Jerusalem is one of the world’s most disputed and symbolically charged cities, sacred to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Its religious and political significance keeps debates over legality and sovereignty at the forefront of international discussion. The issue of whether Israel’s actions in East Jerusalem violate international law has sparked constant examination. While some argue that Israeli policies consistently breach humanitarian and human rights law, others contend these measures are justified for security and administration.
This article explores three key areas of alleged violations: restrictions on access to holy sites, Palestinian home demolitions, and the use of excessive force against protesters. Through legal inquiry, scholarly literature, and original testimonies gathered during fieldwork in Jerusalem, these questions are investigated. Testimonies have been paraphrased with care due to language limitations, though some risk of bias and subjectivity—especially in such a fragile context—is unavoidable. It’s important to note that pro-Palestinian views are presented first, followed by Israeli perspectives.
Please note names of those I have interviewed are made anonymous as per their request.
Restrictions on Access to Holy Sites
Visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque (Haram al-Sharif), Islam’s third holiest site, remains a source of tension. International law demands occupying authorities safeguard religious buildings and support religious practice. The Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly protect religious freedom and prohibit discriminatory interference (Roberts, 1984). Depending on severity, claims that Israel restricts access to Al-Aqsa could constitute legal violations.
During fieldwork, I saw firsthand how these restrictions affect lives. For example, J, a local sweetshop owner, described being denied entry to Al-Aqsa without explanation, citing his Muslim identity as the apparent reason. He found alternative routes, often feeling unsafe and unprotected by authorities, and recounted violent incidents involving customers assaulted by security guards when trying to enter the mosque.
My experiences align with J’s: I was often denied entry and had to use alternative gates. A particularly poignant moment came during an interview with children playing football in the Al-Aqsa courtyard. They described quickly retrieving their ball whenever soldiers appeared—showing constant vigilance and fear. Some kids recalled being blocked from entering the mosque and having separated family members following confrontations with soldiers.
MD, an Al-Aqsa cleaner, reported a dramatic decline in worshippers since October 2023. He attributed the drop to security forces deterring and outright blocking entrance, noting his job helped him avoid such confrontations but confirmed most worshippers were deterred.
These findings echo NGO reports, such as those by B’tselem (2021) and Human Rights Watch (2019), which document systematic and disproportionate restrictions on Palestinian access to holy sites. Though Israeli authorities maintain that bans are temporary and justified by security concerns (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2017), their regularity, scope, and demographic targeting challenge their proportionality. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention forbids collective punishment, and the evidence suggests these bans may cross that line.
Destruction of Palestinian Homes
Demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem are highly contentious under international law. Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits property destruction, except for military necessity (Dinstein, 2004). Destruction for administrative or punitive reasons is regarded as illegal.
While my interviewees didn’t witness demolitions firsthand, their accounts revealed a pervasive sense of vulnerability that ties into forced displacement. J feared losing not only access to prayer, but also his livelihood, convinced he had no legal protection. This sense of insecurity is widespread among Palestinians in East Jerusalem, especially given the barriers to securing building permits. The UN estimates only around 7% of Palestinian permit applications are approved, often forcing residents to build without permits and exposing them to demolition orders (OCHA, 2022).
NGOs such as Human Rights Watch (2020) and Amnesty International (2019) claim that discriminatory planning systems underpin these demolitions, systematically targeting Palestinians and facilitating demographic engineering. Israel responds that demolitions are carried out under lawful planning and zoning regulations and are needed to uphold the rule of law (Israeli Ministry of Justice, 2019), citing punitive demolitions as vital deterrents against violent crime.
Legal arguments remain divided. Israel’s Supreme Court has upheld punitive demolitions for deterrence, while most international experts view them as collective punishment—a violation of law (Gross, 2015). These contrasting perspectives highlight how law itself is fiercely contested. J’s narrative, and broader local experiences, show demolitions as part of a deeper architecture of dispossession.
Use of Excessive Force Against Protesters
Israeli security forces’ use of force against Palestinians in Jerusalem faces consistent scrutiny. International law protects the right to life (ICCPR, Article 6) and forbids disproportionate or indiscriminate violence against civilians (Henckaerts & Doswald-Beck, 2005). UN and NGO reports routinely accuse Israeli forces of excessive violence during protests.
