Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Annual Report (A/40/702)

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ISRAELI

PRACTICES AFFECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE POPULATION

OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

Note by the Secretary-General

The Secretary-General has the honor to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the attached report, which was submitted to him, in accordance with paragraph 14 of Assembly resolution 39/95 D of 14 December 1984, by the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the occupied Territories.

Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli

Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population

of the Occupied Territories

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

30 August 1985

Sir,

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories has the honor to transmit to you herewith its seventeenth report, prepared in accordance with General Assembly resolutions concerning the Special Committee and, in particular, resolution 2443 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, by which the Special Committee was established, and resolution 39/95 D of 14 December 1984, the latest resolution by which the General Assembly renewed its mandate.

This report covers the period from 14 September 1984, the date of the adoption of the preceding report, to 30 August 1985. The report is based on information received by the Special Committee through oral testimonies of persons having first-hand experience of the human rights situation in the occupied territories. For this purpose the Special Committee organized hearings once again in the immediate area; hearings were held in Geneva, Damascus, Amman and Cairo The Special Committee continued to monitor statements by members of the Government of Israel reflecting the policy of that Government in the occupied territories and reports on measures taken to implement that policy. The Special Committee noted the letters addressed to you and to the President of the Security Council during the period of this report relating to the mandate of the Special Committee, circulated as documents of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Special Committee received information from organizations on various aspects of the situation in the occupied territories.

The Government of Israel has not changed its position with regard to the Special Committee in spite of the efforts made in that direction. However, the Special Committee benefited from the co-operation of the Governments of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic in the carrying out of its mandate. The Special Committee also received the co-operation of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

In preparing its report the Special Committee has attempted to put before you the complete picture of the reality in the occupied territories as it affects the human rights of the civilian population. By this letter the Special Committee wishes to draw your attention to several aspects which deserve a particular mention.

The hardship of the day-to-day life of the civilian population is illustrated by the escalation of violence and of the activities carried out by the settlers who do not hesitate to impose their authority wherever and whenever the opportunity arises. According to recent information also published in international reports, seven members of the Israeli Parliament had been evicted by soldiers from a house in the center of the West Bank town of Hebron on 20 August 1985. Their behavior was described as “an attempt to push for renewed Jewish settlement in the heart of the Arab city” after the Cabinet decision banning further Jewish settlement in the heart of Hebron, the second largest Arab city in the occupied West Bank.

However, the increasing number of daily incidents has resulted in a more severe application by the occupation authorities of collective punishment. Thus, they hold a direct responsibility in a further deterioration of the human rights situation of the civilian population.

The military occupation authorities continue to apply measures that seriously affect the ability of civilians to exercise several fundamental freedoms, namely: the freedom of expression, the freedom of movement, academic and also religious freedoms, as well as the freedom of association. The oral evidence and the written information received by the Special Committee described a practice applied against minors and children under the age of 15. According to this information, a number of children were convicted and sentenced to various periods of imprisonment during which they shared the same cells as adults.

This policy contravenes the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (art. 76, para. 5, “Proper regard shall be paid to the special treatment due to minors.”), and the Protocols additional to the Fourth Geneva Convention (art. 77, para. 4).

A number of statements were made by Israeli officials and the Prime Minister, Mr. Shimon Peres, “aiming at the improvement and development of the quality of life of the population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip”. However, contradictory aspects could easily appear in comparison with the policy in force. Farmers as well as small factories still suffer bans against marketing their products, not only in foreign markets to which Israel exports – as was promised by Mr. Peres – but even in Israel itself. In addition to the losses occurring as a result of such a situation, Arab residents of the occupied territories continue to experience serious difficulties in coping with the new tax system imposed on them.

The foregoing considerations and the report attached herewith give, I hope, a sufficiently clear picture of the reality existing in the occupied territories.

It is my hope that this situation, which has persisted for so many years, is reversed; at least in order to ensure a minimum guarantee of basic human rights for the civilian population in the occupied territories. I am fully aware of the political complexities and difficulties that the situation in the Middle East presents; nevertheless we are confident that the international community will not stop in its search for an improvement in the situation of human rights in the occupied territories.

Please accept, Sir, on behalf of my colleagues and on my own behalf, the assurances of our highest consideration.

His Excellency

Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar

Secretary-General of the United Nations

New York

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories was established by the General Assembly, in resolution 2443 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968. By that resolution, the Assembly decided to establish the Special Committee, composed of three Member States; requested the President of the Assembly to appoint the members of the Special Committee) requested the Government of Israel to receive the Special Committee, to co-operate with it and to facilitate its work; requested the Special Committee to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arose thereafter) and requested the Secretary-General to provide the Special Committee with all the necessary facilities for the performance of its task.

2. The following Member States were appointed on 12 September 1969 to serve on the Special Committees Somalia, Sri Lanka and Yugoslavia. The Government of Sri Lanka appointed Mr. H. S. Amerasinghe, Permanent Representative to the United Nations, as its representative on the Special Committee. The Government of Yugoslavia appointed Mr. Borut Bohte, Professor-of the Faculty of Law of Ljubljana University and Member of the Federal Assembly of Yugoslavia, as its representative on the Special Committee. The Government of Somalia appointed Mr. A. A. Farah, and subsequently Mr. H. Nur-Elmi, Permanent Representative to the United Nations, as its representative on the Special Committee. On 26 April 1974, the President of the General Assembly, at its twenty-eighth session, informed the Secretary-General that Somalia had decided to withdraw from the Special Committee and that, in conformity with paragraph 2 of the General Assembly resolution 2443 (XXIII), he had appointed Senegal a member of the Special Committee. On 30 April 1974, the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations informed the Secretary-General that his Government had appointed Mr. Keba Mbaye, Chief Justice of Senegal (Premier President de la Cour supreme du Senegal), as its representative on the Special Committee. On 21 September 1976, the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations informed the Secretary-General that Mr. H. S. Amerasinghe had resigned from the Special Committee upon his election as President of the General Assembly at its thirty-first session. On 18 February 1977, the Government of Sri Lanka informed the Secretary-General that Mr. V. L. B. Mendis, Sri Lanka High Commissioner to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, would serve on the Special Committee at the meetings at Geneva from 22 February to 1 March 1977.

3. On 26 April 1977, the Government of Sri Lanka informed the Secretary-General that it had appointed Mr. I. B. Fonseka, Deputy Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, as its representative on the Special Committee. On 8 July 1977, the Government of Senegal informed the Special Committee that Mr. Keba Mbaye had resigned from the Special Committee and nominated in his stead Mr. Ousmane Goundiam, Procureur general pres la Cour supreme, as its representative on the Special Committee. On 20 July 1978, the Government of Sri Lanka informed the Secretary-General that it had appointed Mr. B. J. Fernando, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, as its representative on the Special Committee. By a note verbal dated 11 September 1979, the Government of Sri Lanka designated Mr. D. R. Perera to attend the meetings of the Special Committee from 10 to 21 September 1979.

4. By a note verbal dated 23 April 1980, the Government of Sri Lanka designated Mr. Nadarajah Balasubramanian, Ambassador and Charge d’Affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, to represent Sri Lanka at the meetings of the Special Committee from 19 to 30 May 1980. Mr. Balasubramanian was named representative of Sri Lanka on the Special Committee by a note verbal dated 14 July 1980. At the meetings held from 21 to 25 July 1980, Sri Lanka was represented by Mr. K. K. Breckenridge, who had been designated by a note verbal dated 18 July 1980.

5. By a letter dated 16 January 1981, the Government of Yugoslavia notified the Secretariat that it had designated Mr. Becir Meholjic, Chairman of the City Commission for Foreign Affairs in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina), as representative of Yugoslavia on the Special Committee. By a note verbal dated 10 April 1981, the Government of Sri Lanka notified the Secretary-General that it had designated Mr. I. B. Fonseka, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, to represent Sri Lanka on’ the Special Committee at its meetings from 21 April to 1 May 1981. By a note verbal dated 12 June 1981, the Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka notified the Secretary-General of the nomination of Mr. Fonseka as the Sri Lanka representative on the Special Committee. By a note verbal dated 31 August 1981, the Government of Senegal notified the Secretariat that it had designated Mr. Alioune Sene, Ambassador of Senegal in Bern and Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations Office at Geneva, as representative of Senegal on the Special committee.

6. By a note verbal dated 4 April 1984 the Government of Sri Lanka notified the Secretariat that it had designated Mr. Nissanka Wijewardane, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, to replace Mr. I. B. Fonseka on the Special Committee. By a letter dated 4 April 1984, the Government of Yugoslavia informed the Secretariat of the demise of Mr. Becir Meholjic. By its letter of 15 May 1984, the Government designated Mr. Dragan Jovanic, Professor of Law, President of the Management Board, Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, to replace Mr. Meholjic on the Special Committee.

7. Since October 1970, the Special Committee has submitted 16 reports. 1/ These reports were discussed in the Special Political Committee, which then reported to the General Assembly. 2/ On the recommendation of the Special Political Committee the Assembly adopted resolutions 2727 (XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2851 (XXVI) of 20 December 1971, 3005 (XXVII) Of 15 December 1972, 3092 A and B (XXVIII) of 7 December 1973, 3240 A to C (XXIX) of 29 November 1974, 3525 A to D (XXX) of 15 December 1975, 31/106 A to D of 16 December 1976, 32/91 A to C of 13 December 1977, 33/113 A to C of 18 December 1978, 34/90 A to C Of 12 December 1979, 35/122 A to F of 11 December 1980, 36/147 A to G, of 16 December 1981, 37/88 A  to G of 10 December 1982, 38/79 A to H of 15 December 1983 and 39/95 A to H of 14 December 1984.

8. The present report has been prepared in accordance with General Assembly resolutions 2443 (XXIII), 2546 (XXIV), 2727 (XXV), 2851 (XXVI), 3005 (XXVII), 3092 B (XXVIII), 3240 A and C (XXIX), 3525 A and C (XXX), 31/106 C and D, 32/91 B and C, 33/113 C, 34/90 A to C, 35/122 C, 36/147 C, 37/88 C, 38/79 D and 39/95 D.

II. ORGANIZATION OF WORK

9. The Special Committee continued its work under the rules of procedure contained in its first report to the Secretary-General. 3/ Mr. N. Wijewardane (Sri Lanka) continued to act as Chairman.

10. The Special Committee held three series of meetings: its first series of meetings took place from 21 to 25 January 1985 at Geneva. At those meetings the Committee reviewed its mandate consequent upon the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 39/95 D of 14 December 1984. By this resolution, the General Assembly:

It decided to continue its system of monitoring information on the occupied territories and, in reference to paragraph 15 of resolution 39/95 D, to pay special attention to information on treatment of civilians in detention. The Special Committee examined information on the situation in the occupied territories for the period commencing with the date of the adoption of its report to the General Assembly (A/39/591) on 14 September 1984. It examined a number of communications referred to it concerning individual cases of alleged human rights violations in the occupied territories. It decided upon the organization of its work for the year. The Special Committee agreed to address itself to the Government of Israel and to the Governments of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, with a view to seeking their co-operation in the implementation of its mandate. The Special Committee also agreed to address itself to the Palestine Liberation organization and to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Finally, the Special Committee decided that at its next series of meetings it would undertake hearings in the area for the purpose of recording relevant information or evidence.

11. On 25 January 1985, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Secretary-General seeking his intervention in an effort to secure the co-operation of the Government of Israel. The letter read as follows:

“…

“The Government of Israel has unfortunately taken a negative position with regard to the Special Committee and has withheld its co-operation from the Special Committee since its establishment in 1968. The representatives of Israel on the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly have reiterated this position. The efforts of the Special Committee on several occasions to secure the co-operation of the Government of Israel have remained without success. In spite of this negative position, which the Special Committee took fully into account in its January meetings, it was felt that the Special Committee should go on exercising its utmost efforts aimed at securing the co-operation of the Government of Israel whose conduct of the occupation is called into question.

“The information received by the Special Committee at its meetings concerning the I human rights situation in the occupied territories in recent months calls for continued efforts aimed at securing the co-operation of the Israeli authorities. The Special Committee has requested me to seek your intervention once again in an effort to convince the Israeli authorities to co-operate with the Special Committee. The Special Committee will hold its next series of meetings in Geneva. During that period, should the situation warrant, the Special Committee will conduct hearings in the region. During these meetings the Special Committee will examine any follow-up that may have been given to its requests for co-operation from the Governments concerned, including the request formulated in this letter.”

12. On 25 January 1985, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Permanent Representatives of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic which read as follows:

“In addition to the reports appearing in the Israeli and Palestinian press, the Special Committee places great emphasis on hearing the oral evidence of persons who have first-hand knowledge and experience of the situation of human rights in the occupied territories. For this purpose, the Special Committee has in the past held hearings in the region for the purpose of gathering such information. The Special Committee has had the privilege of Your Excellency’s Government’s co-operation in arranging hearings in Cairo, Amman and Damascus. The Special Committee relies on the continuous co-operation of Your Excellency’s Government and would appreciate receiving any information available to your Government that may assist it in the execution of its mandate.”

13. Similar letters were addressed to the Palestine Liberation Organization and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

14. On 13 February 1985, the Under-Secretary-General for Political and General Assembly Affairs addressed the following letter to the Chairman of the Special Committee:

“On behalf of the Secretary-General, I wish to thank you for your letter of 25 January 1985 concerning the renewal of the mandate of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the occupied Territories and the description of its plans of work for 1985.

“As requested in your letter, we have once again approached the Israeli authorities to seek their co-operation with the Special Committee. I regret to inform you that we have been advised by a representative of the Israeli Government that its position regarding the work of the Special Committee remains unchanged.”

15. The Governments of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic subsequently responded to the Special Committee, reconfirming their readiness to continue co-operating with the Special Committee.

16. On 4 March 1985, the Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations office at Geneva addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Special Committee confirming the co-operation of his organization with the Special Committee and informing the Special Committee of the readiness of the Palestine Liberation Organization to facilitate hearings by the Special Committee.

17. The Special Committee held a series of meetings at Geneva (13-14 May 1985), Damascus (16-18 May 1985), Amman (20-23 May 1985) and Cairo (25-31 May 1985). At these meetings the Special Committee examined information on developments occurring in the occupied territories between December 1984 and April 1985. It had before it a number of communications addressed to it by Governments, organizations and individuals in connection with its mandate. The Special Committee took note of several letters addressed to it by the Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations office at Geneva and of a number of letters addressed to the Secretary-General by the Permanent Representatives of Israel, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic on matters related to its report. In Geneva, Damascus, Amman and Cairo the Special Committee heard testimonies of persons living in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights concerning the situation in those territories.

18. In Damascus the Special Committee was received by Mr. Rashid Kilani, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic. It also conducted consultations with Mr. Fathi Masry, Director-General of the International Organizations Department, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, who presented the Special Committee with an updated report on the situation of human rights in the occupied Syrian territory.

19. In Amman the Special Committee was received by the Minister of Occupied Territories Affairs, Mr. Taher Kanaan, and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Mr. Taher Al-Masry. The Special Committee was presented with reports of the situation in the occupied territories prepared by the respective ministries and it discussed various aspects of its mandate in the course of its meetings with the respective ministers. During the stay in Amman the Special Committee met with Mr. Y. Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation organization.

20. During its stay in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Special Committee visited the village of Hadar where it observed the occupied village of Majdal Shams and met with a number of persons from the occupied Golan Heights. During its stay in Jordan the Special Committee visited the King Hussein Bridge where it informed itself of procedures required to be followed by civilians crossing to and from the occupied West Bank.

21. During its stay in Cairo, the Special Committee met with officials of the Palestine Liberation organization. The Special Committee visited the Palestine Red Crescent Society Hospital where it met with Dr. F. Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Red Crescent Society.

22. The Special Committee met again from 22 to 30 August 1985. At those meetings it examined information on the situation in the occupied territories between May and August 1985. It had before it communications addressed to it, by inhabitants of the occupied territories containing allegations of violations of human rights resulting from measures taken by the occupation authorities and the records of testimony taken in the course of its previous series of meetings. The Special Committee considered and completed its report, contained in the present document, on 30 August 1985. It reflects the situation of human rights in the occupied territories during the period since the date of the adoption of its last report (A/39/591).

III. MANDATE

23. The General Assembly, in its resolution 2443 (XXIII) entitled “Respect for and implementation of human rights in occupied territories”, decided to establish a special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, composed of three Member States.

24. The mandate of the Special Committee, as set out in the above resolution and subsequent resolutions, was “to investigate Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the population of the occupied territories”.

25. In interpreting its mandate, the Special Committee determined that:

(a) The territories to be considered as occupied territories referred to the areas under Israeli occupation, namely, the Golan Heights, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. Following the implementation of the Egyptian-Israeli Agreement on Disengagement of Forces of 18 January 1974 and the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian Forces of 31 May 1974, the demarcation of the areas under occupation was altered as indicated in the maps attached to those agreements. The areas of Egyptian territory under Israeli military occupation were further modified. In accordance with the Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt, and the State of Israel, which was signed on 26 March 1979 and which came into force on 25 April 1979. On 25 April 1982, the Egyptian territory remaining under Israeli military occupation was restituted to the Government of Egypt in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned agreement. Thus, for the purposes of the present report, the territories to be considered as occupied territories are those remaining under Israeli occupation, namely, the Golan Heights, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip;

(b) The persons covered by resolution 2443 (XXIII) and therefore the subject of the investigation of the Special Committee were the civilian population residing in the areas occupied as a result of the hostilities of June 1967 and those persons normally resident in the areas that were under occupation but who had left those areas because of the hostilities. However, the committee noted that resolution 2443 (XXIII) referred to the “population” without any qualification as to any segment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories;

(c) The “human rights” of the population of the occupied territories consisted of two elements, namely, those rights which the Security Council referred to as “essential and inalienable human rights” in its resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, secondly, those rights which found their basis in the protection afforded by international law in particular circumstances such as military occupation and, in the case of prisoners of war, capture. In accordance with General Assembly resolution 3005 (XXVII), the Special Committee was also required to investigate allegations concerning the exploitation and the looting of the resources of the occupied territories; the pillaging of the archaeological and cultural heritage of the occupied territories; and interference in the freedom of worship in the Holy Places of the occupied territories;

(d) The “policies” and “practices” affecting human rights that came within the scope of investigation by the Special Committee referred, in the case of “policies”, to any course of action consciously adopted and pursued by the Government of Israel as part of its declared or undeclared intent; while “practices” referred to those actions which, irrespective of whether or hot they were in implementation of a policy, reflected a pattern of behavior on the part of the Israeli authorities towards the Arab population in the occupied areas.

26. Since its inception the Special Committee has relied on the following international instruments in interpreting and carrying out its mandate:

(a) The Charter of the United Nations;

(b) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

(c) The Geneva convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949; 4/

(d) The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 12 August 1949; 5/

(e) The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, of 14 May 1954; 6/

(f) The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land; 7/

(g) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 8/

27. The Special Committee has also relied on those resolutions relevant to the situation of civilians in the occupied territories adopted by United Nations organs, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights, as well as the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health organization and the International Labor Organization.

IV. INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE

23. In the course of carrying out its mandate, the Special Committee has taken note of information reaching it through a variety of sources, such as individuals, organizations and Governments. At its meetings, the committee had before it several communications addressed to it, directly or referred to it by the Secretary-General, from sources inside the occupied territories, as well as from several parts of the world. Where necessary, the Committee has followed up information contained in these communications.

29. The Special Committee has taken particular care to rely on information that has not been contradicted by the Government of

Israel or that is commonly considered as reliable by the Government.

30. The Special Committee has relied on the following sources:

(a)The testimony of persons with first-hand knowledge of the situation of the population in the occupied territories;

(b) Reports in the Israeli press of pronouncements by responsible persons in the Government of Israeli;

(c) Reports appearing in other news media, including the Arab language press published in the occupied territories, in Israel and the international press;

(d) Reports submitted to it by Governments, non-governmental bodies and individuals on the situation in the occupied territories.

The Special Committee received written statements from the Governments of Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic. The statement from the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic is contained in annex II; an extract from the statement of the Government of Jordan is reproduced in annex III and its contents are reflected elsewhere in the report.

31. The Special Committee undertook a series of hearings in Geneva, Damascus, Amman and Cairo during its meetings from 13 to 30 May 1985. At these meetings, the Special Committee heard the testimony of persons themselves living in the occupied territories and having a first-hand knowledge of the human rights situation existing in those territories. These testimonies are contained in documents A/AC.145/RT.412 to 427 and are reflected below. In addition, the Special Committee received several written statements from persons living in the occupied territories. These statements have been taken into account by the Special Committee in the present report. In particular, attention is drawn to a statement received from Dr. Munther Salah, President of the Al Najah National University, which the Special Committee felt constituted an eloquent and spontaneous description of the reality faced by the civilian population of the occupied territories.

32. The following paragraphs contain a summary of the information examined by the Special Committee divided as follows:

A. Oral evidence;

B. Written information;

C. Treatment of civilians including fundamental freedoms;

D. Annexation and settlements;

E. Treatment of detainees.

A. Oral evidence

33. As stated above and as has been the practice of the Special Committee, hearings were conducted in the course of which the Special Committee received information from persons having first-hand experience of the situation in the occupied territories. The records of the testimonies received by the Special Committee are contained in documents A/AC.145/RT.412 to 427. The following paragraphs contain a selection of excerpts of these testimonies which the Special Committee considered illustrative of several aspects of the situation of human rights in the occupied territories. Where these aspects correspond to excerpts reproduced in the part dealing with written information an appropriate cross reference is made. They are divided according to the subject-matter, as follows:

1. Freedom of movement;

2. Freedom of education;

3. Freedom of association;

4. Freedom of worship;

5. Freedom of expression;

6. Treatment of civilians;

7. Treatment of detainees;

8. Annexation and settlement;

9. Golan Heights;

1. Freedom of movement

(see sect. IV-C, paras. 107 to 130 below)

34. The Special Committee heard several statements reflecting the manner in which the right to freedom of movement is limited; above and beyond the security requirements envisaged in the Geneva Convention. Lawyer Jawad Boulos, who deals with such matters in the exercise of his profession, explained to the Special Committee:

“… The military judge may issue a restriction order on any person in the occupied territories if he is of the view that this is justified on security grounds. As I have already stated, this order has been used against several distinguished people in the past and at present. It is an order which confines the citizen to his town or village for a six-month period, which may be extended. Other conditions may be imposed also: a person may be required to sign in a police station twice per day to guarantee his presence in the town or village. On 8 May 1985, a few days after my arrival here, we submitted an objection to one of these orders which was issued vis-a-vis Mr. George Hasboun, who was vice-Chairman of the Bethlehem municipality. He was  elected and was working as Vice-Secretary-General of the Union of West Bank Trade Unions. He was also Secretary to the Trade Union in Bethlehem. Mr. George Hasboun was prevented by this order from leaving Bethlehem. He is required to sign in at a police station twice per day. The order was issued for six months. At the end of the first. six-month period, the military head of the region extended the order for a further six months. … He has urinary tract problems and problems with his kidneys and he needed constant hospital treatment; whereas in Bethlehem there is no hospital with such facilities. He therefore needed to go to a hospital in Jerusalem on a regular basis. … The order itself stated that Mr. Hasboun was a danger to the security of the region and incited revolt against the occupying authorities. Consequently, there was nothing to add to these charges. But how can one justify such charges? We were fully prepared to open the secret service’s file on Mr. Hasboun before the committee itself. Mr. Hasboun himself was ignorant of the facts in the file against him. … We are still waiting for this information. …” (A/AC.145/RT.413)

35. Referring to another case, Mr. Boulos stated:

“… Mr. Bashir Al Berghuthy is also prevented from travelling. He is the Editor in Chief of the Al Tali’ah newspaper, a weekly published in Jerusalem, while he is from Ramallah, and the Israeli authorities are preventing him from leaving there. In the past he has been under house arrest in the El Bireh region. This is no longer the case, but Mr. Al Berghuthy is still prevented from travelling.

“Theoretically, people may leave the region, but under certain conditions. Some conditions are acceptable to the Israeli authorities. For instance, anybody wishing to go away may sign a statement to the effect that he will not return to the occupied territories for a given period of time, ranging between two and five years. If the person in question accepts these conditions and undertakes not to return to the region for three consecutive years, then they are prepared to give him an exit permit. Anybody who has to travel and who accepts these conditions – and here I am thinking of a University professor, Adnan Al Soukan – better known under the name of Adnan Idris – who had to go to the United States because he had a scholarship to do his doctoral thesis, and the authorities at first refused him permission to leave the region. He had to represent the case two or three times and we were then told that if he was prepared to go away for two consecutive years, then they would agree. Since he was going to leave anyway, he accepted this condition, which was transmitted to the legal adviser, and in fact he was away from the territory for a period of two years.” (A/AC.145/RT.414)

36. A medical doctor practicing in the occupied territories explained the difficulties he had encountered in his efforts to appear before the Special Committee. He stated:

“…On Saturday I bought this card, this passage card (shown) which I am holding in my hand. It was sold two months ago for ten dollars. At present this card costs 90 dollars. I should like to draw your attention to the white stamp. It costs 3 dollars and that is to allow you to take baggage. I didn’t even have a pencil with me: why, then, did I have to pay 3 dollars for my luggage since I had no luggage? I went to the bridge on Sunday, that is, yesterday, and the authorities refused to allow me to go through. They sent me back to Hebron. Last evening, so as to be able to come here and appear before you, I had to buy another card, the one that you are looking at, for 90 dollars more, and that is only if you get permission. Sometimes it disappears from the post and the people needing such cards have to buy them on the black market. In any event, I have finally reached here and I am now appearing before you, but altogether the trip has cost me more than $200.” (A/AC.145/RT.419)

2. Freedom of education

(see sect. IV.C, paras. 131 to 149 below)

37. The Special Committee has had occasion to report in some detail on the problems created by the promulgation of military order No. 854. Mr. Ali Hassan, stated:

“When the occupying authorities enacted the law on higher education, law No. 854, stipulating that the military occupation forces would be able to have a say in the curriculum taught in the University, so as to be able to determine the content of the curriculum, they were thus able to ban, or, on the other hand, permit courses they wished to allow. Each student is required to make a statement before the occupation forces before registration at the University, and that statement will determine whether or not the student is accepted. That is the position with students. Now with respect to the lecturers, the same law applies, to the effect that no lecturer may work at the University unless he or she signs a contract with the military authorities. Thus, the military authorities can determine who will teach at the University …”

“… the occupying authorities try to provoke the University students from time to time so as to cause strife and have an excuse for closing the University. For example, military patrols were sent to the University and would be stationed outside the gates. They stopped a number of students and asked for their identity cards. They took them away for interrogation, using military vehicles … On many occasions the military would refuse to leave and problems and clashes would start with the students. Other army patrols were asked to come and they surrounded the University and finally closed it.” (A/AC.145/RT.416)

38. Apart from the problems created by this military order, education in the occupied territories is rendered extremely difficult as a result of constant measures taken by the military authorities. A student from the occupied territories informed the Special Committee as follows:

“… For example, I live in Jenin, and when I had to go from Jenin to Nablus where the University is, I would find a roadblock. We would be asked to present our identity cards, especially the students. When they saw the University identity card or when they saw University books, they would send me home, they would not allow me to go into the town of Nablus. Sometimes when we had to go through roadblocks on major roads, we would find other roadblocks before the University … Myself, I was also imprisoned, I was imprisoned twice, once for 18 days, and this was before the end-of-term exams, and before the final examinations. Of course, this was to prevent me from sitting my examinations …”

“… During my studies at the University, it was surrounded three times. Once the Israeli army surrounded us and this lasted up till midnight.  They tried to get into the University campus, and the simple reason for this was that it was a Palestinian celebration, which was the Yomel Al Ard (Land Day). The students were not demonstrating or anything, they were just trying to hold a lecture to explain this celebration and its importance for the Palestinian people. … They had prevented all the students from leaving the University unless they presented their identity cards to the intelligence service. The intelligence service wanted all the students to present their identity cards so that they could choose whom they wanted to take to prison …”

“Apart from this, we saw that any student who struggled against the occupying forces was not allowed to go to the University. They also have to have a permit from the military governor of the region, so this deprived 60 to 70 per cent of the students, and in the future I think it will go to 80 to 90 per cent of the students who will be deprived, because there is hardly a student who has not been imprisoned.” (A/AC.145/RT.435)

39. Another student, replying to a question concerning student reaction and demonstrations, stated, referring to Al Najah University in Nablus:

“… At Al Najah? It is a daily routine, every day we have strikes against these measures. It is enough just to put a tire in their way, and you will have the whole Israeli army surrounding the University. They have men with binoculars on the top of high buildings in Nablus just watching the movements of the students, looking for any trouble. They watch all the time. In fact, something funny happened to me. One day I was taking a taxi from Nablus to Ramallah and the taxi was hit by a big stone just five centimeters over my head. Arabs are known to throw stones, but this time it wasn’t the Arabs, it was the Israelis, sitting on top of a building, wearing only trousers, and they had machine guns and a lot of stones which they started throwing at people, and cars were hit, so everyone was rushing away in their cars. That is why hardly two days or three days elapse without any trouble. They want trouble there.” (A/AC.145/RT.425)

40. One witness, referring to further aspects affecting the right to education and cultural identity, stated as follows:

“… Each people has its history, its principles, its values, its conception of history; this is an important facet of the lives of peoples. And one of the goals of the occupation authorities is to eliminate everything relating to the Palestinian fatherland, particularly in the new generation as reflected in school books. In textbooks, for example, now the word Palestine is deleted on instructions from the military, and the word is replaced by Israel. In addition, the history of the Arab and Palestinian heritage, such extracts are deleted from textbooks. Also our school curricula are not science-oriented al all, and chemistry is particularly neglected. In some cases, the curriculum has been changed on the pretext that the students are not in a position to prepare the chemicals in chemical experiments: I think they were referring specifically to explosive chemicals. Several Palestinian students, for example, are prevented from entering university, and I personally have a brother who was studying at Al Najah University but he is banned from the campus on military orders for six months. Many of our compatriots in the occupied territories have the same problem. The occupation forces prevented me personally from sitting my exams.” (A/AC.145/RT.421)

41. Further information on the daily life at university is given by another student from the occupied territories:

“… I participated in the setting up of a students I union in the University and that students’ union tried to continue the struggle, to organize strikes in Support of the Palestinian resistance, both inside and outside the occupied territories.

“Before I go into this, I should like to explain my personal situation. After 1977 on all ex-prisoners’ identity cards there was a special seal. There was a circle and in the middle of that there was a cross, and that indicated that the person in question had a special status. There were tens of thousands with such identity cards with this seal in the occupied territories. The seal means that we are not allowed to work in governmental institutions or in any institution under the Israeli Government’s control. In other words, we are also prevented from travelling or leaving the occupied territories in any way, and we are not allowed to obtain a driver’s license. There were many restrictions imposed on us. Furthermore, I was regularly called in, every month or every two week9, to the military governor’s office in Nablus – since that was where I was studying – and that center is divided into three sections: the military government, the police and the intelligence service. Like others of my colleagues, I was called sometimes to the military governor, sometimes to the intelligence office and sometimes to the police. I was called in, in the morning and I was allowed to return in the evening. In some cases I was told, “Come back tomorrow” even though I would only be meeting with the authorities for about an hour. These meetings would last just for an hour.

“The third point I should like to bring to your attention concerns systematic, imprisonment for 18 days every year. For example, in 1978 in April I was imprisoned for 14 days; in March 1981 and in June 1983 the same thing happened, I was imprisoned for 18 days. During these periods, my morale was far from satisfactory. These conditions were not at all humane because one constantly expected the soldiers and police to come and arrest. One arbitrarily for 18 days. In fact, the intelligence services had the power to detain anyone for 18 days, and a lawyer has no right to enquire the whereabouts or the well-being of-that person during that 18-day period.

