A/HRC/25/38 rights to food, water, health and education and, generally, to an adequate standard of living (see paras. 21-29 and 34-36 above).66 19. The case of Adei Ad illustrates the impact of Israeli planning policies on the enjoyment of economic, social, civil and political rights by Palestinians.67 The obligations of Israel under international law include the duty to respect human rights by refraining from interfering with enjoyment of these rights, for instance, by refraining from denying Palestinians security of tenure and from implementing eviction and demolition orders based on discriminatory planning policies, laws and practices. In addition, protecting human rights entails ensuring law enforcement and accountability for settler violence to prevent third parties from interfering with Palestinians’ enjoyment of their rights (see paras. 42-47 below). Finally, the fulfilment of Palestinians’ rights requires, for example, amendment of the planning regime in order to eliminate discriminatory practices, while guaranteeing Palestinians full participation in the definition and implementation of planning policies. 20. Similarly, Israeli planning policies do not comply with the country’s obligations under international humanitarian law. Israel amended the Jordanian planning law in force at the beginning of the occupation to such an extent that it exceeded the competence afforded to it, as occupying Power, to legislate.68 The amendment eliminated Palestinian participation in the planning process while creating special planning bodies exclusively for Israeli settlements (Local Planning Councils). Moreover, Israeli planning policies have important long-term implications for the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the Palestinian population therein, which are not reconcilable with the temporary nature of occupation.69 In addition, the occupying Power should look after the welfare of the population in the occupied territory.70 The large number of evictions and demolitions suffered by the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as well as the negative human rights impact thereof, indicate that such measures have not been aimed at ensuring the welfare of the Palestinian population.71 66 67 68 69 70 71 10 See also A/68/513, paras. 36-41. In its general comment No. 4, paragraph 9, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights highlighted the relationship between the right to adequate housing and civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights: “the full enjoyment of other rights – such as the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of association (such as for tenants and other community-based groups), the right to freedom of residence and the right to participate in public decision-making – is indispensable if the right to adequate housing is to be realized and maintained by all groups in society. Similarly, the right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s privacy, family, home or correspondence constitutes a very important dimension in defining the right to adequate housing”. A/68/513, para. 32. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the temporary nature of occupation is one of the most important principles governing occupation. See www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm. See, in particular, article 43 of the Hague Regulations, on the obligation to ensure public order and the safety of the occupied population, and article 27 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Convention), on the obligation of protecting the rights of protected persons. According to the Israeli Supreme Court, the military commander must consider two factors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: ensuring military or security needs and ensuring the welfare of the local population (HCJ 393/82, Jamait Askan et al. v. IDF Commander of Judea and Samaria et al, 37(4) PD, p. 785 (1983), in particular para. 27). See also David Kretzmer, “The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 94, no. 885, 2012, pp. 216-222. Diakonia, “Planning to Fail”, (note 33 above) pp. 22-23.