MIDDLE EAST

There are misconceptions of what constitutes the "Middle East" and who is a "Middle Easterner", Arab, Muslim, or Semite. Traditionally, historians, political scientists, and others have defined world regions in terms of race and ethnicity, culture, language and linguistics, religion, historical unity, climatic similarity, and/or geographic compactness. The Middle East, the Mideast, the Near East, and even the Near and Middle East cannot be defined in these terms.

The Middle East is not the land of the Arabs since millions of Turkic, Indo-European, and Negroid peoples live in the region. Many, incorrectly, suppose that the Middle East is the land of Islam. Although many Muslims live in what we call the Middle East, in terms of population and territorial size, the largest Islamic countries are not in the Middle East but are in Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

The Middle East includes Bahrain, its periphery: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia; Egypt; Iran; its periphery: Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Kuwait; Cyprus; Lebanon; its periphery: The Horn of AfricaDjibouti, Eritrea, Somalia, Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania); Oman; Palestine; its periphery: Algeria, Libya, Morocco and the Sahara, Tunisia; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Sudan; its periphery: Chad; Mali; Mauritania, Niger; Syria; Turkey; United Arab Emirates (a federation of seven sheikdoms: Ajman, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Qawain), and the periphery: Afghanistan and Pakistan; and Yemen. (See attachment 1, Map of Middle East). P. 58.

All Arabs are not Muslim; many are Christian. Most Muslims live in Indonesia. Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghanis may be Muslims, but they are not Arabs. Semites are people of Caucasian stock comprising chiefly of Arabs and Jews but in ancient times also included Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and others of the eastern Mediterranean area. /1

CONFLICTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The longest and most notorious conflict in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although Israel has had disputes with its other Arab neighborsLebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraqand still has some ongoing issues, this presentation will focus on the Palestinian issue.

Another conflict in the Middle East exists between the United States and Iraq. Operation Desert Storm ended over a decade ago. President George W. Bushs administration has recently invaded IraqOperation Iraqi Freedom. International public opinion as expressed through the United Nations opposed a US invasion of Iraq. The UN wanted inspectors to continue their work in Iraq prior to authorizing an invasion. Now, the consequences of this war are uncertain and may cause new conflicts in the Middle East.

The third conflict directly related to the Middle East, but occurring on a continuing basis all over the world, is the so-called "war on terrorism". The emergence of Al Qaeda is probably the greatest threat facing the United States today; and the threat, in my view, is not adequately understood nor is it intelligently and effectively being addressed.

WHAT IS TERRORISM?

DEFINITIONS

Terrorism has been defined as the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political, religious, or ideological goals by instilling fear or using intimidation or coercion. TC 19-16, Countering Terrorism On US Army Installations (April 1993). AR 190-52.

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate US federal or state law if they would have been committed in the US and appear to be intended to coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of the government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the US or transcend the US boundaries by the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. 18 USC 2331 (1)(A)(B)(C).

Domestic terrorism involves acts dangerous to human life that violate US federal or state law and appear to be intended to coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of the government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 18 USC 2331 (5)(a)(b)(c).

Violence for violences sake, violence for revenge, or violence simply in the course of criminal acts (e.g., murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc.) is not "terrorism" unless its use is intended to attain political, religious, or ideological goals. This point is crucial in understanding terrorism because unless one understands terrorism one cannot fight it effectively. "Terror" is great fright or great fearterrorism is something different.

Nine-eleven--the attack of the twin towers at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon-- shocked America into a rudimentary understanding of "terrorism". The media reported who, what, how, where, but nobody addressed the "why". The first response was revenge, but against whom and why? It certainly was not to get the people who actually committed the acts causing death and destruction; they were dead. The US bombed Afghanistan and sent in troops and established a "puppet regime" headed by a former oil (UNICAL) consultantand there is still terrorism all over the world.

AL QAEDA

Al Qaeda is the first multinational terrorist group of the twenty-first century. Having defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and driven by Islamic zeal, most Arab and Asian mujahidin (warriors of God) who returned home from the internationally supported jijad (holy war) wanted to cause radical social and political change. They joined opposition political parties, religious bodies and groups in their own countries, campaigning against dictatorial Muslim rulers and their corrupt regimes. Al Qaeda was originally MAKMaktab al Khidmat lil Mujahidin al-Arabor Afghan Service Bureau. MAK was founded by Abdullah Azzam in 1984 in Peshawar, Pakistan; and he and his protge, Osamma bin Laden, ran it for several years disseminating propaganda, raising funds, and recruiting new members throughout a network of offices (including thirty in US cities) in thirty-five countries.

Even before the departure of Soviet troops in 1989, MAKs socio-enomic, political, and military infrastructure had steadfastly evolved into Al Qaeda. The resources at MAKs disposal were diverted by Al Qaeda away from Afghanistan into regional conflicts where Islamist guerrillas were involved, principally in Kashmir and Chechnya, but also in Mindanao, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Somalia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan, Yemen, Algeria, and Egypt. In most of these countries, the governing regimes were openly hostile to Islamist movements, often repressing them ferociously.

Using the humanitarian cover of MAK and some Islamic charities, Al Qaeda infiltrated many of these conflicts, sending cadres to train further recruits and to take part in actual fighting. Although Afghanistan was Al Qaedas principal military training base, it also trained recruits in Sudan, Yemen, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and the Philippines. Al Qaeda and its supporters in 60 countries range from small cells to allied terrorist groups to guerrilla gangs, and they pose a formidable foe to the US. (See "Terrors New Wave", Time, p.28, October 28, 2002).

As progress in these domestic campaignsfrom Saudi Arabia to Egypt and Algeriawas slow, a second front was initiated by Al Qaeda to target the United States and its allies. Without directly challenging Western military power, economic strength, and cultural influence, the Islamists perceive that they cannot bring about change in their home countries because a group of Western countries, led by the USA, steadfastly supports Israel and unrepresentative Arab regimes of the Middle East. (See, generally, Inside Al Qaeda Global Network of Terror by Rohan Gunaratna, Columbia University Press, 2002).

CAUSES OF TERRORISM

Osamma Bin Laden, himself, in an interview with Peter Arnett, indicated three reasons why his Al Qaeda may have had a motive to attack the US(1) the US occupation of Saudi Arabia with troops during the Gulf War, (2) the unnecessary and prolonged suffering of the Iraqi people after the war due to US backed sanctions, and (3) the illegal occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people by Israel also strongly supported by the US.

Can the United States realistically hope to find and destroy these "terrorists" who would harm us?

Rohan Gunaratna, author of several books on armed conflict, previously the principal investigator of the United Nations Terrorism Prevention Branch, and consultant to several governments and corporations believes that good intelligence will destroy the terrorist organization:

HISTORY OF ISRAEL

In order to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one must understand how Israel came to be. I am referring to modern day Israelnot an "Israel" of Biblical times. Some people might say that the Muslims have been fighting with the Jews for 2000 years, but Islam and Muslims did not exist 2000 years ago; and, in fact, Muslims and Jews have lived peaceably together in Palestine for centuries. The real problem began when the European Jews invaded Palestine and terrorized moderate Jews, the British, and the Palestinians at the end of World War II. Modern day Israel was created by "terrorism", and terrorism is still inflicted on the Palestinians, today.

The creation of "Israel" caused the "Palestine problem". Ever since the Romans destroyed the Judean state centuries ago, Orthodox Jews continued to hold spiritual claims to the Holy Land. Over the centuries a desire for a Jewish homeland grew, and Jews migrated to Palestine. In the 1870s, a wave of anti-Semitism spurred a new migration from central Europe, and in 1898, Theodore Hertzl organized a Zionist international movement to establish in Palestine a home for the Jewish People secured by public law. /2 The only problem with Hertzls plan was that thousands of Palestinians were already living in Palestine and their descendants had done so for centuries.

In about 1900 there were about 40,000 Jews in Palestine. In a 1922 census there were about 591,000 Muslims, 73,000 Christians, 9500 "others", and 84,000 Jews populating Palestine. /3 The Balfour Declaration pledged Englands support of Zionist goals in order to win support of international, especially American, Jews to the Allies during World War I. In 1916, one year prior to the Balfour Declaration, a secret agreement was made between the British War Cabinet and Zionist leaders promising the latter a "national home" in Palestine in consideration of their efforts to bring the United States into World War I on the side of Great Britain. /4

The Paris Peace Conference and subsequent conferences made Palestine become a British mandate. The League of Nations approved, and more Jews entered Palestine. Palestine Arabs resented this "invasion" or "immigration" (however one looks at it) into their homeland. In 1920 Arabs and Jews fought over land disputes. In 1929, an anti-Jewish nationalist, the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, incited attacks against Jews.

The British tried to maintain a precarious peace, but Hitlers anti-Semitic policy increased the influx of Jews into Palestine and caused further Arab resentment. The Jewish population continued to rise to nearly half a million in 1935. The Arab rebellion started in 1936 and continued to expand until a major British Military effort suppressed it two years later. /5

Various commissions studied the problem and usually recommended partitionthe creation of a small, separate Jewish state. Arab countries objected; and because of their perceived importance to the forthcoming world war, Britain supported them. When war broke out, the international Zionist organization and its executive, the Jewish Agency, supported Britain. So did the Jews in Palestine.

During the Arab rebellion in 1936-39 the Jews had a voluntary militia organized in local units primarily for local defensethe Haganah. In 1941 the British allowed the Haganah to organize full-time guerrilla shock units for the fighting in Syria; but the British policy discouraged a separate Jewish military force. /6.

In 1942, Zionist leaders met in New Yorks Biltmore Hotel to devise the Biltmore Program, which called for unlimited immigration of Jews to Palestine, which, after the war, would become a Jewish commonwealth state. The war strengthened the Haganahs military arm. Thirty-two thousand Palestine Jews served in British forces, and in 1944 the British authorized a separate Jewish Brigade Group. The Group dissolved at the end of the war, but an underground Haganah army continued to exist. It was commanded by a cadre of four hundred professional soldiers; it had Palmach guerrilla units of about twenty-one hundred men and women, backed by a ready reserve; and it had widespread territorial militia of about thirty thousand with many thousands of covert supporters. /7 Militarily trained and experienced and motivated Jews were ready, willing, and able to take the Arabs land from them. And they did over time; and they still are via their Jewish "settlements".

In 1935, militant Zionists, who had formed the Revisionist Party in 1925, splintered from the World Zionist Organization. Two years later, younger Revisionists formed a militant force, the Irgun. The Irgun concentrated first on smuggling illegal refugees into Palestine. Arab attacks on Jews in 1939 caused the Irgun to open a terrorist campaign against the general Arab population. /8 The Chamberlain White Paper of 1939, which greatly restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine, prompted the Irgun to target the British for murder. David Raziel and Abraham Stern, Irgun members, were arrested by the British and later released although they were terrorists.

Stern disagreed with Raziels wartime policy of truce with the British, so in 1940 he split from the Irgun and formed the Lokhammei Kherut Israel (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), or FFIalso known as the Stern Gang. /9 The Stern Gang, who were clearly "terrorists", by anyones definition, fought the British by eliminating some Jewish moderates and gentiles; and anyone who opposed creation of a Jewish state became fair game. This was really organized terrorism long before the Arabs ever bombed a bus or hijacked an airliner.

The terrorist, Stern, was killed by police bullets in 1942. A year later, another criminal and fanatic believer in a Jewish state, Menachem Begin, took command of the Irgun. From 1939 to 1943 the Stern Gang continued a policy of indiscriminate terror.

In 1944, the continued British refusal to accept the Biltmore Program caused the Irgun to renounce its truce with the British and to form a loose, sometimes uneasy, alliance with the Stern Gang in a new "war" for the Jewish state. By early autumn, the Stern Gang had murdered fifteen men, mostly moderate Jews, and destroyed several important government installations, including four police stations. /10 That was "terrorism". A great many Jews, in and out of Palestine, disagreed with the terrorism of the Irgun and Stern Gang on humanitarian grounds and out of concern for reprisals. The Jewish Agencys security forces had to even wage war against the Irgun.

In May 1945, after the German surrender, the Jewish Agency wrote Prime Minister Churchill demanding the full and immediate implementation of the Biltmore resolution, the cancellation of the White Paper, the establishment of Palestine as a Jewish state, Jewish immigration to be an Agency responsibility, and reparation to be made by Germany in kind beginning with all German property in Palestine. The Palestinians seemed to have no say in any of this.

The British stalled, and the Haganah engaged in extensive smuggling. In October 1945, Haganahs clandestine radio station, Kol Israel, declared the beginning of "The Jewish Resistance Movement". On October 31, 1945 the Jews in Palestine attacked three small naval craft, wrecked railway lines, attacked a railway station and an oil refinery. In June 1946, Jewish terrorists committed more sabotage in Palestine. They destroyed twenty-two RAF planes at one airfield. The Haganah agreed to an Irgun attack on British headquarters in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The bombings killed ninety-one British, Arab, and Jewish people and wounded forty-five. The British retaliated by raiding the Irgun headquarters in Tel Aviv. By the end of 1946 the Irgun-Sternist groups had killed 373 persons. The Haganah had supposedly disassociated itself from the terrorists, but the terrorists continued to operate with at least tacit support of a large part of the citizenry. /11

The British still continued efforts toward a political compromise. The UN appointed a special committee, UNSCOP, to investigate the situation and recommend a solution. Meanwhile a reign of terror and counter-terror dominated Palestine. The British execution of Dov Gruner, a popular young terrorist who murdered a policeman, caused widespread Irgun reprisals. The Jewish terrorists attacked British installations and in one day killed eighty British soldiers. The British replied by declaring martial law, which infuriated the civilian population but did not halt Irgun operations. /12 In July 1947, the refugee ship Exodus 1947 arrived with forty-five hundred Jews aboard, only to be sent back to Europe. This event gave militant Jews an enormous propaganda victory further exploited by Leon Uris best-selling novel Exodus.