“On 27 December 1982 I was placed under a restriction order in my country for Six months. That restriction order was renewed for a further six months. The total period, therefore, was one year, and during that time I was not allowed to leave the camp. In August 1984 I left the occupied territories with a five-year permit, despite the fact that the seal on my identity card did not allow me to travel. My lawyer, therefore – the lawyer whom I had consulted in this connection – worked on this in the courts for six months, as a result of which I got this five-year permit. I am not allowed to return to my country for those five years. This system was adopted recently by the Israeli authorities to deal with prisoners who have this seal on their identity card.” (A/AC.145/RT.426/Add.1)

3. Freedom of association

(see sect. IV.C, paras. 150 to 154 below)

42. The problems faced by the civilians in the occupied territories also affect the organization of the labor force. In the situation prevailing in the territories, this appears to be the result of the close links between the trade union movement and nationalist movements in the occupied territories, whether in Palestine or in the occupied Golan Heights of the Syrian Arab Republic. Returning to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza, Mr. Ahmed Magboul stated:

“… The trade unions pursue the patriotic struggle of the Palestinians because the occupying authorities are fighting against the trade unions. They have imprisoned scores of trade union workers. They intervene in the establishment or setting up of special laws concerning these trade unions. Article 83 of the Jordanian law concerning the right to work and freedom of association was amended by a Military Order. This Zionist law establishes how the governing councils of these trade unions should be made up and also decides on the committees that are affiliated to them. … Many trade union headquarters have been attacked, such as the general headquarters of the General Workers’ Trade Union in Nablus in 1976, 1978 and since these dates. The headquarters of the Construction Workers’ Trade Union in Ramallah was also

raided, and the headquarters of the Tailors’ Trade Union where I worked in Nablus. … Apart from this, … other institutions and clubs have also been raided, for example, the youth center in Balata was attacked simply because they were having a poetry reading evening. The entire governing body was imprisoned, all the members were imprisoned … The headquarters have been closed ever since because this poetry reading evening was held without the permission of the authorities being requested.

“… The occupying forces … have even reached the stage where they have asked to sit in on trade union meetings, have asked for a member of the Israeli workers’ body to attend these trade union meetings. This is a way of forcing the governing bodies and the executive boards of the trade unions to accept the Israeli presence against their own wishes. In Gaza they even tried to designate the President of the Trade Union Council. …” (A/AC.145/RT.415)

43. Another witness, Mr. Abdul Rahman Mehana, stated:

“… The occupying authorities have started using certain practices; for example, they enter the union’s premises and seize all the property therein, they arrest anyone present, and have closed down a considerable number of offices. On 29 June 1981 a military decision was taken to the effect that leagues and associations were no longer allowed, and that there should be no ties between the Jerusalem union and those in the West Bank and Gaza …

“They use all sorts of coercive measures and do everything they can to sabotage the movement’s activities. I will give you an example: they would hold up any action or exhibition of the cultural heritage of Palestine that the unions would wish to organize, or they would even try to hinder them in the south …

“… In 1985, on 12.January, the occupying authorities invaded the bazaar which was organized in the main office of the union, and they arrested the General Secretary of the union and other union members. Some of the work on display was confiscated and subsequently sold on the market. On the same day, 12 January, the Zionist authorities raided the headquarters of the trade union in Nablus and arrested Mr. Yussuf Ayet, who was the Secretary of the Nablus Electricity Company … Two other unionists were arrested along with him. On 9 February 1985 the enemy attempted to drive away more than 5,000 workers from Qalquilya and the reason for this was that those workers were from the Gaza Strip. People from the West Bank are not allowed to work in the Gaza Strip and vice versa. The authorities in fact do not allow the unionists and the union executive to participate in any festivities whatsoever.” (A/AC.145/RT.423)

4. Freedom of worship

(see sect. IV.C, paras. 155 to 158 below)

44. Several witnesses described the problems encountered in exercising their right to practice their religion. In particular, problems were experienced by persons in detention. One former detainee, Mr. Ali Amar, stated:

“… Well, believers were not allowed to pray together in prison, even in their cells. When the faithful prayed, breaching the prison regulations, they were exposed to torture and maltreatment. The guards would put them in a separate cell and they would be brought before a tribunal. Very often the Palestinian fighters shed their blood in prison, simply for the right to pray together. Believers were not allowed to pray on Friday; as stipulated in the Koran, they are required to pray together. In fact, if we even asked to be allowed to pray together on Friday in the prison court, we were not allowed to do so. The prison and the Israeli authorities refused to allow us to do it. But we said, ‘God is great, God is Almighty, we can pray in our cells’. But this was contrary to orders given to us in prison. Those who prayed or called to prayer were exposed to physical torture. Subsequently we learned that wearing a beard was recommended and we grew our beards. They didn’t like this, but we said, ‘God is all-powerful, and through the Prophet he told us to grow our beards’. We said, ‘The god of this prison is another god’. They said, ‘You have to obey the god of this prison, you can’t obey any other god’, but we refused to go along with that. We continued to pray t8 Almighty God and refused to obey the orders of what they saw as the god of that prison.” (A/AC.145/RT.426)

5. Freedom of expression

(see sect. IV.C, paras. 159 to 169 below)

45. A number of witnesses appearing before the Special Committee described several ways in which the right to freedom of expression was curtailed under the occupation, particularly in regard to any statement in any form related to nationalist Palestinian aspiration. Mr. Yussef Khalil stated in the course of his testimony:

“… First of all, Palestinian art works and books are confiscated.’ More than 3,’060 books are banned from publication and circulation on the Palestinian market. These books which deal with all questions concerning Palestinians, for example, ‘the History of the 1936-1939 Revolution’ by Ghasan Kanafany and ‘Um Saad’ by the same author. There are other examples as well in the case of books such as theatre and poetry. The poet Yussuf Hamed was imprisoned more than once for having published certain poems. This also affects the theatre. The Zionist authorities have closed the theatre used by the Dababis group in Ramallah on more than one occasion and imprisoned many members of that group. They have been prevented from performing their plays in the West Bank. There is also the Bilalin troupe and the group of the Palestinian People’s Theatre in Jerusalem. Many members of that group have also been imprisoned. People have been imprisoned because of their work in the theatre, and they include Ibrahim Jbael, Fouad Saloum, Salim Al-Bast, Osama Al-Bast and many others.

“You will thus understand that the Israeli authorities do not grant permits for theatre or artistic groups attempting to exercise their activities and to keep the Palestinian heritage alive and to assert the Palestinian heritage. …” (A/AC.145/RT.415)

6. Treatment of civilians

(see sect. IV.C, paras. 186 to 209 below)

46. A number of witnesses testified on various aspects of daily life in the occupied territories and the manner in which occupation affected their life. A medical doctor from the occupied territories explained that doctors had to pay VAT on the basis of each patient that they treated. Thus they were obliged to disclose not only the number of patients, but their identity, constituting an interference in their profession. The doctor explained:

“… as the source-deducted income tax authorities told me, every patient that you treat and whose illness you diagnose, for every such case you have to Pay the VAT. I asked him, ‘What if I don’t accept payment for my services from that patient.’ if it is someone who is poor?’ He said, well, that didn’t count. ‘It doesn’t matter, you actually did work, you treated a patient, and we would still tax that treatment whether or not it was paid for.’ But it is my personal effort; and besides that, I am required to pay a tax on my own services, even if I do not accept payment from a poor person. I have to keep a record of that person’s name.” (A/AC.145/RT.419)

47. Lawyer Jawad Boulos addressed himself to this aspect. He explained that the average Palestinian faced problems in daily life of one sort or another as a result of measures taken by the authorities. Referring to the case of his client, Mrs. Najab, he stated:

“… These are arbitrary practices by the Israeli occupying authorities, and they have no juridical basis at all … This is something that we have been dealing with on a day to day basis. For example, … Mrs. Leila Najab is a citizen from the Qalandiya refugee camp in the region of Jerusalem. She is married and has three children. Her, husband, Mr. Suleiman Najab, was told by the Israeli authorities to leave the West Bank in 1967, and he, is not allowed to return to the West Bank. Five months, this lady wanted to leave the area so that she and her children could see her husband, the children’s father, and the exit visa official said, ‘We have no objection to your leaving to see your husband, but you can only have a one-way ticket’. So they would have had to leave once and for all and not return. We sent a letter to the legal adviser of the West Bank who is at Beit El and asked him for permission to travel. We told him that it was not fair to prevent this woman from seeing her husband. Unfortunately, a short while ago, we got a very brief letter saying that the competent authorities – that is, the intelligence services – bad studied Mrs. Najab’s demand and rejected it. The authorities gave no justification for rejecting this request …” (A/AC.145/RT.413);

48. The situation in refugee camps was similarly described as a source of such problems. Mr. Ali Hassan stated:

“I lived in Ramallah and the refugee camp is some five kilometers away. I did not live in that refugee camp but it is in the environs of that town.

“… In the north there is the Jalazun camp and in the south the Al ‘Amari camp. These camps are three kilometers away in the case of Jalazun and five kilometers in the case of Al ‘Amari but they are still considered to be in the suburbs of Ramallah. On national days the occupying authorities would send patrols to surround the camps, claiming that they wished to prevent any acts of terrorism or law-breaking. As you know, in those camps there are young people, old people, children and, as a result of several acts of provocation by the army, there is conflict between the armed forces and the people living in the camp. This type of clash is always used as a pretext for attacking the camp … The residents of the Jalazun camp were brought together in the school courtyard in the rain and they were forced to wait for hours in the rain. They were told to wait until the investigation into a case of stone-throwing was completed … the occupying authorities surrounded the Al ‘Amari camp and sealed off all but one of the entrances. Regular patrols surrounded the camp, stopping citizens. They would humiliate them. In Ramallah, in 1980, there was a Christian feast day, of Easter Eve, and the town council announced a scout march, and this was for all the packs on the West Bank … I was an eye-witness. The patrol detained some 50 people and told them to strip off all their clothing. They brought firemen with hoses and watered down the whole street and then they forced the people to clean the street with their own clothes, after which they were detained, despite the fact that they had not participated in any demonstration or any event. They had simply come from different villages and were on their way back home …” (A/AC.145/RT.416)

49. Yet another witness, Mr. Ghassan Said, referred to the situation in Dheisheh refugee camp, to which reference is made elsewhere in this report. He said:

“… Three months ago I was living at the camp, Al-Dheisheh near the town of Bethlehem. This camp was the objective of the Zionist settlers in the Israeli plan to force the inhabitants to move; that is in keeping with their plan whereby the problem of the Palestinian people is to be shown to be one of refugees and not the problem of a people whose goods and lands have been taken over. The settlers were headed by a man called Moshe Levinger – I am sure you have heard of him. He was surrounded by a group of collaborators, members of the Zionist entity, a group of supporters whose major objective was to expel the Palestinian people from the occupied territories, so that they would go to other Arab countries, to the territories surrounding Israel. I will now give, you more concrete examples of what happened in the Dheisheh camp about three months ago.

“The settlers, with the help of the Israeli army and police, settled all around the camp. They constantly tried to harass the civilians living in the camp whenever they left or went back to the camp because the Dheisheh camp has only one entry or exit. The Israeli authorities have closed all the roads that lead to the camp and have only one possibility of exit from the camp. The roads that have been closed were blocked with cement blocks to prevent private individuals and cars from coming or going. The settlers then started to harass the inhabitants, provoking and humiliating them. Their objective was to force them to react to this humiliation and harassment and to defend themselves, and this is what happened. After this, the settlers attacked the camp, firing in the air but in the direction of the demonstrators, the inhabitants of the camp, who were protesting against the situation. They entered several houses near the edge of the camp, and one of these houses was where I lived with my family. In our house they destroyed the furniture, they mixed food, and treated us in an inhuman fashion, the inhabitants of the house …” (A/AC.145/RT.415)

7. Treatment of detainees

(see sect. IV.E, paras. 280 to 314 below)

50. The Special Committee heard several witnesses who described conditions in detention (see also sect. V below). Some aspects deserve special reference since they form the subject of much concern by those heard by the Special Committee. In particular, testimony received showed that minors were detained in Israeli prisons and had been so at least since 1969. Hereunder is an excerpt from the testimony of Mr. Daoud Abdalah:

“… On 3 June 1969 (at the age of 15), the occupation forces came into my house at night. After they had entered the room where I was sleeping, they bound me, handcuffed me and also tied my feet, and I was carried in a military vehicle where the soldiers put their feet on me …

“… I appeared before a military court and they sentenced me to 15 years’ imprisonment and five years’ suspended sentence.

“… There was no lawyer there to defend me, and the court did not appoint a lawyer. There was just the Prosecutor-General, he was the only lawyer, and a ruling was requested, quite simply. The charges brought were: participation in demonstrations, burning tires, possession

of arms and distribution of pamphlets … After this I was transferred to Ashkelon prison. In that prison we were placed in IXI cells (solitary confinement cells) … and we were beaten each time they brought food to us. This lasted for two months and then we were taken into cells where there were other prisoners.

“… More than once we had to engage in hunger strikes in order to obtain a minimum of the required living conditions, especially concerning health and food which was not satisfying the minimum requirements, particularly for people of my age, because at the time I was still growing. Some of the prisoners tried to give me a part of their rations, and to others of my age …

“Mr. SENE (Senegal) (interpretation from French): You mentioned that you yourself were unable to complete your studies because you were sentenced to imprisonment. How many years did you actually spend in prison?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): Ten years and three months, after which I expelled to Jordan.” (A/AC.145/RT.421)

51. In his statement before the Special Committee, Mr. Abdul Aziz Shahin, who spent 15 years in Israeli prisons (see paras. 302-14 below), informed the Special Committee that the detention of minors was not uncommon. Another witness, the lawyer Mr. Jawad Boulos, addressing himself to the same subject stated in the course of his testimony:

“… What surprised me most was that I met a prisoner aged.14 years who was ‘ detained with adults over 20 years. This is strictly prohibited by all laws, even those applicable in Israel: people under 18 may not be held together with adults. But in Al Fara’a I met Jehad Hamed Jaradat, who was born in 1970. 1 also met Amar’ Ali Kheireddin Barham, 14 1/2 years old, *being held with adult prisoners. When Jehad entered the room where I was, he was smoking a cigarette. I said to him, ‘Jehad, you are still young, you are not more than 14 years old, so why do you smoke? I He looked at me surprised, and answered, ‘What else can I do? This is how life goes here.’

“… he was born in 1970 and according to Israeli law he should not have been kept in prison with adults. He was charged in 1984 … accused of taking part in it and throwing stones at Israeli cars. Jehad was detained for more than 4 1/2 months. He did not confess to the charge, but he was accused by another person who twice failed to turn up at a court hearing. …” (A/AC.145/RT.412)

52. The above statement referred to the situation in Al Fara’a prison. This prison has been the subject of much oral and written information. Mr. Boulos goes on:

“… There is no doubt that one of the prisons famous in the Israeli press for its bad conditions is Al Fara’a prison, about 20 kilometers from Nablus. I will start with this

prison and hope I can give you an idea of the sufferings of the prisoners there. In the past and in more than one case, Palestinian youths have appeared before military courts, their bodies bearing the marks of torture. Such was the case of Walid al Aarda from the village of Aarabe in the Jenin area, who was brought before the military court in Nablus, his body showing the marks of severe beating. Felicia Langer was one of his lawyers, and as soon as she saw him she went immediately to the High Court of Justice, which ordered an enquiry into this complaint. It found that the interrogator called Moshe Betton had used violence against him, and the military court decided to bring him before the central court in Tel Aviv, charged with aggression and wounding.

“… In May 1984 Nedal Hussein Rabah from Halhul in Hebron was brought before the military court in Nablus, charged with throwing stones at Israeli buses on three different occasions. ‘When I appeared before the magistrate, I noticed marks of burning on his right hand, and I asked him, ‘What is this, Nedal?’ He told me, ‘Those are cigarette burns inflicted during my interrogation in order to obtain a confession from me in Al Fara’a prison.’ This was mentioned directly before the presiding officer and he ordered that the detainee should be seen by a military doctor and later by a civilian one … The case lasted a few months. I called a number of investigators from Al Fara’a prison as witnesses and it appeared that his confession had been extracted under duress and with torture. The magistrate declared it null and void, and Nedal Rabah was acquitted of two of the three charges against him.

“This was the first and almost the only time we succeeded in proving that torture was practiced at Al Fara’a prison. After that we dealt with many complaints, for example, from Qais Anwar Aawaess, whom we represented in the court in Nablus, and Thaer Mohammad Hanani, whom we also represented at Nablus, and others who claimed to have been subjected to torture at Al Fara’a. On 24 May 1984 I addressed a memorandum to the Legal Counsel in which I explained all I had heard from my clients in Al Fara’a, but to my deep regret I did not receive an appropriate reply. On 19 June 1984, Felicia Langer and I submitted a petition to the High Court of Justice, No. 355/84, on behalf of Qais Anwar Aawaess, Thaer Mohammad-Hanani and Nedal Hussein Abdel Aahman Rabah, describing the torture alleged to have been inflicted on our clients. We were given a conditional order against the commander of the region to show cause to the court why the people responsible for such acts of torture should not be produced before the court. After the court had ordered an enquiry, it found that the three interrogators at Al Fara’a prison were responsible for acts of torture carried out in the prison and decided to arraign them on charges of torture. I do not know what happened to those charges of torture brought before a military court. We are still awaiting a reply to our petition to the High Court of Justice.” To my deep regret, even after submitting this petition, and after three people had been found guilty, I thought that torture would cease in Al Fara’a, but on 22 February 1985 I visited eight clients in that prison who complained to me of torture and of living conditions in the prison, where they suffered from overcrowding with 45 prisoners in one cell. I was amazed to see 75 prisoners detained in tents. There were three tents, each with 26 to 25 prisoners in the open and suffering from rain and cold. I addressed a message to the Legal Counsel, to the Minister of Police, to the Minister responsible for security, and to the director of Al Fara’a prison, describing the very harsh living conditions I had witnessed in the prison, and also how I had met several prisoners suffering from a skin disease on their necks and cheeks. This disease was widespread among the detainees, and I explained that the disease was probably spread through the lack of razor blades, as the detainees had to share a blade, or perhaps because they had to use very dirty blankets which were only washed once a year. The disease was very apparent on their faces. But the director said that there was no need for treatment because the rash only appeared for five or six days and then disappeared.”

…

“… The biggest tragedy of all this is that this prison is under the control of the army so that, when we address ourselves to the prison authorities, requesting assistance, we are told, ‘This prison is not under our jurisdiction’, which is very strange.” (A/AC.145/RT.412)

53. However, the situation of detainees is particularly problematic when it comes to the treatment of those persons who have just been arrested and who for the first 18 days, at least, are inaccessible to everybody including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The plight of the average civilian held in detention prior to the formulation of charges is reflected in the following statement by Lawyer Boulos:

“… Concerning applicable law and military orders relating to security – which is equivalent to criminal law and the definition of offences – the occupying authorities can arrest any Palestinian merely on suspicion and hold him for 18 days without having to bring the suspect to court. This is known as the period of police arrest. According to criminal law applicable in Israeli courts, this period may not exceed 48 hours, after which the authorities must bring the arrested person before a magistrate and allow him to be legally represented, at his request, at which time the period of his detention is discussed. The person arrested is detained for 69 hours and could remain in detention for 7 days, which can be renewed for a further 7 days on the basis of a police order.

“… the duration of that period of detention is crucial to the destiny of the detainee: during this period he cannot enjoy any legal counseling, he cannot meet with the lawyer responsible for his defense, he cannot meet any member of

his family, and during this period of detention and investigation he is not informed of any of rights. It is not by chance that Palestinian detainees make a confession during those 18 days when they have no access to a lawyer.

“We try to get round this article in the applicable law by applying for bail … to meet with the detainee during the 18-days detention period. Unfortunately, we are not responsible for fixing the date on which the bail application will be heard, and there is no provision in the relevant law which obliges the court or the prosecution to say when the application will be heard … We succeed only rarely with our application for bail because the court takes into consideration the position of the prosecution and also what is known as ‘the secret report’.

…

“One detainee who has been held in prison for more than one year is Abdallah Ahmad Bashir from the village of Jinsafut in the region of Nablus. He was arrested on 25 January 1984, and on 12 February he was charged with inciting the murder of an Israeli agent. I will not go into the truth or otherwise of this charge, but by 12 February 1985, that is, more than one year later, Abdallah Bashir was still being held and no evidence of his guilt had been produced …

…

“… the police authorities can request an extension of detention after the 18 days, and up to 60 days … In military law … the 48 hours are equal to the 18 days applicable in the West Bank. In the West Bank they can request an extension of the 60 days, and if the prisoner is not represented by a lawyer they may obtain 45 to 50 days more, the equivalent to a maximum of 15 days in Israel. When an extension of detention is requested, the prisoner is given orally the charges against him, but no charge-sheet is established. Everything is referred to the military courts, and it is the military courts which draw up the charge-sheet.” (A/AC.145/RT.412)

8. Annexation and settlements

(see sect. IV.D, paras. 238 to 279 below)

54. Several aspects of the measures taken by the Israeli authorities to expropriate land in the occupied territories were described by Mr. Jawad Boulos. Referring to the practice of expropriating property by declaring land to be State land, he said:

…

“… I should like to discuss the gravity of this matter of declaring land to be State land. In 1979-1980, the military Power did not use this type of measure to seize land  belonging to the population. In order to seize land they used two procedures: first of all, they declared the land to be necessary to State security, or to serve the public interest. The landowner in such instances is entitled to oppose such declarations before the High Court. In 1979-1980 the High Court acted and stated that land seized on the grounds of security was State land, because the seizure was only temporary and, once it was no longer necessary to keep the land for State security, it would be returned to its owner. With respect to the public interest factor, when the public interest factor no longer served the interests of the occupation authorities or the citizens, then the land is to be returned to the owner. But the Government came up against some obstacles here, and they therefore turned to a third procedure which is much easier, declaring land to be State land and, in keeping with Military Order 59, the military governor is entitled to declare land to be State land. Anyone objecting to such a declaration may refer to the objections committees, not to the courts, and must establish proof of ownership of the land. That is where the problem arises. For the person to prove ownership in accordance to the law applicable in Jordan and which dates back to the British Mandate, and even to the Ottoman empire, the landowner must prove that the land has been registered in his name and has been cultivated for over 15 years. The tragedy is that 70 per cent of land in the West Bank has not been registered in the name of the owner: and so it is not possible to bring legal proof of ownership. So therefore a second procedure applies in that case: proof that he has been in possession of the land for over 15 successive years, and that is almost impossible … Those who are familiar with the character of the Palestinian people know that they are attached to their land, they are true peasants. They use rather. primitive methods of cultivation, so when the committee looks at land cultivated by very primitive means, and sometimes land is not-even turned over, it is used as pasture, for instance, for animals, so one could then say that the land is not being worked because it is not being ploughed. The committee considers modern means of ploughing land, and they cannot understand that for a Palestinian peasant pasture land or any other kind of use of land is a form of agriculture. So then having decided that the land should revert to the State, the administration gives the owner one month to be able to find in the land register proof of ownership. That of course is very expensive, any kind of research of this type is very expensive. He has to have recourse to a lawyer, agricultural experts, surveyors and what have you, and the most he can have, to come up with legal proof, is a month and a half, and it is very costly; while the Government can produce aerial photographs, they send experts into the field, people who have been working in the kibbutzim, they have old British maps. So there is a strong lack of balance between the two sides. On the one hand, you have a simple peasant unfamiliar, with the value of documents, not understanding the terms used: all they know is that this is their land and has been their land for centuries … After thousands of years, they can’t prove that this is their land, and yet they are being requested to do so by the occupying authorities …

“Recently hundreds of dunams of land were declared State property in about 15 villages, and I have a list of villages that I should like to appear in the records. The owners of the land came before the objections committee and unfortunately, to our great regret, as I said earlier, to, all intents and purposes we were unable to get this land back for its rightful owners. This was in Jaloub, Jamaeen, Deir Ballut … I mention these villages because this happened recently, within the last year. Over a thousand dunams were seized in the villages I have just quoted, depriving farmers of their livelihood. On behalf of these farmers, then, as I said, I appealed to the objections committee; hundreds of farmers were involved. They were in a state of revolt, but unfortunately, up to now I have not been entirely successful in producing proof of ownership of this land. It is not possible to find proof of that kind. When the objection committee visits the land and they realize that there is a tree, that there is some crop growing, wheat, oats, etc., then after the visit in the field it is easier to convince the objections committee that the land is in fact being cultivated by its rightful owner.

“After 1978 Palestinian agriculture on the West Bank became a secondary source of livelihood, something you could no longer count upon to feed your family, and because of the situation, because of agriculture in Israel, many Palestinian farmers had to leave their land and seek work on Israeli-held land, or sometimes have had to give up agriculture altogether and do something else, work in restaurants, for instance. So a great many farmers have been unable to cultivate their land for many, many years; that is why it is so difficult to find proof of ownership, because there is none. If there is no document proving ownership, and if the land has not been cultivated for 15 successive years, how can we prove ownership? And the decision of the objections committee is in any case merely a recommendation, nothing more, not to mention the fact that the lawyers comprising the objections committee are full-time lawyers, and sit on the objections committee for only one month, while they are doing their national service. They are not independent agents they are under military authority at the time. So they exercise their profession as lawyers on the objections committee while doing their month’s military service. And of course, that is quite contrary to the principle of an independent judiciary. These lawyers are not independent.

“… The procedure of declaring land to be State land, followed since 1980, is one of the most serious practices used by the Israelis in the West Bank. Land seized in this fashion is usually given to settler’s and settlements, to expand the area of these settlements, or it is given to Israeli local firms and they build houses on it. For example, in Jinsafut and Deir Istiya regions, a settlement known as ‘Emmanuel’ has been built. This settlement was built by private firms, and the settlers came directly from Brooklyn to live in that particular settlement …”

55. Two other forms of expropriation were referred to by Mr. Boulos:

…

“Another serious problem, again dealing with the land, is Military Order 1060, which is a recent one, and it stipulates that the local courts, in other words, the civilian local courts I mentioned earlier, which among their civilian terms of reference also deal with civilian disputes – for instance, if I and my neighbor have a dispute we come before a civilian court – but under this new Military Order the civilian courts are no longer empowered to decide on cases where a request for registry had already been made. That power has been handed over to the military objections committee who can either register or refuse to register the ownership of a certain piece of land. That is precisely the problem. Today, if two citizens are in disagreement over, for instance, the boundaries of a piece of land, one of them turns to the committee to register the property, while the other wants to go to a court, they cannot do it, because Military Order 1060 tells the courts that they no longer have jurisdiction. So it isn’t just a question of land belonging to the State, it is also covering land, the ownership of which has to be registered: it has now become a matter for the military authorities.

“Another problem – and on this one I will submit to you three written texts – is that of falsification of land ownership. We dealt with one case before the High Court of Justice. The claimant was called Abdel Karim Abdallah Abdel-Kadr Jerba and this was a case of expropriation in a village called Beit Amin. We were surprised to note that the representative of the Government in the High Court of Justice submitted a sales agreement signed by someone called Abdel Karim, When our Abdel Karim saw the document he was equally surprised, because he had not signed any paper or any sales agreement for anything of the kind. So we brought suit against the police and against the commander of the military region, as well as against the director of the police enquiry department, and against the legal adviser of the Government, and the Minister of the Interior and Security. This was on 7 November 1984. We brought suit against these people because this represented a grave case of falsifying legal documents. Two Arab citizens were involved. They were known as intermediaries, and they were the ones who faked the document and had it signed. An Israeli also took part in this fake attempt. He signed on behalf of several other people … When I noticed that things were taking too much time, I forwarded a memorandum dated 19 December 1984 saying that so far no decisive reply had been forthcoming to the documents dealing with the case …” (A/AC.145/RT.413)

9. Golan Heights

(see sect. IV.B, paras. 90 to 93 below)

56. A number of witnesses referred to the situation in the Golan Heights. The Special Committee visited Hadar village which is situated a short distance away from the village of Majdal Shams.

57. In the course of questions put to them by the Special Committee, a number of persons belonging to families living in the occupied territories made statements describing the situation. The following is an excerpt of the testimony of Mr. Aref Assam:

“…

“The CHAIRMAN: From your conversations with them, what are the living conditions like, especially in regard to food, shelter and clothing?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): Prices are very high, the cost of living is very high and they live in very difficult conditions. They pay taxes on the land, house taxes, they even pay taxes on their refrigerators, television, washing machine. After my wife and children joined me, my family told me that they were having to pay very heavy taxes, and my brother is being asked to pay taxes. They told the authorities that they were not ready to pay taxes for their brother.

“… there were problems caused by the Israeli authorities, because of their wish to impose identity cards. We rejected these Israeli identity cards. There were demonstrations against the situation imposed by the occupation forces.

“I was arrested one afternoon at two o’clock … I was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment … I was accused of being an instigator and having headed a demonstration and having taken down the Israeli flag and replaced it with the Syrian flag.

