"As is" reference - not a United Nations document
 Gaza “Disengagement” Plan, Section II.A.3, available at << http://www.nad-plo.org/gazaplan.php>>, last checked September 21, 2004.
 George W. Bush, Letter of Assurances to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,
 See, e.g., Dore Gold, From ‘Occupied Territories’ to ‘Disputed Territories,’ January, 2002, available at <http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm>, last checked July 25, 2004. Cf. Joel Singer, legal adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who stated after the signing of the Oslo Accords that “notwithstanding the transfer of a large portion of the powers and responsibilities currently exercised by Israel to Palestinian hands, the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip will not be changed during the interim period.” Joel Singer, “The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements,” I Justice 4, 6 (Int’l Assn of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, 1994).
 Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 3 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 3) 461, 187 Consol. T.S. 227, entered into force Jan. 26, 1910, hereinafter “The Hague Convention.”
 Customary international law governs these basic obligations, which are articulated in 1907’s Hague Convention, 1949’s Fourth Geneva Convention, and 1977’s First Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
 The Hague Conventions, see note 4 supra.
 Robbie Savel, The Problematic Fourth Geneva Convention: Rethinking the International Law of Occupation, The Jurist, available at <http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php>, last checked June 9, 2004 (asserting that the Hague Regulations have achieved status as customary international law—that is, a set of binding international norms recognized by the community of nations—and that most of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and its 1st Additional Protocol have also achieved that status).
 U.S. v. Wilhelm List, Nuremberg Tribunal, 1948.
 Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 U.N.T.S 287 (1949); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 (1979).
 See note 21 supra and accompanying text.
 Israel also assumed control over Syria’s Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. While Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt, Israel still occupies Syria’s Golan Heights.
 United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967).
 See, e.g., U.S. State Department Country Report on Israel and the Occupied Territories, 2003, released February 25, 2004, available at <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm#occterr>, last checked June 27, 2004 (referring to the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem as “occupied territories”).
 United Nations Security Council resolution 1544 (2004) (cites Israel’s obligations as an “occupying Power” under international law and references the Territories “occupied” since 1967); United Nations General Assembly resolution 58/292 (2004) (affirming “that the status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation”).
 Israel, however, claims to have annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights pursuant to domestic Israeli law, which the international community has rejected en masse. See, e.g., United Nations Security Council Resolution 252.
 Although the Israeli Supreme Court does recognize Palestinian territories as “occupied” under international law, it does not recognize de jure application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, contrary to universal international opinio juris. For a discussion on this distinction and its lack of legal foundation, see Claude Bruderlein, “Legal Aspects of Israel’s Disengagement Plan under International Humanitarian Law,” Harvard University Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (August, 2004). However, the Supreme Court selectively does apply some humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
 606 Il. H.C. 78, Ayub, et al. v. Minister of Defence, et al. (The Beth Case); 610 Il. H.C. 78, Matawa et al. v. Minister of Defence, et al. (The Bekaot Case), reprinted in Antoine Bouvier and Marco Sassoli, How Does Law Protect in War? Cases, Documents and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, pps. 812-817, Geneva, 1999, hereinafter “ICRC 1999.” Ironically, the Supreme Court terms the Palestinian Territories “occupied” so that it can confiscate Palestinian land: Under the Law of Occupation, the occupying power’s military boasts authority to temporarily confiscate land necessary to achieve military objectives.
 Adjuri v. IDF Commander, 7015 Il. H.C. 02, 7019 Il. H.C. 02 (2002).
 2056 Il. H.C. 04 (2004).
 Id. at 1.
 Int’l C.J. Advisory Opinion on the L. Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, at 112 (2004).
 For more information on Israel’s Wall, please visit << http://www.nad-plo.org/wprimary.php>>, last checked July 4, 2004.
 Agreement on Preparatory Powers and Responsibilities (August 9, 1994), Article XIII, Secs. 4, 5.
 See notes 12-14 supra and accompanying text.
 See notes 15 et seq. and accompanying text, emphasizing, however, that the Israeli Supreme Court does not consider East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights to be “occupied,” since Israel unilaterally annexed those territories, which the international community recognizes as “null and void.” See, e.g., United Nations Security Council Res. 478 (1980).
 Int’l C.J. Advisory Opinion on the L. Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, at 78 (2004).
 Sharon’s Gaza Disengagement Plan, May 28, 2004, Section III.A.3(stating that “[t]he State of Israel reserves the basic right to self defense, which includes taking preventive measures as well as the use of force against threats originating in the Gaza Strip”).
 Id. at Section III.A.1.
 Id. at Section VI.
 Id. at Section III.A.1.
 Id. generally.
 Claude Bruderlein, “Legal Aspects of Israel’s Disengagement Plan under International Humanitarian Law,” Harvard University Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (August, 2004), available upon request.
 See note 4 supra and accompanying text.
 U.S.A v. Wilhelm List, Nuremberg Tribunal, 1948.
 See Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), Articles 47-49 and Protocol I to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1979).
 See Int’l C.J. Advisory Opinion on the L. Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, at 123-26 (2004).
 See Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), Article 6.
 See Section II.A, supra.
 See, e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention of the Rights of Child.
 See, e.g., Jonathan Freedland, A Gift of Dust and Bones: Sharon’s Plan for a Pullout Owes More to Demographic Shifts than a Belated Conversion to Peace-Making, The Guardian, Wed. June 2, 2004.