The terrorism and counter-terrorism continued, and the UN committee worked throughout the summer and autumn and ultimately recommended an end to the British mandate in favor of another partition plan. The Jewish Agency reluctantly adopted the plan when the British made it clear that they intended to yield the mandate and withdraw troops in the near future. In late November 1947, the UN accepted the plan. The Arab League responded by ordering attacks against Jewish settlements in Palestine and throughout the Middle East. In December 1947, Great Britain announced that it would terminate its mandate on May 15, 1948. The Arab-Israeli war had begun. /13 The Palestinian Arabs and the rest of the Arab world were not happy with the theft of Palestine by the (Zionists) Jews with the complicity of Great Britain and the United States. /14

Even as the United Nations recognized Israel as a nation-state, there was conflict between the indigenous Palestinians and Israel. Palestinians were dispossessed of their homes, lands, other property; and many were forced to flee to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere. The repatriation (right of return) of thousands of Palestinians to the land of their fathers and their fathers fathers going back centuries is still one of the difficult issues to resolve in the peace process. In the war of 1967, Israel acquired land other than what the original mandate had given it, and Israel still occupies these territories. (See attachment 2, Map of Israel and occupied territories). P. 59.

Eventually, Zionism and fundamentalist Christianity would align to form a coalition against the Muslim world. The irony of this coalition between the Zionists and the Christian Right is that Zionism was founded by Marxists (Communists) who created the movement for political and economical motivesnot a religious motive. Remember the Marxist saying: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

EFFECTS OF ISRAELS OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

Rather than simply engage in rhetoric about whom is killing whom and how, several documents are provided as attachments so the reader can personally review the evidence and draw his or her own conclusion. The vast majority of the following information has not been reported to the American public.

UN RESOLUTION 242

Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 expressed its desire that Israel

"withdraw armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

To date, Israel has not withdrawn from the occupied territories as the UN Security Council decreed. Instead, Israel has continued to build settlements in the occupied territories in violation of international law and UN resolutions.

The United Nations has been considering Israels transgressions for decades, but the United States has constantly protected Israel, and as a result the US has incurred the criticism and ire of much of the world community.

Over the years the UN has dealt with issues about Israel relating to torture, aggression in Lebanon and Tunisia, nuclear armament, and racism, but the most apparent and continuous wrongs that Israel commits relate to the Palestinians. The rest of the whole world knows about Israels crimes against humanity, but the United States condones Israels crimes and thereby loses its credibility with the international community.

UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

In a UN Commission on Human Rights report dated 21 March 2001, paragraph 8 states:

At paragraph 35, the report says:

REPORT ON ISRAELI PRACTICES AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS-2001

In a UN General Assembly Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, dated 26 October 2001, articles and reports received during the period from May to August 2001 were considered. Thus, the reported incidents occurred shortly before September 11, 2001"9-11".

The report discussed the aggression of the IDF, how the IDF destroyed houses and property, how work permits were issued to Palestinians age 35 or older and who were not related to any of the victims of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, how the IDF barred any Palestinians from the West Bank or the Gaza Strip from entering Israel, how medical staff living in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority were prevented from going to work at hospitals in East Jerusalem, placed restrictions such as curfews on the Palestinians so they could not get food, milk, or other humanitarian supplies, how the IDF set up checkpoints restricting movement including ambulances with sick and injured or others who needed vital medical attention, how construction continued in the settlements which are prohibited by international law, and numerous illegal acts committed by the occupying Israeli Defense Force. (See attachment 4, Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories). P. 72.

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often submit written statements to the UN. The Secretary-General received a statement dated 15 January 2002 from the Federation of Associations for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights. The statement said, inter alia,:

"Since its creation, the State of Israel:

Has mass destruction and nuclear weapons, refusing to sign the No Proliferation Treaty.

Has used weapons forbidden by the international community against the Palestinian civil population under Israeli military occupation.

Has attacked sovereign Mediterranean states such as Lebanon and Tunisia.

Has systematically violated the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civil population under military occupation.

It has destroyed towns and villages and expelled civilians from the occupied territories, turning them into refugees with no right of return.

It has raided Palestinian populations and plundered their natural resources.

It has imposed collective punishments against the civil population such as massive house demolitions and destruction of farmland."

SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

A Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights dated 6 March 2002 describes the Israeli Defense Forces violations of the Palestinians human rights by the disproportionate use of force.

In paragraph 16 he (the Special Rapporteur) reports that since the start of the second intifada, in September 2000, nearly 1000 Palestinians have been killed and about 17,300 injured. More than 260 Israelis have been killed and about 2,400 injured. Most of the killed and injured have been civilians; many of them were children.

In paragraph 17 he notes that the first few months of the second intifada had violent clashes between Palestinian protesters, whose weapons were stones and Molotov cocktails, and the IDF.

Most deaths were caused by gunfire from the IDF. The report further noted that the report of the Human Rights Inquiry Commission found that the Israeli Defense Forces had responded in a disproportionate manner to protesters and were guilty of excessive use of force. The situation changed when the Palestinians moved from protest to armed force, and the Israelis have responded by using heavier weaponry. As of March 2002, the date of the Special Rapporteurs report "most Palestinians deaths have resulted from missile attacks directed at selected individuals suspected of terrorism (but which, inevitably, have also killed innocent by standers), shelling and shootings carried out by soldiers and settlers, often after an exchange of gunfire. Israeli deaths have largely been caused by terrorist bombs in Israel, itself, and by gunfire directed at settlers on bypass roads or in the proximity of settlements".

At paragraph 18, the report states that it is difficult to categorize the present conflict. At times it appears to be a law enforcement action by the IDF. At other times "it probably qualifies as an armed conflict as a result of the protracted armed violence between the IDF and the Palestinian militia".

The Fourth Geneva Convention requires the parties to:

In paragraph 23, the report points out that the international community is united in its categorization of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as violations of international law. The report further discusses the settlements, buffer zones, destruction of houses and property, restrictions on freedom of movement, economic distress, refugees, and the suffering of the children.

The Rapporteur concludes that the parties to the conflict are, themselves, either incapable or unwilling to bring the violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel to an end. He recommends the "need for international presence, either in the form of monitors or peacekeepers" to reduce violence, restore respect for human rights, and create conditions in which negotiations can be resumed. (See attachment 6, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights). P. 119.

My view is that the Palestinians are less like a "militia" and are more like prisoners in concentration camps with their oppressors greatly out-gunning them. There is no parity in weapons and militarism between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If this were a traditional "armed conflict", the parties would be required to respect the rules of international humanitarian law as stated in the Geneva Conventions, and avoid targeting civilians and civilian objects.

REPORT ON ISRAELI PRACTICES AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS-2002

In a Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories dated 16 September 2002 prepared for the United Nations General Assembly, the Special Committee considered numerous issues affecting the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Occupied Territories.

At paragraph 30, the report notes that since 29 March 2002, IDF has reoccupied the town of Ramallah and other cities, including Qalqila, Tulkarem, Bethlehem, Jenin and Nablus. Tanks and snipers have been used in clashes between IDF and Palestinian armed groups. Palestinian civilians have been unlawfully killed and there have been reports of extra judicial executions. Reports indicate that Israeli forces have used overwhelming and indiscriminate military force against Palestinian communities, such as intense bombardment as well as mass demolition of houses, most notably Nablus and the Jenin refugee camp.

The Special Committee noted how human rights and international law were violated and how the IDF prevented full access to investigate. In determining human rights standards and obligations, the Special Committee relied principally on the following body of international law:

The Charter of the United Nations;

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of 10 December 1948;

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of 16 December 1966;

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of 16 December 1966;

The (Fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

The Geneva Conventions relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War, of 12 August 1949;

The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, of 1 May 1954;

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land; and

The Special Committee also relied on those resolutions relevant to the situation of civilians in the occupied territories adopted by United Nations organsthe General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights. (See generally, attachment 7, Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories). P. 139.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT

The Amnesty International Report 2002, which covered the period January to December 2001 stated that more than 460 Palestinians were killed during 2001 by Israeli security forces; most were unlawfully killed. Among the victims were 79 children and 32 individuals targeted for assassination. More than 2,000 Palestinians were arrested for security reasons. There were widespread reports of police brutality. Palestinian detainees frequently reported that they were tortured or ill treated during interrogation. At the end of the year at least 40 people were under administrative detention. At least 33 conscientious objectors were imprisoned during 2001.

Hundreds of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories were tried before military courts in trials whose procedures fell short of international standards. Collective punishments against Palestinians included closures of towns and villages, demolition of more than 350 Palestinian homes and prolonged curfews. Palestinian armed groups killed 187 Israelis, including 154 civilians.

The Report further stated that Palestinian houses, especially those close to borders or settlements, were frequently destroyed without warning, and orchards and agricultural or industrial installations were destroyed. Most of the towns and villages in the Occupied Territories were closed by physical barriers or by army checkpoints during 2001. The IDF used heavy weaponry, including tanks, F16 fighter aircraft and naval gunships to shell, randomly, Palestinian areas from where Palestinians had opened fire. Palestinians were killed unlawfully by Israeli security forces. Israeli security forces killed some Palestinians during gun battles. Palestinian armed groups killed Israeli security force personnel and deliberately targeted Israeli civilians.

In a press release, Amnesty International said:

The Press Release further said:

Amnesty International further stated:

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH REPORT

Human Rights Watch put out a report called Israel, The Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, And The Palestinian Authority Territories, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, dated May 2002, which documents the blatant violation of human rights of the Palestinians by the Israelis. (See attachment 8). P. 161.

Daily, the Palestinian people live under the brutal occupation of the Israeli Defense Force and the "settlers" who are often American Jews who were given land in illegal settlements and weapons to subjugate the Palestinians; and America has looked the other way. The IDF bulldoze Palestinian homes with impunity under the ruse of ferreting out "militant" sanctuaries. They often kill innocent people.

On March 16, 2003, Rachel Corrie, 23, a college student from Olympia, Washington, was in Gaza City as a protester to the demolition of buildings in the Rafah refugee camp. As she tried to stop a bulldozer from tearing down a building, she was shouting, "stop", and waving her hands when she fell. She was wearing a brightly colored jacket, but the bulldozer ran over her; reversed; and ran over her again. The Israeli military and the US State Department had no immediate comment. (See "American Protester Killed by Israeli Bulldozer in Gaza" by Ibrahim Barzak, New York Times, March 16, 2003 www.nytimes.com). One would think this would be of grave concern to the US government, but apparently not. An American who is killed protesting for the Palestinians is obviously merely "collateral damage".

ISRAEL CONTINUES TO SEIZE AND OCCUPY PALESTINIAN LAND

Israel has had devastating effects on Palestine, and the aforementioned documents are only a small sample of what the international community knows to be the brutal, illegal, and unjust treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis.

On March 7, 2003, Israeli forces seized a band of territory in the northern Gaza Strip, effectively setting up a security zone in what the IDF called an open-ended campaign to thwart Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. This came right after a raid on a Gaza refugee camp on Thursday, March 6, in which 11 Palestinians were killed-- bloodshed that followed a suicide bombing that killed 15 people in Israel. (See "Israeli Forces Establish Gaza Security Zone" by Nidal al-Mughrabi, Reuters, Friday, March 7, 2003). While the worlds focus is on the US invasion of Iraq, Israel has continuously taken more and more Palestinian land under the pretext of "security". The ethnic cleansing continues.

Negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis have not brought peace. Accounts about the July 2000 Camp David summit with Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat, and Bill Clinton have erroneously claimed that Barak gave Arafat a generous offer which was refused. There never was a written offermerely oral proposals. Barak was guided by antipathy toward the concept of gradual steps that formed the basis of the 1983 Oslo agreement. He discarded a number of interim steps, even those to which Israel was formally committeda third partial redeployment of troops from the West Bank, the transfer to Palestinian control of three villages, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.

Arafats perspective was that Israel had not even complied with the Oslo requirements. The Camp David proposals were not adequate for Arafat. They did not deal with the issue of refugees; the land exchange was unbalanced; and much of Arab East Jerusalem was to remain under Israeli sovereignty. (See "Camp David: A Tragedy of Errors" by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, The Guardian, Friday, July 20, 2001). (For further discussion of Baraks "offer" and other issues including water and agricultural land, see "Misrepresentation of Baraks Offer At Camp David As Generous and Unprecedented" by Nigel Perry, The Electronic Intifada, 20 March 2002 <electronicintifada.net >).

While America attention was diverted on the Iraq war, buried on the last page of the "A" section of a newspaper under the columns called "Briefs" was this "brief":

Israel does not seem to want peace because it would interfere with its land grabbing.

HOW ISRAEL AND ZIONISM HAS DAMAGED THE UNITED STATES

INCREASED TERRORIST ACTIVITY

Israels actions (especially under the Likud administration of Ariel Sharon) against the Palestinians has created a plausible cause for the Muslim extremists who see Israels violence, supported by the United States, as a new "crusade" against the Islamic world. They see themselves in a jihad (holy war) against the new "crusaders". Americas recent invasion of Iraq gives even more credence to the belief of a US and Zionist crusade against Muslims and Arabs.

Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to rise against America:

In a commentary from an Al Qaeda recruitment video seized by police in London in the aftermath of 9/11, the following was said:

Thus, one can readily see the effect of Americas complicity with Israel on part of the Muslim world. When President Bush and other wise pundits in the American media opined that 9/11 occurred because "the Muslims just dont like us because of our life style" or " the Muslims dont like us because they are jealous of us"that was disingenuous.

LOSS OF U.S. CREDIBILITY

Although the US has often protected Israel, the United Nations has condemned Israels actions numerous times. Israel has violated numerous UN resolutions, and the United States has condoned Israels conduct. This has created resentment against the US by other nations because the US reason to invade Iraq for violating United Nations resolutions lacks credibility when compared to Israeli violations of scores of UN resolutions.

In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, it was reported a decade ago:

The article further noted something very important:

MEDIA DECEPTION

We all have seen the pictures of the Israeli men, women and children who have been killed or seriously injured by a bombers blast, but seldom do we see or hear about the details of the social and economic impact, the atrocities, the violations of international law, the genocide of Palestinian people by the Israelis. A suicide bomber may kill some Israelis on a bus or in a market or at a wedding or at one of the "settlements" (which violate United Nations resolutions), and the networks and talk shows "hype" the incidents emphasizing how "evil" the Palestinians are and how they are not suicide bombers but rather they are "homicide" bombers. The media misleads the public by not showing the brutality of the occupation of Palestine by the Israelis, and the media has dehumanized the Palestinians as a people.

The Israeli occupation of the Palestinians is brutal, but the American media plays the ping-pong game of reporting a suicide attack and then it reports the disproportionate Israeli Defense Force (IDF) attack as a necessity for "security", thereby deceiving the public into believing that the conflict is a simple tit for tat cycle of violence with the players being in equal positions. The "suicide bombers" are portrayed, as inhuman terrorists while the Israelis are "victims". The American people are not informed that the Palestinian people are under brutal occupation by Israel, which uses tanks, Apache helicopters, F-16 jet fighter aircraft, and other modern weapons to suppress and eradicate the Palestinians. The media deceives by omission.

The media does not show how the Israeli government and its Zionist supporters in this country manipulate American foreign policy in the Middle East. People, well placed in our government and media, have embarked on a campaign to promote the use of Americas military might to invade numerous foreign countries throughout the world that are either Muslim or Arab. (See reference to the Project for the New American Century, infra.).

I believe that the American media is pro-Zionist as shown by very little, if any, media criticism of Israel; but the media in the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere paints an unsanatized view of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians. The various reports to the United Nations inform the entire world about Israels treatment of the Palestinians and other transgressions while the American people have been kept in the dark about the truth of what is happening in Palestine. (Note that much of the attribution in this paper is not from the mainstream media).

The media has been as deceptive in its reporting of the events leading up to the present Iraq war as it was during Desert Storm. Before the Soviet Union broke up, some Russian writers touring the US noted that the newspapers and television opinions on the vital issues were almost all the same. They commented that in their country, the threat of torture or imprisonment under a dictatorship got the same result. They asked, "Whats the secret?"

That message of over a decade ago is just as applicable, if not more so, today.

The Palestinians are "non-American human beings" who are "generally ignored".

Operation Iraqi Freedom has also involved a great deal of media deception. The media and the Bush administration have told the American public that the US must attack, effect a regime change, and occupy Iraq because Iraq violated UN Resolution 1441; Saddam Hussein is a bad person; the Iraqi people must be liberated; the US must bring democracy to the Middle East; that Saddam is a threat to the world; and an invasion of Iraq will help in the "war on terrorism". The media also told us that the war would be over quickly, and the Iraqi people would welcome the US forces as liberators.

It is interesting to note that the US attempts to bribe and coerce UN Security Council members to circumvent the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and other principles of international law and vote to attack Iraq were fruitless. It was not only France (as the media would have the public believe), but also Germany, Russia, China, and the majority of the Security Council who did not consider Saddam to be the threat to the world as George W. did. Now, according to the UN Charter, the other nations could vote to take unified military action in support of Iraq against the United States for its armed attack against Iraq.

The media does not harp, everyday, as it does about Iraq, about how Israel has violated scores of UN resolutions, often with US blessing or assistance; that there are other UN resolutions requiring inspections and quarterly reports until the Security Council says otherwise; that Ariel Sharon is considered to be a war criminal; that the US invasion of Iraq violates international law; that there is no international authority for one country to impose any form of government upon another country by force of arms; that most of the rest of the world does not see Saddam as a threat, and the invasion of Iraq will support the "terrorists" claims that the US and Israel are on a crusade against the Arab and Muslim states. The media does not question nor even discuss the legal propriety of George W. using the American armed forces to try to assassinate a foreign head of state simply because he thinks Saddam is a threat.

While the media has focused on the action in Operation Iraqi Freedom with the "imbedded" journalists traveling along with the troops, it has told us very little, if anything, of the death and destruction of the Iraqi people. This war has also provided an excellent diversion from the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians so that the American public can forget Israeli transgressions there. The media has portrayed Operation Iraqi Freedom as a special event similar to the Super Bowl. Americans love action especially when its "live" on television. Seeing the action as it happensthe burning and bombing of Baghdadis entertaining. Americans love to be entertained. The tanks rolling into Baghdad remind one of the tanks rolling into the Sudetenland. "Shock and Awe" remind one of "Blitzkrieg".

It is difficult to understand that Operation Iraqi Freedom is to free the Iraqi people when the US military action causes such death and destruction to the Iraqi people. And we were told that this invasion, this destruction, this carnage, was because we were trying to free the Iraqi people. Apparently, the Bush administration miscalculated the Iraqi soldiers desire to protect their homeland, their wives and children, their mothers and fathers, their brothers and sisters. It is also difficult to believe that the oil in Iraq has nothing to do with this war or that when America is done invading Iraq and killing its people, America will take over Iraq to help the people. While it is true that it is shocking and despicable that some Iraqis killed American POWs clearly in violation of the Law of War, and the media reminds us of this fact, there is no more discussion by the media of the illegality of the US invasion of Iraq in the first place.

The media has deceived the public into thinking that this war is relatively bloodless unless some Americans or Brits are killed or injured. Are any Iraqis being killed or injured? Of course there are, but the media is not reporting the Iraqi casualties. They simply parrot the party line about the accuracy of the bombs and Tomahawk Cruise missiles and how they are only killing or destroying "command and control centers". Those scenes of Baghdad burning indicate fire and destruction on more than command and control centers. The American public has been sufficiently brainwashed by the media not to deduce that if some of these Cruise missiles have mistakenly missed the entire country of Iraq and landed in Iran and Turkey that perhaps they could inadvertently land on innocent Iraqi civilians and other prohibited targets.

MYTHS ABOUT ISRAEL

I believe that there are several reasons why the United States seems to almost irrationally support Israel.

There are many myths about Israel, which deceive the American people. For example"Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East". Not true. Israel is a theocracy, is run like a military-police state, and practices apartheid against the Palestinians. Israel does not even have a constitution. As a result of the policies and actions of Israel and the United States, Arab regimes are repressive so that they can control the increasing Islamic extremism rapidly growing

Another myth, which is simply a lie, is: "Israel is our number one ally in the Middle East". Lets see how good an "ally" Israel has been:

Israel has blown up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt.

Israel has attacked a US ship (USS Liberty) in international waters, killing thirty-three and wounding one hundred seventy-seven American sailors. The Israelis deliberately attacked and killed US military personnel, and President Johnson covered it up.

Israel employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the USs then enemy, the Soviet Union. Israel, our "ally", at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him an Israeli citizen, and has continuously demanded that the American President grant Pollard a full pardon.

Israel has detained and tortured American citizens of Palestinian descent.

Israel knew before-hand that the terrorists had a truck-bomb and would probably drive it into the US Marines barracks in Lebanon, and the Israelis did not adequately warn the US. Two hundred fifty US Marines were killed. (See "Allies Dont Let Our Soldiers Die: Did Israel Deliberately Allow 241 American Marines to Die?" by Joseph Sobran www.sobran.com.).

Israel still spies on the US, and as recently as 9/11/01 to about ninety days thereafter, federal officials had arrested or detained nearly 200 Israeli citizens suspected of belonging to an "organized intelligence-gathering operation". The Bush administration deported most of those arrested after 9/11, although some were held under the anti-terrorism law. Amdocs Ltd., an Israeli-based private elecommunications company, handles most directory assistance calls, and virtually all call records and billing in the US. The FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs, and in 1999 a US national security agency warned that records of calls in the US were in foreign handsIsrael. The records contained data about who is calling whom and when. (See "Investigation Into the Israeli Infiltration of the US Government", Four Part Report, Fox News USA, Published December 12, 13, 13, and 17. 2001). So much for our good "ally"Israel, spying on us.

Israel has given China "Harpy" drone weapons, which have been deployed opposite Taiwan. The Harpy is an unmanned drone equipped with anti-radar sensors and a bomb. The weapon flies near a target radar for up to two hours and once illuminated by electronic waves is guided to the target and explodes. (See "China Deploys Drones from Israel" by Bill Gertz, Washington Times, July 2, 2002).

Israel plans to sell AWACS aircraft to China. This would allow the Chinese to conduct long-range surveillance and coordinate forces during any conflict situations, possibly against Taiwan. (See "Israel to Supply Chinese with AWACS", Journal of Aerospace and Defense Industry News, p. 44, November 12, 1999).

Israel designed the Lavi fighter-bomber largely with United States funds, but it sold China the plans for the Lavi along with the associated secret US technology. China has built its own version of this new generation aircraft which was modeled upon the F-16 Fighting Falcon multi-role aircraft. (See "Special Report: US Military Technology Sold By Israel To China Upsets Asian Power Balance" by Tim Kennedy, January 1996. pp. 12, 96 www.vtweb.com/report/back/1996/01/9601012.html).

CORRUPTION OF U.S. POLITICS

Early on, Israel started to corrupt American and British politics. As Israel was emerging as a state, members of Congress and Jewish organizations pressed President Truman to support immigration of Jews to Palestine. He pressured the British to permit immediate entry of an additional 100,000 Jews from Europe into Palestine.

Some private Jewish Americans and Jewish members of Congress also warned the British that they might not get American financial aid to rebuild their country after the war if they did not allow the immigration. Some of Trumans advisors warned him not to create animosity between the United States and the Arab states and the Muslims inhabiting a strategic arc stretching from Morocco on the Atlantic Ocean across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southern Asia as far as the present states of Malaysia and Indonesia on the Pacific rim.

Truman told them, "I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." /15 Truman recognized the new Jewish state only eleven minutes after the British mandate ended and the existence of Israel was proclaimed. He set the standard for Congressmen and Presidents to come.

Today, Israel and its supporters influence American politics through its powerful political lobbyAIPAC. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) gives political guidance and provides more than eighty pro-Israel PACs set up by Jewish organizations or community groups to raise and funnel campaign funds to friendly candidates. /16 AIPAC puts the fear of God, or in this case, the fear of Israel, into candidates running for the U.S. Congress. /17

Here is how AIPAC operates: At AIPAC conventions, members are encouraged to provide early money to anointed candidatesthose who support Israel. Friendly candidates in trouble are targeted to insure they understand who is contributing and why. Many individual Jewish donors make their donation to the candidates campaign, but mail the check to a pro-Israel organization. There, it is "bundled" with checks from like-minded donors and delivered to the candidate by an officer of the organization so that the candidate understands where his money came from and how he is to vote regarding issues relating to Israel. /18

The obvious result is that Congressmen assume that individual Jewish donors will be informed in advance as to exactly where each local and national candidate stands on Israel, and on election day Jewish voters will be willing to cast their votes on that issue alone. Many members of Congress still seem out of touch with the changing opinions on the Middle East among their own non-Jewish constituents, most of which are not one-issue voters on Middle East policy. Few members are able to ignore the demanding lobbyists of AIPAC, or to request answers about violations of U.S. laws both by the lobby and by its intransigent Israeli client. /19

In fact, if a congressman dares to even criticize Israeli lobby or Jewish supporters, he is castigated unmercifully and publicly humiliated. For example, Representative James Moran, Jr., Democrat, Virginia, addressed an anti-war forum in Reston, Virginia on March 3, 2003; and he said:

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."

He further said that Jewish leaders "are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should." (See "Lawmaker Criticized for Words" by Eric M Weiss and Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, as printed in the Arizona Republic, March 12, 2003, p. A 16).

As a result of these comments, which could have been made about Roman Catholics or the Christian Right or the neoconservatives, he was asked to resign by some Jewish leaders; and they refused to accept his apologies. I personally believe he was right, but congressmen who dare to criticize Israel or Jews who support legitimately debatable issues are rebuked.

I believe that this is the area where campaign finance reform is definitely needed, but not one of our illustrious Congressmen dares to deal with it. Instead Congress aids and abets in the corruption of our political process and our foreign policy, especially as they relate to the Middle East. Any religious group (especially with a loyalty to a foreign state) which can intimidate US Congressmen such that none dare criticize the policies or misdeeds of any other particular foreign country, does not serve the best interests of the United States.

Prior to Operation Desert Storm, Iraq, formerly an ally of the U.S., attacked Kuwait after supposedly receiving a tacit or ambiguous expression of indifference to its proposed action from Ambassador April Glaspie (to be discussed later). President George Bush (the elder) wrestled with the idea of invading Iraq for a lot of disingenuous reasons (in my view) until he decided it was to rescue Kuwait, but he laid the groundwork first. He got U.N. resolutions approving military action; he built a coalition of countries to support his actions; he used economic sanctions; and he sought support from Congress to use American military forces in Iraq. The vote in Congress was going to be close.