“… At the same time, the young people who had demonstrated to show their rejection of the Israeli identity cards … were expelled from school. The director of the school, Nabil Al Khatib, was also expelled. I was working in a kibbutz team, but as soon as they heard that, they chased me from where I worked. I worked with private companies and as soon as the secret service became aware of this they chased me away from my job, and in this way deprived me of my means of earning a living. My two children were arrested. Faisal and Osama were arrested for 24 hours each. My house was watched day and night. I was forced to flee and to come here. While I was in my village I was forced to have to beg from the villagers for bread and for sugar and for butter so that I could live …” (A/AC.145/RT.417)

58. Another former resident of the Golan Heights, Mr. Adel Altawil, stated:

“…

“The CHAIRMAN: What is the latest information about living conditions in the occupied villages?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): Well, they tell us that there is not enough food, and especially they suffer from the fact that their drinking water supply has been cut off, so our families in Majdal Shams have no drinking water supply, and more than once they told us this with the aid of the megaphones, or shouting from afar they told us that the water has been cut off. Therefore they have asked us to try to send water to them.” (A/AC.145/RT.417)

59. The following is an excerpt of the testimony of a third person, Mr. Abu Jabel:

“…

“Mr. SENE (Senegal): At present, are the administrative and political institutions and structures in the Golan the same as those existing in Israel itself, or did they keep pre-existing institutions and administrative structures, that is, Syrian ones?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): Well, everything is done as it is in Israel and no political organization is allowed in any event. The only organization in the Golan Heights is the National Union opposing occupation. Furthermore, all the people participate in that Union. The administration comprises persons designated by the occupation forces and the military powers. With respect to our consumption needs, we import our consumer goods from the West Bank, and the same applies to medical treatment. If we wish to have a tooth treated or extracted we have to go to Nablus, for example …” (A/AC.145/RT.417)

B. Written information

60. The following paragraphs contain a summary of the written information received by the Special Committee during the period covered by the present report divided as follows:

1. General situation;

2. Jewish underground;

3. Golan Heights;

4. The release of prisoners and its consequences.

1. General situation

61. The mayor of Rafah, in the Gaza Strip, Abdul-Hamid Gishtam, aged 64, was murdered on 14 September 1984 as he left a mosque. He was reportedly shot in the head by a youth. A spokesman for the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) said on 15 September 1984 that the assailant had not been identified and that a police investigation was under way. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 16 and 17 September 1984)

62. The Defence Minister, Mr. Yitzak Rabin, on 19 September 1984, refused a demand by representatives of Kiryat Arba that Arabs engaged in hostile acts against Jewish settlers be expelled. According to Israel television, Mr. Rabin also dismissed out of hand the settlers’ contention that increased Jewish settlement in the heart of Hebron would improve security in the town. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 20 September 1984)

63. Mr. Rabin on 1 November 1984 told the Knesset that his Ministry had agreed in principle to permit Arab entrepreneurs from the West Bank in the area. Mr. Rabin said that the bank’s activities would be under the surveillance of the Bank of Israel, which would be on the alert for security risks. After the bank’s establishment, the military would not object if other elements, including those from abroad, used it as an investment channel. Mr. Rabin added that it was his Ministry’s policy to enable the Arab residents of the territories to improve their standard of living and their conveniences. It was reported that the establishment of the bank was entirely a local initiative, launched by a group of Nablus businessmen headed by Zafer al-Masri. According to the report, the bank would be subjected to the exclusive control of the inspector of the Banks at the Bank of Israel. It would be able to conduct business with Arab correspondents, but would not be allowed outside partners or shareholders. In a related development, it was reported on 13 November 1984 that Mr. Rabin had, during a visit to Bethlehem, approved a $700,000 Saudi aid plan for Arab development projects in Bethlehem. Mr. Rabin also agreed to a series of requests by the town council, including the construction of sports facilities, the opening of a court building, the purchase of equipment for the fire brigade and the granting of facilities and improvements with regard to municipal taxation. The Defence Minister promised to consider the possibility of liberating Arab prisoners for Christmas and to reconsider requests for reunion of families that had been turned down. (Jerusalem Post, 1, 2 and 13 November; Ha’aretz, 13 November 1984)

64. Mr. David Ben-Shimol, an 18-year-old soldier from Jerusalem, was arrested on 2 November 1984 on suspicion of having fired a missile at an Arab bus in Jerusalem the previous week. One Arab was killed and 10 others Were wounded in the attack. Mr. Ben-Shimol is reportedly also suspected of having thrown a grenade at an Arab cafe in Jerusalem’s old city in September 1984. On 5 November 1984 it was reported that the suspect had been remanded for 15 days by the President of the Jerusalem Magistrates Court, Ahoron Simha. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 4 and 5 November 1984)

65. A number of new regulations were issued by the Israeli officer-in-charge of justice, prohibiting West Bank courts from trying Israeli citizens. The aim of these regulations was reportedly to limit the power of the local courts and to grant “immunity” to certain categories of Israelis, for example, settlers. They prohibit the public prosecutors of the West Bank from prosecuting Israelis, who are parties in penal cases and prevent the police from executing any local penal decision against them. (Al Tali’ab, 13 December 1984)

66. On 16 January 1985, Israel reportedly announced that it would allow residents of the Canada refugee camp to resettle in Gaza. The camp – with 5,000 Palestinian refugees – was split in half when the Sinai was returned to Egypt in April 1982: one section became part of Rafah, under Egyptian control, and the other remained in Gaza under Israeli control. Egypt, which had previously insisted that the camp belonged to Gaza, would pay $US 4 million to resettle the refugees. (Al Fajr, 25 January 1985)

67. On 4 February 1985, the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics reported that Jerusalem’s Arab population showed an 8 per cent decrease compared to the Jewish population of the city. Jerusalem’s Arabs accounted for 36 per cent of the population in 1972; by 1983 Arabs were only 28 per cent of the total population. While the Arab population increased from 57,500 to 122,400, at a rate of 4.2 per cent annually, the Jewish population increased from 100,980 to 306,000 or a mere 3.1 per cent annually. According to the press report this increase was largely due to the addition of several Israeli settlements that house over 140,000 Israelis in Arab East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, and the continued – though decreasing – emigration of Arab Jerusalemites. (Al Fajr, 8 February 1985)

68. On 3 June 1985, it was reported that the security forces had arrested nine residents of the Gaza Strip suspected of perpetrating a series of terrorist acts, including murder. The arrests were reportedly carried out several months earlier, but were kept secret for the purpose of the investigation. A number of Jews and Israeli Arabs were also reportedly arrested in connection with the uncovering of the cell. The terrorist acts attributed to the cell members include the murder in September 1984 of the mayor of Rafah, Abdel Hamid Kishta; the murder in November 1984 of the head of the Al-Azhar Islamic College in Gaza, Ismail el-Khatib; the murder in January 1985 of a policeman in Khan Yunis; the murder in February 1985 of a Bedouin Sheikh’s son in Rafah; as well as the grenade attack on a bus in Tel Aviv in December 1984, throwing hand grenades and petrol bombs at IDF patrols, throwing a hand grenade at the military government headquarters in Khan Yunis, and seriously-wounding a Khan Yunis driving teacher. According to one report the cell was led by Hassan Shehadeh Hassan Hijazi, aged 43, from Rafah, and was affiliated to the operational branch of the “Fatah”, led by “Abu-Jihad”. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 3 June 1985; Ma’ariv, 5 June 1985)

69. On 9 June 1985, it was reported that following an agreement worked out recently between Israeli and Egyptian negotiators in Cairo, 500 families from the Egyptian side of the frontier would shortly be allowed to return to the Israeli side. A large track of land has reportedly been set aside for the families in the Canada refugee camp adjoining Rafah. It was meanwhile reported that Jewish settlers in the nearby Katif bloc had set up an action committee to oppose the return of the 500 families. A spokesman for the committee said the settlers would “fight the return in every legal way possible”. On 12 June 1985, it was reported the Israel-Egypt liaison committee had agreed on the modalities of the transfer. Under the agreement the refugees would be transferred to the Gaza Strip in groups of 25 persons per week. At first only the men would move to the new site, with the rest of the family joining once the new houses were completed. It was also agreed that every family would receive $8,000 for the houses left behind in the Egyptian side. It was also agreed that Egypt would not force any family wishing to remain in the Egyptian side to leave its home and move to the Israeli side. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 9 June 1985; Ha’aretz, 12 June 1985)

70. On 23 June 1985, the Israeli Defence Minister, Mr. Yitzak Rabin, assured Jewish settler leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that his ministry was considering deporting Palestinian residents of the occupied territories who took part in anti-Israel activity. Mr. Rabin proposed that more town restrictions be imposed on anti-Israel, activists and that the punishment of administrative detention – imprisonment without trial or charges for an unlimited period – be reviewed. Administrative detention was unofficially cancelled after 1978 due to intensive international pressure and town arrests were instituted instead. (Al Tali’ah, 27 June 1985; Al Fajr, 28 June 1985)

71. On 9 July 1985, it was reported that two Arabs from the village of Surif, in the Hebron region, had confessed to the murder on 27 June 1985 of two Israelis, Mr. Meir Ben-Yair and Mrs. Michal Cohen. They are Ziad Mahmud al-Ganimat and Mustafa Amar al-Ganimat, aged 22. On the night of 8 July 1985, the security forces imposed a curfew on Surif, demolished the two houses belonging to the suspects and sealed a third house. During the operation, an identity parade was held and other men suspected of membership in illegal organizations were arrested. The two suspects were remanded for 15 days. In the same context it was reported on 11 July 1905 that the Gush Emunim movement had called on the Attorney General to instruct the prosecution to demand the death penalty for the murderers of Mr. Ben-Yair and Mrs. Cohen. “The only deterrent capable of bringing an end to acts of murder is the death penalty for murderers acting for nationalistic motives”, the Gush Emunim statement said, warning that should the murderers be sentenced to life imprisonment they would provide a temptation for bargaining and blackmail-motivated terrorist acts, would be released after a while and would encourage more murderous acts. (Ha’aretz, 9, 10, 11 July 1985; Jerusalem Post, 10 July 1985)

72. On 7 July 1985, the Israeli Health ministry reportedly decided to close down the Hospice, the only hospital in Jerusalem’s old city, on the grounds that the hospital did not offer adequate health services. The order stated that no more patients should be admitted after 20 July 1985 and that as of I August 1985 the Hospice was to be converted into a 24-hour emergency clinic that would redirect patients to other hospitals. The Hospice, the only government run hospital rendered services to nearly 150,000 Arab residents in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. In a related development, it was reported that on 24 July 1985, all shops were closed in Arab East Jerusalem to protest the planned closure of the Hospice. (Al Fajr, 12 July 1985; Al Tali’ah, 23 July 1985; Al Fajr, 25 July 1985)

73. On 25 July 1985, it was reported that following the recent spate of attacks on Jewish civilians in Israel proper and in the territories (see Table of Incidents), the Attorney General was asked to consider ways of imposing harsher penalties on persons responsible for terrorist acts against civilians. Speaking on Israel radio, the Defence Minister, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, said that Israel would weigh the possibility of reinstating selective deportations and administrative detentions as well as imposing the death penalty on terrorists. On 24 July 1985, the Prime Minister, Mr. Shimon Peres, summoned the leading ministers and officials concerned with internal security to his office for a first discussion on a major crackdown on terror. Among the measures considered were increased patrols and roadblocks in the territories and in Israel, as well as other preventive measures such as searches in suspects’ homes and in cars and special actions by the security services, police and civil defense units. Speaking at the Knesset plenary on 24 July 1985, Mr. Peres declared that Israel would take all necessary measures – political and military – to combat and bring an end to terrorism. “There would be no compromise … be it political, military or police. We shall stand like a rock until the Arabs understand this too”, he said. The Police Minister, Mr. Haim Bar-Lev, informed the Knesset that in the previous six months 128 incendiary bottles had been thrown, compared with 135 in the entire previous year, and 55 sabotage charges were planted, compared with 71 in the whole of 1984. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 25 July 1985)

74. On 29 July 1985, the cabinet decided to set up a ministerial team headed by the Defence Minister to consider the legal aspects of various penalties against terrorists and “inciting elements”. The team would examine the possibility of imposing the death penalty on terrorist-murderers, the deportation of inciters and the possibility to resort again to administrative arrests. The team was to hold its first meeting on 31 July 1985 and to submit its recommendations to the cabinet in its next meeting. The team would be made up, in addition to the Defence Minister, of three former defense ministers – Ezer Wiezman, Ariel Sharon and Moshe Arens, and three ministers who are jurists – Moshe Nissim, Moshe Shahal and Amnon Rubinstein. (Ma’ariv, 30 July 1985)

2. Jewish underground

75. It was reported on I August 1984 that Yosef Zeruya, one of the defendants in the Jewish underground case, was convicted by the Jerusalem District Court of plotting to blow up the Dome of the Rock Mosque, possessing parts of weapons and of fraudulent acts. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment and three years, suspended term. (Ha’aretz, 1 August; Jerusalem Post, Ha’aretz, 5 August 1984)

76. Moshe Zar, charged with membership in the Jewish terrorist organization and with planting an explosive charge in the car of Bassam Shak’a, was on 9 September 1984 released on bail of IS 750,000 (approximately $57,672) after Prisons Service physicians had given an opinion that further detention would aggravate Zar’s health condition. (Ha’aretz, 10 September 1984)

77. The trial of 20 members of the Jewish terrorist organization reportedly opened on 16 September 1984 at the Jerusalem District Court. The 20 defendants had already admitted the charges attributed to them. The defense lawyers asserted that the confessions were obtained illegally and should therefore be disallowed. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 16 September 1984; Jerusalem Post, 21 September 1984)

78. Avinoam Katrieli, member of the Jewish underground organization, was on 21 September 1984 convicted of plotting to bomb the Dome of the Rock Mosque and was sentenced to 15 months effective prison term and 33 months suspended imprisonment. (Ha’aretz, 23 September 1984)

79. The Supreme Court, on 7 November 1984, rejected the appeal of Mr. Yehuda Cohen, one of the first members of the Jewish underground to be convicted, against his sentence. Mr. Cohen, a settler from Ofra, had been charged with membership in a conspiracy to blow up the Dome of the Rock Mosque and was sentenced to 18 months in prison and another two years suspended term, after pleading guilty. In a related development, it was reported on 14 November-1984 that a GSS agent known as “David”, giving evidence in the Jewish underground trial at the Jerusalem District Court, said that he believed that one of the defendants, Mr. Shaul Nir, had killed Mr. Tahsin Abd el-Fatah Hatafteh, aged 18, from Tarkumiya. According to the witness, this happened on 30 March 1983, during a demonstration and stone-throwing by local youths who blocked traffic to Kiryat Arba. One of the passengers of a car at a road block fired at the Arab youth and killed him. According to the witness, it was Mr. Nir, but the witness added that Mr. Nir had denied having anything to do with that killing. At the Jewish underground trial, Mr. Nir had been charged in connection with the booby-trapping of Arab buses, the attack on the West Bank mayors, the attack at the Hebron University and the plot to blow up the Temple Mount mosques. (Jerusalem Post, 8 November; Ha’aretz, 14 November 1984)

80. Three men from the Jerusalem suburb of Ein Karem, members of the so-called “Terror Against Terror Gang”, were on 20 November 1984 sentenced to six years imprisonment and to a three-year suspended term in the Jerusalem District Court for sabotaging Moslem and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. Several persons were wounded in the attacks which were carried out in late 1983 and early 1984. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 21 November 1984)

81. On 23 April 1985, the Jerusalem District Court determined by a majority vote that the confessions of 14 of the defendants in the Jewish underground trial were admissible and could constitute evidence in the trial. The president of the court, Justice Yaacov Bazak, decided in a minority opinion to accept the defense counsel’s arguments and disqualify the confessions of 12 of the defendants, while harshly criticizing the General Security Service for the methods used in order to obtain the defendants’ confessions. (Ha’aretz, 24 April 1985)

82. On 9 November 1984, Mr. Yehuda Richter, a leading member of Rabbi Meir Kahane’s “Kach” Party, was sentenced to five years in prison and a three-year suspended term for his involvement in the shooting attack on a bus carrying Arab workers near Ramallah in March li84. Mr. Richter was originally’ charged with attempted murder, conspiring to commit a crime and setting fire to Arab vehicles and to the offices of Al Fajr in East Jerusalem, but

after plea bargaining he was convicted of causing bodily harm under aggravated circumstances. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 11 November 1984)

83. On 3 January 1985, the Supreme Court imposed a stiffer sentence on Mr. Noam Yinon, who was arrested with the members of the Jewish underground and was convicted of transporting 50 Syrian mines in the Golan Heights for members of the underground. He was sentenced by the Jerusalem District Court to 18 months in jail and 18 months suspended sentence. The State appealed against that sentence and the Supreme Court accepted the appeal and increased the sentence to 28 months in prison and 20 months suspended sentence. In another development the Supreme Court on the same day increased to three years the sentence of Mr. Levy Hazan, a “Kach” member convicted of planning an attack against an Arab bus in Ramallah. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 4 January 1985)

84. On 17 April 1985, the Jerusalem District Court sentenced Sgt. David Ben-Shimol, aged 19, to life imprisonment for murder and attempted murder in two attacks on Arabs in 1984. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 18 April 1985)

85. On 18 April 1985, the Jerusalem District Court imposed prison sentences ranging from 25 months to three years on three members of the Jewish terrorist underground whose trials were separated from the other defendants following a plea bargaining deal with the prosecution. (Ha’aretz, 19 April 1985, 20, 22, 24 and 31 May 1985; Jerusalem Post, 19 April 1985, 20 May 1985; Ma’ariv, 31 May 1985)

86. On 3, June 1985, it was reported that File 345/84, the State of: Israel vs. Menahem Livni, Shaul Nir, Barak Nir, Uzi Sharbaf and Yitzhak Ganiram, on charge of premeditated murder in the Islamic University in Hebron, was unified with the “big Jewish underground file” concerning the attempted Temple Mount sabotage, the attacks on the West Bank mayors and the aborted bombing of five Arab-owned buses.

The prosecution reportedly agreed to reunite the cases after the defense consented that there would be no challenge to the confessions made by the defendants. The six defendants on 2 June 1985 pleaded guilty to all the charges except intent to murder.  The charges include assaulting the Islamic University campus with automatic weapons fire and throwing a hand grenade into the courtyard of the campus during a class recess. The six said they “had no intention to kill, only to frighten”. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 3 June 1985)

87. On 10 July 1985, the Jerusalem District court convicted 15 members of the Jewish terrorist underground on most of the charges imputed to them 14 months earlier, ranging from membership of a terrorist organization to murder, Menahem Livni, Shaul Nir and Uzi Sharabaf were convicted of murder for their part in the attack on the Islamic University in Hebron in which three persons were killed and more than two dozen injured. A conviction of murder carries a mandatory life sentence. Shelomo Ganiram and Barak Nir were convicted, in connection with that attack, of manslaughter and attempted murder. In the case of the bomb-attacks and maiming of the three West Bank mayors and three other members of the

National Guidance Committee, 11 defendants were found not guilty of attempted murder, but were convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. The court, in a majority decision, convicted 10 defendants of conspiracy to blow up the Dome of the Rock Mosque on the Temple Mount. The president of the court, Justice Yaacov Buzak, determined in a minority opinion that the plot to blow up the Mosque did not reach the extent of a conspiracy and acquitted the defendants on that count. The 10 convicted of conspiracy are Menahem Livni, Shaul Nir, Yehuda Etzion, Yeshua Ben-Shoshan,Yitzhak Ganiram, Benzion Heinemann, Ya’acov Heinemann, Haim Ben-David, Barak Nir and Boaz Heinemann. Six defendants were convicted of membership of a terrorist organization; six others were convicted of activity in a terrorist Organization; and many defendants were also convicted of illegal possession and transport of weapons and of deliberately damaging IDF property. In the case of the booby-trapping of the Arab buses the court unanimously convicted Shaul Nir and Uzi Sharabaf, and, by a majority vote, Menahem Livni and Barak Nir, of attempted murder. Menahem Livni, Shaul Nir and Uzi Sharabaf were also convicted of attempted murder for placing charges at the entrance to several mosques in Hebron, and Shaul Nir was convicted on another count of attempted murder for planting a grenade in a schoolyard in Hebron. Ten other defendants in the case have previously been convicted on the basis of plea bargaining. One, Gilad Peli, was sentenced to 10 years in jail. The trial of two other defendants, army officers charged with prior knowledge of the attacks on the mayors, has been postponed pending completion of the main trial. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 11 July 1985)

88. On 11 July 1985, presenting her summation, prosecutor Dorit Beinish asked the Jerusalem District Court to impose severe sentences on the 15 men convicted Of terrorism the previous day. She noted that most of the convicted men were involved in more than one crime and that none of them had expressed remorse or regret for their actions; some of them even took pride in their actions. She called for consecutive sentencing for several of the convicts, including additional years in jail on top of the mandatory life sentences for the three defendants convicted of murder. (Jerusalem Post, 12 July 1985)

89. On 22 July 1985, the Jerusalem District Court sentenced Menahem Livni, Shaul Nir and Uzi Sharabaf to life imprisonment. *The other 12 defendants were sentenced for prison terms ranging from 3 to 7 years. The office of the State Attorney reportedly intended to appeal to the Supreme Court against the leniency of some of the sentences. According to legal sources, the State Attorney would appeal against the sentences meted out to 8 to 10 of the defendants, sentenced to up to seven years imprisonment. The same sources reportedly estimated that there was no proportion between the gravity of the offences imputed to some of the defendants and the sentences meted out to them. (Ha’aretz, 23 July 1985)

3. Golan Heights

90. On 14 February 1985, thousands of Druse from the Golan Heights reportedly demonstrated on the third anniversary of the order requiring them to carry Israeli identity cards. In the Druse villages a general strike was observed, affecting shops, work and schools. The demonstrators shouted anti-Israeli slogans and slogans in favour-of the Syrian Arab Republic and President Hafez Assad. Large police and border police units reportedly patr6lled near the Druse villages, but there were no reports of intervention by the security forces. On 27 February 1985, it was reported that four Druse from the Golan Heights had been detained for 15 days for unfurling Syrian flags and shouting nationalistic slogans during a demonstration on 13 February 1985. Later, on 19 March 1985, it was reported that the Attorney-General, Mr. Yitwhak Zamir, had approved the filing of charge-sheets against them for incitement to rebellion against the State. (Ha’aretz, 14 February; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 15 February; Ha’aretz, 19 March 1985; Jerusalem Post, 21 February 1985)

91. For the first time in two years Israel, on 19 November 1984, allowed two Golan Heights Druse to cross the border into the Syrian Arab Republic, at Quneitra, to receive medical care. The two men were accompanied by ICRC representatives. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 20 November 1984)

92. On 24 June 1985, it was reported that security sources in the Golan Heights were concerned about a wave of hostile activity by Druze villagers in the area, aimed at IDF and civilians in the northern Golan Heights. According to the report, a large number of mines have recently been discovered and safely neutralized in the area; some mines were also found on roads leading to Jewish settlements in the area. (Jerusalem Post, 24 June 1985)

93. On 5 July 1985, it was reported that two residents of the Golan Heights Druse village of Mas’ada, Mundi Mereli and Yasser Ibrahim, aged 20, were convicted at the Nazareth District Court of illegally leaving the country, handing information to the enemy, contact with a foreign agent and conspiring to commit a crime. They pleaded guilty and were each sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and 2 years suspended term. According to the charge sheet the two crossed the border into the Syrian Arab Republic on 11 March 1,985 and met there with a Syrian intelligence officer to whom they gave details about IDF installations on the Golan Heights and on collaborators with Israel among the villagers. They were arrested as they returned to the Golan Heights. (Ha’aretz, Ma’ariv, 5 July 1985)

4. The release of prisoners and its conse4uences

94. The 1,150 prisoners released on 20 May 1985 included 879 held in Israeli prisons, 121 left from previous Ansar exchanges over the past two years, and 150 men held in Israel who had previously been in Ansar; 724 of the Palestinian prisoners chose to live in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 21 May 1985)

95. On 21 May 1985, it was reported that following the release of the 1,150 prisoners, hundreds of settlers demonstrated in the center of Hebron, at the site of the killing in 1983 of Aharon Gross, against the release and the authorization given to many of the prisoners to return to Hebron. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 21 May 1985)

96. On 22 May 1985, it was reported that three released prisoners, Rateb Suleiman, Ahmed Abu-Mahmoud and Mahmoud Hassan Halaf al-Himri, who stabbed to death Tekon settler David Rosenfeld in July 1982, and Muhammad Ali Mubarak Abu Hamid, who planned the assassination, had agreed to leave their homes in the village of Al Ferdis, south of Bethlehem, after Tekoa settlers had allegedly raided the village and smashed windows. The settlers reportedly set up a tent encampment near the village and said they would not leave “until the three terrorists leave the country”. In another incident, a group of settlers led by Rabbi Moshe Levinger shot in the air and at walls after hundreds of Palestinians gathered at the northern entrance to Hebron to welcome the released prisoners. military government officers arrived on the scene, stopped the shooting, disarmed the settlers and detained three of them. Settlers in the Nablus region reportedly blocked roads in the area to protest against the prisoner release. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 22 May 1985)

97. On 23 May 1985, it was reported that settlers from the Mt. Hebron area and from other West Bank areas had over the past two days been collecting information on the released Palestinian prisoners: their photos, addresses, biography and the security offences committed by them. Information was also reportedly being gathered on the access roads to their homes, their travel habits and their day and night movements. (Ha’aretz, 23 May 1985)

98.  On 28 May 1985, it was reported that settlers had put up “wanted” posters on walls in Hebron, Halhul and Nablus. The posters, in Arabic, English and Hebrew, said that the Jewish settlers “have not forgiven and will not forgive you for the sins you committed”. They also advised the released prisoners “to get out of here as soon as possible”. Security forces reportedly did not intervene in the poster-plastering operation. in related developments, it was reported that Shilo settlers had visited the nearby village of Turmus-Aiya and asked the local mukhtar to see to it that a released prisoner resident of the village be expelled. In Hebron five settlers were reportedly summoned to the police to be questioned about the harassment and firing shots near the home of a released prison in Yatta. They were later released on bail. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma,ariv, 28 May 1985)

99. On 29 May 1985, it was reported that the IDF had placed guards outside the homes of several released prisoners. At Deir al-Hatab, near Nablus, settlers from Eilon-Moreh and Kedumim bad visited the local mukhtar and demanded that a released prisoner resident of the village be expelled from the country, but the mukhtar reportedly refused to intervene. A settlers’ spokesman said that the settlers intended to call on all the 600-odd released prisoners who chose to stay in the territories. So far the security authorities had not tried to dissuade them, and the settlers had taken this as tacit approval, he said. He noted that the settlers’ leaders had lost control over some of the extremists among the settlers, and as a result, the departure of the released prisoners would be “desirable”. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 29 May 1985)

100. On 30 may 1985, it was reported that a scuffle had broken out the previous night in Hebron between a group of settlers and local youths. The settlers were on their way to the home of the released prisoner Salim Karameh Qudsi, planning to demand his expulsion, but a group of local youths guarding the house began throwing stones at them. The settlers threw stones and smashed windows. They dispersed when the security forces arrived on the scene. (Ma’ariv, 30 May 1985)

101. On 31 May 1985, it was reported that the police I had detained a “Kach” activist from Tel-Rumeida, Hebron, and opened files against six other settlers suspected of harassing and attacking Arabs. Harassment and plastering of posters on houses of released prisoners continued. Kiryat Arba settlers reportedly offered big rewards in Jordanian dinars to Arabs who would supply information on the whereabouts of the released prisoners from Hebron who were reportedly hiding in the area. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 31 May 1985)

102. On 3 June 1985, it was reported that representatives of settlers throughout the West Bank and the Gaza Strip bad held a secret meeting in Pesagot, near Ramallah, to discuss how to torpedo any peace talks with Jordan and how to force the released prisoners out of the country. Rabbi Moshe Levinger was reportedly overheard talking of a need to raise $100 from every settler family to fund operations. In a related development, a security source was quoted as saying that “the IDF’s biggest achievement in the West Bank during the past week was in preventing bloodshed between settlers and released terrorists”. According to that source, there was a real danger that settlers might attempt killing or hurting the released prisoners. By letting the settlers “blow off some steam” through putting up posters and patrolling near the homes of the released prisoners, the settlers, motivation for more violent acts had dwindled, the source said, adding that the IDF was able to prevent any settlers activity during the past week by resorting to strong measures, but it was deliberately decided not to do so in order to avoid further deterioration of the situation. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 3 June 1985)

103. On 4 June 1985, the Prisons Commissioner, Mr. Rafael Suissa, revealed that two Arabs released in the prisoner exchange of May 1985 had been re-arrested after committing “various offences against the security of the State”. In a related development, it was reported on 18 June 1985 that another Arab released in the exchange had been re-arrested on 17 June 1985 after failing to present identification papers and allegedly attacking border guards. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 5 June 1985; Jerusalem Post, 18 June 1985)

104. Thirty Palestinian ex-prisoners freed in the prisoner exchange between Israel and the PLO were allegedly questioned by Israeli authorities who also confiscated their passports. According to Al Fajr the 30 prisoners were considering appealing to the Israeli High Court to regain their passports. (Al Fajr, 7 June 1985)

105. On 13 June 1985, it was reported that according to all the East Jerusalem newspapers a group of settlers had gone on the night of 10 June 1985 to the home of a released prisoner, Sirhan Dweikat, at the Balata refugee camp and broke doors and windows. (Ha’aretz, 13 June 1985)

C. Treatment of civilians, including fundamental freedoms

106. The Special Committee received considerable information reflecting the situation of daily life in the occupied territories. The following paragraphs give a selection of written information relating to the fundamental freedoms affected,-, followed by information reflecting a range of aspects of treatment of civilians, including a sample chronological presentation of incidents occurring during the period covered by the report; they are divided as follows:

1. Freedom of movement;

2. Freedom of education;

3. Freedom of association;

4. Freedom of worship;

5. Freedom of expression;

6. Settlers’ activities;

7. Treatment of civilians;

8. Economic measures;

9. Trials;

10. Incidents.

1. Freedom of movement

(see sect. IV.A, paras. 34 to 36 above)

107. Israeli security authorities summoned Mrs. Zuhaira Baddawi Kamal, a teacher at the Women’s Teachers Training Institute, Tireh, Ramallah, and handed her an order renewing her town restriction in Jerusalem for six months. This was the ninth consecutive six-month town restriction on Mrs. Zuhaira Baddawi Kamal during five years. (Al Fajr, 3 August 1984)

108. On 22 August 1984, inhabitants of Ya’bad in the West Bank reportedly complained that the Israeli authorities were preventing them from leaving for Jordan. People affected by the ban reportedly included several dozen Muslim pilgrims from Ya’bad who wanted to go to Saudi Arabia, as well as summer visitors from Arab countries. Inhabitants of Qalailya also complained of obstacles and restrictions on travelers from their region. A source in the security forces said in response that these restrictions were decided “against a security background”. (Ha’aretz, 23 August 1984)

109. For six consecutive days there were no travel permits in Jenin. Several residents working in Arab countries were thus unable to leave the West Bank to return to work. Similar measures were also applied to residents of Tulkarm and Hebron districts. (Al Fajr, 24 and 31 August 1984)

110. The Israeli authorities reportedly renewed for the fourth time in the previous, six months the town arrest order imposed on Mr. Jamil Othman Nasser, an advocate and deputy head of the West Bank Lawyers’. According to the order, Mr. Nasser could not leave his home town of Jericho and had to report to the police twice a day. (Al Tali’ah, 6 September; Al Fajr, 7 September 1984)

111. On 10 September 1984, Mr. George Hazboun received an order restricting him to his town, Bethlehem, for six months. On 1 March 1985, it was reported that Feisal Husseini, Khalil Abu Zayed from Eizariya, Jamil Osman Nasser from Jerusalem, all three associated with the PLO, and George Hazboun from Bethlehem, associated with the communist party in the West Bank, had the orders confining them to their residence extended for an unspecified period. The four were allegedly suspected of hostile activity. (Ha’aretz, 11 September 1984; Ma’ariv, 1 March 1985)

112. The Israeli military authorities reportedly renewed the town restriction order on Al Bireh municipal council member, Dr. Azmi Shu’aibi, for the fourth time. Dr. Shu’aibi’s health conditions required his travelling on a regular basis to the Hadassah Hospital in West Jerusalem for treatment. The Israeli authorities had reportedly turned down an appeal for which the dentist had applied earlier to obtain a permit to travel abroad for medical treatment. (Al Fajr, 21 September 1984)

113. Israeli authorities reportedly extended the town restriction order on Mr. Khalil George Farhoud, a student at the Polytechnic Institute in Hebron, for another six months as at 19 October 1984 until April 1985. This was the fourth successive town restriction order placed on Mr. Farhoud. (Al Fajr, 2 November 1984)

114. The West Bank military government, on 5 November 1984, banned Ramallah journalist Mrs. Raymonda Tawil from leaving the country. According to senior Defence Ministry sources, Mrs. Tawil was barred from travelling for unspecified security reasons and for the “accumulation of her activities which are hostile to the State”. Mrs. Tawil, in charge of the Palestine press office, said that this punitive measure was taken following the interview by the French journalist, Philippe Alfonsi, with her and Mr. Abba Eban during which she expressed her political views. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 6 November; Al Tali’ah, 8 November; Al Fajr, 9 November; Jerusalem Post, 23 November 1984)

115. The deposed mayor of Qalailya, Mr. Amin Nasser, was reportedly to go on trial for violating an order not leave his town. Mr. Nasser had been charged in the Lod military court with going to Nablus, 33 kms from Qalqilya, without permission from the military commander of the area. (Jerusalem Post, 26 November 1984)

116. The Israeli authorities reportedly renewed a town restriction order on journalist Mousa Jaradat for six months. This was the third successive town restriction on Mr. Jaradat, a correspondent for Al Fajr, an Arabic newspaper. (Al Fajr, 14 December 1984)

117. The Israeli authorities summoned trade unionist Mr. Mahmoud Ziadah of Hebron and notified him that they had decided to renew for the ninth successive time his town restriction order for another six months. (Al Fajr, 4 January 1985)

118. Two university students from the villages of Sa’ir and Tarcrumiya were advised that their town restriction orders had been renewed for another six months. In both cases, it was the third consecutive time. (Al Fajr, 18 January 1985)

119. An order forbidding Jerusalem journalist Talal Abu Afifeh, a reporter for the Al Fajr Arabic daily, from travelling to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was renewed on 17 January 1985, for a second year. Mr. Abu Afifeh, aged 32, had been arrested four times since the 1967 occupation of the West Bank. The most recent occasion was on 26 June 1983 when he was detained for four months at Ramle prison for printing illegal leaflets. Mr. Abu Afifeh is a member of the administrative committee of Arab journalists. (Al Fajr, 25 January 1985)

120. On 10 February 1985, it was reported that dozens of West Bank figures who had been invited to attend a memorial meeting in Nazareth for the assassinated former mayor of Hebron, Mr. Fahed Qawasmeb, did not attend the meeting after being warned by the military government against attending. More than 50 warnings were reportedly issued in Hebron and many others in Ramallah and Nablus. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 10 February 1985)

121. On 1 March 1985, two students from Najah University in Nablus were reportedly placed under town restriction for six months, renewable at the end of the term. Mr. Adnan Milhem, from the town of Anabta, was reportedly placed under town restriction because of his activities as acting chairman of the student council. (A1 Fajr, 8 March 1985)

122. Israel reportedly prohibited Doctor Khaled al-Zaltari of Hebron from travelling to Jordan to attend the fourth Jordanian Medical Conference, which opened in Amman on 5 March 1985. (Al Fajr, 8 March 1985)

123. Israeli authorities reportedly banned Mr. Fathi Abd al-Salam Aram of Rafah, in the Gaza Strip, from entering the West Bank. Mr. Fathi is a graduate of the Polytechnic College in Hebron and a former member of the student council at the college. (Al Fajr, 22 March 1985)

