Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Annual Report (A/41/660)

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 honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the attached report, which was submitted to him, in accordance with paragraph 16 of Assembly resolution 40/161 D of 16 December 1985, by the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.

CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

10 September 1986

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 eighteenth 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 40/161 D of 16 December 1985, the latest resolution by which the General Assembly renewed its mandate.

     This report covers the period from 30 August 1985, the date of the adoption of the preceding report, to 31 August 1986.  The report is based on oral information received by the Special Committee through testimonies of persons having first-hand experience of the human rights situation in the occupied territories, as well as written information gathered from various sources.  The Special Committee has selected, from among these oral and written sources of information, relevant excerpts and summaries, which are reflected in the report.  For the purpose of collecting oral testimonies the Special Committee organized hearings that were held in New York, Geneva and Amman.  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.  A specific mention should be made of a series of documents and statistics submitted to the Special Committee by the Departments of Occupied Territories Affairs and Education and of Higher Studies of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Amman, and reflecting various aspects of practices and policies affecting the human rights of the civilian population in these 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 the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and the Syrian Arab Republic and of the Palestine Liberation Organization in carrying out its mandate.  The Special Committee regrets however that owing to financial constraints placed upon it, which are well known to you, it was unable to conduct hearings in Cairo and Damascus in the discharge of its mandate.

    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 a number of aspects that deserve a particular mention.

     As may be seen from the information reflected in the report, the policy of annexation and settlement has continued to be implemented by the Israeli authorities.  The Special Committee is deeply concerned by the fate of civilians evicted from their native land.  One particular illustration of this situation is the fate of the inhabitants of Emmaus, Beit-Nuba and Yalou, reduced to the state of wandering refugees since their villages were razed by the occupying authorities in 1967.  The Special Committee considers it a matter of deep concern that these Villagers have persistently been denied the right to return to their land on which Canada Park has been built by the Jewish National Fund of Canada and where the Israeli authorities are reportedly planning to plant a forest instead of allowing the reconstruction of the destroyed villages.

    The information contained in this report reflects new factors further aggravating the plight of the civilian population.  The Special Committee is concerned at the escalation of violence caused by the implementation by the Government of Israel of a revived “iron fist” policy, as announced by the authorities themselves.  This policy has been illustrated by a number of harsh measures affecting the human rights of the Palestinian population of the occupied territories, such as an increasing number of arrests and trials leading to the detention of many civilians (including miners) imprisoned for political or security offences, as well as the imposition of measures of administrative detention. Another preoccupying aspect of the “iron fist” policy has been the resumption, on a large scale, of the expulsion and deportation policy.

     The situation created by this policy in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip together with the severe regime applied in the Golan Heights have served to cancel any hope of improvement in the situation of human rights in the occupied territories in the period covered by the present report.

    The record of the day-to-day life of the civilian population, as it emerges from oral testimonies as well as written information gathered by the Special Committee, clearly reveals serious infringements of fundamental rights and freedoms.  Civilians are being submitted to various forms of harassment, including collective measures of punishment such as the demolition of houses; hostile behavior from settlers expanding their authority whenever the opportunity arises; restrictions on freedom of movement, illustrated by an increasing number of house or town arrests; and limitations on the right to freedom of education, marked in Particular by the arbitrary expulsion of a number of teachers and university professors.  In this regard, the Special Committee expresses the hope that these academics, who have been expelled without any valid motive, be repatriated and reinstated in their functions as soon as possible.

    A number of statements have been made by Israeli officials on the issue of returning municipalities of the occupied territories to local leaders.  Despite declarations often made on this issue and some steps purported to be taken to implement them, the Special Committee finds it difficult to assess at this stage the underlying motives of such declarations.

    This situation continues to engender a considerable number of detentions for political or security offences, perpetuating the problems of prison conditions and the plight of detainees of all ages and serving to maintain a constant flow of allegations of a grave nature in regard to the treatment of detainees.

     In view of such developments the Special Committee has endeavored to provide a clear picture and accurate reflection of the human rights situation prevailing in the occupied territories.  The gravity and constant deterioration of this situation calls for renewed efforts of the international community in its strife for an amelioration of the lot of the civilian population in the occupied territories.

    As you are aware, Mr. Secretary-General, the Special Committee, in a spirit of constructive co-operation, agreed to limit its activities in response to the request addressed by you to all United Nations bodies in your efforts to surmount the financial crisis facing the Organization this year.  My colleagues and myself have done our utmost to carry out our mandate to the best of our ability within these restrictions.  We hope that such limitations will not continue and, should the mandate of the Special Committee be renewed that it would be allowed to exercise its functions in a manner that would not curtail the efficiency of its work.

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

(Signed)  N. WIJEWARDANE

Chairman of the Special Committee to

Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting

the Human Rights of the Population of

the Occupied Territories

His Excellency

Mr. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar

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 Committee:  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 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 Président 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 général près de 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 verbale 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 verbale dated 23 April 1980, the Government of Sri Lanka designated Mr. Nadarajah Balasubramaniam, Ambassador and Chargé 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 verbale 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 verbale dated 18 July 1980.

5. By a letter dated l6 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 verbale 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 verbale dated l2 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 verbale 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 verbale 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 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. Dragon Jovan, 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 17 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 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, 39/95 A to H of 14 December 1984 and 40/161 A to G of 16 December 1985.

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, 39/95 D and 40/161 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 be Chairman.

10. The Special Committee held the first of its series of meetings from 2 to 6 December 1985 in New York, after the General Assembly allowed its application in the special circumstances advanced for holding the meetings pending the renewal of its mandate by the Assembly.  The Special Committee decided to continue its system of monitoring information on the occupied territories and, in reference to paragraph 17 of resolution 40/161 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/40/702) on 30 August 1985.  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.  The Special Committee heard testimonies of witnesses just returned from first-hand experience in the occupied territories where they had looked into cases of expulsion orders made against a number of civilians.  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.  On 16 December 1985, the General Assembly adopted resolution 40/161 D.  By this resolution, the Assembly:

“16. Requests the Special Committee, pending early termination of Israeli occupation, to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, to consult, as appropriate, with the International Committee of the Red Cross in order to ensure the safeguarding of the welfare and human rights of the population of the occupied territories and to report to the Secretary-General as Soon as possible and whenever the need arises thereafter;”.

11. On 19 December 1985, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, which read as follows:

“…

“The Special Committee held a series of meetings and has taken certain decisions in regard to the implementation of its mandate.  The Special Committee decided to approach the Governments concerned with a request for their co-operation, in particular that coming from sources who have first-hand knowledge and experience of the situation of human rights in the occupied territories.

“The Special Committee is aware of the position taken by Your Excellency’s Government in the past as reflected in the official records of the General Assembly when the reports of the Special Committee were considered.  In spite of this negative position the Special Committee felt that it should continue to exercise all efforts aimed at securing the co-operation of Your Excellency’s Government.  The Special Committee is of the view that the policy of the Government of Israel be reviewed so as to allow the Special Committee to visit the occupied territories thus permitting the implementation of its mandate in full.  The Special Committee intends to hold a series of meetings from 20 April to 10 May 1986 and it would be appreciated if it were made possible for the Special Committee to benefit from the first-hand evidence that would thus become available.

“The Special Committee appeals to the Government of Israel to reconsider its position and to permit the civilian population of the occupied territories to benefit from the protection given to them by international law.”

12. On 19 December 1985, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Permanent Representatives of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations, which read as follows:

“…

“The Special Committee held a series of meetings and has taken certain decisions in regard to the implementation of its mandate.  The Special Committee decided to approach the Governments concerned with a request for their co-operation, in particular that coming from sources who have first-hand knowledge and experience of the situation of human rights in the occupied territories.

“The Special Committee has in the past, with the co-operation of Your Excellency’s Government, held hearings in the (Arab Republic of Egypt, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Syrian Arab Republic) where it has been able to receive persons from the occupied territories.  The testimony of such persons has proven invaluable to the Special Committee in its work; the Special Committee is making plans to conduct such hearings in the region from 20 April to 10 May 1986.  Should Your Excellency’s Government have no objection, the Special Committee would expect to conduct hearings in the (Arab Republic of Egypt, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Syrian Arab Republic) at a convenient time during this period.”

13. A similar letter was addressed to the Palestine Liberation Organization on the same day.

14. On 6 February 1986, the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed the following letter to the Chairman of the Special Committee in his capacity as Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations:

“In regard to your letter G/SO 234 (16-2-3) dated 19 December 1985, the Government of Israel having once again reviewed its policy towards the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories reaffirms its existing position.

“This decision is based on reasons that have been spelled out many times in the past and which can be found in the official records of the General Assembly when the reports of the Special Committee were being considered.

“Resolution 40/161 D only strengthens Israel’s resolve not to change its current policy toward the Special Committee.  Like all previous resolutions of the Special Committee, resolution 40/161 D includes factual distortions which are based on biased assumptions that pre-judge the situation of the population in the territories administered by Israel.  The Government of Israel therefore finds it impossible to co-operate with a body that has as its guiding principles such biased and distorted assumptions.

“In Israel’s open society and thriving democracy a free press publishes a wealth of accurate information about the territories.  This information is available to all who are interested.  Unfortunately the Committee chooses press material in a selective manner only to substantiate its claims, while appearing to deliberately disregard all information that does not reflect its pre-ordained conclusions.  The Government of Israel will continue to publish information about the territories in such areas as education, health, housing, agricultural, irrigation, and other fields.

“In addition, Israeli democracy affords each interested person the opportunity to tour the territories to see first-hand the positive developments and improvements that have taken place in those areas under Israel’s administration during the last 19 years.”

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 18 February 1986, the Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed a letter to the Secretary 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.On 14 January 1985, the Secretary-General addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Special Committee, in which he recalled that the United Nations was confronting serious problems relating to the budget and requested the Committee, in light of the situation, to review its calendar of meetings and their venue to ensure that the use of travel funds and other associated costs was kept to a minimum.  In another letter addressed to the Chairman of the Special Committee on 11 April 1986, the Secretary-General referred to the possibility of canceling the meetings of the Committee envisaged to take place in Geneva in August, with a view to reducing expenditures

18. On 26 March 1986, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Permanent Representatives of Egypt and of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations Office at Geneva, which read as follows:

“…

“… in view of general developments related to its work the Special Committee has proceeded to a review of its activities for the forthcoming period and has, accordingly, decided that the projected hearings in the (Arab Republic of Egypt/Syrian Arab Republic) would be deferred until a later date.  The Special Committee will certainly inform Your Excellency’s Government of any new dates set for those hearings and would sincerely hope that at that stage Your Excellency’s Government will once again extend its co-operation to the Special Committee.”

19. On the same day, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, which read as follows:

“…

“… in view of general developments related to its work the Special Committee has proceeded to a review of its activities for the forthcoming period and has, accordingly, decided that the projected hearings in the region will now take place in Amman from 24 April to 1 May 1986.  The Special Committee will be grateful to receive confirmation from Your Excellency’s Government that it will extend its co-operation to the Special Committee in conducting its meetings in Amman during this period.”

20. A similar letter was addressed to the Palestine Liberation Organization.

21. The Special Committee held a series of meetings at Geneva and Amman from 21 April to 1 May 1986.  At these meetings, the Special Committee examined information on developments that had occurred in the occupied territories between December 1985 and April 1986.  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 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 and Amman, the Special Committee heard testimonies of persons living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip concerning the situation in those territories.

22. In Amman, the Special Committee was received by the Minister of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Mr. Marwan Dudin.  The Special Committee was presented with reports on the situation in the occupied territories prepared by the Ministry of Occupied Territories Affairs and it discussed various aspects of its mandate in the course of its meeting with the Minister.  The Special Committee also received from the Departments of Occupied Territories Affairs and of Education and Higher Studies of the Palestine Liberation Organization, a series of reports and statistics on the situation in the occupied territories.  The list of documents submitted by the Palestine Liberation Organization is reproduced in annex II to the present report.

23. On 17 June 1986, the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations addressed the Special Committee, through the Secretary-General, which read as follows:

“The Chargé d’affaires ad interim of the Syrian Arab Republic presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and expresses his Government’s regret that the duration of the meetings of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories is being shortened and that the Special Committee failed to visit the Syrian Arab Republic according to its annual scheduled programme.  This prevented the Special Committee from accomplishing the tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly, in particular the hearings of witnesses from the occupied Golan Heights and the examination of first-hand witnesses from the occupied Golan Heights where the Zionist occupation authorities intensify their repressive and barbaric practices against the population. …”

24. On 7 August 1986, the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed a note verbale to the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, which read as follows:

“The Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations Office at Geneva presents its compliments to the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights and has the honor to enclose herewith the report prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Israeli practices directed against the Syrian Arab population of the occupied Golan.  We trust that you will transmit this report to the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, which was unable to visit Damascus this year, and that you will request the Committee to attach it to the regular report that the Committee will be submitting to the General Assembly.”

This report was duly considered by the Special Committee and is reflected below in section IV.C.

25. Following an exchange of correspondence between the Chairman of the Special Committee and the Secretary-General (letters of 27 April and 8 May 1986), a procedure was agreed to permit consultations among the members of the Committee order to enable them to consider, complete and approve the report without the formal two-week session originally scheduled in Geneva in August.  Accordingly, members of the Special Committee met in Geneva from 8 to 10 September 1986, when they examined and adopted the present report.

III.  MANDATE

26. 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.

27. 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”.

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

(a)The territories to be considered as occupied territories referred td 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 that was signed on 26 March 1979 and 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 that the Security Council referred to as “essential and inalienable human rights” in its resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967 and, secondly, those rights that 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 that, irrespective of whether or not they were in implementation of a policy, reflected a pattern of behavior on the part of the Israeli authorities towards the civilian population in the occupied areas.

29. 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/

30. 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 Organisation.

IV.  INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE

31. In the course of carrying out its mandate, 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 Israel;

(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, the Syrian Arab Republic and from the Palestine Liberation Organization.

32. The Special Committee undertook a series of hearings in New York and Amman during its meetings from 2 to 6 December 1985 and from 21 April to 1 May 1986, respectively.  At these meetings, the Special Committee heard the testimony of persons having a first-hand knowledge of the human rights situation existing in the occupied territories.  These testimonies are contained in documents A/AC.145/RT.441 and 445 to 453 and are reflected below.

33. The Special Committee has taken particular care, to rely on information appearing in the Israeli press that has not been contradicted by the Government of Israel or that is commonly considered as reliable by the Government.

34. 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.

35. Annex III below (available in English only), which includes sections A and B of chapter IV, contains a summary of the information examined by the Special Committee divided as follows:

(a)Oral evidence;

(b)Information gathered from the Israeli press and the Arab language press published in the occupied territories.

36. Section C of chapter IV, which contains information transmitted by the Governments of Jordan and of the Syrian Arab Republic, by the Palestine Liberation Organization and by other organizations, is given below.

C.   Information transmitted by the Governments of Jordan and

       the Syrian Arab Republic, by the Palestine Liberation

       Organization and by other organizations

1.  General situation

(see annex III (available in English only),

 paras. 2-4 and 85-102)

Policy of returning municipalities to local leaders

Information submitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

37. During its stay in Amman, the Special Committee was presented with a report, dated 17 March 1986, prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization concerning the municipalities in the West Bank.  The report stressed the essential role played by municipalities in the West Bank in securing basic-services to the civilian population.  It recalled that, since the early days of the occupation in 1967, special measures had been taken by the occupying authorities, such as a series of military orders that violated international law as well as the Jordanian legislation.  It referred to municipal elections held in 1976, which had confirmed the victory of nationalist pro-PLO electoral rolls.  The report added that:

The military authorities, aware of the nationalist role of the municipal councils, which provided basic services to the civilian population, defended their rights and opposed plans aimed at forced emigration, Judaization, confiscations and starving the population and reducing it to a state of dependence, increased repressive measures against mayors, municipal councilors and the municipalities themselves, attacking the councilors, making false accusations against them, in some cases attempting to assassinate them, or resorting to expulsion.  The military authorities also tightened their grip on these municipalities by limiting their freedom and preventing them from receiving aid.

38. As regards the Israeli policy of appointing new mayors, the report cited Bassam Shaka’a who had stated:

The appeal by the Israeli Government for the appointment of new mayors is an initiative aimed at finding Arab replacements for the elected mayors, who would carry out Israeli policy and thus avoid the need for military governors.  This would also make it possible to apply the civilian administration’s laws, judaize the occupied territories, expand the settlements and tighten the screws on our people in order to subject it to Israeli domination and force it to emigrate.

39. The report finally mentioned a series of measures that had been taken by the occupying authorities against the municipal councils.  This part of the report is reproduced below:

Measures taken against the municipal councils

1.Dissolution of the municipal and village councils

4.Expulsions, administrative detentions and house arrests

The Zionist authorities, determined to implement their policy of emptying the occupied territories of their active and competent national personnel, have resorted to the 1945 emergency law, in particular articles 111 and 112 of that law, which authorize expulsion of Palestinian fighters from their homeland and administrative detention of suspects, without trial or right of appeal or defense.  These measures have affected both municipalities and individuals, as indicated in the table below:

(a)Expulsions

(b)House Arrest

(c)Threats against life

On the morning of 10 June 1980, Bassam Shaka’a, mayor of Nablus, walked from his home to his car and Karim Khalaf, mayor of Ramallah, did the same.  As soon as they turned on the ignition, the two vehicles burst into flames.  Bassam had to have both legs amputated and Karim, one foot.

Ibrahim Tawil alerted the police as soon as he learned of the explosions and a third bomb exploded in the face of the explosive expert who was attempting to defuse it.  The confessions of the culprits, members of a secret Jewish terrorist organization who were not arrested attack on three tourist buses, revealed that they had acted in full co-ordination with, and with the full knowledge of, the West Bank military authorities.

2.    Information concerning arrests, trials and sentences

     (see annex III (available in English only),

     paras. 5-10 and 111-193)

Information submitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs

of the Palestine Liberation Organization

40. During its stay in Amman, the Special Committee was presented with a report prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization concerning the situation of civilians in the occupied territories during 1985 and the first quarter of 1986.  This list of persons held under detention or house arrest during that period, mentioning the name of the victim, the region and other relevant information.

41. This document also contained information on sentences passed on Palestinian citizens during the first quarter of 1986:

During the first quarter of 1986, the Zionist military courts sentenced to various prison terms 761 Palestinian fighters.

The charges filed against them included throwing stones at Israeli vehicles, throwing incendiary bottles, placing explosive devices and membership in local organizations or in Palestinian resistance movements.

The following table indicates the various terms to which Palestinian fighters have been sentenced:

42. The document provided a list of the names of persons sentenced, with an indication of the source of information, the date, the region, the duration of the prison term or suspended sentence, the fines eventually imposed, the charges and other relevant remarks.

3.  Treatment of civilians, including fundamental freedoms

(see annex III (available in English only),

paras. 11-53 and 199-344)

(a) General developments

(i)Harassment of civilians

Information submitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

43. As previously mentioned, during its stay in Amman the Special Committee was presented with a report prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization concerning the situation of civilians in the occupied territories during 1985 and the first quarter of 1986.  This report provided information on the harassment of civilians in the occupied territories during that period.  It established a list of those killed and injured in 1985 in the West Bank and Gaza, providing the date of the incident, the name of the victim, the town and a brief account of the casualty.  It also provided information on a number of incidents that took place during the first quarter of 1986 and resulted in the killing and wounding of civilians.  It was based on media reports reflected in the local press or radio and, in a number of cases, was illustrated by supporting material such as copies of press clippings; copies of written testimonies of persons with first-hand knowledge of the incidents such as victims themselves, mayors of concerned municipalities, members of ICRC or of the Jordanian Association of the Red Crescent; and medical reports delivered by relevant medical authorities.  A number of cases mentioned in the report have also been reflected in the corresponding subsection concerning the information gathered from the Israeli press and the Arab language press published in the occupied territories (see annex III (available in English only), paras. 199-220).

(ii)Collective punishments, including demolition of houses

Information transmitted by the Department of occupied Territories Affairs of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

44. As previously mentioned, during its stay in Amman, the Special Committee was presented with a report, prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization, concerning the situation of civilians in the occupied territories during 1985 and the first quarter of 1986.  The document refers to reports published in the local press concerning the repeated imposition of curfews in several towns and refugee camps in the occupied territories.  It contains a chronological list of demolitions and closures of houses and shops in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1985.  It also provides information on numerous cases in which houses were demolished or closed during the first quarter of 1986 on various pretexts, such as ownership by suspects or the fact that their owners had not obtained a building permit.  Copies of various substantiating documents are also provided, such as certificates of confirmation of closure drawn up by the International Red Cross.

45. As regards the demolition of houses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Special Committee was also presented, during its stay in Amman, with a comprehensive list, submitted to it by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which provides a region-by-region enumeration of a total of 1,366 houses situated in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that have been destroyed by the occupying authorities during the period 1967-1985. The regions covered by the list are the following:  Gaza Strip (694 houses), Ramallah district (74 houses), Jerusalem district (24 houses), Nablus district (160 houses), Hebron district (206 houses), Bethlehem district (89 houses), Tulkarm district (24 houses), Jenin district (56 houses), Qalqilyia district (24 houses) and Jericho district (16 houses).

46. The data cited include the name of the victim, the town (or village or refugee camp) where the demolition occurred, the year of the demolition, as well as the number of rooms for each house.

(iii)Expulsion and deportation

Information transmitted by the Government of Jordan

47. During its visit to Amman, the Special Committee was presented with a memorandum, prepared by the Jordanian Ministry of Occupied Territories Affairs, concerning the expulsion and deportation of civilians from the occupied territories.  The memorandum indicates that the policy of expulsion pursued by the Israeli authorities since 1967 contravenes the provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal.  The arbitrary nature of the expulsion measures emphasized, as well as the off-hand and brutal manner in which the expulsion procedure is applied to the persons concerned.  The memorandum also notes that 2,061 persons were expelled by the Israeli authorities between 1967 and February 1986, 34 of them between 1985 and February 1986, the highest figure since 1972.  Finally, the memorandum refers to several cases of expulsion that occurred during the period 1985-early 1986, the majority of which are listed in the corresponding subsection concerning reports appearing in the Israeli and Arabic-language press published in the occupied territories (see annex III (available in English only), paras. 250-263).

Information submitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

48. As previously mentioned, during its stay in Amman the Special Committee was presented with a report, prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization, concerning the situation of civilians in the occupied territories during 1985 and the first quarter of 1986.  This document also reflected the expulsion policy of the Israeli authorities.  In another document entitled “Persons expelled from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” and concerning the period between 1967 and 1985, it was stated that:

Although the total number of expelled persons is estimated at 1,600, we were able to identify only 1,067 cases of expulsion distributed in the following regions:

49. This document provided a list of expelled persons indicating the name of the victims of expulsion, the region concerned, the date of expulsion and the occupation of the victim.

(iv)Economic aspects

Information submitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

50. During its stay in Amman, the Special Committee was presented with a report, prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization, concerning unemployment in these territories.  This document provided an analysis of the factors leading to an economic crisis in the territories, in particular with regard to the problem of unemployment.  The report recalled that since 1967 “more than 52 per cent of the agricultural land in the West Bank has been confiscated, in addition to the area indirectly controlled by the Israeli authorities on which agriculture and construction are prohibited”.  Moreover, 42 per cent of the total area of the Gaza Strip was put under direct control of the Israeli authorities.

51. Various factors jeopardizing the growth of the industrial sector and thus preventing the local industry from absorbing the labor force available on the market were also mentioned.  The report stressed the relation of dependence of the territories on the Israeli economy, as well as the deep changes in social and demographic structures resulting from it.  It provided tables describing the current situation of the labor force in the occupied territories, revealing a relationship of exploitation of the Palestinian labor.  The report further noted that the current economic crisis faced since several years by the Israeli economy had a serious bearing on the inhabitants of the occupied territories, the working class being particularly hard hit.  A further element affecting the job situation in the occupied territories, as identified by the report, is the policy of collective arbitrary dismissal by Israeli establishments, including the Hastadrut Organization.  These institutions apply the concept of “Hebrew labor” as opposed to “Arab labor”, with the encouragement and support of the Israeli governing circles.

52. The report stated that, on 3 December 1984, Al-Ittihad (a Haifa newspaper) published a statement by the Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, Moshe Moghab, in which the Minister disclosed a scheme to sack tens of thousands of Arab workers and replace them by Jewish workers, meaning that the Palestinians were to bear the adverse consequences of the widespread unemployment plaguing the Israeli society.

53. The report further stated that, as reported by the Palestinian Al-Thawra magazine on 21 February 1985, the Israeli authorities imposed an obligation to hold work-and-entry permits on Arabs workers and restricted their presence in Israel to day-time only.  Israeli courts, in co-operation with the Employment Offices, were given authority to enforce the policy whereby Arab workers only be permitted to cross the “Green Line” when holding all permits.  Permit regulations were established to further limit job opportunities for Arabs, thereby increasing the ranks of the unemployed.  This is evidenced by the refusal by the Employment Offices to deliver the permits, on the grounds that the applications had already been rejected by the military authorities.  Moreover, the authorities refused to renew existing permits held by Palestinian workers, without giving any reasons.  A Hastadrut spokesman stated that the number of workers dismissed from their jobs exceeded 10,000.  He further indicated that these workers would not receive any unemployment benefits, in spite of the fact that up to 50 per cent had sometimes been deducted from their wages as contributions.  The report cited several cases arbitrary dismissal of Arab workers without any compensation.

(b) Information on measures affecting fundamental freedoms

(i)Freedom of movement

Information transmitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

54. As already mentioned, during its visit to Amman, the Special Committee was presented with a report, prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization, concerning the situation of civilians in the occupied territories during 1985 and the first quarter of 1986.

55. This document refers to reports published in the local press during that period concerning cases in which individuals or groups of Palestinian citizens were placed under restricted residence and forbidden to travel.  Some of the cases referred to in this document have been included in the corresponding subsection concerning reports appearing in the Israeli and Arabic-language press published in the occupied territories (see annex III (available in English only), para. 275).

56. Regarding house arrests, the Special Committee was also presented during its stay Amman, with a comprehensive report, submitted to it by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization, concern persons under house arrest during the period 1980-1985. This report cites 186 persons who were kept under house arrest for various periods of time.  The list mentions the region concerned, the duration of house arrest order, its date and the profession of the victim of restriction or other relevant remarks.

(ii)Freedom of education

Information submitted by the Department of Education and Higher Studies of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

57. During its stay in Amman, the Special Committee was presented with a series of reports and statistics, prepared by the Department of Education and Higher Studies of the Palestine Liberation Organization, concerning the situation of education in the occupied territories.  In view of the volume of information received it was difficult to reflect it totally in the present report.  The information appearing below is thus a summary established on the basis of documents received, providing a general outline of the main facts and problems regarding education in the occupied territories.

58. The information received indicates that the general situation with regard to education in the occupied territories has deteriorated doe to various factors, such as interference with school curricula and textbooks, prohibition of the circulation of certain books, the belated distribution of textbooks at the beginning of each academic year, the exercise of censorship in the libraries, the insufficiency of school buildings and equipment, the frequent closing of educational establishments under the pretext of security measures, and the suspension of courses.  Numerous examples of these difficulties are given, including a description of the inadequacy of school buildings in the West Bank and chronological lists of the occasions on which courses have been suspended as a result of the closing of the universities of Bir Zeit, Al-Najah, Bethlehem, Gaza and Hebron, as well as a number of schools.

59. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the implementation of military orders constitutes a serious infringement of academic freedoms in educational institutions, in flagrant violation of the relevant provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the General Conference and Executive Board of UNESCO.  The provisions of military orders 31, 65, 854 and 938, promulgated by the Israel Defense Forces, and applying to education, culture, freedom of residence and movement and permission to teach, are quoted as examples of restrictions of the right to freedom of education in the occupied territories.

60. In describing the situation of schools in the West Bank during the academic year 1984/85, one of the reports identifies the following main problems:

1.Discipline.

2.School leaving (to take up employment).

3. The technically limited and ineffectual educational supervision and vocational guidance.

4. The standard of competence of the members of the teaching profession.

5. The insufficiency of technical facilities:  laboratories, libraries and teaching aids.

6. The insufficiency of general facilities and services:  sports fields, furniture, school buildings, halls and suitably spacious and well-lit classrooms.

7. The lack of security and stability for the members of the teaching profession.

8. Material difficulties due to limited incomes, the staggering rise in prices, the continuous increase in the cost of living, and the depreciation of the shekel.

9. Professional malaise; the teacher works unenthusiastically, exhibits little interest in or devotion to his task and is unconcerned with what goes on around him this discontent, which pervades the educational process, can be attributed to various set-backs.

This report quotes various statistics on the number of schools and enrolment rates.

61. As regards the situation of teachers it is stated that they are often requested to co-operate with the occupying authorities, and that they can be submitted to practices such as the transfer to a school situated fat from their residence, arbitrary dismissal and arrest.

62. It is also pointed out that:

The bad working and living conditions of teachers at public schools in the West Bank are due to various arbitrary practices such as dismissals, unjustified transfers, early retirements, restricted, residence, salary deductions in respect of days on strike, the suspension of promotions and salary increments, repressive measures taken against families, and summonses to appear at the office of the Military Governor.

63. It is noted that the number of teachers dismissed arbitrarily is increasing steadily, and has risen from 8 teachers in 1980 to 29 in 1984.  A chronological list of the teachers dismissed during the academic year 1985/86 is provided, together with the names of teachers whose homes have been searched.

64. A list of teachers arrested in 1985 and at the beginning of 1986 is included among the documents.

65. With regard to the educational situation in the Gaza Strip, it is pointed out that:

The Department of Education in Gaza is under the direct responsibility of the officer in charge of education in the office of Military Governor of the Strip, who receives his orders from higher Zionist institutions in occupied Palestine.

This officer is entitled to issue orders and instructions of a military nature:  he has the power to close schools and prevent them from fulfilling their function and to imprison, suspend, dismiss or expel pupils, teachers and educational personnel who are accused of resisting the occupation authorities.  Our people’s educational institutions are subjected to these arbitrary practices on a daily basis.

The situation is still more disgraceful with regard to educational curricula.  For example, the occupation authorities have prohibited the study of dozens of works on the teaching of Islam, the Arabic language, history, geography and sociology.

In the Gaza Strip, education is dependent on funding from various sources, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for: Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) whose schools have more pupils than the public and private schools combined.

However, UNRWA is threatening to cut back its activities and close some of its centres.  The school fees paid by students at educational establishments supervised by the Zionist occupation authorities constitute the second source of funding.  The third source is the “private education system”, which relies on the charges and school fees paid to the establishments attached to it.

This introduction clearly shows that material conditions in educational establishments in the occupied Gaza Strip are disgraceful and this is impeding the education process.  There is a shortage of buildings, laboratories and school equipment.  The classrooms are overcrowded and the schools ate open without interruption, with morning and evening classes.  This state of affairs has an effect on the salaries and psychological and economic conditions of teachers and is detrimental to education itself.

66. Various statistical data are also provided on the situation in regard to education in the Gaza Strip.

67. The situation with regard to higher education in the occupied territories is the subject of a detailed document, which states that:

The various practices and measures employed by the Zionist occupation authorities with a view to impeding education in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have produced a reaction on the part of the population of the occupied West Bank, which is showing a greater interest in university education.

…

This trend has led to the opening of several university institutions that are intended to accommodate as many students as possible and enable them to acquire a new weapon:  knowledge.  This is why higher education is of particular interest to the population and the educational establishments in our occupied territories and has also aroused the interest of the Arab world and, in particular, of the Jordanian- Palestinian Joint Committee and the General Secretariat of the Association of Arab Universities.

…

Since there is no national authority within the occupied homeland, the educational institutions and establishments have endeavored to create links between the various universities.  These endeavors led to the holding of a series of conferences, which resulted in the establishment, in 1977, of a Higher Education Council, which has assumed responsibility for the co-ordination of university activities, the improvement of educational standards, the establishment of new institutions and the provision of financial support, training and refresher courses for teaching staff.  Through its Executive Committee, the Council has succeeded in assuring the material and moral basis of its existence.

In addition, it should be noted that the Higher Education Council has been subject to a large number of arbitrary measures on the part of the occupation authorities who have assigned its members to restricted residence. These measures can be summarized as follows:

1. The promulgation of military orders and the amendment of existing regulations, in defiance of the law and international practice.

2. The refusal to issue residence permits to members of the teaching profession if they decline to sign a political document expressing opposition to the PLO.

3. The assigning to restricted residence or the arrest of teachers and students.

4. The halting of university campus expansion projects.

5. The imposition of excessive customs duty on educational aids and laboratory equipment, which were usually exempted from such duty before 1967.

6. The banning of numerous works and periodicals; more than 5,000 works on a variety of subjects are affected.

7. The validity of work permits limited to one year, renewable with the permission of the Military Governor; this accounts for the unstable situation at the universities.

8. The closing of universities by military order, under these measures, the teaching body and students are denied access to the universities.

68. This document provides various data concerning the resources of the universities:

The universities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are financed by the Jordanian- Palestinian Joint Committee and the heads of these university institutions are endeavoring, on an individual basis, to obtain funds and additional grants from Palestinians in exile, from Arab and other countries and from international organizations. The bodies that provide financial aid also pay 100 dinars per student by way of contribution to the university fees (these 100 dinars per student were paid in 1983 only), in addition to a limited number of exemptions from enrolment fees that were granted by the universities in the occupied homeland in subsequent years.

The document also provides information concerning the supervision of the universities and the number of their students (11,454 in the West Bank and 5,620 in Gaza), as well as detailed information on the organization and curricula of the various universities in the occupied territories.  The document gives the names of the professors expelled from the Al-Najah University since the academic year 1982/83, the professors who are forbidden to teach, who hold foreign passports and are not permitted to reside in Palestine, a list of professors who have been unable to obtain a permit to enter the West Bank, and a list of 34 professors who were expelled from the Islamic University of Gaza in August 1985.

69. The documents also refer to the constant interference by the military authorities in university life in the West Bank, as illustrated by the application of Military Order No. 854 of 1980, which empowers the officer responsible for education to exercise de facto supervision over the universities, and the Israeli Act No. 564 of 1969, which places all educational establishments under Israeli control.  Attention is drawn to the fact that the repeal of the Jordanian Education Act No. 16 of 1964 and its replacement by the Israeli law is a flagrant infringement of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

70. The information received also includes details of the repressive measures taken against students.  A detailed list is provided of Arab students arrested in the West Bank during the academic year 1985 and up to the beginning of 1986.

71. The documents submitted by the Palestine Liberation Organization also refer to the situation with regard to education in the UNRWA schools during the academic Year 1985/86.  Information is given on the number of students, schools and teachers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  It is emphasized that, in certain cases, the Israeli authorities refuse to permit school textbooks to be imported. A description is given of the teacher-training programme and of the system of grants for refresher courses.  In conclusion, a number of problems affecting the institutions under the supervision of UNRWA are raised.  They can be summarized as follows:

UNRWA is trying to cut back the educational services provided for the children of Palestinian refugees.  This is confirmed by the annual fluctuations in student enrolment rates.  In fact, the total number of students amounted to 336,207 in 1982/83, as compared with a total of 338,386 in the preceding year and 345,844 in 1983/84.

The Relief Agency is conducting a psychological campaign against the teachers in its schools.  Each year, rumors are circulated to the effect that the services of a large number of these teachers will be terminated due to the lack of financial resources, and this has repercussions on their morale and performance.

     There has been a steady decrease in the number of UNRWA schools as well as in the number of their pupils.  There were 651 schools during the academic year 1982/83 and 640 in 1983/84, i.e. 11 schools less. As a result, the schools and classrooms are overcrowded and this has had an effect on the students’ ability to concentrate and understand their lessons.  We also noted the dilapidated state of the UNRWA school buildings, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, where the schools were still roofed with corrugated iron sheets during the academic year 1985/86.  Furthermore, some classrooms in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are likely to collapse unless they are renovated.  This state of affairs was recognized by the Commissioner-General of the Agency in his report to the Director General, in which he claimed that this situation was due to budgetary constraints.

The Agency is supervising only the primary and preparatory cycles and is neglecting pre-school education as well as the secondary and university cycles.

In the case of the post-secondary cycle, UNRWA awards some student scholarships, 349 scholarships in 1982/83, including 272 continuing and 77 new scholarships and 353 in 1983/84, including 271 continuing and 82 new scholarships.  These figures have remained virtually unchanged since UNHWA was first assigned the task of safeguarding the interests of the refugees; they also show that this type of service is constantly decreasing and does not meet the real needs.

The classrooms at the UNRWA schools accommodate 50 students, as compared with a figure of 28 in Jordan, 20 in the United Kingdom, 16 in Sweden and 15 in Kuwait.

UNRWA is applying the school shift system (two to three shifts per day) in 95 per cent of the schools under its supervision.

In recent years, UNRWA has asked parents to pay for their children’s school exercise books and textbooks, pleading lack of funds.

72. The Special Committee was also presented with a report concerning the situation of vocational and technical training in the occupied territories during 1985-1986.  This document provided an overall view of the situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with regard to vocational education.  Concerning the West Bank the document enumerated the various vocational and industrial training establishments, namely the secondary industrial schools, the technical and vocational education In community intermediate colleges, the vocational training establishments supervised by UNRWA, those supervised by the Department of Labor of the military authorities, as well as other miscellaneous vocational training institutions.  The report provided detailed information and statistical data for each institution, such as the historical background, the number of students and teachers, the number of students by specialization, the admission conditions, the duration of studies.  It also provided comparative statistical tables on academic and vocational education and the supervising authorities.  From the figures appearing in tables indicating the percentage of students who passed the General Secondary School Certificate and those who sat for the General Secondary Technical and Vocational exams during the period 1979-1984, the report drew the following conclusions:

1. Education in the West Bank is restricted to academic education since the ratio of students enrolled in the industrial section does not exceed 3 per cent of all secondary-level students.

2. Most of the students complete their secondary schooling while they are still unable to support themselves or strengthen the national economy. Moreover, they are a financial burden to their parents; some of them wish to enroll at university or become affiliated students, which is rare.  This is considered today as a reason for rising unemployment among university graduates.  University graduates who do not have a trade or craft qualification, have very little chance of finding employment due to job scarcity.

3.   We therefore believe that there should be technical and vocational centres and institutes that could provide training to a number of these graduates.

73.  The report further referred to agricultural education in the West Bank.  It provided a historical overview on the subject, recalling that “after the 1967 War, agricultural education was discontinued in the West Bank and became much the same as other kinds of education under the control of the Israeli occupation authorities”.  The report enumerated the presently existing institutes for agricultural education, and provided detailed information such as their historical background, number of students, subjects taught, academic standard and equipments. Referring to the academic standard of one of these agricultural institutes, the report stated:

The academic standard of the Institute’s graduates is currently considered to be below average.  They are not qualified to find jobs in the agricultural sector as agricultural technicians or agricultural instructors. The agricultural curricula are not well developed and the equipment and tools used are old. The facilities are limited and so are the practical applications.  The centres for practical work and training are not equipped with modern tools and methods.  This has been the case since 1967.  Another factor contributing to the weakness of the standard is the admission of students with very low grades and others who are not personally motivated to study.  Moreover, coeducation in the universities and other higher institutes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip encourage students to enroll there rather than join the Institute.  The applicants to the Institute are therefore exclusively students with low grades.

It became clear in two meetings with a number of engineers at the Institute that they wished to quit and look for new jobs, so as to improve their currently low financial status and have greater financial security.  This, in itself, reflects their productivity, in addition to the obstacles put in their way by the authorities.  All these factors hinder the development of the Institute.

74. The following conclusion emerged from the report regarding agricultural education in the West Bank:

Agricultural education, in general, in the West Bank is virtually non-existent, whether at Al-Hussein Agricultural College, Al-Arub Agricultural School or in the school gardens.  This is due to students’ disinterest in agricultural education for the reasons previously mentioned and to the inability of the farms to fulfil their role of practical applications and training.  The schools are not adequately equipped with modern methods, tools and machinery.  Moreover, they have not undergone any development since 1967.

75. The report also mentioned the vocational and technical education institutions in the Gaze Strip.  It referred to the three authorities supervising industrial vocational education in the Gaza Strip, namely the Department of Education, the Department of Social Affairs and UNRWA, and provided information on the various vocational centres supervised by these authorities.  The report finally referred to the situation as regards vocational training in agriculture and commerce in the Gaze Strip and provided some statistical data in this regard.  Concerning the agricultural secondary school in the Gaza Strip, the report concluded:

Due to the unemployment rate prevailing in the Gaza Strip, especially amongst university graduates and agricultural engineers, the number of students at the school has remained constant and is expected to decline, meaning that the school will eventually have to be closed down.  This decision would also be due to the deteriorating economic conditions prevailing in the Gaza Strip in general, affecting agriculture students in particular.  The fact that there are 250 unemployed agriculture graduates has led to a general disinterest in agricultural professions.

(c) Information on settlers’ activities affecting the civilian population

Information submitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

76. As previously mentioned, during its stay in Amman the Special Committee was presented with a report, prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization, concerning the situation of civilians in the occupied territories during 1985 and the first quarter of 1986.  This report refers to various practices and activities of Israeli settlers affecting the civilian population in the occupied territories:

The settlers patrol incessantly the Palestinian towns and villages pointing their arms and shooting passers by.  They shut down shops and destroy properties and break into houses and encircle camps, they sequestrate homes and land and establish settlement areas and attack the Arab inhabitants.