Saddam Hussein proposed withdrawing from Kuwait if the United States would consider the Palestinian problem, which related to the allegations that Israel was occupying territory in Palestine in violation of United Nations resolutions, but American Jews did not want "linkage" of the two issues. (See "Why Linkage Doesnt Connect" by Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, p. 24, January 21, 1991). Ultimately, the Jewish influence in Congress, through AIPAC, pressured Congress to give Bush the authority to commit U.S. troops to combat in Iraq. /20

This same Zionist influence, today, drives Congress to do anything, which supports Israel by the giving of billions of US taxpayers dollars to Israel and supporting Israels violations of international law.

Israel is embarking on a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International. (See "Israel to Kill in US; Allied Nations" by Richard Sale, United Press International, Published 1/15/2003). This is just another example of how Israel and its supporters have become so arrogant and diabolical about their ability to manipulate American values and policy. It will be interesting to see if Congress will allow summary executions of "suspected terrorists" on US soil by foreign agents (Israelis) when American law enforcement officers cannot do so against suspected or even known murderers.

ZIONISM AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

Zionists have not only influenced American politics, but they have negatively influenced Christianity by duping the Christian Right into believing that the present state of Israel is related to Biblical Prophecy. This alliance between Zionists and the Christian Right has influenced US foreign policy in the Middle East. Some of the extremist religious-right organizations such as the Christian Coalition seem to want war against the Arab world.

"It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israels only safety belt right now," said televangelist Jerry Fallwell on 60 Minutes in October 2002. He further said, "There are 70 million of ustheres nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public on this country down on the government like abandoning or opposing Israel".

In April 2002, when President George Bush called upon Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns, Fallwell protested. Fallwells fundamentalist Christian followers flooded the White House with 100,000 emails. Bush obeyed and the tanks stayed put, and Fallwell said, "I really believe when the chips are down, Ariel Sharon can trust George Bush to do the right thing every time." According to 60 Minutes reporter, Bob Simon, the far right Christian groups claim "they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby." (Emphasis added). (See Report from the President of CNI, Council for the National Interest by Eugene H. Bird, January 20, 2003).

Some Zionists have even infiltrated Christianity. Cyrus I. Schofield and the Oxford University Press were involved in the re-writing of the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. Schofield died in 1921, but the Oxford University Press has continued to make the Bible, which almost deifies the state of Israel.

In 1967, there were numerous pro-Zionist notes added to the so-called Schofield Reference Bible long after Schofields death. Some of Schofields most significant notes from the original editions were removed in the 1967 edition. The 1967 edition was prepared at the time of the Six-Day War when Israel seized and occupied Palestine. The newly inserted footnotes presumptuously granted the right to the Palestinians land to Israel. They make "anti-Semitism" a "sin" subject to "inevitable judgment". The only problem with this concocted passage is that there is no word for "anti-Semitism" in the New Testament or in the Ten Commandments. There was no sin of anti-Semitism in the Bible until 1967.

In the 1967 edition, there is a reference that the people who persecute the Jews shall have "ill" visit them. But none of these notes appeared in the original Schofield Reference Bible or in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel did not exist until 1948. Prior to that time, the word "Israel" in the dictionary referred to a particular man and an ancient tribe.

There are numerous references in the revised Schofield Reference Bible, which are pro-Israel although Jesus originally accused the Pharisees of being descendants of the Devil, the murderer, the liar. Yet, the anti-Jewish passages are softened. Schofield had written in one of his notes, " I know that ye are of Abrahams seed. If ye were of Abrahams children is that between the natural and the spiritual posterity of Abraham? The Israelitish people and the Ishmaelitish people are the former." But here is what the 1967 pro-Zionist version says: "All Jews are natural descendants of Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity". What happened to the "Ishmaelitish people"? They are omitted.

This so-called Schofield Reference Bible is used by Christian churches and Bible Study Fellowship and Precept Ministries, evangelical fundamentalist churches, Catholic and mainline Protestant churches all over the world. The Southern Baptist Convention of America even recommends this Bible. Jews and Zionists have found a home with the Christian Right in America. That is why we now have the terms"dispensationalism", "Judeo-Christianity", and "Christian-Zionism". (See "The Pharisees Lay Siege On American Christianity" by Charles E. Carlson, Right to the Point, The Journal of "We Hold These Truths", Vol. V, Issue II, pp. 7-11, Fall 2002).

I believe that Jews and Christians and Muslims should pray together, work together, live together in peace; but the political aims of the Zionists, and those who support them, do not appear to be peaceful, based on the evidence. I am saying that Christian fundamentalism, Zionism, and Judaism should not be allowed to corrupt our cherished secular or religious institutions to eradicate the Palestinians or other Arabs or Muslims in the Middle East or elsewhere or to steal property, whether land, oil, or water, in order to acquire that which is "from the Nile to the Euphrates". They also should not be allowed to influence US foreign policy in the Middle East such that the US ignores Israels injustice to the Palestinians, or Israel causes the US to become despised by the rest of the world, or Israel pushes the US into attacking Iraq in violation of the principles of the other civilized nations of the world. And nobody has the courage to say so out of fear of social, economic, or actual physical reprisal. Or out of concern for being called anti-Semitic.

AMERICAS WAR ON IRAQ

AMERICA SUPPORTED IRAQ

When Iraq had been at war with Iran, the United States supported Saddam Husseins war machine with arms, money, technology, and weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons. In a witness statement before the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 6, 1990, a person very knowledgeable of matters relating to the Middle East spoke about what he thought the United States should do regarding Iraq. To put the statement in context, one must remember that Iraq and Iran had been at war for several years. (See "U.S. Policy in the Persian Gulf and Kuwaiti Reflagging" by Michael H. Armacost, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Reagan Administration, reprint of a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 16 June 1987, Air War College Associate Studies Vol. II, LSN 33, 1^st Ed., pp. 115-118).

The senate witness said:

The significance of this testimony is: (1) that it considered Iraq as a "partner" and not a "threat" to the United States; (2) that a year later the United States was at war with Iraq; and (3) that the testimony was given by General H. Norman Schwartzkopf, the field commander of the forces to defeat Iraq. Saddam Hussein was Americas friend and ally one year before Desert Storm, and the US had armed him.

So why did the US have to go to war with Iraq in 1990? Was it really because Iraq invaded Kuwait?

U.S. SET UP IRAQ WAR WITH KUWAIT

Eight days before his August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then Americas ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq went to war. She told Saddam that the United States would like him to settle his dispute with Kuwait (Kuwait had been slant oil drilling under Iraq) peacefully, but she added , "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." (See "Henry Hyde Has the Right AnswerDo We need a War with Iraq?" by Terence P. Jeffrey, Human Events On Line, The Week of October 29, 2001). Glaspie deceived Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein was stunned by the vehement response from the West to his occupation of Kuwait based on what Glaspie told him a little over a week earlier. Angry journalists confronted Glaspie, clutching copies of the transcript of her session with Saddam, accusing her of giving carte blanche to take over Kuwait. At one of these sessions a rattled Glaspie replied, "I didnt thinkthe Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait." (Emphasis added). (See "Bombs Over Baghdad: 10 years after Desert Storm" by Martin OMalley & Owen Wood, CBS News On Line, January 2001). Glaspie was removed from her post.

The Bush (the elder) administration demonized Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and this was intended to give the American public "reasons" to go to war against Iraq.

U.S. CLAIM THAT IRAQ THREATENED SAUDI ARABIA WAS A LIE

One of the main reasons for America going to war against Iraq in 1990 was because the White House declared there were satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks and troops massing on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia threatening invasion of Saudi Arabia. The reports fueled the war hysteria and frightened the Saudis, who then agreed to full cooperation with US military forces. These "satellite photos" were a major reason used to convince the American people of the justification of the war to protect and defend the oil supplies so vital to the West; however, the photos were never released, and Russian Satellite photos showed there was no such large scale massing of troops as the US claimed. (See "Unanswered Questions About the Supposed Iraqi Threat to Saudi Arabia in 1990" FROM PRESS REPORTS in 1990 by the Editor, Jon Basil Utley, Christian Science Monitor). Thus, the Bush (the elder) administration lied when it stated on August 8, 1990, that the purpose of the US troop deployment to Saudi Arabia was "strictly defensive" and necessary to protect Saudi Arabia from an imminent Iraqi invasion.

IRAQI TROOPS DID NOT RIP RESPIRATORS FROM KUWATI BABIES

The propaganda war continued when a teenaged Kuwaiti woman known only as "Nayirah" told a US Congressional committee that she watched Iraqi troops rip respirators from premature babies in a Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the infants to die. President George Bush (the elder) often spoke of the villainy, taking of "babies from the incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor". But this was all a lie. No respirators were ripped from any babies in any incubators. It was a fabrication to create loathing against Iraq. Little "Nayirah" turned out to be Nayriah Sabah, the daughter of Kuwaits ambassador to the US. Her visit to the congressional committee had been arranged by the US advertising agency, Hill & Knowlton. (See "Bombs Over Baghdad: 10 years after Desert Storm" by Martin OMalley & Owen Wood, CBS News On Line, January 2001).

SADDAM HUSSEIN PROBABLY DID NOT GAS THE KURDS AT HALABJA

Another reason stated by Bush (the elder) and George W. for toppling the "evil" Saddam Hussein is because he allegedly "gassed his own people". The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar chant by the warmongers. The hard evidence most often cited concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

Stephen C. Pelletiere, the former Central Intelligence Agencys senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and former professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. He also headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States. The classified version of the report went into much detail about the Halabja affair. The gassing at Halabja occurred during the course of a battle between the Iraqis and the Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill the Iranians who seized their town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange, but they were not Iraqs main target.

After the battle, the Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which asserted that Iranian gas killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The DIA found that both Iran and Iraq used gas against each other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the Kurds bodies indicated they were killed with a blood agenta cyanide-based gaswhich Iran was known to use. The Iraqis probably had mustard gas in the battle and were not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. (See "A Crime or an Act of War" by Stephen C. Pelletiere, New York Times, Opinion, Friday, 31 January 2003). Did Saddam really gas the Kurds?

Bush (junior) and his administration often chant the slogan, "Saddam gassed (used chemical weapons on) his own people". Assuming he did, which the DIA said he didnt, what does one consider the use of Agent Orange in Viet Nam, which caused cancer for thousands of our soldiers, myself included? Also, there is some evidence and concern that a preservative, thimerisol, used in multiple vaccines given to Gulf War veterans may be responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. Thimerisol is an ethylmercury-based compound that was used in childhood vaccines until 1999 until vaccine-makers, under pressure from Congress, removed it from childrens vaccines because of its potential risk as a neurotoxin. (See "Gulf War Vets Walking Wounded" by Kerry Fehr-Snyder, The Arizona Republic, March 10, 2003, p.A1). If Saddam Hussein used chemical agents on his people, so have we; and we gave him his chemical weapons.

CONGRESSIONAL VOTE TO SUPPORT THE WAR WAS CLOSE

I believe that Bush (the elder) wrestled with the idea of invading Iraq for a lot of disingenuous reasons until he decided it was to rescue Kuwait. He sought support from Congress to use American military forces in Iraq, and many members of Congress were not enthusiastic about giving the President a resolution supporting military action--they wanted to give the sanctions more time. The vote in Congress was going to be close. (See "Bracing for War" by Tom Morganthau, et al., Newsweek, January 21, 1991, pp. 16-19).

Saddam Hussein proposed withdrawing from Kuwait if the United States would consider the Palestinian problem, which related to the allegations that Israel was occupying territory in Palestine in violation of United Nations resolutions, but (as stated previously) American Jews did not want "linkage" of the two issues.

Operation Desert Storm commenced, and the war was short-lived. The allied coalition forces heavily bombarded Iraq with "smart bombs", "dumb bombs", cruise missiles, and everything in

between. Iraq was driven out of Kuwait in accordance with the UN objective, and Iraq was subjected to some UN mandates per Security Council Resolutions.

UN RESOLUTION 687 IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON IRAQ

The UN imposed sanctions on Iraq, after Desert Storm, through UN resolutions. Resolution 687 (November 29, 1990) established cease-fire terms and set up the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) to disarm Iraq, and it listed specific conditions for lifting sanctions.

Under paragraph 8, Iraq was to destroy, remove, or render harmless, under international supervision, all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities. Iraq was to get rid of its ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers.

Under paragraph 11, Iraq was "invited" to reaffirm its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968.

Under paragraph 12, Iraq was to unconditionally agree not to develop nuclear weapons or components or subsystems or to do nuclear research, and, apparently, UNSCOM has not provided the "international supervision" as envisioned under paragraph 8 until recently.

Under paragraph 22, if Iraq complied with the provisions of the resolution, then the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto would no longer have force or effect. In other words, if Iraq wanted to do commerce again with the rest of the world, it had to comply with the disarmament provisions. If it did not comply, the trade embargos would remain in effect, financial transactions would remain barred, and government assets would remain frozen. There was no provision in the resolution which authorized the invasion of Iraq if it did not comply. Iraq has never attacked the US, and the UN has allowed the status quo for over a decade.