124.  On 4 April 1985, it was reported that the civil administration had placed roadblocks in Qalandiya and prevented several persons participating in the funeral of the deposed mayor of Ramallah, Karim Khalaf, from attending the ceremony in Ramallah. Among those barred from entering Ramallah were the Israeli journalist Uri Avnery and the former mayor of Hebron, Mustafa el-Natshe. (Ha’aretz, 4 April 1985)

125. It was reported that Israeli soldiers had prevented Mr. Bassam Shaka’a, elected mayor of Nablus, from travelling to the nearby Al Fara’a refugee camp to offer condolences to the family of a student killed in a brawl with another student at Qalandiya vocational training center. Tawfict Sawalmeh, aged 18, was stabbed to death by another student following a heated political discussion. Shaka’a said that Israeli soldiers, who monitor his movements 24 hours a day, intercepted and stopped him on his way to Al Fara’a. (Al Fajr, 7 June 1985)

126. It was reported that Israeli military authorities had renewed the town restriction order on Najah University lecturer Sami Kilani for a period of six months, effective on 12 June 1985. Mr. Kilani, aged 33, a resident of Ya’abad town near Jenin, has been under restriction orders since D4cember 1982. Kilani had requested that his town restriction order be transferred to Nablus where he works but his request was denied. (Al Fajr, 21 Jun6 1985)

127. On 14 July 1985, it was reported that five women who had been invited to take part in a non-governmental organizations forum in the framework of the United Nations-sponsored women’s rights conference in Nairobi had been prevented from leaving Israel. This was announced in Nairobi by the Secretary-General of the General Union of Palestinian Women, Salwa Abu Khadar. The five banned Palestinian women are Samiba Khalil from El-Bireb, bead of the West Bank Family Rehabilitation Association and a former member of the National Guidance Committee! (whose lawyer, Raja Shehadeh, asked for explanations for the banning, but had received no answer); teacher Zahira Kanal, under house arrest in Jerusalem for the past five years; Sihan Barghuti, restricted to Ramallah since 19821 and Nima Helou and Alma Wahdan, trade unionists from Jerusalem and Nablus. (Ha’aretz, 1 July 1985; Jerusalem Post, 14 July 1985)

128. Israeli authorities reportedly extended the town restriction order imposed on Mr. Fathi Thalji, a student at Hebron University, for another six months. Mr. Thalji had previously been subjected to three orders of the kind. In a related development, it was reported that earlier in the month three lawyers, Mrs. F. Langer, Mr. J. Boulos and Mr. Walid Al Fahum, had filed a complaint with the military objections committee in the occupied territories objecting to the house arrest orders affecting a number of Al Najah University students. The students were prohibited from leaving their houses or entering the university premises. (Al Tali’ah, 4 July 1985; Al Fajr, 26 July 1985)

129. On 4 July 1985, unionist Mahmoud Labadi, a member of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Unity Bloc in the occupied territories, was placed under a town restriction. Mr. Labadi, who resided and worked as an electrician in El Bireh, would be confined to the town of Abu Dis for six months, a situation which might result in the loss of his job. (Al Tali’ah, 11 July 1985; Al Fajr, 12 July 1985)

130. On 21 July 1985, Israeli military authorities reportedly renewed the town restriction order on journalist Moussa Jaradat for the fourth consecutive time. In the same context, the travel permit request submitted by Mrs. Felicia Langer on behalf of her client Mr. Bashir Al Barghouty, editor-in-chief of Al Tali’ah daily, was rejected. (Al Tali’ab, 18 July 1985; Al Fajr, 26 July 1985)

2. Freedom of education

(see sect. IV.A, paras. 37 to 41 above)

131. The Israeli military authorities closed down the Najah National University in Nablus for four months, starting on 30 July 1984.  The closure order came after a five-hour raid by Israeli soldiers during which most of the exhibits of a Palestine Week Festival were allegedly destroyed or looted, and a one-day de facto closure by road-block was imposed. (Al-Fajr, 3 August 1984)

132. On 17 September 1984, the Najah University in Nablus issued a statement saying that due to the closure, 800 students were prevented from finishing their studies and that another 1,000 students would not be able to begin their first academic year. On 30 September 1984, it was reported that 12 pro-Jordanian personalities in the West Bank had sent a cable to the Defence Minister, Mr. Rabin, calling on him to re-open the University. (Ha’aretz, 18 and 30 September 1984)

133. Palestinian students studying in Turkish universities reportedly were banned from travelling to Turkey to continue their studies. The ban has been in effect for the last two months. (Al Fajr, 19 October 1984)

134. According to a report published in London on 24 October 1984 by the Geneva based International Commission of Jurists and the World University Service (United Kingdom), Israel had, over the past five years harassed the West Bank universities “beyond what might I be reasonably justified on the grounds of public order or security”. The report noted that there was an undeniable conflict of interest between the (West Bank) institutions and the Israeli authorities. “The universities reflect the wide-spread desire of the Palestinians for some kind of statehood; the Israeli-authorities oppose that aspiration”. The report specifically criticized the anti-PLO pledge required from foreign teachers and recommended that Military Order 854 be rescinded since the extraordinary powers over academic life for which it provided represented a potential threat to academic life which “creates distrust and prevents sensible co-existence”. (Jerusalem Post, 25 October 1984)

135. The civil administration in the West Bank on 31 October 1984 ordered the closure of Bethlehem University for four days following several days of stone-throwing by students. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 1 November; Jerusalem Post, 5 November 1984)

136. On 5 November 1984, the Defence Minister, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, reportedly rejected requests to re-open Najah University. The University was reportedly re-opened on 3 December 1984. (Ha’aretz, 6 November; Jerusalem Post, 3 December 1984)

137. The Israeli health officer in the West Bank military government ordered the closure of the Ibn Sina Nursing College on 3 November 1984 for one week. The closure of the Ramallah College reportedly followed students, presentation of a list of complaints to the college administration. The student body of 60 complained of unfair treatment by the administration, dormitories and lecture

halls with open sewage pipes and unpaid transportation costs at this government s-upervised college. (Al Fajr, 9 November 1984)

38. The military command in Nablus allegedly ordered the Education Department to transfer 15 students preparing for their final second examination (the first part was to be held on 13 January 1985) from Qadry Tukan School to schools located in four villages outside the town. These students had been held in detention without charges for 18 days. (Al Tali’ah, 20 December 1984)

139. Bir Zeit officials publicly called for an impartial commission to investigate the Israeli army’s action at the University on 21 November 1984 when an engineering student, Sharaf Tibi, aged 23, of Khan Yunis, was shot and killed. University authorities and lawyers from the Ramallah-based “Law in the service of Man” held a press conference in Jerusalem at which they released the findings of their own investigation. They charged that the army had illegally obstructed the transfer of the wounded to hospital and used heavy fire arms against student demonstrators without warning. (Al Fajr, 11 January 1985)

140. On 29 January 1985, the Israeli authorities ordered the Bethlehem Education Department to prevent four youths from the Dheisheh refugee camp from pursuing their secondary studies at any governmental school. The youths had just been released from Fara’a Prison where they had been detained for more than three months. (Al Ittihad, 1 February 1985)

141. The Israeli officer-in-charge of education in the civil administration ordered that Mr. Yousef Mohammed Al-Haroub, from the village of Kharas in the district of Hebron, be dismissed from his job as at 15 January 1985. Mr. Al-Haroub, an English language teacher in a Hebron school, had been appointed by the Hebron Education and Cultural Director in September 1984. it was later reported that seven secondary school teachers from Bethlehem, Beit Sahour, Hebron, Jerusalem and Rafah had been dismissed by the Israeli authorities. No reasons were given. (Al Fajr, 8 February; Al Tali’ah, 21 February, Al Fajr, 22 February 1985)

142. At midnight on 1 March 1985, a large number of troops headed by the Co-ordinator of Activities in the Territories and the West Bank’s civil administrator and military commander arrived in Bir Zeit, surrounded the campus’ area and ordered four university officials to accompany them for a search in the old and the new campuses. The four officials were the university’s acting President, Dr. Gabi Baramki, his deputy, the student dean and the dean of the Commerce Department. In the search, hundreds of posters, books and other literature were seized. Most of the material seized was described as inflammatory. Some 50 people, most of them students, were detained and taken to Fara’a Prison for questioning. The campus area was declared a closed military zone and access thereto was forbidden. On 2 March 1985 the university management issued a strong condemnation of the raid, the behavior of the security forces and the closing of the area. After one week, on 8 May 1985, the Defense Ministry announced that the new campus would be closed for 60rdays. (Ha’aretz, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 13 March 1985; Jerusalem Post, 4, 10 and.11 March 1985; Ma’ariv, 3 March 1985)

143. On 18 March 1985, the military government ordered the closure for one month of the UNWRA training school in the Qalandiya refugee camp. The closure order was issued following a continuing wave of disturbances and throwing of petrol bombs and stones by pupils at Israeli vehicles and at security patrols. (Jerusalem Post, 19 March 1985)

144. The Israeli military authorities issued a six-month order banning Taysir Mohammed Nasrallah from Balata refugee camp, a student in his third year at Najah University, from entering the campus. No reason for the order was given. Mr. Nasrallah had been arrested several times and held without charge at Fara’a Prison camp for the 18-days maximum period prior to being released on bail. (Al Fajr, 22 March 1985)

145. The Israeli officer-in-charge of education and culture dismissed six teachers working in the Nablus district. Twelve teachers from the Ramallah district had been dismissed the week before. No reasons were given. (Al Fajr, 22 March 1985)

146. On 18 April 1985, the military authorities raided a student exhibition at Bethlehem University, seized material described as “Fatah and PFLP propaganda”, and declared the University “closed military area” for four days. A number of students were detained for questioning. (Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 21 April 1985)

147. The Israeli officer-in-charge of education in the West Bank dismissed Kifayeh Ahmed Salid Ardah of Jenin from her teaching job as at 31 August 1985. She had been assigned to the job earlier that year. No reasons were given for the dismissal. (Al Fajr, 7 June 1985)

148. On 17 June 1985, the head of the civil administration in the West Bank, A. M. Zach, said that the military authorities had begun banning students suspected of incitement from entering the various university campuses in the area. Twenty restriction orders had been thus issued recently, he said, adding that this measure had been taken as an alternative to closing the institutions after unrest. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 18 June 1985)

149. A preparatory school teacher, Mr. Mahmoud Abd al-Qadu from Beit Sahout, was reportedly dismissed from his job by the Israeli officer-in-charge of education in the civil administration. No reasons were given for the dismissal which had to go into effect on 31 August 1985. (Al Fajr, 26 July 1985)

3. Freedom of association

(see sect. IV.A, paras. 42 to 43 above)

150. A unionist, Mr. Ali Hilal from Abu Dis, was placed under town restriction in his home town. Mr. Hilal had earlier been detained for 18 days on charges of practicing union activities. (Al Fajr, 21 September 1984)

151. The military commander reportedly renewed the house arrest order as from 19 September 1984 against a unionist, Mr. Emad Al Labdy, member of the administrative committee of the Tulkarm Workers’ Union. Mr. Al Labdy was put under house arrest for the second time, the last order having expired less than two months earlier. (Al Tali’ah, 27 September 1984)

152. The Israeli authorities reportedly decided not to permit the Accountants, Association in Gaza to hold its regular conference due to be held on 28 September 1984. (Al-Fajr, 28 September 1984)

153. Israeli border guards and army troops reportedly surrounded the headquarters of the General Federation of the Workers’ Union in Nablus. A celebration had been scheduled on that day in commemoration of the thirtieth anniversary of the Builders’ General Union, which was the first union to be established in Jordan, in 1954. (Al Tali’ah, 4 October 1984)

154. The headquarters of the High Committee for Volunteer Work and the Committee for Youths in the village of Kobar (Ramallah) were reportedly raided and thoroughly searched (the former for the second time) by the occupation authorities. Many houses in the village were also raided. Books, magazines and sports equipment were confiscated and some of the village youths were summoned to the military headquarters. (Al Tali’ah, 22 November 1984)

4. Freedom of worship

(see sect. IV.A, para. 44 above)

155. The Islamic Higher Council in Jerusalem protested new Israeli desecration’s in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron. In a protest letter to the Israeli Defense Minister, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, the Council reportedly outlined five Israeli violations of the sanctity of the mosque, one of Islam’s holiest shrines:

(a) On 11 September 1984, metal steps were built leading to a military observation post within the mosque compound;

(b) On Friday, 28 September 1984, for the first time since the 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Muslims were banned from praying in a large section the mosque. The ban was issued in order to make room for the Jewish worshippers who were gradually taking over the mosque)

(c) On 25 September 1984, an Arab guard was beaten in the mosque by a settler. He was also beaten, added the letter, at the police station by other settlers. The guard who filed suit against the police found out that he was the one who had to stand trial;

(d) On 1 October 1984, drinks and food were served, according to the letter, when a circumcision party was held at the mosque for the son of an Israeli army officer. The party was attended by several high-ranking Israeli military officers. (Al-Fajr, 12 October 1984)

156. The Supreme Moslem Council in Jerusalem, on 6 November 1984, issued a call for a general strike, to be held on Saturday, 10 November 1984, to protest against the stationing Of border policemen on the Temple Mount. Waqf officials on 6 November 1984 complained of “unruly and surly border policemen” and of disrespectful behavior that included eating, lounging and playing radios with the volume turned up on the Temple Mount. The Police Minister, Mr. Haim Bar-Lev, sent a letter to the Moslem Council in an attempt to prevent the strike, promising that “the Border Police, as part of the State of Israel’s police force, is assigned to protect public order, and therefore will not be removed from the Temple Mount … (but) the appropriate orders will be given to guarantee proper behavior”, but on 11 November 1984 it was reported that a general business strike was observed in East Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Ramallah. In other West Bank towns the strike affected schools and public institutions but businesses were open following warnings from the military government to shopkeepers. (Jerusalem Post, 7 November; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 11 November 1984)

157. On 5 November 1984, the High Islamic Institution in Jerusalem issued a statement to protest against the way Israeli policemen and border guards treated worshippers. It also called upon residents of Jerusalem, the West: Bank and the Gaza Strip to stage a one-day general strike on 10 November 1984. The declaration included a set of demands calling for all the affairs of the Moslem holy places to be placed in the hands of the Council, for guards to be stationed only outside the Al-Aqsa Mosque and for the withdrawal of all Israeli guards and Jewish policemen from the premises. It also asked for a Moslem to be appointed as officer-in-charge of the Mosque’s police station. (Al Tali’ah, 8 November; Al-Fajr, 9 November 1984)

158. On 15 June 1985, border guards reportedly assaulted Palestinians who were celebrating the night of Al Qadr (27th of Ramadan) in Jerusalem. ‘Worshippers were allegedly beaten with sticks and gun butts and their praying carpets were destroyed. Several people were taken to the hospital to be treated for injuries and several others were arrested and detained in Al Masqubiyia interrogation center. (Al Ittihad, 17 June 1985)

5. Freedom of expression

(see sect. IV.A, para. 45 above)

159. The Palestinian journalist Mrs. Raymonda Tawil was reportedly prohibited from publishing an article in the local magazine Al Awdah calling on Jews and Arabs to jointly confront the “racism of Meir Kahane”. The Israeli authorities did not give any reason for this action. (Al Fajr, 10 August 1984)

160. About 30 Israeli painters and sculptors on 12 August protested against the imprisonment of the Gaza painter Fathi Ghabin, aged 37, who was given a six-month jail term and was fined IS 30,000 (approximately $2,307) for exhibiting paintings “done in the PLO flag colors”. The artists demonstrated at the painter’s home in Jabalya refugee camp. A spokesman for the Gaza Strip civil administration said that the painter was not put on trial only for using the PLO flag colors but also for painting the PLO flag itself in the corners of his drawing. The Ha’aretz correspondent reported that the painter’s nephew, a seven-year-old boy, had been

killed, apparently by IDF soldiers shortly before the exhibition. It was later reported that Mr. Fathi Ghabin had been released, together with 20 other prisoners, on the occasion of the Moslem Holiday of “The Sacrifice”. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 13 August; Jerusalem Post, 14 August 1984; Ha’aretz, 7 September 1984)

161. A number of employees from the Palestinian daily Al Mithaq were assaulted by the Israeli border police while on their way home. They were allegedly insulted and had to submit to very bad treatment despite showing the police their journalist cards. Following the incidents the employees were ordered to go home and prevented from distributing the newspaper editions of Al Mithaq that night. (Al Tali’ah, 6 September; Al Fajr, 7 September 1984)

162. Two Palestinian journalists, Mrs. Raymonda Tawil and Mr. Ibrahim Kara’een, were reportedly warned on 17 September 1984 that the licenses of their Palestinian Press Service (PPS) and Al Awdah magazine were “under review” in the light of their alleged PLO connections. The two journalists were invited to present their arguments for keeping their licenses at Mr. Levi’s office on 1 October 1984. On 29 September 1984, some 20 Jewish and Arab journalists held a demonstration outside the offices of the PPS in protest against the threat to close it down. (Ha’aretz, 18 and 30 September, 1 and 2 October 1984; Jerusalem Post, 18 September and 1 October 1984)

163. Israeli authorities reportedly prevented Palestinian artist Mr. Suleiman Mansour from travelling to Sweden on 30 November 1984 on “security grounds”. Mr. Mansour, aged 36, Vice-Chairman of the League of Artists in the occupied territories, attempted to cross the Allenby Bridge four times in the course of one week but was stopped by the authorities who imposed upon him a de facto ban on any travel abroad. (Al-Fajr, 7 December 1984)

164. On 4 February 1985, it was reported that an Arab guide from East Jerusalem, Mr. Shafik Mahfouz, had his license suspended for three months after telling a group of pilgrims that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were the “fathers of Christianity” and making remarks against the Jews and the State of Israel. A Jewish couple from Baltimore who were among the pilgrims deemed the remarks offensive and reported the incident in a Jewish paper in Baltimore. The Ministry of Tourism in Jerusalem learned about it and suspended the guide’s license. (Ha’aretz, 4 February 1985)

165. On 6 February 1985 the documentary “Gaza Ghetto”, produced by Swedish film-maker Pea Holmquist, depicting the life in the occupied Gaza Strip, was banned by the Israeli Board of Censorship of Films and Plays. “Gaza Ghetto” documented the social and economic conditions for refugee families in the massive Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip through UNRWA archives films, newsreels and a filmed portrait of one family currently resident in the camp. (Al Fajr, 15 February) Al Tali’ab, 21 February 1985)

166. Israeli authorities notified the secretary of the Printing Federation, Mr. Mahmoud al-Sharbini, that the Federation was not allowed to hold a cultural manifestation in Nablus to mark the occasion of Mother’s Day on 21 March 1985. The authorities claimed that the celebration was illegal. (Al Fajr, 29 March 1985)

167. Three West Bank unionists were charged by the Tulkarm Military Court with possession of a painting called “The Wounded Al-Aqsa” in their offices’. Israeli troops allegedly stormed the Tulkarm Union headquarters in August 1984 and found the painting on one of the walls. Two months later, the authorities summoned unionists Awad Yasin, Faisal al-Hindi and Mahmoud Bidi for interrogation. They were subsequently released on IS 150,000 bail (approximately $11,538) each. (Al Fajr, 29 March 1985)

168. On 5 July 1985, it was reported that the Central Region Commander, Aluf Amnon Shahak, had issued a 24-hour closure order to the “Al-Hakawati” theatre in East Jerusalem. The order, issued under the Emergency (Defence) Regulations of 1945, said the closure was necessary to protect the peace and safety of the State. According to military sources in the territories, the reason for the closure was the holding of apolitical meeting under the disguise of a meeting of West Bank workers’ unions. On 28 July 1985, it was reported that the Central Region Commander had ordered the closure of the “Al-Hakawati” theatre building for three days in order to prevent the holding of political meetings. (Ha’aretz, 5 and 28 July 1985)

169. On 31 July 1985, security forces stationed outside the Najah University campus bad entered the campus and carried out searches in the student association offices. They reportedly confiscated documents belonging to the association, which was in the midst of preparations for the election of a new students committee. Security sources later said that the University was closed down until further notice. (Ha’aretz, 1 August 1985)

6. Settlers’ activities

170. A group of Jewish settlers accompanied by Israeli security forces allegedly stormed the “Dar al-Aytam” (orphanage) school in Jerusalem and arrested a 15-year-old boy on the pretext of throwing stones. This was reportedly the second case in one week of Jewish settlers arresting Palestinian minors in Jerusalem’s old city. (Al Fajr, 28 September 1984)

171. Jewish settlers from Hebron and the Etzion Bloc, led by Rabbi Moshe Levinger, on 2 October 1984 patrolled the area outside the Dheisheh refugee camp which was under curfew following stone-throwing incidents (see sect. 10 below). One of the settlers fired into the air inside the camp. He was detained for questioning at the Bethlehem police station and was later released. (Ha’aretz, 3, 4, 10 and 15 October 19841 Jerusalem Post, 3 and 4 October 1984)

172. In apparent revenge for a bomb attack on 15 October 1984, in which seven Israeli youths were injured near Nablus, Jewish settlers reportedly vandalized two houses in the Balata refugee camp on 16 October 1984 and chased Palestinians in the streets of Nablus. Villages near Nablus were put under curfew and check posts were erected at the Balata and Askar refugee camps. (Al Fajr, 19 October 1984)

173. On 13 November 1984, it was reported that the Dheisheh camp had been placed under a curfew following stone-throwing by youths. On one occasion a burst of sub-machine-gun fire was directed above the heads of school children. Later, it was reported that some 70 camp residents had been detained over the past months and that 43 of them were still under detention. (Ha’aretz, Yediot Aharonot, 13 November 1984)

174. On 14 November 1984, it was reported that Rabbi Levinger was ordered to leave the room he had rented in the Dheisheh camp since the house belonged to UNRWA. Meanwhile, the camp was declared a closed military area, barring anyone except local residents or the army from entering it. The curfew, imposed on the camp following a stone-throwing incident on 12 November 1984, was lifted the next day after security forces had detained two suspects. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 14 November 1984)

175. Claiming that a settler had been pelted with stones, settlers reportedly surrounded Al ‘Amari refugee camp and attempted to enter with arms and axes. Subsequently, the occupation authorities carried out a large-scale search and arrested dozens of youths in the camp. (Al Tali’ah, 10 January 1985)

176. On 20 January 1985, IDF soldiers forcibly stopped a group of Jewish squatters from building a road to Tel-Rumeida where they have been squatting for several months, living in house-trailers without permission from the authorities. On 30 January 1985, IDF troops pulled down a fence erected by Jewish settlers around two plots in Tel-Rumeida which they claimed for themselves. (Ha’aretz, 15 January; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 21 and 31 January 1985)

177. It was reported that the fire at the Court of First Instance in Nablus, which had destroyed most of the land registration records a month earlier, was followed by renewed activities by settlers and companies. A number of Arab landowners reportedly filed complaints with the court and the police concerning the renewed assaults by these companies on their lands. (Al Tali’ah, 24 January 1985)

178. On 2 and 3 February 1985, Jewish settlers from Hebron reportedly uprooted 38 trees in a plot of land belonging to a local resident, Mr. Jamil Ratab Abu-Heikal, situated in the disputed area of Tel-Rumeida. Settlers in Hebron reportedly admitted to the act, explaining that they had no other choice since the army had removed fences they had placed in the area. According to the settlers the plot in question is ‘registered in the Tabu as belonging to the Jewish Sephardi community in Hebron before 1917. (Ha’aretz, 4 February 1985)

179. On 14 February 1985, it was reported that the civil administration in the West Bank had declared the entire area of Tel-Rumeida, including the settlers, temporary structures, as an archaeological site where no structures or fences should be built and no trees planted. The decision also meant that the settlers would be allowed to remain in the area in the eight temporary structures they had been occupying. (Ha’aretz, 14 February 1985)

180. On 14 February 1985, the Defence Minister Mr. Yitzhak Rabin told a delegation of Knesset members of the Citizens’ Rights Movement that no Jewish settlement would be established at Tel-Rumeida and that the settlers would not be allowed to build any additional structures there. Professor Yuval Neleman, who acted as chairman of thew Ministerial Committee in the previous government, affirmed on 14 February 1985 that the Shamir Cabinet had approved a settlement at Tel-Rumeida. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 15 February 1985)

181. On 4 February 1985, Rabbi Moshe Levinger and one of his guards opened fire at residents of the Dheisheh refugee camp who threw stones at him. The camp was placed under curfew. It was reported that Rabbi Levinger and his guards later entered the camp and stayed there over one hour in an attempt to discover the stone-throwers. He reportedly ran along the camp alleys, together with a guard, and both men fired into the air in an indiscriminate manner. (Ha’aretz, 5 February 1985)

182. On 6 June 1985, a group of settlers allegedly seized three rooms in Agabat Al Saraya in the old city of Jerusalem and looted them. The three rooms, according to the report, had been owned for over 50 years by an Arab resident who had the official titles to ownership. (Al Tali’ah, 13 June 1985)

183. On 18 June 1985, a group of 50 Jewish settlers reportedly blocked the eastern entrance to the Patriarchs’ Cave in Hebron in protest against a ‘ military government decision to close the place to Jews temporarily because of the Moslem feast of Id al-Fitr. Some of the settlers reportedly carried arms when they arrived at the site and demanded to enter their synagogue for morning prayers. Three soldiers blocked their way and, in response, the settlers blocked the entry to Moslem worshippers. (Ha’aretz, 20 June 1985; Jerusalem Post, 19 June 1985)

184. On 7 July 1985, it was reported that the Abu-Heikal family, re siding near the Tel-Rumeida settlement in Hebron, had complained over the week-end that a number of settlers from Tel-Rumeida had attempted to prevent the family entering their home when they returned from a family event. The settlers allegedly threatened the family with weapons not to enter the house. The settlers dispersed when security personnel arrived ‘on the scene. (Ha’aretz, 7 July 1985)

185. On 25 July 1985, Gosh Emunim leader Rabbi Moshe Levinger was fined IS 200,000 (approximately $15,385) and given a three-month suspended sentence for trespassing in the house of a Hebron woman and attacking her six-year-old son. Levinger told the Jerusalem Magistrate Court that the boy had thrown a stone at his son. (Jerusalem Post, 26 July 1985)

7. Treatment of civilians

(see sect. IV.A, paras. 46 to 49 above)

186. A mukhtar of Abu Dis, Mr. Issa Jaffal, was dismissed from his position by the Israeli occupation authorities on 1 August 1984. He reportedly refused to encourage landowners in the village to drop a law suit against the confiscation of 2,500 dunams of their land. Military authorities confiscated the stamps and seals of his office as well as his military-issued identity card. (Al Fajr, 3 August 1984).

187. A charge sheet was presented in the military court on 27 July 1984 against Major Hassan Adiv, who gouged out the eye of Gaza resident Mr. Mohammed Hassan Abu-Amra aged 40. Major Adiv was charged with grievous bodily harm and with unbefitting behavior. Another soldier, Sgt-Maj. Halabi Ahmed, was charged with beating Mr. Abu Amra. On 3 September 1984, two non-commissioned officers in the Gaza military government were accused in a military court of assaulting Mr. Abu-Amra, and causing him an eye injury. Mr. Abu-Amra testified in court that he had been beaten when he came to plead that his house which he had built without a permit not be demolished. Among the witnesses called was a Gaza doctor who treated Mr. Abu-Amra’s wounds.  On January 1985, it was reported that the two had been acquitted of all charges by the Southern District Military Court. (Al Fajr, 3 August 19841 Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 4 September 1984; Yediot Aharonot, l January 1985)

188. The Israeli High Court issued an order nisi preventing the military government and the Defence Ministry from demolishing or sealing the house of Abdallah Kharboush from the village of Beit al-Fawaq, near Nablus. The appeal was presented to the court by lawyer Walid al-Fahoum after the Israeli authorities arrested and detained the son of the owner on charges of possessing explosives. (Al Fajr, 24 August 1984)

189. Two residents of the Shu’fat refugee camp, near Jerusalem, were reportedly, injured on 28 August 1984 by members of the Israeli intelligence police. Both were allegedly hit with pistol butts and trampled on by Israeli police. Mr. Omar Abdal-Qadar, aged 19, had been stopped by police and when he could not present any driver’s license he ran away. The police apparently chased him into his house where the confrontation took place. (Al Ittihad, 29 August; Al Fajr, 31 August 1984)

190. A several-hour curfew was imposed on 1 September 1984 on the Qalandiya refugee camp north of Jerusalem when security forces discovered that a cement wall, which had been built by the IDF to prevent stone-throwing, had been demolished by unidentified persons. The wall blocked the direct access from the camp to the Jerusalem-Ramallah highway. It was later reported that the wall had been rebuilt by the IDF and that the police had arrested a number of suspects. (Yediot Aharonot, 2 September; Jerusalem Post, 3 September 1984)

191. Israeli troops reportedly made an early morning raid on Qalandiya refugee camp north of Jerusalem on 1 September 1984 and arrested a number of youths on suspicion of destroying an Israeli built barrier that had blocked the main entrance to the camp for more than one year. It was also reported that Israeli troops built two barriers on the same spot the following night. (Al Fajr, 7 September 1984)

192. Member of the Knesset Rabbi Meir Kahane on 1 October 1984 entered the Dheisheh refugee camp while the camp was declared a “closed military zone” following disturbances which occurred there earlier. Mr. Kahane affirmed that as a Knesset member he was allowed to enter. Inside the camp, he prayed and then declared: “We came to purify this unclean camp and show these Arab dogs that just as they can wander around in Tel Aviv I can come here.” His visit provoked a renewed wave of disturbances (see table of incidents below). (Ha’aretz, 2 October 1984)

193. Four border guards were, on 4 October 1984, convicted at the Police Disciplinary Court in Petab-Tikva of unjustified arrest and unnecessary use of violence. The incident giving rise to the* charges occurred in 1981 while the four were on a patrol in the center of Tulkarm. A local resident, Mr. Fuaz Annabussi, made a remark to them about the speed of their vehicle, upon which the defendants beat him up with weapons and truncheons, causing serious injury to Mr. Annabussi. The four accused had pleaded not guilty. They were fined IS 5,000 (approximately $385) and sentenced to suspended imprisonment terms of 14 days (for one of them) and 10 days (for the other three). (Ha’aretz, 4 October 1984)

194. Under the protection of large military contingents the Israeli occupation authorities reportedly closed seven side roads of the Dheisheh refugee-camp on 4 October 1984. Barriers made of cement and barbed wire were used to close these roads, which linked the camp with the Hebron-Bethlehem main road. The west side of the camp was thus completely closed. The Israeli radio reportedly declared that the decision of closure was taken following renewed stoning incidents. In addition, some 40 youths had been arrested in the camp, while others were summoned to the military command building for ‘interrogation. The barriers were eventually removed on 9 May 1985. (Al Ittihad, 5 October 1984; Ma’ariv, 10 May 1985)

195. On 10 October 1984, the Israeli television reported that one Jabaliya youth was wounded and five more arrested when the camp residents attempted to block the bulldozers from demolishing a house in the camp. According to the television report, the camp residents stoned the bulldozers and soldiers prompting the soldiers to open fire. It also alleged that the injured man was hit when he refused to yield to calls by the soldiers to stop and attempted to run away. (Al Fajr, 12 October 1984)

196. It was reported on 14 October 1984 that the guard around the house of the deposed Mayor of Nablus, Mr. Bassam Shaka’a, was resumed four months after it had been removed. The guard also followed his car wherever he went. According to his lawyer, advocate Felicia Langer, Mr. Shaka’a considered this measure a harassment. Mrs. Langer also alleged that the guards had harassed and provoked passers-by. According to a report appearing on 19 October 1984 the reason for the resumption of the guard was Mr. Shaka’a’s “return to political activity”. In that context, it was reported that Mr. Shaka’a was among 15 West Bank personalities who had been summoned’ to the military commander of the region and given warnings against undertaking any political activity “of a subversive character”. (Ha’aretz, 14 and 19 October 1984)

197. Three Arab youths wearing the Palestinian headdress, the kaffiyeh, were reportedly arrested by Israeli patrols in Nablus. Kaffiyehs worn by residents of the Jabaliya refugee camp were confiscated by Israeli army patrols who had allegedly forced the residents of this camp to undress completely on the night of 10 December 1984. (Al-Tali’ah, 20 December 1984)

198. On 17 February 1985, the High Court of Justice rejected two applications to prevent the expulsion of Mr. Abdel Aziz Ali Shahin. The High Court upheld the military government’s argument that Mr. Shahin should be deported because, having infiltrated Gaza in 1967, he was not a legal resident there and posed a threat to the area’s security. Mr. Shahin’s lawyers, Mrs. Lea Tzemel and Mr. Avigdor Feldman, made a second application following the rejection of their first application, requesting that Mr. Shahin should not be deported to States refusing to accept him or to countries where his life might be endangered, but the High Court rejected the second application as well. A spokesman for the Defence Ministry later reported that Mr. Shahin had been deported to Lebanon on the same evening. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 18 February 1985; Jerusalem Post, 19 February 1985)

199. On 18 March 1985,,security personnel sealed a room in El-Bireh. Its occupant, Mr. Imad Ahmed Mabruk Filfal, had reportedly taken part in hostile activity over a long period. (Ma’ariv, 19 March 1985)

200. On 6 September 1984, State Attorney Ben-Tovim told the High Court of Justice that the Defence Minister had decided to reduce to one room the sealing measure imposed on a house belonging to a Hebron resident. The petitioner said that, following the arrest of his son a year earlier on suspicion of security offences, the entire family had been evacuated from the house and it had been confiscated and sealed. (Ha’aretz, 7 September 1984)

201. On 3 June 1985, Israeli army bulldozers reportedly demolished 10 stone houses in two Hebron area hamlets located west of the Dead Sea and ordered residents to leave their land on the grounds that the area has become a closed military zone. it was also reported that two weeks earlier Israeli soldiers had raided the two villages and held more than 525 sheep. The authorities allegedly forced the owners to pay a fine of JD 7 ($3.50) per head for allowing a sheep to “enter a closed military area”. (Al Fajr, 7 June 1985)

202. On 16 June 1985, the East Jerusalem daily al-Quds reported that security forces had demolished a number of shacks near the village of Beit-Furik in the Nablus area. The reason for the demolition was that the shacks had been built on 200 dunams of State-owned land. (Ha’aretz, 17 June 1985)

203. It was reported that a scuffle in East Jerusalem on 14 June 1985 between local Jerusalem residents and Israeli border guards resulted in the hospitalization of a 70-year-old man and the detention of two others. According to an eyewitness, a border guard patrol of seven soldiers near Herod’s Gate in East Jerusalem intercepted an 11-year-old Jerusalem boy who was wearing a T-shirt with “I love Palestine” written on it. The police reprimanded the child and wanted to know where he bought the shirt. As the child burst into tear so his father and a relative arrived and demanded that the son be left alone. The eyewitness stated that the border police called in a back-up unit of four security-men and started beating them up, allegedly using clubs, gun butts and fists. (Al Fajr,  21 June 1985)

204. On 23 June 1985, the Defence Minister, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, said at a meeting with heads of Jewish councils in the West Bank and Gaza that he never opposed the punishment of expulsion for residents of the territories taking part in hostile activity, but he added that it had emerged from discussions on that matter in the security establishment that in order to impose such penalties new legislation was necessary and that a government decision was not enough.  He said that the matter was complex and complicated. At present, he added, penalties imposed on -residents of the territories consisted of issuing restriction orders, but he did not oppose resorting to administrative arrests against inciters. (Ma’ariv, 24 June 1985; Ha’aretz, 25 June 1985).