The report provides a chronological list of practices of Israeli settlers against Arabs and their properties during the year 1985.  This document also refers to activities of Israeli settlers affecting the civilian population during the first quarter of 1986, such as the painting of anti-Arab slogans on walls, gatherings of members of racist movements in the vicinity of Muslim holy places, physical attacks on Arab civilians leading to wounds and injuries that have in some cases proved fatal, the burning of vehicles and forced entry into the homes of civilians.  This information, based on reports published in the local press, is supported, in a number of cases, by substantiating documents such as copies of signed testimonies concerning the incidents in question, written statements drawn up by lawyers, copies of death certificates, photographs of burned vehicles or damaged houses, and official reports of incidents.  Some of these cases ate included in the corresponding subsection concerning reports appearing in the Israeli and Arabic-language press published in the occupied territories See annex III (available in English only], paras. 319-344).  The document also refers to provocative demonstrations organized by settlers in front of universities the establishment of road-blocks preventing access to universities, and so on.

4.  Annexation and settlement

(see annex III (available in English only),

paras. 378-425)

(a) Policy

Information submitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

77. During its stay in Amman, the Special Committee was presented with a report prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization, concerning the question of Jerusalem.  In this report, it was stated that the greatest threat to Arab Jerusalem was the settlement policy of the occupation authorities, which had set up 26 colonies over the last 18 years. The report further cited various practices used in order to ensure the Judaization of Jerusalem, such as the killing of civilians the demolition of Arab buildings the closing of the Jordanian courts of law the control by the Israeli authorities in the educational, medical and social fields the Judaization of water and energy, the banishing of personalities; the encouraging of Jewish emigration to Arab Jerusalem, the settlement policy.  The report also mentioned oppressive practices and trespass against Muslim and Christian holy places in Jerusalem perpetrated by the occupying authorities or through institutions such as Gush Emunim, “Kakh”, “Terror against Terror” or “Jabal-al-Bait”.  The report finally dealt with the Major Jerusalem Project, proclaimed in 1982 as the last of a series of administrative, legislative and settlement operations, started as early as 1948, and the main stages of which have already been duly reflected in previous reports of the Special Committee.  Concerning the Major Jerusalem Project, the report stated:

The aforementioned project consists in the annexation and Judaization of not only the Arab City of Jerusalem and of its contiguous villages but, likewise, of the cities, villages and camps of, on the one hand, the two areas of Ramallah and Birah, and on the other hand, of Bethlehem, Belt Ala, and Belt Sahur.  It is worth pointing out, in this connection, that the area of the aforementioned regions represents around 8 per cent of the aggregate area of the West Bank that was occupied during the year 1967.

The above-mentioned operation is to be interpreted as a prelude to the annexation and Judaization of the remaining Western Bank regions, which include, on the one hand, the two governorates of Nablus and Hebron, and, the other hand, the Gaza Strip.

…

No definite date was fixed for the project and thereunder the powers of regulation, building, road construction and regulation of orchards as well as other powers are accorded to a Zionist district committee, so that it may exercise these powers for the primary purpose of catering to the expansionist Zionist scheme and of exerting pressure upon the Arab inhabitants of this region just as is happening in the other regions of the occupied lands.  The aforementioned project provides for the apportionment of the lands pertinent to it the area whereof is upwards of 446,000 dunams, in the following manner:

The above statistics, in effect, designate the reduction of the area of the agricultural lands, which will contribute to a further deterioration of the position of the agricultural production in the Western Bank.

…

The Israelite “Major Jerusalem Project” represented the implementation of regional planning within Israel, in other words the extension of Israel.  Its road network across the Green Line has, as its primary object, the realization of the following targets:

(a)Tightening the grip of the occupying authority upon the occupied Arab region;

(b)Preclusion of the Palestinian Arab people from setting up its independent native state upon its own native territory;

(c)Laying a siege around the Palestinian cities and villages;

(d)Pillaging and besieging even the Palestinian individual himself;

(e)Destruction of the infrastructure of the Palestinian production as a preliminary step towards the uprooting of the Palestinian people and towards its expulsion from its own lands;

(f)Attachment of the central region to the Palestinian portion that was occupied during the year 1948, while, at the same time, ignoring the social and living conditions of the inhabitants of the above-mentioned region.

The importance of the major Jerusalem region (the central region) stems from its occupying an intermediate position in the West Bank and from its forming a connecting link between the northern and southern areas, and between the Palestinian portion that was occupied in 1948 and the Jordan Valley regions.  All the same the immediate targets of the aforementioned project are the following:

(a)  The aggrandizement of the number of the Jewish inhabitants in the amount of three times the number of the Arab inhabitants;

(b)Earmarking vast areas for agricultural purposes with the object of future planning;

(c)Extending a main road network connecting the northern with the southern areas and also connecting the occupied Palestinian portions with the Jordan Valley region;

(d)  Expanding the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem (the major Jerusalem).

(b) Measures

Information submitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the

Palestine Liberation Organization

78. As previously mentioned, during its stay in Amman the Special Committee was presented with a report, prepared by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs of the Palestine Liberation Organization, concerning the situation of civilians in the occupied territories during 1985 and the first quarter of 1986.  This report contains a list enumerating the land sequestrated in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during 1985, in chronological order.  The data listed include the source of information, the date, the place, the surface of the land in dunams and the reason invoked for sequestration.  This document also refers to numerous cases of land confiscation during the first half of 1986, as well as various activities linked to that policy of confiscation, such as the uprooting of fruit trees belonging to civilians in the occupied territories, land clearance, the confiscation of livestock and the promulgation of orders under which land belonging to individuals is declared to be State-owned land.  The information contained in this document is based on reports published in the local press and, in a number of cases, is supported by substantiating documents such as official reports prepared by the municipalities concerned, declarations and affidavits made before the courts, records of appeals lodged by land-owners threatened with confiscation, or copies of decisions by administrators of State-owned property.

5.  Golan Heights

(see annex III (available in English only),

paras. 426-446)

Information transmitted by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic

79. The Special Committee was presented with a report, submitted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic, concerning the situation of the civilian population in the Golan Heights.  This report is reproduced below:

Since the occupation of the Syrian Arab Golan territory in June 1967, the Israeli occupation authorities have persistently applied and intensified their repressive and expansionist policies and engaged in all forms of racial, economic, political and cultural persecution and terrorism against the population of the territory.  They have used coercive methods to impose Israeli identity on the inhabitants and have confiscated their lands and property, expelled them from their lands, established settlements thereon, brought in settlers and made every attempt to change the natural, geographical, cultural and demographic features of the occupied territory and to gain possession of its natural resources in flagrant and deliberate violation of the principles of international law and of the Charter of the United Nations, the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the specialized agencies and the provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

1.Israeli practices with regard to detention and terrorism

Israel engaged in campaigns of terrorism and detention in violation of the rights of the population of the villages of the occupied Golan immediately before and after the visit of Shimon Peres to the town of Majdal Shams.  These can be summarized as follows:

1. On 26 January 1986, the occupation authorities arrested 11 Syrian citizens whom they accused of grazing their livestock in areas near to their villages and which the Israeli authorities had designated as military zones. The Israeli authorities seized 72 head of cattle belonging to those citizens, which they transported in military vehicles to animal pens in the southern part of occupied Palestine.  When the owners of the cattle attempted to prevent the Israeli troops and police from taking away their cattle, they were beaten with rifle-butts and truncheons and subsequently detained.

2. On 26 February 1986, there were clashes at Majdal Shams between the Israeli authorities and Syrian Arab citizens who were protesting against the visit by Shimon Peres.  As a result of these clashes, which were shown on television, Israel detained 18 citizens of the Golan because of their participation in the demonstration.

3. On February 1986, The Israeli authorities detained 10 citizens because of their participation in a demonstration commemorating the fourth anniversary of the famous strike in protest against the imposition of Israeli identity. The police opened fire on the demonstrators and beat them with truncheons, as was shown on television.

4. On 27 February 1986r a further 17 persons were detained in addition to those who had already been detained on 26 February 1986.

5. On 1 March 1986, another 16 citizens from the Golan were detained.

6. On 3 March 1986, another 11 citizens from the Goal were detained because of their participation in the demonstration of protest against the visit by Shimon Peres.  Between 26 February 1986 and 3 March 1986, the total number of persons detained for this reason amounted to 47.

7. On 2 March 1986, Itzhak Navon, the Israeli Minister of Education, visited the village of Buq’ata to attend the opening of a primary school.  To his surprise, the population raised the Syrian Arab flag over the school and named it after our valorous President, Hafez al-Assad.  This led to a clash between citizens and enemy troops.  After Navon had left, all the roads between the villages in the Golan were closed and dozens of citizens were detained, including:

Afif Mahmoud; Waheeb al-Sayyid Ahmad; Alamuddin Mahmoud Abu Zeid; Muhammad Ali Rubah; Hayel As’ad al-Halabi; Ayman, Nabih and Daniel, the sons of Salman Taher Abu Saleh; Fakhri Suleiman al-Maqt; Qasim Abbas al-Safadi; Adel Saleem Abu Jabal; Ziyad Fuad al-Qal’ani; and Nasir, Mansour and Nabih, the sons of Said Abu Jabal.  This brought the total number of detainees to more than 55.

8. On 5 March 1986, as reported by the Al-Ittihad newspaper published in Haifa, the judge at the central court in Haifa refused to release 18 detainees from the Golan, including young persons.  The detainees thereupon sang the Syrian Arab national anthem in the courtroom as an expression of their national allegiance.  The occupation authorities sprayed them with a gaseous substance to keep them quiet.  The occupation authorities also threatened to detain women and girls.

9. On 6 March 1986, the Central Court at Nazareth extended the detention of students from the Golan (Kanj Ismail Abu Saleh, Badi Sayyid Ahmad, Hasan Faiz al-Safadi and Fahd Aref al-Safadi), all of whom were 18 years old.

10. On 8 March 1986, the Israeli authorities ordered the extension, until further notice, of the detention of 45 Syrian citizens and the  closure of the al-Suyyah area east of Majdal Shams in order to prevent the inhabitants from contacting their relatives on the other side of the boundary line.

On the same day, General Uri Ur, the Israeli army commander in the northern region, declared the Golan a closed military zone until further notice.

On the same day, five citizens from Majdal Shams were also detained.

11. On 10 March 1986, West German television broadcast a film on Israeli practices in the occupied territories, including the Golan.  The film showed the methods of persecution that are being used against Arab citizens, including arbitrary arrests and the torture of prisoners (suffocation, exposure to extreme cold, painful beating in sensitive places, humiliating treatment of persons and their families).

12. The population of the occupied territory is being harassed by officials of the Taxation Department and provoked by terrorist actions on the part of the Israeli authorities.

13. The homes of Arab citizens ate raided without warning, on the pretext of searches, in the early hours of the morning.

14. Arab citizens of the occupied Golan are prevented from obtaining passports.

15. On 14 March 1986, the occupation authorities detained nine Arab citizens from Majdal Shams (Mustafa Qasim Mahmoud, Nazih Nu’man Abu Jabal, Wadi Hasan Ayyoub, Badi Hasan Ayyoub, Hayel Faris al-Sha’ir, Yussuf Shibli al-Sha’ir, Yussuf Fakhreddin, Rafiq Ali Ibrahim and Faris Ali Abu Sa’ada), together with a citizen from Mas’ada (Suleiman Hasan Ibrahim), all of whom were accused of opposing the visit by Shimon Peres.

On 14 March 1986, 11 citizens from Majdal Shams were detained on a charge of participating in the mass demonstration.  Israel radio announced that 65 citizens had already been detained on the same charge.  Radio Monte Carlo announced that General Uri Ur, commander in the northern region, had adopted an “iron fist” policy to curb opposition by the population to Israeli policy and the occupation.

16. On 18 March 1986, the Central Court at Nazareth extended the detention of two persons from the Golan (Muad al-Safadi and Kalim Hamad Uweidat) and, at the same time, released 16 citizens on payment of exorbitant bail ranging from 1,000 to 1,500 shekels, payable in cash, and a personal bond amounting to a further 2,000 shekels.  The detainees who were released on payment of these exorbitant amounts of bail are listed below:

Majeed Ahmad al-Qudhmani

Yussuf Salman al-Maqt

Fakhreddin Suleiman al-Maqt

Daniel Salman Abu Saleh

Hassan Hayel Abu Jabal

Jamil Salman Abu Jabal

Zeid Said al-Halabi

Hamoud Mahmoud al-Safadi

Faiz Said Mahmoud

Sa’adeh Aref al-Safadi

Dr. Ali Abu Awwad

Waheeb Tawfiq Ayyoub

Fadhel Nayef Abu Saleh

Waleed Mut’ib Abu Saleh

Fawzi Hamad Mahmoud

Salama Mazyad Abu Saleh

The family of the detainee Kalim Uweidat filed an unsuccessful complaint to the effect that this person, whose detention had been extended, was suffering from a broken shoulder, which was endangering his health, since he had received no treatment in prison.

17. On 19 March 1986, the Israeli authorities placed 16 citizens from Majdal Shams under restricted residence.

18. On 20 March 1986, the judge of the Central Court at Haifa (Eliazar Bar) rejected the appeal submitted by a group of persons from the Golan who had been detained on 13 March 1986 and whose detention had been extended by the Magistrates’ Court at Acre for a period of 12 days.  The persons remaining in detention are:  Mustafa Qasim Mahmoud, Rafiq Ali Ibrahim, Izzeddin Hussain Ibrahim, Faris Ali Abu Sa’ada, Nazih Nu’man Abu Jabal, Hussain Yussuf Abu Saleh, Hayel Faris al-Sha’ir and Suleiman Yussuf Fakhreddin. On the same day, the Israeli authorities arrested three Syrian citizens from the occupied Golan after officials of the Israeli Taxation Department had carried out a search and an inspection that led to the confiscation of three carts loaded with apples.

It was reported that a citizen was wounded in the head during clashes between the population and officials of the occupation authorities.

On the same day, the court at Nazareth placed 74 citizens from the Golan under restricted residence on the charge of participation in the demonstrations against Peres during the previous month.  A judicial source said that the convicted persons must remain in their homes from sunset until sunrise and must not leave their villages without prior authorization.

Income tax officials also visited the cold storage facilities for apples near the village of Majdal Shams, where they broke open the locks and confiscated 2,634 boxes of apples weighing about 53 tons and belonging to citizens of the Golan.  Members of the police force and border guards assaulted the persons who had come to protect their produce.  They also tied up the director of the cold storage facilities, as well as 20-year-old Ghassan Ahmad al-Safadi, whom they beat severely.

19. On 21 March 1986, the population of the occupied Golan observed a 24-hour strike and held a demonstration at Majdal Shams in which they chanted slogans against Israel, declaring their continued allegiance to Syria and condemning the arbitrary arrests and the policy of harassment to which they were being subjected.  The Israeli authorities extended the area of their minefields.

20. On 22 March 1986, a demonstration was held to the east of Majdal Shams in protest against the curfew that had been imposed in that area and against the arbitrary practices and arrests.  They carried banners on which was written “Yes to Hunger, No to Submission” and “Death rather than Israeli Identity”.

21. On 24 March 1986, the Central Court at Haifa began the trial of 75 Syrian Arab citizens from the occupied Golan charged with taking part in the popular uprising that took place in all the villages of the Golan during the recent visit by Shimon Peres (report published in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Rai on 25 March 1986).

22. On 25 March 1986, citizens from Mas’ada and Buq’ata demonstrated against the Israeli occupation authorities, raising the Syrian flag and chanting slogans against the occupation.

23. On 5 April 1986 the Tass news agency quoted a report published in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz that 12,000 farmers had been completely isolated in their villages, which had been surrounded by barbed wire and Israeli troops, as a result of which they were deprived of food, medicine and medical assistance.

24. On 8 April 1986, the Israeli authorities opened fire on the Syrian citizen Ibrahim Hasan al-Safadi, a 19-year-old resident of Majdal Shams, who was seriously wounded.

25. On 14 April 1986, the Israeli General Saul Levi, commander of the Israeli police in Galilee, announced that the police would not allow Syrian Arab citizens to hold demonstrations or celebrations on the occasion of the anniversary of the evacuation of foreign troops on 17 April.

26. On 17 April 1986, an Israeli force of about 10,000 troops surrounded the village of Majdal Shams, on which they imposed a curfew.  Large forces were sent to disperse the processions that had been organized by the population to celebrate the anniversary of the evacuation of foreign troops.  Hand-to-hand clashes took place (on 18 April 1986, scenes of these clashes with police at the village of Ain Qunia were shown on television).  On the evening of 16 April 1986, the roads between the villages were blocked and a large number of demonstrators were arrested.  Radio Monte Carlo announced that demonstrations by Syrian Arab citizens in the Golan had been broken up in a harsh and violent manner, as a result of which a number of citizens were wounded, five others being detained on a charge of abusing the occupation authorities.  On 22 April 1986, three of these detainees were identified as Hisham Faris Sha’lan, Farhan Hayel Sha’lan and Rateb Havel Sha’lan.

27. On 2 May 1986, the military court at Lod sentenced 10 citizens of the Golan to imprisonment on a charge of opposing the occupation (France Presse Agency), notwithstanding the fact that every citizen has a legitimate right to oppose the occupation of his land.  These 10 detainees are:

1.  Bashir Suleiman al-Maqt, sentenced to 27 years

2.  Sidqi Suleiman al-Maqt, sentenced to 27 years

3.  Essam Nimr al-Bulis, sentenced to 27 years

4.  Hayel Hussafn Abu Zeid, sentenced to 27 years

5.  Asim Mahmoud al-Bulis, sentenced to 27 years

6.  Ayman Hayel Abu Jabal, sentenced to 12 years

7.  Ziyad Atef Abu Jabal, sentenced to 12 years

8.  Esmat Muhammad al-Maqt, sentenced to 11 years

9.  Essam Jamil Abu Zeid, sentenced to 16 years

10.  Abdul Latif Yussuf al-Sha’ir; sentenced to 7 years

11.  Kheiteddin Tawfiq al-Halabi, sentenced to 4 years

28. On 2 June 1986, Israel radio announced that large numbers of Syrian families had been compelled to leave their homes in the villages of the occupied Golan in search of a better life.  This was due to the deplorable economic and living conditions to which Israel is subjecting the Syrian Arab population of the Golan.

2.Israeli practices with regard to health and social affairs

1. The Israeli occupation authorities insist that an Israeli identity card must be produced by any person wishing to use the health facilities available to participants in the health insurance scheme (Kupat Holim) or to receive the benefits available under the national insurance scheme (Keren Habituah Haleumi), such as old age pensions and children’s allowances.  In view of this stipulation, the population of the villages in the occupied Golan are denied those tights since they have refused Israeli identity.

2. The high cost of medical examinations and treatment are beyond the means of the population in the villages of the occupied Golan.  For example:

The costs of hospitalization are estimated at 50,000 shekels per night, the i.e. equivalent of $75 (30 per cent of a worker’s monthly wage).

The costs of a delivery in a maternity ward are estimated at $750.

3. When a curfew is imposed on villages in the Golan, sick persons are unable to visit a doctor for treatment, since they must first apply to a military doctor for permission to leave and the military doctor refuses to allow them to receive treatment on the pretext that they do not need it.

4. There are no clinics in the villages of the Golan.  These villages only have four dispensaries which are unable to meet the needs of citizens since they lack equipment, beds and medical specialists.  They have no female doctors and no dentists.

5. Doctors are on duty at the dispensaries for only three hours a day, three days a week, and their activities are confined to diagnosis and writing prescriptions.

6. There is not a single pharmacy in any village in the occupied Golan. Medicines are purchased from pharmacies in the cities of occupied Palestine.

7. The villages in the Golan have one pharmacist, Gandhi Kahlouni, a graduate of Damascus University.  However, the Israeli authorities do not allow him to practise his profession since they do not recognize his diploma.

8. Medicines are highly expensive and difficult to find.

9. There is a lack of school health services.  The schools in the five villages do not have a school doctor.

10. The population of the five villages receive treatment free of charge at Arab charitable hospitals in the West Bank, such as the Al-Maqassed Charitable Clinic at Jerusalem, the Daoud Clinic for the Holy Lands at Bethlehem and the women’s Federation Clinic at Nablus.

11. The Israeli occupation authorities do not allow patients from the five villages to receive treatment in their motherland Syria.

12. The occupation authorities have forbidden the establishment of charitable associations to help needy sick persons in the villages of the Golan.

13. In 1960, the Syrian expatriate Yussuf al-Safadi established a 20-bed clinic in the town of Majdal Shams. However, the Israeli occupation authorities converted the building into a headquarters for the Military Governor and his staff.

14. The health insurance scheme (Kupat Holim) refuses to provide ambulances for citizens in the villages in the occupied Golan, although it does provide them for the population of Israeli settlements in the Golan.

15. Although the health of the population of the villages in the Golan is endangered by mosquitoes, the Israeli authorities are doing nothing to combat this scourge.

16. The Israeli authorities are not draining the peals of stagnant saline water, which causes many diseases among the population.

17. The Israeli authorities refuse to provide medicines and food and, during the curfews, prevent the villages in the Golan from receiving medical and food assistance striving from Syria and from national organizations and charitable associations in Palestine.

18. The population of the villages in the Golan complain of polluted drinking water, which the occupation authorities are doing nothing to purify.  Although the population of Majdal Shams drilled a well at their own expense, the Israeli authorities prevented them from using its water, which they diverted to settlements in the Golan.

19. The water company Mekaroth frequently cuts off the water supply to the villages in the Golan for long periods of up to two months on various pretexts.

20. The Israeli authorities do not provide health care services for detainees and prisoners from the occupied Golan.

3.Israeli practices with regard to educational affairs

1. Interference in educational curricula with a view to obliterating their Syrian Arab character and replacing them with Israeli curricula.

2. On 4 April 1986, the population of the occupied villages in the Golan sought permission to cross the boundary line so that their children could be taught at Syrian universities, since the Israeli authorities are impeding such education travel.  Furthermore, in addition to their failure to provide hospitals and schools, those authorities dismiss teachers in an arbitrary manner.  The number of teachers dismissed in this way currently amounts to 170.

3. The failure to employ university graduates from the Golan, in spite of the need for them to teach in schools.

4. The failure to appoint qualified schoolteachers and the assignment of incompetent persons to occupy teaching posts.

5. The refusal to issue passports (laissez-passer) to students from the villages of the occupied Syrian Golan wishing to study at universities outside occupied Palestine unless they submit a written acceptance from the universities at which they will be studying. This is to prevent them from enrolling at universities in the socialist States, which, although willing to accept them, do not normally send a written acceptance to each student, such acceptance being conveyed verbally to the organizations and bodies concerned.

4. Israeli practices with regard to agricultural affairs and the

1. The confiscation of agricultural lands, which are subsequently turned into minefields and designated as military zones:  on 29 January 1986, the newspaper Al-Sha’ab, which is published in Jerusalem, reported that Salim Asad Milhem Abu Awwad, a young man from the Golan, was wounded following the explosion of a mine under the agricultural tractor that he was driving near his village Buq’ata, as a result of which the doctors amputated his leg due to the serious nature of those wounds.

2. On 11 March 1986, the France Presse Agency reported that a number of representatives of Syrian Arab citizens in the Golan had held a press conference in occupied Jerusalem in which they had affirmed that they were Syrian Arabs.  One of them, Salman Fakhreddin, had said:  “We are Syrians and we wanted to emphasize this fact during the provocative visit of Shimon Peres to Majdal Shams”.

Hayel Abu Jabal said that, since 1967, the Israeli authorities had confiscated 350 hectares of land belonging to Syrian Arab villages in the Golan.  Those lands had been designated military zones and had been handed over to 7,000 Zionist settlers.  The enemy authorities were also exercising control over the principal water resources in the Golan.

3. On 12 April 1986, the Israeli occupation authorities sealed off the al-Qati area, extending from the south-western part of the town of Majdal Shams to the Su’ad Bridge north of the town of Mas’ada, in preparation for its expropriation.  This area comprises more than 1,000 dunams of fertile agricultural land.

4. On 22 April 1986, Israel sealed off an area of 150 dunums at al-Balan near Majdal Shams with barbed wire and denied the population access to it.

Witnesses who have recently left the occupied Golan and who are in a position to give testimony before the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories are:

1.Dr. Ihsan Qudhmani, residing in the Syrian Arab Republic.

2.Mr. Nabil Mahmoud, residing in the Syrian Arab Republic.

3. Mr. Ahmad Ali al-Qudhmani, currently residing in the Soviet Union where he is being treated for eye wounds inflicted during the course of a beating by Israeli occupation forces.  He is one of the leaders of the National Movement in the Golan.

Information submitted by the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights

80. A report dated 15 May 1986 concerning the situation in the Golan Heights was submitted to the Special Committee by the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights.  The report referred to a  number of recent incidents such as those occasioned by the visit, on 25 February 1986, of Prime Minister Shimon Peres to Majdal Shams, or the commemoration, on 17 April 1986, of the Syrian independence day.

81. The report also reflected the deterioration of the economic situation in the Golan Heights.  It stresses the negative impact of the fiscal policy on the civilian population.

Since last February, the income tax authorities, too – with the assistance of the police and border guard – intensified the harassment operations against the inhabitants.

…

The income tax authorities impose on the farmers the highest tax rebates.  Due to the unemployment prevailing in the Golan villages, the distress in the homes of the poor families has increased.

82. The report referred to the restrictions imposed on villagers forbidden to cultivate their land or take their herd to pasture:

Jamil Naif Mari of Mas’ada has a Kafka-like story to tell.  Men of the Nature Reserves Authority last summer seized his herd in the pasture and sold it.  After some days he succeeded in locating his herd at Petah-Tikva, but some 40 sheep were missing.  The man bought his herd from the person who kept it and brought it back to his own place.  During the transportation and because of inadequate treatment, 40 additional animals died.  Of course, the searches and transportation cost him a lot of money, in addition to the price he was force to pay for his own herd.  With the help of one of the Knesset members, Jamil Naif Mari succeeded in reaching the management of the Nature Reserves Authority, who after discussion, admitted that the seizure of the herd was unjustified.  The management refunded him the money received from the sale of his herd to the man in Petah-Tikva.  Clearly, the owner of the herd suffered a loss.  He lost some 80 animals, paid for the expenses of the search after the herd and it transportation back, not to speak of the suffering and sorrow caused to him by the affair.

83. The report also cited practices used by the occupying authorities as a form of collective punishment:

On the day when a delegation of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights visited the Golan, inhabitants of Majdal Shams talked with refugees from the villages of Zaoura, Ain-Fit and Banias that were demolished by the Israeli army after the occupation.  These conversations are conducted by shouting (this place is called the Shouting Area) and gestures from the sides of the line, on hills separated by a valley – a kind of fenced no-man’s land.  These noisy conversations of the inhabitants from both sides of the lines, as a result of the tragic separation forced on them by the occupation since 19 years, are interrupted by the occupation authorities from time to time as a collective revenge and punishment.

84. The report finally provided a partial list of inhabitants of the occupied Golan who were held under arrest, giving an indication of the age of the detainees.

V. CONCLUSIONS

85. The present report has been prepared in accordance with the mandate of the Special Committee as renewed by the General Assembly by its resolution 40/161 D of 16 December 1985.

86. Chapter II contains a description of the organization by the Special Committee of its work during the period from 30 August 1985, the date of adoption of its last report (A/40/702).  As may be ascertained from Chapter II, the Government of Israel continued to withhold its co-operation from the Special Committee.  On the other hand, the Special Committee benefited from the co-operation of the Governments of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, and of the Palestine Liberation Organization.  Chapter II 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 the allegations of “exploitation and looting of the resources of the occupied territories”, “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”, as reflected in General Assembly resolution 30005 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972.

87. Chapter IV (see also annex III (available in English only)) contains a summary of the oral evidence and written information received by the Special Committee.  The Special Committee, having been precluded from visiting the occupied territories, conducted a series of hearings in New York in December 1985 and Amman in April and May 1986, where it heard the evidence of persons who had first-hand knowledge and personal experience of the human rights situation in the occupied territories.  The Special Committee regrets however that, owing to financial constraints placed upon it, it was unable to conduct hearings in Cairo and Damascus in the discharge of its mandate. 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 Governments, organizations and individuals in the occupied territories that reached it during the period covered by the present report.  Some of these reports reveal, for the first time. Interesting details regarding education and cultural life of civilians under occupation.

88. The conclusions contained in the present section are formulated on the basis of the information reflected in Chapter 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.

89. Chapter IV is divided into three parts.  Section IV.A (included in annex III below (available in English only)) contains a summary of the oral evidence received by the Special Committee, illustrating the situation in the occupied territories with regard to municipal problems, the administration of justice, the treatment of civilians and the treatment of detainees.  Section IV.B (included in annex III below (available in English only)) reflects information gathered from the Israeli press and the Arab language press published in the occupied territories examined by the Special Committee.  Section IV.C deals with information transmitted by the Governments of Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, by the Palestine Liberation Organization and by other organizations.

90. On the basis of the evidence and information before it, the Special Committee reached the conclusion that the policy pursued by the Government of Israel in the occupied territories continues, as in the past, to be based upon the principle that the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 constitute a part of the State of Israel.  This is at the source of the policy of annexation and establishment of  settlements in occupied territories, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the international obligations of Israel as a State Party to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian persons in Time of War, (see annex I below).  It may be recalled that the Fourth Geneva 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.  Various illustrations of this policy are provided in the present report, in particular, as reflected in paragraphs 378 to 383 of annex III below (available in English only), such as the approval, by the Knesset Finance Committee, of a budget of approximately $3.5 million for settlement in the occupied  territories  as  reported  in Ha’aretz of 31 December 1985, and the statement by the Minister for Energy and Infrastructure, Moshe Shahal, that “the Jordan Valley would remain part of the State of Israel in any future arrangement with Jordan”, reflected in Ha’aretz of 15 January 1986.  In this context, reference may also be made to statements concerning negotiations on “self-rule” and “condominium” in the Gaza Strip as reflected in paragraphs 78, 79 and 84 of annex III below (available in English only).

91. Such a policy has resulted in an escalation of violence and the adoption of the “iron fist policy” marked by the implementation of new security arrangements in the occupied territories, and the aggravation  of the tension between the Israeli defense forces and the civilian population, leading in some instances to complaints and strikes by the civilian population.  One particularly illustrative incident is the situation of the Arab shop-owners in the Hadassa building in Hebron who, as related in paragraph 211 of annex II below (available in English only), have been under constant pressure by the authorities.  The information and evidence examined by the Special Committee illustrate various forms of harassment that have in a number of cases provoked serious injuries or death to civilians in the occupied territories, as well as an extension of the practice of reprisal and collective punishment, such as the demolition or sealing off of houses of suspects.  The information before the Special Committee clearly indicates that the main arguments presented by the Israeli authorities to justify the demolition and sealing of houses for alleged “security” reasons are baseless.  For instance, in the case, reported in paragraph 242 of annex III below (available in English only), of three houses demolished in the village of Burka in April 1986, where 11 people, excluding the suspects, were left homeless, none of the suspects had been convicted at the time of the demolition.  The Committee therefore notes with regret the illegal nature of such practices, which represent cases of collective and extrajudical punishment.  Other repressive measures included a further upsurge of house and town arrests, seriously hindering the enjoyment of the right to freedom of movement, as well as a notable increase in the number of expulsions and deportations.  The Special Committee draws particular attention to the illegal nature of the deportation procedure implemented by the military authorities, which leaves no opportunity to the intended deportees to examine the allegations presented against them, and which appear to be motivated by sheer political factors rather than justified security reasons.  The right to freedom of expression has also been affected by a number of measures taken by the occupying authorities.  The Special Committee noted that a number of newspapers were submitted to censorship and closure measures and that Palestinian journalists were the subject of orders limiting their freedom of movement. Freedom of education has also been restricted in many ways.  In this connection, the Special Committee was provided, in addition to other information and evidence, with a series of documents and statistics prepared by the Department of Education and Higher Studies of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which, as reflected in paragraphs 57 to 75 above, stressed the deterioration of the educational system in the occupied territories due to various factors such as the modification of text books and programs, the inadequacy of school material and buildings, the overcrowding of classes, the lack of teachers and so on.  The information received denoted various violations to the right to freedom of education such as the arbitrary dismissal or deportation of school and university teachers, repression campaigns and arrests of teachers and students, the closing down of schools and universities.

92. The period covered by the present report has also been marked by a notable increase in the number of arrests and administrative detention orders.  Many Palestinian civilians, including minors, have been the subject of sentences passed by military courts on security

charges.  In contrast, members of the Jewish underground and other Israelis charged with murder or mistreatment of Arab civilians have been treated with relative leniency by the authorities.  Illustrative of this situation is the pardon granted to Avraham Shalom and three General Security Services officials involved in the case of the killing of two Arab hijackers in 1984.

93. The report contains information on the policy of the Government of Israel purporting to return municipalities of the occupied territories to their local leaders.  Such a policy has to be viewed in the general context of the historical evolution of these municipalities, whose duly elected councils have in most cases been dissolved and replaced by members of the Israeli civilian administration.  The appeal by the Israeli Government for the appointment of new Arab mayors, received with suspicion by the civilian population as to the real motives behind it, and followed by the killing of the appointed mayor of Nablus, Zafer el-Masri, has not so far resulted in any significant move.  Reference is made in this regard to paragraphs 2 to 4 and 85 to 102 of annex III below (available in English only).

94. The report of the Special Committee also contains information given to it by former prisoners who alleged that the treatment of detainees continued to be in contradiction with the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention.  One particularly  preoccupying aspect is the problem of detained minors submitted to humiliating practices in detention camps.  Other problems include the overcrowding of cells, physical and psychological mistreatment and the lack of adequate health services; such bad conditions constantly give rise to hunger strikes.

95. During the period under consideration, the Government of Israel has pursued its annexation policy, continuing with the same determination as in previous years to establish and extend Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.  The implementation of the Major Jerusalem Project, aiming at the annexation and Judaization of an area representing 8 per cent of the aggregate occupied West Bank, the allocation by the Knesset of substantial sums for the expansion of settlements, the inauguration of new settlements, the illegal expropriation and seizure of Arab land, which had given rise, in the West Bank, to a vast network of fraudulent land deals, as reported in paragraph 387 of annex III below (available in English only), all illustrate the importance attached by the Israeli authorities to the pursuit of this policy which, as stated before, constitutes a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

96. In view of the Special Committee, the overall picture drawn from  the evidence and information examined by it during the period covered by the present report reveals a further deterioration of the situation of the civilian population as regards the enjoyment of their basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.  The provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which remains the main international instrument in humanitarian law that applies to the occupied territories, continue to be disregarded.  As the annexation policy continues without respite, measures of repression and acts of harassment impose an increasingly heavy burden on the civilians.  On the other hand, the arbitrary expulsion of Palestinians is swelling the ranks of the hundreds of thousands who are still outside the occupied territories and are denied the right to return to their homeland.

97. The Special Committee once again stresses the responsibility of the international community to reverse this situation; it appeals to the parties concerned to strive to prevent further deterioration and adopt measures to ensure an effective protection of the basic rights of the civilians in the occupied territories.

IV. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

98. The present report was approved and signed by the Special Committee on 10 September 1986 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/8389 and Corr.1 and 2; A/8389/Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1 and 2; A/8828; A/9148 and Add.1; A/9817; 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; A/39/591 and A/40/702.

2/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session, Annexes, agenda item 101, document A/8237; 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/38/718; ibid., Thirty-ninth Session, Annexes, agenda item 71, document A/39/712; and ibid., Fortieth Session, Annexes, agenda item 75, document A/40/890.

3/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session, Annexes, agenda item 101, document A/8089, 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 person 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:

“Individuals 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 by 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 to 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 a 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 minor.

“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 measure 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 trials 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 Convention: 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

List of documents submitted by the Palestine Liberation Organization

Documents submitted by the Department of Occupied Territories Affairs

1. Israeli practices in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during 1985

2. Israeli practices in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during the first quarter of 1986:

A.Sentences issued against Palestinian citizens

B. The Occupied Homeland: administrative detentions, curfews, travel ban, house arrests, demolition and sealing of houses.

C. The Occupied Homeland: Israeli settlers’ activities, practices affecting education, workers and trade unions

D.The Occupies Homeland: land confiscation

3. Local municipalities in the West Bank: the Zionist objectives

4. Unemployment in the Arab occupied territories

5. Jerusalem: the Holy City in front of the Zionist danger

6. Expelled persons from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip: 1968-1985

7. The houses destroyed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip: 1967-1985

8. List of persons under house arrest: 1980-1985

Documents submitted by the Department of Education and Higher Studies

1. Universities in the occupied territories: difficulties, obstacles, recommendations

2. Higher studies in the occupied territories: 1985-1986

3. Report submitted to the Special Committee

4. Situation in UNRWA’s educational institutions: 1985-1986

5. Vocational and technical training in the occupied territories: 1985-1986

6. Education in the occupied territories: 1985-1986

7. Israeli aggressive violations in the field of education and culture in the occupied Palestinian land.

---

ANNEX III*

Information and evidence received by the Special Committee

(chapt. IV, sects. A and B)

CONTENTS

---

A. Oral evidence

1. 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.441 and 445 to 453.  The following paragraphs contain a selection of excerpts of these testimonies that 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 subdivided according to the subject-matter, as follows:

1.General situation;

2.Information concerning the administration of justice;

3.Treatment of civilians, including fundamental freedom;

4.Treatment of detainees.

1.  General situation

(see paras. 85-102 below and sect. IV.C, paras. 37-39 above)

Policy of returning municipalities to local leaders

2. Some witnesses referred to the question of municipal councils.  Dr. Azmi As Shweibi, who had been elected in 1976 to the municipal council of El Bireh and held this position until 1982, when the council was disbanded by order of the Israeli Minister of Defense, replied to a question on the profound aspirations of the Arabs population in the occupied territories regarding the municipalities issue as follows:

“Generally speaking, the Arab population in these areas, the taxpayers, prefer to be represented by the duly-elected mayors, councils and mayors.  Most of these municipal councils were democratically elected in 1976 by the population itself.  But in response to pressure from the settlers, and due to the fact that the Israeli authorities were not sympathetic to the political aspirations of the population, the Arab population which had expressed itself clearly, its preference for municipal elections, for elected mayors, the Israeli authorities preferred to do away with these municipal councils.  The municipal councils were asked by Peres – who at that time was Minister of Defense – to accept a kind of civil or civilian administration which would be under the authority of the occupation officials in place.  When we refused, the Israeli authorities started to get rid of the municipal councils, and this was started in 1980, against Mohammed Milhem of Halhul and Kawasme of Hebron.  And in addition, I believe, they bombed the cars of Bassam Shaka’a and Karim Khalaf and Ibrahim Tawil, the mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and El Bireh.  Following this, the municipal councils were disbanded immediately.  The civilian population in El Bireh, which is what I am talking about, prefer that the members of the municipal council be directly elected by them.  The Israeli authorities informed us – and I personally was informed – that there would be no elections for municipal councils in the West Bank because of any elections would bring to power people who would not accept the occupation policies of the authorities.  This is simply a confirmation of the desire of the people in the occupied territories to uphold their right of self- determination, their right to a State and their right to a free life.  No agent of the Israeli occupation authorities could possibly succeed in any of these elections.  What happened in El Bireh was that, under pressure from the authorities, the civilian population accepted a choice – not elections but a choice – of people to represent them from two lists, one headed by A-Tarifi and the other by Walid Hamad – not Ibrahim A-Tawil.  As far as the other municipalities are concerned, the people would not accept the Israeli-imposed nominees to represent them.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

3. On the same subject, Dr. Shweibi had stated earlier:

“The object of controlling these municipalities in the main Arab cities of the West Bank is to plan the infrastructure of these towns and cities in such a way as to limit considerably the land given to Arabs to construct or to live on, while considerably expanding the land provided for the Israelis.  This could not have happened in the presence of Arab-elected municipal councils for these cities, and what the Israeli authorities are trying to do now is substitute for the Israeli military officers, who are in charge of these municipalities, agents who would be, let us say, open to applying Israeli policy in these cities.  In El Bireh, the military commander, Josef al Kikhbar, who is known as “Maurice”, has been appointed administrator of this municipal council.  What the Israeli officers are now doing is to  mismanaged and spend the budget of these municipal councils and spoil their organization and finance and the administrative framework to such an extent that, even if the Arabs were to be elected eventually to these municipal councils, they would have a difficult time in setting them up correctly again.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

4. Another witness, Dr. Mohamed A. Saker, the expelled President of the Islamic University of Gaza, referring to the fact that the autonomy issue had been raised with him several times by the Israeli authorities, said:

“They tried to sell the idea of autonomy to me.  What is meant by ‘autonomy’ in the Israeli mind?  Autonomy means leaving things as they are but to persuade Arabs to play the game for the Israelis.  Land will not be the responsibility of the

‘autonomy’ authorities, nor water, nor police, etc.  ‘Autonomy’ is just an Arab face covering Israeli policy, no more, no less.  The Arabs would not be allowed to take any serious decision in the actual affairs of the State.” (A/AC.145/RT.453)

2.  Information concerning the administration of justice

(see paras. 111-193 below and sect. IV.C, paras. 40-42 above)

5. Several witnesses described various aspects of the constraints hindering the administration of justice in the occupied territories.  One particularly preoccupying problem mentioned was the practice of arresting and detaining minors.

6. Mr. Ali Abu Hilal stated in the course of his testimony:

“On the imprisonment of children or adolescents, in 1984 and I’m talking about the area that I know, Abu Dis – there was imprisonment of children who were in the preparatory stage, aged between 10 and 15.  They were imprisoned in a military camp called Al Fara’a, which is near my village of Abu Dis, near Nablus.  One of the boys is called Ziyad Jafal, another Khalil Maksen, and a third Taysir Jafal.  All of them are in the preparatory stage of education.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

7. The absence of juvenile courts was mentioned, in her testimony, by a lawyer practicing in the occupied territories:

“There is no juvenile court.  The judge who passes sentence on a man of 40 does the same thing for a boy of 12.  I attended the sentencing of two children, one was 14 and one was 15 years old, from Dheisheh camp in Bethlehem.  The charge was that they threw fire bombs at Meir Kahane when he tried to break into the camp.  The Israeli authorities did not arrest Meir Kahane, they arrested the two boys.  The two bombs did not cause any damage.  The younger boy was sentenced to four years and the elder boy to four and a half years.  They are serving their sentences now in AL Fara’a prison.”