UN RESOLUTION 1284 REQUIRES QUARTERLY REPORTS TO SECURITY COUNCIL

UN Resolution 1284 (1999) established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace the special commission established pursuant to resolution 687. As Hans Blix stated in his report to the Security Council on March 7, 2003, UNMOVIC is working under resolution 1441 (2002) and several other UN resolutions. He was required to submit a quarterly report under resolution 1284 to the Security Council on "unresolved disarmament issues" and to identify "key remaining disarmament tasks" and the latter were to be submitted for approval by the Security Council in the context of a work program. (See Hans Blixs Report, March 7, 2003). The Security Council determines the progress of the disarmament, not the United States. When the US invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, it violated UN resolution 1284, the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions.

NO-FLY ZONES OVER IRAQ NOT SANCTIONED BY UNITED NATIONS

Some may say that the shooting at US pilots who fly over the "UN no-fly zones" by the Iraqis constitutes "attacks" on the US, but US and British warplanes have bombed more that 80 targets in Iraqs southern "no-fly" zone over the past five months, conducting an escalating air war even as UN weapons inspections proceeded and diplomats looked for ways to avoid war. The interesting point is that the United Nations does not recognize the no-fly zones or the US assertion that it is enforcing UN resolutions. Last fall, Russias foreign ministry said escalating attacks by US and British warplanes against Iraqi air defenses have made it more difficult for UN efforts to resume weapons inspections in Iraq. Iraq says it fires at the aircraft because they are violating Iraqi airspace. (See "Airstrikes in Southern Iraq No-Fly Zones Mount" by Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, January 15, 2003).

NO SOLID EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

George W. Bush has done everything in his power to justify another US invasion of Iraq in 2003. He said he wanted to attack Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction, but he lacked significant, credible evidence to support his claim. Hans Blix, chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, disputed allegations by the Bush administration about the Iraqis hiding illicit materials or hiding scientists or penetrating the UN inspection agency. (See "Chief Weapons Inspector Disputes Bush Spin On Iraq Report", Arizona Republic, p. A22, January 31, 2003).

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said, that in his view, Iraq was not yet in material breach of a UN resolution on disarmament contrary to what Britain and the United States have stated. (See "Iraq Not In Breach of UN Arms Resolution", Reuters, January 30, 2003).

On February 5, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Counsel that Saddam Hussein violated UN resolutions, was a threat because he still had weapons of mass destruction, was assisting terrorists, and reliable "sources" proved his case. Although his presentation was glib, it lacked substance and was clearly insufficient to justify raining hundreds of Tomahawk Cruise missiles (2000 pound flying, guided bombs) on Iraqi mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, doctors, lawyers, taxi drivers, merchants, etc.

If Colin Powell were cross-examined on the identities, trustworthiness, or motives of his "sources", or on why he used drawings rather than satellite photos, or how he knew what was in trucks or buildings, or how Saddam is responsible for alleged poison camps supposedly run by terrorists in Kurdish areas outside of Saddams control, or why the US didnt turn over its evidence to the inspectors as required by UN resolution 1441, he would probably look quite foolish. (See "Cross-Examining Colin" by William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Perspective, Thursday, 06 February 2003).

It has now been disclosed that a British intelligence dossier used by Colin Powell in his presentation has been discredited by several academics who say they recognized most of the dossier as lifted, verbatim, from articles published in the U.S. journal, The Middle East Review of International Affairs, and in Janes Intelligence Review. (See "Britain Stands By Iraq Report", Reuters, February 7, 2003).

On Saturday, February 8, 2003, guerrillas draped in grenades and Kalashnikovs allowed journalists to inspect a compound in northern Iraq that Secretary of State Colin Powell identified in a satellite photograph before the UN Security Council as a terrorist haven for making chemical agents. The guerrillas disputed Powells charges that they are linked to Al Qaeda and masterminding a poison factory and training camp to attack Western targets. The fighters claimed to be against the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which governs the eastern portion of northern Iraq, for control of about a dozen villages. (See "Guerrillas Open Iraq Camp to Journalists" by Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times, as reprinted in The Arizona Republic, p. A8, February 8, 2003). One wonders how Powell might explain this matter.

On February 11, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the Middle East news network, Al Jazeera, had a tape of Osama bin Laden clearly establishing a connection between Osama and Saddam, beyond all question. He said, "This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored." The actual tape, played live and translated, was different from Powells version. Osama bin Laden swore vengeance against America if Iraq was attacked, and he demanded that the Muslim world stand in solidarity with the Muslim people of Iraq. He clearly told the Iraqi people to rise up against both American aggression and against "socialist" Saddam Hussein. (See "Osama Rallies Muslims, Condemns Hussein" by William Rivers Pitt, Truthout|Perspective, Wednesday, 12 February 2003). This effort to further demonize Saddam Hussein still did not persuade the UN to support George W. Bush in his goal to invade Iraq.

To further demonstrate how far the George W. Bush administration was willing to go to demonize Saddam Hussein, it used forged documents which indicated that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, the West African nation that is the third-largest producer of mined uranium, Nigers largest export. In December 2002, the State Department used the information to support its case that Iraq was lying about its weapons programs. But on March 7, 2003, Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were forgeries. ElBaradei also said his inspectors have found no evidence that Saddam has revived Iraqs nuclear weapons program. The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the FBI on March 14 to investigate the forged documents the Bush

administration used as evidence against Saddam Hussein and his military ambitions in Iraq. (See "Senator Wants Fake Iraq Documents Probed" by Ken Guggenheim, Associate Press Writer, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Saturday, March 15, 2003).

U.S. CLAIM OF IRAQI VIOLATION OF U.N. RESOLUTION WAS A PRETEXT FOR WAR

Bush said Iraq has violated UN resolutions, but the UN and Bush knew that Israel had violated, and is still violating, several times more resolutions than Iraq has. Iraq has violated 17 UN resolutions; Israel has violated nearly 70 UN resolutions. North Korea, Israel, and Pakistanall have nuclear weapons and have not agreed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Bush ignores this while Israel commits genocide in Palestine, which he also ignores. The US claim that we had to invade Iraq for violating UN resolutions was a pretext for war.

Al Qaeda is a major threat, and the unjustified invasion against Iraq will inflame the Islamic extremists and add to their numbers and incite their wrath, which Bush ignores. The commander of US forces in Afghanistan said a war in Iraq could provoke attacks on Americans and coalition forces and against the US backed Afghan government. The war is not over in Afghanistan, and the warlords are not happy with the central government. (See "Iraq War May Stir Afghans", "Arizona Republic", p. A23, February 2, 2003).

ISRAELS AGENTS WANTED U.S. TO INVADE IRAQ AND OTHER ARAB STATES

What is the real reason the US wanted to invade Iraq? In case one doubts that George W. might be invading Iraq for his good friend whom he calls "a man of peace", Israels Prime Minister Sharon wanted Bush to attack other Arab countries, too:

"American action is of vital importance" to whomthe US or Israel? Or have they become one and the same? Bush and Sharon are close, but Ariel Sharon is an accused "war criminal" for his genocide of innocent civilians in Lebanon, yet, the US supports Israel unconditionally. Sharon has violated U.N. resolutions, and he has weapons of mass destruction, but if one criticizes Sharon, the critic is labeled anti-Semitic.

Although George W. Bush calls Ariel Sharon a "man of peace", the evidence shows otherwise. When Shimon Peres was chastising Sharon about his actions, Sharon bragged: "I want to tell you something very clear, dont worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it". (Emphasis added). (As reported on Kol Yisrael radio, October 3, 2001). Jews strongly influence U.S. Middle East policy.

Zionists or Israeli agents have influential positions in the Defense Department, and they want the US to attack Iraq and other Arab countries. Richard N. Perle is the chairman of the Defense Policy Board and is a leading advocate for war on Iraq. The Defense Policy Board is a Defense Department advisory group composed primarily of highly respected former government officials, retired military officers, academics, former national-security advisers, Secretaries of Defense, and heads of the C.I.A. Perle, the chairman, is also a managing partner in a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P. whose main business is to invest in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense. Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi-born businessman who brokered billions of dollars in arms and aircraft sales for the Saudi royal family, arranged a lunch meeting in France with himself, Perle, and Harb Saleh al-Zuhair, a Saudi industrialist whose family fortune includes extensive holdings in construction, electronics, and engineering companies throughout the Middle East. One of the purposes of the meeting was to pave the way for Zuhair to put together a group of ten Saudi businessmen who would invest ten million dollars each in Trireme, Perles company. (See "Lunch With The Chairman" by Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, Issue of 3-17-2003 Posted 3-10-2003 www.newyorker.com).

As chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Perle is a special government employee, is subject to the federal Code of Conduct, and is not supposed to take advantage of his federal position to help himself financially in any way. In 1983, Perle was the subject of a New York Times investigation into an allegation that he recommended that the Army buy weapons from an Israeli company from whose owners he had, two years earlier, accepted a fifty-thousand-dollar fee. Perle admitted he accepted the fee but denied any wrongdoing. (Ibid.).

As chairman, Perle has become increasingly influential, and has advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the use of preemptive military action to combat terrorism. He also has been an out-spoken critic of Saudi Arabia. Perles allies are Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the UnderSecretary of Defense for Policy, who is the Pentagons third-ranking civilian official. (Ibid.). Perle and Feith have been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein long before September 11, 2001. They also worked together, in 1996, to prepare a list of policy initiatives for Benjamin Netanyahu shortly after his election as the Israeli Prime Minister. The suggestions included working toward regime change in Iraq. Feith and Perle were energetic supporters of Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial leader of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress, and have struggled with officials at the State Department and the C.I.A. about the future of Iraq. (Ibid.). Perle and his gang could not be better agents of the Israeli Likuds agenda than if they were on the payroll of the Mossad.

To further understand who guides George W. Bushs foreign policy, one must know about the Project for the New American Century. PNAC is a front group for the coalition of neoconservatives, hard-right Republicans, and Christian Right dating back to the 1970s when they fought the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party and then combined with key Republicans like Donald Rumsfeld to oppose dtente with Moscow. Other key associates with PNAC are Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, William Krystol. Robert Kagan, Eliot Cohen and Gary Bauer, to name a few.

PNACs past letters to George W. Bush, particularly the recommendations on the anti-terrorist campaign and the policy in the Middle East, have anticipated the administrations policy evolution. Just nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, for example, PNAC issued an open letter that called on Bush to take his anti-terror war beyond Afghanistan by ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq, severing ties with the Palestinian Authority, and preparing for action against Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. (See "Pump Up the Pentagon, Hawks Tell Bush" by Jim Lobe, Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center, reprinted courtesy of the Project Against the Present Danger, January 28, 2003 < www.presentdanger.org>).

PNAC wants George W. to take on the Arab world, and the world does not like it. That is why we need the United Nations to keep rogue nations in line, even if that rogue nation is the United States.

Patrick J. Buchanan really helps one understand the effect of the neo-conservatives and Zionists on US foreign policy in the Middle East. (See "Whose War?" by Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative, March 24, 2003). Our Middle East policy is driven by the Wolfowitz Doctrine:

The Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, but it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on September 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter, Tom Reich, described it as a "watershed in U.S. foreign policy" that "reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence." (Emphasis added). (Ibid.).

Buchanan wrote that in confronting Americas adversaries, the Wolfowitz Memo declared:

The Wolfowitz Memo further warned that any nation that sought to rival the United States in power would be courting war with the United States:

Patrick J. Buchanan identified the players in this "attack Iraq" drama:

Buchanan further wrote:

Buchanan pulled no punches and made his charges:

Buchanan noted the counter-charge:

I agree with Buchanan. His excellent article discussed how these agents of Israel (my term), PNAC and others, along with media support, have directed US foreign policy under George W. Bush in the Middle East to commence attacks against Iraq and other Arab countries and Iran. (See attachment 9, "Whose War" by Patrick J. Buchanan, Ibid.). P. 243.

On March 17, 2003, George W. Bush gave his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave his own country, Iraq. Bush has said that Saddam was a threat to the world, but the institution created to represent the nations of the world, the United Nations, did not think so. France, and other nations, wanted to give the inspectors more time to disarm Saddam; and there was progress, according to the inspectors. Knowing that they could not get even a majority vote in the Security Council, much less defeat the French and Russian vetoes, the US and Britain forced the issue and invaded Iraq. The "coalition of the willing" became the "coalition of the killing".

A true patriotic American does not want to see members of the US armed forces fighting wars as lackeys for another countryincluding Israel. I believe that the real reason for warring with Iraq stems from the US desire to control vast deposits of oil in Iraq; to control an abundant supply of water (which Israel desperately needs); to protect Israel; and to accomplish the first step of a strategic vision of the Middle East to create a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israels favor. (See "Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq" by Bill and Kathleen Christison, former CIA analysts, CounterPunch, <www.counterpunch.org>, January 25, 2003).

RELEVANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

BASIC U.N. PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

World War II ended in 1945. In the same year, the governments of the world met to create a Charter for the United Nations. The "purposes and principles" as stated in the Charter were:

The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Security Council, alone, has the power to back up its declarations with actions to ensure compliance with them. No one nation can tell the Security Council what to do, including the United States. That is why Operation Iraqi Freedom is illegal.

Chapter VII, Article 39 provides:

The fact that George W. Bush and his administration thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat to whomever does not necessarily mean that the UN Security Council had to agree. Only the Security Council could determine "any threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression" and then make appropriate recommendations. (Ibid.).

