Jews and Arabs in Israel -- a serious problem publicly acknowledged by successive Governments for more than a decade, Mr. Atlan said. Substantive steps had been taken to gradually remedy the situation; there had been tangible and costly progress; even during a period of budget cuts, development budgets were divided 64-45 per cent between Jews and Arabs, while Jews constituted almost 80 per cent of Israel's population. The Government also was not happy with the situation of foreign workers, and efforts were being made to remedy the problems encountered by such workers.

Discussion

Committee members asked, among other things, why submission of the report had been delayed for some three years; where, exactly, the boundaries of the country lay and whether or not the Government was ready or willing to admit that it was a "bi-national State", and if it was, how that was reconciled with the legal description of the country as a "Jewish State"; how the Government could justify its contention that the Covenant applied only to Israeli national territory, and not to other areas under Israeli control, especially as the Committee had ruled that States parties to the Covenant were responsible for implementing it in areas under State control; how Israeli citizens could be encouraged, as they had been by Government officials, to occupy Palestinian land, if the Government respected the Covenant and Israeli laws; how such land seizures, if continued, could allow any hope for the peace process in the region; what was being done to teach respect for democracy and human rights in the schools; if Israeli closure of borders did not in fact greatly effect the economic and health situation in the occupied territories; if takeover of Palestinian land did not violate the right to property as contained in the Covenant; and if an appeal to the highest Israeli court had ever resulted in a ruling in favour of a Palestinian on a human-rights matter. Other questions dealt with the status of the Covenant in Israeli law.

In response, Mr. Atlan said, among other things, that the lateness of the report was probably due to an underestimation of the resources and effort required to compile it.

Mr. Blass said, among other things, that the situation regarding the borders of the country was unfortunately complex; peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan had resulted in clear borders with those countries. There was no peace agreement with Syria, unfortunately, nor with Lebanon, nor with the Palestine Liberation Organization; borders in these cases could only be finally determined through negotiation; currently there were only cease-fire lines. As for Israel as a "bi-national State", the United Nations resolution establishing the country referred to a "Jewish State"; of course it was understood that there was an Arab minority, but Israel was the only State Jews had in the world and must continue to be a Jewish State, to which Jews from anywhere in the world could come when their existence was threatened, as still happened today. The religious, political, and other rights of minorities in the country were respected, meanwhile. He thought all could live together under these circumstances.

Committee Chairman Philip Alston said that Israel assumed a juridical responsibility over territories it occupied once it ratified the Covenant. Even if the responsibility was indirect, it did not make it less important.

As for the applicability of the Covenant in the West Bank and Gaza strip, Mr. Blass felt that in the case of economic and social matters, it was difficult to contend that Israel had effective control; responsibilities between the Palestinians and Israelis in those areas were complex; it was not true in his opinion, for example, to say that Israel had effective control over the health situation in Hebron; there were Palestinian hospitals there and the Palestinian Authority staffed, equipped, and provided medicine for those hospitals; on the other hand, sometimes patients from that area ended up in Israeli hospitals. Palestinians also were responsible for education of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip, and so it was hard to claim Israel had control over the matter. The same situation applied to employment. He did not deny that Israel had some responsibility for what happened in the territories, but it was a difficult issue and it was hard to know how to report on the matter within the context of the Covenant; moreover the situation changed all the time as new areas increasing came under Palestinian control. The Committee had to recognize that all of this amounted to a unique and complicated situation.

As for Israeli settlements, Mr. Blass said, the issue was admittedly a difficult and complex one. What to do about settlements would have to be negotiated during final-status talks with the Palestinian Authority. There was a complex procedure involving selection of land for Israeli settlements; the land and its ownership had been surveyed and private lands were not supposed to be taken for settlements, but rather public land; an appeal process had been established for contested cases and to allow mistakes to be corrected.