8. The same witness referred to the various difficulties that the Arab lawyers confronted in the exercise of their profession in the occupied territories:

“Because I am a lawyer I shall speak on the situation of Arab lawyers in those territories occupied in 1967.  They are subjected to provocations and annoyances in their work by the occupying military authorities.  For instance, they are prevented from meeting their clients, namely, Palestinian detainees in Israel prisons.  The lawyers are bodily searched outside the Israeli prisons and prior to entering courtrooms.  They are obliged to raised their hands as they are being searched, and their briefcases are also searched and papers thrown about, and there are also attempts to read the papers and files they are carrying.  Arab lawyers are forced to remain for hours in the courts of the prisons, frequently without being given permission to meet their clients, the Palestinian detainees, even when a date had been set by the general prison administration.

“…

“Another matter which is of concern to the lawyers is Military Order 1164 issued by the military authorities to prevent them from exercising their basic right to set up a committee of Arab lawyers  In the occupied Arab territories there are 200 practicing lawyers, and they work without any legal framework.  They have no professional association or syndicate.  So the lawyers met and set up a committee and raised the matter before the High Court of Justice in Jerusalem in order to have a license to set up their own organization.  This case was several times postponed, and it was during this period of postponement that the Military Order 1164 was issued which provided that the administrative officers of that committee be appointed.  In other words, instead of having elections, which is the legitimate right of lawyers in setting up their own organization, the civil administration officer would appoint that committee.  The lawyers rejected that provision, insisting on their right to hold elections for their legitimate representatives.

“…

“Lawyers in Israel have their professional association which defends them, like any lawyers’ syndicate anywhere in the world, but we do no have such a legal framework for our profession.  We have no right to present a defense before an Israeli court in Jerusalem, but Israelis can practise in the West Bank and in any Israeli court.  Some Arab lawyers have asked for the same treatment as the Israeli lawyers within Israel, but that request was refused.” (A/AC.145/RT.449)

9. In reply to a question concerning the illegal enforcement by the occupying Power of the British Emergency Regulations of 1945, the witness stated:

“I know that the civilian population and the organizations representing them in the occupied territories have objected to them.  Statements by lawyers before Israeli military courts have rejected these regulations and have asked for their deletion.  Amongst the legal statements made by the lawyers before the Israeli court has been the request for these regulations to be deleted because they are null and void.” (A/AC.145/RT.449)

10. Mr. Wilhelm Joseph, a United States attorney, member of a delegation of American lawyers who spent one week in Israel in November 1985 to investigate the deportation order issued against four Palestinian leaders, referred to the discrimination in the administration of justice:

“We understand that when a Palestinian in the West Bank is charged with a violation – and this is also documented in the annual report on human rights which is presented by the United States Trade Department to the Senate and House Committees on Foreign Relations, that is, when a Palestinian is alleged to have committed an offence in the West Bank – the military authorities may choose whether that person is tried in a military court or a regular criminal court.  Of course, if you are tried in a criminal court you are afforded all the usual protections of due process:  evidence against you, the charges against you and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.  However, if they choose to prosecute you in military proceedings you are not afforded these protections.  On the other hand, any Israeli citizen who commits the same offence in those territories can only be tried in a criminal court and in fact has the choice of being tried in a criminal court nearest his or her home, or one near the scene of the alleged incident.  For example, if such a citizen is a resident of Tel Aviv, he may elect to be tried in a criminal court in Tel Aviv even though the offence may have been committed in the West Bank.” (A/AC.145/RT.441)

3.  Treatment of civilians, including fundamental freedoms

(see paras. 199-344 below and sect. IV.C, paras. 43-76 above)

(a) General information

(i)Harassment of civilians

11. Several witnesses gave an account of the daily harassment suffered by the civilian population.  Hereunder are a few relevant excerpts from their testimonies:

“In a nutshell, this is a picture of the very long ordeal, the suffering of my people, the suffering which we still undergo every day under occupation.  This suffering takes diverse forms and I have lived through them during the seven months which I spent in freedom.  There are daily exactions in the street by the armed forces, but the police force.  For example, we live in a very conservative, very traditional way in the southern part of Palestine, and the Israeli soldiers provoke our women.  When the Palestinian men try to defend their dignity they are constantly set upon by the Israeli forces.  Palestinian citizens are constantly being harassed.  They knew the names of the people who had been freed; they knew my name, and they set little traps for us.  They tried to kidnap us, they even set  ambushes.  I informed the police.  Of course, I had to go to the police station to complain, so they got to know me.  I did not have the right to drive a car and so I used a bicycle.  The frontier guards in their car, they knew me personally, and they tried to knock me over.  Once they threw a sort of fake Molotov cocktail, an empty beer bottle, at me to frighten me and to intimidate me.” (Hassan Mohammed Al-Ammoudi – A/AC.145/RT.448)

“Now I shall tell you what I have seen of the practices of the occupation authorities against the population in the occupied territories during the seven months I spent there.  The ‘iron fist’ policy was announced by the responsible Israeli authorities.  In September 1985 the forces of the occupation provoked the population in Gaza, in particular, in Palestine Square.  Unfortunately I was there.  The occupation forces forced some of the civilian population to climb upon tables like these ones here in the middle of the Square and made some of them dance.  They told some of the young people to hit the old men.  Some of the young people obeyed this order.  Those who did not were beaten and kicked until they fainted, and I saw them.  Another occurrence to which I was witness was when some soldiers in Unity Street on 11 November 1985 stopped cars, ordered the people out of the cars and started to beat them, for no reason, just like that.” (Jallal Hafez Aziza – A/AC.145/RT.448)

“I should now like to say a few words about some aspects of oppression that we see practiced daily against us by the Israeli military authorities.  For instance, two weeks ago two young men were walking on the road between Jerusalem and Ramallah near Al ‘Amari camp when an Israeli military patrol passed.  One of the Israeli soldiers fired at the two young men.  On was killed immediately and the other was wounded.  The soldiers prevented a doctor, who lived nearby, from reaching the two young men in order to treat the wounded one.  The man who died was Naser Ferukh.” (A lawyer practicing in the occupied territories – A/AC.145/RT.449)

“After I left prison I lived three and one half months in the occupied territories.  I had already seen these things in prison, but also in camps, in villages and in towns I saw in practice the policies of the Zionist soldiers against the Palestinian people, the children, the women, old people, young people, the way in which they forcibly entered houses by night and by day without any pretext whatsoever, without any reason whatsoever; arbitrary arrest of a number of members of the same family, to such an extent that a mother, whose three children had been taken away, said to the police, ‘Since you have taken my three children, why not put me in jail?’.” (Mahmud Amdam Altamre – A/AC.145/RT.499/Add.1)

(ii)Collective punishment, including demolition of houses

12. In the course of its hearings, the Special Committee heard various accounts of the general atmosphere of repression illustrated by the practice of collective punishment against the civilian population in the occupied territories.

13. A former detainee, Mr. Mohammed Mahmud Hanini, described the problems that affected his family while he was detained:

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): The blew up the house.

“The CHAIRMAN: Whose house?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): My family’s.

“Mr. SENE (Senegal (interpretation from French): Could you tell us where this was?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): In the village of Beit Dajan in the Nablus area.

“Mr. SENE (Senegal) (interpretation from French): Have you made any claim for indemnity?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): Would the same people  who blew up our house pay compensation for it?

“Mr. SENE (Senegal) (interpretation from French): And what happened to the land where the house was?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): At the time they would not allow us to rebuild the house, but later on we did.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

14. Mr. Hassan Abd Jawad referred to the situation in Dheisheh refugee camp:

“ Often there was collective punishment of the inhabitants of the camp.  There were 13,000 people in that camp in an area of 1 sq. km. Near Bethlehem.  The authorities imposed about 24 curfews per year on us.  Last year, about 19 entrances leading to the main road were closed and no all we have is one single entry, a back entrance which leads to a mountain road and which forces the inhabitants to cover three kilometers in order to reach Bethlehem.  The gateways are closed with barbed wire, with cement and with barrels being placed across them.  Of course, all these operations have complicated the lives of the inhabitants, and in particular have lengthened the time necessary for people wishing to go out of the camp, in order to go to Bethlehem, including sick people who wish to see a doctor in Bethlehem, especially as in this camp there are no basic or primary health care services available.  There is a social center at the camp, there was a youth center, but what is most important is that this camp has always been the victim of repression.  The houses are always invaded by the occupation authorities, they force their way in and the inhabitants are compelled to go to the UNRWA school at night as a refugee.  Sometimes more than 3,000 people between 12 and 75 years of age had to take refuge in the school.  They were usually males, and this was done on rainy nights.” (A/AC.145/RT.447)

15. Another witness, Mr. Zaki Abu Seita, referred to the practices of house demolition and collective home arrest, stated:

“The daily practices which I have personally witnessed in Gaza are arrests, confiscation of land, demolition of houses under the pretext of constructing new roads.  They demolished several houses in order to construct a road 150 m wide.  Of course, those who lived in those houses were homeless afterwards.  Also among Israeli practices is collective punishment.  They would force people to stay in their homes for 24 hours consecutively, allowing them to go out for one hour per day.” (A/AC.145/RT.452)

(iii)  Expulsion and deportation

16. The Special Committee heard several statements on the practice of deportation and expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories.  In the course of the hearings on this subject, many witnesses stressed the illegal nature of the deportation procedure and referred to the fact that it was a military process and that the intended deportees were not given the opportunity to see the allegations presented against them.

17. Mr. Wilhelm Joseph stated in that connection:

“On the question of the process, we are told that the intended deportee first learns of his intended deportation when the knock comes.  He or she then has 48 hours in which to find a lawyer and file objections with a military advisory committee comprising three members, one of which has to have – I think he said – a legal connection or law connection.  He didn’t specify if this person had to be a lawyer, in fact, but we understand that one may be a lawyer and two would have to be  lawyers.  These are military men.  You file objection to deportation because you still don’t have any evidence against you or any charges.  Then that advisory committee can either affirm the deportation orders or reverse them.  If they are in fact affirmed, the defendant through his lawyer may appeal to the Israeli High Court, which examines whatever evidence is presented to them in a camera.  The attorneys have no idea what is being presented to the Court and the Court in its turn may affirm or revoke these orders.” (A/AC.145/RT.441)

18. Another witness, Mr. Bahget Mustafa Geiussy, said:

“On 28 August 1985 I was again arrested.  I was handed deportation order issued by the commander in chief, Amnon Shahak.  I was asked to sign my deportation order, which I refused to do because I could not accept to be deported.  Later on, my case was put to a military appeals committee.  I appeared for 14 hours before that committee to no avail.  At the end, through my lawyers, Lea Tsemel and Felicia Langer, I submitted a petition to the High Court in Jerusalem.  I was present during five sittings of the court but the court endorsed the recommendation of the military committee.” (A/AC.145/RT.445)

19. Dr. Azmi As Shweibi described the conditions prevailing at the military committee hearings:

“On 27 October 1985, the commander of the region, Amnon Shahak, ordered the deportation of three persons, myself included, from the occupied territories.  He based his decision on British emergency regulations which date back to 1945.  We were given the right to present our point of view in front of a consultative military committee, which presents its opinion to the Minister of Defense and to the commander of the central region.  The members of the consultative military committee are appointed by the commander of the region himself; it is composed of military men, and at these committee hearings we were not given the right to see the allegations presented before the committee.  Foreign lawyers were prevented from participating in the hearing or defending us before the committee.  The hearings were carried out in very inhuman conditions, sometimes extending until past midnight, and even some members of the committee, the three military men, fell asleep during these long hearings.  Although the committee recommended a review of my particular deportation, nevertheless the commander of the central region refused that recommendation, because the committee is merely consultative and it has no right to take decisions.  We appealed to the Israeli High Court of Justice and asked the Court to provide us with a copy of the articles or the material which was used in the allegations against us.  But the Court refused.  The Minister of Defense sent letters to the Court and presented his case in front of the Court, and said that the situation in this region is particularly dangerous and therefore he urged the Court to speed up our deportation.  The Court forbade various lawyers from different parts of the world, internationally known, to come and defend us or even to meet us.  The Court also refused the adjudication of international law in this sense, that people in occupied territories should not be deported from the territory held by the occupation régime.  My medical condition was also not taken into consideration, although I was being treated by an Israeli doctor at Hadasseh, who presented his report about the dangerous situation of my health, but the Israeli High Court of Justice refused and said that they were not mandated to consider my health situation.  In view of these events, we withdrew our appeal from the Israeli Court on the basis that there would be no just sentence passed against us.  We refused to go on with this case because we considered that the deportation law was a racist law, practiced purely against the Arab population – it is not practiced against the Jewish population – and as such, there was no question of the case being judge fairly before that Court, because the law which was applied was a racist one.  We were held in prison for 100 days before they deported us.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

20. Other testimonies were given to the Special Committee by Mr. Ali Abu Hilal and Zaki Abu Steita who were also deported under similar conditions.  In the same connection, Mr. Mahmud Dei’is, asked why he was deported, stated:

“I and my lawyers asked this question of the military court, the fictitious court, which was set up by the commander in chief of the West Bank.  The request as stated by the lawyers was: would the members of the military court please sentence the accused on any charge and if, according to their laws, they should pass a sentence of one year against him, then we ask you to sentence him to 10 years.  The answer of the military prosecutor was that they had a secret file which neither the accused nor his lawyer is allowed to study, and in that file there were sufficient justifications for deporting the accused.  My lawyer and I repeated the same request – my lawyers were Ali Khuzman and Lea Tsemel – and we asked that a representative of the Red Cross or any legal or humanitarian international organization attend the sittings of the court as an observer: but this, too, was rejected.  The military court then immediately ratified the deportation order of the military commander and the sitting came to an end.” (A/AC.145/RT.447)

21. Another witness, Mr. Adnan Mohammed Bliedi, replied to questions concerning his deportation:

“The CHAIRMAN: Can you also tell us about your deportation, how it came about?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): Well, on 14 September 1985 I was told to go to the Tulkarm center.  There I was informed of my deportation in the morning.  On 15 September I was deported to the East Bank.

“The CHAIRMAN: Did you appeal against your deportation order?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic):  We had no possibility of appealing.  I was informed on the 14th an deported on the 15th.

“The CHAIRMAN: You didn’t make any appeal at all to the  military committee?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): I did not meet the military committee; it was the civilian administration that received us.

“The CHAIRMAN: Was the deportation order made by the military commander?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): Yes, it was the military commander, but on behalf of an officer of the civilian administration.

“The CHAIRMAN: They did not give you 48 hours in which to appeal?

“The WITNESS (interpretation from Arabic): No, I was not given 48 hours.” (A/AC.145/RT.447)

22. The difficult physical conditions of the actual expulsion were also described by a number of witnesses:

“A few days before we were deported, my colleagues and I were separated and put in single cells in the prison.  We were handcuffed and leg shackled as well as having bands covering our eyes so that we couldn’t see anything.  During the deportation we were taken like that and put in the back of an army truck.  We asked the officers in charge to be allowed to see our wives and children before being deported.  The judges in the High Court had asked that we be allowed to see our families before deportation, but this permission was not granted.  We also asked that a Red Cross representative should come to see us, to see the conditions in which we were being deported, to see if this was appropriate for the health of the prisoners, since our deportation should be carried out in humane circumstances and conditions.  While we were in the army truck we were told that we would be deported to the South of Lebanon, but knowing from the topography of the road that we were going down, rather than up, we knew that we were going to the South of Jordan rather than the South of Lebanon.  The deportation began at 8 a.m. on 31 January in the morning, and we reached Wadi Araba, which is in the desert area of Jordan, near Aqaba, at the end of the day.  The bandages were removed from our eyes and a military doctor carried out a sort of routine examination, listening to heartbeats.  We were asked to follow a road between barbed wire on both sides.  We were told to proceed forward in a straight line, because the whole area was mined.  We were picked up at the end of the road by the Jordanian army, and they brought us to Amman.” (Dr. Azmi As Shweibi – A/AC.145/RT.446)

“…we were moved to Hebron in the south of the West Bank, and the next morning we were sent to Wadi Araba in Jordan: we were deported, in fact.  During that period we were refused permission to meet with the representative of the Red Cross or to meet with any member of our families.  The process of deportation itself was very tiring: it lasted from the middle of Friday, 30 January 1986 to the evening of 31 January 1986, over 24 hours, in fact.  This is briefly a summary of the Israeli practices against me personally.” (Mr. Ali Abu Hilal – A/AC.145/RT.446)

23. The political motives lying behind the policy of deportation, which has recently been reactivated on a large scale were analyzed by some witnesses.  Mr. Joseph stated in that connection:

“The Israeli authorities also sought to justify this extreme and cruel form of punishment on the grounds that acts of violence were on the increase in the occupied territories.  But they have not charged any of these men with being either directly or indirectly linked to any acts of violence.  All of these men are the principal breadwinners in their families. One is in fact responsible for the upkeep not only of his wife and two children but also his aged father and mother and his cousin and her children.  We believe that his and other expulsions constitute another component of the Israeli Government’s policy of ‘collective punishment’, other manifestations of which we witnessed in the West Bank in Gaza and which we will be prepared to share with you during the question and answer period.

“… I want to say, and firmly say, that there is unequivocally widespread and official discrimination practiced by the Israeli authorities against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.  I believe that none of these forms of discrimination is necessary or justified.  You should note that this view is also shared by a significant segment of the Israeli community, including members of the Knesset with whom we spoke, and other prominent individuals.” (A/AC.145/RT.441)

Mr. Mike Smith, a New York City attorney who participated in the one-week fact-finding trip of the delegation of American lawyers to Israel, also stated:

“Well, what did they do wrong?  That was the question that we asked all the Israeli officials that we had the opportunity to meet and we finally were able to meet Renato Janack who was the man responsible for prosecuting these deportations and he told us, very succinctly and forthrightly and frankly, what these men did wrong.  He said that they were advocating pre-state formations. All these people are popular political and cultural leaders and I suppose that if and when a Palestinian state were organized they would be figures in the Government, and seeing that they are popular leaders now, the charge in a very perverse way does not make sense, that they are part of a pre-state formation.  Put a different way, these are simply leaders of the Palestinian people and that was what we concluded was their crime.  We were told at first that they were arrested in response to a number of random killings of civilians that occurred late in the summer.  But when we pressed the various  officials – and this goes from the Minister of Justice on the West Bank down to the three colonels we met who are attached to the army – they said, ‘well, we can’t exactly prove that they did this, we can only say that these acts of violence occurred and they profited by it.” So we asked them, ‘Well, how is it that they profited by these acts of violence since they are now getting deported?’  They had no answer for us on that, so we concluded that charging them generally with acts of violence was just a red herring, it was a smokescreen, that it wasn’t in fact true, and that if they had one shred of evidence that these men were in any way connected with any act of violence they should have criminally tried them.” (A/AC.145/RT.441)

24. Mr. Griussy said in the course of his testimony:

“… my deportation had a political purpose, and I was not deported for any crime against law and order.  The measures taken by the Israeli authorities against me were part and parcel of the general policy aiming at emptying the land and evacuating its inhabitants.  The basic problem is not the measure applied but it lies in the occupation of our land.” (A/AC.145/RT.445)

25. Another witness, Mr. Jallal Hafez Aziz, stated:

“The main reason for the deportations is that the Israeli occupation authorities feel that any militant, any person who is attached to his nationhood, is a danger to it.  They are aware, for instance, of the activities that I carried out before my first imprisonment. Had they not been forced to release me, they would never have done so.  The policy of deportation of the Israeli authorities is intended to get rid of those people who are strongly nationalistic, who adhere to their nationhood. As the intelligence officer told us, ‘If you are outside the occupied territories then we are in safety, then we have no problems.’ And during this fictitious trial prior to our deportation, they told us, ‘We don’t want to imprison you because you carry out your activities in prison, and we don’t want you outside of the prison walls because you constitute a danger.  Therefore we shall just get rid of you completely and thus get rid of your danger and people like you.’  That is the real reason .” (A/AC.145/RT.448)

(iv)Economic aspects

26. Some witnesses described the interference of the occupying authorities in various aspects of the economic life.  Replying to a question on eventual signs of improvement of living conditions of the Arabs in the occupied territories, Mr. Ali Abu Hilal stated:

“With regard to what Shimon Peres said about improving the living conditions of the Arabs in the occupied territories, there is nothing new in this.  A year ago he said exactly the same thing.  He said they would open the door to United States and European financial assistance to the Arab population in order to ameliorate the conditions of the Arabs in the West Bank.  So far nothing has materialized.

“As a matter of fact, things  are getting worse because Israel has stated to apply firmly 1945 laws regarding city arrest and deportations – this is the law which is applied on deportations – while simultaneously there is the economic and financial crisis in Israel, and the people who suffer most from this crisis are the Arabs.  In addition, last year newspapers were closed in the West Bank and action was taken against freedom of expression, university faculties were closed.

“So how can we believe what Peres has said now as an intention of positive action?  There has also been the expropriation of Palestinian land.  There were great expectations indeed that Shimon Peres would try to alleviate the conditions of the Arab population, especially since his policy is more flexible than that of the Likud; as a matter of fact the policy which is implemented by Shimon Peres is more rigid than was expected, and this is something that the ordinary man in the street can feel.  It is exemplified in the ‘iron fist’ policy, in the expropriation of land and in the severe economic conditions suffered by the ordinary people.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

27. Another witness, Dr. Azmi As Shweibi, referred to the role of the Israeli authorities in hampering development projects in the occupied territories:

“The Israeli authorities have not only blocked the development plans of the UNDP but they have also put a stop to assistance project being carried out by American churches in some villages and towns in these areas, projects aimed mainly at laying down a road network, providing drinking water, services of that kind to the population.  The Israeli authorities have now asked that any assistance provided by these American churches or any other benevolent societies be given to the Israeli authorities for dispensation as they choose.  Even the Arab assistance, provided by Arab countries, Jordan, for instance, the Israelis have declared that it should be put in a special fund according to their own wishes.”

28. Mr. Walid Nazzal, a former agricultural worker, referred in the course of his testimony to the difference of status between Arab and Israeli workers.  This discriminatory aspect was also outlined by another witness, Mr. Ali Abu Hilal, who stated:

“… There are certain economic measures, provocative measures, taken against the workers at their places of work.  For example, there is the great difference between the salaries given to Arab workers and Israeli workers in the same work place.  The average Arab salary ranges between 30 and 40 per cent of the salary given to an Israeli worker.  As the same time, with regard to tax, the cut-off point in the salary of an Arab worker is exactly the same as that of an Israeli worker.  The Arab worker never has health insurance or family insurance or other benefits enjoyed by the Israeli worker.  The Arab worker is also given what is called ‘black’ work or ‘cruel’ work, in other words, work which the Israeli worker refuses to carry out.  One of the factors in Israel is the increasing unemployment, and the Arab workers have the lion’s share so far as unemployment is concerned.”  (A/AC.145/RT.446)

29. Dr. Saker, former President of the Islamic University of Gaza, described measures affecting agriculture and industry in Gaza and the West Bank:

“Agriculture, for instance, in Gaza is being destroyed.  We have citrus fruit production: citrus fruit is a vital item in our economy. We are not allowed to sell these on the Israeli market or on foreign markets.  If they give permission, it is only to export a few, and permission will come late, so our agriculture is being destroyed.  Our industry is also under stress.  Taxation is so high, very high taxation on production, and income tax, etc.  We are being made dependant on the Israeli economy.  We supply the cheap labor force.  Perhaps 80,000 workers from Gaza go daily to Israel.  Their salary is almost one fourth of that of an Israeli worker.  We are not permitted to import from foreign countries.  It is very difficult to import, say, from Britain, from Switzerland, etc.  We have to import from the Israeli market.  Our imports last year almost reached $800 million from Israel.  We import 90 per cent of our requirements from Israel, so we are very important for them as a market for their products.  In the same way, we cannot export our items to them.  Gaza tomatoes are not allowed to go to the Israeli market.  In spite of all that, we are better producers and cheaper producers in certain lines.  Our economy is a ghetto economy, a closed economy, in order to absorb their own products and supply them with certain materials.

“Israel is short of water: now Israel is getting between 500 to 800 million cubic meters per year from our own water reservoir, our reserve, from Gaza and the West Bank.  It is being drained from our reserves and piped to Israel settlements and Israeli industries.  In practice, they are getting hold of all our basic resources.” (A/AC.145/RT.453)

(b) Information on measures affecting certain fundamental freedoms

(i)Freedom of movement

30. The Special Committee heard several statements on the limitations affecting the right to freedom of movement.  Mr. Joseph mentioned the particularly objectionable use of pass books:

“A Palestinian must have a pass book on him at all times.  That pass book restricts their freedom of movement.  For example, they are not allowed to be in Israel, even though they may work there during the day, after midnight.  Workers in the West Bank can be caught in Jerusalem after midnight.  We were having dinner one evening with a lawyer in this case in Jerusalem and he said, ‘I have to run.  It’s close of midnight.  If I’m caught I could face any degree of punishment’.” (A/AC.145/RT.441)

31. Another witness, journalist Hassan Abd Jawad, stated:

“To go from Jordan to the West Bank you need a special permit from the military governor which cost JD 33.  That is the cost of the permit; there is also the return fare per person.  So Palestinian families in the West Bank in most cases cannot come here more than once a year, or perhaps once every two years because this is a very expensive trip.  Moreover, there are searches morning, noon and night in the north and south of the West Bank and including Gaza.  All these searches limit the freedom of people to move about and prevent them from going to work and carrying out their daily activities.”

32. Former detainees who had been released in May 1985 as a result of an exchange of prisoners referred to the restrictions that were imposed on their movements:

“In May 1985 I was released with a large number of my friends in an exchange of prisoners between the PLO and the Israeli authorities, under the umbrella of the Red Cross.  I was released in the occupied territories, and the Israeli authorities placed me under town arrest in Ramallah.  I had to report to the police station twice a day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. I was under house arrest from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m.  I was not allowed to leave the city of Ramallah. The Israeli authorities informed me that my presence in the occupied territories was temporary, and that following that they would deport me.” (Adnan Ghanem – A/AC.145/RT.445)

“… I went to the headquarters of the military commander of the region and he told me that I had a permit for 20 days but under town arrest.  I have a copy of the order in Hebrew.  Under this order, I was not allowed to drive a car, I was not to meet members of the press, I could not leave Hebron, I had to prove my presence twice a day, at eight o’clock in the morning and at two o’clock in the afternoon at the police station.  Therefore this town arrest is a sort of burden on somebody who has just been released from prison and who wants to live a normal life.  But this is what they insisted upon.  The conditions of this town arrest were very difficult: I was not allowed to leave Hebron, but I had family in other places, places I wanted to visit, but I was not allowed to.  All this was forbidden.” (Bader Darwish Kawasme – A/AC.145/RT.450)

33. Another witness, Dr. Azmi As Shweibi stated:

“I was placed under house arrest or city arrest from 1980 until I was deported.  I was told to report to the police station every day and sign a register to say that I had passed by.  I was of course prevented from travelling outside the country, and I was placed under what is called administrative detention seven times; I would be released for a couple of months and then I would be called again and put in prison for another few months, then released, and so on.  There was no charge as regards security made against me.

“…

“The city arrest was renewed every six months without any particular action being taken.  It was just renewed every six months.  At one time I was sick, in Hadasseh hospital where I stayed for six months, and during that period the time of renewal came and it was renewed automatically again, routinely.  In 1983 I was ill and asked to be sent to hospital in Jerusalem which is only 15 km away from El Bireh, my home town, but I was not given permission to go to the hospital in Jerusalem because I was under city arrest in El Bireh.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

34. In the same context, Mr. Ali Abu Hilal mentioned restrictions imposed on relatives of deported Palestinians:

“As a result of our deportations, there is a sort of snowballing, automatic deportation of our families as well.  As far as my family is concerned, up to now my wife has been refused permission by the Israeli authorities to come and visit me here in Jordan.  They have said to her, ‘If you leave the West Bank you will never be permitted to return again’.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

(ii)Freedom of expression

35. A number of witnesses appearing before the Special Committee mentioned the various restrictions curtailing the right to freedom of expression.  The problems confronting the Arab press, faced with severe Israeli censorship and restrictions, were evoked by the journalist Hassan Abd Jawad in the course of his testimony:

“Concerning journalism in the occupied territories, and speaking now in my capacity as journalist, I should like to say that Israeli censorship every day tries to prevent Arab newspapers from printing news.  The censorship imposed upon us is quite severe.  Even obituaries and congratulations must be submitted to the military censor every day beforehand.  Likewise, newspapers do not have the right freely to publish notices of the civil administration of the occupied territories.  Newspapers are very often prevented from appearing by the occupation authorities.  The newspapers A-Shir’a and Al Garb had their licenses revoked, and Asha’b and Al-Fajr and other newspapers a number of times were prevented from bringing out an edition.  A number of press offices and press agencies have been shut down, like my own agency, which was raided a number of times by the occupation authorities.  Many papers and magazines have been expropriated, and journalists placed under house arrest in camps, villages or towns.   Very often the occupying authorities confiscate the newspapers and prevent them from appearing and reaching their readers.  Naturally, costs become higher, the papers become more expensive, and you can easily imagine the damage which the owners suffer and all who work in the press and the various papers.

“…

“An Arab from the West Bank cannot work in a foreign press agency.

“…

“There is no newspaper in the West Bank nor in the Gaza Strip, apart from Al Bashir which was closed in 1980.  That newspaper was published, one issue came out, when Karim Khalaf returned after being treated abroad.” (A/AC.145/RT.447)

36. Another witness, Mr. Ali Abu Hilal, referred to the particularly negative attitude of the Israeli settler movement toward the Arab press:

“They have threatened some Arab newspapers which printed some facts about people who were in prison, or something like that.  They have threatened some people, they went into the streets and demonstrated against the Arabs.  They have asked the Israeli Government to increase its firm stand against the Arab population.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

37. The attorney Mr. Mike Smith referred to the problem of censorship of books and also cited other restrictions limiting the right to freedom of expression relating in particular to all kind of nationalist Palestinian aspirations:

“We learned that there is a list of censored books in the West Bank.  It used to be a list of 3,000 censored books; it has now shrunk to 300.  It is illegal to have any of these books.  We do have that list, Sir.  If you would like it we can make it available to you.  We heard an amusing anecdote from Israel Shahah regarding the censorship of things.  As you know, it is illegal in Israel to display any manifestation of sympathy or support for Palestinians, including using the colors of the Palestinian national flag, red, white, black and green.  If those colors are displayed by anybody together, that’s a crime.  Mr. Shahak told us the story of a Palestinian who, along with his friends, was able to build a new house and to celebrate the construction of the house, they ordered a cake and they frosted the cake with four colors.  Well, the soldiers heard of this and they came over.  They arrested the man and they confiscated the criminal cake and the man – and I have documentation of this which I will share with you – the man did six months in prison for baking that cake.” (A/AC.145/RT.441)

(iii)  Freedom of association

38. Some witnesses drew the attention of the Special Committee to obstacles limiting trade union rights.  Mr. Walid Nazzal stated:

“Groups of 40 members could apply to the officer in charge in order to set up a trade union.  Within 40 days of the submission of this request the officer in charge was bound to give an answer, whether he allowed the setting up of this trade union or not.  But when we came to set up this trade union of which I was President, after 40 days from the time we submitted an application, we had not received an answer, so this trade union has been functioning ever since without being legally or officially recognized by the authorities.  It could be closed at any time and all its property confiscated, and the responsible officers of that trade union could be arrested at any time.  Its President was arrested and deported.  I should have preferred to be imprisoned rather than deported.  There are at least 1,000 members of that trade union.  There were other trade unions in the region which had obtained license before the Israeli occupation.  They were closed by the Israeli authorities and up to now they have not been recognized and they have not been able to resume their activities.  We have tried constantly to set up trade unions in each village, representing the workers in the village, but the intelligence service constantly interferes and places obstacles in the way, although there is no justification for this repression.  Workers wanted to set up trade unions to defend their interests, and nothing more.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

39. Another witness, Mr. Ali Abu Hilal, stated:

“I shall now refer to the actions of the Israeli occupation authorities against the trade union movement and against the trade unions themselves.  Amongst these practices are the fact that since 1979 the Israeli authorities have refused to issue licences for the setting up of new trade unions.  New trade unions are threatened with closure.  They are warned that their headquarters will be blown up, their premises will be searched, documents pertaining to the trade union would be seized.  The leaders of the trade unions themselves are threatened with apprehension and imprisonment over a period of time, in order completely to restrict their activities.  I have a great deal of proof of these things.

“In July 1985 there was a Military Order to prohibit workers from meeting in Jerusalem, and some 60 trade unions were supposed to participate in this meeting.  On the day of the conference they surrounded the hall where the meeting was supposed to take place.  Some of the worker were told not to enter the hall, and some of them were imprisoned.  One of the people who was imprisoned was a trade unionist from Jerusalem called Ismail Tabanja, and there were others.  Many of the international federations of trade unions denounced the condemned this action of Israel, and amongst them the American Peace Council which sent a message to the Israeli Government asking it to release those trade unionists who had been imprisoned and to permit the convening of the conference.

“As a result of all this pressure, the Israeli Government actually released the trade unionists three days after this event and we were able to hold our conference.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

(iv)  Freedom of education

40. Several witnesses provided the Special Committee with information on problems and restrictions affecting the right to freedom of education.  Mr. Jihad Karashouli and Mr. Mohammed Heneidi, respectively Director General and Deputy Director General for the

Occupied Territories in respect of Education, Palestine Liberation Organization, provided the Special Committee with a detailed account of the difficulties that educational institutions, teachers and students were facing in the occupied territories.  They also submitted to the Special Committee a number of documents and statistics on the situation of education in the occupied territories, the contents which are reflected in section IV, C below.  In the course of their testimony, Mr. Karashouli and Mr. Heneidi explained the background of the establishment of educational institutions in the occupied territories:

“What the Palestinians have done in the occupied territories is to set up universities: Bir Zeit, Al-Najah, Jerusalem University, Hebron University, the Islamic University in Gaza and a polytechnic institute in Hebron.  This is to provide opportunities for secondary school leavers to join the universities and to continue their higher education process.” (Mr. Jihad Karashouli – A/AC.145/RT.452)

“How did these universities come into being and how are they playing their present role?  Inside, in the occupied areas, as well as outside in the Arab world as a whole, education is regarded as a part of religion.

“Any money put into education from Zakkar – which is the God-assigned tax on the rich, which is considered in religion as a share of the poor in what the rich own – comes from the petroleum-producing countries and other countries, and actually contributed to the well-being of those universities, and it ran into millions.  How it happened to reach inside, this is something which is related to the means and methods to overcome the confiscations of the Israelis.  The people inside and outside have been co-operating in order to get that money into the area and make it fruitful in terms of education.  As a result of that money, those institutions came into being.  That takes care of the premises.”  (Mr. Mohammed Heneidi – A/AC.145/RT.452)

41.  They further referred to efforts made by the occupying authorities to modify curricula in accordance with their own interest:

“There is a very wicked approach by the Israelis, weakening the infrastructure of preparatory, secondary and university education, which is a prime objective of the Israeli authorities.” (Mr. Mohammed Heneidi – A/AC.145/RT.452)

“The occupation authorities have changed the curriculum, they have deleted some things and particularly such subjects as history, geography and science, but mainly agricultural studies, because the occupation authorities consider these as a dire threat and menace to them, educating students in agricultural matters.  What they have done is to void the agricultural curriculum of its basic content.  They have taken away a number of important topics, and agricultural education in the schools is now extremely lightweight.  They would rather not allow faculties of agriculture to be set up on the universities: they would make difficulties over the laboratories and the equipment which is needed for those faculties, because once a student is involved in this kind of education and in the kind of job that he will do, he will become a person who cultivates the land and thus will become more attached to it, and this is something that they don’t want, so they cause problems with the laboratories and with the equipment, to the extent that students are no longer eager to enter the faculties of agriculture in the universities.  Al-Najah wanted to set up a faculty of agriculture but permission was refused by the occupation authorities, so it had to be done in a roundabout way.” (Mr. Jihad Karashouli – A/AC.145/RT.452)

42.  The problem of the interference in curricula was also mentioned by another witness, Mr. Mahmud De’is, a school teacher:

“… If we deal with the school curriculum, we find, for instance, that the basic topic relating to the Palestinian question has been removed: the history of Palestine and its relationship with the other Arab States throughout history, and all other elements relevant to the characteristics of the Palestine State have been removed.  Within the context of teaching geography, Palestine has always been considered part of the Arab nation; whereas at the present time it is being claimed to be part of the State of Israel and cut off from what is called the Arab nation.” (A/AC.145/RT.447)

43. Mr. Heneidi gave a detailed account of daily problems such as the lack of adequate equipment or the difficult situation of teachers and students:

“Many schools, simply through wear and tear, are dangerous, but the pupils have nowhere else to go.  If the people of the village want to build a new school they have to get a license.  And who gives that license? Of course, the Israeli authorities.  And that license for educational purposes is delayed, and delayed until the people are chased off and forget about it, and it is never issued. In a few cases, two or three, the license has been issued, but the Israeli authorities never paid a single cent.  The schools were built, but just for the purposes of the mass media, to take photographs and videotapes, to indicate the interest of the Israelis in the education of the Arabs.

“…

“With regard to laboratories and attracting students to science courses, to the love of science and experimentation, which are commonplace in any school in any country, in the occupied territories the laboratories receive a decreasing amount of finance for breakage and damage rather than any kind of increase.  In many of the schools the laboratories are closed, and the facilities are no longer available to teachers to help in giving their courses.

“…

“Apart from the school building, there is the teacher himself.  They get in touch with him.  Either he must be co-operative with the occupation authorities and be an ‘eye’ for them on any security matter, or he is transferred away from his home to another school.  In this case, since the salary he is drawing is minimal, that will cost him extra for food and shelter, and that will make his economic situation more miserable.  It will cause him anxiety, and that will devastate and kill the education process, whether in the learning or the teaching stage.  Or he may be deported: if he is active, he is against the security laws – away with him.  Or he may be expelled from the school.  If so, he joins the thousands of unemployed and, although a teacher and a qualified, educated  young man, in a very limited occupied area under Israeli authority he will have to do any menial work to earn something to gain his daily bread.  Or he may be put in jail.  If he is one of those put in jail, then God knows when and in what state he will come out.  Many of them come out physically handicapped, maybe a hand or a leg.

“…

“The military authorities are in command in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, and it is they who issue the orders and rules to be followed by the population.  Every professor in the university was requested – if he wanted to stay – to sign a statement that he considered the PLO a terrorist organization and promised not to co-operate with it.  That was an order.  Of course, this resulted in 24 professors leaving their courses because they refused to sign this statement.  Many such orders exist.

“…

“And for the student it is no better.  They are children: usually they leave high school at about 17, they have had about six year there.  First of all they are confronted with the checkpoints that are set up everywhere to check demonstrations and anything that might release the pressure for the student.  They feel it, they live it, they want to express it, but that expression is taboo.  They cannot do it.  It is inculcated in every school everywhere else in the world, that self-expression, but there it is not, it is taboo.  If they demonstrate, the authorities are around, checkpoints are established, and every passer-by  – whether teacher or student or child – is  subjected to a severe search which is intended to humiliate the person concerned.  A boy of 10 or 12 may be expelled from his school and only accepted in a school far away.  That is more difficult for him and he may not go, or his parents’ financial situation may not permit him to do so.

“…

“… There are limitations of movement: many students are restricted to their village or to their home, and may not leave it on certain occasions.  We collect this information from people who come from there.” (A/AC.145/RT.452)

44. Other witnesses also referred to the problems faced by teachers and students in the occupied territories.  Dr. Mohamad Mahmud Asrur, former professor at the Islamic University of Gaza, stated:

“On 1 December 1980, the Islamic University of Gaza advertised for a professor of geology.  I applied, and received a permit to teach there, renewable each year.  I therefore resigned from Kuwait University  and my residence permit there was withdrawn.  I went to Gaza hoping that I would be able to rejoin my family, since my mother was there, one of my brothers and other relatives, under the provisions for ‘family reunion’, and since I am from Gaza.  I remained in Gaza until 1 August 1985 and my permit was renewed each year without difficulty, although I could not have a driver’s license and I was not entitled to sickness insurance or other benefits normally provided.  At the end of five years, my permit was revoked.

“…

“… I am an academic and I continued my work in the Faculty of Science.  Therefore there was no reason whatsoever to deprive me of my permit after five years.