205. On 3 July 1985, it was reported that two policemen from the Jerusalem area police had been convicted by a police disciplinary court of unnecessary use of violence against an Arab. Policeman Shelomo Halbani was sentenced to one month in custody (suspended) and was fined IS 40,000 (approximately $3,075), and policeman Nuriel Urieli was sentenced to 10 days in custody (suspended) and was fined IS 20,000 (approximately $1,540). The two had beaten Bassam Ramlawi who had gone to the Jerusalem police to visit, his brother, held there in custody. Following a discussion, the two beat Ramlawi on various parts of his body and caused a cut behind his ear necessitating three stitches. The two policemen had pleaded not guilty. (Ha’aretz, 3 July 1985)

206. On 10 July 1985, the Israeli daily Zu-Haderekh reported that a schoolboy, Idris Mutalek Jaabari, had been stopped by a border guard patrol on Hebron’s main street and was harshly beaten in front of passers-by. He was later taken to another place and was again beaten. According to the report the youth had previously been detained for two weeks in Fara’a prison for stone throwing and had allegedly been tortured there. His father showed his wounds and burns to doctors and ICRC officials. (Zu-Haderekh, 10 July 1985)

207. On 9 July 1985, two Arab houses were reportedly demolished and a third sealed off in Surif village, Hebron area, on the pretext that members of the family had taken part in the murder of two Israelis two weeks earlier. (Al Fajr, 12 July 1985)

208. On 10 July 1985, the West Bank Military Commander reportedly rejected the application by Lawyer Walid Al Fahum for the reopening of four rooms sealed off by the Israeli authorities in the homes of four Palestinians detained in 1983 in the village of Araba, Jenin district. (Al Tali’ah, 18 July 1985)

209. On 23 July 1985, Israeli soldiers allegedly broke into several homes in Dheisheh refugee camp in the Bethlehem district around midnight. A number of Israeli soldiers reportedly broke into the Dheisheh home of journalist Hamdi Farraj, who had been held in detention since 1 February 1985. According to the report, the soldiers struck Farraj’s 13-year-old brother and confiscated posters, photos and cassettes. The trial of Mr. Farraj, charged with incitement and inflicting damage to several homes in the camp, was scheduled for 14 August 1985. (Al Fajr, 26 July 1985)

8. Economic measures

210. According to several reports, Arab residents of the occupied territories were still experiencing pressure and tax harassment. The owner of an upholstery shop in Azza refugee camp, near Bethlehem, was ordered to pay IS 3 million (approximately $230,770) in value added tax (VAT). This case is reportedly the first of its kind, since shops in refugee camps do not come under the jurisdiction of municipalities or tax offices but under UNRWA. In another report, many persons were arrested and their homes searched with a view to imposing a high VAT. It was also reported that bakery owners in Beit Jala called a strike to protest the levy by tax officials of IS 5 million (approximately $384,615) on every bakery. (Al-Fajr, 3, 24 and 31 August 1984)

211. It was reported that on 16 January 1985, 2,000 Palestinian merchants from East Jerusalem returned their municipal tax bills (Arnona) to the Israeli West Jerusalem municipality to protest the enormous increase in their 1984 business tax. East Jerusalem’s business property owners and residents stated that the tax increase was 670 per cent over the previous year. (Al-Fajr, 18 January 1985)

212. According to a Bank of Israel publication on the economic development in the territories in the years 1981-1982, the rapid economic growth in the territories had stopped during these years, GNP did not rise and. the local product dropped by’ 1 per cent per annum. According to other data contained in the publication, at the end of 1982 the Arab population of the West -Bank stood at 748,000 and the population of the Gaza Strip at 476,000. (Ha’aretz, 16 August 1985)

213. The Israeli military authorities reportedly confiscated the sum of $57,000 belonging to three Palestinians crossing the bridges from Amman to the West Bank. (Al-Fajr, 2 November 1984)

214. The Israeli customs reportedly confiscated a truck transporting citrus fruits for a merchant from Bethlehem, alleging that the permit had expired five minutes before the truck had been stopped. The value of the fruit was estimated at IS 800,000 ($61,538). (Al-Fajr, 1 February 1985)

215. On 5 February 1985, 150 shops in the center of Ramallah and El Bireh were ordered closed by the military government. An IDF soldier, Mr. Aharon Avidar, had been killed in that area on 4 February 1985. (Ha’aretz, 6 February 1985)

216. On 8 February 1985, it was reported that the Israeli army had imposed a series of collective punishments in the West Bank. Nine shops and a petrol station were closed in the Centro of Hebron; a 36-hour curfew was imposed on Dheisheh refugee camp and a petrol station closed, and an existing order closing shops in the center of Ramallah was extended by a week. In Nablus, a shop and a firm’ in an area where a stone-throwing incident had occurred earlier in the week were also ordered closed. (Ma’ariv, Yediot Aharonot, 8 February 1985)

217. On 17 June 1985, the civil administration for the West Bank and Gaza released its annual report covering the period between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1985. According to the report, the sum of IS 7.4 million (approximately $569,230) in taxes had been collected from the local population in 1984, an increase of 39 per cent over the previous year in real terms. (Al-Fajr, 21 June 1985)

218. It was reported that on 23 June 1985 Israeli military authorities had closed down two main streets in Nablus, as a punishment for Molotov cocktail attacks against Israeli troops. Sources in Nablus said that a large number of Israeli soldiers had closed down the city center during the night and set up walls made of fast-drying concrete. The measure, according to Israelis,-was instigated by two petrol bomb attacks against Israeli military vehicles a week earlier. (Al Fajr, 28 June 1985)

219. Several East Jerusalem merchants received notices from the Israeli tax department ordering them to pay millions of Israeli shekels in taxes. In Nablus, the commercial hub of the West Bank, the head of the City Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Dhaher al-Masri, reportedly resigned on 25 June 1985 in protest against the heavy taxes imposed on the city’s merchants. Nablus shop owners received orders from the military government to pay taxes for the coming year in advance. The taxes for each shop range between JD 5,000 and 15,000 ($US 12,500-37,000). Shopkeepers were threatened with the closure of their shops if they did not pay the tax by 1 July 1985. According to the same report, Mr. Masri had resigned also in protest against the heavy costs of travelling across the bridges-to Jordan. It costs JD 26 for a visitor to get a permit to cross the bridges and to enter the occupied territories for a summer visit. (Al Tali’ah, 27 June 1985; Al Fajr, 28 June 1985)

9. Trials

220. On 8 September 1984, Ms. Yousra Karaja from Halhul was convicted by the Ramallah military court for membership in an illegal organization. She was sentenced to two years’ suspended sentence and 37 days’ prison term. Her sister, Khawla, was arrested on 9 August 1984 on a similar charge. Khawla was also charged with attempting to recruit others. (Al Fajr, 14 September 1984)

221. The Ramallah military court reportedly sentenced Mr. Mohammed Saleh Salem and his brother Khalil, both aged 30, from Bethlehem to eight months in prison plus 10 months suspended sentence for Mohammed; and seven months in prison plus 11 months suspended sentence for Khalil – both on charges of membership in the Islamic organization “Takfir Wal-Hijreh”. (Al Fajr, 14 September 1984)

222. A student at Hebron University, Mr. Ibrahim Said Zaharneh, was reportedly sentenced by the military court in Ramallah to eight months in prison and two years suspended sentence, plus a fine of IS 80,000 (approximately $6,154) on charges of violating a town restriction order imposed on him and of possessing a tape cassette containing speeches by the PLO leader Mr. Y. Arafat. Mr. Zakarneh had been arrested six months earlier. (Al Fajr, 28 September 1984)

223. On 22 October 1984, the military court in Gaza sentenced Mr. Naif Saliman Hassan Gilawi, aged 29, from the Nuseirat refugee camp to five and a half years in prison for selling weapons to an Islamic underground charged with plotting to wage “a holy war” on. Israel. Five other defendants pleaded not guilty to a charge of “establishing an extreme Islamic religious organization to destroy the State of Israel to replace it by a religious Islamic State”. They pleaded guilty to illegal possession of weapons. The leader of the group is Mr. Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassir, aged 48, who is the spiritual leader of Gaza’s Zeitoun suburb. Mr. Yassir, who is paralyzed and has been confined to a wheelchair since childhood, was jailed by Gaza’s Egyptian rulers for activity in the militant Islamic Brotherhood, before 1967. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 23 October 1984)

224. Five teenagers from the West Bank were reportedly in custody for having scrawled pro-PLO slogans or worn T-shirts with the PLO symbol. The youths, aged between 16 and 19, were arrested by border policemen in the Dan region in central Israel. (Jerusalem Post, 25 November 1984)

225. During the period covered by the present report, numerous trials on charges of stone-throwing took place throughout the occupied territories, of adolescents, including 32 youths whose sentences ranged from 3 to 20 months, together with equivalent periods of suspended sentences, and who were also fined. Two students, aged 14 and 16, from Dhahriya, near Hebron, and the Jalazun refugee camp were sentenced to one-and-a-half years and 45 days in prison, respectively, for stone-throwing and raising the Palestinian flag. A boy of 13 years of age, Mohammed Abu Shamleh, from Jenin received a three-month suspended sentence and a fine of IS 10,600 (approximately $769) on the same charges. The military court in Gaza also fined Omar Dabbagh, aged 14, IS 250,000 (approximately $19,230) for having in his possession a photograph of Mr. Arafat with the Pope. In addition, 32 youths were reportedly sentenced to periods of imprisonment ranging from six months to eight years on charges of being members of illegal organizations, while several others were convicted for possessing illegal materials, participating in a demonstration, desecrating the Israeli flag, confronting a group of Israeli settlers who had stormed their refugee camp and writing pro-PLO slogans on walls. (Al Fajr, 2, 9, 16, 23 and 30 November; Al Tali’ah, 15 November 1984)

226. It was reported that during the first 11 months of 1984 the number of disturbances in the West Bank had dropped by 25 per cent. Military sources attributed the drop to the stepping up of motorized patrols in the region’s main roads and the capture of many stone-throwers and those who incited them. Another reason for the drop, according to those sources, was the Fara’a detention installation near Nablus and the positive results in the interrogation of suspects. Over the past two years over 1,400 suspects had been detained in Fara’a, of whom 800 had been put on trial. It was also reported that unspecified “new methods” were to be introduced shortly to disperse demonstrators and capture suspects who might break the public order. (Yediot Aharonot, 9 December 1984)

227. On 6 December 1984, the High Court of Justice accepted a petition of 14 residents of the Dheisheh refugee camp and ordered the military governor of the West Bank to show cause within three weeks why he should not stop imposing collective punishment and arbitrary curfews on the camp and blocking all approaches to it. The military governor was also ordered to show cause why he should not forbid Jewish settlers from provoking and harming the petitioners by entering the camp while carrying arms. The petition was filed by Advocate Felicia Langer. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 7 December 1984)

228. It was reported that on 11 December 1984 that 13 youths had been tried before a military court in Nablus. They were accused of throwing stones at Israeli cars and injuring the passengers, as well as causing material damage. The youths were found guilty and several were sentenced to four months in jail. Several were also fined up to IS 40,000 (approximately’$3,076). (Ha’aretz, 11 December 1984)

229. On 2 January 1985 a 15-year-old boy from Nablus was sentenced to three months imprisonment and fined IS 40,000 (approximately $3,076) for throwing stones at soldiers and Yeshiva students. No one was injured in the incident, which had occurred two months earlier. (Jerusalem Post, 3 January 1985)

230. The Israeli military courts reportedly sentenced four Palestinian minors (between the ages of 15 and 17) to imprisonment, for terms ranging from two-and-a-half months to 10 months. In addition, they were fined IS 500,000 (approximately $38,461) on charges of throwing petrol bombs at Israeli vehicles and on security grounds. The youths were from Nablus and the Shu’fat refugee camp. Two 17-year old Arab youths, from the

villages of Majdal Shams and Mas’ada on the Golan Heights, were allegedly arrested for hoisting the Palestinian and Syrian flags on public buildings in the Golan Heights. (Al Fajr, 4 January 1985)

231. Nablus military court reportedly sentenced Imad al-Din Kalboneh, aged 14, from Nablus, to two months in prison, three years suspended sentence and a fine of IS 70,000 (approximately $5,385), on charges of stone throwing and incitement. The same court also sentenced Ra’ed Shibaro, aged 16, to three years in prison and two years suspended sentence on charges of throwing a petrol bomb and membership in an illegal organization. (Al Fajr, 1 March 1985)

232. On 7 March 1985, the military court in Nablus sentenced Ahmed Ibrahim A-Sig, aged 27, of Tulkarm, to three months imprisonment and to nine months suspended term. He was found guilty of belonging to the PFLP and of agreeing to be trained and plotting to commit a crime. The court also sentenced Suleiman Rashind Mohammed Abu Aida, of Nakoura, Lebanon, to 18 months imprisonment and 18 months suspended term for membership in a hostile organization and activity of terrorist organizations. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 8 March 1985)

233. On 22 April 1985, a 22-year-old resident of the Dheisheh refugee camp, Mr. Issa Nimr Abed Rabu, was found guilty, on the basis of his confession and additional supplementary evidence, of the premeditated murder of two Israeli students near the Cremisan Monastery in the Beit Jala area. Mr. Rabu was sentenced to life imprisonment. The newspaper report commented that the prosecution, which under the military law in force in the territories was empowered to ask for the death penalty for such crimes, had refrained from doing so “in order to prove that there was no desire for revenge”. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 5 November 1984, 23 April 1985)

234. A 15-year-old pupil from Dheisheh camp was reportedly sentenced to four years in jail and three years suspended sentence by an Israeli military court in Ramallah on charges of throwing stones and petrol bombs at Israeli vehicles. (Al Fajr, 7 June 1985)

235. On 10 July 1985, the Jerusalem District Court sentenced a border guard, Haim Elhananov, to two months imprisonment and four months suspended term for brutality towards villagers in Halhul in April 1982. Two of his colleagues, Roni Shabtai and Danny Dahan, received four months and three months suspended sentences. The three were found guilty of forcing an Arab youth to hop on one leg, crawl on all fours, bark like a dog, sing the Israeli national anthem and shout “Long Live the Israel Defence Forces”. They also beat and insulted him and forced other villagers to hit each other. The court ruled that, although the offences were very serious and a clear abuse of police authority, senior officers present had not intervened. For this reason, they said, comparatively light sentences were handed down. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 11 July 1985)

10. Incidents

236. The Special Committee followed the situation in the occupied territories according to the information before it, including reports of incidents appearing in the press during the period covered by the report. In the table reproduced hereunder a representative cross-section of these reports is given; the list is not to be considered exhaustive as it is intended to reflect the frequency, location and type of such events. The “remarks” column is meant to assist in clarifying the context of such reports. Certain periods are not subject to tabulation but are reflected in a summary; this is due to the intensity of reports which would otherwise have taken up considerable volume to list individually.

237. The following abbreviations of the names of newspapers are used in the table:

AF Al Fajr (weekly)

AT Al Tali’ah

H Ha’aretz

JP Jerusalem Post

M Ma’ariv

YA Yediot Aharonot

__

D. Annexation and settlements

(see sect. IV.A, paras. 54 and 55 above)

238. Much of the information examined by the Special Committee concerned the policy followed by the Government of Israel in the occupied territories in regard to the establishment of settlements and the measures taken in implementing this policy. The following paragraphs give a summary of this information divided as follows:

1. Policy;

2. Measures;

3. Expropriations.

1. Policy

239. Minister Yuval Neleman, the Chairman of-the joint Ministerial World Zionist Organization (WZO) Settlement Committee, said at its meeting on 12 August 1984 that his Committee had decided over the past three years to establish more than 70 settlements and that only two or three had yet to be populated. His statement came in response to a paper presented on 15 July 1984 by the Chairman of the WZO Settlement Department, Mattityahu Drobles, alleging that during the previous three years the committee had decided to establish 65 settlements but only 36 had in fact been established; 19 were under construction and progress on the remaining 10 was halted due to budgetary constraints. In a related development it was reported that the Chairman of the WZO Settlement Department had left for Latin America and France to organize groups of would-be immigrants-settlers for settlements in the West Bank and in other regions in Israel. (Ha’aretz, 12 August; Jerusalem Post, 13 August 1984)

240. On 9 September 1984, it was reported that the Finance Minister had approved the unfreezing of $2 million for what was described as the “setting up of a minimum infrastructure for new settlements in Judea and Samaria”. Commenting on this report, sources in the Finance Ministry said that the Settlement Department had indeed requested the unfreezing of IS 600 million (approximately $46 million) but added that the request was still “under consideration”. (Yediot Aharonot, 9 and 10 September 1984)

241. Under the agreement to set up a national unity government, signed on 10 September 1984 by the Labor Alignment and the Likud, the new government pledged not to uproot existing settlements. Their existence, defense and development would be guaranteed “at a place to be decided on by the government”. Regarding the 28 settlements already agreed on by the Likud Government but not ye t established, the new government has undertaken to establish five or six within the next year, with the next to be decided by the government. The establishment of new settlements would need the approval of an absolute majority of Cabinet Ministers, thus giving Labor a veto over the establishment of new settlements. (Jerusalem Post, 11 September 1984)

242. The State President, Mr. Haim Hertzog on 2 October 1984 visited Jewish settlements in the Katif Bloc, in the Gaza Strip. He stated during the tour that Jews had the right to settle anywhere in Bretz Yisrael, but they should establish settlements only when and where there had been a governmental decision to do so, and only if this deprived no one of his land or property. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 3 October 1984)

243. The Defense Minister, Mr. Yitzak Rabin, on 7 October 1984 told Knesset member Afed Darawsha that Israel was doing all it could to improve and develop the quality of life of the population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Mr. Rabin added that the sum of money which inhabitants of the territories were allowed to bring upon their return from abroad had recently been increased from $3,000 to $5,000. The Prime Minister, Mr. Shimon Peres, also confirmed, in an interview with Ha’aretz, that the Government had approved the setting up in the West Bank of an Arab bank, two pharmaceutical enterprises and two hospitals. He added that new enterprises, including a scientific one, would be freely allowed to be created in the territories, and the inflow of money would be permitted, providing it did not come through PLO channels and that the new enterprises did not enter into competition with Israeli ones. Enterprises in the territories would be allowed to export to countries to which Israel exports, without any restrictions. (Ha’aretz, 8, 12, 19 and 25 October 1984; Jerusalem Post, 19, 24 and 25 October 1984; Ma’ariv, 23 October 1984)

244. On 26 September 1984, Mr. Rabin and Likud representatives agreed to establish a new settlement in north-western “Samaria” close to the pre-1967 armistice line. The new settlement would-be called “Avney Hefetz” and located not far from Tulkarm. According to reports the two parties differed on where five more settlements should be set up; the Likud delegation argued for more settlements in the densely populated areas of the West Bank’s mountain ridge, and Mr. Rabin proposed the Jordan Valley, the Etzion Block and the southern Mount Hebron area. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot, 27 December 1984)

245. On 1 January 1985, it was reported that Mr. Nissim Zvilli, the co-Chairman of the WZO Settlement Department, had written a letter to Prime Minister Peres in which he said that it was “sheer insolence to demand to set up new settlements” in the West Bank “when joblessness is spreading, development towns are crying for help and farms are collapsing under their debts”. Mr. Zvilli added that existing. settlements under the auspices of the WZO in the West Bank had debts of $75 million and that 350 houses and flats in these settlements were empty. More than 40 settlements were inhabited by less than 30 families each, and in some there were fewer than 10 families. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 1 January; Ma’ariv, 2 January 1985)

246. On 17 January 1985, it was reported that following complaints from United States government officials meeting was held “at a most senior level” with senior officials of the Government and the Jewish Agency, and it was decided not to transfer any of the 6,000 new immigrants from Ethiopia to settlements in the West Bank and the Golan Heights. (Ha’aretz, 17 January 1985)

247. On 10 February 1985, the Co-ordinator of Activities in the territories, Mr. Shmuel Goren, said in a press conference held at the military government headquarters in Beit El that the security authorities were considering ways to simplify the procedure for deporting Arab “troublemakers” in the territories and to re-introduce administrative detention. Mr. Goren made it clear that he had no intention of expelling children who throw stones or throwers of petrol bombs or hand-grenades. “These we will jail”, he said, adding that the administration would try to ensure that culprits – such as stone-throwers, but also those standing nearby who fail to prevent them from throwing stones – would suffer, and the innocent people would be able to live in peace. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 11 February 1985)

248. On 14 February 1985, the Prime Minister Alternate and Foreign Minister, Mr. Yitzhak Shamir, said that within two or three years, the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank would be twice the present 50,000. “1 am authorized to tell you that nothing has changed in our policy of settling western Eretz Yisrael -up to the Jordan. Settlement in every part of the country will continue and will not be reversed or changed”, Mr. Shamir declared. In another declaration on the same day, Mr. Shamir stated that the Golan Heights were an integral, inseparable part of Israel and not subject to negotiations. Mr. Shamir was reacting to a statement by a United States official that the Golan was subject to negotiation. (Jerusalem Post, 15 February 1985)

249. On 1 March 1985, it was reported that the WZO Settlements Department was planning the construction of six new settlements in 1985. Four would be rural settlements: Neot-Adumin, Assael, Nigdalim and Maskot (in the Jordan Valley). The other two, Beitar and Avnet-Hefetz, would be urban settlements. The creation of the six settlements had been approved by the Government. A special budget would be allocated for the construction, in addition to the $30 million, which is the Settlement Department’s current budget for the development and consolidation of existing settlements. In another context, the Housing Minister, David Levy, announced that during the current year there would be 1,400 new construction sites in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. (Ha’aretz, 1 March 1985)

250. On 29 April 1985, Mattityahu Drobles, the co-chairman of the Jewish Agency’s Settlement Department, told representatives of the 13 Jewish settlements in the Katif region in the southern Gaza Strip that four or five new settlements would be built there in the next three years. “There will be 5,000 families, which means people, here by’1988, and this will be accomplished with an annual budget of only $2.5 million”. -In the same context it was reported that the Ministry of Tourism’s Investments Committee had approved a project of building a religious vacation-village in the Katif Bloc, at a cost of $3.5 million. (Ha’aretz, 29 April 1985; Jerusalem Post, 30 April 1985)

251. On 6 May 1985, the Knesset Finance Committee earmarked IS 1.9 billion (approximately $146 million) for the creation of two new settlements in the West Banks Neot-Adumim and Migdalim. A further amount of IS 5 billion (approximately $375 million) would reportedly be earmarked for the creation of means of production in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and in particular in the Katif Bloc. (Ha’aretz, 7 May 1985)

252. On 24 June 1985, a spokesman for the State Employment Service, Mr. Zalman Chen, reported that the Service would “in the very near future” be extended to approximately 100 settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The spokesman said that this would be done by military order. He added that the Employment Service Law and the Unemployment Insurance Law would soon be applied in accordance with a recent cabinet decision “in order to serve interests of the Jewish population”. According to the report, separate labor exchanges and job registration offices already operated in 28 Arab communities in the territories, but only three labor exchanges existed in the Jewish settlements of Kiryat-Arba, Maaleh-Adumim and Maaleh-Efraim (see annex VI). (Jerusalem Post, 25 June 1985)

253. On 10 July 1985, it was reported that, as of that day, the Employment Service Law and the National Insurance Institute Law had been extended to the territories by order of the military government. Under those laws Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza would be entitled to unemployment compensation and income supplements. The Minister of Labor and Social Affairs, Moshe Katzav, said the extension of the laws to the territories was a “reparation of a wrong caused to the settlers for 18 years. With the deterioration of the employment situation the state’s duty is to provide the minimum to those who could not find employment in the region”. (Ma’ariv, 10 July 1985; Jerusalem Post, 11 July 1985)

254. On 5 July 1985, the co-chairman of the WZO Settlement Department, Nissim Zvilli, who had been appointed by the Labor Party, appealed to Prime Minister Peres and to his Deputy Yitzhak Shamir to waive the clause in the coalition agreement calling for the establishment of, six new settlements in the territories by September at a cost of over $10 million. He warned that the creation of the new settlements would badly harm existing settlements and revealed that settlements, principally those situated in the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley and the Katif Bloc, owed over $80 million to “outside elements”. He further revealed that over 400 apartments in settlements in various areas were still empty, and that in about 50 settlements there were only 15 to 20 families. only 25 per cent of the settlers had jobs in the settlements. In response to that appeal the Council of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza said on 7 July 1985 that unless the Government established new settlements there within the next two months the settlers would do so themselves. The secretary of the Council of Settlements, Otniel Schneller, said Zvilli’s stand was “malicious and quarrelsome. There is no truth to it”. But one senior Gush Emunim source conceded that the question of whether to use the money to help existing settlements or establish new ones was legitimate. (Ha’aretz, 7 July 1985; Jerusalem Post, 8 July 1985)

2.  Measures

255. New settlements were reportedly set up on 8 August 1984 inside Hebron. The settlements, consisting of seven house-trailers, were set up on three plots which, according to a Justice Ministry official, belonged in the past to Jews. One plot was located above the old Jewish cemetery, the second was in Tel-Rumeida, opposite the old Jewish quarter, and the third was on the outskirts of Hebron. The three settlements received the Defense Minister’s approval and that of the Israeli-run municipality of Hebron. On 10 August 1984, it was reported that the settlers had already been provided with running water, electricity and gas.  The settlement in Tel-Rumeida reportedly aroused anger among archaeologists, since it is located in the midst of what was described as a most important archaeological site dating back to the early Israelite period where construction is prohibited. The name of the new settlement was meanwhile decided: Ramat-Yishai. Some 70 left-wing Israelis, led by two Knesset members, on 11 August 1984 demonstrated against the new settlements in Hebron. On 14 August 1984, it was reported that more house-trailers to set up four more settlements inside Hebron were organized. The settlers were waiting for legal approval before seizing other formerly Jewish plots of land. On 22 August 1984 it was reported that work at the new settlement’s site continued. (Jerusalem Post, 9 and 10, 12 and 13, 22 August 1984; Ha’aretz, 9 and 10, 12, 14 August 1984)

256. The establishment was reported of two new religious settlements in the West Banks: Puedel, located near the old fortress of Deir-Kalal in “Samaria”, and Carmi-Tzur, south of the Etzion bloc, three kilometers north of Halhul. Puedel had at its disposal some 1,000 dunams and it was planned for 250 families. Eighteen families were living there in house-trailers.  Carmi-Tzur had only 80 dunams at its disposal. (Ma’ariv, 21 August 1984)

257. Two new settlements were reportedly set up in “Samaria” during the second week of September 1984: “Nahliel” – an orthodox settlement converted from a Nahal outpost, located north-west of Ramallah, between Neveh-Tzuf and Dolev, and “Givat-Halevona”, a Gush Emunim settlement created by the Zionist Federation and located 2 kilometers from Shilo, north of Ramallah. On 14 September 1984, it was reported that the IDF had prevented the settlers from placing six house-trailers in the Tel-Rumeida site since they were acting without authorization or approval. (Ha’aretz, 13-14 September 1984)

258. On 11 January 1985, it was announced that a joint Labor-Likud forum had agreed upon the establishment of six new settlements in the West Bank. The settlements, due to be set up by September 1984, are the following:

– Avney-Hefetz, south-east of Tulkarm and very close to the pre-1967 border;

– Peles, now a military camp, in the northern sector of the Jordan Valley;

– Migdalim, south of Ma’aleh-Ephraim, on the eastern slopes of the Samarian hills;

– Assa’el, in the southern Mount Hebron area;

– Neot Adumin, near the Jerusalem-Jericho road, and a sixth settlement, either Beitar or Tzoref, in the Etzion bloc.