Firsthand accounts clarify these realities. J reported customers being beaten in Al-Aqsa, shaping his belief that soldiers did not apply the law fairly. Children not only witnessed violence but experienced family separations due to military confrontations.
My own experiences match these reports. In attempting to access Al-Aqsa, I was actively blocked by IDF soldiers. While I was eventually let in through another gate, the incident was tense and emblematic of obstructive behaviors reported elsewhere. These events align with documentation from the UN Human Rights Council (2018) and Amnesty International (2021), detailing excessive force against unarmed demonstrators and aggressive crowd-control tactics within residential areas.
Israel maintains that its responses are proportionate to real threats, citing incidents where protesters hurl stones or explosives (Israeli Police, 2021). Officials point to domestic investigations, though critics say these rarely result in accountability. Testimonies suggest that the line between necessary security measures and excessive violence is frequently crossed in practice.
The Israeli Counter Argument
The collected testimonies help frame the question of whether Israeli actions in Jerusalem break international law. Each accusation merits separate consideration.
First, Israel formally justifies restricting access to holy sites as a security measure, consistent with its rights under international law. However, evidence suggests these measures go far beyond temporary restrictions, presenting sustained obstacles to religious practice for Palestinian Muslims. This raises serious concerns under Article 18 of the ICCPR, which protects religious freedom.
Second, home demolitions occur within a deeply restrictive regulatory framework, with less than 5% of Palestinian permit applications granted annually and routine enforcement of demolition orders. These policies could violate Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids property destruction except when “absolutely necessary” for military operations.
Third, documented cases of excessive force during protests breach principles of proportionality found in international humanitarian and human rights law. For example, live ammunition used in crowd dispersal points to violations of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which restrict lethal force to imminent threats. While my fieldwork observed mostly shoving and blocking, reports of more severe violence are common.
Israel cites security imperatives as its rationale, a concern recognized under international law. States have discretion to protect public order, but available evidence suggests Israel’s actions exceed legitimate security needs and disproportionately target Palestinians. Collectively, the restrictions on religious practice, demolition policies, and use of force reveal a systemic pattern at odds with international legal protections.
Conclusion
Jerusalem remains a crucible where law, politics, and lived experiences collide. Legal protections embedded in humanitarian and human rights standards continue to be undermined by limitations on religious practice, discriminatory planning, and disproportionate force. The fieldwork shared here illuminates how law is not just debated in courts, but felt in daily life: through persistent fear, interrupted worship, and recurrent violence.
While Israel grounds its policies in claims of legality and national security, the evidence strongly suggests that international law is being violated in East Jerusalem. Israel’s justifications make sense on paper, but firsthand observations, corroborated by media and independent reports, reveal consistent legal breaches. Pro-Palestinian accounts, while also warranting scrutiny, indicate a population denied fundamental rights to religious worship and safety—whether through collective punishment, religious discrimination, or actions of individuals. Ultimately, international laws have been breached.
Bibliography
Amnesty International, (2019). Israel/OPT: Authorities must stop discriminatory house demolitions. London: Amnesty International.
Amnesty International, (2021). Israel/OPT: Pattern of unlawful force against Palestinians. London: Amnesty International.
B’tselem, (2021). Restrictions on Palestinian access to Al-Aqsa Mosque. Jerusalem: B’tselem.
Dinstein, Y., (2004). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gross, A., (2015). “Demolishing Homes: Punitive House Demolitions in the Supreme Court of Israel”. Israel Law Review, 48(3), pp. 437–465.
Henckaerts, J-M. & Doswald-Beck, L., (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Human Rights Watch, (2019). Israel/Palestine: Discriminatory Restrictions on Al-Aqsa Access. New York: HRW.
Human Rights Watch, (2020). Israel: Discriminatory Planning Policy. New York: HRW.
ICRC, (2016). Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (2017). Jerusalem and the Holy Sites: Maintaining the Status Quo. Jerusalem: MFA.
Israeli Ministry of Justice, (2019). Policy on Illegal Construction in East Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Ministry of Justice.
Israeli Police, (2021). Annual Report on Public Order in Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Israeli Police.
OCHA, (2022). Demolitions and Displacement Report. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Roberts, A., (1984). “What is a Military Occupation?” British Yearbook of International Law, 55(1), pp. 249–305.
UN General Assembly, (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. New York: United Nations.
UN Human Rights Council, (2018). Report on Excessive Force in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Geneva: UNHRC.
Leave a Reply