“The reason given for revoking my permit was a dispute which had arisen between the university authorities and the Israeli authorities, a dispute over finance.  The Islamic University is supported financially by the joint committee in Amman, but the Israelis wanted those funds to be put into an Israeli bank so that they could benefit form the interest.  Sometimes our salaries were withheld for three or four months, sometimes as long as seven months: teachers were left without pay.” (A/AC.145/RT.453)

45. Mr. Mahmud De’is, a teacher, stated:

“… There is the imprisonment of students.  If a student is imprisoned he is prevented from returning to any school in which he was previously enrolled.  So he is deprived of getting an education.  Appointment and assignment of teachers is completely controlled by the officer in charge of education and training.  He has the final word on the appointment or dismissal of a teacher and this directly affects the education procedure: the students will pass three or four months with one teacher, then he is kicked out of school or removed to another place, and a new teacher is brought in.” (A/AC.145/RT.447)

46.  A student from Al-Najah University, Mr. Geiussy, mentioned the problems created by the promulgation of Military Order No. 854:

“As a matter of policy the Israeli authorities interfere with the activities in universities and schools, whether the students are activists or not.  It was part of the policy of the Israeli authorities.  For instance, an Israeli officer is in charge of the education program, and this applies to primary and secondary schools as well as to universities and other high schools.  There is a very well known law issued by the Israel authorities, Military Order 854, which allows the authorities to interfere in the internal life of universities and other educational institutions, either through changing the curriculum or through dismissing professors.  This even applies to students.  While I was in prison, I was prevented from continuing my university studies.  There is plenty of evidence to illustrate this.  The university was closed more than once, and many obstacles were put in the way of students entering the university.  Students were told to present their university cards in order to be admitted.  This shows how much the Israeli authorities want to interfere in the life of students.  There is also the demographic aspect: in Al Najah university, for instance, they need new buildings, but the authorities forbid any new construction so that the university cannot expand.” (A/AC.145/RT.445)

47. Another Al Najah University student, Mr. Amin Ramwi Makbul, described the treatment of Palestinian students by the Israeli authorities:

“… Each student was asked to show his or her university card as well as his Israel identity card.  Of course, this took a great deal of time because there were some 4,000 students and teachers, and this delayed classes.  We refused to do this, and we would gather before the barriers set up by the Israeli forces and we would try to get into the university despite these barriers.  Shots were fired at the students, and tear gas was thrown to disperse the students who were then forced to go back home.  Among the events that I personally witnessed were attempts by the forces to enter the university, and this happened on several occasions.” (A/AC.145/RT.448)

48. Another witness, Mr. Mahmud  Fennoun, referred to the period when he was a student at Bethlehem University, gave a detailed and elaborate description of life at that University.  Hereunder are excerpts from his testimony:

“The students’ movement at Bethlehem University fully understands the laws of the occupying authorities.  The movement is aware of what human rights are about.  It is aware of the need for legal expression of our views, and we do not overstep the bounds; we don’t provoke the occupying authorities except in very rare cases when they started by provoking us.  As for the rest of our activities, they are totally normal cultural, academic, humanitarian activities and one can on no account say that we provoke the authorities.  We are of the view that the occupying authorities are holding the sword of Damocles over our heads, and at any time they can close the university and prevent us from going to classes.  They sometimes declare the university to be ‘a military area’, access to which is restricted to just a few people.  When they want to prevent a student from continuing his studies at the university, they take a decision to this effect, saying that the university is a ‘military region’ and that the student in question may not enter the university.  When they want to prevent students from studying without closing down the university, a military officer decides that the area of the university is a military area and is therefore closed.  When the university administration tries to find out whether or not the university is closed they are told, ‘No, the university id not closed, everything is quite normal, the university is open’.  But it is clear that, since it is a military area, it is closed and no one may enter.  The situation may last for hours, sometimes for days on end.  Sometimes they threaten the university administration and demand that the administration itself close down the university, the underlying threat being that if you do not close the university we shall force our way in.

“… Once, when we had a book exhibition, they came in the night before the opening of the exhibition and confiscated many books.  They couldn’t even say that these were banned books.  Those who came in and did this were ordinary soldiers, and many of them did not know Arabic, so how could they seize a book and say that it was banned when they didn’t even know what it was about?  The confiscated paintings, even when the paintings were imported from Europe and had no special link with the Palestinian cause.  The confiscated religious books, cultural works, but there were no specific criteria governing the confiscation.  They did, however, have serious repercussions for the cultural level of the students.  This destroyed our exhibition, quite apart from the fact that they entered the university by force:  they had no right to do so, they had no permission to do so.  They came in during the night, they destroyed the exhibits: we had costumes, books, they destroyed these and they prevented students from meeting in the daytime.” (A/AC.145/RT.450)

49. Dr. Mohamed Saker, former President of the Islamic University of Gaza provided a very detailed account of the evolution of that University.  He also submitted a number of documents to the Special Committee, the contents of which have been reflected in section IV.C above.  In the course of his testimony, Dr. Saker stressed that in spite of his continuous efforts to keep the atmosphere at the university strictly academic and remote from political agitation and disturbances, he could not prevent the occupying authorities from interfering:

“… We built almost 40 classrooms, but before we had finished the classrooms, the Israeli authorities summoned me and said. ‘What are you doing?’.  I said, ‘What am I doing?’.  He said, ‘You are putting up buildings without permission’.  I said,  ‘We don’t need permission, because this is the land of the university and, secondly, these are not permanent buildings and, thirdly, any university, within its compass, can do anything within reasonable limits’.  He said, ‘No, you should stop’.  Well, we stopped.  I told them, ‘I am doing that because we shall have full-day education next semester’.  They said, ‘No, we will not allow you to have such a type of education’.  I shook myself, because after all the hours and hours I had spent with them, I thought they had agreed.  I told them, ‘This is in your interests because you can control the students, because instead of being in the street all morning and only coming to us in the afternoon, they will be with us from 8 o’clock in the morning’.  They said, ‘No, we shall not permit you to have full day education’.  Well, I realized at that time that the Israelis are not interested in real education, they would like us to have only mediocre universities without real education.” (A/AC.145/RT.453)

50. Dr. Saker also referred to the unjustified nature of the expulsion measures he and a number of his colleagues had been the victims of:

“… There was a recent statement by Mr. Itzhak Rabin, the Defense Minister, a few days ago – I can give it to you – when one Knesset member asked why the President of the Islamic University of Gaza was not permitted to come back, because he is wanted by his own people and by his own University.  Mr. Rabin replied that when Mr. Saker was President of the University a lot of agitation took place, and demonstrations – which is false, actually.  That happened before I went there.  This is Israeli policy, destroying our institutions.  I play the game quite differently, actually. ‘And since he went out the University has been so quiet and peaceful.  We shall no permit him to come back because the Israeli authorities are very much afraid that there will be agitation and demonstrations.”  Unfortunately, the whole Government is afraid of having one single academic go to Gaza.  If I have done anything wrong, let them put me in jail.  They are not being serious about this.

“Last year they expelled 35 staff members from the University.  We sent to various institutions, to UNESCO, and so on, for help, and finally Israel permitted most of them to go back.  There are still eight people outside.” (A/AC.145/RT.453)

51. In this connection, Dr. Saker submitted copies of documents and correspondence relating to this collective expulsion to the Special Committee at its 453rd meeting, held in Amman on 1 May 1986.

(c) Information on settlers’ activities affecting the civilian population

52. Some witnesses drew the attention of the Special Committee to the harassment of civilians by the Israeli settlers.  Mr. Ali Abu Hilal said in the course of his testimony:

“… We have noted the particularly rigid attitude in some settlers, in some Israelis, such as the Kach movement of Kahane.  He has pressed the Israeli Government to expel the Arab people from Israel and he had concentrated especially on two villages in Galilee, Taibeh and Tera, and he demands that the Israeli Government adopt a sort of racist, fascist, anti-Arab trend in Israel, in its actions against the Arab populations.” (A/AC.145/RT.446)

53. Another witness, Mr. Mahmud Fennoun, referred to the situation in the village he lived in, Al Nahalin:

“… From the outset the settlers have been provoking the inhabitants and now the village is like a virtual prison.  The settlers, of course, have the support of the occupation authorities.  They are accompanied by soldiers when they go to uproot the trees.  They take out olive trees, poplars, all trees that are cultivated.  They destroy the crops.  When they find children they beat them, and chase them.  If they come across shepherds they beat them as well and prevent them from taking care of their animals in peace.  These are daily harassments, and all the complaints addressed to the authorities and to the settlers themselves have remained futile.” (A/AC.145/RT.450)

4.  Treatment of detainees

(see paras. 345-377 below)

54. In the course of its hearings the Special Committee heard extensive evidence on the treatment of detainees in the occupied territories.  Many witnesses who had been imprisoned for various periods, often exceeding 10 years, and had experienced severe conditions in several detention centers and prisons (such as Sarafand, Tulkarm, Ramla, Jenin, Jericho, Kfar Yona, Ashkelon, Beer Sheba, Jneid, Nablus, Al Fara’a etc.) informed the Special Committee about the harsh treatment they had been subjected to.

55. Most testimonies denounced the overcrowding of cells, the various forms of ill-treatment such as physical violence, psychological intimidation and humiliation practices, solitary confinement etc.  The lack of sanitary facilities and adequate health services, malnutrition and inadequate clothing were also mentioned and illustrated in the course of the hearings.

56. One particular aspect mentioned by some witnesses was the problems of detained minors.  Mr. Bader Darwish Kawasme, a released prisoner, described in the course of his testimony, the humiliating practices and sexual harassment that 14- and 15-year-old detainees were submitted to in Al Fara’a prison.

57. The testimonies also referred to the withholding of educational, cultural and information material, to the censorship of private correspondence, to the denial of the right to receive visits and to the deprivation of the right to practice religion in common.

58. According to a number of witnesses such conditions of detention often gave rise to hunger strikes aiming at the amelioration of the treatment of prisoners.  It was stated in this connection that the attempts at forced feeding of hunger strikers had in some case led to the death of prisoners.

59. These testimonies may be found in documents A/AC.145/RT.441 (Mr. Wilhelm Joseph and Mr. Mike Smith); A/AC.145/RT.445 (Mr. Adnan Ghanem, Mr. Mohammed Admad Beyrut and Mr. Bahget Mustafa Geiussy); A/AC.145/RT.446 (Mr. Azmi As Shweibi, Mr. Walid Nazzal and Mr. Mohammed Mahmud Hanini); A/AC.145/RT.447 (Mr. Ahid Daoud Radad and Mr. Adnan Mohammed Bliebi); A/AC.145/RT 448 (Mr. Hassan Mohammed Al-Ammoudi, Mr. Jallah Hafez Aziza and Mr. Amin Ramzi Makbul); A/AC.145/RT.449 (a lawyer practicing in the occupied territories); A/AC.145/RT.449/Add.1 (Mr. Mahmud Amdan Altame); A/AC.145/450 (Mr. Mahmud Ibrahim Fennoun and Mr. Bader Darwish Kawasme) and A/AC.145/RT.452 (Mr. Zaki Mohammed Abu Steita).

B.  Information gathered from the Israeli and Arab language

press published in the occupied territories

1. General situation

(see paras. 2 to 4 above, and sect. IV.C, paras. 37-39 above)

(a) General policy developments

60. On 11 August 1985, Mr. Shmuel Goren, the Co-ordinator of Activities in the territories, said in a radio interview that Israeli civilians entering densely populated Arab localities should be advised to be armed and accompanied.  Mr. Goren, who was interviewed after a Kiryat-Arba settler had been stabbed in the old market in Hebron, said that the authorities could not prevent attacks on Jews who walked alone and unarmed through places such as the old market in Hebron.  An aide to Goren later reportedly said that people going to an Arab market or travelling a remote road in the Gaza Strip at night must take some “minimal” precautions.  “We are not saying everyone should take an armored vehicle along but something should be done. Personal security in the center of Hebron is different from Tel Aviv,” he said.  (Jerusalem Post, 12 August 1985)

61. It was reported that on 31 August 1985 eight Israeli political activists were arrested during a demonstration in Ramallah by a group calling itself “Jews Against Occupation”.  Reportedly, the group’s demonstration was in protest against the recently revived “iron fist policy”.  One Arab bystander and three Israelis were wounded as soldiers broke up the demonstration.  Gideon Spiro, a spokesman for the group reportedly stated that the demonstration was planned to protest the recent harsh Israeli measures against the Palestinian population of the occupied territories.  These measures included the administrative detention of more than 40 Palestinians and planned deportation of three others. (Al-Fajr, 6 September 1985)

62. On 4 September 1985, the inner cabinet reportedly decided that the military government in the West Bank should be empowered to suppress any institutions or organizations seen as serving as agencies of PLO.  It also agreed that roads in the West Bank should be widened to hamper petrol-bomb and stone throwing, wherever the security authorities found this measure to be essential.  The inner cabinet rejected, by a vote of five to one, several operational proposals by the Industry Minister, Mr. Ariel Sharon, to stamp out terrorist activity in the territories.  These proposals included the construction of a new road through the Casbah area of Old Hebron to facilitate movement between Kiryat Arba and the Hadassa building, a proposal to permit Jewish residence in all properties owned or purchased by Jews in Hebron, and a request to shorten and simplify deportation procedures.  A security source later declared that “nothing will change in the methods and steps we use to combat terror in the areas as a result of the inner cabinet meeting.  We shall continue our existing practice of administrative detentions and deportation wherever this is required and we shall maintain a heavy hand”.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post,

5 September 1985)

63.   On 9 September 1985, it was reported that, as from the previous weekend new security arrangements were operative in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, principally consisting of a stepped up presence of regular Israel Defense Forces (IDF) units in the area, sudden searches, combing of areas, setting up road blocks, checking of passing cars not only at road blocks and stepped up patrols in two centers.  In the same context, a military source was quoted as saying that “instructions have been issued to prevent all demonstrations by Jews, Arabs, rightists or leftists.  All measures will be taken to disperse any demonstration immediately – including the use of rubber bullets, tear gas and water hoses.  The army will try to avoid using excessive force, but if there are signs it is losing control, it will use all measures against anyone who demonstrates”.  However, the army source maintained this was not an “iron-fist” policy because it did not call for collective punishment.  Following instructions from the Defense Minister, Mr. Rabin, the troops  who were deployed in the region were reportedly instructed to stop passers-by, demand their identification papers and search them.  People were ordered to stand against walls as soldiers frisked them for knives, scissors and other objects which could be used for terrorist attacks.  The troops were also instructed to be on the lookout for settler patrols.  In that context, the Cabinet Secretary, Mr. Yosef Beilin, on 8 September 1985, declared that the settlers, who had been issued weapons by the appropriate authorities, were fully entitled to patrol their own localities and protect their settlements and to carry arms while travelling on the roads, but they must not try and usurp the functions of the security authorities in Arab localities.  (See also paras. 319-344 below). (Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot, 8 September 1985; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot,

9 September 1985)

64. On 11 September 1985, during a press conference in Jerusalem, the Israeli League of Human Civil Rights urged for an immediate reversal of the recent government measures concerning administrative detention, deportation of Palestinians and curfews in the occupied territories.  The League also condemned the encouragement given by the Israeli Government to settlers.  Advocate Felicia Langer said that 70 Palestinians were presently detained under administrative orders without any charge filed against them except for “their being Palestinians”.  Mr. Jacob Shai, a member of “There is a limit” Movement, who was arrested three times for refusing to serve in Lebanon, said that the Movement would encourage its members to refuse to serve in the occupied territories.  (Al-Tali’ah,

12 September 1985)

65. On 19 September 1985 it was reported that the Central Region Commander, Aluf, (Major-General) Amnon Shahak had argued in a petition submitted to the High Court of Justice the previous day that “operative military reasons” outweighed other considerations for the establishment of a court of appeals to review decisions by the military courts in the West Bank.  Aluf Shahak’s statement, submitted by the State Attorney’s office, came in advance of a hearing on 22 September 1985 on a petition by Jerusalem advocate Darwish Nasser, who won an interim injunction ordering the State to show cause why it should not establish an appeals instance in the military courts system in the territories.  Under military regulations operative in the  territories since 1967 only the officer commanding the area is entitled to review the decisions of the military courts. (Jerusalem Post,

19 September 1985)

66. On 2 October 1985, a senior defense source charged with maintaining security in the West Bank said that soldiers on duty in that region were “quicker on the trigger” recently, and that this has resulted in some innocent civilians being shot.  He said that “this is what happens where people are nervous”. Their instinct to shoot is “natural” and  consequently more people were injured. The source said that the army investigated all incidents in which soldiers had opened fire.  In all cases in which civilians were hurt the soldiers were found to have acted in accordance with standing orders.  Many of the injured people were mentally ill and their behavior had aroused the soldiers’ suspicions.  In some cases, however, the soldiers fired into the air and at car wheels without justification.  They were tried and punished, he said.  (Jerusalem Post, 3 October 1985)

67. On 15 October 1985, a senior IDF officer told a group of journalists on tour in the Gaza Strip that since January 1985, 58 terrorist acts  were carried out in the region.  In the previous six weeks alone there were four attempted murders of Israeli civilians in Gaza.  The senior officer revealed that, in addition to Fatah and Popular Front cells operation against Israel, groups of youths aged 14 to 18 whose nick-name was Shabiba, were engaged in what he described as “unplanned terrorist activity”, using improvised material such as petrol bombs and improvised charges.  Referring to allegations of ill treatment of Arab civilians by IDF soldiers, the officer said that no cases of irregularity had been found, and no one had come to complain about such cases. (Ha’aretz, 16 October 1985)

68.  On 21 October 1985, speaking at a Knesset debate on current security problems, the Defense Minister, Mr. Rabin said that, in the framework of the preventive activities in the territories 88 alleged inciters had been detained under an administrative detention order and three others had been expelled abroad.  Several newspapers were closed as well as one university, which was shut down temporarily.  As a result of these activities no political figures had been invited to the end-of-year ceremony of one of the universities and no inciting speeches had been pronounced.  The civil administration also barred the entrance to the region to students and lecturers from abroad known as inciters.  Mr. Rabin said that since April 1984 the General Security Service had uncovered over 300 terrorist cells responsible for over 350 various acts.  The Defense Minister said that in the struggle against such activities the use of “environmental punishment” should be avoided, since most of the population was not involved in terrorist activity, and such punishment could increase the number of those engaged in such activity.  (Ha’aretz, 22 October 1985)

69. The Islamic Trust Authorities (Waqf) in the West Bank reportedly ordered various mosque Imams (preachers) to stop mixing politics and religion.  The order No. 8-5-8/8172 called on preachers to “not politicize religion” and to discuss only religious topics in their Friday sermons.  The order directly followed a similar statements by the Jordanian Waqf made about 10 days earlier.  (Al-Fajr, 29 November 1985)

70. On 12 January 1986, the Co-ordinator of Activities in the territories, Shmuel Goren, said in a press conference in Tel Aviv that since the lifting of restrictions on the introduction of funds from the Arab States over the bridges with Jordan, more than $1 million a day was being brought in.  The authorities were reportedly encouraging the municipalities, the universities and other organizations to bring in funds.  Goren pointed out that negotiations were under way to expand the telephone network in the West Bank.  Restrictions on direct dialing and telex communications had been almost eliminated and contact could be made from the territories with anywhere in the world.  Some $3 million had been invested to provide electricity to Nablus – some two thirds of which was sold by the Israel Electric Corporation.  Some 30 villages in the surrounding area had asked to be linked up with the supply.  Referring to the security situation in the territories, Goren said that following an increase in the use of home-made bombs, pharmacists in the Gaza Strip had recently been assembled by security authorities and warned to be careful about selling materials that could be used to make explosives. Goren added that, following the reintroduction of measures such as administrative arrests (96 persons were being held at present) and expulsions (four persons had been expelled by the time the report was published), there had been far fewer disturbances.  (Jerusalem Post, 13 January 1986)

71. On 20 January 1986, a group of Israeli Knesset members met in an East Jerusalem hotel with a group of some 20 West Bank public figures, some of whom described as “close to the PLO”.  Among the Palestinian participants were the former mayor of Hebron , Dr. Hamzi el-Natshe, Professor Medin Ruhana of the Al-Najah university, Redwan Abu-Ayesh, chairman of the Arab Journalists’ Association in the West Bank, the lawyer Jonathan Kuttab from Ramallah, Dr. Ahmed Taibeh, Ibrahim el-Karim, director of the Palestinian Press Bureau and Professor Maudeh, one of the leading West Bank intellectuals.  Lawyer Jonathan Kuttab said at the meeting that since August 1985 the IDF carried out 130 arrests in the territories, expelled 40 residents to Jordan and demolished 30 houses.  According to Kuttab, since August 1985 the attitude of the security authorities towards the West Bank residents has “worsened radically”.  Knesset member Shulamit Aloni promised to look into the matter. According to the press report the heads of the Palestinian group proposed to the Israeli Knesset members to arrange a meeting between them and the PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, but the Knesset members declined the offer, saying the time was not yet ripe for such a meeting.  (Ha’aretz, 22 January 1986)

72. On 29 January 1986, Meron Benvenisti, director of the West Bank Data Base project, presented a report on West Bank developments in 1984-1985.  Benventisti noted that the rate of population growth in the territories had increased in the period under consideration because of a drop in net emigration to about 3,000 people annually, combined with a high and growing rate of natural increase.  By the end of  1984 the population of the West Bank was 787,000 – 32 per cent more than in 1967.  In the economic sector, Benvenisti noted a continuing decline in Palestinian agriculture and a stagnation in industry.  Of a work force of 154,000 in 1984,  about one third were working in Israel and the remainder in the West Bank or abroad.  Dependence on sources of income outside the territories had significantly increased.  By April 1985, Israeli authorities had gained control over 52 per cent of the land in the West Bank.  Of this, 1.7 million dunams, or 41 per cent of the total, were under direct Israeli control, while the use of another 11 per cent, or  about 500,000 dunams was “severely restricted”.  The pace of Jewish settlement had slowed down.  In 1984-1985 the number of settlers had grown by 9,400, to reach 52,000 – about 6,000 less than the previous year’s growth.  Benvenisti pointed out that the Israeli occupation had been economically beneficial to Israel, providing a protected market for local goods and a pool of cheap labor.  In addition, Israel collected some $50 million annually in value- added tax (VAT) on Israeli goods sold in the territories and from the duties paid on imports passing through Israeli ports.  Government enforcement policies in the territories were harsher under the national unity government.  Strong-arm tactics, such as deportation, the demolition and sealing of houses and administrative detention, had proliferated.  According to Benvenisti, the national unity government had no clear-cut ideology towards the West Bank, and the continuation of past trends manifested “the bankruptcy of pragmatism”.  (Al-Tali’ah, 9 January 1986, Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 30 January 1986) Referring to this report, the New York Times was reported as stating that the revenues from taxes levied on Arab residents – about $US 700 million – exceeded what the Israeli authorities spend in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

73. It was reported that the Israeli Defense Minister, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin described the town restriction procedures as limiting activities of those who were dangerous persons to the security.  He reportedly claimed that the Israeli security authorities used these measures against those activists when they escalated their activities to a level that the authorities could not accept.  According to Mr. Rabin, 23 persons from the West Bank, six from the Gaza Strip and 42 from the Galilee and the Triangle had been subjected to town restriction orders since 10 February 1986. (Al-Fajr, 28 February 1986)

74. On 5 March 1986, the Knesset defeated a bill proposed by Knesset member Geula Cohen (Tehiya) to apply Israeli law to “Judes, Samaria and the Gaza District”.  Only four coalition members, of the Likud and religious parties, jointed the Tehiya party in voting for the bill.  The Prime Minister, Mr. Peres said before the vote that Israel had three basic goals:  to maintain a sovereign, democratic state with a Jewish character, not to subject Israel’s territorial achievement to a demographic danger; and to strive for peace.  The Israeli policy rested on acceptance of the Camp David accords, Mr. Peres said.

(Jerusalem Post, 6 March 1986)

75. On 13 March 1986, a military source, briefing reporters in Nablus, said that under a policy initiated by the Central Region Commander, Ehud Barakm, IDF troops were keeping a low profile during patrols of West Bank towns, and that soldiers had been ordered to avoid interfering in events in the cities unless there was a thread to security and public order.  The source held the briefing at the wake of incidents in which two residents of the Balata refugee camp were killed by IDF soldiers.  (See table of incidents following para. 453 below) The source said these incidents did not signal a toughening of security policy in the territories, and denied Palestinian claims that the IDF had become “trigger-happy”.   (Jerusalem Post, 14 March 1986)

76. On 26 March 1986, military sources revealed that over the past year there had been an increase by 80 per cent in the number of “serious acts of terrorism” in the Samaria, including shooting, throwing of petrol bombs, planting of explosive charges and stabbing.  In the Judea and Binyamin area there had been an 11 per cent drop in the number of such incidents.  In the West Bank as a whole there had been an increase of over 30 per cent in the number of serious terrorist acts.  With regard to other incidents affecting public order, such as stone throwing, waving Palestinian flags, tire burning and slogan painting, there had been a 34 per cent drop over the past year in the West Bank.  (Ha’aretz, 27 March 1986)

77. On 2 April 1986, Shemuel Goren, the Co-ordinator of Activities in the territories said that Israel would approve offers by private and government-supported United States agencies to fund $600 million in projects in the West Bank over the next few years.  The projects would reportedly include vocational training programs, construction of factories and housing, health programs and water and sewerage development schemes.  Mr. Goren, who recently visited the United States to discuss the proposed aid, said Israel would only accept offers that did not conflict with the country’s economic and security interests and that did not go to industries that competed with Israeli manufacturers. Goren stressed that the dozens of projects under discussion with the United States agencies did not form an overall economic development plan for the territories.  (Jerusalem Post, 3 April 1986)

78. On 8 April 1986, the Prime Minister, Mr. Shimon Peres, addressing the Labor Party’s national convention in Jerusalem, affirmed that Israel recognized the Palestinians “as a nation” and said Israel was ready for both interim arrangements and a permanent settlement in the West Bank. Addressing the residents of the territories, Mr. Peres said that Israel would make an effort to create interim conditions for an interim arrangement, and he added that it would be prepared to grant them additional self-rule.  He suggested that the Gaza Strip could be granted such a self-rule as a first step.  On 13 April 1986, it was reported that Mr. Peres had elaborated a secret plan under which a joint Egyptian-Israeli “condominium” would be set up in the Gaza Strip and would be responsible for defense and police activities in the region.  The plan was reportedly discussed in Washington between  Mr. Peres and United States Secretary of State George Shultz.  The latter reportedly approved the plan.  On 21 April 1986, Defense Minister, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin met with Palestinian civil servants in the Gaza Strip and told them that Israel’s intention was to turn over more positions and administrative functions to officials and Gaza, within the framework of the military government and the civil administration.  Mr. Rabin rejected the idea of autonomy in the Gaza Strip. (Ha’aretz, 13 April 1986; Jerusalem Post, 9 and 22 April 1986)

79. On 14 April 1986, Israeli and Palestinian representatives met in Hebron to discuss mutual recognition between the two peoples and self-determination for the Palestinians.  Some 200 participants attended the meeting, including Knesset members from Labor and left-wing parties, as well as Palestinian public figures such as Hanna Seniora, the editor of Al-Fajr, who called for mutual Palestinian-Israeli recognition on the basis of equal rights, and Mustafa Abdel Nabi Natshe, the deposed mayor of Hebron.  The meeting coincided with the convention of the Tehiya party, held in Kiryat Arba.  The meeting was approved by Mr. Rabin.  It was also reported from the Defense Minister’s office that the policy concerning the holding of meetings and rallies in the territories was being changed into a more liberal one, and that decision on holding meetings would be taken on the merits of each request.  (Ha’aretz, 10, 15 April 1986; Jerusalem Post, 13. 15 April 1986)

80. On 22 April 1986, it was reported that the Defense Minister Mr. Rabin had banned demonstrations and meetings planned by Gush Emunim and Peace Now in Hebron during the Passover holiday.  Gust Emunim was refused its request to hold a ceremony in Hebron marking the eighteenth anniversary of Jewish settlement in the town.  Peace Now had planned a tour of the town on the same day to counter the Gush Emunim ceremony.  On 25 April 1986, it was reported that after meeting with six Gush Emunim and Kiryat Arab leaders, including rabbi Moshe Levinger and freed Jewish terrorist Ze’ev Friedman, Mr. Rabin finally approved the settlers’ plan to hold what was described as “spring tours” around Hebron and a fund- raising dinner at the Jewish restaurant outside the Patriarch’ cave  with the Vice Premier Mr. Shamir as guest speaker.  Another rally planned in front of the cave was banned.  On

27 April 1986, it was reported that stepped up military, boarder guards and regular police units were being deployed in Hebron to protect the thousands of people expected to take part in the “tours” organized by Gush Emunim.  (See also paras. 319-324 below).  (Ha’aretz, 25 April 1986; Jerusalem Post, 22, 25 and 27 April 1986)

81. On 22 April 1986, senior military sources at the IDF Central Command said they believed at least four armed terror groups were operating in the West Bank and the Jerusalem area.  The sources said that since January there had been a drop in the number of attacks in the territories, as compared with the four previous months.  There were 67 incidents of shooting, planting explosive devices and throwing hand grenades and petrol bombs, as against 104 form August to December 1985.  There were also fewer stone throwing incidents, probably due to the influence of the Al-Faar’s detention camp, through which over 2,000 youths reportedly passed in 1985.  At present, the camp inmates included 33 students of the Hebron polytechnic school who attacked the security authorities and raised a Palestinian flag earlier in the week.  According to the sources, most of the serious attacks in the territories were perpetrated by followers of George Habash, Nayef Hawatmeh and, to the lesser extent, Ahmed Jibril.  (Jerusalem Post, 23 April 1986)

82. On 25 and 26 May 1986, a new report on the situation in the Gaza Strip was published by the West Bank Data Base Project, headed by Merion Benvenisti.  According to the report, the population of the Gaza Strip, which at present stood at 525,000 (40 per cent of all the Palestinian population of the territories), could reach 850,000 to 900,000 by the end of the century.  A third of the Gaza Strip lands had already been declared state land or confiscated for Jewish settlement.  Health conditions in the region were described as catastrophic.  According to the report Gaza workers employed in Israel (some 45,000 or 50 per cent of the local working population) paid, in addition to local taxes, income tax and national insurance in Israel.  The area’s economy was becoming increasingly dependant on Israel, but at the same time its per capita gross national product remained one fifth of Israel’s.  Schools in the Gaza Strip were overcrowded and  were deteriorating physically.  There were 18 Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, with a population of 2,150, occupying 22,250 dunams of land.  The location of most of the settlements in the south of the Strip, near its water sources, effectively gave the settlements a large degree of control over Gaza’s water resources.  In some cases the  settlements physically impinged on Arab towns and refugee camps, blocking their expansion.  The town of Kahn Yunis was “virtually enveloped” by settlements.  On 27 May 1986, the civil administration convened a press conference in Gaza with the participation of Palestinian and Israeli doctors in an attempt to refute some of the criticism contained in the report.  On 1 June 1986, the deputy co-ordinator of activities in the territories A/M Colonel Freddy Zach commented on Israel Radio A/M Zach denied that a third of the Gaza Strip had been declared state land and was allocated solely to Jewish settlement.  He said state land had also been used to settle 10,000 refugee families outside the camps, as well as for industrial and municipal projects.  Unemployment in Gaza was only 2 per cent and new industrial parks had been  created in the region, A/M Zach said.  He also denied that $3.5 million a year in tax revenues from the Gaza Street exceeded the government budget for services there.  Tax revenues accounted for only two thirds of what the Government spent in the region, he said, while the remaining third came from Israeli taxpayers.  In a related development it was reported on 5 June 1986 that a branch of the Palestine Bank would be opened shortly in Khan Yunis. (Ha’aretz, 25 May, 1 and 5 June 1986; Jerusalem Post, 25, 26, 28 May 1986 and 1 June 1986; Ma’ariv, 28 may 1986)

83. On 10 June 1986 a spokesperson for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Professor Ruth Gavison, said that in the past year there had been a “drastic increase” in what she described as administrative punishments.  She noted that at present there were about 50 people in administrative detention, compared with 126 earlier in the year.  Other administrative punishments included expulsions and demolition and sealing up of houses of terror suspects. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 11 June 1986)

84. On 27 June 1986, it was reported that, according to the East Jerusalem weekly Al Biader as-Siassi, senior officials from Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the United States were holding contacts aimed at returning the Gaza Strip to Egyptian administration in accordance with a plan elaborated by, Rashad, A-Shawa, former mayor of Gaza.  According to the report the Israeli officials expressed willingness to withdraw from Gaza and from large areas of the West Bank, in the framework of an overall political settlement. As a first step Israel reportedly proposed to A-Shawa the establishment of self-rule in the Gaza Strip. In another development, it was reported that Defense Minister Rabin had proposed to Jordan to hold elections to the Jordanian parliament in the West Bank.  (Ha’aretz, 27 June 1986)

(b) Policy of returning municipalities to local leaders

(i)General policy

85. On 25 October 1985, it was reported that immediately upon his return to Israel Prime Minister Mr. Peres would undertake a series of unilateral steps to improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  The first and most significant step would reportedly be the appointment of Palestinian mayors to towns

such as Nablus and Hebron, where Israeli officials at present hold the post of mayor. It was reported on 27 October 1985 that according to officials dealing with that subject, it was possible to introduce changes in the administrative structure of the West Bank “within weeks”, should the political echelon so instruct, with a view to increasing Jordan’s influence in the region.  According to the officials “the infrastructure has already been prepared over the past year, far from the spot-lights, towards any change in the structure of the civilian and municipal administration in the West Bank”.  (Yediot Aharonot, 25 October 1985; Ha’aretz, 27 October 1985)

86. On 14 November 1985, it was reported that the head of the West Bank civil administration, A/M (Colonel) Efraim Sneh, had declared at a press conference the previous day: “Our policy has always been  to return the municipalities to local leaders.  This is the first time that a serious proposal is being made by the Chamber of Commerce of Nablus and its president, Zafer el-Masri. The two submitted their offer last week.  I met with Zafer el-Masri yesterday and I expect that decision will be taken shortly”.  He added that similar activity was also taking place regarding Ramallah, El-Bireh and Hebron, but that no proposal, similar to 26 November 1985, A/M Sneh convened el-Masri and the members of the Chamber of Commerce to his office and told them that the Israeli authorities had granted their request to manage the administration of the Nablus municipality.  A/M Sneh later told reporters that the appointment had no political significance, but he acknowledged that the decision had been taken with the approval of the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister.  (Ha’aretz, 13, 14, 17 and 27 November 1986; Jerusalem Post, 13 November 1985; Ma’ariv, 27 November 1985)

87. On 10 February 1986, the Prime Minister Mr. Shimon Peres, speaking before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said he was not proposing to the Palestinian in the territories a unilateral autonomy, since such a plan required a Jordanian-Palestinian support, but that he was in favor of an “expanded self rule”. He said Arab mayors should be appointed in Ramallah, El-Bireh and Hebron; local residents should run the various civilian departments and a vast development plan should be undertaken.  He added that was not in favor of removing the IDF from the territories.  On 13 February 1986, Mr. Peres, speaking on the Israeli Television Arabic program, further elaborated his plan for “home rule” to the territories.  He said Israel was ready to increase the powers given to the Arab mayors in the municipal field.  Israel was also ready to let local residents be in charge of education, agriculture and trade, and it approved of creating more industrial plants in the territories, stepping up investment, both from inside and outside the territories, and developing water resources.  Israel reduced the number of banned books and gave more freedom of expression to universities and newspapers, Mr. Peres said.  (Ha’aretz, 11 and 14 February 1986)

88. On 25 February 1986, the Defense Minister Mr. Yitzhak Rabin met with 30 public figures from the West Bank and explained to them that the Israeli policy did not aim at imposing on them unilateral autonomy, but at transferring powers and tasks to local residents without prejudicing the overall framework of the Israeli administration.

(Ha’aretz,  26 February 1986)

89. On 4 March 1986, it was reported that officials in the Prime Minister’s office were elaboration a detailed plan for the application of self rule in the Gaza Strip.  Under that plan it was reportedly proposed to reduce to minimum the number of Israeli officials running the civil administration of the region; to re-appoint Rashad A-Shawa as mayor of Gaza and one of his sons as his deputy and to approve the construction of a citrus-

processing plant. (Ha’aretz, 4 March 1986)

90.  On 5 March 1986, the Defense Minister Mr. Yitzhak Rabim, speaking on Israel radio, said that if the Arabs in the territories did not take responsibility for their municipal affairs, then the civil administration would continue running the municipalities.  (Jerusalem Post, 6 March 1986)

91.  On 3 August 1986, the Prime Minister Mr. Shimon Peres met at his office with 25 mayors and businessmen from the territories. The Palestinian participants were described as “moderates”.  The Prime Minister reportedly proposed to his visitors that Palestinian mayors be appointed in all Arab towns in the territories, that the powers of Arab municipalities be expanded and that discussions be held on development in such areas as industry, health, education and banking.  But Israel did not intend to impose its proposals for the territories, Mr. Peres said.  He also promised that in the future all the taxes levied in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would be invested only in those areas.

(Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 4 August 1986)

(ii)Measures

92. On 13 November 1985, it was reported that the president of the Nablus Chamber of Commerce, Zafer el-Masri, had proposed to the West Bank civil administration that the Chamber of Commerce take over the management of the Nablus municipality. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 1985)

93. On 22 November 1985, it was reported that members of Bir Zeit’s Municipal council had nominated a new mayor and asked the authorities to recognize him.  This reportedly came after nearly three years of refusing to co-operate with the Israeli civil administration in the West Bank.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 22 November 1985)

94. On 1 December 1985, it was reported that contacts were under way between the civil administration in the Gaza district and the chambers of commerce of Gaza and Khan Yunis with a view to appointing local residents as mayors in Gaza and in Rafah.  The two municipalities are at present run by officials appointed by the civil administration and the Ministry of the Interior.  (Ma’ariv, 1 December 1985)

95. On 19 December 1985, Zafer el-Masr was appointed as may of Nablus replacing a civil administration officer who headed the municipality since 1982. (Ha’aretz, 20 December 1985)

96. On 6 January 1986, it was reported that the former mayor of Hebron, Mustafa Natshe, had said in an interview that he was ready to resume the post of mayor.  (Jerusalem Post,

6 January 1986)

97. On 13 February 1986, it was reported that a list of seven people, headed by Jamil A-Tarifi, had been submitted to the civil administration as candidates for the post of mayor of El-Bireh.  (Ha’aretz, 13 February 1986)

98. On 19 February 1986, it was reported that the battle for the mayoralty of Ramallah had begun as two local candidates started rallying support: Badim Zarou and Khalil Moussa Khalil.  In a related development, it was reported on 25 February 1986 that in Hebron, the head of the local chamber of commerce and son of the late mayor Sheikh Mohammed Ali Jabari, Rashed al-Jabari, had submitted his candidature for mayor to the civil administration.

