A/HRC/13/53 strengthened by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s announcement that his office, as well as municipal authorities, would henceforth have to approve demolition orders.48 Of course, this could mean greater restraint in the future. Time will tell. 28. Israelis argue that the eviction of Palestinian occupants was to restore the homes of Jews that had been seized during the period 1948–1967 when East Jerusalem was occupied and administered by Jordan. Yet in 2009 more Palestinians were stripped of their residency rights than in any year between 1967 and 2007. In the course of the year, according to Israeli figures, 4,577 Palestinians were deprived of residency status.49 Palestinians interpret this pattern as an effort to alter the demographic balance in East Jerusalem so as to strengthen Israeli claims to the whole of Jerusalem. There are now approximately 200,000 Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem, which brings the respective populations in Jerusalem to about 65 per cent Jewish (500,000) as compared to 35 per cent Palestinian (250,000). Attention was given to a statement made by European Union (EU) Foreign Ministers on the Middle East peace process in early December, especially the paragraph pertaining to East Jerusalem. A leaked early draft prepared by Sweden definitely supported the idea of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state, which upset the Government of Israel.50 After intense lobbying the final EU ministerial statement was much more equivocal, concluding in vague general terms: “If there is to be genuine peace, a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as a future capital of two states.”51 The statement was much more supportive of the Palestinians in relation to demolitions and evictions, which were condemned as violations of Palestinian rights under occupation and as Israeli violations of international law. The Human Rights Council possesses the authority to insist on Israel ending its occupation of the entire Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, both as the basis for a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace and in view of the persistent failure of Israel to uphold its legal duties as the occupying Power, as these are specified by international humanitarian law. IV. Demonstrations against the wall in the West Bank 29. As earlier reports have demonstrated, the construction of the separation wall on occupied Palestinian territory that has been continuing since 2002 is one of the clearest examples of the unlawful character of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, in direct violation of several fundamental Palestinian human rights, including the right of selfdetermination. This assessment has been confirmed by a 14–1 vote of the International Court of Justice in an Advisory Opinion, which called upon Israel to dismantle the wall and pay reparations to Palestinians who have been harmed by its construction.52 These conclusions were accepted by an overwhelming vote of the General Assembly, and rejected without qualification by Israel.53 Not surprisingly, Palestinian residents of the West Bank 48 49 50 51 52 53 GE.10-10260 On this matter see collection of articles regarding Israeli Plans for East Jerusalem Settlement Expansion, Peace Now, 18 November 2009, available at http://peacenow.org/entries/East_Jerusalem_ settlement_expansion. For analysis see Isabel Kershner, “Jewish Nationalists Clash with Palestinians”, Financial Times, 1 December 2009. “EU trying to ‘provoke’ Israeli government, analyst says”, EU Observer, 1 December 2009. Available at http://euobserver.com/9/29081. “Europe softens Middle East statement after condemnation from Israel”, The Guardian, 8 December 2009. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, 9 July 2004. General Assembly resolution ES-10/15, adopted on 20 July 2004 at the tenth emergency special session. 13