The US attack on Iraq was an act of aggression under the UN Charter; and the Security Council could take action against the United States under Articles 41 and 42. The means of attack via the "shock and awe" aerial bombardment on innocent civilians and other non-military targets was a violation of the Geneva conventions. In light of that consideration, it seems ludicrous for the US to complain about the Iraqis showing video-taping of POWs or defending their homeland with whatever weapons (including chemical) they may have. The US disregard of UN procedures and the US invasion of a sovereign country in violation of international law arguably changed the rules of warfare in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Article 41 provides:

"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."

Article 42 provides:

Five of the Councils members are designated permanent membersthe US, Russia, Britain, France, and China. The other ten members are elected by the General Assembly for two- year terms. For a resolution to pass, it must receive nine "yes" votes with five of them being unanimous votes from the five permanent members. That is why, over the years, the US was able to defeat so many UN resolutions condemning Israels actions, particularly against the Palestinians. That is also why the US must contend with veto votes on issues it wants passed. The US does not lose its sovereignty by participating in the UN; it simply abides by the principles of the UN Charter to try to prevent an unnecessary warlike Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The UNs initial goals were idealistic, but the world had just ended an international conflict with some rogue nations who aggressively waged war against others who had not attacked the invaders. The world governments at the time, including the United States, wanted a mechanism in place to prevent self-anointed demagogues from invading other nations. The UN Charter recognized the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurred against any member of the United Nations. In other words, if a UN member were attacked or invaded by another nation, the attacked nation could defend itself.

THE BASIC RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE

Article 51, UN Charter says:

Reprisal is a concept also recognized under international law but very seldom used, and even then, (1) can only be executed by agencies or instrumentalities of a state; (2) must be proportionate; and (3) must follow a failed attempt to resolve the violation by peaceful negotiation. /21 The US invasion of Iraq cannot be considered a "reprisal" in any context.

A reprisal is an act of self-help by the injured state, responding after an unsatisfied demand to an act contrary to international law on the part of the offending state. The reprisal would be illegal if the previous act contrary to international law had not furnished the reason for the reprisal. The aim of the reprisal is to impose on the offending state reparation for the offense or the return to

legality in the avoidance of new offenses. Reprisals are different than acts of self-defense. In self-defense, force is applied to counter "an immediate and physical danger" to the state, whereas reprisals coerce another state to abide by international law. /22

Although George W. has made weak allegations that Iraq might have some tie to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, all reasonable people know there was no connection between the two. There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11; therefore, there was no justification for reprisal against Iraq for those attacks. Actions by the United States to invade Iraq were not to counter an immediate and physical danger and; therefore, could not be considered to be self-defense; and such a devastating invasion for allegedly violating UN resolutions under these circumstances certainly was not a proportionate response. Operation Iraqi Freedom has simply violated numerous principles of international law.

According to Article 51, United Nations Charter, the United Nations encourages self-defense by its members against an armed attack, but the invasion of Iraq by the United States was not an act of self-defense. The US attack and invasion of Iraq with ground forces simply because Iraq may not have stopped developing weapons of mass destruction, or was developing weapons of mass destruction, or actually had weapons of mass destruction under the known circumstances, was a violation of the UN Charter. Iraq would be justified in defending itself and could legally form a coalition to wage war against the United States under the UN Charter.

WARFARE IS GOVERNED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW

The United States had no more legal authority to invade Iraq than it did to invade Afghanistan under the pretense of fighting "terrorism". /23 The issue is not simply about whether or not Iraq may have technically violated UN resolution 1441 by having some semi-trucks and trailers with some chemical or biological agents which could become weaponsthe issue is whether the horrendous bombardment of Iraq by the US and its few allies becomes genocide, a violation of the law of war, or a crime against humanity, itself.

The policy of the Department of Defense is to ensure: (1) that the law of war obligations of the United States are observed and enforced by the U.S. armed forces; (2) that a program designed to prevent violations of the law of war is implemented by U.S. armed forces; and (3) that alleged violations of the law of war whether committed by or against U.S. or enemy personnel are promptly reported, thoroughly investigated, and corrective action is taken if appropriate. (See Department of Defense, DoD Law of War Program, DoD Directive 5100.77, Washington, GPO, July 10, 1979).

The law of war is derived from two principle sourcesLawmaking Treaties (or Conventions) such as The Hague and Geneva Conventions and custom, which is a body of unwritten or customary law firmly established by the custom of nations and well defined by recognized authorities on international law. (See FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, Department of the Army, Washington, GPO, p. 4, July 1956).

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the Protection of War Victims and the Hague Convention No. IV of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land were intended to be, and are, legally binding on the United States and its citizens, especially members of the armed forces. (See AR 350-216, The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Hague Convention No. IV of 1907, Department of the Army, Washington, GPO, 7 March 1975).

The Geneva Conventions have some specific provisions relating to bombardments:

The Conventions further prohibit unnecessary killing and devastation:

The Hague Convention of 1907 also specifically deal with the delivery of munitions from aerial platforms:

Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts prohibits indiscriminate attacks on the enemy civilian populace.

"Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(c) those which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

The Protocol further states what may have the most direct application to consider of the United States aerial bombardment of Iraq:

"Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

What were the overall effects of the U.S. air raids in Operation Desert Storm? Greenpeace, the environmental protection organization conducted interviews with international relief workers, reporters, U.S. officials, and news reports. Greenpeaces report said that over 150,000 people died as a result of the war with Iraq and at least 5 million lost their homes or jobs. (See "Gulf War Resulted In 150,000 Deaths, Greenpeace Says", Arizona Republic, May 29, 1991, p. A10)

The majority of the bombing casualties in Operation Desert Storm were caused by "dumb" bombs and by the 12 million to 16 million bomblets released by an estimated 60,000 to 80,000 cluster bombs dropped by allied planes. (Ibid.) As much as the U.S. media (which was fed its information by the military) portrayed the "smart bombs" striking targets, the truth is that the majority of the munitions hurled on Iraq and Kuwait in Desert Storm were "dumb" bombs. Allied jets dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Kuwait, but about 70 percent of them missed their targets. The precision-guided bombs, the icon of Pentagon briefings and the militarys preferred image of the war, made up barely 7 percent of the U.S. tonnage dropped on Iraqi targets, said General Merrill McPeak, Air Force Chief of Staff. (See "88, 500 Tons of Bombs -- 70% Missed", Arizona Republic, March 16, 1991, p. A2). A senior Pentagon official said 81,980 tons of "dumb" or unguided bombs had an accuracy of only about 25 percent. (Ibid.).

The use of the Tomahawk Cruise missiles would be covered by the aforementioned legal principles, depending on how they were used. "Shock and awe" would also be covered. The assertions by the Bush administration that the "shock and awe" bombardments were all done with pinpoint accuracy are ludicrous in light of the fact that some of the munitions landed in Turkey and Iran. It is obvious that continuous bombardments of populated areas like Basra and Baghdad would very likely kill numerous innocent civilians, and that is a violation of international law.

Did the United States violate the spirit and intent of the law of war relating to the bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Storm? Did the massive bombing campaigns on Iraqi civilian populated areas during Operation Iraqi Freedom violate the law of war? The answer to both questions is YES.

The extent of actual unnecessary death and destruction inflicted upon Iraqi non-military targets in Operation Desert Storm may never be known, but suffice to say that it is impossible to have conducted the awesome aerial bombardment of Baghdad and other populated areas of Iraq and not have inflicted massive civilian casualties. It is reasonable to conclude that there was a great deal of collateral damagenot destruction of military targetscaused by the extensive aerial bombardments of populated cities like Baghdad. (For a more in-depth discussion of the bombardment of Iraq during Desert Storm, see attachment 10, "Law of War Considerations of Aerial Bombardment of Iraq in Operation Desert Storm" by Colonel Joseph E. Abodeely, a Research Report for Air War College Associate Studies, Air University, October 1991). P. 255.

Is the US violating international law by presently invading Iraqs air space? Yes. Is the US in violation of international law by unjustifiably invading a sovereign nation like Iraq who has never attacked the US or otherwise "threatened" the US other than in self-defense? Yes.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The law of war recognizes prosecution by third-party countries under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Under the Geneva Conventions, signatory states have a duty to prosecute or extradite persons alleged to have committed violations of the law of war, regardless of whether the state was involved in the underlying conflict. The obligations between states under the law of war have become obligations to protect individuals. The substitution of "international humanitarian law" for the terms "law of war" and "law of armed conflict" descriptively reflects this movement. Initially, the term "international humanitarian law" referred only to the four

1949 Geneva Conventions, but it is now increasingly being used to signify the entire law of armed conflict. The entire focus of the law of war has broadened from solely protecting states interests to increasingly protecting individuals interests. /24

The international community has devised another way to deal with rogue nations and war crimes. The Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court gives the Court jurisdiction over the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the "crime of aggression", which has yet to be defined. Perhaps this US invasion of Iraq could be cited as an example of a "crime of aggression". Perhaps a massive bombardment of non-military targets and the indiscriminate killing of hundreds or thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens could be cited as war crimes or crimes against humanity or even genocide.

It is interesting to note; however, that the United States is not a State which is a Party subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. Could the ICC try a US president or military commander for a war crime when the US is not a "Party" subject to the Courts jurisdiction? Or would a special court be convened? Will the world community, through the UN or via some other coalition of nations, take action against the United States and Britain for actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom or some future military adventures in violation of international law?

If the European Union continues to grow economically and aligns militarily with Russia and China, rogue "political and military leaders", including those from the US, could find themselves before the International Criminal Court. Americans often think of the "other guy" as the "bad guy", and they find it difficult to understand that the world community might find the act of one nation invading another nation causing death and destruction for no justifiable reason to be repugnant.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RESOLUTION OF MIDDLE EAST CRISIS

Americans must be concerned with what is happening in the Middle East because events there affect our lives here in the US. This new war with Iraq could have devastating ramifications George W. and his advisors have not dreamed of. We Americans must learn to understand the people, events, politics, and religion--the culture of the Middle East--if we want a good quality of life for ourselves and for our posterity. We also have to learn to live and work with the other nations of the world. The world does not revolve around us, and we can lose our international power and domestic freedoms if we do stupid things and take arrogant and stupid actionslike starting a precedent of invading other countries who have not attacked or truly threatened us.

Terrorism is an ancient tactic and has been made a crime under U.S. domestic law. In order to fight terrorism, one must understand what terrorism is. It is not an easy task to find terrorists; therefore it is more practical to control terrorism by negating the root causes of it. The terrorism in the Middle East was precipitated by the influx of European Jews to Palestine to form a homelandIsrael. These European Jews engaged in terrorism against moderate Jews, Arabs, and the British. Israel engages in terrorism on the Palestinians every day, and the Palestinians fight back. Now, the US is terrorizing and invading Iraq.

Israel is occupying lands in Palestine in violation of UN resolutions; Israel has deported numerous Palestinians in violation of UN resolutions; Israel has built and maintained "settlements" in violation of UN resolutions; and Israel has committed numerous atrocities against the Palestinian people in violation of international law. (See attachments provided herein). These violations must cease immediately. The United States must take a hard line on Israel and demand immediate withdrawal from the occupied territories. It must also cease funding Israel. The United States must assume the role of an "honest broker" and send US troops to Israel to maintain peace between the Palestinians and the IDF. US soldiers could control the situation. They could prevent war crimes and terrorism. The US should send in US troops to referee the Palestinians and the Israelis rather than the Iraqis, Kurds, Turks, or the Iranians. UN observers, and possibly, some UN troops, could also assist the US in this peacekeeping mission.

The Israeli war crimes must be investigated and prosecuted. The world is aware of the war crimes and genocide that Israel has visited upon the Palestinian people. Hundreds of Israeli soldiers have refused to oppress the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza any longer because they know the IDF tactics are wrong. I believe that if the Muslim world sees the US acting in a fair manner towards the Palestinians, this would go a long way toward reducing the terrorist threat.

The US must stop using its veto in the UN when meritorious resolutions are passed which condemn Israels actions. The US government has been co-opted by those who think that what is best for Israel is best for the United States. Their first loyalty is to Israel, and they are willing to advocate that the United States (not Israel) use its tax dollars, its military, and its reputation to attack various Middle Eastern countries for reasons that the international community knows are bogus. The United States needs to show the Arab countries and the rest of the entire world that it will not be a party to the actions of the Israelis against the Palestinians or any other Arab or Muslim country which is not an aggressor towards the United States. This will alleviate much of the root causes of terrorism and help to rebuild former damaged relationships. The US must reevaluate its foreign policy in the Middle East and not be seduced into warring with Arab countries at the behest of Zionist agents whose agenda is to benefit Israel, not the US. (See "Whose War?" by Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative, March 24, 2003, supra).

Regarding Iraq, the United States has made a grave mistake by invading a sovereign Arab country which had not attacked it and is the second richest oil deposit in the Middle East. When one considers that the architects of the invasion of Iraq are Sharon, Netanyahu, Perle, Wolfowitz, Krystol, Kagan, Abrams, Cohen, and others who also want the US to invade Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, etc., one readily understands the picture. The whole world is watching and waiting to see how the "invasion" will unravel. Americas occupation of Baghdad will still not make America a victor. Operation Iraqi Freedom will prove to be a grave miscalculation by the George W. Bush administration. Israel still commits genocide on the Palestinians and

Belgium is waiting to try Ariel Sharon as a war criminal. The world does not need the US to invade the Arabs for Israel at the expense of US tax dollars and lives and limbs of US sons and daughters. The Likud must not set US policy.