(Jerusalem Post, 19 and 25 February 1986)

99. On 2 March 1986, the appointed mayor of Nablus, Zafer el-Masri, was shot dead by two unidentified persons as he stepped out of the town’s municipality building.  Prime Minister Shimon Peres said at a cabinet meeting that the assassination would not deter the Israeli Government from proposing to the inhabitants of the territories “that they manage their own affairs”.  The Defense Minister Mr. Yitzhak Rabin approved the appointment of Hafez Tukan, who was el-Masri’s deputy, as new mayor of Nablus.  (See also table of incidents following para. 453 below).  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 3 March 1986)

100. On 3 March 1986, following the assassination of the mayor of Nablus, to prominent pro-Jordanians mentioned as possible candidates for the post of mayor in Ramallah sand El-Bireh, Nadim Zaro and Walid Mustafa Hamad, announced that they were withdrawing their candidacies. A group of persons who had asked to form a new municipal council in El-Bireh, including Walid and Sabir Suleiman a-tawil, also announced that they were withdrawing their list so as not to widen the divisions of opinion which could “drive a wedge into the national unity”. (Ha’aretz, 5 March 1986; Jerusalem Post, 4-5 March 1986)

101. On 15 July 1986, it was reported that Shelomo Amar had been officially appointed as mayor of Ramallah and that he would continue to occupy his other post as staff officer for internal affairs in the civil administration.  (Ha’aretz, 11 July 1986; Jerusalem Post, 13 July 1986; Yediot Aharonot, 15 July 1986)

102. On 29 July 1986, senior sources in the West Bank civil administration confirmed that a number of Palestinians in the area had recently proposed their candidature for mayoral posts in West Bank towns that were currently administered by the IDF officers.  The head of the civil administration, Ephraim Sneh, was reportedly examining the possibility of their appointment.  (Jerusalem Post, 30  July 1986)

(c) Jewish underground

104. On 28 August 1985, the office of the State Attorney appealed to the Supreme Court to stiffen the sentences handed down earlier by the Jerusalem District Court to five members of the “Jewish underground”.  The five, Barak Nir, Haim Ben-David, Yitzhak Novick, Hagai Segal and Nathan Nathanson, were sentenced on 22 July 1985 to terms of up to seven years.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 29 August 1985)

105. On 18 September 1985, the Jerusalem magistrates’ court sentenced Shimon Barda, a member of the “Lifta gang”, to eight years’ imprisonment.  The two other members of the gang, Yehuda Limai and Uzi mahsia Ha’elyon, were found mentally incompetent and were placed in an institution. (Ha’areta, Jerusalem Post, 19 September 1985)

106. On 26 September 1985, the Supreme Court reduced the prison sentence of Gilad Peli, one of the members of the Jewish underground, from 10 years to four and a half.  The court said it was responding favorably to Peli’s appeal because he had expressed remorse, had co-operated with his interrogators from the beginning, had made full confession and had not taken part in any of the armed attacks mounted by the underground. Peli  had been convicted of membership in a terrorist organization, conspiracy to commit a crime, illegal transport and possession of weapons and causing damage to IDF property.  The charges against him stemmed from the conspiracy to blow up the Dome of the Rock. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 27 September 1985)

107. On 9 December 1985, it was reported that two members of the Jewish underground had been released from prison after the President of the State, Haim Herzog, reduced their sentences by five months.  The two are Dan Be’eri and Yosef Zuria, who were each sentenced to three years imprisonment for their involvement in the conspiracy to blow up mosques on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 9 December 1985)

108. On 2 February 1986, it was reported that a group of persons acting “to enhance the position of Israel in the Temple Mount area” had decided to set up an “action staff to enhance Israel’s rule in the Temple Mount by legal means”. (Ha’aretz, 2 February 1986)

109. On 13 February 1986, President Haim Herzog granted clemency to two members of the Jewish underground, Boaz and Yaacov Heinemann, reportedly on the grounds that the two had expressed sincere regret for their actions and because they had personal problems.  Yaacov Heinemann was to be freed in July, after having been sentenced to 40 months imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm in the attack on the West Bank mayors, conspiracy to commit a crime in the plot to blow up the Temple Mount, participation in a terrorist organization and other charges.  Boaz  Heinemann, his nephew, received a three-year prison term for conspiracy in the Temple Mount plot, attempted manslaughter in the raid on the Islamic University in Hebron, attempted murder in the planting of bombs on Arab buses and membership in a terrorist organization.  He was to be released in April.  On 16 February 1986, it was reported that President Herzog was expected to grant clemency shortly to two other convicted members of the Jewish underground; Yeshua Ben-Shushan, who was sentenced to a four and a half year imprisonment, and Gilad Peli, who was also sentenced to a four and a half year term.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 16 February 1986; Ma’ariv, 14 February 1986)

110. On 9 April 1986, it was reported that the President of the State, Haim Herzog had decided to reduce the prison term of Ben-Zion Haneman, one of the convicted members of the Jewish underground, by changing six months of effective imprisonment into a suspended term.  Haneman had been sentenced to 45 months imprisonment.  He was the sixth member of the Jewish underground to be granted amnesty by President Herzog.  (Ha’aretz, 9 April 1986)

111. On 5 June 1986 the Jerusalem district court sentenced R/S (Major) Aharon Gila to 15 months in prison and Seren (Captain) Shelomo Leviatan to 3 months for indirectly causing sapper Suliman Hirbawi to lose his sight when a bomb planted by members of the Jewish underground in the garage doorway of El-Bireh mayor Ibrahim Tawil exploded in his face.  The incident occurred in June 1980. The two officers had reportedly known about the explosive device planted at the garage door and failed to warn the border guard sapper about it. (Jerusalem Post, 6 June 1986)

2.  Information concerning arrests, trials and sentences

(see paras. 5-10 above and sect. IV.C, paras.40-42 above)

(a) Palestinians

112. On 1 August 1985, it was reported that Ziyad Abu Eain, who had been convicted of killing three Israelis in a bomb attack in Tiberias five years earlier, was subsequently extradited from the United States and was released in the prisoner exchange between Israel and Ahman Jibril’s organization, was on 31 July 1985 placed under a six-month administrative detention order.  According to security officials, Abu Eain had committed security offences and violated the terms of his release.  On 8 August 1985, it was reported that Abu Eain had gone on hunger strike at the Hebron jail to press his demand to be put on trial.  After being held without charge or trial, for three months under a renewable six-month detention order, Mr. Abu Eain, was reportedly scheduled to appear before a military court on 25 November 1985.  Mr. Abu Eain was officially charged with incitement.  The Ramallah military court held the first hearing of the case of Mr. Abu Eain.  Reportedly, Mr. Abu Eain was to face the charges of having given a lecture during a PLO meeting held in Berytuneya, only a few weeks after he was released in May 1985.  He was also accused of planning, together with four other persons, to hijack a bus belonging to the Egged Company.  On 22 July 1986 Mr. Abu Eain was sentenced at the Ramallah military court to three years imprisonment.  (Ha’aretz, 1 August 1985; Jerusalem Post, 1, 2 August 1985; Yedopt Aharonot, 2 8 August and 23 July 1985; Al-Fajr, 1 November and 20 December 1985)

113. On 7 August 1985, it was reported that four leaders of student factions at the Al-Najah University in Nablus had been placed under administrative detention by the military authorities.  In a statement released by the IDF spokesman on 6 August 1985 the army alleged that the university had “been under the control of the so-called students’ organizations, which have virtually taken over the university as a front for the terrorist organizations”.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 7 August 1985)

115. It was reported that an Israeli military court in Ramallah remanded Dheisheh resident Tawfiq Mana’a, 17, to another 30 days in detention.  Mana’a was arrested for the fourteenth time in early August and had yet to be formally charged.

116. On 29 August 1985, three Palestinian residents were held for deportation and 15 others were put under administrative detention orders on alleged accusation of incitement.  After the use of this type of punishment was revived three weeks earlier, the total number of  town arrests reached 20. (Al-Fajr, 30 August 1985)

117. On 1 September 1985, it was reported that by that date 36 residents of the territories were being held under administrative detention orders.  (Jerusalem Post, 1 September 1985)

118. On 3 September 1985, it was reported that the military court in Lod had sentenced Adly Ramadan Najar, of Jabaliya, to 30 years imprisonment for a series of “terrorist acts” carried out, together with three others, between January and March 1985. (Ha’aretz, 3 September 1985)

119. On 12 September 1985, the military court in Gaza passed a life sentence on Ibrahim  Jaber al-Rakab, aged 27, from the Kahn Yunis area.  He was convicted of participation in three murders and three murder attempts in the Gaza Strip in the second half of 1984.(Ma’ariv, 13 September 1985)

120. On 13 September 1985, it was reported that, following the administrative arrest and the previous date of 7 inhabitants of Hebron, Bethlehem and Ramallah, the number of administrative detainees in the West Bank, arrested in the previous fortnight, reached 70 – a record number (since June 1967) of administrative detainees to be held in such a short period.  (Ha’aretz, 13 September 1985)

121. Two brothers from Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip were reportedly sentenced to 25 years imprisonment by an Israeli military court in Lod on security charges.  Abd el-Hadi al-Najjar, 25 years old, and Abdel-Hai al-Najjar, 23, were both convicted of planting three bombs in Israeli towns and membership in a Palestinian organization.  On 27 February 1986, it was reported that a military appeals court in Lod had reduced their prison sentences to 19 years in prison.  (Al-Fajr, 27 September 1985; Ha’aretz, 27 February 1986)

123. On 1 October 1985, as part of the “iron fist” policy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the military court in Nablus endorsed the decision of the Israeli Commander for the Central  District to put 21 West Bank residents under administrative detention for six months. (Al Tali’ah, 3 October 1985)

124. An Israeli military court in Nablus reportedly sentenced Husan Wa’el Imran, 16 years of age, of Nablus to three months in jail, 16 months suspended sentence and a fine of IS 300,000 (approximately $200) on security charges.  The court also sentenced Nuh Mohammed Asi, 17 years of age, Nablus area, to a fine of IS 100,000 (approximately $66) on charges of painting anti-Israeli graffiti and wearing a shirt with the colors of the Palestinian flag. (Al-Fajr, 11 October 1985)

125. On 17 October 1985, the Tel Aviv district court passed prison sentences on four Gaza Strip youths convicted of plotting to attack the United States Embassy in Tel Aviv with a hand-grenade in December 1984.  The leader of the group, Adil Sa’aduni, aged 21, was sentenced to  7 years imprisonment; his “deputy”, Tawfik Darwish, aged 20, was sentenced to 5 years, and two 17 year olds involved in the plot received 3 years and 30 months, respectively.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 18 October 1985)

126. Three youths from Jabaliya refugee camp were reportedly sentenced to various prison terms by an Israeli military court I Gaza on  security charges.  The three aged 17 to 19, received one and half to two years with a similar suspended sentence on charges of membership in a Palestinian organization, providing services and painting graffiti.

(Al-Fajr, 18 October 1985)

127. An Israel military court in Nablus reportedly sentenced Ahmad Salah Hassan, aged 16, of al-Fara’a village in the Jenin district, to five years in prison and three years suspended sentence on charges of throwing a petrol bomb at the detention center in the village.  (Al-Fajr, 1 November 1985)

128. On 5 November 1985, it was reported that the military court in Gaza had passed suspended sentences on 16 Gaza Strip women on charges of disturbing the order and unauthorized gathering. (Ha’aretz, 5 November 1985)

129. Israeli military authorities detained Ramallah unionist Bashir al-Sheikh, treasurer of the General Union for Health and Medical Services in the West Bank.  He was detained for six months under administrative detention order.  (Al-Fajr, 8 November 1985)

130. An Israeli military court reportedly upheld administration detention orders against three residents of the West Bank.  The three – Khalil Ashour, a student at Al-Najah university, Kamal Hameid, a student at Bethlehem university, and Jerusalem unionist Hussein al-Faqha’ – were jailed for six months without trial after military authorities alleged they were “security risks”.  (Al-Fajr, 15 November 1985)

131. On 22 November 1985, it was reported that a military court in Lod had imposed life imprisonment sentences on Amar Ganimat and Ziad Mohammed Ganimat, aged 23 from Surif.

(Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 22 November 1985)

132. The Israeli Magistrates Court in Beer Sheba reportedly sentenced a young bedouin woman to three months in jail on charges of burning an Israeli flag.  Maha Abu Rukeik, aged 18, was charged with removing the flag from a top of the police station in  Rahat and setting it on fire. (Al-Fajr, 22 November 1985)

133. Thirteen-year-old Ayman Abu Arab was reportedly to be tried in an Israeli military court on the basis of a confession he said he never made.  Ayman and 24 other teenagers from the Ramallah, El-Bireh area, were arrested in mid-October 1985 and being held in Ramallah prison.  The teenagers, all aged 13 to 14, were pupils at UNRWA and public schools in the area and were charged with throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at Israeli settlers and soldiers.  (Al-Fajr, 29 November 1985)

134. On 2 December 1985, a military court in Ramallah convicted a 16-year-old boy of throwing stones at an IDF patrol and sentenced him to nine months in prison and nine months suspended term.  (Jerusalem Post, 3 December 1985)

135. On 2 December 1985, a military court in Ramallah sentenced three local residents to life imprisonment for killing a reserve soldier, Aharon Avidar, in Ramallah in February 1985.  The three are Rafa Nasser, aged 24, Mohammed Nasser, aged 30, and Rifat Ali, aged 20.  They were also convicted of killing a Ramallah man whom they suspected of collaborating with the Israeli authorities, of throwing grenades at IDF vehicles and planting bombs, and of belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 3 December 1985)

136. On 4 December 1985 security personnel detained Yunes Rajeb Salem Rajub from the village of Dura, in the Hebron district, on suspicion of hostile terrorist activity.  He was notified that he would be expelled.  (Ha’aretz, 5 December 1985)

137. Two youths from the village of Barkat, Nablus district, were sentenced by the military court to five months imprisonment and six months suspended sentence on charges of stoning a military patrol.  Three other youths, aged 15, 14 and 13, were reportedly remanded in custody for allegedly throwing incendiary bottles at Israeli cars. (Al-Fajr,

12 December 1985)

138. The Israeli military police allegedly arrested a number of Druze and Arab youth from the occupied territories for refusing to serve in the Israeli army.  (Al-Fajr, 13 December 1985)

139. An Israeli military court in Lod sentenced Mrs. Khawlah Musa Samini of Jerusalem to one year in prison and another year suspended term on charges of membership of a Palestinian organization.  Khawlah is the mother of five children.  (Al-Fajr, 13 December 1985)

140. On 27 December 1985, it was reported that the military court in Gaza had imposed a life sentence on Mohammed Odeh Abu-Samara, aged 43, from Deir el-Balah.  Several days earlier, the military court in Gaza imposed a life sentence on Jaber Ibrahim Washah, leader of the military branch of the PFPL in Gaza. (Ma’ariv, 27 December 1985)

141. On 2 January 1986, the military court in Gaza sentenced Talal Abu Safieh, aged 17, from Shate refugee camp to five years in prison and five years suspended sentence.  Jihad Siam, also aged 17, was sentenced to four years in prison and four years suspended.  They were both charged with Molotov cocktail attacks on Israeli military vehicles.  (Al-Fajr,

10 January 1986)

142. On 6 January 1986, the military court in Gaza imposed heavy sentences on four Gaza Strip residents convicted of attempting to kill Jews in the region.  Said Aifna, aged 23, was sentenced to 28 years imprisonment and Yusuf Mohammed Abi Armana, aged 26, was sentenced to 22 years for stabbing an Israeli citizen, Moshe Fitusi, and injuring him in the neck and back.  Nahid Kadah, aged 25, was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for shooting and wounding an Israeli truck driver, Meir Ohana, in Khan Yunis several months earlier.  A Gaza Strip resident convicted of setting fire to a bus in the Jabaliya refugee camp was sentenced to 22 years imprisonment.  Five other men, convicted of a series of attacks in the Tel Aviv area in recent months and of hijacking an Israeli bus that was carrying Arabs in the Gaza Strip, were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 14 to 22 years.  In another development it was reported that the Jerusalem district court on 6 January 1986 had sentenced Majdi Hassan Ismail Badah, aged 27 from Gaza, to four and a half years effective imprisonment and three years suspended sentence. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 7 January 1986)

143. On January 1986, Israeli military courts in the West Bank and Gaza passed sentences up to 15 years on a number of Arab residents who were convicted of resistance to the Israeli occupation.  (Al-Fajr, 10 January 1986)

144. On 9 January 1986 the military court in Ramallah imposed a life sentence on Hani Radawi Said, aged 21, of Hebron, who was convicted of stabbing to death an Israeli reserve soldier, Avraham Sorek.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 10 January 1986)

145. On 10 January 1986, the Israeli military court in Nablus reportedly sentenced Yasser Tayem Zbound, aged 15, and Hazem Ramadan, aged 14, both from the town of Beit Sahur near Bethlehem, to two months imprisonment and six months suspended term.  They were also fined IS 350 each.  The two youths had been detained in December on charges of throwing stones at Israeli cars. (Al-Fajr, 17 January 1986)

146. On 13 January 1986, it was reported that Jibril Rajub, from the village of Dura in the Hebron district, who was released in May  1985 in the prisoner exchange with Ahmad Jibril’s organization, was re-arrested the previous week when the security authorities uncovered a Fatah-affiliated hostile group in the Hebron area.  (Ma’ariv, 13 January 1986)

147. On 13 January 1986, the Israeli military court in Ramallah convicted two Palestinian children from Al-Ama’ri refugee camp near Ramallah of throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at Israeli military patrols.  Muhammad al-Baba, aged 13, was sentenced to three and a half months imprisonment and a similar period as a suspended term.  He was charged with throwing stones at Israeli cars and blocking the main road with stones.  Amjad Musleh, aged 13, was also sentenced to three months on charges of throwing Molotov cocktails at Israeli troops.  (Al-Fajr, 17 January 1986)

145. A total of 140 Palestinian residents from various parts of the occupied territories had reportedly been placed under administrative detention orders since they were reintroduced several months ago.  Of those some 30 have been released after Israeli authorities agreed to reduce the orders from six to three months. (Al-Fajr, 24 January 1986)

146. On 26 January 1986, the military court in Gaza sentenced engineer Said Mahmoud Abdallah Ibrahim, aged 30, from Pelt Hanoun village, to 18 years imprisonment.  The court charged him with membership in Fatah, preparing explosive charges, throwing bombs at an Israeli factory and a military car as well as planning to prepare a car bomb to put in Israel.  (Al-Fajr, 31 January 1986)

147. On 29 January 1986, the military court in Lod passed prison sentences on Bethlehem residents who had planted a bomb in a Jerusalem supermarket in the summer of 1985.  The sentences ranged from 4 to 23 years imprisonment.  (Ha’aretz, 30 January 1986)

148. On 4 February 1986, the Israeli Military Court in Ramallah reportedly sentenced Jamal Hamdan, 14 years of age, from al-Ama’ari refugee camp near Ramallar, to one year imprisonment on charges of hurling a Molotov cocktail at an Israeli vehicle.  Advocate Jawad Boulus, who followed the case, stated that the delay in issuing a charge sheet against the boy resulted in delaying his trial and allowed the Israeli judge to give him one year.  Advocate Boulus explained that according to the law, a person younger than 14 years cannot be sentenced to more than six months.  The boy was brought to trial two weeks after his fourteenth birthday.  (Al-Fajr, 7 February 1986)

149. It was reported that the Israeli army “has targeted Balata camp, east of Nablus, for a campaign of arrests and military harassment reminiscent of last year’s Dheisheh raids”, according to Balata residents.  Residents had compiled a list of 338 youths, including 10 females, who had been arrested since the beginning of that campaign early in November 1985.  About 90 people have been released.  Most of these detainees were allegedly under 20 years of age and some were as young as 12 or 13 years old.  They were being held in Al Fara’a detention center as well as Jenin, Hebron and Nablus prisons.  (Al-Fajr, 14 February 1986; Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 25 February 1986)

150. On 16 February 1986, it was reported that the Jerusalem District court had sentenced four Arab youths – three miners aged 16 to 18, and Barak Abu Sneina, aged 19, all of them from East Jerusalem, to prison terms ranging from three to six years.   (Yediot Aharonot, 16 February 1986)

151. It was reported that residents of Jericho had been subjected to a campaign of arrests.  They included about 20 youths aged between 12 and 15, all of them held at Al Fara’a detention center.  According to Israeli “security” sources, the campaign was launched because of increased protest against the “iron fist” policy and occupation.  (Al-Tali’ah, 27 February 1986)

152. On 12 March 1986, the weekly magazine “Zu-Haderekh published a list of dozens of youths from the Balata refugee camp who were under detention.  (Zu-Haderekh, 12 March 1986)

153. On 12 March 1986, it was reported that security forces had arrested over the past few days some 20 youths from the East Jerusalem neighborhoods of Abu-Tor and Shufat on suspicion of plotting to carry out terrorist acts.  (Ha’aretz, 12, March 1986)

154. On 21 March 1986, it was reported that the military court in Gaza had passed life imprisonment sentence on Hafez Hiraz, aged 31, a Fatah member from Gaza, who was convicted of shooting and killing Menahem Dadon, aged 24, from Netivot. (Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 21 March 1986)

155. On 23 March 1986 an IDF spokesman announced that the security forces had lately uncovered several terrorist cells.  Dozens of suspects aged 18 to 20 were arrested in the Jerusalem and Ramallah areas.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 24 March 1986)

155. On 30 March 1986, it was reported that two West Bank students, Hatem Abu Bakr and Khalil Mussa Ashour, head of the student association at Al-Najah University in Nablus, had been placed under administrative detention for six months on suspicion of terrorist activity.  Security forces reportedly carried out “many arrests” over the past week in the Bir Zeit University.  On 15 April 1986, a military court in Nablus confirmed a six-month administrative detention order against Khalil Ashour. At the same hearing, at the Central Prison for the West Bank, the court reduced the six-month administrative detention periods of three other detainees by two months. They are Jamal Idris, head of the Bir Zeit University student council, his predecessor Nayef Suweitat and Jamal Habash of Kabatiya.  Bir Zeit University student Ahmed a-Dik had his six-month term reduced by one month.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 30 March 1986; Jerusalem Post, 17 April 1986)

157. On 10 April 1986, the Ramallah military court imposed a fine of NIS 15,000 (approximately $10,000) on a faculty member of the Bir Zeit University, Associate Professor Amin Farhan Abu Lail, aged 43, for providing services to the Fatah.  The court said Abu Lail’s publishing company, “Dar al-Kalam”, was a liaison office for Fatah and provided work for Bir Zeit graduates who belonged to the group.  Abu Lail was also given a three-month sentence but was released immediately, since he had been in jail since his arrest in January.  (Jerusalem Post, 11 April 1986)

158. On 2 May 1986, it was reported that a cell affiliated to the Abu-Mussa faction in the Fatah had been uncovered.  0n 6 May 1986, it was reported that in the framework of the uncovering of the cell 20 men from East Jerusalem and surrounding villages had been arrested the previous week.  The 20 cell members were remanded for 15 days by the Jerusalem magistrates’ court.  On 7 May 1986, it was reported that police and security services investigators had arrested the previous day, five more suspected members of the cell.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot, 2, 6 May 1986)

159. On 6 May 1986, it was reported that the military court in Nablus had passed a 20-years prison sentence on Ahmed Tawfik Abdallah Haj Mahmud, aged 21, from the village of Jaloud, near Nablus, for stabbing an IDF soldier on 14 December 1985 in Nablus.  (Ha’aretz, Yediot Aharonot, 5 May 1986)

160. On 6 May 1986, it was reported that a charge sheet had been filed against Jamil al-Zimati, aged 45, from the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip.  He was reportedly accused of stabbing an Israeli civilian, Naim Cohen, in East Jerusalem at the beginning of March 1986.  (Ha’aretz, 6 May 1986)

161. On 7 May 1986, it was reported that Ramadan Muhammad Abdallah al Awad, aged 18, from Shu’fat was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for the murder in April 1985 of the Israeli cab driver David Caspi.  Three others had been sentenced to life terms in the same case two months earlier.  The trial of al Awad was separated from that of the others since he was a minor at the time the murder was perpetrated.  (Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot, 7 May 1986)

162. On 23 May 1986, it was reported that the military court in Lod had passed a life sentence on Muhammad Ahmed Tous, aged 31, from Jaba.  He was convicted of being the leader of a terrorist cell whose members had murdered two Israeli couples and another Israeli civilian.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 23 May 1986)

163. On 29 May 1986, it was reported that the Nazareth District court had passed prison sentences on two residents of Arrabuneh, near Jenin, who were convicted of the murder of Lea Elmakais and Yosef Eliahu, both teachers from Afula, in July 1985.  A 17-year-old accomplice from the same village was sentenced to seven years imprisonment in November 1985 for his part in the case.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 29 May 1986)

164. On 1 June 1986, the military court in Gaza sentenced Marwan Abdel Rahim Shahwan, aged 19, from Khan Yunis, to a six-month suspended term and fined him NIS 300 (approximately $200) for “making the victory sign” during a hearing at the military court in Gaza.  (Al-Fajr, 6 June 1986)

165. On 1 June 1986, the military court in Nablus sentenced Ayman Kamhawi, aged 17, and Amwar Hamman, aged 15, from Nablus, to six months suspended term and fined them NIS 300 (approximately $200) for stoning an Israeli military vehicle. Muhammad Ziad from Kalkilya was sentenced to five months imprisonment and was fined NIS 900 (approximately $600) for unspecified political offences.  (Al-Fajr, 6 June 1986)

166. On 3 June 1986, the military court in Ramallah sentenced Hatem Abdel Kadar Ajmieh, aged 22, and Khamis Dokandi, aged 17, from fin Sultan refugee camp in Jericho, to two years imprisonment and three years suspended term on charges of throwing fire bombs at a tank carrier in Jericho.  Jamal Anwar Tawil, aged 21, from El Bireh, was sentenced to five years imprisonment and a four-year suspended term on charges of membership in Fatah, recruiting others, throwing fire bombs at Israeli vehicles and sending threat letters to alleged collaborators.  Faisal Hamdan, aged 23, from Dura al Qara’ in Ramallah district, was sentenced to five years, including 27 months of suspended term, on charges of membership in the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and receiving military training.  (Al-Fajr, 6 June 1986)

167. On 3 June 1986, the military court in Lod sentenced Maher Bashir, aged 24, from Jabal al-Mukaber in Jerusalem, to seven months in jail and a two-year suspended term on charges of membership in Fatah.  (Al-Fajr, 6 June 1986)

168. On 4 June 1986, the military court in Ramallah sentenced six youths from the Ramallah district to various prison terms and suspended terms on charges of membership in Fatah and preparing a booby-trapped vehicle.  The court also remanded Haytham Hamouri from Jerusalem to 25 days to complete the process of interrogation.  (Al-Fajr, 13 June 1986)

169. On 4 June 1986, the military court in Nablus sentenced Samir Barakat from the Bir Zeit University to one year in jail on charges of possessing a grenade. Muhammad Farouki, aged 29, and Muhammad Awajneh, aged 30, from Jericho, were sentenced to 15 months in jail and 33 months suspended term on charges of membership in Fatah and of receiving military training.  (Al-Fajr, 13 June 1986)

170. On 5 June 1986, the military court in Gaza sentenced Ali Abu Haieh, aged 35, from Khan Yunis, to life imprisonment on charges of membership in a local terror organization and of throwing two grenades and attempting to kill an alleged collaborator in Gaza.  (Ma’ariv, 8 June 1986; Al-Fajr, 13 June 1986)

171. On 11 June 1986, the military court in Gaza sentenced Muhammad Hassan from Gaza to five years in jail and a three-year suspended term on charges of possessing three grenades.  (Al-Fajr, 13 June 1986)

172. On 11 June 1986, it was reported that two terrorist groups responsible for 29 attacks in northern Israel and at Israeli settlements in the West Bank had been arrested over the past few days.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot, 11 June 1986)

173. On 12 June 198b, the military court in Nablus sentenced Jihad Raja from Tulkarem refugee camp to 10 years in jail on charges of throwing firebombs at Israeli targets. (Al-Fajr, 20 June 1986)

174. On 15 June 1986, the military court in Nablus sentenced Mamhoud Ibrahim Shalah from Jalazun refugee camp to four and a half months imprisonment and a similar suspended term, and fined him NIS 650 (approximately $410) on charges of stoning Israeli military vehicles.  The military court in Gaza sentenced Sufian Abu Naseirah, from Bani Suheila in Khan Yunis, to one and a half years in jail and two and a half years suspended on charges of membership in an illegal organization.  (Al-Fajr, 20 June 1986)

175. On 16 June 1986, the military court in Nablus sentenced Kamel Abu Samri, aged 14, from Tulkarem refugee camp, to 10 months in jail and 14 months suspended, and fined him NIS 1,000 (approximately 5660) on political charges.  (Al-Fajr, 20 June 1986)

176. On 17 June 1986, the military court in Nablus sentenced Adel As’ad Tawfiq, aged 19, from Jenin refugee camp, to 10 years in jail and 2 years suspended term on charges of membership in Fatah, recruiting others and throwing firebombs at the military headquarters in Jenin.  Mahmoud Ibrahim Qaraqa, aged 17, was sentenced to two years in jail and a similar suspended term on charges of preparing firebombs and participating in demonstrations.  Four other youths from Kalkilya, Jinsafut, Zeita and Nur Shams refugee camps were sentenced to prison terms ranging from six months to five years and to fines from NIS 500 to NIS 5,000 (approximately $170 to $1,700), on charges of membership in an illegal organization, possession of weapons. and throwing firebombs.  (Al-Fajr, 27 June 1986)

177. On 18 June 1986, it was reported that a terrorist group had been uncovered in Jerusalem, whose members had attempted, without success, to kill Israeli civilians, tourists and soldiers.  (Ma’ariv, 18 June 1986)

178. On 18 June 1986, the military court in Gaza sentenced Adel Ahmad Abu Ghalieh and Muhammad Awad, from Bani Suheila in Khan Yunis, to life imprisonment on charges of killing two Khan Yunis residents and co-operating with others in killing an Israeli officer.  The two were reported to be members of “Force 17”, the PLO elite unit. Walid Muhammad Naim from Beit-Hanun was sentenced to nine years in jail and six years suspended term on charges of membership in Fatah and throwing a grenade. (Ha’aretz, 19 June 1986; Al-Fajr, 17 June 1986)

179. On 3 July 1986, it was reported that six Gaza Strip residents accused of planting explosive charges in Israel in 1985 had been arrested by the security forces.  They were named as Ahmed Hajani, aged 26; Ibrahim Barud, aged 24; Jamal Said Shninu, aged 261 Fawzi Yunes Nasratallah, aged 231 Bassam Nasser, aged 24 and Fathi Ali Nasser, aged 23.  (Ma’ariv, 3 July 1986)

180. On 10 July 1986, it was reported that 11 cell members from the Shufat refugee camp were charged at the military court in Lod with carrying out sabotage acts and attacks against Israel and people they suspected of collaboration with the Israeli authorities.  (Ma’ariv, 10 July 1986)

181. On 14 July 1986, three residents of Anabta were convicted at the military court in Nablus of the murder of a local resident in 1983 and of firing shots at a bus and a private car.  Said Duaba, aged 24, and Khaled Omar, aged 23, were sentenced to life imprisonment.  Tarek Mimri, aged 25, was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.  (Ma’ariv, 15 July 1986)

182. On 1 August 1986, two students were reportedly released from jail. Jibril Bakri, member of the student council of the Hebron University, was released after seven months imprisonment without trial.  Khalil Ashour, former chairman of the Al-Najah student council, was released after six months administrative detention.  (Al-Fajr, 8 August 1986)

183. On 3 August 1986, it was reported that three members of one family had been arrested and a charge sheet was being filed against them with the Lod military court.  They were Nabila Fahed Badawi Rishek, aged 25, her sister In’am, aged 35, and their brother Daoud, aged 22.  They were charged with setting fire to the car of a Silwan resident, Youssef al-Azawi.  Security forces also recently arrested Muhammad Moussa Sa’id Dayed, aged 20, from Jerusalem, on suspicion of membership in Fatah.  (Ma’ariv, 3 August 1986)

184. On 3 August 1986, it was reported that Abdallah Abu-Jaber and Muhammad Attouri had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murder attempt on the Mukhtar of Bidiya, whom they suspected of collaboration with Israel. (Ma’ariv, 3 August 1986)

185. On 4 August 1986, the Defense Minister issued six-month administrative detention orders against three West Bank residents suspected of attempting to organize subversive activity in the West Bank.  They were named as Hamis Tawfik A-Kishek, aged 30, from the Al-Fara’a refugee camp) Muhammad Ali Muhammad Faraj, aged 19, from the Dheisheh refugee camp, and Ibrahim Ali Abdallah Abu Zahra, aged 37, from Yatta.  According to one report a fourth man, Ali Muhammad Dakhlallah, aged 23, from Ta’amreh village near Bethlehem, was also put under administrative detention.  (Ha’aretz, 6 August 1986; Al-Fajr, 8 August 1986)

186. On 5 August 1986, the trial was opened at the Lod military court of six alleged terrorists from Gaza charged with planting explosive charges in Israel and causing injuries to five civilians.  In another trial held at the same court, Ramadan Salman Id Matirat, aged 20, from Dura, was sentenced to 22 years imprisonment.  Another man, Omar Salim Abu-Kadhar, aged 24 was sentenced to five years imprisonment.  (Ma’ariv, 6 August 1986)

187. On 7 August 1986, Munir Karak, from Jerusalem, was arrested on charges of selling the map of Palestine at Damascus Gate in Jerusalem.  (Al-Fajr, 14 August 1986)

188. On 10 August 1986, the military court in Nablus sentenced Daher Abdullah Tayeh, from Beita, near Nablus, to one-year imprisonment and two years suspended term.  (Al-Fajr,

14 August 1986)

189. On 10 August 1986, the Gaza military court sentenced Ayman Jardali, aged 16, to one-year imprisonment and three years suspended term on charges of membership in an illegal organization and offering services to its members.   (Al-Fajr, 14 August 1986)

190. On 17 August 1986, six-month administrative detention orders were issued against three Gaza Strip residents:  Paris Hasouneh, Emad Bakir and Suleiman Abu Amer.  (Al-Fajr, 22 August 1986)

191. On 24 August 1986, it was reported that the security forces had uncovered a cell from Deir Abu Mash’al, whose members were suspected of several terrorist acts.  (Ha’aretz, 24 August 1986)

192. On 26 August 1986, it was reported that the security forces had detained four boys aged 14 to 16, from the village of Hizma on suspicion of stabbing two Israeli hikers several days earlier at Wadi Kelt.  The two Israelis were slightly wounded. The four youths were named as Sadek Ahmed Odeh, aged 14, Suleiman Khatib, aged 14, Ahmed Salem Kassem, aged 16 and Iyad Salameh, aged 15.  The four were reportedly members of a locally organized cell and had no connection to any terror organization.  (Ha’aretz, 26 August 1986)

193. On 28 August 1986, three West Bank residents were to appear before the IDF judge advocate-general on suspicion of having perpetrated the 1984 kidnapping and murder of IDF soldier Akiva Shealtiel.  They were named as Abdullah Abu Ja’abar, Muhammad Attouri and Ahmad Bulham, and were from Zawiyeh, in the West Bank, and Kafr Kassem, in Israel.  They were also suspected of other terrorist acts including a shooting attack at an Egged bus at the Yakir junction, near Ariel, and a grenade attack in Nablus earlier in the year.  (Jerusalem Post, 28 August 1986)

(b)   Israelis

194. On 29 August 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that Alan Goodman, who in April 1982 had killed one Arab guard and wounded t~ others on the Temple Mount, would serve his jail terms concurrently, thereby reducing by up to 20 years the time he would spend in prison.  Goodman was convicted in 1983 of murder and four counts of attempted murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and two 20-year jail terms, only one of them to run concurrently with the life term.  Goodman appealed against his conviction and the severity of the sentence.  The court rejected the appeal against the conviction but decided that all the terms would run concurrently since the crimes he committed were not isolated but the result of a continuous action.  (Jerusalem Post, 30 August 1985)

194. On 2 October 1985, Yosef Harnoi, a settler from Eilon Moreh, was convicted by the Tel Aviv district court of manslaughter in the killing of eight-year-old Aisha al-Bahsh of Nablus in November 1983.  He was also found guilty of causing the girl’s sister grievous bodily harm.  Harnoi, charged with murder, had argued that he suffered from epilepsy and that he had a fit just before the shooting.  The court rejected that argument, but it did not convict him of murder, finding that he had not intended to kill the girl.  On 11 October 1985, it was reported that Harnoi had been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and a five-month suspended sentence, and Pinhas Mahrabi was sentenced to months imprisonment.  On 13 October 1985, it was reported that Harnoi had been set free on 11 October 1985 for a month-long leave to prepare his son for his Bar Miztva (age of 13 – when Jewish boys assume religious obligations).  On 21 October 1985, it was reported that the Supreme Court had cancelled the one-month leave granted to Harnoi by the Tel Aviv district court after the State had appealed against that decision.  (Jerusalem Post, 3, 11, 13 and 21 October 1985; Ha’aretz, 11 and 21, October 1985)

196. On 12 January 1986, a charge sheet was presented to the Jerusalem magistrate’s court against an Israeli policeman, Tibor Frank, on two counts of attacking and injuring Arab residents of the territories.  Tibor Frank was reportedly charged with illegal detention and assault.  (Ha’aretz, 13 January 1986)

197. On 24 March 1986, it was reported that the judge-advocate of the Central Region Command had ordered that an officer (a lieutenant) and several soldiers should be put on disciplinary trial, following allegations of ill treatment of civilians in the Hebron area.  It was alleged that following the killing of an IDF soldier in the Kasbah area, in September 1985, IDF soldiers ill treated the civilian population of the area.  The allegations led to an inquiry by the Investigating Military Police, which had completed the inquiry file and handed it to the judge-advocate of. the Central Region Command.  The latter ruled that a disciplinary trial be held against the military personnel involved in the alleged ill treatment incidents.  (Ma’ariv, 24 March 1986)

The affair of the killing of the two hijackers in the Gaze Strip in April 1984 and

its aftermath

198. On 14 April 1984, IDF forces seized control of a civilian bus that had been hijacked by four Arabs.  Two of the hijackers were killed in the course of the operation.  The other two were taken away from the bus alive.  It was later reported that they had died.

On 26 April, the Defense Minister Mr. Moshe Arens appointed a commission of inquiry headed by Aluf (Major General) (reserve) Meir Zorea to investigate the affair.

On 28 May, the Commission determined that the two hijackers who had been taken away from the bus alive died as a result of fractures of the skull caused by beating. It recommended that a further investigation be carried out.

On 15 June, the Attorney-General appointed a commission of inquiry headed by State Attorney Yona Blattman.  In August 1985, the Blattman commission reached the conclusion that no instruction had been given to kill the two hijackers. The commission determined that five General Security Service (GSS) men, three border guards and two soldiers had resorted to violence against the two hijackers and that T/A (Brigadier General) Yitzhak Mordekhai, Chief Infantry and Paratroop Officer, had beaten the two hijackers with his pistol butt after they had been captured. The Judge Advocate General decided to put T/A Mordekhai on trial.

On 18 August 1985, Aluf (Major General) (reserve) Haim Nadel acquitted T/A Mordekhai and determined that when he had handed the two hijackers to the GSS they were still alive.  Three GSS agents who also stood trial on charges stemming from the same incident were also acquitted.

In December 1985, three senior GSS officials, Reuven Hazak, Rafi Malka and Peleg Raddai, protested to the head of the GSS against what they claimed was “perversion of the inquiry”.  They approached the Prime Minister Mr. Peres but he dismissed their allegations as an attempt to get rid of the head of the GSS and have him replaced by Hazak.  After the three approached the Prime Minister they were discharged from the service and then decided to appeal to the Attorney General Yitzhak Zamir.

On 18 May 1986, it was reported that senior ministers had instructed Mr. Zamir to stop the investigation against a senior official.

On 25 May, the United States television network ABC uncovered the identity of the senior official: the head of the GSS Avraham Shalom.  According to the report he was suspected of lying to the commission of inquiry and inducing other witnesses to perjury.

On 28 May, the Attorney General demanded that Avraham Shalom be suspended as head of the GSS during the course of the investigation.

On 1 June, it was reported that Mr. Zamir, who had announced his intention to resign four months earlier, had been replaced as Attorney General by Tel Aviv district court judge Yosef Harish.  The new Attorney General announced he would have to study the case before taking any decision.