The decision was reportedly meant to implement a clause in the coalition agreement and was described as a compromise between the conflicting views of Labor and Likud, which wanted settlement throughout the West Bank. The decision was reportedly expected to cost $6 million, but according to another source each new

settlement in the West Bank costs between $2 and $2.5 million. Sources in the Agriculture Ministry said the decision to set up a new settlement in the Jordan Valley was incomprehensible since the-existing settlements in that region were in “bad financial distress”. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot,

11 January 1985)

259. On 10 February 1985, “The West Bank and Gaza Strip Project”, a research institute headed by Dr. Meron Benvenisti, published a document giving details about the number and composition of the Jewish population of the territories. By the end .of 1984 the number of settlers reached 42,600, living in 114 settlements. Seventy-two per cent of the settlers (some 30,000) live in 15 large settlements and the remaining ones in 100 small settlements. According to, the same document, it .was reported on 31 March 1985 that 52 per cent of the land in the West Bank was under total Israeli control through direct seizure or administrative restrictions. (Ha’aretz, 11 February 1985; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 31 March 1985)

260. On 7 May 1985, Knesset member Ran Cohen (Citizens’ Rights Movement) declared that the Histadrut (Israel’s Labor Federation) had invested $100 million to date in construction and infrastructure works in the West Bank. (Ha’aretz, 8 May 1985)

261. On 8 May 1985, a group of settlers quietly moved into a tent encampment near the’ Arab village of Hussan, between-Gilo and Battir, south of Jerusalem, and. declared it the settlement of Hadar Beitar. Gush Emunim’s settlement department, Amana, said the site was one of six the Government had decided to establish in the West Bank by September. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 10 May 1985)

262. On 14 June 1985, it was reported that during 1984, 6,000 Jews moved to settlements in the West Bank. (Ha’aretz, 14 June 1985)

263. On 2 March 1985, the Director-General of the Ministry of Health, Mr. Dan Michaeli, decided to close the Hospice hospital in East Jerusalem, allegedly because of several cases of “medical neglect” and to low medical standards. The decision was reportedly approved by the minister of Health, Mordechai Gur. On 5 March 1985, however, according to Health Ministry sources, the Hospice may not be completely closed down, but was to serve as a “sophisticated emergency facility and diagnostic clinic”. (Jerusalem Post, 5 March 1985; Yediot Aharonot, 3 March 1985)

264. On 9 April 1985, the Committee of Friends of the Hospice Hospital in the Old City of Jerusalem told reporters that the Government had deliberately created a situation leading to the closure of the hospital. According to Mr. Ismail Aziz, chairman of

the Committee, the Hospice, which had served the Arab population in East Jerusalem since 1949, has slowly been reduced* from a 120-bed general hospital to a 50-bed facility, since 1967. After meeting the Health Minister, Mr. Gur, on 10 April 1985, the district health officer, Dr. Kamal Anid, declared: “There has been a gradual deterioration of Arab health facilities in the 18 years of Israeli rule in the area, and that includes the closure of the tuberculosis center, the blood-bank, and the district health office in the Old City. This seems to me to be politically motivated to force the Arabs in the Old City to rely on Israeli institutions for care”. (Jerusalem Post, 10 and 11 April 1985)

265. On 2 June 1985, Israeli soldiers reportedly uprooted over 1,500 olive trees belonging to residents of Abeidiya village, east of Bethlehem, on the grounds that they were planted illegally. The land, which totaled 500 dunams, was owned by a family from Obeidiya. The trees were the main source of income to the more than 300 family members. (Al Fajr, 7 June 1985)

266. On 8 July 1985, a source in the Likud party revealed that work on the infrastructure of four of the six new settlements to be established under the coalition agreement had already begun. The settlements are Migdalim, Neot-Adumim, Asa’el and Peles. Migdalim may be ready by the end of August, the source said. (Jerusalem Post, 9 July 1985).

267. On 22 July 1985, Housing Minister David Levy declared in the Jordan Valley settlement of Maaleh Efraim that his Ministry would this year lay the groundwork for the establishment of 15 new settlements, including seven in the territories. Mr. Levy was speaking at a cornerstone-laying ceremony for a new neighbourhood of 52 homes. one of Levy’s assistants, Dan Yitzhaki, told a correspondent that he expected the new settlements in the West Bank to be pol3ulated this year and noted that people were already living on a hill near Beitar – another proposed settlement south-west of Jerusalem. Atzmona and Bedolah were to be populated in the Gaza district. More roads were to be built and additional infrastructure was to be prepared this year for three settlements in Judea area: Malkishua, Avney-Hefetz and Mezadot Yehuda. (Jerusalem Post, 23 July 1985)

3. Expropriation

268. The Israeli authorities reportedly confiscated 450,000 dunams of West Bank land and declared them “State land”. The head of the civil section in the Israeli Attorney General’s office was checking the ownership of another 150,000 dunams. According to Israeli estimates, about 600,000 dunams were being used for Jewish settlement, agriculture and industry. (Al Fajr, 24 August 1984)

269. On 23 August 1984, the Israeli authorities reportedly announced their decision to confiscate 100 dunams from the small village of Khirbat Batir near Bethlehem. The land in question is planted with olive, fig, and almond trees, as well as with grapevines. The authorities had confiscated 1,000 dunams from the same village a year ago. (Al Fajr, 4 August 1984)

270. On 18 September 1984, the Israeli military authorities reportedly confiscated more than 1,300 dunams of land belonging to more than 30 families from the village of Mazra al Qibiliyeh, allegedly for expanding settlements in the area. (Al Fajr, 21 September 1984)

271.  Several residents of the village of Deir Quds in the Ramallah district reportedly received a notification from the Israeli authorities that they had decided to confiscate 1,500 dunams of their land. The authorities claimed that the land was government-owned and gave the villagers 30 days to appeal the decision. (Al Fajr, 16 November 1984)

272. More than 1,500 dunams of agricultural land, near the village of Arroub in the Hebron district, on 7 November 1984 were declared “State land” by the Israeli military commander. (Al Tali’ah, 6 December; Al Fajr, 7 December 1984)

273. On 15 December 1984, the villagers of Rantis, north of Ramallah, said that they had been notified by the military government of the expropriation of 1,380 dunams of land belonging to them.’ Most of the area consists of farming land, which constitutes the source of livelihood of 20 families in the village. The villagers had one month to appeal the decision. (Ha’aretz, 16 December 1984)

274. The Israeli authorities notified a number of residents of Beit Fajjar village in the Bethlehem district of their decision to confiscate 700 dunams from the land owned by the village. (Al Fajr, 21 December 1984)

275. On 21 January 1985, IDF troops seized an area of 200 dunams in the Gaza Strip, in a region known as “Kurum al Luz”, in Wadi Gaza, south of the city of Gaza. Troops used bulldozers and uprooted dozens of olive and fig trees, as well as vines. Security sources said that the lands were State-owned and that the local residents had *invaded them in recent years”. (Ha’aretz, 23 January 1985)

276. On 27 January 1985, it was reported that residents of the village of Samu’, south of Hebron, had been notified that some 2,000 dunams of land bordering on the village were about to be declared State-owned. The villagers were given one month to appeal the decision, if they so requested. (Ha’aretz, 27 January 1985)

277. On 18 June 1985, Israeli military authorities reportedly demolished seven tiny Hebron area villages, displacing nearby 200 families in order to convert-their land, 40 dunams, into a military training zone. The land had been declared a closed military area one and a half months earlier. The Israeli authorities had then informed Yatta notables that the land was being seized for “military purposes”. (Al Fajr, 21 June 1985)

278. Israeli authorities reportedly confiscated a 50 dunams-plot in the Hebron area. Mr. Alami, the owner of the land, received a warning to give up the land within 24 hours. (Al Fajr, 21 June 1985)

279. Palestinian landowners from the village of Qousin, eight kilometers west of Nablus, protested the notice they received on 16 June 1985 that more than 1,200 dunams of their agricultural land had been slated for confiscation. They were given 45 days to appeal the decision. No official reason was reportedly given for the confiscation. (Al Fajr, 28 June 1985)

E. Treatment of detainees

(see sect. IV-A, paras. So to 53 above)

280. The Special Committee examined information relating to the treatment of detainees and to conditions of detention in general. These are reflected in the following paragraphs. The Special Committee felt, in particular, that the case of Abdul Aziz Shahin provides a complete example of conditions of detention over the period of occupation. (see paras. 301-314 below).

281. Palestinian prisoners in the new central prison in Nablus reportedly began a hunger strike on 7 August 1984 to protest maltreatment at the prison. (Al Ittihad, 8 August; Al-Fajr, 10 August 1984)

282. It was reported on 13 August 1984 that the security prisoners – 500 in all – who had been serving prison terms in Beersheba jail had been transferred over the past month to a new prison which was opened near Nablus. (Yediot Aharonot, 13 August 1984)

283. Detainees at the Gaza central prison called a hunger strike to protest the prison administration’s refusal to take one of the detainees, Mr. Mohammed Abd al-Razik, to hospital after he complained of an acute pain in his leg which immobilized him. (Al Fajr, 24 August 1984),

284. A police investigator, Mr. Moshe Biton, aged 38, was convicted by the Tel Aviv District Court of assaulting a prisoner and was sentenced to four months in jail. Mr. Biton was found guilty of tying up and beating Mr. Mohammad Arada, aged 35, in the Jenin lock-up in May 1983. Mr. Arada had been arrested on suspicion of inciting a demonstration and was beaten by Mr. Biton when he refused to confess. In sentencing Mr. Biton, the judge said that his actions had besmirched the reputation of the police and were in violation of the trust placed in him by his superiors. The Court noted Mr. Biton’s testimony that conditions in the Jenin lock-up were hard and dangerous but said that this was no excuse. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 19-September 1984)

285. On 23 September 1984, it was reported that 800 prisoners in the central prison of the West Bank in Nablus started a hunger strike in order to obtain better conditions. According to the prisoners the warders’ attitude towards them was violent; they sprayed them with tear gas on various occasions. The prisoners alleged that their cells were overcrowded – 12 inmates in a cell designed for 7 – that the windows were blocked with asbestos boards which prevented light and air, that the promenade yard was too small that no books or newspapers were permitted in the jail and the food was bad. Th; Nablus prison had been opened two months earlier. A spokesman for the Prisons Service, Mr. Shimon Malka, flatly denied the allegations of poor detention conditions in Nablus and described the strike as a “provocation by anti-Israeli elements”. On 30 September 1984, it was reported that families of the hunger-strikers were holding a sit-in strike outside the Red Cross offices in East Jerusalem. Sit-in strikes in sympathy with the hunger-strikers were also reported in Jenin, Tulkarm and Ramallah. At a press conference held on 30 September 1984 by the “League for Human and Civil Rights”, Mrs. Langer said that the hunger strike was not a political action. Mr. Joseph Elgazi said that conditions in the Nablus jail were intolerable and far worse than in many other prisons in Israel. On 1 October 1984, the new Police Minister, Mr. Haim Bar-Lev, visited the Nablus prison and met with representatives of the prisoners. He told them that he would act, together with the Prison Service Commissioner, to improve what should be improved and, in particular, the overcrowded conditions in the cells on condition that the prisoners stop their strike. (Ha’aretz, 24, 26, 30 September and 1, 2 October 1984; Jerusalem Post, 30 September and 1 October 1984; Ma’ariv, 1 and 2 October 1984)

286. It was reported on 4 October 1984 that inmates in two security prisons at Ashkelon and at Nafha had gone on hunger strike in support of the strikers in Nablus. The prisoners’ most acute complaint, according to lawyer Abed Assali, was the extremely crowded conditions – in the cells; e.g. a room measuring 32 square meters was occupied by 18 prisoners and part of that room was taken up by a shower and latrine. (Jerusalem Post, 4 October 1984)

287. Shatta prison authorities reportedly refused permission for Advocate Ibrahim Reshayed to meet three political prisoners, claiming that the prison was “in a state of emergency”. Mr. Reshayed protested to the prison director who permitted him to visit the prison two days later. After meeting a number of prisoners, Mr. Reshayed said that political detainee, Mr. Ali Shakour, who was serving a life sentence, was in urgent need of a doctor because of his deteriorating health. (Al Fajr, 19 October 1984)

288. On 20 December 1984, families of political prisoners staged a strike in front of Nafha prison to protest the authorities’ refusal to allow clothes to be taken in for their children. The family of Mohammed Mansour, sentenced to life imprisonment, complained that he was denied access to radio, television or books. (Al Tali’ah, 27 December 1984)

289. Palestinian female political prisoners at Neve Tirtza Women’s Prison were assigned to solitary confinement for continuing a work strike against prison conditions. Eight political prisoners were placed in solitary confinement for periods ranging from 5 to 15 days and denied family visits. (Al-Fajr, 11 January 1985)

290. On 12 February 1985, 23 political prisoners in the Neve Tirtza Women’s Prison began. a hunger strike. According to the Al Fajr report, the prisoners were striking because of the new restrictions imposed by the authorities which include limiting the time allotted to prisoners to visit one another. They also demanded that educational activities and study sessions be held without Israeli supervision. Allegedly, the women were also protesting against enforced factory work in defense-related industries and had been punished by having their prison privileges withdrawn. (Al Fajr, 15 February 1985).

291. It was reported on 5 March 1985 that a prisoner from Nablus, Mr. Mahmoud Freitah, who had been sentenced seven years earlier to 20 years, imprisonment for membership in an illegal organization and for preparing bombs, had been released from jail after it was established that he was suffering from cancer of the colon. His lawyer, Mr. Walid Fahum, applied to the Attorney -General for an authorization for his client to go abroad for treatment. The request was granted but on condition that Freitah sign an undertaking not to return to Nablus for one year. The man and his family reportedly refused to sign such an undertaking. (Yediot Aharonot, 5 March 1985)

292. On 7 April 1985, it was reported that the 400 security prisoners in Ashkelon Prison had agreed to halt their five-week hunger strike, during which they refused to eat cooked food, after they received a letter from Prisons Service Commissioner, Rafael Suisse, in which he said that some of the prisoners’ demands had been met. Among the prisoners’ demands met by the recently appointed Prisons Service Commissioner were the possibility of sending eight letters per months instead of six, a promise to consider improving the prisoners’ food by using oriental spices and a promise to consider providing books to the prisoners.’ Requests concerning the overcrowding in the cells and medical treatment by private physicians were rejected. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 7 April 1985)

293. On 17 January 1985, Knesset member Mattityahu Peled wrote a letter to Ma’ariv, in response to an article in that newspaper describing conditions in the Fare’s Prison. In his letter, Knesset member Peled confirmed that he and Mohammed Miarit who also visited the Fara’a Prison, discovered that the prison rooms were overcrowded with young school pupils. In the presence of the commander of the institution they were told of cruel interrogations to 4hich some of the youths had been subjected, such as covering the head with sacks, hands tied for many hours; they were told that often the detainees were not taken out for a daily walk; they saw that the detainees were not given books and newspapers; they were told that the detainees were being held without a trial for weeks and were sometimes released without having been brought before a judge, i.e. without any charge having been brought against them; they were told that in most of the cases the detainees were not given the assistance of a lawyer. (Ma’ariv, 17 January 1985)

294. On 17 January 1985, prisoners in Fara’a Prison went on a hunger strike to protest torture and inhuman practices, reported their lawyer Jawad Boulos. The public prosecutor allegedly notified advocate Mrs. Langer that two investigators at that prison would be called to appear before a disciplinary court because of their harsh treatment of detainees. Mrs. Langer asked that her client, who had filed a complaint concerning torture, be a witness for the prosecution in a case against a third investigator. (Al Tali’ah, 24 January 1985)

295. On 17 January 1985, the Central Region Military court acquitted three staff-sergeants who had been charged with assaulting and ill-treating Arabs from the territories detained in the Fara’a Prison. According to the prosecution, the three defendants ill treated three detainees between the months of March and June 1984, while on duty. The defense lawyers argued that the evidence given by the complainants was full of contradictions. (Yediot Aharonot, 18 January 1985)

296. On 22 March 1985, three Israeli journalists, including Yehuda Litani of Ha’aretz and Avinoam Bar-Yosef of Ma’ariv, published in their newspapers reports of a meeting they had had with three youths released a short time earlier from Fara’a Prison. The three were Nasser Abu-Ajamiya, aged 22, of Dheisheh, Nasser Atallah, an 18-year old secondary school student, and Ziad Al-Laham, a 21-year old construction worker. The meeting had been held in Ramallah a few days earlier and had lasted for over four hours. The main speaker was Nasser Abu-Ajamiya, who was arrested on 26 January 1985 following violent scuffles between them and the “Muslim Brotherhood” supporters. Abu-Ajamiya was detained for 18 days, and his detention was later extended by 20 more days. His account was a detailed description of physical and psychological torture by three, interrogators, including beating on all parts of his body, punching in the abdomen which caused the youth to vomit, thrusting his head against the wall and forcing him to kiss the interrogator’s boot. Ziad Al-Laham, who was arrested. On 8 February 1985, also alleged that he had been badly beaten. He was made to lie down and one interrogator jumped on his back. Nasser Atallah told the three journalists that his story was similar to that of his friends and did not go into details. Following the meeting a visit to Fara’a Prison was organized within several hours. A security official promised that the allegations of the three youths would be looked into, and if they were founded the interrogator or interrogators will be put on trial and punished according to the law. (Ha’aretz, Ma’ariv, 22 March 1985)

297. On 7 June 1985, it was reported that it had been established by a police examining officer that interrogators at ‘the Rafah police had resorted to force in order to extract confessions from four residents of Rafah who confessed to and reconstructed the murder of a local policeman. The four men had been detained for 18 months and were acquitted in their trial. The examining officer was appointed following press reports containing eye-witness accounts alleging that the four had been beaten during their interrogation. One witness testified in the trial that he saw one of the defendants hanging, with his hands tied, from a tree in the police courtyard. The defendants said in their confessions that they had poisoned the Policeman Mamruh Abu-Hamad, who was killed on 25 May 1983. It was later established that the policeman had not been poisoned but was strangled. (Ha’aretz, 7 June 1985)

298. On 16 June 1985, the Israeli weekly “Zu-Haderekh” reported that advocate Felicia Langer on 4 June 1985 filed a complaint about alleged unbearable prison conditions in the Tulkarm prison. In her complaint to the Legal Adviser for the West Bank, advocate Langer said that the installation in question was a military prison unique in its sort in the territories, which was run “according to a conception of a military discipline”, similar to detention installations for soldiers. Detainees had no access to a canteen and no right to receive newspapers. Soldiers, acting as warders, provoked the detainees, cursed and humiliated them and sometime even beat them. On or around 21 April 1985, detainees were allegedly severely beaten and some of them had to be hospitalized. Detainees were taken to their attorneys with their legs chained, and Tulkarm was allegedly the only prison in the territories where that practice existed. Advocate Langer had already complained about the conditions in that prison, but was told that it had already been decided to close the prison shortly.

299. An Israeli official, according to Jerusalem Post, reportedly admitted that Palestinian prisoners in Fara’a detention center were treated with brutality. The official said “I would close this prison immediately if I was in a position to do so”. Five investigators, he added, who had been brought to trial for mistreatment of Arab detainees during interrogation, were all cleared. (Al Tali’ah, 27 June 1985)

300. On 5 July 1985, a Palestinian detained on security charges in Jneid Central Prison (Nablus) went on a hunger strike to protest prevailing conditions, harsh treatment and confiscation of personal belongings. Prisoners also issued an appeal to all national organizations and the ICRC to have these practices halted. In a related story, Al Ittihad, an Arabic daily, reported that Palestinians interned in the Hebron prison went on strike in support of detainees at Jneid prison. (Al Tali’ah, 11 July 1985)

301. On 13 July 1985, 70 Arab detainees in Fara’a Prison went on a hunger strike for 24 hours to protest the deteriorating conditions in the prison. The prisoners asked for an improvement of prison food, an increase of daily meal rations and two exercise periods a day instead of one. They also emphasized their repeated demand for an end to brutality by prison guards. (Al Tali’ah, 18 July 1985, Al Fajr, 19 July 1985)

The case of Abdul Aziz Shahin

302. Mr. Abdul Aziz Shahin was arrested on 25 September 1967 on his way by bus from Jerusalem to Gaza.

303. According to Mr. Shahin, he was carrying at that time an identity card from the Egyptian Governor-General of the Gaza Strip and also a census card issued by the Israeli army which enabled him to circulate freely.

304. His interrogation period, lasting for five months, was allegedly considered to be “the most brutal in the history of the occupation”. During that period Mr. Shahin was taken to several prisons where he was subjected to very harsh treatment mainly to make him sign a prepared confession; he was also denied the right to see a doctor or a lawyer since he was considered, as he was told, an administrative prisoner. His trial started in March 1969 and the hearing was postponed until May 1969. It then lasted for six successive days after which he received a 15-year sentence with hard labor on charges of carrying explosives.

Conditions in detention

305. Frequently transferred from one prison to another, Mr. Shahin described the conditions in prison as being “terrible”. ‘ In his oral evidence Mr. Shahin said “… we were even prevented from writing letters to our families.” ” … we were not allowed to keep even one photograph of our relatives, we were prevented from keeping more than two letters from our families. Anyone who had two letters was forced to hand in one when he received another.”

306. With regard to the food Mr. Shahin said “We were given something referred to in Hebrew as daleth, that is, Class D. In Israeli prisons there are food categories: AA, A, B, C and D. We were in category D.” In a related quotation he Said “… but the hunger that gripped me in prison was such that I can understand the famine in Africa now”. “(From the moment of his arrest) up to’1982 none of us had a bed to sleep on.” “…. I had two blankets at one period, four blankets for another period and we got the fifth one in December; it was then taken away in April.” “There was no canteen, no games or sports facilities.” “I don’t know whether you will find this funny but we were given the newspaper for just five minutes a day.”

307. Mr. Shahin also referred to the freedom of worship in Israeli prisons by saying “Israeli prisoners have somewhere to pray, they have their temple. We can’t even have joint prayers, even in Ramadan, or on our feast days or on Fridays. But there are basic times when Muslims are required to pray together.”

308. Given all these factors Mr. Shahin and other Palestinian detainees called for several hunger strikes, resulting in the imposition by the prison administration of severe measures of punishment on those who had rebelled, including a period of solitary confinement (the total period was 8 years and 5 months) “and during that period the detainee did not receive any visitor or letters, he had no hot water, … very few walks in the courtyard, and the time was cut from one hour to half an hour.” However, Mr. Shahin believed that the hunger strikes helped detainees reach a number of achievements. ‘He stated “I left that prison still refusing to utter the word sidi – boss – and that was a great achievement for US. The word sidi is a word from feudal times, it also means master. It is used to humiliate people; this was used by servants speaking to their feudal masters and we therefore refused to utter this word. Despite the fact that we refused to say sidi, we managed to get a 3mm-thick foam mattress.”

309. Mr. Shahin was released from prison on 23 September 1982 and immediately went to hospital for treatment. He was then informed by the military commander of Rafah (Gaza Strip) that he was to be placed under house arrest and also a town restriction order. A few months later, on 11 May 1983, he received an order stipulating his deportation to the village of Dahaniya in the Sinai where “armed military guards stood watch 24 hours a day”.

310. Mr. Shahin was later informed that he was to be expelled from the country in a month’s time; he subsequently appealed to the Israeli High Court. The hearing took place on 15 February 1985 and the expulsion decision was taken. On the same day Mr. Shahin was taken to Lebanon and from there left for Amman.

311. In concluding, Mr. Shahin stated: “Up to the present time, my wife and son have not been able to visit me or come to be with me in Amman. They insisted that my wife should leave for good, and when she refused to do this a lawyer intervened. She obtained the right to travel to Amman, on one condition, that she would stay for three years and that she would not return to her house in Rafah. We considered this to be a type of expulsion. Also, none of my family members can travel abroad for whatever reason.”

312. At the very end of his testimony, Mr. Shahin stated “I should like to give you a few dates: in 1977 I had a bed for the first time in prison; in 1982 beds were introduced in Israeli prisons in general; in 1981 we got meals that were a bit better, Class B meals; in 1982 we had the possibility of having an Arab doctor visiting us, with some security conditions, of course; in 1976 the ICRC gave us a football, of course it was very warmly welcomed by the prisoners. That is the reality that we lived.”

313. The following is a chronological presentation of the experiences of Mr. Shahin, which cover a period as long as the military occupation since 1967 and virtually all places of imprisonment and detention where Palestinians are held. It is intended to illustrate prison life over the years of the military occupation.

314. In perusing this chronology, the expression “isolation” recurs: as indicated above, Mr. Shahin spent some eight and a half years in isolation, essentially as a result of activity connected with bringing about improvement in prison conditions. There are three categories of isolation:

– Isolation cell (“bidud”), a one-person cell located in an area isolated from other cells;

– Isolation room (“abrada”), where more than one person could possibly be held;

– Isolation section (“agab abrada”), where several persons are held in a larger cell which is cut off from the rest of the prison.

In the chronology, unless otherwise indicated, Mr. Shahin was held in the first category.

Shahin: arrested on 25 September 1967 while travelling by bus from Jerusalem to Gaza

V. CONCLUSIONS

315. The present report has been-prepared in accordance with the mandate of the Special Committee as renewed by the General Assembly in its resolution 39/95 D of 14 December 1984.

316. Section II contains a description of the organization by the Special Committee of its work during the period from 15 -September 1984, the date of adoption of its previous report (A/39/591). As may be ascertained from section II, the Government of Israel continued to withhold its co-operation from the Special Committee. However, the Special Committee benefited from the co-operation of the Governments of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Section III spells out the mandate of the Special Committee as defined in previous years. This includes the extension of the mandate of the Special Committee to include the investigation of allegations of “exploitation and looting of the resources of the occupied territories”, “the pillaging of the archeological and cultural heritage of the occupied territories” and “the interference in the freedom of worship in the Holy Places of the occupied territories”, as reflected in General Assembly resolution 3005 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972.

317. Section IV contains a summary of the oral evidence and information received by the Special Committee. The Special Committee, having been precluded from visiting the occupied territories, conducted a series of hearings in Geneva, Damascus, Amman and Cairo in May of this year, where it heard the evidence of persons from the occupied territories who had first-hand knowledge and personal experience of the human rights situation in those territories. In addition, the Special Committee followed the situation in the occupied territories on a day-to-day basis through reports appearing in the Israeli and Palestinian press. The Special Committee examined several communications and reports from individuals and organizations in the occupied territories that reached it during the period covered by the present report.

318. The conclusions contained in the present section are formulated on the basis of the information reflected in section IV and that reproduced in the annexes to the report. It must be borne in mind, however, in this connection, that the volume of information received and examined by the Special Committee does not permit its total reflection in the present report; the Special Committee has endeavored to include in the report a faithful sample of the information it has received in order to illustrate the total reality of the situation of human rights in the occupied territories during the period covered by the report.

319. Section IV is divided into five parts. Section IV.A. contains a summary of the oral evidence received by the Special Committee. Section IV.B contains a summary of information relating to the general situation prevailing in the occupied territories; this is divided into information relating to the activities of the Jewish underground operating in the occupied territories, information relating to the situation in the Golan Heights, information concerning the activities of the “Zorea Committee” established to look into allegations of violations of human rights subsequent to the hijacking of a bus in the occupied territories and information on the situation resulting from the release of 1,150 security detainees in May 1985, some 600 of which remained in the occupied territories. The section also contains information on the consequences of the liberation of those prisoners on the situation of human rights in the occupied territories. Section IV.C contains information reflecting the policy followed by the Government of Israel in regard to the treatment of civilians and, in particular, certain fundamental freedoms recognized under international humanitarian laws, such as the right to freedom of movement, education, association, worship and expression. In addition, this section contains information on the treatment of civilians and on economic. measures taken in their regard; it also contains information on trials and reproduces a sample table of incidents taking place in the occupied territories by date and place. Section IV.D contains information relating to the policy announced by the Government of Israel to annex and settle the occupied territories and measures taken in pursuance of that policy, including the establishment of settlements and expropriation of property.

320. Section ME contains information relating to treatment of detainees, including information on prison conditions in general and individual conditions in particular. In the course of its activities over the years, the Special Committee has followed the case of Abdul Aziz Shahin, who spent 15 years in Israeli prisons and who was released upon completion of his sentence, was put under house arrest and eventually expelled while proceedings were still under way in an effort to protect his right to live in his homeland. The case of Shahin constitutes an interesting illustration of detention conditions extending over the entire period of occupation and for that reason the Special Committee has included a summary and a schematic description of his experience in that section.

321. On the basis of the information and evidence before it, the Special Committee concludes that the Government of Israel has continued to follow the same policy in the occupied territories as in the previous years, a policy based on the concept held by that Government that the territories occupied in 1967 constitute a part of the State of Israel. This policy has become more manifest during the period covered by the present report, as may be seen from the information contained in section IV. Therefore, measures continue to be taken to establish settlements, to expropriate property and to encourage directly or indirectly the indigenous Palestinian population to leave the territory. This policy is further illustrated by the statements by members of the Government of Israel during the period covered. by the report and indeed by their very actions such as the occupation during August 1985 by members of the Government of Israel of a Palestinian house in Hebron with the express purpose of asserting the pretended Israeli right to settle and take over the occupied territory. Such a policy reflects the clear intention of the Government of Israel to annex the territories occupied by it in 1967 and is in violation of the international obligations undertaken by Israel as a State party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of the Civilian Persons in Time of War (see annex I below). The Special Committee recalls, in this context, that this Convention stipulates that military occupation is to be considered as a temporary, de facto situation, giving no right whatsoever to the occupying power over the territorial integrity of the occupied territories. Illustrative of the seriousness of this policy are statements such as those reflected in paragraphs 239 to 254 above. In the view of the Special Committee, these statements alone leave no doubt as to the unlawful intentions of the Government of Israel. For example, reference may be made to the statement reflected in paragraph 242, according to which the President of Israel, Haim Hertzog, in the course of a visit to Jewish -settlements in the Gaza Strip on 2 October 1984, affirmed that Jews had the right to settle anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, but that they should establish settlements only when and where there had been a governmental decision to do so. The Prime Minister Alternate and Foreign Minister, Mr. Shamir, in a statement reflected in paragraph 248 above, is reported to have declared on 14 February 1985 that the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank would, be twice the present 50,000 within two or three years. Mr. Shamir is quoted as saying “I am authorized to tell you that nothing has changed in our policy of settling western Eretz Yisrael up to the Jordan. Settlement in every part of the country will continue and will not be reversed or changed”. In another statement on the same day, Mr. Shamir also stated that the Golan Heights were an integral, inseparable part of Israel.

322. Within the context of this policy, a number of measures continued to ‘be taken to give it maximum effect. These measures affect the security of person and property and, in general, every aspect of life of the civilian population in the occupied territories. The information contained in section IV reproduces but a sample of such information. The report attempts to set out in detail the manner in which this policy is made to affect every single Palestinian individual regardless of his social, religious or ideological beliefs. The Special Committee makes reference to the information contained in section IV.C by way of illustration of the daily reality faced by the average civilian in the occupied territories.

323. The Special Committee wishes to underline the events following the exchange of prisoners in May 1985 and, in particular, the effects of that release on the human rights of the civilian population in the occupied territories as a whole. It is considered eloquently illustrative of the nature of the human rights situation of the civilian population of the occupied territories. In brief, in May 1985, 1,150 prisoners were released, of which a large number were Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. Of these, some 600 released detainees remained in the occupied territories; their presence in the occupied territories provoked a concentrated campaign of violence and harassment by Israeli settlers. The extent and force of the activities undertaken by these settlers in regard to the Palestinians in the occupied territories showed that, in fact, it was the settlers who constituted the real authority in the country. It is not necessary here for the Special Committee to repeat the details contained in section IV above, but it would be sufficient to refer to the fact that the settlers were, and still are, permitted to take the law into their own hands. Therefore, the civilian population remained without any protection whatsoever. Corroborative of this attitude of the Israeli authorities is the leniency with which members of the Jewish underground found guilty of murder and physical abuse of the civilian population were treated by the authorities. Reference is made to paragraphs 75 to 89 above in this regard. There remains no doubt that the true political force in the occupied territories, which determines the fate of the civilian population, is made up of the settlers implanted illegally in these territories.

324. Parallel to the policies and measures affecting the individual Palestinian, the Government of Israel continued its policy of the physical annexation of the territory. Thus, as illustrated by the content of section IV.D, new settlements continue to be established and planned and funds allocated in considerable amounts for the purpose. Those measures affect the entire extent of the occupied territories from the Golan Heights to the Gaza Strip and involve millions of United States dollars. For example, as stated in paragraph 251, the Finance Committee of the Knesset set aside on 6 May 1985 IS 1.9 billion (approximately $146 million) for the creation of two settlements in the West Bank and IS 5 billion (approximately $375 million) to strengthen the infrastructure of the settlements already existing in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, the Israeli trade union (Histadrut) had invested up to May 1985 $100 million in construction and infrastructure in the West Bank settlements. The settlement activity is the subject of far too much detail to be completely reflected here; the Special Committee has made an effort in section IV to illustrate this reality on a sample basis. Perhaps a symbolic illustration is provided by the information concerning the Hospice hospital in the old city of Jerusalem. This building has served hundreds of thousands of Arab patients and therefore has value to them. The Special Committee is not in a position to pronounce itself on the medical and health aspects involved, for which the Special Committee of Experts established by the World Health Assembly is in the best position. However, the information before the Special Committee indicates unequivocally the measures taken in regard to the Hospice are clearly intended to strengthen the overall policy to de-Arabize Jerusalem.

325. Section IV.E contains information on the treatment of detainees. The case of Abdul Aziz Shahin, referred to above, speaks for itself. When the General Assembly considers the present report there will be some 3,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons in a state of overcrowding that has been admitted publicly from year to year by the authorities themselves and that has given rise to much suffering by prisoners who have attempted to draw attention to their plight by organizing hunger strikes, refusing visits etc. In spite of the efforts of the ICRC and a handful of Israeli and Palestinian lawyers to whom tribute must be paid, the plight of Palestinian detainees remains serious and beyond international control.