It is outrageous that US Constitutional rights have been trampled in the name of "security", supposedly, in order to "stop terrorism". People, primarily Arab or Muslim, have been held without bond or access to a lawyer and have been denied the right to talk to a lawyer in private if they are merely suspected of being involved with terrorism. The Afghan prisoners of war are still being held in a dubious status in Cuba without being charged with any crimes. Americans even talk about torturing the prisoners. What ever happened to the America that believed in fair play and justice? Lawyers should be at the forefront decrying the demise of the freedoms provided in the Bill of Rights for US citizens and for those subject to US laws. They must advocate the rule of lawdomestically and internationally. The American Bar Association expressed its disapproval of the US holding "enemy combatants" without affording them the legal rights of being charged, tried, or allowed to see lawyers. The ABA is also not happy about government surveillance in the US. (See "ABA Mulls Rights of Terror Suspects" by Gina Holland, Associated Press, as reprinted in The Arizona Republic, February 10, 2003, p. A8). But lawyers should be more vocal than they have been.

America is part of a world community. The UN has both good and bad points, but it is still the best vehicle for the world community to try to resolve their differences under international law without bloodshed. If any nation, and that includes the United States, acts outside the norms of the world community without justification and commits war crimes or genocide or crimes against humanity, then the leaders of that rogue nation should be brought to justice before the International Criminal Court. In other words, if the American invasion of Iraq is determined to be in violation of international law and the UN Charter, there could be international criminal law consequences. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Sharon, et al., could be charged as "war criminals" for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

In the book, Abraham: A journey to the Heart of Three Faiths by Bruce Feiler, William Morrow, 2002, Mr. Feiler analyzes Abraham from the Jewish perspective, the Christian perspective, and the Muslim perspective. All three great religions claim Abraham as their own.

Mr. Feiler writes:

Perhaps if all the parties to the Middle East conflictsUS, Israelis, Palestinians, Iraqis, Al Qaedasearched their spiritual selves, there could be peace in the Middle East. As long as there is greed for oil, water, or land, or as long as there are petty people with awesome power, or as long as any people believe their God or they are better than others, there will be no peace there or anywhere else in the world.

Note: This paper considers events through March 27, 2003. US and allied troops are in the process of heading toward Baghdad. Prime Minister Blair will meet with President Bush today.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Addendum is to supplement some of the information previously provided. The themes, previously discussed, have been:

1. Defining what is the Middle East or who is an Arab, a Muslim, and a Semite.
2. Explaining the definitions of "terrorism", international and domestic, the terrorist threat of Al Qaeda, and the cause of terrorism.
3. Showing the history of Israel and how terrorism by the Haganah, Irgun, and Stern Gang were instrumental in the Jewish invaders takeover of Palestine from the British, the Palestinians, and the moderate Jews.
4. Dramatizing the brutal Israeli occupation of the Palestinians through several UN and other investigations which showed how the IDF has systematically and continuously violated the Geneva Conventions, committed war crimes, built and maintained illegal settlements, imposed collective punishments against the civil population, and locked up the civil population in "concentration camps" that has led to the destruction of the infrastructures and the economy of the Palestinian society.
5. Showing how Israel and Zionism have damaged the United States.
6. Explaining media deception regarding reports on the Middle East.
7. Debunking the myth about Israel being Americas "good friend and ally".
8. Showing Israels influence in AIPAC to corrupt American politics.
9. Explaining Zionisms influence on the Christian Right.
10. Analyzing the events and political maneuvering to initiate Operation Desert Storm.
11. Analyzing the events and political maneuvering to initiate Operation Iraqi Freedom.
12. Exposing Israels agents plan for the U.S. to invade Iraq and other Arab states.
13. Explaining basic U.N. principles and procedures including the UNs goal to maintain peace and security, the Security Councils obligation to determine any threat to peace or act of aggression and to make recommendations on what action to take.
14. Explaining that warfare is governed by international law and that bombardment of undefended towns or buildings and unnecessary killing of people and damage to property violates international law.
15. Briefly describing the role of the International Criminal Court.

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

The US, British, and other (?) "coalition of the willing" forces did an excellent job of executing military operations against Iraqi forces. They bombed and bombed and bombed, and infantry and armor assaulted the Iraqis such that it was a rout. The coalition forces had air power with the most sophisticated aircraft, bombs, missiles, tanks, night-vision devices, communications, etc.; and the Iraqis had some old tanks, conscripted men who were threatened with death if they did not fight, and some irregular "thugs" to defend their country from the "righteous" invaders. If the Iraqis massed their tanks or infantry and showed themselves, they were destroyed. It was the "Super Bowl" of "Super Bowls", and the American "fans" enjoyed every exciting, entertaining moment. It was the "Super Bowl champions" playing a Pop Warner football team, and American fans had great seats because journalists were "embedded" with the troops. That meant that the Pentagon allowed the American public to see only what it wanted them to see. That is why Americans did not see the hundreds of Iraqi citizens who were killed or injured unless one had satellite television and picked up European or Arabic television. Interestingly, there has been no accurate count of the Iraqi dead or wounded ever presented to the US public to date. This way the fans dont have to face the fact that thousands of innocent men, women, and children suffered homelessness, incineration, dismemberment, and death as a result of what the American military did in Iraq. I dont blame the military for the invasion of a sovereign, foreign country; I blame George W. Bush and Company.

Why did the US invade Iraq? The initial reason was because Saddam Hussein violated UN resolutions. That argument was weak since Israel violated many more resolutions, often with US blessing. So, that reason wasnt strong enough. Lets try that "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction that he can use on the region and the US". Other countries in the region except Israel werent worried about Saddam using WMD, and neither was the UN Security Council. "But he might give them to terrorists to harm the US"another argument went. Again, the rest of the world except Israel was not concerned. Then there was the alleged tie to terrorists that Iraq was supposed to have, and when that didnt flywe had to attack Iraq because of 9/11. When it became readily apparent that that line was a non sequitur, then the US invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people from oppression and to bring them democracy. We now see that "democracy" is not forthcoming in Iraq, and the Iraqi people want the US out of their country immediately, if not sooner.

Although the UN Security Council did not approve of this war, although the US violated the UN Charter by attacking Iraq, although the US military violated The Law of War by attacking targets which obviously would endanger innocent civilians and non-combatants, and although there was no attack by Iraq on the US and there was no imminent threat to the security of the United States to justify its invasion of Iraqarmed forces of the United States of America deliberately attacked the sovereign country of Iraq killing and wounding thousands of innocent people and causing millions of dollars in destruction to infrastructure and private property. The leaders of the US wanted a war, and the people were persuaded that it was a good idea.

Americans were told that they were about to be attacked by terrorists who are associated with the Saddam Hussein regime. There was little or no discussion among the media personalities, and those who dared to speak against the US invasion of Iraq were denounced as pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. Sound familiar?

THE SELLING OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

Those of us who remember the medias portrayal of the Viet Nam War can readily distinguish the diametrically opposed positions of the two wars coverage. Although the US armed intervention in Viet Nam was arguably justified to protect the south from the invasion by the North Vietnamese in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO), the print media and television portrayed the US as invaders. In contrast, the UN Charter, the Security Council, the Law of War, and most of international public opinion opposed the US invasion of Iraq, but the media (print, television, and radio talk shows) were very pro-war and presented little dissenting discussion.

In the Viet Nam War, the media saturated the news with reports of the infamous "body counts", and images of the dead and wounded soldiers and Vietnamese civilians were pumped through the television sets into the psyches of the American public as they ate their evening meals at home. Images of US soldiers in body bags or reports of both US and VC or NVA atrocities were repeatedly presented to the US public to show not only how evil the war was but also how evil the US military was. In contrast, the public has not been allowed to see the vast destruction and numerous deaths perpetrated by the US military on the Iraqis.

After the Viet Nam War, our troops came home to be ridiculed, reviled, spit upon, and ignored for simply doing their dutythey implemented US foreign policy at that time. Many did heroic deeds for which they will never receive credit or recognition or even a simple "thanks". In contrast, the troops of Operation Iraqi Freedom who invaded a foreign country, who did the US no harm, and caused much death and destruction to thousands of innocent civilians are portrayed as defenders of freedom. How did this media spin happen?

In an article for the American Free Press, the writer commented on the war reporting:

A US diplomat in the region told the Boston Globe that the difference in reporting between the U.S. networks, CNN and Fox News on the one hand and the Arabic al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV networks on the other, made it seem like he was watching different battles. (Ibid.).

An unspoken rule, according to USA Today, was that "negative stories" were "viewed as unpatriotic". This direct and indirect censorship has resulted in Americans receiving a "sanitized" view of war, despite the "vivid footage" from the front lines. (Ibid.).

Much of the international media believe that the US military actually targeted journalists in the Iraq war.

Television was not the only media influenced such that it was a pro-war cheerleader for the Bush administration. Talk radio has also been very influential in molding public opinion. After the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which opened the door for deregulation, radio networks launched into mergers of unprecedented size. One of the Acts most prominent benefactors was Clear Channel Communications, a relatively unknown broadcaster based in San Antonio, Texas. Led by L. Lowry Mays, a rancher and one-time George W. Bush business associate, Clear Channel has ridden a wave of acquisitions, spending more than $30 billion to become the worlds largest radio broadcaster, concert promoter, and billboard advertising firm. Clear Channel owns more than 1,200 radio stations (approximately 50 percent of the US total). ("Primetime Payola for Clear Channel" by Stephen Marshall, <www.alternet.org> April 10, 2003).

As pointed out earlier in the main essay, the Zionist agents in the Pentagon and in the Administration sold the idea to President Bush to attack Iraq; and the media sold the idea to the American public; and during the conduct of the war, if the media did not behave as the powers that be wanted, they could be eliminated.

RESULTS OF THE WAR ON TERROR

President George W. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to launch his so-called "war on terror". He has used his Office, the media, and the US military to promote a foreign policy in the Middle East which pleased Israels Likud Party, Ariel Sharon, Neo-conservatives, the Religious Right, and other Zionist agents in this country who wanted, and still want, the US to use military might against Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, etc. Theodore Hertzls original intent was to create a secular homeland for the Jews, but he was a communist atheist who believed that "religion was the opiate of the masses". Ironically, the concept of Israel has become a theocracy, an occupying, military power meeting its goal to acquire power and influence over that land from the Nile to the Euphrates River with Americas money, power and influence, and military might. Israel now holds the whole worlds oil supply hostage with its own nuclear and chemical/biological warfare arsenal.

After 9/11 the US attacked a sovereign foreign countryAfghanistan. Although the "terrorists" who perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were consumedkilledin their own acts, the US sought revenge on people with whom these dead killers associated. Under domestic criminal law, law enforcement would never be justified in summarily executing suspected co-conspirators, but this was a "war on terror". So America killed Afghanis who had nothing to do with harming US citizens and rounded up Arabs and Muslims for petty violations of immigration laws, held them incommunicado without charges against them, without the right to bond or even the right to counsel.

Afghanistan is deteriorating into chaos. The Afghanis want the US out because the US has not provided the aid it promised. US troops can no longer dine in Afghan cafes. Allied occupational forces in Afghanistan are suffering steady erosion with nightly attacks on American and other international troops.

I dont think it is true when we have been told that we won the war in Afghanistan.

What has the US victory in Iraq done for the "war on terror"? Does any remotely intelligent individual honestly believe that the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was a positive step toward minimizing the threat of terrorist acts against the US or those who supported the US in Operation Iraqi Freedom? Or is it far more likely that the backlash we see in Afghanistan, the chants from the Shiites in Iraq for the US to leave, and the infiltration of the Iranians into Iraq to support the Iraqi Shiites there mean that the US implementation of the Wolfowitz Memo exacerbated the tensions between the Muslim world and the US?

The US has threatened Syria and Iran and given "warnings" to Russia and thumbed its nose at France and Germany and the UN who believe the UN should be part of the rebuilding process in Iraq. Although the US has some oil starting to flow again in Iraq, thousands of Shiite Muslims demonstrated against the United States in Karbala.

We have not officially been told that we won the war in Iraq, yet, because there is large-scale unrest, and there are still small pockets of resistance or at least there are occasional little firefights. As we bring "democracy" to Iraq, we also threaten Syria and Iran at the same time.

As predicted by many, the military-industrial complex is poised to profit from the US invasion of Iraq. Richard Perle resigned from his post as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board because of his ostensible conflict of interest as he was to get $725,000 to help Global Crossing navigate the national security issues surrounding the sale of its assets. Perle is also on the Board of Onset Technology, the leading provider of message conversion technology and a major supplier to Bechtel who recently got a contract to help rebuild Iraqi infrastructure.

Vice President Dick Cheneys former company, Halliburton, also got a "sweetheart deal" of a government contract to help rebuild Iraq.

It is also interesting to note that an Israeli minister says he wants to reopen a pipeline which has been closed for more than fifty years to bring Iraqi oil through Jordan to Israels Mediterranean coast. Joseph Paritzky, a spokesman for the infrastructure minister, said that the move would cut fuel costs in Israel and help regenerate the port city of Haifa. ("Israel Eyes Iraqi Oil" by Simon Wilson, BBC NEWS, April 9, 2003).

While the Bush administration and their friends reap vast profits from Operation Iraqi Freedom, Congress is wrestling with how to give Bush his tax cuts on one hand, and on the other hand, pay the billions of dollars for the cost of the war and to rebuild Iraq. I do not believe that the war in Iraq was about fighting terrorismit was about oil and money and advancing Israels agenda to neutralize its Arab rivals.