On 25 June, it was announced that Avraham Shalom and three GSS officials involved in the case had asked for and were granted pardon by the president of the State Haim Herzog.  Avraham Shalom resigned as head of the GSS. (Yediot Aharonot, 26 June 1986)

3.  Treatment of civilians, including fundamental freedoms

   (see paras. 11-53 above and sect. IV.C, paras. 43-76 above)

(a) General developments

(i)Harassment of civilians

199. On 29 July 1985, two Arab youths from the town of Toubas, near Jenin, were found dead and charred remnants of their bodies scattered near the settlement of Elon Moreh in the Nablus region.  (Al-Fajr, 2 August 1985)

200. It was reported that the army reserve units on duty in Ramallah had harassed Palestinian children and destroyed their kites claiming that the kites exhibited the four colors of the Palestinian flag.  The soldiers also stopped several passers-by in the downtown area and forced them to wipe off political graffiti. (Al-Fajr, 30 August 1985)

201. On 26 August 1985, Israeli soldiers reportedly shot and wounded a Qalqilya resident after he walked away from soldiers who were harassing him.  (Al-Fajr, 30 August 1985)

202. In a press conference held on 1 September 1985 at Soroka Hospital in Beer Sheba, Dr. Yair Shapira, the hospital director, said that local Jewish youths from Dalet neighbourhood attacked a group of Arab male nurses and a doctor near their dormitories in the hospital vicinity the night of 30 August 1985.  Some of the employees were injured.  (Al-Fajr, 6 September 1985)

203. The West Bank Military Commander reportedly ordered the closure of six shops in Jenin for three days after a stone throwing incident against a government office.  Part of the road was also closed until the evening.  In the same context 45 shops were allegedly sealed off with wax in the old “Iskafia Market” in Hebron after the incident concerning the house occupied at al-Qasaba district by Israeli settlers.  The 45 shops reportedly provide income for 450 people.  (Al-Tali’ah, 19 September 1985, Al-Fajr, 20 September 1985)

204. On 19 September 1985, it was reported that Gaza Strip residents had been complaining over the past few days against what they alleged was “harsh and unbearable” conduct by TDF soldiers in Gaza.  Allegations regarding harassment of civilians by regular IDF soldiers included various forms of humiliation forced by the soldiers on the civilians under the pretext of checking ID cards.  Ramallah residents also alleged that regular IDF soldiers were harassing and ill treating the local population:  persons were being forced to stand against a wall with their arms raised above their head for a long time, during security checks.  West Bank residents also alleged that investigators’ attitude following arrest had become much harsher and they often resorted to intimidation, and sometimes to violence. Security forces were reported to have reacted to these allegations, which had been registered over the preceding fortnight.  (Ha’aretz, 19 September 1985)

205. On 20 September 1985, it was reported that the Investigating Military Police had set up a special investigating team, as of 19 September 1985, to look into dozens of complaints by residents of Hebron alleging ill-treatment and harassment by soldiers over the past few days.  Dozens of complaints about violent and harsh treatment by soldiers, towards women, elderly people and youths – mostly alleging beating – reached the police and the civil administration.  (Ha’aretz, 20 September 1985)

206. On 22 September 1985, it was reported that seven soldiers had been dismissed from an IDF company commanders course after it appeared they had ill-treated Gaza residents.  In a related development it was reported that Advocate Felicia Langer had filed a complaint with the head of the West Bank civil administration about the “shameful conduct by IDF soldiers against local residents”.  On 26 September 1985, dozens of Gaza Strip lawyers held a strike to protest over the alleged ill treatment of the civilian population by IDF soldiers.  The strike was general and trials were postponed.  (Ha’aretz, 22 and 27 September 1985)

207. On 16 October 1985, it was reported that an Al-Fajr editor, Hassan Abdel Halim Fakia, from Bidu, had been missing for almost two weeks.  He was reportedly last seen on 2 October 1985 when he left his office to go to Hebron where he was collecting material on fraudulent land sales.  His colleagues said on 15 October 1985 they thought his disappearance might be connected to that story.  A Jerusalem police spokesman said an enquiry had been opened into the disappearance. (Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 16 October 1985; Jerusalem Post, 22 October 1985)

208. On 23 October 1985, it was reported that tension prevailed in Ramallah and El Bireh following the explosion of a bomb near a house in the area of Mount Tawil (El Bireh – on the road to the settlement), which killed a 15-year old boy (see table of incidents following para. 453 below) and seriously mutilated another.  The dead boy was ordered to be buried the same night of the incident and only 10 elderly of his relatives were authorized to attend the funeral.  (Al-Tali’ah, 24 October; Al-Fajr, 25 October 1985)

209. A Palestinian youth was allegedly assaulted by Israeli soldiers in Gaza because he wore a T-shirt with the following sentence written on it:  “I love Palestine”.  The soldiers tore the T-shirt and drove the youth to the police station.  (Al Tali’ah, 7 November 1985)

210. Israeli forces uprooted some 500 olive trees in the village of Ubaidiya in the Bethlehem area alleging that the trees were planted on “military land”.  An Israeli military advisory board had allowed the landowners to cultivate their land a short while earlier.  (Al-Fajr, 13 December 1985)

211. On 30 January 1986, the Jerusalem Post published a report about the situation of Arab shop-owners whose businesses were located below the newly-built sections of Hadassa house – the center of Jewish settler activity in the heart of Hebron. According to Mustafa Natche, the town’s deposed mayor, who accompanied a group of members of the Knesset from the Citizens Rights Movement to the place, a large number of people depended on the shops for their livelihood.  The authorities had decided they could not legally evict the owners, who had lived there for almost 50 years, so they were allegedly trying to overcome the legal obstacle by putting pressure on the shop-owners.  On 5 February 1986, three Hebron residents owning shops in the basement of the Hadassa building in Hebron appealed to the High Court of Justice to order the IDF to remove a fence erected recently in front of their shops, withdraw the troops stationed there and cease pressing them to sell their shops.  On 13 March 1986, the High Court of Justice considered the petition submitted by the shop-owners.  In its response to the petition, the State Attorney’s Office said that the shops were a “real danger” to the lives and security of the Jewish tenants on the upper three floors.  Arguing that the military commander of the West Bank was acting within his authority in ordering the adoption of the security measures, the deposition asked the court to reject the shop-owners’ petition.  On 20 April 1986, it was reported that the IDF judge advocate general had ordered the suspension of a military police investigation into alleged criminal offences and abuses by soldiers and their commanders against the local population in Hebron and in particular shop-owners at the Hadassa building.  The judge advocate general said he had found no evidence of improper behavior by the soldiers, and said they had acted according to instructions.  On 29 May 1986, some 40 members of an “Arab-Jewish group for non-violence, fraternity and peace” went shopping in the three fenced-off shops situated at the ground floor of the Hadassa building in Hebron.  The operation was held in sympathy with the shopkeepers.  Security forces did not interfere with the solidarity visit, but told the group members to refrain from distribution of leaflets or any other form of demonstration.  Heavy reinforcements of troops and police patrolled around the area for fear that the operation may lead to disorders.  On 18 June 1986, during a tour of the Hadassa house area by three High Court justices, Central Region Commander Aluf (Brigadier General) Ehud Barak said that the army intended to replace the high barbed-wire fence blocking passage to three Arab shops in the building with a lower barrier that would leave a wider path.  The High Court justices dealing with the complaint visited the area to inspect the situation.  One judge suggested at the tour that policemen replace the soldiers to improve the atmosphere, but Aluf Barak explained this was not possible since the site had become a symbol in Hebron and was therefore a target for terrorists.  Explosives could be smuggled into the shops to blow up the entire building, he said.  The justices also examined the complaint of 14 shop-owners whose shops were demolished in 1980 following a terrorist attack in which six settlers were killed.  The building from which the attackers fired was razed and the owners have been denied permission to rebuild it.  Aluf Barak told the judges that rebuilding the shops would pose a security risk for the settlers because it could again become a base for an attack.  (Jerusalem Post, 30 January, 6 February and 19 June 1986; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 13 March, 20 April and 30 May 1986)

212. On 22 January 1986, the weekly magazine of the Israeli communist party “Zu Haderekh” had published a report on a case of a refusal by the authorities to approve a family reunion in the territories.  On 30 January 1986, the High Court of Justice had issued an order nisi against the military commander of the Gaza Strip, ordering him to show cause within 45 days why he should not authorize a woman from Amman to join her husband, Hijazi Saad, from Gaza; and settle in the region.  On 14 February 1986, it was reported that the deputy commander of the Gaza Strip, Rav-Seren (Major) Yosef Avraham, said in an affidavit to the High Court of Justice that, in 1985, 2r937 requests for family reunion had been filed in the West Bank, and that only 10 had been granted.  In the Gaza Strip, 171 requests had been filed and only 45 were granted.  The affidavit was submitted in response to an application by two Gaza Strip residents whose requests to be authorized to bring their wives to the region were rejected.  “Israel has no interest to allow any resident of the territories who wishes to marry abroad, to bring his wife here. The decision on who may enter and settle in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is a matter for decision by the authorities, and the residents cannot impose their private opinion on the authorities”, the military authorities nevertheless allowed the departure of local residents to be united with their families abroad, the affidavit stated.  On 10 June 1986, it was reported that the civil administration in the West Bank had granted 109 requests for family reunion by West Bank residents whose family members in Jordan would now be able to join them.  The requests were granted on the occasion of the Id el-Fitr holiday.  In another development it was reported that the High Court of Justice had upheld, on 10 June 1986, a decision by the military authorities to refuse a family reunion request for three couples consisting of resident husbands and wives living abroad.  The names of the three wives were reported as Raja Arabeya, Najah Sawafiri and Suad Shahin.  (Zu Haderekh, 22 January 1986; Ha’aretz, 31 January and 14 February 1986; Ma’ariv, 10 June 1986; Al-Fajr, 13 June 1986)

213. On 15 February 1986, it was reported that Israeli troops shot and killed a Gaza resident as he walked in the street.  According to the report, he was the second person to be shot by Israeli soldiers in a week.  Sha’ban Saleh Al-Aqlaq, aged 30, a father of six children, was shot shortly after being stopped by an army patrol in Gaza.  Israeli military sources claimed that the man was shot after he refused to obey army orders to stop for an ID check.  (Al-Fajr, 21 February 1986)

214. On 18 March 1986, it was reported that the Jerusalem District court had ordered the Defense Ministry to pay NIS 110,000 (approximately $73,000) compensation to the family of a West Bank resident who was killed by an IDF soldier during manoeuvers.  (Jerusalem Post, 18 March 1986)

215. On 28 May 1986, military sources reported that the chief of staff, Rav-Aluf Moshe Levy, had given an instruction to improve the life conditions of inhabitants of the Balata refugee camp, near Nablus.  The civil administration in the West Bank was instructed to widen roads in the camp and to set up public facilities, kindergartens and parks.  Similar measures had been taken in the Dheisheh refugee camp, near Bethlehem, and reportedly resulted in a decline in the level of hostile activity.  The same sources reported that from the beginning of April until 25 May 1986 only 28 hostile terrorist acts were reported in the West Bank, a figure considered as very low in comparison with previous years.  (Ha’aretz, 29 May 1986)

216. On 10 June 1986, it was reported that Siham Barguti, the wife of Abu Hilal, a West Bank resident who was expelled to Jordan at the beginning of 1986, was told she could go to Jordan to visit her husband provided that she stayed away for three years at least.  Her lawyer, Advocate Abd Assali, asked the legal adviser of the West Bank military government for an explanation but received none.  Siham Barguti served a prison sentence in the years 1982 to 1984 after being convicted of membership and activity in a terror organization.  Her husband Abu Hilal was a prominent trade-union activist who was accused of subversive activity and deported to Jordan.  (Ha’aretz, 16 June 1986)

217. On 19 June 1985, 1,000 olive trees were uprooted by State Lands Administration agents in the West Bank village of Midya, close to the Green line.  The operation gave rise to violent demonstration and clashes between villagers and security’ personnel.  A policeman and a State Land Administration warden were injured by stones.  A 21-year-old village woman was detained.  The village was placed under curfew and the road leading to it was closed off.  Midya is one of several West Bank villages adjacent to former no-man’s-lands that in 1967 were declared state land.  According to the State Land Administration, the uprooted trees had been planted on the Israeli side of the Green line and the purpose of the operation was to prevent the takeover of state land by unauthorized tree planting.  A similar operation had been carried out earlier in the year in the village of Katana, and other West Bank villages near the Green line were reportedly targeted for similar operations.  The Midya villagers claimed that the trees had been planted on West Bank land.  “We planted on our side, the Jewish National Fund planted on the other side.  Now they have taken this as well.  Why did they wait so long if it was theirs?”  Other villagers said the destruction of the olive groves had destroyed their major source of livelihood and that some might now have to leave the village.  On 24 June 1986, the High Court of Justice issued an interim injunction prohibiting the Minister of Agriculture, the State Land Administration and the Defense Minister from demolishing houses or uprooting trees in Midya.  The injunction was given at the request of eight villagers who applied to the High Court, and it would remain in force pending a final decision on the application. On 26 June 1986, members of the Civil Rights Association and left-wing activists went to Midya to express sympathy with the villagers.  The latter showed their visitors uprooted trees that were much older than four or five years, as claimed by the Land Administration.  They also showed maps and documents proving that the lands where trees had been uprooted were not state-owned but belonged to them. (Ha’aretz, 20-25 June 1986; Jerusalem Post, 20 June 1986)

218. On 29 June 1986, it was reported that troops in Hebron had, since 6 June 1986, following the stabbing of an Israeli citizen in the Casbah area, confiscated and destroyed some 60 identity cards of Hebron residents during security checks carried out at the entrances to the Casbah and near the Hadassa building.  The holders of the destroyed ID cards had to go to the Interior Ministry offices to apply for new cards, losing several working days and having to pay NIS 20 (approximately $15).  An IDF spokesman explained that the IDF policy during routine controls was to confiscate ID cards that were “in a poor shape and where details such as a photograph or a name could be changed.  These cards were confiscated by the troops, marked with an X, and their owners were given an application letter for a new card.  IDF troops did not destroy cards in a good shape”.  But according to Arab residents their cards were in a perfect shape and had nevertheless been destroyed by troops.  Following an investigation by Yediot Aharonot the affair reached the high echelons of the military authorities in the region and the practice of destruction of ID cards has reportedly been stopped. (Yediot Aharonot, 29 June 1986)

218. On 1 August 1986, members of the Gaza Strip Medical Assistance Committee held a press conference in Jerusalem in which they reported about alleged harassment and detentions without reason by the security forces in the Gaza Strip.  The press conference was sponsored by the Alternative Information Center of Jerusalem.  At the press conference, participants alleged that on 18 July 1986, the Israeli military governor of Jabaliya refugee camp, accompanied by a number of soldiers, raided the house where Committee members were treating residents.  The military ordered the six doctors who were there to stop working and summoned them for interrogation.  The doctors were told by the military governor that their work was illegal and that medical assistance should not be given voluntarily without a special permit.  (Ha’aretz, 1 August 1986; Al-Fajr, 8 August 1986)

220. On 5 August 1986, female ex-prisoner, Nimeh al-Helu, from the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza, held a press conference in East Jerusalem in which she alleged to be the victim of Israeli harassment.  She said her house in Jabaliya was the target of several surprise raids.  On one occasion 100-armed soldiers came to search the house and confiscated magazines and other written material.  She also received continuous summonses from the Israeli military governor in Gaza.  On 3 August 1986, al-Helu was brought before a military court in Gaza and charged with possessing “inciting materials”.  The court session was postponed until the prosecutor could prepare the case against her.  (Al-Fajr, 8 August 1986)

(ii)Collective punishment, including demolition of houses

221. On 1 August 1985, it was reported that following the murder in Nablus of an Israeli civilian, Albert Bukhris, on 30 July 1985, three stores had been shut by order of the military governor of the area where the attack took place.  An adjacent alley through which the attacker apparently made his escape was also sealed with concrete blocks.  (Jerusalem Post, 1 August 1985)

222. On 13 August 1985, Israeli authorities demolished an Arab house in Isawiyya, east of Jerusalem, alleging that it was illegally built.  Reportedly that was the fourth house demolished in the area on the same grounds.  (Al-Tali’ah, 15 August; Al-Fajr, 16 August 1985)

223.  On 22 August 1985 the Israeli army demolished two houses and sealed a third in the town of Anabta in the Tulkarem district.  According to an army spokesman, the three houses belonged to members of an armed Palestinian cell who were recently detained for anti-Israeli attacks.  (Al-Tali’ah, Al-Fajr, 30 August 1985)

224. Following the killing of an Israeli citizen in Tulkarem and the wounding of another one in Jenin, both towns were placed under curfew, roadblocks were set up on major roads in the area and residents of the region, including Nablus, were barred from crossing the Jordan bridges.  (Jerusalem Post, 25 August 1985)

225. On 30 August 1985, it was reported that expulsion orders had been issued against three men described as “terrorist leaders”:  Amin Ramzi Makbul from Nablus area, Walid Ahmad Nazal from Kabatiya in the Jenin area and Bahjat Mustafa Jayussi from Tulkarem.  (Ma’ariv, 30 August 1985)

226. On 11 September 1985, the curfew imposed nine days earlier on the Casbah area of Hebron was lifted.  Before the lifting of the curfew security forces sealed two of the entrances to the Casbah, one in the direction of the Patriarchs’ Cave and the other, to the Romano house.  (Yediot Aharonot, 12 September 1985)

227. On 8 October 1985, security forces demolished the homes of five members of a gang allegedly responsible for the murder of five Israelis and the wounding of 18 others over the previous 17 months.  Three of the houses that were demolished were in the village of Surif, north of Hebron.  The village was placed under curfew during the bulldozing operation.  All the houses were reportedly empty and the demolitions were carried out without any incident.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 9 October 1985)

228.  It was reported that Israeli troops had sealed off the main entrance to Balata refugee camp near Nablus after residents staged a demonstration to protest Israel’s air raid on the PLO headquarters in Tunis.  Three residents of the camp were said to be among those killed in the attack.  (Al-Fajr, 11 October 1985)

229. Israeli bulldozers reportedly razed 16 Arab residences in Bayarit Anan, west of Gaza, claiming that they were built without a license.  The owners, however, affirmed that they had obtained a license to build their houses from Jabaliya local council.  (Al-Fajr, 25 October 1985)

230. On 28 October 1985, it was reported that in the framework of the new measures carried out in the West Bank in recent months, large forces of IDF, border-guards and police on 25 October 1985 during the night surrounded the village of Yatta, in southern Mount Hebron.  They imposed a curfew and carried out house-to-house searches during 60 hours from Friday, 25 October 1985, at 2 a.m. until Sunday, 27 October 1985, at 2 p.m.  In the course of the operation two houses were demolished by the IDF.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 28 October 1985)

231. On 5 November 1985, the security forces sealed off the houses of two suspected terrorists in Shu’fat, north of Jerusalem.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 6 November 1985)

232. On 6 November 1985, the security forces sealed off two houses belonging to a member of a terrorist group, located in A-Ram, near Qalqilya, and in Hebron.  Two other houses belonging to two members of the same group had already been sealed off previously.  (Ha’aretz, 7 November 1985)

233. On 17 November 1985, the security forces destroyed the home of an alleged member of the terrorist cell that had operated in the southern West Bank for several months before being uncovered on 4 October 1985.  On 19 November 1985, the security forces had sealed three houses in the village of Si’ir, several hours after the demolition of the house in Jaba.  The reason given for the sealing of the houses was that their occupants had fired at civilian and military vehicles.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 18 November 1985; Jerusalem Post, 19 November 1985)

234. On 23 November 1985, security forces conducted house-to-house searches in Balata refugee camp near Nablus and came up with an IDF gun and a number of hand grenades.  During the operation the camp was placed under a total curfew and telephone links were cut off.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 24 November 1985)

235. On 26 November 1985, security forces sealed two homes and parts of two other houses in the Askar refugee camp outside Nablus.  The houses belonged to local residents accused of firebombing a police station.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 28 November 1985)

236. On 20 December 1985, the occupation authorities reportedly sealed off two rooms in the houses of two youths in Jenin.  The youths were allegedly involved in throwing an incendiary bottle at the military command headquarters in the town few months earlier. (Al Tali’ah, 27 December 1985)

237. On 27 December 1985, at dawn, security forces sealed six houses in the Bethlehem area belonging to members of a local cell believed to be responsible for the murder of two local residents suspected of collaboration with the Israeli authorities.  In a related development, it was reported that East Jerusalem circles were complaining of the “iron fist” policy allegedly adopted by the authorities since the Defense Minister Mr. Yitzhak Rabin took office.  According to these circles, in addition to the sealing of six houses, the security authorities carried out over the past week a thorough search at Azhar University in Gaza where inciting material was allegedly found, but no weapons or sabotage materials.  It was also reported that a former chairman of the Bir Zeit University student council, Naif a-Sweitat from Jenin, was detained under an administrative order.  According to the same sources 15 inhabitants of the territories were detained in recent weeks under an administrative order.  They included Dr. Munzer a-Sharif, a Ramallah physician considered as one of the Fatah central figures in the region, and Adnan Mansur, who was released from jail in the prisoners exchange with Ahmad Jibril’s organization.  Another security prisoner, Khaled Tantash, who was released in the same exchange, was allegedly expelled to Jordan.  Over 90 suspects were reportedly held at present in administrative detention, the highest figure in over 10 years.  (Ha’aretz, Ma’ariv, 29 December 1985)

238. The Israeli military authorities reportedly ordered shut for two months the al-Birah youth institutions a local youth club.  The order, which was signed by the Israeli army commander of the central region, was justified by “security reasons”. (Al-Fajr, 31 January 1986)

239. On 18 February 1986, it was reported that the Police Minister, Mr. Haim Bar-Lev, had asked the Attorney-General, Mr. Yitzhak Zamir, to seek legal means to demolish the homes of suspects being held for the murder of Avraham Bayazi, the chief intelligence officer in the police station of Jerusalem’s old city.  (Jerusalem Post, 18 February 1986)

240. On 6 March 1986, the security authorities sealed a house and three rooms belonging to four residents in the Tulkarem area who had allegedly thrown petrol bombs at Israeli vehicles, in November 1984, (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 7 March 1986)

241. On 16 March 1986, the security forces demolished the apartment of Abbas Ahmed Suleiman, aged 29, from the village of Beit Ur A-Tahta, suspected of stabbing the Israeli cab driver Avraham Levi.  (Ha’aretz, 17 March 1986)

242. On 15 April 1986, the security forces demolished the homes of three residents of Burka, near Nablus, who had confessed to the killing of a tourist guide near Sebastia in October 1985.  The High Court of Justice had earlier rejected a petition filed by Advocate Felicia Langer, arguing that the demolition order was contrary to the international law and constituted collective punishment.  (Ha’aretz, 16 April 1986)

243. On 7 May 1986, the High Court of Justice issued an interim injunction forbidding the security authorities from demolishing the home of a detainee.  The injunction was issued at the request of a detainee’s father, Salem Abdallah Arabni, a worker from Beit-Hanina, Jerusalem.  In his application Arabni claimed that 15 persons were living in his house and that the demolition of the house or its sealing or confiscation would cause an irreparable damage and would seriously prejudice the 15 persons living in the house.  He said his son was innocent as long as he was not convicted and that the family members were innocent and should not be subjected to a collective punishment.  In another development, it was reported on 8 May 1986 that the Central Region Commander, Major General Ehud Barak, said in an affidavit to the High Court of Justice that the army intended to demolish two houses where the families of the suspected murderers of the soldier David Manes lived unless the High Court opposed that measure.  Major General Barak was replying to an application filed by the suspects’ relatives.  On 29 May 1986, the security forces reportedly dynamited the two houses following the rejection of the application by the High Court of Justice.  On 2 June 1986, the High Court of Justice issued an interim injunction prohibiting the Defense Minister from ordering the demolition of three houses in the Ram suburb of Jerusalem.  The houses belonged to three families whose sons had been accused of placing a road-side bomb near a military camp north of Jerusalem.  The device went off 15 meters in front of a car driven by two officers.  The three families had applied to the High Court requesting that the security authorities be prevented from destroying or sealing their houses.  According to the petitioners the security authorities had recently embarked on a policy of demolishing suspects’ houses even in cases where no damage was caused by their alleged offences.  (Ha’aretz, 8, 30 May 1986; Jerusalem Post, 8 May 1986; Ma’ariv, 30 May 1986; Ha’aretz, 3 June 1986)

244. On 17 June 1986, two houses were demolished in Gaza on the pretext they were located too close to a military camp.  (Al-Fajr, 20 June 1986)

245. On 9 July 1986, the families of the two hijackers killed in April 1984 after being overpowered and detained by security personnel (in the No. 300 bus hijack affair) appealed to the governor of Gaza to be authorized to rebuild their houses, which were demolished immediately after the hijacking.  The families’ lawyer, Advocate Felicia Langer, said in the appeal that after it was ascertained that the two hijackers were murdered after being detained, their families considered the demolition of their houses as a continuation of their harassment, for no guilt. The families later reportedly registered a complaint with the police and asked for an investigation into the role of the political echelon in the killing of their sons.  (Ha’aretz, 10 July 1986; Jerusalem Post, 13 July 1986)

246. On 14 and 15 July 1986, the military government in Hebron placed iron gates at the entrances to the town’s Casbah area.  Iron gates were also placed at a site in the Casbah near which two reserve soldiers had been stabbed one year earlier.  At the time an entrance was sealed off with a wall; the iron gates have now replaced that wall.  (Ha’aretz, 15 and 16 July 1986)

247. On 8 August 1986, Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Bach issued an interim injunction prohibiting the demolition or sealing of houses belonging to five residents of the Kalandiya refugee camp who had been arrested on suspicion of throwing hand grenades on a bus and other offences, including membership in Fatah. Three families from Jericho also obtained an interim injunction against the demolition or sealing of their houses.  Their sons were arrested at the beginning of August 1986 on suspicion of membership in Fatah, throwing hand grenades and possession of arms.  (Ha’aretz, 10 August 1986; Al-Fajr, 14 August 1986)

248. On 13 August 1986, the IDF took down the last of three barriers it had erected years earlier to seal off main roads into the Dheisheh refugee camp following attacks on vehicles on the adjacent Jerusalem-Bethlehem road.  The measure was taken following the recent period of calm at the camp.  A military source noted that several infrastructure improvements had been made at the camp recently and that the number of family-reunion permits involving local residents had increased. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 14 August 1986)

249. During the last week of August 1986, there were almost daily reports of sealing of rooms belonging to persons arrested on suspicion of involvement in terrorist acts.  The following cases were reported:

(a)On 21 August, security forces sealed rooms in houses in Hussan, near Bethlehem, belonging to Redwan and Yasser Hamamreh and  Ednan Shawsheh (Ha’aretz, 22 August 1986);

(b)On 23 August, security forces demolished the house of a member of a suspected terrorist group in the village of Deir Abu-Mash’al in southwestern Samaria (Ha’aretz, 24 August 1986);

(c)On 24 August, security forces sealed two rooms in the Hebron area that belonged to Abd el-Any Sultan and to Wahil Mussa Sa’adeh (Ha’aretz, 25 August 1986);

(d)On 25 August, security forces sealed three rooms in the territories, including one belonging to Fawaz Bahtan, from the village of A-Ram, on the Jerusalem-Ramallah road (Ha’aretz, 26 August 1986);

(e)On 26 August, security forces sealed two rooms in Hizma, near Anatot. They belonged to Suleiman Said Iyad al-Khatib and to Ahmad Salem Suleiman al-Khatib.  The two suspects were aged, respectively, 14 and 16.  Also on 26 August 1986, the High Court of Justice issued an interim injunction against the demolition of the home of Muhammad Abu-Harizat, from Deir Abu-Mash’al (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 27 August 1986);

(f)On 27 August, security forces sealed a room in East Jerusalem belonging to Ala a-Din Bazayan, the blind ringleader of a group charged with the murders in April 1986 of a British tourist and an Israeli businesswoman (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 28 August 1986);

(g)On 28 August, security forces sealed two rooms in Shu’fat, in northern Jerusalem, in the house of Nabil Awad Dib’i, aged 16 (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 29 August 1986);

(iii)Expulsion and deportation

250.  On 6 August 1985, it was reported that nine Palestinians, released in the prisoner exchange and who remained in the West Bank, would be expelled from the area later in the month.  The nine belonged to a group of 31 released prisoners who had no ID cards of the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.  On 9 August, it was reported that 22 released prisoners were found to be non-residents and were thus being forced to leave.  (Ha’aretz, 6 August 1985; Jerusalem Post, 11 August 1985)

251. On 9 August 1985, it was reported that Khalil Abu Zayad, who was detained the previous day on the basis of an expulsion order against him issued by the Central Region Commander, would appeal the order before a military review board.  The decision to revive expulsion of residents of the territories, which had been abandoned five years earlier, was reportedly taken at the highest levels in the Government and the defense establishment.  Abu Zayad was placed under a six-month town-arrest order and, as a result, “the security forces have decided that the measures taken against him to date do not prevent his activities and he should be deported”.  On 12 August, it was reported that the military review board, which considered Khalil Abu Zayad’s appeal against his expulsion on 11 August 1985, recommended that the Central Region Commander reconsider his decision to order his expulsion.  After a day of hearings in the Ramallah military court, the tribunal found that “in spite of the legal and justified reason for issuing the expulsion order, and although the evidence we have heard links the petitioner to the Fatah organization, there is nothing to link him directly with terrorist attacks”.  On 15 August, it was reported that the Central Region Commander and the IDF Commander in the West Bank had reached the conclusion that they could not reconsider their decision to deport Abu Zayad, despite the recommendation by the military review board.  On 27 August, it was reported that an agreement had been reached between Abu Zayad and the military authorities.  Under the agreement the expulsion order against him would be cancelled, and he would leave the country voluntarily for a period of three years, during which he undertook not to take part in any activity against the security of the State.  After three years he would submit a request to return; the military authorities would consider the request and would try to respond favorably if Abu Zayad had met the terms of the agreement.  With the cancellation of the expulsion order, Abu Zayad’s appeal to the High Court of Justice has also been withdrawn. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 9 August 1985; Jerusalem Post, 12 August 1985; Ha’aretz, 14 August 1985; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot; 27 August 1985)

252. On 10 September 1985, Central Region Commander, Aluf (Brigadier) Amnon Shahak, appeared before the High Court of Justice to reply to petitions submitted by three West Bank residents against their expulsion orders, issued three weeks earlier.  On 2 October, the three West Bank residents were deported to Jordan after the High Court of Justice had upheld the expulsion orders.  It was revealed that they were Amin Ramazi Dawish-Makboul of Nablus, Walid Ahmad Mahmoud Nazal, of the Jenin area, and Bahajat Mustafa Hassan al-Biyada Jayousi from the Tulkarem district. (Jerusalem Post, 11 September, 3 October 1985)

253. On 12 September 1985, the High Court of Justice upheld military deportation orders against 11 of the 1,150 detainees released in May in exchange for three Israeli soldiers held by Ahmad Jibril’s group.  The court ruled that the 11 men had infiltrated into the area following the June 1967 war.  On 15 September, in the early morning hours, the 11 men together with seven other released prisoners were deported to Jordan at a remote border crossing.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 13 September, 18 September 1985)

254. On 2 October 1985, it was reported that the High Court of Justice had rejected the petition of three West Bank residents against whom an expulsion order was issued to transfer their petition against the expulsion order to a five-justice panel. The three were identified as Walid Nazal from Kabatiya (Jenin area), Amin Makbul from Nablus and Bahjat Jayussi from the village of Jayus in Tulkarem area.  (Ha’aretz, Ma’ariv, 2 October 1985)

255. On 3 November 1985, the High Court of Justice ordered the military advisory board in the West Bank to stay its discussion of an appeal by three West Bank residents against expulsion orders.  The three were Ali Mahmoud Hilal from Abu Dis, Dr. Azmi As Shweibi from El Bireh and Hassan Mahmoud Fararjeh from Dheisheh, against whom deportation orders were issued for alleged engagement in hostile activity.  The court ordered the stay pending its decision on a petition by the three men against the working of the advisory board.  The court ordered the security authorities not to expel the three until the case had been decided, and also to stay the expulsion of a fourth man, Zaki Mahmoud Abu Steita from Jabaliya in the Gaza Strip, against whom a deportation order had also been issued.  In their petition to the High Court, the West Bank men complained that the advisory board refused to let their lawyer see the classified evidence of their alleged hostile activities,  The fourth applicant, of the Gaza Strip, claimed in his petition that the information on the basis of which the expulsion order against him was issued was incorrect and did not justify his expulsion. On 13 November, the High Court of Justice stayed the expulsion of the three men pending the results of their application to the court.  In his petition Hilal claimed that he was being expelled for his activities in a West Bank labor union.  He denied that he did anything illegal.  Fararjeh argued he was a journalist and that the activities for which he was being expelled were carried out within the framework of his job.  Dr. Shweibi said he was suffering from a rare lung disease and asked that the expulsion order against him be cancelled on humanitarian grounds.  On 27 November, Aluf (Major-General) Amnon Shahak told the High Court of Justice in his response to the petition by Hilal and Fararjeh against their expulsion that the two were senior members of terror organizations and their expulsion was necessary to eradicate terrorism in the territories.  On 30 January 1986, the three West Bank residents against whom expulsion orders had been issued annulled their application to the High Court of Justice against the expulsion and were reportedly about to be expelled shortly.  The three applicants, who could make a statement, argued that their expulsion was politically motivated and said that the court could not reach a just decision as long as they were denied access to the confidential material on the basis of which it was decided to expel them and make their comments on that material.  The judges decided to cancel the application and cancelled the interim injunction suspending the expulsion of the three applicants until the end of the legal proceedings.  On 2 February, it was reported that the security authorities had, on 31 January, expelled Dr. Shweibi, Hilal and Fararjeh.  Their attorney, Felicia Langer, complained that the prison authorities’ promise to let them see their families before the deportation had not been honored.  The three were taken from the central prison at Juneid to a point in southern Israel and were ordered to cross the border to Jordan.  (Ha’aretz, 4 and 14 November 1985; Jerusalem Post, 4, 8, 12, 14 and 28 November 1985 and 2 February 1986; Ha’aretz, Yediot Aharonot, 31 January 1986)

256. Four visiting lawyers from Greece, Spain, the Federal Republic of Germany and France reportedly condemned the Israeli use of the British Emergency Regulations of 1945 to suppress Palestinians in the occupied territories.  The four arrived in Jerusalem to investigate and report on Israeli plans to deport four Palestinians for their political activities.  In a press conference held at the Israeli Government Press Office in West Jerusalem on 14 November 1985, the lawyers said that they tried to meet with Israeli Defense Minister Mr. Yitzhak Rabin to urge him to stop the deportations, but were not successful.  They also learned that the Israelis based their allegations on “secret evidence”.  (Al-Fajr, 15 November 1985)

257. On 29 November 1985, Hamis Hussein Hassan Nasrallah, who was released in the prisoner exchange with Ahmad Jibril’s organization, was expelled to Jordan.  He was one of the group of 18 whom the Israeli authorities said were not residents of the territories.  He had petitioned to the High Court of Justice against his expulsion but his petition was rejected.  (Ha’aretz, 1 December 1985)

258. On 9 December 1985, it was reported that the two West Bank residents jailed the previous week pending their expulsion, Yunes Rajub and Mahmud Dis, had announced that they would not appeal the deportation so as not to take part in a “show” staged to give the expulsions “a semblance of legality”.  The two were due to be expelled to Jordan on 9 December.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 9 December 1985)

259. On 26 January 1986, it was reported that the military government had served expulsion orders on four Arabs who were reportedly suspected of hostile activity on behalf of the PFLP.  The four were named as Mahmoud Fa’anoun, aged 38, of Nahalin, near Bethlehem; Adnan Anem, aged 42, who lived in Jordan before infiltrating to Israeli and Hafez Hashem Aziza and Hassan Mohammed el-Amudi, both from Gaza.  The lawyer for the four men, Ms. Lea Tsemel, said she would appeal the orders.  On 29 January 1986, Aziza and el-Amudi appeared before a military appeal committee composed of senior officers and announced they had no faith in the committee and would not appeal the expulsion, It was announced that their expulsion to Jordan was imminent.  The two West Bank residents have not yet appeared before the appeal committee.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 26 January 1986; Ha’aretz, 30 January 1986; Ma’ariv, 31 January 1986)

260. On 5 February 1986, three West Bank residents, allegedly affiliated with George Habash’s PFLP, were expelled to Jordan.  They were identified as Mahmoud Fa’anoun, Hassan Mohammed Ahmad el-Amudi and Jalal Hafez Hashem Aziza.  The three had in the past served prison sentences for security offences.  Military sources pointed out that since August 1985, 12 convicted terrorists had been expelled from Israel to Jordan.  Most of them were West Bank residents and the rest were from the Gaza Strip.  A senior member of the International Red Cross delegation in Israel, Jean Jacques Fresard, reportedly sharply criticized the government for the deportation of the three, which he described as “completely illegal”, since it violated article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  A military government spokesperson said that the deportations were based on the Emergency Regulations of 1945, which permitted the deportation of people believed to have endangered security.  She pointed out that the High Court of Justice had approved the validity of the regulations in such cases.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 6 February 1986)

261. On February 1986, Israeli authorities deported Mr. Ahmed Billo, aged 69, from Beit Fajjar village near Bethlehem, after he completed his 16-year prison sentence on political charges,  Billo, who has a family of 11, was reportedly given the option to be deported in 1976 in exchange of forfeiting his residency, but he refused, insisting on completing his prison sentence in the hope of staying with his family.  He completed his prison term in January 1986, but instead of releasing him the Israel authorities reportedly decided to deport him.  (Al-Fajr, 14 February 1986)

262. On 10 February 1986, the High Court of Justice authorized the security authorities to expel from Israel Ahad Mahmud Radad, who was released in the prisoner exchange with Ahmad Jibril’s organization.  (Ha’aretz, 11 February 1986)

263. On 22 June 1986, the High Court of Justice determined that Zaki Abu-Steita, who was released from jail in the framework of the prisoner exchange agreement with Ahmad Jibril’s organization, could be expelled from the country,  Abu-Steita applied to the High Court several months earlier after the military authorities decided to expel him for alleged hostile activity.  He argued in his application that the authorities had no right to expel him since such a move contradicted the terms of the prisoner exchange agreement.  On 22 June, Abu-Steita announced that he was withdrawing his application for “personal motives”, and he was immediately declared as liable for expulsion.  In a related development, it was reported on 26 June that the security authorities had notified the Red Cross representatives in Israel of their intention to deport shortly three more released prisoners of the exchange agreement:  Muhammad Hussein Abu-Saadi from Khan Yunis, Ahmed Hassan Mahana from the village of Krara, near Khan Yunis, and Yussef Abd el-Hamid from Kalandiya refugee camp.  Since the prisoner exchange agreement was reached, 26 released prisoners were deported and 21 were re-arrested. (Ha’aretz, 26 June 1986; Yediot Aharonot, 23 June 1986)

(iv)Economic aspects

264. It was reported that in early July 1985 the municipality of Jerusalem had cut off the water supply from a number of houses in Isawiyya village east of the city on the grounds that residents bad not paid their municipality tax,  (Al-Fajr, 2 August 1985)

265. Customs officers reportedly raided the shoe shop of Mr. Sa’di Nayef al-Sa’di in Gaza and requested him to pay IS 8 million as income tax.  The shop was closed when the owner declared he could not afford to pay such a heavy tax.  (Al-Fajr, 30 August 1985)

266. It was reported that the Bank of Palestine planned to file suit in the Israeli High Court against Israeli Gaza military authorities.  The suit was in protest of a recent 50 per cent increase in income tax levied on Gaza’s “troubled business community”.  (Al-Fajr, 29 November 1985)

267. Shop-owners and craftsmen reportedly staged a one-day sit-in at the offices of the Chamber of Commerce in Jerusalem to protest against raids carried out by Israeli tax and customs officials.  They asked the Chamber to intervene in order to put an end to the practices.  According to the shop-owners, Israeli tax authorities imposed exorbitant taxes on them, exceeding in some cases IS 20 million (approximately $13,000).  In a related development it was reported that customs officials launched a new tax campaign on Nablus quarry owners who were asked for the first time to pay 300 dinars for each load.  It was also reported that: the tax department has levied a 600 dinar income tax on quarry owners and intended to deduct it from their salaries.  (Al-Tali’ah, 12 December 1985)

268. Income tax officials reportedly closed down five shops in the Bethlehem area on the grounds that owners had not settled the interest on income tax.  In a related development, it was reported that income tax officials launched a campaign against Arab traders in the city of Qalqilya.   According to the shop-owners such a sum represented the whole of their capital which made it impossible for them to pay.  It was also reported that income tax officials ordered the confiscation for 20 days of a car owned by a villager of Hebron district. The car contained second-hand clothes worth less than IS 100,000 (approximately $65). (Al-Tali’ah, 6 February 1986)

269. On 19 March 1986, the co-ordinator of activities in the territories, Shmuel Goren, told Israeli correspondents in Washington that the civil administration in the territories would allow investments “worth $1 billion and more” in Public and private enterprises in the territories. The civil administration allowed residents to bring in unlimited sums of money and its origin “was not being examined with a microscope”. Unlike the situation one year earlier, when the amount of money allowed into the territories was restricted and its origin scrupulously examined. Mr. Goren said Israel would approve any enterprise providing it did not harm Israel’s economic interests, but he did not elaborate on the nature of such interests. Mr. Goren met with United States businessmen to whom he presented a long list of projects in the territories. He invited them to take part in financing those projects. Mr. Goren added that United Nations bodies had been invited to set up offices in the West Bank and that the United Nations Development Fund had for the first time opened such a representation. He said United Nations agencies were sending $50 to $70 million to the territories. (Ma’ariv, 20 March 1986)

270. On 17 April 1986, the Jerusalem Post reported the publication of a report on economic developments in the territories from 1983 to mid-1985 by Dan Zakai of the Bank of Israel. According to the report the territories were at Present entering a period of relative recession and increased unemployment, due to the drop in oil, prices, leading to a reduction in foreign Arab demand for Products from the territories.  Exports from the territories reportedly dropped by 5 per cent during the years covered by the report after having risen by a similar percentage in the previous two years. The economic slow-down was aggravated by accelerated population growth. The population of the territories, which grew by 2.9 per cent per year during the period studied, at present stood at about 1.3 million. At the same time, falling demand for workers in Jordan and the oil States resulted in a drop in emigration from the region. (Jerusalem Post, 17 April 1986)

271. On 22 April 1986, a survey was published by the civil administration in the West Bank on living standards in the region. The survey found that living standards had risen significantly in the region: 22 per cent of the city dwellers in the West Bank owned private cars, compared to only 6 per cent 10 years earlier. The comparable figures for villagers were 2 per cent at present and 1 per cent a decade earlier. Thirty-three per cent of the town dwellers owned color television sets, 94 per cent had refrigerators, 75 per cent owned washing machines and 63 per cent of the total population in the West Bank owned solar heaters.  (Jerusalem Post, 22 April 1986)

272. On 16 April 1986, the Labor and Social Affairs Minister, Mr. Moshe Katzav, revealed that some 40,000 West Bankers and 20,000 Gaza Strip residents were employed in Israel illegally, in an unorganized way and without any social benefits. (Ha’aretz, 17 April 1986)

273. On 11 June 1986, the Israeli authorities approved the establishment of a chamber of industry in the West Bank. It would serve as a recognized union of factory owners, allowing them to co-ordinate their activities with the Israeli authorities. (Al-Fajr, 13 June 1986)

274. On 19 August 1986, bailiffs accompanied by dozens of policemen raided the offices of the East Jerusalem Electric Company. The raid was carried out on the last day of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Adha. The raid was reportedly carried out by a court order after the Jerusalem District court had issued on 31 July 1986 an attachment order for the funds of the company, which owed NIS 20 million (approximately $13 million) to the Israel Electric Corporation. Company safes were reportedly forced open during the raid but no money was found therein. Documents and checks were found and taken away. On 20 August, the company workers held a strike and several East Jerusalem businesses closed down in protest over the raid. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 20, 21 and 22 August 1986)

(b) Information on measures affecting certain fundamental freedoms

(i)Freedom of movement

275. The following table shows a sample of reports containing information on measures affecting the freedom of movement of civilians in the occupied territories. The following abbreviations of the names of newspapers are used in the table:

AFAl-Fajr

ATAl-Tali’ah

HHa’aretz

JPJerusalem Post

MMa’ariv

YAYediot Aharonot

(ii)Freedom of worship

276. On 4 December 1985, the Israeli military court in Gaza reportedly sentenced the Imam of Al Katjba mosque to one-and-a-half years in prison and two-and-a-half years suspended term on charges of incitement during a religious speech made for the celebration of 27 Ramadan in April 1985. (Al-Tali’ah, 5 December 1985)

277. It was reported that the Israeli military court in Gaza had sentenced Sheikh Muhammad Abu Jamé, from Khan Yunis, to six months imprisonment and two-and-a-half years suspended sentence. He was reportedly charged and convicted of “incitement”. The charge sheet said that the Sheikh had used his job as a mosque preacher to incite against the Israelis.  (Al-Fajr, 17 January 1986)

278. On 3 February 1986, it was reported that East Jerusalem was shut down in another day of. protest against Israel’s attempt to turn Al-Aqsa mosque into a synagogue. The strike reportedly coincided with a call by the Morocco-based Jerusalem Committee for a. 30-minute work stoppage in all Muslim nations in protest against Israeli measures against Muslim holy sites in the occupied territories. The general strike in East Jerusalem was the third of its kind since mid-January when Israel’s Knesset members and other hardline Israelis attempted to hold “defiant” Prayers on the mosque compound. The first two strikes were accompanied by demonstrations. The first strike occurred when the Israelis for the first time attempted to pray on the premises. The second occurred a week later when the Israeli parliamentarians returned for another “defiant” visit to the mosque area. (Al-Fajr,

7 February 1986)

279. The Israeli weekly Koteret Rashit reported in one of its February issues that Jewish settlers of Kiryat Arba and Hebron were still trying to take over Al-Ibrahim mosque in Hebron. (Al-Fajr, 14 February 1986)

280. It was reported that residents of Abu Ghosh village in Jerusalem Israeli authorities reportedly claimed that the prayer calls caused disturbance to-the Jewish residents at settlements. (Al-Fajr, 21 February 1986)