326. In conclusion, the Special Committee cannot but observe a continuing deterioration in the level of respect for the human rights of the civilian population. The relevant provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention continue to be disregarded. All sectors of life of the civilian population, whether in regard to their civil or political rights or in regard to their economic, social or cultural rights, are constantly pervaded by the continuing and relentless policy of the authorities to annex and settle the occupied territories. At the same time, the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are still outside the occupied territories are denied the right to return, as their property is taken over for the establishment of Israeli settlements. The situation in the occupied territories at the moment of the adoption of the present report is grave, and the experience of the Special Committee confirms the view that the cycle of violence is bound to continue and that the situation therefore will remain explosive.

327. The international community must assume its responsibility and adopt measures to reverse this deterioration; in the circumstances, the parties concerned must change their attitude in regard to the overall political aspects of the problem and give priority to the safeguard of the fundamental rights of the civilians in the occupied territories.

VI. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

328. The present report was approved and signed by the Special Committee on 30 August 1985 in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure.

(Signed) N. WIJEWARDANE (Sri Lanka) (Chairman)

(Signed) A. SENE (Senegal)

(Signed) D. JOVANIC (Yugoslavia)

Notes

1/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session, agenda item 101, documents A/8089; A/8399 and Corr.1 and 2; A/8389/Add.1 and Add.l/Corr.1 and 2; A/88281 A/9148 and Add.11 A/98171 A/10272; A/31/218; A/32/284; A/33/356; A/34/631; A/35/425; A/36/579; A/37/485; A/38/409 and A/39/591.

2/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session, Annexes, agenda item 101, document A/82371 ibid., Twenty-sixth Session, Annexes, agenda item 40, document A/8630; ibid., Twenty-seventh session, Annexes, agenda item 42, document A/8950; ibid., Twenty-eighth Session, Annexes, agenda item 45, document A/9374; ibid., Twenty-ninth Session, Annexes, agenda item 40, document A/9872; ibid., Thirtieth Session, Annexes, agenda item 52, document A/10461; ibid., Thirty-first Session, Annexes, agenda item 55, document A/31/399; ibid., Thirty-second Session, Annexes, agenda item 57, document A/32/407; ibid., Thirty-third Session, Annexes, agenda item 55, document A/33/439; ibid., Thirty-fourth Session, Annexes, agenda item 51, document A/34/691 and Add.1; ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, Annexes, agenda item 57, document A/35/674; ibid., Thirty-sixth Session, Annexes, agenda item 64, document A/36/632/Add.1; ibid., Thirty-seventh Session, Annexes, agenda item 61, document A/37/698; ibid., Thirty-eighth Session, Annexes, agenda item 69, document A/38/7181 and ibid., Thirty-ninth Session, Annexes, agenda item 71, document A/39/712.

3/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session, Annexes, agenda item 101, document A/8080, annex III.

4/ United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973, p. 287.

5/ ibid., No. 972, p. 135.

6/ ibid., vol. 249, No. 3511, p. 215.

7/ Carnegie Endowment for international Peace, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1915).

8/ General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI).

ANNEX I

Articles of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of

Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949

1. In regard to the annexation of the occupied territory, article 47, which states:

“Protected persons who are in occupied-territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”

2. In regard to the transfer of Israeli settlers to the occupied territories, article 49. Article 49 reads as follows:

“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

“Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

“The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest, practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

“The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

“The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

3. In regard to the behavior of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories, particularly as regards acts of violence against the person and property of the civilian population, article 29. Article 29 reads as follows:

“The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.”

4. In regard to measures of collective punishment such as arbitrary resort to curfews, demolition of houses and other forms of reprisal, articles 33 and 53, which read as follows:

Article 33

“No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

“Pillage is prohibited.

“Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.”

Article 53

“Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary military operations.”

5. In regard to the treatment of prisoners in detention, articles 64 and 76. Articles 64 and 76 read as follows:

Article 64

“The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.”

Article 76

“Protected persons accused of offences, shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country.

“They shall receive the medical attention required by their state of health.

“They shall also have the right to receive any spiritual assistance which they may require.

“Women shall be confined in separate quarters and shall be under the direct supervision of women.

“Proper regard shall be paid to the special treatment due to minors.

“Protected persons who are detained shall have the right to be visited by delegates of the Protecting Power and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in accordance with the provisions of Article 143.

“Such persons shall have the right to receive at least one relief parcel monthly.”

6. In addition to these articles, the Special Committee draws attention to article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which envisages the enactment of legislation to impose penal sanctions on persons committing grave breaches of the Convention. Acts declared to be grave breaches are defined in article 147.

Article 146 states:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

“Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High contracting Party has made out a prima facie case,

“Each High-Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

“In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defense, which shall not be less favorable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949.”

Article 147 states:

“Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property, protected by the present Conventions willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

ANNEX II

Statement submitted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the

Syrian Arab Republic to the Special Committee on 16 May 1985

Department of International Organizations and Conferences

Israeli practices and violations in the occupied territory of the Syrian Arab-Golan

From the very beginning of the Israeli, occupation of the. territory of the Syrian Arab Golan in June 1967, the Israeli occupation authorities have engaged in all types of persecution, terrorism and social, economic, political and cultural discrimination against the local population, thereby violating the rules of international law, the Charter and relevant resolutions of the United Nations and the provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 19,07 and the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

The policy of judaization, annexation and the construction of settlements

Since 1967, the Israeli occupation authorities have been taking measures aimed at changing the legal status, geographic nature and demographic composition of the territory under occupation. These measures include:

1. The destruction and complete obliteration of all abandoned Arab villages. In fact, it is now impossible to determine the location of those villages even on a map.

2. The use of stone from the abandoned villages for the construction of Zionist settlements.

3. The establishment of settlements throughout the territory. The number of established and projected settlements in the Golan now exceeds a total figure of 40.

4. The designation of these settlements by Hebrew names and the suppression of the Arab names of the sites on which they are established. For example, the settlement of Neve Ativ was established on the ruins of the village of Jubbata Al Zeit and the settlement of El Rom on the ruins of the village of Ain Hur. Many other examples could be given of such actions.

5. The conduct of an intensive campaign to disguise all Arab cultural features and historical evidence of the Arab character of the territory.

6. The leveling and reclamation of land belonging to abandoned villages to which water is piped with a view to turning such land into’ Israeli tourist resorts.

7. The display of the slogan “The Golan is an inseparable part of the State of Israel” in Hebrew and English everywhere in the Golan Heights.

8. Promulgation of the legislative act of 14 December 1981 which provided for the application of Israeli law and legal and administrative jurisdiction in the occupied Golan.

Campaigns of terrorism, pressure and the imposition of Israeli identity

On 14 December 1981, these practices culminated in the decision taken by the Israeli Knesset to annex the Golan and place it under Israeli legal and administrative jurisdiction in furtherance of Zionist expansionist designs. These practices include the expulsion of local residents and the imposition of emergency laws under which the remaining population are left at the mercy of the military administration authorities who do not allow freedom of movement and arrest any persons found in a district other than that to which they are assigned. The local population are not permitted to establish charitable institutions and associations on the grounds that they are political. Additional taxes have been imposed on every family. The population are not allowed to exploit their land and its natural resources and water supplies have been diverted to the Zionist settlements that have been established in the territory. Thousands of dunams of land belonging to villages on the slopes of Mount Hermon in the Golan have been expropriated for the establishment of tourist and ski resorts. Extensive areas of land have also been expropriated for the construction of Zionist settlements.

The population of the Syrian Arab Golan are being subjected to pressure and campaigns of terrorism designed to force them to abandon their Syrian Arab nationality and adopt Israeli identity. These pressures, campaigns of terrorism, acts of repression and detentions were intensified when the population of the occupied Syrian villages in the territory refused Israeli identity. The occupation forces and border guards were replaced by units of the terrorist-Israeli police. Syrian documents and driving licenses were replaced by their Israeli equivalents and the Israeli habitation tax was imposed on the population.

In response to these terrorist campaigns, the population of the Golan promulgated the National Charter which stipulates that the Golan Heights are an inseparable part of Arab Syria and that “Any citizen who changes his nationality, thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to our personal and national dignity, religion and traditions, shall be regarded as a traitor to our people and, consequently, shall be disowned by our country, our society and our religion. Such persons shall be ostracized; we shall not take part in their celebration of joyful and sad occasions, nor shall we permit them to marry among us or pray with us since they are traitors without religion”.

In an attempt to counter this nationalist attitude, the Israelis detained a number of persons who had signed the Charter. In the latter part of April 1981, the commander of the northern district issued orders for the detention of five prominent personalities in the Golan against whom spurious charges were brought. All of these five, Kamal Asalad Kani, Mahmoud Hussein Al-Safadi, Hayil Hussein Abu Jabal, Ahmad Ali Qadhmani and Muhanna Hussein Al-Safadi, had already spent several years in Israeli prisons in the early 1970s on the same charges. The Governor issued orders under which a number of students from the Golan, including Selim Al-Safadi, a student at the University of Haifa, were placed under restricted residence. Aaron Zubeida, the Education officer, also issued an order for the arbitrary dismissal of dozens of teachers in the Golan Heights while, at the same time, the Military Governor imposed mass sanctions against the population of the territory which included:

(a) Cancellation of the work permits of a number of workers from the territory.

(b) Suspension of social security benefits.

(c) Prohibition of meetings between members of families separated as a result of the occupation.

(d) Suspension of the payment of old age and disability pensions and children’s allowances to women who do not carry Israeli nationality.

(e) Prohibition of the sale of vegetables and fruit by persons not holding Israeli nationality.

(f) The prohibition, since 1967, of visits by the population to other Arab territories and a ban on the holding of public gatherings.

(g) The imposition of special local and municipal councils in the occupied villages with a view to consolidating the occupation of the territory.

(h) The exploitation of political circumstances within and outside Israel in order to continue the establishment of settlements. By I January 19.84, the number of settlements established, under construction and in the planning stage amounted to 40.

The Israeli occupation authorities have turned the Arab villages into prisons. On 31 March 1982, the occupation authorities used loudspeakers to declare a curfew in the Arab villages, whereupon 16,000 troops who had been brought from Galilee poured into the villages and turned the schools into detention centers. They began by detaining 47 citizens and, after a few hours, 150 detainees were being held at the secondary school in the village of Mas’ada. The occupation authorities also detained a number of women, including the freedom fighters Ghalia Al Wali, Nabiha Faris Al Wali (28 years), Suhaila Al Wali (21 years), Nihad Al Mufadda, and Hindiya Al Mufadda, all of whom were taken to the prison at Kiryat Shemona where they were beaten, humiliated and tortured.

Inside the village, some troops took up position on the roofs of houses, while the others deployed in groups of 15 and forced their way into the houses of the inhabitants, compelling them to accept the identity cards that the Military Governor had imposed on them. During the course of this operation doors, windows and furniture were broken and the water supply was cut off from the village, thereby forcing the population to use contaminated water for drinking purposes. This led to the spread of diseases among children, particularly in the village of Buq’ata. The occupation authorities have also engaged in acts of savage repression against the Arab villages. For example, on 31 March 1982, the inhabitants of the village of Majdal Shams had gathered in the village square to celebrate the erection of a statue in honor of the nationalist leader Sultan Pasha El Atrash. The celebration was interrupted by the arrival of Aaron Zubeida, education officer in the military administration, and an army detachment which occupied the village and turned the school into a military camp. A curfew was imposed until further notice. Throughout the night the Zionist forces remained in the school, turning its classrooms into prisons. Observation posts were established on the roofs of houses and the inhabitants were not permitted to open their windows. The troops took advantage of the situation to split up into groups of 11 men who began to knock on the doors of houses to present the occupants with Israeli identity cards that had been prepared in advance. If the occupants refused to accept the identity cards, the Israelis threw the cards on the floor and left the premises. When all of the inhabitants had refused the identity cards, General Amir Daruri, Commander of the Northern Region, ordered the troops to open fire, as a result of which four persons were wounded: Salih Ibrahim, a child, who was wounded in his left leg; Nahiya Sahour, a 33-year old mother of 10; the 64-year old Muhammed Ibrahim; and a 32-year-old father of six children.

While the houses were being entered, the Arab population clashed with the occupation ‘ troops surrounding the house of Shaikh Samih Ali Ibrahim who had refused to accept the Israeli identity card. One of the sheikh’s relatives attempted to intervene, as a result of which he was severely beaten by the troops who then opened fire on the population, wounding an 11-year-old child, a woman Na’ila Ibrahim, who was wounded in her hand, and Muhammad Salah Ibrahim, who was shot in the hand and shoulder. When the curfew was imposed some of the inhabitants were in neighboring villages. However, the Military Governor refused to allow them to return home. Consequently, the wife of Hamad Khater and her children remained besieged in the village of Mas’ada and were not allowed to return to Majdal Shams. While Islaf Hamoud Murad and her three children were returning to their home at Buq’ata, they were stopped by Israeli troops who demanded to see their identity cards. Although she told them that the cards were in her house, which was only a few minutes away, the troops refused to wait and attempted to detain her and her children. When she resisted, the troops opened fire on a group of citizens who had gathered at the place of the incident, wounding Yussuf Asalad Al Qais, a 25-year-old father of three children, Yahya Abu Shaheen (26 years), the 8-year old Samir Salman Abu Shaheen and others. A large detachment of troops then arrived and detained a number of citizens, including Akram Hamoud Murad, Abdul Karim Muhammad Shams and Salih Sham (70 years).

The deteriorating health situation

The inhabitants of the Arab villages under Israeli siege in the occupied Golan had to live without food ad medicine since the Zionist health authorities refused to provide medical services for the Arab population. Although Rihab Al-Safadi, a three-month-old baby, was suffering from severe inflammation in her chest and throat, the doctor refused to treat her unless he was paid 2,500 shekels for the medical examination. Habous Abu Salib, a 47-year-old woman suffering from a spinal complaint, was asked to pay 2,800 shekels. When a pregnant woman failed to produce an Israeli identity card, the doctor demanded 12,000 shekels in payment for the delivery of her child. In order to obtain a permit to visit the doctor during the Israeli siege and curfew, sick persons or their relatives are forced to apply to the office of the Military Governor from where they are sent to the Israeli military doctor who may decide that there is no need for treatment. The Military Governor has often refused permission for sick persons to leave villages under curfew. For example, Hussein Ridha (60 years), suffering from a spinal disease,  was refused permission to visit the doctor by order of the Military Governor. Numerous citizens have been subjected to this treatment, including Suleiman Jad Al Karim Shams, a cancer patient who had undergone a surgical operation and who was not permitted by the Military Governor to return to the hospital in order to continue his treatment.

Health care is non-existent, as can be seen from the following:

1. There are no private clinics in the occupied villages.

2. A general practitioner visits the larger villages three times ‘a week. During these four-hour visits, he is able to examine only a small number of patients to whom he merely issues prescriptions.

3. Medicines are not supplied free of charge to the Arab population who have to buy them at exorbitant prices.

4. Patients requiring hospitalization are admitted to the hospital at Safad where they are charged about 3,500 shekels per night, not including the cost of medicines and doctors’ fees.

5. Medical facilities, roads, water supply, sanitation and clinics are non-existent in the occupied villages.

6. The Israeli occupation authorities do not provide the population of the occupied territory with preventive health care, particularly the various vaccinations required by children.

7. The Israeli occupation authorities do not supply ambulances to transport sick persons from the occupied territory to hospital.

8. No measures are taken to control the spread of pests and contagious diseases in the occupied territory.

Cultural and social matters

1. The occupation authorities are imposing Israeli educational curricula on students in the occupied villages in an attempt to suppress Arab history, glorify Israeli history and promote sectarian and factional bigotry.

2. The Israeli occupation authorities have abolished the Arab educational curricula, particularly those providing for the study of books on Arab literature, history and geography.

3. The Israeli occupation authorities have decided to make the Hebrew language a compulsory subject for students in the occupied villages.

4. A number of competent Arab teachers have been dismissed and the occupation authorities have assigned their jobs to persons who are not qualified to teach.

5. Arab students are not permitted to complete their studies at Syrian universities.

6. The occupation authorities have made it very difficult for Arab students to complete their studies at Israeli universities in view of the exorbitant fees charged.

Schools lack the most basic requirements. They are badly lit and lack laboratories and reference works. The occupation authorities allocate a mere 1,500 shekels to heat each classroom, although even the Israeli press admits that this amount is inadequate to cover the costs of heating for a single week in a region that suffers from extremely cold winters. Teachers are dismissed in an arbitrary manner on the grounds of their opposition to the occupation authorities and students are not permitted to continue their studies at Syrian educational institutions in which tuition is provided free of charge. It should be noted that, although the Israeli occupation authorities have approved a list of student wishing to enroll at Syrian educational institutions’ only a small number of these students have been permitted to travel to Syria and the majority of those who have completed their education in Syria have been refused permission to return to their villages in the occupied Golan.

The occupation authorities refused to allow the body of Major-General Nur el-Din Kanj, who was killed in an accident, to be transported to his home town of Majdal Shams for burial there as he had requested before his death. As a result of this refusal, a demonstration was held in the town to demand permission for the burial in Majdal Shams. The occupation authorities used force to disperse the demonstrators. His funeral in the town Ain Al-Teena was attended by many of his relatives and the majority of the population of Al Majdal, on the unoccupied side of the frontier, who shouted their condemnation of the refusal by the occupation authorities to permit the family of the deceased to bury him in his home town of Majdal Shams. On the day after the funeral, the occupation authorities detained a number of persons for questioning on a charge of provoking a disturbance of the peace. The authorities threatened to deprive these persons of their livelihood if they continue to oppose the occupation. The persons concerned were Hasan Fakhr el-Din, Khalid Abu-Salih, Saqr Kanj Abu Salih, Rafiq Ibrahim, Hayil Hussein Abu Jabal, Kanj Salman Abu Salih and Hayil Nulman Abu Jabal.

The occupation authorities are also dismissing Arab workers in an arbitrary manner.

The children and wives of detainees held in Israeli prisons are facing an additional problem due to the fact that, six months ago, the occupation authorities suspended payment of the allowances that they had been receiving, thereby placing them in an extremely critical position since they have no opportunities for employment.

Agricultural, commercial and other matters affecting livelihood

1. The Israeli occupation authorities have made all aspects of the livelihood of the population of the occupied Arab territory conditional on the acquisition of an Israeli identity card since Arab citizens living under occupation are unable to work, travel, buy, sell or move from place to place unless they hold such a card.

2. The Israeli occupation authorities have expropriated extensive areas of Arab land in the occupied Golan, without compensating owners, for military purposes and for the construction of settlements.

3. The Israeli occupation authorities have increased the tax burden on the Arab population in a manner inconsistent with their income.

4. The Israeli occupation authorities impose curfews and withdraw travel permits in order to restrict the freedom of movement of the Arab inhabitants of the occupied territory for the most trivial reasons. Persons subject to such restrictions are unable to work on their land or elsewhere and they and their families are consequently deprived of their livelihood.

5. The Arab population living under Occupation are forced to sell their agricultural produce at the lowest prices and their produce is frequently ruined due to the many difficulties impeding its sale.

6. The Israeli occupation authorities have established pre-set prices for some agricultural produce and permit the Arab population to sell their produce only to certain Israeli companies.

7. The Israeli occupation authorities have imposed high taxes on the agricultural produce of the population of the occupied territory. These taxes are levied in an extremely arbitrary manner by the Israeli income tax Officials.

8. The Israeli occupation authorities have imposed a heavy tax on the use of water from Lake Mas’ada for the irrigation of land belonging to the population of the occupied villages. If this tax is not paid, the population run the risk of seeing their crops ruined through the dessication of their orchards and fields. This practice is an illustration of the forceful methods used to induce the population to abandon their villages.

9. The occupation authorities have confiscated a large part of the vineyards and other agricultural lands in the occupied villages on alleged security grounds with a view to turning them into wasteland.

10. The occupation authorities have prohibited the drilling of agricultural wells by the population of the occupied villages.

11. The occupation authorities have prevented the population of the occupied villages from using the pastureland around their villages, irrespective of whether it is private, communal or government property, and grazing has been restricted to specific areas.

ANNEX III

Statement submitted by the Ministry of Occupied Territories’ Affairs of Jordan to the Special Committee on 21 May 1985

Israeli practices in the occupied Arab territories are a clear indication of the objectives of the occupation authorities. The aim is to depopulate these areas and to replace the Arabs by Jewish settlers.

Israeli violations of human rights and arrests and tortures are almost impossible to enumerate. Nevertheless, an examination of the situation on the West Bank with regard to the overall numbers of arrests sheds some light on the actual situation of the people living in the occupied territories.

The military government authorities waged the widest-ranging campaign of arrests in the occupied territories last  February. Newspapers published in the occupied territories reported that this campaign involved approximately one thousand persons in the towns of Ramallah and Al-Birah alone. It should also be noted that campaigns of arrest waged by the occupation authorities do not differentiate between adults or juveniles, or between men and women. …

The Israeli military authorities have issued clear orders to their troops and to the settlers, by virtue of which they have been given more freedom with regard to opening fire on Arabs who express their opposition to the occupation in demonstrations.

On 26 November 1984, the newspaper Al hamishmar stated that: these instructions enable soldiers to open fire on suspects whom they intend to arrest, or to prevent the escape of persons to be arrested.

As a result of these orders, there  has been an increase in the number of cases in which soldiers and settlers have opened fire on Arabs, not in the course of demonstrations. In fact, settlers open fire on Arabs who are merely engaged in work on their land in the vicinity of settlements, under the pretext of self-defense.

A large number of martyrs have fallen as a result of these actions, and dozens of Arabs have been wounded. The Israeli military authorities enforce the emergency laws on a wide scale against persons whom they consider to be dangerous to security. Ninety persons are under threat of exile; most of them have been able to obtain court orders preventing their exile pending the outcome of Suits brought by them against the military authorities. Seventy others are in danger of being condemned to compulsory residence at locations to be designated by the Israeli authorities. …

While arrests, exile and compulsory residence all aim at creating an atmosphere of terror for the Arabs in the occupied territories, and at overcoming the spirit of resistance and opposition to Israel’s expansionist policies, the policy of blowing up houses is the most serious in the series of Israeli practices. The occupation authorities invent pretexts to undertake such operations. For example, they allege that a family member belongs to a resistance organization, or claim that a building has been constructed without a proper permit, although it is a fact that the Israeli authorities do not grant building permits in areas outside municipal limits. …

In addition to these practices, the occupation authorities resort to collective punishment of entire towns, villages and camps, by imposing curfews, or by prohibiting people from leaving their areas. Such measures are enforced for extended periods in some cases, with destructive effects on the economic activities of the Arab population. …

As part of their policy of collective punishment, the occupation authorities close shops in streets in which Israeli vehicles or patrols have been stoned.

Acts of aggression against Muslim and Christian holy places

The continued Israeli occupation of Arab territories is in itself the greatest violation of human rights. During 1984, there was a continuous-series of violations and acts of aggression by Jewish extremists against both Muslim and Christian holy places.

Al-Aqsa Mosque is one of the most important Muslim shrines and is of great importance to civilization. It was and continues to be a major target of these groups of extremists who seek to destroy the Mosque and to construct the supposed Temple. The Haram Al-lbrahimi in Hebron has also been subjected to acts of aggression, with the aim of converting it into a Jewish temple and preventing Muslims from praying there.

Following is a list of the major acts of aggression and violations:

– The establishment of a Jewish organization called “The Torah Institution”, under the leadership of Yoel Laril, the objective of which is the destruction of al-Aqsa Mosque.

– The “Guardian Youths of the Temple Generation” movement sends patrols to al-Aqsa Mosque every Saturday, in support of its objective of renouncing praying at the Wailing Wall and -gathering instead before the entrance of the Haram al-Sharif, preparatory to taking it over.

– Refusal by the occupation authorities to remove border guard soldiers from the courtyard of the Haram al-Sharif, as requested by the Islamic Board.

– An attempt by a group calling itself “Guardians of Generations of the House” to pray inside al-Aqsa Mosque on 6 October 1984. When prevented from doing so, the group conducted prayers at Bab al-Magharba.

-Installation of television cameras inside al-Haram al-Ibrahimi on 20 September 1984, and the construction of an iron staircase for Israeli soldiers to ascent to the observation point on Salah-al-Din’s castle, on 11 September 1984.

– Jewish prayers were held there on 26 and 28 September. Muslims were prevented from holding prayers in parts of the Mosque, namely the Tombs of the Patriarchs and the courtyard.

– The custodian of the Haram al-Sbarif, Ismail al-Hashlamoun, was the subject of an act of aggression.

– On 1 October 1984, settlers performed a circumcision in the Haram al-Sharif, which was attended by a number of high officials of the military government. Food and drink were served during the ceremony.

– The Israeli flag was raised on the Hram al-Ibrahimi on 8 May 1984. Independence Day was celebrated in it, with singing and dancing.

– Interference by the Israeli authorities in Christian pilgrimage affairs, and restriction of access by Christians to places 9f worship and holy places, a; well as attempts to exploit religion as something of a folkloric nature to promote tourism in Israel. A protest was made by the Pilgrimage Committee that represents all the Christian churches about Israeli actions. This was published in its report dated 13 March 1984.

– Two men in army uniform armed with automatic weapons insulted Archdeacon Anthony Ghorabi of the Russian Spiritual Mission in the Khan al-Ahmar area after he had crossed the King Hussein Bridge, accompanied by his driver and the Mission’s accountant. The two armed men physically assaulted him, causing head injuries. They also robbed him of $US 6,000.00 and JD 1,000.

Settlement

In the first half of 1984, when the Likud party was in power, a concentrated campaign of settlement took place all over the occupied Arab territories. The settling operations did not cease following elections in July, as the new coalition government pursued the implementation of the expansionist policy of establishing settlements on Arab soil. This was in line with a program agreed upon by the two large parties, on the basis of which the coalition government was formed under the premiership of Shimon Peres.

The agreement stipulated the establishment of six new settlements, and the Israeli Government allocated 750 million shekels to assist with the development of 10 settlements on the West Bank.

The Israeli Minister of Defense, Itzhak Rabin, also agreed to the transfer of 300 million shekels to the Settlement Section of the Jewish Agency, to support the development and expansion of existing settlements.

Rabin revealed Israeli ambitions in the Arab territories when he declared, following a visit to the Gaza strip, that “the area in which Israeli settlements had been established between the city of Gaza and the borders of Sinai is an integral part of Israel”.

The Foreign Minister, Itzhak Shamir, has also stated on more than one occasion that the West Bank is part of what he called the land of Greater Israel. He said that talk about the possibility of a withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is an obstacle to peace in the area.

Actions by settlers in the occupied territories

A review of Israeli actions in the occupied Arab territories clearly shows Israel’s objective of depopulating these areas. Jewish settlers in settlements established in the occupied territories have undertaken numerous acts of aggression against Arab citizens, such as opening fire on them while they were working on their land, or invading their homes and threatening to force them to leave.

The most important of such actions were:

– Opening fire on Abdel Kader Ismail, aged 60, east of Deir Tell in Nablus, causing injuries.

– Rabbi Moshe Levinger stationed himself outside the Dheisheh camp for three months, during which he provoked the inhabitants of the camp by firing at them and invading their homes.

– The destruction of 30 meters of the Bab al-Rahma Cemetery in Jerusalem early this year.

– A shepherd in the Jenin area was injured by shots fired by settlers at the Hinamit settlement when he tried to prevent them from seizing his shop on 15 January 1985.

– Settlers have robbed and blackmailed citizens of the occupied territories at gunpoint, posing as security personnel. Five were arrested on 2 January 1985.

– Settlers organized provocative marches in the cities of Hebron and Nablus, raising banners proclaiming both cities to be part of the “land of Israel”, with the participation and support of Israeli ministers and officials on 25 December 1984.

– Aly Ainoussi, of Tobas, was killed by settlers’ bullets on29 November 1984.

– A settler fired a rocket at an Arab-bus travelling between Jerusalem and Hebron on 28 October 1984, killing a young man and injuring 10 persons.

– A settler invaded the homes of Ibrahim Mabmoud Aziz and Said al-Tirawi in the Balata camp. He broke down the doors of both houses, opened fire inside them, and destroyed their furniture.

– Four Arabs were injured, while sitting at a coffee shop at the Gate of the Chain in Jerusalem, by a hand grenade of a type used by the Israeli Army, thrown by a settler on 22 September 1984.

– An Israeli building contractor killed Issa Abu Khadr, aged 47, of Bethlehem on 14 March 1984.

– The windows of a number of Arab-owned cars were smashed in Hebron on the night of 28 May 1984.

– Settlers raided the village of Saeer in Hebron, opened fire on the school and “arrested” two students.

– The settlers of Kiryat Arba in Hebron have made several attempts to seize Arab territories in the Tel-Rameida area, to establish settlements there.

The regional organization of the road network

Project No. 50 for the regional organization of the road network, announced by the Israeli occupation authorities, is perhaps one of the most serious actions to be undertaken by the Israeli authorities in the occupied territories, as it is a

further step in Israeli plans to judaize the occupied territories.

A total of 560 km. of roads are to be constructed, necessitating the confiscation of about 70,000 dunams of orchards.

This project was planned in such a way as to enable the occupation authorities to integrate and judaize the West Bank in order to confirm its final annexation.

The project envisages the construction of a road network covering the entire West Bank. This would restrict the development of the Palestinian population by depriving them of the use of their agricultural land and of facilities and resources on this land, such as wells and irrigation networks, and would also prevent them from expanding their towns and villages.

The roads have been planned in such a way as to restrict the development of numerous Palestinian towns and villages by firmly ringing their limits or by cutting up their populated centers in order to prevent their extension.

The project proposes the construction of four types of road; fast roads 120 m wide, with construction prohibited for 150 m on either side of the road; main roads 100 m wide with construction prohibited for 120 m on either side; regional roads 60 wide, with construction prohibited for 100 m on either side; and local roads 40 m wide, with construction prohibited for 75 m on either side.

Bids submitted for the project are in clear violation of Jordanian law in force on the West Bank, even after its amendment by military order.

Law 29 of 1957, as amended by Military Order 810, on the supervision of roads, permits only three types of road: public state highways, which are main roads 50 m wide; and primary and secondary roads, 40 m wide; and rural roads 30 m wide.

In order to demonstrate the serious effect of this road network on populated and agricultural areas on the West Bank, a detailed survey was conducted at two of the proposed types of road, one passing through a populated area from Tulkarm to Anabta, and the other passing through an agricultural area from Tallouza to Ghor al-Faral.

This section represents only 3.3 per cent of the proposed network.

The survey indicated the extent of the damage that would be caused to property as a result of the construction of 20 km of roadway. This would damage 1,568 dunams of agricultural land, with citrus, olive and almond orchards. It would also entail the destruction of 36 houses and part of the Nur Shams camp, as well as the destruction of the entire al-Faral irrigation project, a project that carries water to over 16,000 dunams. This damage is limited to the immediate areas in which the road is to be constructed; apart from the great damage that will arise from planned extensions.

This project was prepared without the knowledge of the municipalities or the road planning committees on the West Bank, by the Supreme Road Planning Council, in collaboration with various departments in Israel.

Before the project was prepared, the membership of the Supreme Road Planning Council was amended by Military Order 418, whereby the representatives of institutions and communities who could have protected the rights of the Palestinian inhabitants were removed from the Council. It is now composed of military officers, to enable it to work in the interests of the Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. The Council has formulated the plans necessary for supporting Israel’s illegal policy of achieving a de facto annexation of the West Bank. …

Confiscation of land

Seizure of Arab land is a major objective of the occupation authorities. After the seizure of about half the land of the West Bank, under the pretext that it was state-owned or that it was being used for military purposes, this area was then used for settlement as the expansion and growth of the settlements necessitate the acquisition of new areas, and the Israeli authorities resort to seizing land owned by Arabs for this purpose. Between February 1984 and February 1985, the occupation authorities have confiscated over 50,000 dunams of fertile Arab agricultural land, a large proportion of which is under fruit trees. The confiscated areas have been annexed to existing settlements or have been used for the establishment of new ones. …

The economic situation

The agriculture sector is one of the most important production sectors on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. It is also a symbol of the strong ties of the Palestinian people to their land. Agricultural production represents most of the gross domestic product.

