www.fmep.org West Bank Map image:41592:0::0

Residents of the village of Bil'in, in the West Bank have petitioned the Quebec Superior Court to impose an injunction against further development on land that they consider to belong to Palestine. Although this land is now claimed by Israel—a result of the 1967 war—and has Israeli occupants, the residents claim a historical right to it.

As reported by the CBC, Mark Arnold (representing the villagers in Canada) had this to say:

"This case matters to the village of Bil'in. There is a long historical set of facts. This particular village, as I understand it, wishes to have Green Park out of their backyard. And they wish to have their land, which they claim a historical right to, returned to them."

The claim demands that further construction by the Quebec firms, Green Park International and Green Mount International, be halted and that an additional 30 buildings (250 apartments) be demolished. The lawsuit goes further to suggest that the building construction (past and present) contravene several international and national statutes: the Fourth Geneva Convention, Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Civil Code of Québec. Some of these agreements speak directly to the responsibilities and restrictions on "occupying authorities"

Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. – Fourth Geneva Convention summary

The Québec charter's supremacy under its Section 52 applies to the following categories of rights: fundamental rights and freedoms (the right to life, free speech, freedom of religion, the right to privacy, etc.) – Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms summary

One can safely assume that as the respondents in this case are Quebec firms, that this case intends to prove that they have contributed to quashing certain rights, as protected in Quebec.

On surface examination, this case appears to have little overall strength or impact on the ongoing crisis in the Palestinian West Bank—by extension the Gaza Strip. However, should the village of Bil'in be successful, it will set a precedent in Canada on two fronts.

• This case will hold Canadian firms accountable for their actions regardless of their physical location; protections against Canadian firms will no longer "stop at the border".
• The Israeli authority will be reminded of their obligations under international law through non-diplomatic channels. Future contracts with foreign companies may not be as easy to secure in the future.

A representative for B'nai Brith felt the case had little merit, stating, "I think the court will throw it out as being a frivolous matter people are trying to use for political gain." Alternately, René Provost, director of the McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, had this to say:

"This [successful litigation] might cause some embarrassment for the government of Canada, that one of the courts in Canada is declaring the illegality of the actions of another government on its own territory, or in this case, territory it is occupying."

Whether this lawsuit is ultimately successful, or not, it does refocus the ongoing struggle between Israel and Palestine to a new level. It is no longer a case of acts or terrorism, political wrangling, or U.S. involvement in mediating a lasting peace between the two nations. This case returns the argument to what it began as: i.e., a battle over land to claim as one's home.