(iii)Freedom of expression

281. On 2 August 1985, it was reported that the printing plant of the East Jerusalem newspaper Asha’b had been ordered closed for three days by the military censor. The newspaper had published, in defiance of a military censor’s order, two articles on the death of two Nablus residents whose bodies were found in a car near Nablus after they had disappeared the previous week.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 2 August 1985)

282. On 13 September 1985, it was reported that the Al-Manar press agency in East Jerusalem was ordered closed for six months by the Central Region Commander. The agency was allegedly linked with the “Democratic Front”. (Ha’aretz, 13 September 1985)

283. On 15 September 1985 it was reported that the Interior Ministry intended to close the East Jerusalem newspaper a-Darb, for its alleged support of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. On 29 September, it was reported that a closure order had been handed down by Rafi Levy on 27 September. No reason was cited in the closure order. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel reportedly condemned the closure, calling it a “blow against the freedom of expression”. On 15 October, the Supreme Court ordered the state attorney to explain within 10 days why a-Darb should be closed. (Jerusalem Post, 15, 29 September 1985, 2, 11 and 16 October 1985) Yediot Aharonot, 15 September 1985; Ma’ariv, 29 September 1985)

284. The New York-based committee to protect journalists expressed to Mr. Peres its concern over recent measures against members of the Palestinian press in the occupied territories. In the letter, the Committee said “we have the impression that (these measures) are condoned by the highest level of the Israeli Government.” The measures included vandalism at Al-Fajr Arabic daily on 8 July 1985, requiring Palestinian newspapers to publish military advertisements, the three-day closure of Al Sha’ab Arabic daily on 1 August 1985 and the restrictions on Palestinian journalists. The letter also listed six journalists as being under town restrictions or having their movements restricted in one way or another. (Al-Fair, 6 September 1985)

285. On 17 October 1985, the security authorities closed for 14 days the West Bank weekly magazine Al-Biadar As-Siasi, for alleged censorship violations. (Ha’aretz, Ma’ariv, 18 October 1985)

286. On 29 November 1985, it was reported that, the IDF had, the previous day, prevented East Jerusalem newspapers from reaching the West Bank. The newspapers affected by that measure were Al-Fajr, Al Quds, A’shab and Al-Mithag (Jerusalem Post, 29 November 1985)

287. On 7 March 1986, it was reported that a new weekly newspaper, a-Nahar, was being published in East Jerusalem as from that day. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 7 March 1986)

288. On 30 March 1986, it was reported that the civil administration in the West Bank had convened the newspaper distributors in the West Bank towns and ordered them not to distribute newspapers on Land Day, due on 30 March 1986, unless they were given a special authorization by the civil administration. (Ha’aretz, 30 March 1986)

289. On 19 June 1986, the civil administration banned distribution of the East Jerusalem newspaper Al-Fajr in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for the following three days. The order cited “recurrent violations of censorship and endangering public safety” as reasons for the measure. Several days earlier the newspaper published an article quoted from the Hebrew daily Hadashot without submitting it to the censor. The article carried a report by Agence France Presse that the “Force 17” terror organization was claiming responsibility for an army bus accident in the Jordan Valley.  (Ha’aretz, 22 June 1986; Jerusalem Post, 20 June 1986)

290. On 3 July 1986, the civil administration banned the distribution of two East Jerusalem newspapers, Al-Fajr and Al-Mithaq, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The distribution of two others, Al-Quds and A’shab, was delayed by several hours. Sources in the civil, administration said the reason for the banning and delay of distribution was the newspapers’ failure to submit material to the censor. (Ha’aretz, 4 July 1986)

291. On 7 July 1986, it was reported that an Interior Ministry official, Raphael Levy, had notified the East Jerusalem newspaper Al-Mithaq and the magazine Al-Ahd, that he was considering their closure because they were “directed and operated” by the PFLP of George Habash. Representatives of the publications were ordered to appear the following week at Levy’s office to answer the charges. On 10 July, it was reported that the editor of Al-Mithaq, Mahmoud al-Khatib, had met with the heads of the journalists’ association in Jerusalem and explained that his newspaper did not call for the destruction of Israel and that it had no contacts or links with any hostile organization. On 13 July, the Association of Israel Journalists in Jerusalem urged the Interior Ministry not to close down Al-Mithaq and Al-Ahd.  On 15 July, Israeli and Palestinian journalists made separate appeals to the Interior Ministry against the closure of the two newspapers. At a press conference held in Jerusalem the editor of Al-Mithaq and the head of the Arab Journalists’ Association, Radwan Abu-Ayash, accused Israel of trying to undermine the Palestinian press for political reasons. Al-Mithaq lawyer, Elias Khoury, challenged the Government to produce evidence back up its charges. The interior Ministry deputy director-general and spokesman, Yitzhak Agassi, said the ministry’s position remained unchanged; “The ministry would not have taken this step if it were not convinced that the paper was funded and directed by George Habash’s organization”, he said. On 12 August, the Interior Ministry official in charge of the Jerusalem district, Rafael Levy, closed Al-Mithaq and Al-Ahd.  The closure order was based on the 1945 Emergency Regulations. On 13 August, the two publications applied to the High Court of Justice against the closure order. On 14 August, the High Court of Justice issued an order nisi asking the Interior Ministry officials to show cause within five days why they should not refrain from closing the two publications. At the High Court, Interior Ministry official Rafael Levy agreed to postpone the closure order for the following 10 days in exchange for the petitioner’s promise not to insist on an interim order Supreme Court Deputy President Miriam Ben Porat criticized at the hearing the “hasty, ill-conceived” manner in which the two publications were closed. On 20 August, the High Court of Justice examined a file prepared by the General Security Service, designed to prove that the two publications were financed by the PFLP. A request by Advocate Elias Khoury, counsel for the publications, to be allowed to examine the file, was rejected by the three judges. On 24 August, it was reported that the High Court of Justice had determined that Al-Mithaq and Al-Ahd should be closed, after it was proved that the PFLP was financing and controlling both publications. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 7, 10, 13, 14 and 16 July 1986; Ha’aretz, 13, 14, 15, 21 and 24 August 1986; Jerusalem Post, 13 and 15 August 1986; Yediot Aharonot, 15 August 1986)

292. On 10 July 1986, the civil administration in the West Bank, for the third time in two weeks, delayed the distribution of four East Jerusalem newspapers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for alleged failure to submit material to the censorship. East Jerusalem journalists on 10 July protested what they described as the “new Israeli policy of oppression against the Palestinians’ freedom of expression”. On 14 July, it was reported that East Jerusalem Journalists had been complaining about an alleged “heavy-handed attitude” by the censorship. (Ha’aretz, 11 and 14 July 1986)

293. On 17 July 1986, it was reported that all the journalists who had taken part in a meeting with notables from the territories, following the meeting on 26 May 1986 in East Jerusalem between the notables and the British Prime Minister Mrs. Thatcher, were summoned to the police for questioning. This followed reports that following the meeting with Mrs. Thatcher the notables, including Hana Seniora, Faiz Abu-Rahma, Rashad A-Shawa, Mustafa Natshe and Zair ar-Rais, had made declarations to the journalists that were clearly identical with the PLO and its objectives. (Yediot Aharonot, 17 July 1986)

294. On 9 August 1986, Central Region Commander Aluf (Major General) Ehud Barak issued a 24-hour closure order for the East Jerusalem theatre Al-Hakawati. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 10 August 1986)

295. On 11 August 1986, the spokesman of Al-Najah University, Saeb Erakat, and political science lecturer Abdel Sattar Kassem were called into the Nablus police headquarters and charged with incitement on the basis of materials seized during an IDF search at the University on 3 June 1986. Brakat said that the material included university public relations bulletins, student council publications and articles on the university lecturer Kassem had been charged in connection with his book The Prison Experience about the life in prison of Palestinians.  Both men were released on bail of NIS 1,000 (approximately $660) each.  (Jerusalem Post, 12 August 1986)

296. On 21 August 1986, the East Jerusalem Al Mawqef press and the Arab Council for Public Affairs were closed for three months by order of Central Region Commander Aluf Barak, following the seizure at the press of leaflets signed by Fatah. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 22 August 1986)

(iv)Freedom of education

Al-Najah University

297. On 2 August 1985, the civil administration ordered the closure for two months of Al-Najah University in Nablus. The closure reportedly followed the murder the previous week of an Israeli civilian in the town and the discovery on campus of material the military authorities termed as “likely to incite”. It was reported that 32 students at Al-Najah University in Nablus had been affected by harsh Israeli measures, including imprisonment, possible deportation and town restriction orders. On 3 October 1985, Al-Najah University was re-opened. (Ha’aretz, 3 August 1985; Jerusalem Post, 4 August 1985; Al-Fajr, 4 and 11 October 1985)

298. On 17 December 1985, the security authorities closed Al-Najah University for one day. (Ha’aretz, 18 and 19 December 1985)

299. On 1 January 1986, the administration of the Al-Najah University reportedly decided to close the University until the end of the week for fear of disturbances linked with “Fatah day”, which occurred that day. On 8 January, the University was again closed for one day by order of the security authorities in order to prevent Fatah supporters from holding a rally. (Ha’aretz, 2 and 9 January 1986)

300. On 7 May 1986, it was reported that security forces had placed roadblocks on access roads to the University over the previous couple of days, thus preventing classes from being held. The purpose of the roadblocks was to bar entry to people who did not hold student cards.  (Ha’aretz, 7 May 1986)

301. On 4 June 1986, during the night, security forces raided the University and confiscated a large quantity of material described as propaganda material of nationalist character, including flags and pamphlets calling for an armed struggle against the occupation. Over 20 students were arrested on suspicion of preparation and distribution of inciting material. On the morning following the operation the army set up roadblocks at the entrances to the campus and allowed access only to holders of student’s cards and faculty members. A University spokesman, Dr. Said Erakat, said the soldiers behaved brutally in the campus, broke furniture and beat two students. He also said that many students were prevented from entering the campus although they were holders of student’s cards.

(Ha’aretz, 5 June 1986)

302. On 28 July 1986, the IDF set up roadblocks at the access roads to the University and only holders of student cards were allowed to enter. On 30 July, roadblocks were again placed near the University banning entry to all students and faculty members. Military sources said the move was taken to prevent efforts to enlist students in hostile organizations during registration for the coming academic year. (Ha’aretz, 29 July 1986; Jerusalem Post, 31 July 1986)

Islamic University of Gaza

303. It was reported that 34 faculty and administration members at the Islamic University of Gaza, including its president, Mr. Mohammed Saker, were forced to leave the country a week earlier after the Israeli military authorities made renewal of their work and stay permits conditional on University acceptance of military interference in the university affairs. The permits in question were not renewed as the University refused to accept the conditions stipulated by the authorities. Israeli authorities reportedly agreed in September to allow 16 out of 34 teachers at the University who were deported in July 1985 to return to the Gaza Strip. (Al-Fajr, 9 August and 6 September 1985)

304. On 27 December 1985, it was reported that occupation soldiers and border guards had cordoned off and raided the University. (Al-Tali’ah, 3 January 1986)

Hebron University

305. Seven lecturers at Hebron University were reportedly notified that their contract would not be renewed for the next academic year. No reasons were given for the decision. Two of these lecturers were allegedly removed from their posts six months earlier after they had attempted to organize a union. They were later reinstated under the pressure of national institutions in the occupied territories. (Al-Tali’ah, 15 August 1985)

306. It was reported that students had stepped up actions of protest during the week of 19 to 26 September 1985 following the dismissal of seven teachers by the Hebron University Board. Three teachers went on an unlimited hunger strike on 18 September 1985 to protest the measure. They reportedly indicated that their dismissal was due to an attempt in November 1984 to organize a union to defend teachers’ rights. (Al-Tali’ah, 26 September 1985)

307. On 14 July 1986, the head of the students’ council at the University, Mahmud Sakussa, was arrested following an anti-Jordanian demonstration held on 12 July 1986 in the campus. (Ha’aretz, 15 July 1986)

308. On 28 July 1986, the IDF set up roadblocks at the access roads to the University and only holders of student cards were allowed to enter. (Ha’aretz, 29 July 1986)

Bethlehem University

309. Three Bethlehem University students were recently informed by the military authorities that they could not enter the university campus for six months. They were allegedly charged with inciting other students to nationalistic expression. (Al-Tali’ah, 15 August; Al-Fajr, 16 August 1985)

310. On 30 October 1985, it was reported that Israeli occupation forces launched a repression campaign against students of Bethlehem University, using tear-gas to disperse a large number of students who were protesting the deportation orders and other repression measures carried out by the Israeli authorities in the occupied territories. As a result, students were stopped at checkpoints placed by the army at the entrances of Bethlehem University and banned from entering the campus. (Al-Tali’ah, 7 November 1985; Al-Fajr,

8 November 1985)

Bir Zeit University

311. On 30 October 1985, it was reported that Bir Zeit University students held a demonstration during which they set fire to tires and erected stone-barricades on the road to the University and stoned Israeli cars. (Al-Tali’ah, 7 November 1985; Al-Fajr, 8 November 1985)

312. On 2 August 1986, security forces set up roadblocks at the entrance to Bir Zeit University, preventing students from entering the campus. (Al-Fajr, 8 August 1986)

Other educational institutions

313. In the period between August 1985 and April 1986, the following teachers were notified by the Israeli authorities of their decision to dismiss them from their job without being provided any specific reason for such measure: Iman Ihsan al Taher from Ramallah Teachers’ Government College, Antisar al-Sheikh Qassem, Mahmud Odeh from Dheisheh refugee camp, Amira Adawi from Kufur Malek in the Ramallah area and nine teachers from the Bethlehem area.  (Al-Tali’ah, 22 August 1985; Al-Fajr, 16, 23 August, 13 September 1985, 14 February and 25 April 1986)

314. It was reported that Israeli military authorities had distributed a memorandum to the headmasters of West Bank governmental schools. The memorandum ordered them to cancel the registration of new non-resident pupils of the 1985-1986 academic year. The headmasters were also ordered to forbid others to register next year. (Al-Fajr, 11 October 1985)

315. The Israeli authorities had reportedly ordered a blind youth to leave Bethlehem where he attended school and to return to his home town in the Gaza Strip. The blind student had lived eight years in Beit Al-Rajaa Institute for the Blind in Bethlehem. According to the report, that measure would prevent the youth from sitting for his final-year examination.

(Al-Tali’ah, 24 October 1985)

316. On 18 January 1986, the Israeli authorities reportedly prevented all students of the Al-Aqsa Islamic School from entering classrooms on the grounds of avoiding a clash between students and the members of Kakfi movement who were present in the premises of Al-Aqsa that day. (Al-Tali’ah, 23 January 1986)

317. On 17 April 1986, the Central Region Commander, Aluf (Major General) Ehud Barak issued an order closing for 14 days the Hebron Polytechnic school following violent riots there.  (Ha’aretz, 17 April 1986)

318. On 20 April 1986, the Israeli authorities reportedly decided to close down indefinitely two preparatory schools in the Jalazun refugee camp near Ramallah following stone-throwing incidents there.  (Al-Fajr, 25 April 1986)

(c) Information on settlers’ activities affecting the civilian _population

319. On 15 August 1985, four members of Knesset of the right-wing Tehiva party, Geula Cohen, Yuval Neleman, Eliezer Waldman and Gershon Shafat, reportedly entered the flat in the Casbah area of Hebron that had earlier been occupied by nine Kiryat Arba settlers. The members of Knesset were accompanied by a group of settlers. The area was later declared a closed military area and the IDF evicted the settlers, but not the members of Knesset, who reportedly remained in the flat and were allowed to bring in food, chairs and mattresses. On 18 August, the inner cabinet decided not to permit Jews to inhabit the house in the Hebron Casbah where six members of Knesset were in their fourth day of a sit-in.  On 19 August, Rabbi Moshe Levinger, accompanied by eight settlers, blocked the entrance to the Casbah, protesting that closing the area to Jews only “constituted racism”. On 20 August, at dawn, the IDF evicted without incident the Knesset members who were holding a sit-in in a flat in the Casbah area of Hebron. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 16 and 18 August 1985; Jerusalem Post, 19 and 20 August 1985; Yediot Aharonot, 20 August 1985; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 21 August 1985)

320. On 4 September 1985, it was reported that, following the murder of a reservist and the wounding of another in the Hebron market, settlers in the town attempted to expand the Jewish presence in Tel Rumeida. The attempt was foiled by the security forces. The settlers of the Hebron Jewish quarter also cut open a passage from the “Abraham the Patriarch” area near the wholesale vegetable market into the Casbah. After they had cut oven the passage they were evicted from the area, but the passage remained open. In a consultation between the heads of the Jewish councils in the West Bank and Gaza, the heads of Kiryat Arba and the Hebron settlers it was decided to set up the headquarters of the Jewish Councils in the territories in the Jewish quarter of Hebron until the Government took a decision with regard to the deteriorating security in the region. On 5 September, it was reported that the army had sealed the passage. The settlers later complained they were being placed in a ghetto. When the army lifted the curfew in the Casbah to allow residents to buy supplies the settlers intervened in an attempt not to allow a resumption of normal life only 24 hours after the murder of the reservist. Fifteen settlers, including Rabbi Levinger, entered the Casbah and clashes were reported with the security forces. Several settlers attempted to re-occupy the house in the Casbah in front of which the reservist was murdered, but they were forcibly evicted by a border guard. According to one report, Hebron settlers attacked two houses of released Prisoners on the night of 4 September. (Ha’aretz, 4 September 1985; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 5 September 1985)

321. On 6 September 1985, it was reported that armed groups of Gush Emunin settlers had held “presence-demonstrations” in the streets of Ramallah and Nablus the previous day. Settler sources described the armed Patrols as “helping to step up security” in the region and said that the settlers intended to continue holding such patrols in the following days. Military sources said that “patrolling the streets in West Bank towns with legally held weapons is not an offence, and therefore there is no reason to act against the settlers”. On 8 September, the Defence Minister Mr. Yitzhak Rabin said at the weekly cabinet meeting that the Government would not permit armed settlers to patrol through Arab areas in the West Bank, but West Bank and Gaza Strip settlers said that despite the army and border police clampdown on the region, they had continued their armed patrols in major Arab towns. One of the organizers of these patrols in Hebron told the Jerusalem Post that settlers in groups of 6 to 10 men patrolled Tulkarem, Nablus and Jenin and were outside the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem. The settlers were armed with pistols. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot, 6, 8 and 9 September 1985)

322. On 7 September 1985, during the night, unidentified persons believed to be Kiryat-Arba and Hebron settlers tried to set fire to a house in Dura belonging to Mahmud Mohammad Atrash, whom they suspected of being a released prisoner. It later turned out that the man was a released prisoner’s relative and that the released prisoner, Azmi Atrash, did not live in that house.  Material damage was caused. Settlers also smashed windows in a house in the Balata refugee camp near Nablus belonging to a released prisoner. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot, 9 September 1985)

323. On 8 September 1985, after midnight, Hebron settlers led by Rabbi Moshe Levinger occupied a house in the Casbah area bordering on the Jewish quarter. The settlers were forcibly evicted from the house by border guards. Four settlers were detained. (Ha’aretz, 9 September 1985)

324. On 12 September 1985, it was reported that following the suspension of the armed settlers’ patrols in Arab towns, due to widespread criticism, the settlers adopted a different method. On 11 September, a group of settler women with little children or prams walked through Hebron “to demonstrate Jewish presence”. The women were unarmed, but were accompanied by soldiers. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 12 and 13 September 1985)

325. On 27 September 1985, dozens of Kiryat Arba settlers, including “Kach” members, reportedly rioted and caused extensive damage in Halhul following an attack on an Egged bus in the area.  An Israeli television crew that arrived on the scene to film the rioting was attacked by the settlers. in the rioting windows and windshields were smashed, including the windows of the local mosque.  Settlers were also reported to fire shots in the air and to set fire to several shops. (Ha’aretz, 29 September 1985; Jerusalem Post, 4 October 1985)

326. On 2 October 1985, it was reported that settler leaders in the West Bank had been given permission by the Defence Minister Mr. Rabin to hold a religious ceremony near Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, provided that no political speeches were held, that the number of participants be very small and that they should not remain in the site over night. It was also reported that the settlers intended, on the same occasion, to occupy several houses in Nablus that they had purchased from Arabs over the past two years.  (Ha’aretz, 2 October 1985)

327. A number of Arab drivers operating in al-Arqoub village near Bethlehem reported that settlers from Hadar Bitar settlement established on Husan village land had. begun to harass the Arab drivers by crowding them off the road, which was narrow and dangerous. (Al-Fajr, 15 November 1985)

328. On 17 November 1985, it was reported that Knesset member Matti Peled (Progressive List for Peace) had requested that the Knesset hold an emergency session to discuss revelations that West Bank settlers were holding large quantities of weapons over which the IDF and the security bodies had no control. According to the military correspondent of Ha’aretz, Zeev Schief, the Central Region Command had attempted to control the individual weapons held by the settlers, but its efforts were of no avail. Mr. Peled said that “that stupefying revelation should not go unheeded … today (the settlers) disobey the army and tomorrow they will hold arms against the Government”, he said. (Ha’aretz, 17 November 1985)

329. A group of anti-occupation Israelis were allegedly attacked by armed settlers while in Dheisheh refugee camp. (Al-Fajr, 29 November 1985)

330. On 14 December 1985, the eighth day of the Jewish holiday of Hanukka, settlers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip carried out a co-ordinated “candle-lighting operation” at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, the ancient Jewish synagogue in Jericho, the Patriarchs’ Cave in Hebron and the ancient Jewish synagogue in Gaza. Settler spokesmen said the operation was designed to symbolize the link between those parts of the land of Israel and the return to the sources and the roots. The IDF authorities reportedly did not interfere with the candle-lighting. (Ha’aretz, 15 December 1985)

331. On 19 January 1986, Israeli settlers from Nelot Adumim settlement allegedly uprooted 130 olive trees belonging to Hamdan Jaafreh of al-Sawahreh al-Sharqiyeh village. They also reportedly obliged him, under the threat of the gun, to remove the barbed wire surrounding his land. The landowner filed a complaint at the Bethlehem police station against the settlers action. The landowner said that he received clearance to plant his land from the Israeli authorities before he started planting. (Al-Tali’ah, 23 January 1986, Al-Fajr, 31 January 1986)

332. According to Al-Fajr, settlers of Aryalel and Yakeer had intensified their harassment against Arab residents of Deir Hareth and Istya. Settlers allegedly use weapons to threaten them, they also detain them and set fire in their fields. (Al-Fajr, 21 February 1986, Al-Tali’ah, 27 February 1986)

333. On 26 March 1986, it was reported that several Kiryat Arba settlers on 24 March 1986, after midnight, entered the Patriarchs’ Cave in Hebron, knocked down wooden partitions between a synagogue and a mosque and desecrated Muslim prayer rugs by treading them while wearing shoes. They reportedly attacked soldiers and policemen who tried to evict them. Three settlers were finally arrested while others reportedly eluded the police. The three were released on bail later in the day. On 26 March 1986 Jewish settlers in Hebron held a noisy carnival procession in the center of the town. (Ha’aretz, 27 March 1986; Jerusalem Post, 26 March 1986)

334. On 3 April 1986, it was reported that representatives of the Hebron Jewish settlers had requested the authorities to extend the validity of the order authorizing them to pray on Friday nights in a room situated in the Muslim section of the Patriarchs’ Cave. The room known as “Isaac’s Tent”, was reportedly used by Muslim worshippers as a mosque. (Ha’aretz, 3 April 1986)

335. On 10 April 1986, it was reported that the Gaza district council of Jewish settlements had decided to step up their struggle against the resettlement of 8,000 refugees from “Canada camp in Sinai to Tel-Sultan which is adjacent to the Jewish settlement of Rafiah-Yam.  On 14 April, it was reported that the Tel-Sultan area had been declared closed military area following a rally held by Gaza district settlers on a hill overlooking the site to protest against the planned resettlement of refugees there.  (Ha’aretz, 10, 11, 14 and 15 April 1986; Jerusalem Post, 16 April 1986)

336. On 13 April 1986, Kiryat Arba settlers reportedly warned residents of Hebron not to attend a Peace Now meeting due to be held in the town the next day. Settler sources said they would use all possible means to prevent the meeting from taking place. On 14 April, some 100 settlers set up road blocks on roads leading to Hebron in an attempt at preventing the participants in the Peace Now meeting from reaching. the town. On 15 April, police detained several settlers, most of them from Kiryat Arba, who had reportedly rioted, after the Peace Now meeting was over. (Ha’aretz, 14, 15, 16 and 17 April 19861 Jerusalem Post, 14 and 15 April 1986)

337. On 22 April 1986, it was reported that, in reaction to a decision by the Defence Minister Mr. Rabin not to approve the holding of a rally on 27 April 1986 to commemorate the eighteenth anniversary of Jewish settlement in Hebron, the Gush Emunim secretariat announced that if it could not have the decision cancelled by political means, the rally would be held even without a permission. The rally was planned to be held outside the Patriarch’s Cave, with the participation of the Foreign Minister Mr. Yitzhak Shamir, but Mr. Rabin decided not to authorize the Gush Emunim rally and a counter-rally planned by Peace Now. On 28 April, it was reported that over 10,000 people had answered the Gush Emunim call to visit Hebron in a show of support for the settler movement.  Gush Emunim organized the “tours” of Hebron following the Defence Minister’s refusal to allow it to hold a rally in the town. A settler armed with a submachine-gun led a group of visitors to sites which, he said, proved that Jews had lived in the town in the past. (Ha’aretz, 22 April 1986; Jerusalem Post, 28 April 1986)

338. On 7 May 1986, during the late evening hours, some 100 settlers from Gaza Strip settlements set up tents on the site of the resettlement of Palestinian refugees from “Canada camp” to Tel-Sultan. The Council of Jewish settlements in the territories announced that the purpose of that settlement was to protest against the intended resettlement of Arab refugees in the area. The council called ‘for an immediate extension of the Israeli law to the Gaza Strip. The IDF reportedly did not prevent the settlers from reaching the site.  On 9 May, it was reported that during the night reinforced IDF troops had evacuated the settlers from the Tel-Sultan site. The evacuation operation was carried out without using force and the settlers were taken to the Rafah police station, where criminal files were opened against 32 of them, for illegally entering into a closed area. (Ha’aretz, 8 and 9 May 1986)

339. On 12 May 1986, it was reported that the security authorities had authorized the march planned by Gush Emunim to be held on Independence Day to commemorate the tenth anniversary of Jewish settlement in Samaria. The authorization was given on condition that the participants in the march undertook not to alight from their vehicles inside the town of Nablus and not to gather in large groups near Joseph’s Tomb and near Tel-Balata, close to the Balata refugee camp. In addition to the march and visits the settlers were organizing a festive assembly in Eilon Moreh. On 15 May, it was reported that thousands of supporters had taken part in the Gush Emunim organized events. The tours and visits in the Nablus area gave rise to serious incidents in which several people were injured, (see table of incidents). (Ha’aretz, 12 May 1986; Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 15 May 1986)

340. On 2 June 1986, the Jerusalem police refused to allow Gush Emunim to hold a nocturnal march around the Temple Mount to mark Jerusalem Day on 5 June 1986. On 4 June, it was reported that the police authorized Gush Emunim to hold its march around the Temple Mount on condition that certain modifications in the itinerary were accepted. It was also agreed that at the end of the march a rally would be held at the northern area of the Mount of Olives. A Gush Emunim spokesperson, Daniela Weiss, told the Ha’aretz correspondent that her movement would hold “study tours” in Jewish sites in the Muslim quarter of the Old City. “We shall explain to the visitors that the name ‘Muslim Quarter’ is only provisional”, she said, adding that Gush Emunim intended to mark Jerusalem Day yearly with similar operations.  On 5 June, it was reported that the Jerusalem police had barred Gush Emunim from marching through the Muslim quarter. The Gush Emunim march coincided with Muslim prayers marking the last Friday of the Ramadan. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 3, 4 and 5 June 1986)

341. On 12 June 1986, a group of unauthorized settlers reportedly took over an empty structure overlooking Nablus. Spokesmen for the squatters said they moved in after the Defence Ministry refused them permission to spend the night of the Jewish holiday of Shavulot at Joseph’s Tomb. On 16 June, IDF troops evicted four Gush Emunim squatters from the slopes of Mount Gerizim where they had put up tents. Military sources said the settlers packed their gear and left without incident after being ordered to evacuate the area. (Ha’aretz, 17 June 1986; Jerusalem Post, 15 and 17 June 1986)

342. On 1 July 1986, it was reported that the Hebron police had arrested for questioning several settlers, some of whom were activists of the Kach movement from Hebron and Kiryat Arba on suspicion of having set fire, several days earlier, to an Arab resident’s car and having attempted to set fire to his home. The Hebron police reportedly continued its investigation. No suspects had so far been detained, although several Kach activists had been questioned. (Ha’aretz, 1 and 2 July 1986)

343. On 7 August 1986, a group of Kiryat Arba settlers allegedly attacked Abdul Rahim Jaber, aged 95. A large stone one settler allegedly hurled at him struck his head and passersby rushed him to a hospital in Hebron. (Al-Fajr, 14 August 1986)

344. On 7 August 1986, it was reported that some 200 Gush Emunim members who wanted to pray at the ancient synagogue in Jericho were prevented from reaching the site by IDF troops. Following the attempt the area was declared a closed military zone. On 8 August, it was reported that members of the Tehiya settlement group and Gush Emunim, accompanied by Knesset member Geula Cohen and Rabbi Moshe Levinger, had succeeded in getting through IDF roadblocks and reaching the vicinity of the Jericho synagogue. On 8 August, members of, the Gush Emunim Jericho settlement group, led by Rabbi Moshe Levinger of Kiryat Arba, reportedly held prayers’ in the synagogue. An army spokesman said the group had camped out at the army roadblocks near the synagogue the previous night and was allowed into the synagogue the following day. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 7 and 8 August 19861 Jerusalem

Post, 10 August 1986)

4. Treatment of detainees

(see paras. 54-59 above)

345. Forty Palestinian prisoners, including 10 teenagers detained in the Russian Compound at Jerusalem, reportedly decided to continue a hunger strike started on 21 July 1985 to protest poor living conditions in the prison. (Al-Tali’ah, 2 August 1985)

346. On 6 August 1985, it was reported that lawyer Lea Tsemel had filed a complaint with the head of the General Security Service and with the legal adviser of the West Bank civil administration, alleging that her client Khaled Mahmud Daleisha, a 31-year-old engineer from El-Bireh, had been tortured and beaten during his interrogation. (Ha’aretz, 6 August 1985)

347. The Jneid prison administration at Nablus reportedly opened a special section to house about 70 youths from different parts of the West Bank who were detained under administrative orders. (Al-Tali’ah, 12 September 1985)

348. It was reported that Palestinian women imprisoned at Neve Tertza on political charges were demanding separate quarters from criminal prisoners. (Al-Fajr, 13 September 1985)

349. On 26 September 1985, it was reported in the weekly Zu-Haderekh that the situation in the Ashkelon prison was extremely tense. According to the report on 11 September 1985, following the inmates’ refusal to be counted while standing up, the prison authority allegedly set border guards at the inmates. The guards allegedly carried out “vindictive searches”, confiscated objects from the inmates, beat them, used tear gas and denied the inmates food and water. Inmates who were injured from the beatings received medical treatment only two days later. Some 400 security prisoners from the territories were held in the Ashkelon gaol, according to the report, in conditions of extreme overcrowding.  (Zu-Haderekh, 26 September 1985)

350. On 15 October 1985 it was reported that, according to advocates Felicia Langer and Lea Tsemel, 46 administrative detainees had gone on hunger strike four days earlier at the Nablus prison, to protest against the transfer of some of them to Beersheba prison.  On

17 October 1985 dozens of women, mothers, sisters and wives of administrative detainees reportedly held a sit-in strike at the Red Cross offices at East Jerusalem, in protest against alleged ill-treatment and harsh prison conditions of the detainees. (Ha’aretz, 15 October 1985; Zu-Haderekh, 23 October 1985)

351. On 21 October 1985, Police Minister Haim Bar-Lev said after visiting the Gaza prison that the severe overcrowding in the prisons “forces us to consider releasing prisoners who are not leaders and who were not convicted of bloody crimes, who had already served most of their prison terms, so that more space is available for other prisoners”. Police sources said that the release of security prisoners could be carried out gradually, after the security authorities confirmed that the released prisoners would not be a security risk. According to one report the density in Gaza prison was 1.8 square metres per prisoner, as compared to between 2.8 and 3.5 metres in Israeli prisons. There was insufficient room for beds in all the cells and, as a result, many slept on mattresses on the floor. in one instance 60 to 80 detainees were arrested one night and were kept in a cell so small there was only standing room for them. Some cells reportedly lacked showers and toilets. In the case of security prisoners who refused to go out to work prisoners were locked in their cells for more than 21 hours a day. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 22 October 1985)

352. On 5 November 1985, lawyer Jawad Boulos visited the section for juveniles in the Russian Compound, Jerusalem where he met two boys – 14 and 12 and a half years old – who had been allegedly tortured during interrogation without confessing to any of the charges against them: demonstrating and manufacturing and throwing an incendiary bottle. (Al-Tali’ah, 7 November 1985)

353. On 10 November 1985, it was reported that 80 out of 90 administrative detainees from the territories had recently been transferred from prisons in the West Bank to the detention ward in the Beersheba prison.  Mr. Shimon Malka, spokesman for the Prisons Service, said that the reason for the transfer was to try and improve the detainees’ conditions and to overcome the problem of overcrowding. In a reply to a question as to whether the transfer was a violation of the Geneva Convention, Mr. Malka said that the Central Region Commander had enacted emergency regulations in the territories and, therefore, holding the detainees inside the boundaries of the State of Israel constituted no violation of the Geneva Convention. On 27 November 1985 the High Court of Justice reportedly ordered the military commanders of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and the prisons commissioner, to show cause within 30 days why they should not return 60 administrative detainees held at the Beersheba prison to prisons in the territories. in their petition the detainees argued that since they were residents of an occupied territory, Israel, the occupying Power, was barred from transferring them to its own territory. (Ha’aretz, 10 November 1985; Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 28 November 1985)

354. On 18 November 1985, lawyer Jawad Boulos was reported as saving that no reason had been provided for the confinement of administrative detainee Samir Sbeihat in isolation. Sbeihat, a former student council head at Bir Zeit University, had been held in isolation for nearly one month. (Al-Fajr, 22 November 1985)

355. It was reported that living conditions for Palestinian political detainees in Nafha prison, in the Negev desert, were extremely harsh. Prison authorities had reportedly stepped up provocative measures against inmates in Nafha and confiscated books in their possession. (Al-Tali’ah, 21 November 1985; Al-Fajr, 22 November 1985)

356. On 10 December 1985, it was reported that hundreds of security prisoners in the central prison at Nablus (Jneid) and in the Jenin prison were on a partial hunger strike over the previous week.  On 11 December 1985 it was reported that some 1,500 security prisoners in Ashkelon gaol and in several West Bank gaols had been on a hunger strike the previous day, and that for some of them it was the sixth day without food. The existence of the hunger strike was confirmed on 10 December 1985 by a senior Red Cross official. According to one report the prisoners were protesting against an “iron-fist policy” allegedly introduced by the wardens following the release of 1,150 prisoners in May 1985. Their main complaints concerned humiliating practices they were submitted to, physical violence, overcrowded cells, bad living and health conditions, as well as the denial of the right to receive visits from their lawyers. The Prisons Commissioner told the lawyers that he would not give in on any demands concerning security arrangements, but that he was willing immediately to improve the quality of food and raise sanitation standards if the strike ended. On 13 December 1985 it was reported that the prisoners had suspended their strike the previous night. (Ha’aretz, 10 December 1985; Jerusalem Post, 11, 12 and 13 December 1985)

357. Palestinian detainees at Al-Fara’a detention centre reportedly launched a warning strike to be followed by an open hunger strike if their demands were not met. Their four major complaints concerned malnutrition, ill-treatment, lack of medical care and the detention of children in the same premises as adults. (Al-Ittihad, 20 December 1985)

358. On 25 December 1985, two security prisoners, Abu Khaled Sami Mussa and Azat Mahmud Zaki, both 19, were strangled to death in their cell in the Gaza central prison.  On 30 December 1985 it was reported that two security prisoners serving life sentences had confessed to the murder. The two victims were reportedly suspected of collaboration with the authorities. Prisons Service Commissioner Rafi Suissa appointed a committee to inquire into the killing. (Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 27 December 1985; Ha’aretz, 30 December 1985)

359. It was reported that prisoner Jibril Rajub from the village of Dura, Hebron district, has ended the opened hunger strike he started 40 days earlier after the prison authorities agreed to his demands. The demands included the permission to meet his lawyer and an end to intensive interrogation as well as physical and psychological torture. (Al-Tali’ah,

2 January 1986, see also A/AC.145/R.336, para. 21)

360. On 19 January 1986, Palestinian prisoners held-in Al-Fara’a detention camp went on a one-day hunger strike to protest against malnutrition and lack of medical care. (Al-Tali’ah, 23 January 1986)

361. On 28 January 1986, it was reported that the IDF had decided to transfer, within one month, some 500 security prisoners from prisons in Israel to a military prison. The decision was reportedly taken due to the severe overcrowding in the civilian prisons. According to the report, with 8,200 criminals and security prisoners held in the civilian prisons, the overcrowding reached an unprecedented point, and the transfer of 500 security prisoners would alleviate the overcrowding. (Ha’aretz, 28 January 1986)

362. On 4 February 1986, the police commander in charge of the West Bafik south of Shilo, described prison conditions in his district. He said, at a meeting summarizing the Judea police activities in 1985, that detention cells in his district were not fit for human occupation. He said that the cells were designed for 36 detainees but, on average, 87 people were detained in them. (Jerusalem Post, 5 February 1986)

363. On 5 February 1986, the weekly magazine Zu-Haderekh reported several cases of alleged ill-treatment of Arab detainees. Hussam Abdul Rahman Othman from the Balata refugee camp, Ahmed Zaki al-Ariri from Jenin and Ayad Yusef Mahmud Salameh from Bidia complained, through Adv. Felicia Langer, of being badly beaten by their interrogators in Nablus and Jenin gaols. (Zu-Haderekh, 5 February 1986)

364. On 23 February 1986, a prisoner in Jenin prison, Walid Greifat, aged 25, from the Nur a-Shams refugee camp, was beaten and strangled to death in his cell by inmates who suspected him of collaboration. The prisoner was serving a one-year term for hostile terrorist activity. (Ha’aretz, 24 February 1986)

365. On 23 February 1986, a lawyer delegation from Gaza reportedly visited Kfar Yona prison and met prisoners there. Kfar Yona prisoners reportedly went on strike for two days in protest against the “unbearable crowdedness in gaol”. Eighty-seven Palestinian political prisoners were transferred to Kfar Yona prison after the Israeli authorities reconverted it to a prison for political as well as criminal detainees. (Al-Fajr, 28 February 1986)

366. On 24 February 1986, it was reported that a group called Centre for Alternative Information and lawyers dealing with defending accused West Bank and Gaza residents, had prepared and published a report on the use of torture during interrogation of security detainees in the territories. According to the report there was a significant drop in the number of complaints of torture during interrogation in the years 1977-1984, but in the past year their number has again risen considerably. Adv. Lea Tsemel said in a press conference at Jerusalem that most of the complaints came from detainees who denied the charges against them. The report contained detailed complaints of 27 detainees. most of the complaints concerned General Security Service interrogators. The situation in Gaza was, according to the report, worse than in the West Bank. (Ha’aretz, 24 February 1986)

367. On 28 February 1986, it was reported that following an application by seven Arab prisoners, the High Court of Justice ordered the director of the central prison of the West Bank, in Nablus, to improve conditions in the prison by creating employment for inmates and providing tables, so that inmates should not eat on the floor. After the three Supreme Court judges had visited and examined the detention conditions, they rejected the application. They nevertheless realized that the cells were overcrowded and that prisoners had to eat on the floor, since there were no tables in the cells. (Ha’aretz, Yediot Aharonot, 28 February 1986)

368. On 30 March 1986, it was reported that a student at the Al-Najah University had petitioned the High Court of Justice, asking it to order the military commander in the West Bank to stop torturing him. The petitioner, Hamza Ahmed Hussein Abu-Hafisa, from the village of Illar, in the Tulkarem area, said he was arrested on 17 March 1986 and held in the Jenin prison. He alleged that, during the first two days of his detention, he had been tortured. (Ha’aretz, 30 March 1986)

369. On 21 April 1986, it was reported that the High Court of Justice would hear, in a three-justice bench, a petition by two Al-Najah University students who alleged that they had been tortured during their interrogation by General Security Service (GSS) agents.  The applicants asked the High Court to instruct the authorities to refrain from torturing them and to release them from detention. (Ha’aretz, 21 April 1986)

370. On 23 April 1986, political prisoners in Hebron gaol reportedly suspended their hunger strike, which had lasted for eight days, after some of their demands were met. The prisoners’ demands were principally aimed at putting an end to alleged brutality by prison guards and to collective punishment, and at improving detention conditions. (Al-Fajr,

25 April 1986)

371. On 7 May 1986, it was reported that a police staff sergeant-major from the Samaria sub-district had been charged in the police disciplinary court in Petah-Tikva with beating a prisoner with electric cords to force him to confess to a murder. (Jerusalem Post, 7 May 1986)

372. On 13 June 1986 it was reported that Samir Murad Balbal, 35, from Tulkarem, detained in Jenin prison pending trial on charges of membership in PFLP, was complaining of torture and being denied family visits. (Al-Fajr, 13 June 1986)

