A/HRC/23/21 (c) Prolonged occupation: there is no currently applicable international legal framework that captures the extent to which the interests and well-being of the civilian population are jeopardized, perhaps irreversibly, if the occupation lasts longer than five years. The occupation of Palestine by Israel has lasted 46 years, a period that has caused serious mental disorders associated with living for decades without the protection of laws and rights and with stifling restrictions on mobility and travel. The occupation by Israel shows no signs of ending. The prolonged state of exception has facilitated what the factfinding mission on Israeli settlements of the Human Rights Council aptly described as “creeping annexation”.3 The unlawful Israeli annexation and demographic manipulations in East Jerusalem have created fundamental threats to the Palestinian right of selfdetermination. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, such issues have a direct bearing on the upholding of the right to self-determination, and represent a flaw or insufficiency in the conventional conceptions of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. This flaw or insufficiency should be addressed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) by convening an international conference to draft a convention for occupations that surpass five years; otherwise, the manifold issues relating to prolonged occupation should be examined by a commission of inquiry composed of relevant international law experts. 6. It has been widely accepted in commentary on the Israel/Palestine conflict that the only path to a sustainable and just peace, and the fulfilment of the Palestinian right to selfdetermination, is through direct negotiations. Strong efforts have been made in recent months by the Governments concerned, with the United States of America acting as the principal intermediary. The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 has been revived and modified to allow for “land swaps”, which appears to be a means of incorporating major settlement blocs into Israel and opening the door to territorial adjustments in response to the security interests of Israel. 7. The Special Rapporteur is sceptical of the value of direct negotiations at this time, especially in relation to the protection of the human rights of Palestinians, above all their right to self-determination. The political preconditions for effective negotiations do not seem to exist: for Israel, a pro-settler Government with a seemingly expansionist vision of the territorial scope of Israel and annexationist policies in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, does not seem inclined to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders or to address such other issues as the division of Jerusalem, the rights of Palestinian refugees, the nondiversion of water from Palestine’s aquifers and the sovereign equality of a Palestinian State. II. Gaza Strip Operation “Pillar of Defense” A. 8. Israel launched Operation “Pillar of Defense”, the most sustained use of force since Operation “Cast Lead”, on 14 November 2012, and continued it for eight days. The timeline of the violence leading up to the attack is complex, with no clear relationship of cause and effect. 4 There were incidents of border violence and rocket fire in the days before, yet there is widespread agreement that the definitive moment came when the Hamas 3 4 A/HRC/22/63, para. 101. “Israel launches Pillar of Defense amid Gaza escalation”, Haaretz, 20 November 2012. Available from www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/timeline-israel-launches-operation-pillar-ofdefense-amid-gaza-escalation.premium-1.479284. 5