In view of the importance of agriculture to the economy of the occupied territories, the occupation authorities have striven to control the agricultural sector and to exploit it in the service of Israel’s economy and consequently to control and dominate its labor force.

In addition to seizing large areas of land for the establishment of settlements or for military purposes, the Israeli authorities have taken a series of measures aimed at weakening this vital sector and subsequently driving Palestinians from their land.

These measures include:

1. Limiting the area of cultivated land in the al-Aghwar area, as well as limiting agricultural production, in order to eliminate West Bank competition with Israeli agricultural production.

2. Reduction of the area under citr4s trees, as West Bank citrus production is highly competitive with that of Israel.

3. Construction of roads leading to settlements across cultivated land and fruit orchards.

4. Impeding the development of the agriculture sector by establishing complete control over water resources and the diversion of large quantities of water intended for irrigation.

5. Reducing the area of grazing land with the aim of destroying livestock production.

6. Prohibition Of the establishment of agricultural co-operatives and impeding efforts by farmers to obtain loans and credit facilities from the East Bank. Control of the land remains the key to agricultural development. This has been limited by the lack of cultivable land suitable for the production of high-value crops. Such land is available only in the Jordan Valley, but the Arab population is permitted to use only 6.3 per cent of available water resources.

Although the West Bank farmers have succeeded to a certain extent in overcoming some of the obstacles placed in their way by the Israelis, the occupation authorities have intervened once more and have closed Israeli markets to some varieties of fruits and vegetables. This has caused Arab farmers to sustain very heavy losses.

Industry sector

Israeli measures have had an adverse effect on the industry sector as on the other sectors. The share of industry in the gross domestic product has progressively declined, as has the number of industrial enterprises, as a result of the closure of many of them through the implementation of Israeli policies aimed at destroying this sector and at subjugating it in the service of the Israeli economy. With the continuing occupation, the number of industrial enterprises has steadily declined as a result of the intensification of the enforcement of Israeli measures aimed at taking over Arab economic resources and at exploiting the occupied area as a market for Israeli industrial products.

As a consequence of the opening of the market in the occupied area to Israeli goods, Arab producers do not have any form of protection and cannot compete with subsidized Israeli goods.

Israeli measures adopted against the industry sector may be summarized as follows:

1. The occupation has destroyed the confidence and stability that are an important factor to any investor.

2. Arab production h as no protection whatsoever.

3. Continual price increases as a result of the decline in the value of the Israeli currency, which has led to increasing the cost of raw materials and consequently to an increase in the price of manufactured goods.

4. The imposition of excessive taxes on Arab industrial production in addition to the value added tax and the income tax which is constantly increasing.

5. Restrictions imposed by the occupation authorities on the importation of raw materials for Arab industries, forcing them to purchase such materials on the Israeli market.

6. The unavailability of investment funds for industry and the absence of specialized financial institutions that provide credit facilities.

7. The lack of an adequate infrastructure for the development 6f the industry sector as a result of Israeli policies and the shortage of trained technical manpower.

8. The absence of a national institution for planning industrial development in the occupied territories and Israeli disinterest in the development of this sector.

As regards foreign trade, the occupation authorities are pursuing a policy that subjugates the economy of the occupied territories in the service of Israel’s economy. Israel was the primary source of West Bank imports, with 80 per cent of the total, of which the share of the East Bank was only 5 per cent. As a result of the imbalance in trade relations between the West Bank and Israel, the deficit is financed by the trade surplus with the East Bank, by remittances from the workers abroad and by Arab assistance provided to the inhabitants of the occupied territories.

Services sector

This is a consumption sector that does not generate any material returns to cover its expenses and as such receives no attention worth mentioning from occupation authorities, as it does not serve the Israeli economy. Spending by the Israeli authorities on the services sector is limited basically to keeping it in existence and not for its improvement or development. Therefore, measures adopted by the Israeli Government to reduce the deficit in its balance of payments and to curb inflation are reflected negatively in this sector, in the occupied area, and reduction in spending has affected it directly. The medical, educational and postal services are therefore declining, as are public works, except those that serve Israeli settlement and military purposes – such as the regional roads project – to the extent that the needs of the population are no longer satisfied.

The medical service remains unable to meet the requirements of the-population, because of obstacles imposed by the Israeli authorities, the lack of modern technology and the shortage of physicians in government hospitals and clinics.

The number of hospital beds in the occupied territories has not increased In proportion with the population increase, as the occupation authorities oppose the modernization of medical equipment in existing hospitals and the construction of new hospitals.

Reference should be made here to an increase in the number of beds in some West Bank Hospitals, such as the al-Hussein Hospital at Beit Jala, the new Ramallah Hospital and the Rafidia Hospital. This increase was made possible by grants and assistance provided to the inhabitants of the West Bank, not by the occupation authorities.

As regards educational institutions in the occupied areas, the occupation authorities are continuing the implementation of their policies that aim at bringing about the failure of these institutions, by forcibly closing them and not giving them the necessary scope for the fulfillment of their educational mission. …

The occupation authorities are also pursuing their measures aimed at emptying the educational institutions of experienced personnel by dismissal or early retirement before the legal age.

The authorities have escalated campaigns of arrest aimed at school and university students. They are imprisoned, fined and placed under forced residence, particularly in periods preceding scheduled examinations. This prevents the students from pursuing their studies in a normal fashion with their classmates. Furthermore, the authorities ban students who have been arrested from enrolment at government schools, which negatively affects their educational future, due to the high fees their families are forced to pay to private schools, which are also usually far from their homes. …

Effects of Israeli measures on the life of the Arab population

The practices and measures of the Israeli occupation forces in the occupied Arab territories have brought about a great change in the way of life of the population, demographically, socially and economically.

The geographic distribution of the Israeli settlements has disrupted the West Bank and has isolated its various parts from one another. The establishment of even more settlements and the expansion of the existing ones, with additional settlers being brought in, have caused a serious demographic change in the occupied area. The regional project which the occupation authorities intend to implement has come to further this disintegration and to make of the communities of Arab citizens on the West Bank virtually isolated zones, similar to the system practiced by the racist regime in South Africa with regard to the African population.

The implementation of the settlement plans and the expansion of the existing settlements take place at the expense of Arab land, which is confiscated, leaving the Arab population with no means of support, as the majority depend upon agriculture for their livelihood. These measures also deprive a very large number of Arab workers of job opportunities in the fields and orchards and force them to migrate from the occupied territories to seek employment on the Israeli labor market in order to earn a living. once the Arab workers obtain jobs in Israeli factories and workshops they are at the mercy of Israeli enterprises that exploit them and control their destiny. There is no law to which they can resort for protection, in addition to which their need to obtain work forces them to accept any conditions imposed by these enterprises.

The policies adopted by the occupation authorities against the Arab population, including arrest, prohibition from travelling and curfews, are but a part of the migration plan aimed at clearing the land of its inhabitants. Such policies destroy the economic lives of Arab families, as they are dependent for their livelihood upon the head of the family or the eldest son. If they are arrested, this means that the family’ is deprived of its breadwinner.

These policies also have a negative effect on social life in the occupied area. Students who are arrested are deprived of the possibility of pursuing their education at government schools. This forces them into vagrancy or into seeking work. A family whose breadwinner is arrested is forced to take its eldest son out of school or university to support it.

The population of the West Bank suffer greatly from inflation in the Israeli economy. Rising prices have made Arab families unable to satisfy their normal needs, while the value of the Israeli currency is in constant decline. The per capita income in the occupied territories is far lower than-that of the Israelis, who have comprehensive medical insurance and unemployment insurance, as well as trade unions that defend them, all of which are unavailable to the Arab citizens living under Israeli occupation.

Living conditions in the occupied territories have become unbearable because of measures taken by Israel that have restricted the means of livelihood.

ANNEX IV

Statement communicated to the Special Committee

by Dr. Munther Salah, President of the Al-Najah

National University in Nablus,on_22 t4ay_1985

Introduction

1. Under international law and in the contemporary practice of nations, belligerent military occupation is intended to be of short duration and thus involves the imposition of certain exceptional measures of control of the occupied civilian populations by the occupying military administration, considered acceptable from the legal and humanitarian point of view only because they are temporary.

2. In the particular case of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank including its principal center, Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, this situation has gradually become permanent, (the documentary evidence increasingly indicates that a permanent possession of large portions of the territories occupied in June 1967 was intended from the start), and practices designed by definition to be of short duration have become drawn out and constantly repeated ones, with the resultant protracted suffering on the part of the occupied population which this has entailed.

3. The situation has not gotten better over the years, in fact, it worsened with the passage of time, given the increasing inroads of the occupiers into local existence and their intensified measures aimed at displacing the indigenous population and replacing it with their own.

4. As physical measures have worsened, so too have psychological conditions. The prospects of an eventual solution to the dilemma of occupation have dimmed as time went along, and particularly after the first decade of occupation dragged on into a second decade with the turning-point of 1977.

Alienation of the land

5. Worse than any individual practice, because of the massive irreparable losses which it entails, is the seizure by the occupier on a variety of pretexts of enormous amounts of Palestinian lands. The published data indicates that more than

50 per cent of the territory of the West Bank has thus passed into Israeli hands. The relationship of a people to its land is inextricably bound to its ability to exercise human rights, indeed it is the bedrock upon which systems of rights are built. Foreign expropriation destroys the means of individual and collective subsistence, severs the citizens’ link with their ancestral past and incites to emigration.

6. Under the current Israeli Government, elected last July and heralded as inaugurating a new era, settlement building continues, as does the expropriation of land for the purpose of creating new settlements, and the seizure of land for ”security” purposes. Existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank (there are around 125) already provide the potential infrastructure for one million new Israeli immigrants to the occupied territories. Private land purchases, often fraudulent and always illegal, also occur. (Under the international law of belligerent occupation, land may not be purchased by the occupier in occupied territory.)

7. One can only wonder when and over what territory peace can ever conceivably be established, and, in the nearer term, one may even wonder what the purpose of educational institutions is to be if, like bodiless heads, the universities are to produce graduates who have nowhere to go but into exile.

Road Plan 50

8. But perhaps the most insidious, hypocritical and ominous measure of massive land confiscation and economic sabotage is Israel’s so-called “Road Plan 50”, which foresees a network of roads to crisscross the West Bank for a total of 1910 kilometers, in Angth and which provides for sections of 150 meters, width, with land expropriation on both sides of the projected road to go up to 400 meters in all. This plan, illegal under Jordanian planning law and drawn up without any consultation of the concerned local population whatsoever, is devastating in its potential effects: it entails wholesale destruction of agriculture and light industry and the displacement of significant (notably refugee camp) populations. Ten per cent of the West Bank’s cultivated surface is at stake, and the ecological as well as cultural effect goes well beyond this.

9. Israeli road-building is clearly intended to create a grid of highways which will, along with the settlements they serve, physically section various parts of the Palestinian population off from one another, thus foreclosing any future option based on the unity and independence of the Palestinian people.

The economy and the labor force

10. Official Israeli statistics and independent studies prove it; perhaps alone among the peoples of the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, North America and Europe, the Palestinians under occupation are living in lands whose indexes of both agricultural and industrial production are declining and have been for the past decade at least. There are other instances where agricultural production falls, but not for the same reasons as in the occupied territories (outlined above) and not without there being a concomitant increase in industrial production. It is not the place here to analyze in detail the causes and effects of that phenomenon, but it is closely linked to the question of human rights because the decline of the overall economic base of the occupied territories is necessarily matched by the increased emigration to Israel and to other foreign countries of Palestinians from the occupied territories in search of work.

11. There are now approximately 100,000 people of both sexes and all ages who have become day laborers employed by Israeli entrepreneurs. A significant minority of these are illegally, precariously and often miserably housed for most of the week on their employers’ premises. The rest return home in the evening, commuting up to four hours a day. This large Palestinian labor force performs the most menial tasks in the Israeli economy, for which it receives inadequate pay and virtually no social benefits. Palestinian unions are stifled in the occupied territories and forbidden from operating on behalf of these migrant workers within Israel.

12. The other emigrants, those who seek employment in the Arab world and elsewhere, are threatened in a specific, albeit different, but ultimately more destructive manner: they must often commit themselves to staying out of their homeland for three to five years; and when they return, they may on one technicality or another be denied re-entry. They are thus threatened with de facto deportation due to a grim economic situation compounded by various bureaucratic artifices.

13. The Israeli economy is now in crisis: the population of the occupied territories, having been stifled in its agricultural and industrial activities, is now threatened even in its capacity as a subservient labor force.

Health and health care

14. Such Palestinian institutions as Al Najah National University, the Arab College of Medical Professions (El-Bireh) , Bethlehem and Bir Zeit Universities, in addition to UNRWA and certain voluntary agencies, provide quality health education for the Palestinians under occupation. Unfortunately, that education cannot readily be translated into improved health care because the health sector, under Israeli government control, is stifled in its financial and technical means. Simple means for preventing improvement in health care are applied: Jordanian hospitals in Bet El, Nablus and Jerusalem were respectively transformed into a military base, a prison and a police station. Credits for the construction of private clinics and hospitals are denied, permits to build are withheld. Existing private and UNRWA facilities are threatened with closure (such as the Hospice in East Jerusalem), and the government health sector, because of poor pay, under-staffing, insufficient credits and mismanagement, is in a general state of decay.

15. Independent studies are based on insufficient data, due to the reluctance of the authorities to permit thorough investigation. None the less existing research indicates that the number of hospital beds available to the population has

decreased since 1967, a/ that infant mortality remains excessive, b/ and that malnutrition and infection are endemic. c/

_________

a/ Jad Ishaa and Chris Smith, “Standards of Health Care in the West Bank. A Critical Review”, Bethlehem University Yearbook, 1984, pp. 63-79.

b/ Amin Baidoun, The Role of Health in-Economic Development in the West Bank, Jerusalem, Arab Thought Forum, 1981, p. 16.

c/ Rita Giacaman, “Disturbing Distortions: Health Conditions in the West Bank”, Revue d’Etudes Palestiniennes, 12(1984), pp. 23-36 (in French).

Higher education

16. Such, in brief, is the situation with regard to the key structural components which precondition a people’s capacity for exercising its human rights. I shall now turn to the specific domain of higher education in which Al Najah and its sister universities function. As will readily be seen, the various governmental Practices described above have a direct bearing upon the life and problems of our institutions of learning.

Military Order No. 854

17. Military Order 854 concerning higher education was issued several years ago as an amendment to the Jordanian Law on Education and Culture, No. 16. Its very issuance was in violation of international law, since existing laws can only be amended or replaced in order to ensure the security of the occupier-Is armed forces or if absolutely necessary for the good of the people under occupation. It is difficult to argue that either of these purposes was served by a decree which put the universities under the direct control of the Israeli military, with the danger that curriculum, staff and students could be m6nipulated at will.

18. Both before and after the passage of that Military Order, numbers of students and professors were subject to arrest, detention, imprisonment, house arrest, town arrest and other forms of extra-judicial restrictions on movement. That they are extra-judicial measures is proven by the very low percentage of people thus treated who are criminally charged during or subsequent to their arrest.

19. This has affected all of the institutions of higher education in the occupied territories and has been particularly hard on those tawjihi (matriculation examination) students in their last year of high school. They have, over the years and in considerable numbers, been detained during their examination, then released without charge, and thus forced to spend another full year in school before being able to go on to college or university. This practice continues to the present, although there may be fluctuations in the numbers affected.

Detention, maltreatment, shootings

20. A number of our students are serving prison sentences of varying duration) the vast majority of our male students (75 per cent according to a survey conducted by the public relations office of Al Najah National University), some of our female students and a number of staff members have been held in Nablus military headquarters, in one or another prison, and most frequently in Al Fara’a detention center. They are routinely maltreated and either interrogated in a random, brutalizing manner (as if the authorities were on a “fishing expedition” of a type which is forbidden under all codes of civilized law; and even more clearly displaying the will to humiliate and dehumanize), or finally released without interrogation of any sort.

21. On 29 January 1985, the assistant to the Director of Public Relations at Al Najah and another departmental employee were thus arrested and detained for two weeks in Al Fara’a, before being released without the slightest charge being brought against them.

22. In February 1985, the elected Student Council Chairman was placed under a renewable six-month’s town arrest order.

23. A Lecturer in the Physics Department, Mr. Sami Kilani, is in his third consecutive year of town arrest. This latter practice is particularly costly to the teacher, the students and the University. Several other students are also under town arrest. One, who was released late last year after two years town arrest, suffered crippling injuries from Israeli army gunfire last November (on the same occasion a Bir Zeit University student, Mr. Sharaf Tibi, was shot to death by soldiers).

24. There is a new practice currently being carried out, which appears to reflect the present Israeli Government’s drive to appear more humane while behaving as before. This practice consists in ordering certain students (Al Najah currently has three such cases and we anticipate more, in the future) to refrain from entering the University. They are not under town arrest, but their education, that is to say their future, is none the less arrested.

25. Shootings occur during peaceful assemblies by Palestinians of all ages and sexes. Numbers of killings by the army and by Israeli settlers are carried out yearly. Israel argues that its humanitarian practices are proven by the fact that it does not have (or at least does not carry out) the death sentence, but unarmed adults and children are killed by the authorities in numbers which probably surpass legal executions if they existed. Thus does the occupier avoid the onus of imposing the death penalty while practicing an informal, extra-judicial and illegal type of capital punishment.

26. One year ago, two youths were clubbed to death by an army colonel and his men in the, Gaza Strip after having been removed from a bus they bad commandeered and disarmed. The Israeli Minister of Defense had stated shortly before their apprehension that it would be proven that it was not possible to carry out highjackings in Israel and get out of it alive.

27. And on 10 March 1964, Al Najah student Bilal Najar disappeared. His family was a few days later informed that he was under military detention. On 16 March he was found murdered and beheaded in the mountains near Nablus. The mystery of that killing remains unresolved, and there appear to have been other such unresolved but apparently incriminating cases in recent months and years.

Building Permits, land seizure

28. All of the universities have likewise been struck by problems concerning the obtention of building permits. Al Najah National University, for example, was forced to stop construction under way on its old campus two years ago, on 15 March 1983, and has not been allowed to continue since, without any reason being given for the measure. On its new campus of 120 dunams, which it purchased in 1979, it was denied the necessary permits to begin construction on various essential classroom and activities buildings, permits which were repeatedly requested, no response being given to the requests.

29. Worse than that, we are now dismayed to be informed that part of our new campus land has been confiscated by the military. We fear for the future of our new campus in its entirety, for experience has shown time and time again that the authorities resort to so-called “leap-frog” tactics, in their confiscation of Palestinian land, taking it away dunam after dunam until there is nothing left.

30. It would appear that the pretext in this instance is the proximity of the land to Jneid, Nablus’ new central prison, the largest in the West Bank with approximately 1000 inmates. Allow me to point out that the University owned this land for five years before the old Jordanian army hospital was transformed into an ultra-modern detention center. The chronological priority is ours. Besides, if the purpose is simply to prevent construction on part of our land, they can do this by denying building permits for the area they have decided to confiscate. Given their choice of methods, one can only fear the worst for the remainder of Al Najah’s new campus, and therefore, for the realization of our essential educational goals.

Closures

31. Al Najah, like its sister institutions in the occupied territories, has repeatedly suffered from closures. The two most recent official ones were three months in 1983 (June, July and August) and four months in 1984 (August through November). But this picture, though somber enough, is incomplete. The occupation forces have often thrown up roadblocks leading to the University’s entrances and thus “informally” closed the institution down. This has happened scores of times over the years and has closed the University down for a total of two working weeks in 1985 alone.

Conclusion

32. It would appear that the purpose in the measures here described, which are regularly directed against institutions of higher learning and their students, have as their intended effect the maximum compression and limitation of academic standards and achievements within the Palestinian universities. If this were the case – and no other explanation is as plausible – Israel would be deliberately pursuing a policy of perpetual underdevelopment with regard to the Palestinian lands it occupies. There is a good deal of corroborating evidence for the existence of such a policy in other fields, such as economic life and health. It is at least a hypothesis which must conscientiously be tested through research and investigation, for if it were proven to be the case, Israel would be guilty of serious violations of the Charter of the United Nations and possibly of international crimes justifying international sanctions on the part: of the world community.

ANNEX V

Statement submitted by Dr. Walid Mustapha to the

Special Committee in Jordan on 22 May 1985

I. Impact of the recession of the Israeli economy on the conditions of the Palestinian working class

As a result of the aggressive policy of expansion and settlement which characterizes the very nature of the inimical Zionist State and its close connections with United States imperialism, the Israeli economy has for a number of years been experiencing a crisis of unprecedented severity. The situation became particularly critical in 1984 and all the measures adopted by the 1sraeli Government failed to check the recession. For example, inflation in 1984.was over 1000 per cent and, judging by all indicators, it will continue to increase, causing prices to rise to unreasonably high levels and considerably undermining the competitiveness of local products. In June, July and September of 1984, the cost of living in Israel increased by 13.6 per cent, 12.4 per cent and 25.3 per cent, respectively, and by the end of 1984 Israel’s foreign debt exceeded $24 billion. In other words, per capita foreign indebtedness in Israel rose to above $US 6,000, one of the highest rates in the world.

Without going into further detail regarding the acute economic crisis in Israel, this paper will examine its repercussions on the population of the occupied parts of Palestine.

(a) Under the kind of colonialist, fascist occupation imposed by Israel, the brunt of the economic crisis is of course borne by the Palestinian people, which is made to pay the price of recession.

All those who follow developments in the occupied territories have become aware that in the past few years the Israeli occupation forces have been feverishly endeavoring to reduce the local economy of the occupied territories to a state of total dependency. All attempts to initiate independent development have therefore been foiled. These areas have been maintained as a consumer market for industrial and agricultural products and have become the main importer of Israeli goods. Every effort is also being made to use them as a stepping stone to smuggle industrial and agricultural products into neighboring Arab countries. Thus the profound recession which is currently affecting the Israeli economy is reflected in a certain way in the occupied territories whose population and economy enjoy no form of protection, assistance or guarantees whatsoever on the part: of the occupation authorities. Consequently, markets in the occupied territories are stagnating and many productive enterprises in industry and agriculture have been unable to cope with the recession and have closed down.

(b) The imposition of taxes

One of the inherent features of the occupation is the imposition and levying of heavy taxes. The method of taxation applied in the occupied territories is one of the worst forms of oppressive punishment, even if they are levied on the basis of special military instructions. Their amount is determined arbitrarily and is often highly exaggerated. The taxes are then collected by force and unjustly by the police or patrols of soldiers or customs guards who impose exorbitant fines on those who refuse to pay. There is not a single basic rule governing the levying of taxes. In most cases tax regulations and laws are in fact made so unduly obscure that Palestinian nationals know nothing about their rights and obligations in that respect. The entire approach to taxation resembles that followed in the dark middle ages in-Europe. The inquisition has been replaced by “Military appeals committees” whose rulings are invariably against the Palestinians and in the interest of the military government.

Some of the taxes imposed which have recently been indexed in Jordanian dinars could be described as follows:

1. Income tax is at the rate of 38.5 per cent. Military instructions were issued to the effect that this tax should be levied on a monthly basis in 1985, but that the amount raised in January 1985 alone should not be inferior to the sum total of the amounts levied in 1984 as a whole.

2. The value added tax, which is at the rate of 15 per cent, is calculated arbitrarily.

3. The financial tax (on real property) is also arbitrary.

4. Customs duties are payable on a monthly basis and heavy fines are imposed for any delay in their payment.

5. The “floor-space tax” which is imposed on the Arab population of Jerusalem is proportional to the floor space of commercial premises. It increased 6 to 8 fold in 1985 over the previous year – it exceeds by far the cost of renting commercial premises. The traders of Jerusalem therefore refused to pay this tax and more than 4,800 tax registers were consequently returned to the Municipality because over $1500 in “floor-space tax” alone had to be paid in respect of certain premises.

6. The sign tax.

7. The compulsory loan raised to cover the costs of the war in Lebanon in 1982.

8. The go-called “War-for-peace-in-Galilee” tax of 1982.

9. The defense tax, etc.

According to precise estimate, approximately 80 per cent of the income of trading houses and productive enterprises are paid out in taxes. Scope for development is therefore very limited and such establishments are being forced to declare themselves bankrupt and close down.

Shlomo Amar, the officer in charge of internal affairs in the military government, admitted that 90 per cent of the taxes payable by Arab citizens had been collected in 1984. He estimated that-the taxes collected from them in that year amounted to 1.6 billion shekels – not including other levies such as customs duty and worker contributions – whereas the amount spent on projects under the supervision of the military government in the same year, i.e. on the construction of schools, roads and medical facilities was, according to his own admission, only 272 million shekels. In other words, the balance was paid into the Israeli Government treasury to lay the foundations for the occupation through settlement, repression and intimidation. Judging by the annual reports prepared by the military government there was a sharp increase in tax revenue in 1984. Indeed only I billion shekels were collected in the years 1982 and 1983, whereas in 1984 alone taxation increased by 60 per cent as compared with the previous biennium.

I am advancing these figures with reservations, for I am convinced that they are grossly underestimated. Indeed, Israeli statistics completely ignore the amount of taxes collected in the occupied territories for fear that it might expose the false nature of allegations that such taxes supplement resources allocated from the public budget of the Zionist State to balance the budget of the occupied territories.

The most important element in this connection is that the Israeli occupation authorities are resorting to the tax weapon, not only to alleviate the critical economic crisis, but also as a means of destroying the productive foundations of the Palestinian economy, weakening it and ultimately starving the inhabitants and driving them away. As mentioned above, many productive enterprises were actually forced to close down, with the result that the rate of unemployment in the occupied territories rose. This process is affecting large, medium-sized and small enterprises, as well as independent occupations. This year (1985), for example, tax collectors were sent to the butchers in Nablus, some of whom were asked to pay up to $42,000 in taxes. A doctor whose monthly income was no more than $500 was presented with a tax bill of some $9,000 and a small-scale contractor, also from Nablus, was asked to pay $27,000. All of them were consequently forced out of business.

In the Qabatiya area (Nablus district), the owners of 30 stone-workin4 enterprises who employed over 180 workers were forced to close down because the tax department requested each one of them to pay taxes of $36,000 for 1984.

II. Unemployment

Given the general weakness of the economy in the occupied territories, labor has become the main source of income in the industrial, agricultural and trade sectors. Indeed, the earnings brought into these areas by workers employed in Israel or neighboring Arab countries account for more than 30 per cent of the total local product. This high proportion gives an idea of the likely implications of an increase in unemployment in these communities and the consequent deterioration of living conditions and means of subsistence. The threat of unemployment casts a dark shadow over the very existence of the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. According to official estimates, the rate of unemployment in Israel in 1984 was between 9 and 13 per cent. In other words, more than 120,000 Israeli workers were unemployed. However, according to other estimates released in Israel itself, the official figure is far from the truth. The number of people effectively unemployed is allegedly twice as high and the rate of unemployment is expected to increase as a result of the failure of the “comprehensive economic contracts” which were supposed to overcome the acute crisis.

Predictably, the problem posed by unemployment will also be solved to the detriment of the Palestinians employed in Israeli production enterprises and firms. This solution is currently being envisaged by the Israeli Ministry of Labor and Histadrut, without consultations on the matter, and it can be expected to become effective shortly.

It is a well known fact that the number of Arab workers behind the “Green Line”, i.e. the armistice line of 1947, has reached 110,000 to 120,000 in recent years, yet Israeli statistics indicate that the figure is only 80,000 to 90,000. However, as these statistics do not take into account the number of workers in the -Arab part of Jerusalem and its suburbs, of whom there are between 20,000 and 30,00 0, our estimate of the total is obviously more accurate.

Most of these workers are at present employed for the following reasons:

1. They accept difficult jobs (so-called “dirty work”) that are shunned by Israeli workers;

2. As admitted by the Israeli sources themselves, the wages of Arab workers do not exceed 33 to 40 per cent of those paid to Israeli workers;

3. Arab workers are denied social security and paid leave, as well as unemployment, accident and all other benefits;

4. They receive nothing in return for the amounts deducted from their wages, which are paid into the treasury of the Israeli Ministry of War instead.

In view of the rise in unemployment levels and by virtue of the famous Zionist principle of “Hebrew labor” which has been applied ever since the Zionists began to migrate to Israel and under which Jewish enterprises are forbidden to employ Arabs, the official policy has been to replace Arab workers by unemployed Israeli workers.

Moshe Qasab, the Israeli Minister of Labor, announced that preference would be given to Jewish workers. As for the head of the Israeli Department for Employment, he was more specific in a statement which he made in the middle of August 1984. Indeed, he said that the problem of unemployment would be overcome at the expense of the workers of the occupied, territories. Twenty to twenty-five per cent of them would be replaced each month, and priority would be given to Jewish workers in the process of replacement. For example, this implies that if there is a need for workers to pick tomatoes and Jewish workers-refuse to perform such work, workers from Tulkarm will be called upon to do so.

Mr. Ashra Awhawiyun, Director-General at the Israeli Ministry of Labor, said that the time had come to stem the flow of workers from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into Israel, since it had reached the figure of 81,000.

Histradrut’s program to reduce unemployment, which was published at the beginning of the last quarter of the year, clearly indicates that: in matters of employment, preference will be accorded to Israeli workers to the detriment of workers from the occupied territories.

This is precisely what has been happening. Unemployment levels have risen considerably in the West Bank and Gaza as can be observed by anyone taking a morning walk in the areas where these job-seekers now gather to form “slave-markets” in Al-Masrarbh, Fawq-Al-Majdal, Qalqiliya, Kafr Saba etc.

According to the January 1985 issue of the magazine Israel Abkunust, the number of Palestinian workers from the West Bank and Gaza declined from 90,000 in the beginning of 1984 to 64,000 at the end of that year. In reality, however, the figure is probably higher. Indeed, although there are as yet no official statistics, preliminary data collected by the Trade Unions in Ramallah, Qalqiliya, Tulkarm, Bethlehem and Hebron suggest that more than 55 per cent of the workers who were employed in Israel at the beginning of 1984 have lost their jobs. In other words, between 50,000 and 60,000 of the persons who used to be employed in Israel are at present out of work.

Various methods are used to bring about the dismissal of Arab workers:

(a) As confirmed by Moshe Qasab, the Minister of Labor, the newspaper Yadi’ut Ahranut reported that the Israeli authorities have set up 15 units to expel Arabs working without work permits, i.e. about 32,000 workers. Patrols are stationed along the main roads to verify the papers of such workers, check-points are set up around the towns, and the police and border guards acting in unison raid places of work and impose heavy fines, usually exceeding one month’s wages, on anyone who is caught.

(b) Work permits are cancelled and not renewed (such permits normally have to be renewed each month).

(c) Workers are also dismissed by the employers themselves who, in most cases, given the situation of the workers, agree to keep them on if they accept to work longer hours for less money.

(d) Unlike Israeli workers, these workers receive no unemployment benefits after their dismissal, although the unemployment contributions which are deducted from their wages are never less than those paid by the Israeli workers. This factor, in turn, encourages the Israeli authorities to replace Arab workers by Jews.

(e) In the absence of laws and supervision in this respect, such workers receive hardly any compensation at all, specifically no more than half a month’s wages in the case of workers who have been employed 9 years or more. Unemployment is one of the most difficult and complex problems confronting the population of the occupied territories because the local economy, for the reasons mentioned above, is unable to provide jobs for them. This is true even of agriculture, which used to be the main source of income before the occupation, because vast expanses of land (more than 50 per cent of the land of the West Bank and Gaza) have been confiscated or set aside by the occupation authorities for the establishment of settlements and for other purposes. Moreover, the occupation forces have taken control of the water resources of these areas and are using various means to restrict agriculture and related activities and to limit exports of agricultural products.

The proportions of the crisis are even greater if unemployment caused by economic conditions in the occupied territories themselves is taken into account since it affects between 5,000 and 10,000 workers, 13,000 graduates and 15,000 workers who have returned from neighboring Arab countries. The total number of unemployed in the occupied territories is therefore between 80,000 and 100,000, i.e. between 34 and 43 per cent of the total workforce.

ANNEX VI

Map showing Israeli settlements established, planned or under

construction in the territories occupied since 1967

Map no.3070 Rev.7