373. On 20 June 1986, Palestinian female prisoners in Neve Tirtza prison demonstrated, by shouting and destroying furniture following a scuffle between them and Israeli criminal female prisoners. A Palestinian detainee, Ilham Muhammad al-Qutub, was beaten by Israeli prisoners, and was later put in solitary confinement. The Palestinian prisoners also demonstrated against the transfer of five of them to solitary confinement in Abu-Kabir prison in Tel Aviv. Following the violent demonstration the prisoners were sprayed with tear gas, and were later made to sleep the night in the tear-gassed room. The next day the Palestinian female prisoners at Neve Tirtza went on a two-day hunger strike. (Ha’aretz, Ma’ariv, Yediot Aharonot, 24 June 1986; Ma’ariv, 25 June 1986; Al-Fajr, 27 June 1986)

374. On 26 June 1986, it was reported that Adv. Walid al-Fahoum, head of the legal department of the Prisoners’ Friends Committee, had submitted a report on prison conditions in Jneid and Kfar Yona gaols. According to the report Palestinian prisoners in both prisons were severely beaten and tear-gassed in mid-June 1986. Several of the prisoners’ leaders were put in solitary confinement. At the source of the unrest were prisoners’ protests against overcrowding, bad conditions and transfers of prisoners to other prisons. Prisoners in Kfar Yona also protested against the administration’s refusal to allow them to pray together on the Al-Adha Muslim holiday, and to allow inmates in various sections to. visit each other on the holiday occasion. (Al-Fajr, 27 June 1986)

375. On 27 June 1986, it was reported that Palestinian political detainees in Beersheba prison had sent a letter to the local press the previous week, alleging that they were attacked in their cells by Israeli soldiers. They were allegedly tear-gassed, clubbed and beaten harshly. Many were locked in solitary confinement and the personal belongings of others were destroyed or confiscated. The attacks reportedly followed protest actions by the prisoners in order to obtain improved conditions. (Al-Fajr, 27 June 1986)

376. On 3 August 1986, the High Court of Justice decided that Prisons Service officials were authorized to hold an inmate in solitary confinement “in order to ensure that individual’s safety”, even though he may be prepared to take his chances in a general prison wing. The decision came in response to a petition filed by a West Bank Arab at Nablus prison. The State argued that the prisoner, who had co-operated with authorities in the past, would be harmed by terror organizations operating within the prison, and should therefore be kept apart. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 4 August 1986)

377. On 21 August 1986, representatives of prisoners’ families from the Hebron jail demonstrated outside the Red Cross offices at Jerusalem to protest against the conditions prevailing in that prison and in sympathy with the inmates who were reportedly on hunger strike since 18 August 1986. The prisoners were striking in protest over several recent measures taken by the prison authorities: holding security prisoners together with criminal prisoners in the new wing opened in the Hebron jail use of violence and torture against the inmates, bad food, confiscation of a special delivery of candy to the inmates on the occasion of the Id al-Adha holiday and shortening visiting time from 30 to 10 minutes. A spokesman for the Prisons Service denied that there was a hunger strike at Hebron jail and said he was not aware of the problems mentioned by the prisoners’ families. According to one report the prisoners were also protesting against the lack of drinking water. Hot water for bathing was non-existent, prisoners were denied any medical treatment and were also subject to arbitrary attacks by the guards and frequent attacks with tear gas in their cells. They were also allegedly denied the right to pray together and to meet together for congratulations on the feast. (Ha’aretz, 21 August 1.9861 Al-Fajr, 22 August 1986)

5. Annexation and settlements

(see sect. IV.C, paras. 77 and 78 above)

(a) Policy

378. On 25 November 1985, it was reported that Heron Benvenisti said at a press conference that most of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank were too weak to sustain themselves, and that if the Government stopped supporting them they would collapse. According to the West Bank Data Base Project, the number of settlers in the West Bank increased by 10,000 over the past year and at present reached 52,000. The increase was mostly in settlements close to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Three-quarters of the settlers lived within 20 kms of Jerusalem, or within a 40-minute drive from the Tel Aviv area. Benvenisti said that the 52 settlements established by Gush Emunim, with a population of some 10,000 settlers, stagnated over the past year. Benvenisti found that the Government was spending large amounts on keeping the settlements going. According to Benvenisti, if the present rate of settlement should continue, the forecast of 100,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank by the end of the decade should remain unaltered. On 27 November 1985, it was reported that the Gush Emunim rejected Dr. Benvenisti’s findings as “distorted and erroneous”. There were at present 62,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and not 52,000, and the potential for more settlers was not weakening. The decline in construction was similar to the one felt in other parts of the country, and 19 new settlements were established recently in tough locations, peopled by “ideologically motivated” groups, numbering some 150 families. These settlements are: Beit-Hagai, Maaleh-Levonae Eli, Yitzhar, Peduel, Nahliel, Sanur, Rafiah- Yam and Netzarim. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 25 November 1985; Ha’aretz,  27 November 1985)

379. On 30 December 1985, the Knesset Finance Committee approved a budget of IS 5 billion (approximately $3.5 million) for settlement in the territories, following an agreement between the representatives of the Alignment and Likud and the Committee chairman. (Ha’aretz, 31 December 1985)

380. On 10 January 1986, it was reported that, according to a study by Michael Romann published earlier in the week by the West Bank Data Base Project headed by Dr. Meron Benvenisti, the future development area of Kiryat Arba would totally surround Hebron, and would be larger than the entire municipal area of jurisdiction of the Arab town. The process of locating state-owned lands for Kiryat Arba was still under way. When completed, it could reach 4,000 to 6,000 dunams, allowing for the construction of 5,000 housing units – including the existing flats – and for a population of 21,000. According to the study, there were at present 3,000 Jews in Kiryat Arba and Hebron, and some 6,000 Arabs in Hebron. According to the plan, all the State-owned lands within that area were designed for Jewish construction access and connection roads, would reportedly be expropriated from their Arab owners.  The Arab areas within that zone would be restricted for farming, open areas or future development, and urban construction there would be prohibited. In a related development, the Committee for the Renewal for Jewish Settlement in Hebron published a blue-print providing for the seizure of 70 dunams of formerly Jewish property inside Hebron, in the sites of the wholesale market, bus terminal and Tel-Rumeida. Under the plan 500 flats would be built in that area, with a Jewish population of 3,000. At a later stage, the plan proposed to connect the three sites inside the old town (Hadassa House, Romano House and “Abraham the Patriarch” compound), by buying or expropriating lands, and to create a continuous Jewish settlement similar in its dimensions to the Jewish quarter in the old city of Jerusalem. As a long-term plan it was proposed to connect the Jewish quarters with the Patriarchs’ Cave through the Casbah of Hebron. (Ha’aretz, 10 January 1986)

381. On 14 January 1986, the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, Moshe Shahal, told members of the Jordan Valley local council that the Jordan Valley would remain part of the State of Israel in any future arrangement with Jordan. (Ha’aretz, 15 January 1986)

382. On 15 January 1986, the Minister of Housing and Construction, David Levy, told a meeting of his Herut movement, held at Maaleh-Adumim, that 13 new settlements would be set up in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during 1986.  Finance Minister Yitzhak Modai said at the meeting that the national unity government had to set up 27 new settlements during its term of office, according to the coalition agreement. (Ha’aretz, 16 January 1986)

383. On 27 March 1986, the Central Bureau of Statistics released figures on changes in the population in the State and in the territories. The number of Jewish settlers in the territories increased by 4,800 in 1985, bringing the total to 42,000. (Jerusalem Post, 28 March 1986)

(b) Measures

384. On 6 August 1985, the head of the Jewish Agency’s Settlement Department, Mattityahu Drobles, said that the Migdalim settlement, south-east of Nablus, bordering on the Jordan Valley region, would be set up on 1 September 1985. The second of the six settlements that would be created, Neot-Adumim, had its infrastructure under construction, while the remaining four settlements, Peles, Assalel, Beitar and Avney-Hefetz, were still being planned. (Ha’aretz, 7 August 1985)

385. On 6 August 1985, the secretary-general of Gush Emunim, Daniela Weiss, told the Jerusalem Post that Gush Emunim leaders had concluded that their movement must pass from the stage of spreading out over the area to the stage of strengthening its hold over it. Accordingly, it was decided that Eli, a small new settlement on the Nablus-Ramallah road, should be turned into a full-fledged town. The expansion of Eli should be followed, according to the Gush Emunim planners, by the development of Eilon Moreh, Brakha and Kiryat Arba. On 2 October 1985 the cornerstone-laying ceremony of Eli took place. According to the report the Gush Emunim planned there a town of 2,000 families. Speaking at the ceremony Deputy Prime Minister David Levy said that 8 new settlements had been set up in the West Bank over the past year, and 8 more should be set up in the coming year. Some 6,000 housing units were being built at present. David Levy added that some 250 families were expected to live in Eli initially. At present, only 12 families reportedly lived in the settlement.  (Jerusalem Post, 8 August and 3 October 1985)

386. The Israeli Military Objection Committee at Ramallah rejected a petition by Mr. Mohammed al-Nabahin of Talamreh village against the confiscation of his 12-dunam plot near Bethlehem. (Al-Fajr, 9 August 1985)

387. On 13 August 1985, it was reported that a police investigation was under way into some 200 complaints by Arab landowners in the West Bank, who maintained that their signatures had been forged on purchase documents and their land had been sold without their knowledge. Some also claimed their land was taken from them through threats, force and extort ion. Deputy state attorney, Plia Albeck, the Justice Ministry’s expert on West Bank land, reportedly forbade – following the uncovering of several cases of illegally conducted land deals in the area – land sales by Israelis in areas unapproved for settlement, but private entrepreneurs and contracting companies continued to sell land, apparently with political backing from certain quarters (such as the Agriculture Ministry, when Ariel Sharon was Minister and Michael Dekel was his Deputy). It was reported that two more West Bank dealers were arrested in the first week of September 1985, as police continued to investigate land fraud on the West Bank. Thus far, 10 people had been arrested in connection with the case, including two Israeli lawyers – Mr. Uri Ben Yehuda and Mr. Sami Me’olam – and West Bank land dealer Ahmed Odeh. It was also reported that despite police requests, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Hamrah Sharon released three of the principal suspects in the case from police custody. They were suspected of forging “signatures on land deeds.  Three of them were released on IS 5 million (approximately $3,335) bail each after spending the previous 45 days in detention. On 24 October 1985, new fraudulent deals were discovered after investigation into, fraud cases was halted by Israeli authorities. On 10 January 1986 it was reported that nearly two dozen Arabs from Nablus and surrounding villages were being held by police on suspicion of falsifying documents related to the West Bank land-fraud investigation. The police had reportedly questioned the suspects for 14 days but had not yet charged them. It was learnt that formal charges would be brought against only four or five of the suspects. The Arabs had complained to police and the Israel Lands Administration that their land was wrongly taken from them and that they were forced to sell their property under threats, but according to information in the hands of the police, the Arabs had falsified documents in order to show that the land sales were “fraudulent”.  (Jerusalem Post, 13 August 1985 and 10 January 1986; Al-Fajr, 6 September 1985; Al-Tali’ah, 24 October 1985)

388. On 28 August 1985, it was reported that the Planning Department of the Jerusalem Municipality had prepared a detailed plan for the expropriation of the south-eastern slopes of the Temple Mount, at present owned by the Waqf.  According to the report the plan was not submitted to the local Planning Commission, as it was feared that a political storm could arise, after the Waqf had learned of the plan and threatened to create an “international scandal”. Sources in the Jerusalem Municipality, who admitted that such a plan did exist, argued that an expropriation of the area would have had no practical repercussions, since the area, which was at present an archaeological garden, would have remained such a garden, and only its ownership would have been changed. (Ha’aretz, 28 August 1985)

389. On 3 September 1985, it was reported that farmers from the villages of Surif and Jaba, south of the Etzion bloc, recently complained that Kfar Etzion settlers had been preventing them access to an area of 2,000 dunams of farming land that they claimed was theirs for many generations. The farmers were allegedly told by the settlers that the area was State-owned. It was also reported that the assignment of the area would be decided only after the decision to declare it State-land was confirmed. (Ha’aretz, 3 September 1985)

390. On 1 October 1985, it was reported that 200 Jews lived at present in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City, both in houses bought from Arabs and houses that formerly belonged to Jews. (Ha’aretz, l October 1985)

391. Israeli authorities reportedly confiscated vast areas of land belonging to the village of Yasuf in the Nablus area for the purpose of expanding the nearby Tafuah settlement. According to the report, 200 dunams were already confiscated in the village for the same purpose. (Al-Fajr, 11 October 1985)

392. A number of Jewish zealots allegedly attempted to seize Arab land in Ras el-Amoud in Jerusalem, claiming graves existed on the 15-dunam plot. (Al-Fajr, 25 October 1985)

393. On 5 November 1985, it was reported that the Investment Committee of the Ministry of Tourism had approved the construction of a hotel in the West Bank settlement of Kedumim. The hotel, the first in the West Bank to be approved by the Commission, would cost $1,000,000. (Ha’aretz, 5 November 1985)

394. Hebron’s military governor reportedly notified the Muktars of Arab al-Ramadin near Dhahiriya of the decision to confiscate a 15,000-dunam plot extending from Arab al-Ramadin to Wadi al-Khalil. The land was surveyed a week earlier. (Al-Fajr, 8 November 1985)

395. Israeli bulldozers began working on land belonging to the village of Sur Baher, south of Jerusalem, following a decision to confiscate the 1,000-dunam plot. (Al-Fajr, 15 November 1985)

396. According to a report appearing in the Al-Quds newspaper of 15 November 1985, bulldozers have begun digging up a 130-dunam plot south of Nezarim settlement in the northern part of the Gaza Strip. (Al-Fajr, 22 November 1985)

397. On 24 November 1985, it was reported that the IDF on 22 November 1985 prevented some 40 members of the “Jericho nucleus” from settling in the Jericho area. The nucleus members, residents of Kiryat Arba and yeshiva students, intended to settle in an area where ruins of a sixth-century Jewish synagogue were discovered. Security sources said the nucleus members would not be authorized to settle in that area. The IDF stopped the nucleus members at a road-block and took them to a military camp several kilometers away. Ten members reportedly left the army camp and reached the site of the synagogue but they were forced to leave and two of them were arrested. On 26 November 1985, it was reported that another attempt to settle at the Jericho synagogue site was foiled by the army. On 8 December 1985, soldiers and border guards foiled an attempt, the third in one month, to establish a settlement at the ruins of an ancient Jewish synagogue north of Jericho. The settlers, members of a movement called the Faithful of the Land of Israel, stated that the attempts at settling in the area would continue. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 24, 26 and 27 November 1985; 19 December 1985)

398. Seven farmers from Ubaidiyah village in the Bethlehem area were reportedly to go on trial before an Israeli military court on charges of working on their land without permission from military authorities. They were accused of violating article 34 of the 1966 law of organization of cities, villages and buildings by opening a road blocked by authorities in preparation for establishing a new settlement. (Al-Fajr, 29 November 1985)

399. On 1 December 1985, nine families of Ethiopian Jews, totaling some 50 persons, were transferred to Maaleh-Adumim. The Housing and Absorption Ministries reportedly planned to settle some 40 families in Kiryat Arba. (Ha’aretz, 2 December 1985)

400. On 2 December 1985, the inauguration was reported of a new road linking the Jordan Valley to the coastal plain. At the inauguration ceremony Deputy Prime Minister David Levy said that the road had a “political significance” and was therefore given a special priority – so as to remove any doubt regarding the future. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post,

3 December 1985)

401. On 19 December 1985, Gush Emunim created a fund for redeeming lands, whose objective is to raise contributions and funds in Israel and abroad in order to “redeem lands, particularly in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district”. (Ha’aretz, 20 December 1985)

402. It was reported that an eight-dunum plot belonging to Mr. Musa Ayyad has been confiscated by the Israeli authorities in the village of Sharfat in the Jerusalem area. The land was reportedly given to the Israeli Keren Kayaimet, which started uprooting Mr. Ayyad’s olive trees. (Al-Fajr, 20 December 1985)

403. Israeli forces reportedly seized about 2,000 square meters of land near Natzarin settlement (Gaza Strip). The reason given for the seizure was to expand the intersection. The land was owned by the al-Ashram and the Attalah families. (Al-Fajr, 20 December 1985)

404. On 9 January 1986, Israeli military authorities reportedly confiscated hundreds of dunams of Samu’ village near Hebron. (Al-Fajr, 17 January 1986)

405. On 20 January 1986, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Housing and Construction, David Levy, inaugurated the renovated Hadassa House at Hebron.  In the renovation works apartments were built for 11 families, and rooms were set aside for a synagogue and a dormitory for pupils of the yeshiva at the nearby Romano House. An adjacent house, called Hasson House, would also be renovated to accommodate five families (at present three families lived there) and a yeshiva.  The main project involved the “Jewish Courtyard”, also known as the Abraham the Patriarch compound.  According to the plan, low-rise buildings would be built that would blend in with the Arab structures in the area.  On 12 February 1986, it was reported that 11 Jewish families from Jerusalem and Kiryat Arba would move shortly into new apartments prepared for them in the Hadassa building in the centre of Hebron.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 21 January 1986; Jerusalem Post, 12 February 1986)

406. It was reported that the Israeli authorities informed Arab landowners from the village of Beit Furik, near Nablus, of its decision to confiscate 4,000 dunums of their land. (Al-Fajr, 7 February 1986)

407. It was reported that several dozen Arab residents from the villages of Irtas and al-Khader, near Bethlehem, submitted an official objection to opening a road on their land. The road would reportedly link Jewish settlements in the Bethlehem area. (Al-Fajr, 14 February 1986)

408. On 24 February 1986, the cornerstone-laying ceremony was reported of a permanent settlement called “Metzadot-Yehuda” in southern Mount Hebron. Housing Minister David Levy attended the ceremony and also inaugurated a new road crossing the Mount Hebron area from north to south. (Yediot Aharonot, 25 February 1986)

409. On 28 March 1986, it was reported that the Housing Ministry had granted $40,000 to a Gush Emunim-oriented yeshiva that had been leading the move to buy out Muslim owners of houses surrounding the Temple Mount. The money was reportedly given to the yeshiva to ‘help it acquire flats in the Muslim quarter of the Old City. There was no authorization in the State budget for that allocation. (Jerusalem Post, 28 March 1986)

410. On 31 March 1986, Housing Minister David Levy and the mayor of Jerusalem Teddy Kollek inaugurated the new neighborhood of Pisgat-Zeev, located between Neveh Yaacov and the French Hill, in East Jerusalem. The new neighborhood was planned to consist of 12,000 housing units; 400 families already lived there. A new tract of road, linking Neveh Yaacov and Pisgat-Zeev to the Maaleh Adumim road, was also inaugurated on 31 March 1986.

(Ha’aretz, 1 April 1986)

411. On 27 April 1986, Housing Minister David Levy took part in a cornerstone-laying ceremony at Neve Daniel, a new settlement in the Etzion bloc. Mr. Levy announced that within a few weeks his ministry would begin settling dozens of Jewish families in the heart of Hebron. (Halaretz, Jerusalem Post, 28 April 1986)

412. On 20 May 1986, it was reported that the Minister of Trade and Industry, Ariel Sharon, said during a visit to the Mount Hebron area that an industrial zone would be created in Deir Razah shortly, on a stretch of land of 600 dunams, located near the settlement of Adurayim. Mr. Sharon said the land was State-owned, and stressed the geographical and strategic importance of the site. According to local residents the lands were privately owned. The industrial zone would provide jobs for settlers in the 11 settlements located in the region. Mr. Sharon also announced that he intended to set up a 60-dunam site for high-technology industries in Porcelaine Hill, near Kiryat Arba. He said some $15 million were invested, during the previous year, in industry in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. (Ha’aretz, 20 May 1986)

413. On 25 May 1986, it was reported that three residents of the village of Artas, in the Etzion bloc, applied to the High Court of Justice, claiming that Jewish settlers in the area had set up hen-coops on lands confiscated from them for security purposes. The applicants were asking the High Court to instruct the security authorities to return the lands to their owners. (Ha’aretz, 25 May 1986)

414. On 29 May 1986, it was reported that an inauguration ceremony was held that day for the settlement of Kadim, in northern Samaria. Kadim had been created as a Nahal outpost and was now being turned into a permanent civilian settlement. (Ha’aretz, 29 May 1986)

415. On 1 June 1986, the security authorities fenced with barbed wires an area of 203 dunams near Abu-Median, south of Gaza, and another area of 116 dunams north of the Amer project. The land, located near the Netzarim settlement, had been bulldozed before being fenced. In another development it was reported that the military authorities had notified mukhtars of the village of Samu’, near Hebron, of their decision to confiscate 2,500 dunams of the village’s lands. The landowners were given 45 days to appeal the decision to the military objections committee. (Al-Fajr, 6 June 1986)

416. On 4 June 1986, Housing and Construction Minister David Levy participated in the inauguration ceremony of a new housing project with 750 flats in the settlement of Ginot, in Samaria. Speaking at the ceremony Mr. Levy promised that settlement in Samaria would continue. In a visit to several settlements in Samaria, Mr. Levy said that some 100 rural settlements and 10 urban settlements had been established over the past 10 years in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with a total of 15,500 housing units. In another development it was reported on 4 June 1986 that a Bedouin settlement, Lagia, would be established shortly in the southern Mount Hebron area, with a planned population of 10,000. Another Bedouin settlement, Houra, should be set up in Israel. (Ha’aretz, 4 June 1986)

417. On 13 June 1986, it was reported that mukhtars of the Bani-Naim village in the Hebron district had been notified the previous week of the confiscation of 950 dunams of land in the Khalet Yaqin, Garon Batha, Um Dahab and Um Halseh areas, on the pretext that the lands were State property. Landowners were given 45 days to appeal the decision. (Al-Fajr, 27 June 1986)

418. On 18 June 1986, it was reported that an area of 300 dunams had been levelled by bulldozers and confiscated in the Jenin district. The land was reportedly used by herdsmen from the villages of Tura, Khuljan and Yalbad to graze their sheep. (Al-Fajr, 27 June 1986)

419. On 20 June 1986, it was reported that residents of Yalbad in the Jenin area had complained to the authorities against plans by the zoning committee to open a road 500 m long and 40 m wide. Large numbers of olive trees would be destroyed if the plan were to materialize. (Al-Fajr, 27 June 1986)

420. On 23 June 1986, it was reported that the High Court of Justice had issued an interim injunction prohibiting the authorities ‘from confiscating a 46-dunam Arab-owned plot to an Israeli settlement north of Rafah. The land was leveled in April 1986 in preparation for the confiscation. Reports also continued about land-levelling works in other areas in the Gaza Strips some 102 dunams were being leveled near the Amer project, and 22 dunams near Netzarim. Gaza residents reportedly claimed they had documents proving their legal ownership of the lands. (Al-Fajr, 27 June 1986)

421. On 27 June 1986, it was reported that several Palestinian lawyers representing four Hebron area families had filed a complaint earlier in the week with Israeli military authorities in protest of illegal work on a 700-dunam plot that was reportedly designed to become an industrial complex to serve Kiryat Arba. Land leveling works already started on the site, giving rise to clashes between local residents and security personnel. The creation of the industrial complex was proposed on 20 May 1986 by Minister of Trade and Industry Ariel Sharon. The four families owning the lands, situated in an area known as Beit-Inoun, reportedly had documents proving their legal ownership. In another development it was reported that the military objections committee had concluded earlier in the week that the authorities had erred in confiscating a 400-dunam plot owned by Palestinians near Yatta, south of Hebron. The committee advised the authorities, who declared the land State property, to return it to its owners. It also advised the authorities to return 400 dunams out of a 1,000-dunam plot near Surif, in the Hebron area, to its owners. (Al-Fajr, 27 June 1986)

422. On 2 July 1986, it was reported that over the past week construction works had accelerated in the “Jewish court”, in the wholesale market of Hebron. Works in the site were reportedly executed under the control of the staff officer in charge of archaeological affairs in the civil administration. A number of prefabricated structures that served as offices for the Association for the Renewal of Jewish Settlement in Hebron were removed from the site to enable the construction of an institute for the studies of Bretz-Israel, of the Beitar movement, which was at present located at Tel-Rumeida. The offices of the association were transferred to the Hadassa building. (Ha’aretz, 2 July 1986)

423. On 10 July 1986, it was reported that residents of the village of Khader, near Bethlehem, were angry at the decision by an appeal committee on behalf of the civil administration to turn down their appeal against the intention to build a road by-passing the Dheisheh refugee camp on their lands. The Dheisheh by-pass was planned to link the Etzion bloc area with south Jerusalem. The civil administration had announced its intention to expropriate many plots of land belonging to Khader residents. The appeal committee, which rejected the appeal, explained to the villagers that they would be compensated for-damages caused to their plants and trees but not for the loss of their lands, since the expropriation was being carried out for “public needs”. The villagers were given three weeks to submit an alternative plan. The head of the local council said he intended to take the case to the High Court of Justice. (Ha’aretz, 10 July 1986)

424. On 4 August 1986, the military court at Ramallah ruled to cancel a four-year-old decision by the military authorities to confiscate a 168-dunam plot south of Tulkarem, which they intended to annex to the nearby settlement of Yakir. The three families owning the land – Jaber, Moqbel and Rayyan – will have the land returned to them. (Al-Fajr,

8 August 1986)

425. On 21 August 1986, the military authorities declared an area of about 3,000 dunams state land. The area was reportedly situated near the villages of Biddu and Surta, in the Tulkarem district. The authorities gave the landowners 45 days to contest the confiscation. The area in question had been allegedly fraudulently bought by Israeli real-estate companies. (Al-Fajr, 22 August 1986)

6. Golan Heights

(see sect. IV.C, paras. 79-84 above)

426. Fifteen university students from the Golan Heights reportedly filed a petition with the Israeli High Court against the Ministry of Interior for refusing to grant them a laissez-passer in order to pursue their studies in a number of Eastern European countries. (Al-Tali’ah, 22 August 1985)

427. On 3 September 1985, it was reported that the IDF intended to issue an order banning Golan Heights residents from circulating at night in areas close to the border with the Syrian Arab Republic. (Ha’aretz, 3 September 1985)

428. On 3 October 1985, it was reported that a new town, Kidmat Zvi, was to be dedicated on the Golan Heights. Twenty-five families were at present living in the site, situated 3 km north-east of Katzrin. The town was reportedly planned for a total of 100 families.(Jerusalem_Post, 3 October 1985)

429. On 15 October 1985, the Nazareth district court convicted Rafik Kalani, aged 20, from Majdal Shams, of providing the Syrian Arab Republic with information on IDF strength in the Golan Heights. (Jerusalem Post, 16 October 1985)

430. On 12 November 1985, 10 youths, aged 16 to 20, from Majdal Shams, on the Golan Heights, were charged in the Lod military court with stealing land mines and plotting against the IDF during the previous two years. The youths denied the charges. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 1985)

431. It was reported that the Arab population of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights called upon the United Nations to send a commission of inquiry to investigate the “intolerable conditions under which the Golan Arabs live”. A letter dated 2 December 1985 was sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations calling upon the international community to act immediately and to pass laws to help lift the “injustice, suppression and oppression” from which this population suffer. The letter reported cited some of the oppressive measures, foremost among which is the problem of income tax. According to some allegations, tax collectors have raided homes and shops, confiscating furniture and agricultural equipment. They also allegedly opened fire on people who refused to obey orders and imprisoned those who dared to ask why such measures were being taken against them. (Al-Fajr, 6 December 1985)

432. On 17 February 1986, it was reported that the police had detained, over the weekend, 7 Druze residents of Majdal Shams and Bukata, on the Golan, on suspicion of disturbing public peace. in demonstrations held to mark the fifth anniversary of Israeli extension of its law and administration to the Golan, hundreds of Druze residents waved Syrian flags, sang Syrian national songs and expressed solidarity with the Syrian régime. Many Syrian Druze arrived at the Syrian side of the border and participated in the demonstrations. On 27 February 1986, it was reported that police had arrested a further 18 Druze residents of Golan villages on suspicion of rioting and injuring policemen during Prime Minister Shimon Peres’ visit to Majdal Shams on 25 February 1986. Several of the detainees, who were rounded up on the basis of police photographs taken during the riot, were reportedly minors. They were all being detained at Acre (northern Israel). On 28 February 1986, it was reported that a magistrates court at Acre had extended the detention of 18 suspects. Fourteen adults were – detained for 15 days and 4 minors were detained for 10 days. The police reportedly intended to put the suspects on trial during their period of detention, on charges of participation in an illegal demonstration, sedition and-injuring policemen. (Ha’aretz, 17 and 28 February 1986; Jerusalem Post, 17 and 27 February 1986)

433. On 3 March 1986, 11 Druze residents of Majdal Shams were arrested on suspicion of rioting during the visit by Prime Minister Peres. According to the report these arrests brought the total number of Druze detainees following the rioting to 47, including some minors. On 18 March 1986, it was reported that 16 of the detainees had been released on bail, the previous day, by order of the district court in Nazareth.  They were told not to leave their villages without police permission and not to leave their homes from the early evening hours until the morning; they were also prohibited from taking part in any gathering. Another two detainees were remanded in custody until their trial. These two were reportedly charged with assaulting policemen. On 28 March 1986, it was reported that the Supreme Court had ruled that five of the detainees who had earlier been released on bail by the district court in Nazareth could be remanded until the end of the legal proceedings against them. (Ha’aretz, 4, 18 and 28 March 1986; Jerusalem Post, 28 March 1986)

434. On 12 March 1986, it was reported that police had, over the past year, seized what was described as “an enormous quantity” of sabotage materials in the Druze villages of the Golan Heights. Most of those involved were reportedly arrested and would be put on trial.  (Ha’aretz, 12 March 1986)

435. On 20 March 1986, income-tax authorities carried out an early morning raid on a fruit-packing plant in the Golan Druze village of Majdal Shams. The plant’s owners were accused of refusing to submit reports to the income-tax authorities for the past six years. Following that operation a general strike was proclaimed on 21 March 1986 in the Golan Druze villages and disturbances were reported. According to local residents the Israeli authorities embarked on a harassment campaign against them following the rioting in Majdal Shams during the visit by Prime Minister Peres. (Jerusalem Post, 21 March 1986; Yediot Aharonot, 23 March 1986)

436. On 15 April 1986, the Northern Region Commander, Aluf (Major General) Uri Or, issued an order banning for seven days the Golan Druze residents from reaching the hill close to the Syrian border, where the Druze population used to demonstrate together with Syrian Druze residents meeting on the other side of the border. (Ha’aretz, 16 April 1986)

437. On 17 April 1986, over 700 policemen and border guards prevented, by their presence in the four Golan Druze villages, the marking and celebration of the Syrian independence day. Several improvised demonstrations were nevertheless held in Majdal Shams and Ein Kinia, but the public order was maintained. (Ha’aretz, 18 April 1986)

438. On 19 April 1986, a magistrate’s court in Zefat, northern Israel, extended by 12 days the detention of Fahed Safadi, aged 18, a Golan Druze suspected of having organized an illegal demonstration on the Syrian independence day. Three other youths from the Golan village of Ein Kinia were also detained for 12 days for participation in an illegal demonstration. (Ma’ariv, 20 April 1986)

439. Defence Minister Itzhak Rabin said on 22 April 1986 that Israel’s aim now was to develop and build up the Golan Heights, as an answer to the loud voices and threats emanating from the Syrian Arab Republic. “We want to live in peace and not in war here”, he declared.  “Our way of reacting to the extremist speeches is to practice restraint, to build and to act, thus making clear we want peace, not war.” (Ha’aretz, 23 April 1986)

440. On 21 May 1986, it was reported that the military court at Lod had passed prison sentences of 27 years on five Druze residents of Majdal Shams, convicted of attempting to kidnap a soldier and holding contacts with Syrian agents. Four other members of the group, also from Majdal Shams; were given prison sentences ranging from 7 to 12 years for their part in the case. The eight youths, aged 16 to 21, were all holders of Israeli identity cards. In a related development-it was reported that the trial was under way at the Nazareth District Court of 18 Druze residents of the Golan Heights accused of rioting and stoning policemen during a visit to their villages by Prime Minister Peres, two months earlier. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ma’ariv, 21 May 1986)

441. On 22 May 1986, four bulldozers belonging to the State Lands Administration, protected by police and border-guard forces, ploughed up and fenced off 150 dunams of land located west of Majdal Shams on the Golan Heights. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 23 May 1986)

442. On 17 June 1986, Wasef Khater, a Golan Heights resident, was dismissed from his job at the Safed hospital because he refused to accept Israeli citizenship. (Al-Fajr, 20 June 1986)

443. On 15 July 1986, three residents of the Golan Druze village of Xaslada were convicted at the Nazareth district court of passing information on the IDF to the Syrian intelligence.  Yasser Sabra, aged 21; Ziad Bathish, aged 20; and Malmun Sabag, aged 19, were each sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The three were captured by soldiers of the South Lebanon Army on their way back from the Syrian Arab Republic to the Golan. (Ha’aretz, 16 July 1986)

444. On 16 July 1986, the Nazareth district court convicted 13 youths, aged 18 to 25, from Majdal Shams on the Golan, of rioting during the visit to their village by Prime Minister Shimon Peres in February 1986. The youths were sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to six months. In another development, it was reported that two Druze residents of Maslada had been arrested on suspicion of having hoisted Syrian flags over the sports club in their village.  The two were named as Shaer Saber, aged 26, and Safdi Salim, aged 18. They were remanded for eight days for further investigation. (Ma’ariv, 17 July 1986)

445. On 10 August 1986, the Supreme Court  rejected an appeal by 14 Golan Druze residents against their -sentence. They had been sentenced by the Nazareth district court to prison terms of three and six months on charges of participation in an illegal demonstration.  (Al-Fajr, 14 August 1986)

446. On 25 August 1986, it was reported that an announcement by the Ministry of the Interior that the Golan Druze residents were included in the voters register for the Knesset had provoked anger in the Golan Druze villages. At an emergency meeting held in Majdal Shams it was decided to send a letter to Interior Minister, Rabbi Yitzhak Peretz, informing him that the Golan Druze residents did not consider themselves to be Israeli citizens. It was also decided to petition the High Court of Justice for an order forcing the Ministry of the Interior to cancel the registration of the Golan Druze residents in the voters register. (Yediot Aharonot, 25 August 1986)

7. Incidents

The Temple Mount incidents

447. On 8 January 1986, a group of two dozen Israelis, including five Knesset members, visited the Temple Mount area, in the old city of Jerusalem. The visit, described by a senior police officer as a “courtesy visit”, had been arranged in co-ordination with the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Muslim Waqf, in order to permit the Knesset Interior Committee to examine complaints of illegal Muslim construction in the site. Only three members of the Knesset committee took part in the visit: its chairman, Dov Shilanski (Herut), Ovadia Eli and Jacques Amir – the only Labour Party committee member to have participated. Knesset members Geula Cohen and Yuval Neeman, who were not members of the Knesset Committee, came along, together with other right-wing activists such as Avi Farhan and Gershon Salomon – who heads a group called the Faithful of the Temple Mount, responsible for repeated attempts at organizing Jewish public prayers on the Mount. About 20 border-guards and policemen accompanied the group. After a visit to the Al-Aqsa mosque, which passed without incident, the group went to nearby underground halls known as Solomon’s Stables. There, Muslim guards and Arab workmen prevented the group from entering the place with cameras. Knesset members Cohen and Shilanski who tried to force their way in were allegedly punched and beaten. Meanwhile hundreds of Arabs gathered around the group responding to a call by the muezzin, from the top of the minaret to come and defend the mosque. Police closed the gates to the Temple Mount to prevent more Arabs from entering, and used tear gas and baton charges in order to extricate the Knesset members from the area. One Arab youth reportedly fainted as a result of the tear gas. Knesset member Shilanski announced that he intended to complete the visit in the afternoon, but Knesset speaker Shelomo Hillel prohibited any visits by the Interior Committee.  Police Minister Haim Bar-Lev ordered Police Inspector-General David Kraus personally to supervise an investigation into the disturbance, following the Committee members’ complaints of “police negligence” and Waqf complaints of “provocation”. On 9 January 1986 Minister of industry Ariel Sharon made a 20-minute visit to the Temple Mount and declared that Jews and Arabs had to learn to cohabit in that place. In another incident, a group of Israeli youths, reportedly supporters of the Tehiya Party, waved an Israeli flag and sang the Israeli national anthem on the Mount. Border guards evicted them and they were taken to a police van to be questioned. Charge sheets would be filed against them for disturbing the public peace. On 14 January 1986, a group of Knesset members, members of the Knesset Interior Committee and others made a return visit to the Temple Mount. Reporters and photographers were barred from accompanying the group, by decision of Police Minister Haim Bar-Lev. Immediately upon entering the Temple Mount, Committee chairman Dov Shilanski told the Knesset members that Gershon Shafat – a Gush Emunim leader who took part in the visit – wished to recite a prayer. At the same time, Knesset member Rabbi Waldman (Tehiya) took out a book of psalms and read from it aloud. Knesset members Shulamit Aloni and Yossi Sarid (Civil Rights Movement) started shouting “this is a provocation”, demanding that the prayers be stopped. They then decided to leave the tour, in protest against the prayers. Waqf officials who at the beginning refrained from intervening, at that point also demanded that the prayers be stopped, calling them a provocation. They were joined by some 150 Arabs, mostly local residents and striking Bir Zeit University students who reportedly tried to break through the tight police cordon around the Knesset members. Police used tear gas to disperse them and accompanied the Knesset members to Solomon’s Stables, where Arab youths blocked the entrance. The head of the Supreme Islamic Council, Sheikh Saad ed-Din al-Alami told Southern District Police Commander Rahamim Comfort that, due to the public prayer by the Knesset members he decided to prohibit the Knesset members from continuing their visit and entering Solomon’s Stables. Comfort then warned Shilanski that, while the police were prepared to force the gates of the Stables open, after they were locked by the Waqf, such an action may result in bloodshed. Meanwhile, hundreds of local worshippers on the Mount chanted hostile slogans, and outside the Mount, at the Majlis Gate, police used force and tear gas to disperse some 150 rioters who wanted to force their way into the Mount. At around 11 a.m. the Knesset members were taken to a police post at the entrance to the Mount and, after a 25-minute discussion voted (by a majority of 8 votes to 3) to discontinue the visit and not to insist on entering Solomon’s Stables. In the course of the incident 17 demonstrators were arrested. Police later said that the Knesset members’ decision to withdraw had prevented a riot of “disastrous proportions”. A general business strike was held in East Jerusalem throughout the day. On 30 January 1986, it was reported that 14 Arabs would be put on trial following the rioting on the Temple Mount during the visit to the place by the Knesset Interior Committee. During the day of the visit 32 persons were arrested, of whom 19 were detained for further questioning. The 14 who would stand trial would be charged with illegal gathering, stone-throwing and taking part in a violent demonstration. Two Gaza Strip residents were also suspected of trying to snatch a weapon from a border guard. Meanwhile, all the suspects were released on bail. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 9, 10 and 15 January 1986; Ha’aretz, 30 January 1986)

448. On 19 January 1986, 12 Kach Party members were arrested when they tried to force their way through the Mugrabi Gate after Waqf authorities refused them entry to the Temple Mount. The group came with Israeli flags and placards reading: “No place for Arabs on Jewish holy grounds”. Two of the 12 were reportedly expected to be charged the next day with disturbing the peace and resisting arrests. The other 10 were released after questioning. (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, 20 January 1986)

449. On 20 January 1986, the Director-General of the Jerusalem Municipal Council, Aharon Sarig, told the Knesset Interior Committee that allegations of unlicensed construction work on the Temple Mount were unfounded.  Municipal inspectors reported that the only works carried out on the Mount were plastering and painting in Solomon’s Stables, and paving near the Golden Gate; such works did not require a building permit.  Sarig said he knew of nothing to substantiate allegations that the Muslims had built new prayer pulpits on the Temple Mount during the past year.  Police Inspector-General David Kraus told the Committee that in the wake of a High Court ruling, the police did not permit Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, but if an individual Jew wanted to pray he could do so, as long as his prayer did not take demonstrative form.  Another speaker, Deputy Attorney-General Yoram Bar-Sela, told the Committee:  “the laws of the State of Israel, including the Building and Planning Law, and the Antiquities Law, are all in force on the Temple Mount”.  (Jerusalem Post, 21 January 1986)

450. On 30 January 1986, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi Mordekhai Eliyahu told a delegation of members of the “Temple Mount Faithful” that a synagogue should be built on the south-eastern or north-eastern corner of the Temple Mount, and that such a synagogue should be “taller than the mosques”.  While Knesset member Geula Cohen praised the Chief Rabbi for his declaration, Knesset member Yossi Sarid tabled an urgent motion for the agenda to discuss it.  (Yediot Aharonot, 31 January 1986)

451. On 14 August 1986, four Tehiya Knesset members, Geula Cohen, Yuval Neeman, Rafael Eitan and Gershon Shafat, visited the Temple Mount.  They were accompanied by some 80 policemen.  The Knesset members visited Solomon’s Stables, the underground Crusader structure located under the Al-Aqsa mosque, which they had unsuccessfully attempted to visit in February 1986.  The head of the Supreme Muslim Council, Sheikh Saad ed-Din al-Alami, said after the visit that he had agreed to it and that anyone who wanted to visit the site was welcome.  Reacting to declarations on Jewish sovereignty on the Temple Mount, Sheikh al-Alami said that the site was, and would remain, a Muslim mosque.  Earlier in the day police prevented two groups of “Temple Mount Faithful” members from entering the site.  (Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Yediot Aharonot, 15 August 1986)

452. 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 that would have taken up considerable volume to list individually.

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

AFAl-Fajr

ATAl-Tali’ah

HHa’aretz

JPJerusalem Post

MMa’ariv

YAYediot Aharonot

INCIDENTS