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

While the US public had its attention focused on Operation Iraqi Freedom, Israel was up to its old tricks of indiscriminately killing people and calling them "militants". The purpose of this paper has been to discuss conflicts in the Middle East, and initially, I concentrated on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The brutality to and the demoralizing, humiliation, and destabilization of the Palestinian people by the Likud Party, Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) with the acquiescence of the United States has been a main theme of this essay. The

injustice to the Palestinians continues, although the US and Israel are attempting to manipulate a peace in Palestine on their terms.

While the worlds attention was on the Iraq war, Sharons IDF raided or fired upon the Palestinians numerous times with impunity. But it is not just the Palestinian "militants" the Israelis like to kill. Dont forget Rachel Corrie, 23, a college student from Olympia, Washington who tried to stop a bulldozer from tearing down a building in the Rafah refugee camp. She was in front of the house wearing a brightly colored jacket and yelling "Stop, stop". She fell; the dozer ran over her; reversed; and ran back over her. ("American Protester Killed by Israeli Bulldozer in Gaza", New York Times, March 16, 2003).

On April 8, 2003, Brian Avery was shot in the face and was in critical condition. He was an American peace activist; he was wearing a vest that clearly identified him as an international worker. Tobias Karlsson, a fellow activist from Sweden said he was standing next to Avery at the time of the shooting and "Although we were wearing vests identifying ourselves as internationalists, the armored vehicle fired its main gun at us." ("Zionists Shoot American In Jenin", www.nydailynews.com).

On April 11, 2003, a British peace activist, Thomas Hurndall, had been standing between Israeli troops and Palestinian children when Israeli soldiers opened fire. He was declared brain dead upon arrival at Gaza hospital. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra, AL-AWDA-News, April 11, 2003).

On April 20, 2003, AP Cameraman Darwazeh was killed in the West Bank. The Associated Press Television News cameraman was shot and killed during a clash between Israeli forces and Palestinians in the West Bank city of Nablus. He was killed while filming a confrontation between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians throwing stones and firebombs. Witnesses said Darwazeh was shot by an Israeli soldier taking cover behind an armored vehicle in an alley. ("AP Camerman Darwazeh Killed in West Bank" by Karin Laub, AL-AWDA-News, April 20, 2003).

Last, but not least, a media advocacy group has assailed the Israeli military for deliberately shooting at, killing, and imprisoning international journalists.

Israel keeps attacking Gaza with massive firepower. Remember, the Palestinians are an occupied people without tanks or aircraft.

Thus, while the American media and Bush administration diverted our attention to Iraq to get those weapons of mass destruction, the carnage in Palestine continued even against Americans. But it was okay because the Israelis did the killings. The rest of the world knows what is going on and that it is not justice, even if Americans do not.

REVELENCE OF LAW

I was opposed to operation Iraqi Freedom prior to the US invasion, and I have not changed my mind. The reasons for my view are intermingled throughout the essay and this addendum, but perhaps my greatest objection to the war has been the perversion of legal principles to achieve personal agendas at the expense of human rights.

I had a reason for defining "terrorism" to show it as a crime under US domestic law. If it is a "crime", one would think that the other trappings of a criminal justice system (e.g., right to be informed of charges against the accused, right to counsel, right to bond, right to a speedy trial, right to trial, presumption of innocence, requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt before conviction and punishment, etc.) would apply to these criminal terrorists. Instead, the "war on terror" was used as an excuse to violate many persons rights, especially if they were Arab or Muslim. I find that to be un-American.

Regarding international lawthe US has often used the United Nations if it suited US interests, but the US found the UN to be "irrelevant" if the UN did not do the US bidding. On one hand the US does not respect UN resolutions such that it did not seek one prior to attacking Iraq, yet relied on UN resolution 1441 to justify invading a sovereign foreign country. What hypocrisy.

The US went after Saddam Hussein, but nobody knows what happened to him. The US attacked Afghanistan and killed thousands of innocent Afghanis who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. And nobody knows where Osamma bin Laden is.

The Law of War has rules for engaging enemy targets and specifically prohibits targeting (directly or indirectly) innocent civilians. But America learned well from the Israeliskill the "innocents" and claim they were "militants". America has changed its rules for fighting wars during this last war. It started the war in Iraq when it had not been attacked or threatened, and there was no imminent threat against the US. By the way, where are all those weapons of mass destruction? America has committed war crimes against the Iraqi people irrespective however "evil" Saddam Hussein may have been. The US allegedly went to free the Iraqi people; but now that we know they want an Islamic government, we dont want to leave. What hypocrisy.

Bush has opened up many Pandoras boxes. The Bush Doctrine that the US may attack anyone it thinks may be a threat in the future is a very dangerous precedent. He attacked a country in the Middle East thinking he would put his puppet regime in and force "democracy" on the Iraqis, but he did not count on the majority of the Iraqis who are Shiite Muslims to want an Islamic government. After all, doesnt true democracy allow the people to have whatever kind of government they want? What hypocrisy.

Bush has supported Israel no matter what Israel wants and he calls Sharon "a man of peace". What hypocrisy. How can anything "legal" or called legal in the international arena survive when Bush and his boys and the Israeli agents in Israel and in Bushs administration make up the rules as they go along?

I love the principles that America was founded onfreedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble to protest, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom from self-incrimination, right to trial, right to counsel, right to bond, due process, etc. But I see these rights slowly being taken away, especially under the guise of fighting this "war on terrorism". The US and Israel are exacerbating the tensions between the Muslims and the Christians and Jews, and we need new ways to look at the issues or they will consume us. We, as lawyers, have a special responsibility to emphasize the relevance of law, especially in conflicts in the Middle East; or the US will lose what little credibility it may still have, and the seeds will have been planted for international anarchy.

1. Map of the Middle Eastp. 58
2. Map of Israel and Occupied Territoriesp. 59
3. UN Commission on Human Rights report dated 21 March 2001p. 60
4. UN General Assembly Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories dated 26 October 2001p. 72
5. Statement dated 15 January 2002 from the Federation of Associations for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rightsp. 116
6. Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights dated 6 March 2002p. 119
7. Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories dated 16 September 2002p. 139
8. Human Rights Watch Report called Israel, The Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, And The Palestinian Authority Territories, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, dated May 2002p. 161

    9. "Whose War?" by Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative, March 24, 2003 p. 244

  10. "Law of War Considerations of Aerial Bombardment of Iraq in Operation Desert Storm" by Colonel Joseph E. Abodeely, a Research Report for          Air War College Associate Studies, Air University, October 1991p. 255

|| UNISPAL Home || Printer-friendly (pdf)||Arabic||Chinese||French||Russian||Spanish||
UNITED
NATIONS
E

Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/2001/30
21 March 2001

Original: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-seventh session
Item 8 of the provisional agenda

Question of the violation of human rights in the
occupied Arab territories, including Palestine

Update to the mission report on Israel's violations of human rights
in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, submitted by
Giorgio Giacomelli, Special Rapporteur, to the Commission on
Human Rights at its fifth special session

1. In response to the grave human rights situation accompanying the escalation of violent confrontations in the occupied Palestinian territories in late September 2000, the Special Rapporteur undertook a mission from 11 to 15 October 2000 in order to assess the situation on the ground. He consulted many interlocutors from Israeli and Palestinian NGOs, international organizations, United Nations agencies, Palestinian Authority representatives and survivors of those killed, as well as individuals wounded in the confrontations.

2. Following a request made on behalf of the Council of Arab Permanent Representatives of Members of the League of Arab States, the Commission on Human Rights subsequently convened its fifth special session from 17 to 19 October 2000 to discuss the grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by the Israeli occupying Power. The Commission's decision to convene the special session provided the opportunity for the Special Rapporteur to present his mission report (E/CN.4/S-5/3) to the Commission's attention as a reference for its deliberations.

3. On 19 October 2000, the Commission, at its fifth special session, adopted resolution S-5/1, which the Economic and Social Council endorsed in its decision 2000/311 on 22 November 2000.

4. Consistent with that resolution, the High Commissioner for Human Rights undertook a visit to the Middle East from 8 to 16 November 2000. On 19 December 2000, the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights appointed three eminent persons to a human rights commission of inquiry, which was dispatched to the occupied Palestinian territories from 10 to 18 February 2001 to investigate human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law. The Commission has before it the reports of both the High Commissioner (E/CN.4/2001/114) and the commission of inquiry (E/CN.4/2001/121).

5. As has been the case for this Special Rapporteur since his appointment in 1999, the Israeli authorities have not cooperated with the thematic rapporteurs who have asked to visit the country since the adoption of resolution S-5/1. On 2 January 2001, Ambassador Yakov Levy informed the thematic rapporteurs: "Israel will not cooperate in the implementation of the operative part of the resolution".

6. The Special Rapporteur draws the Commission's attention, once again, to the determinations of the treaty bodies reaffirming that Israel has maintained "effective control" in all of the occupied Palestinian territories and, therefore, holds treaty obligations to implement human rights there. 1/ While this interpretation has not changed, it is worth noting that, since the Commission's special session, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has reiterated its position to the Government of Israel, once again requesting that it submit information on the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights as required under the Covenant. 2/ In order to facilitate Israel's fulfilment of this obligation, the Committee has scheduled to review Israel's belated report at a special meeting during its forthcoming twenty-fifth session, on 4 May 2001.

7. The present report is to be read in conjunction with the reports that the Special Rapporteur submitted to the Commission at its fifty-sixth session (E/CN.4/2000/25) and the report he submitted following his mission to the occupied Palestinian territories in October 2000 (E/CN.4/S-5/3). The Special Rapporteur stands by his previous reports and advice to the Commission. In the meantime, the Special Rapporteur has sought out, received, compiled and analysed relevant information from the prolific record produced by various media, among them sources on the ground, the press, and international organizations, including United Nations agencies, human rights bodies and Member States. The continuing grave and deteriorating conditions since the special session reaffirm the validity of the framework and emphasis of the Special Rapporteur's analysis.

8. The Israeli military have continued to use excessive force in the form of live ammunition, rubber-coated metal bullets and tear gas against civilian demonstrators and bystanders. 3/ This disproportionate and unrestrained use of force has increased the Palestinian civilian death toll and injuries dramatically, reportedly killing some 400 Palestinians since 28 September 2000 and injuring as many as 14,000. 4/

9. The Special Rapporteur encourages the Commission to take into consideration the continuation and escalation of Israel's previously reported violations of the occupied population's human rights. However, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that a detailed recounting of the statistical data here would be an elusive undertaking that would not essentially alter the message the Special Rapporteur has already presented to the Commission. Rather, the Special Rapporteur believes that the Commission's deliberations would be served best by a presentation of some aspects of the human rights situation that have come to light since the special session, particularly in the past few weeks. These are discussed below under the following headings:

A. Emerging patterns;

B. Cumulative and exponential consequences of ongoing violations;

C. Developments in the political context.

A. Emerging patterns

10. Certain violations, though not new to the human rights landscape of the occupied Palestinian territories, have graduated from sporadic or incidental occurrences to a noteworthy level of regularity.

Extrajudicial executions

11. Since October, radio and print media have reported Israeli military officers admitting that the army has operationalized a policy of extrajudicial execution against Palestinians it suspects of committing attacks against Jewish settlers or Israeli soldiers in the occupied Palestinian territories. As Israeli spokespersons have explained, "most operations were carried out by snipers". 5/ However, Israeli extrajudicial execution has involved the assassination of at least 13 individuals targeted by way of ambush, employing undercover units, including mostaravim (gunmen posing as Arabs), and heavy weapons, including helicopter-mounted artillery.

12. The relevant humanitarian law standards provide that, in all circumstances, persons accused of illegal acts shall benefit from the safeguards of a proper trial and defence. 6/ Humanitarian law considers such wilful killing to be within the category of grave breaches, as stipulated in the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (art. 147) 7/ and obliges High Contracting Parties to prosecute those responsible (art. 146).

Rights to housing and property

13. House and property demolition has emerged as a consistent pattern. Between September 2000 and February 2001, Israeli forces destroyed at least 773 family homes (180 completely). 8/ In some instances, occupation forces have targeted Palestinian residential areas with artillery, as in the areas of Netzarim, Khan Younis, Rafah and Dayr al-Balah, in the Gaza Strip, and in the Old City of Hebron, Beit Jala, Bayt Sahur, Bethlehem, Jericho and al-Bireh, in the West Bank. The Israeli destruction of Palestinian agricultural lands and crops has escalated dramatically throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. Israeli sources claim that house and farm destruction serves the security needs of Jewish settlers and settlements. 9/ However, this practice violates the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibitions against collective punishment (art. 33) and illegal acts of destruction (art. 53), as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 25).

The right to food

14. According to United Nations statistics, the poverty rate across the occupied Palestinian territories has increased since the end of September 2000, with the number of Palestinians living on less than US$ 2 per day growing from 650,000 to 1 million. The combined consequences of Israel's intensified policy of closure have affected civilian livelihoods and raise concern over Israel's denial of Palestinians' right to food. 10/ The recent humanitarian response, however inadequate to meet current needs, is an indicator of the crisis. As of November 2000, the World Food Programme (WFP) drew on its emergency food reserves, and subsequently carried out an emergency operation (EMOP) to distribute wheat flour to 13,000 families (outside the refugee camps) newly impoverished by the Israeli closure and economic siege. UNRWA is also struggling to provide basic food supplies to the needy refugee population and has appealed for US$ 37.2 million in emergency aid, including food aid.

15. On 18 December 2000, Physicians for Human Rights, an Israeli NGO, petitioned the High Court of Israel to order the Minister of Defence and the Israel Defence Forces to ensure the immediate and regular supply of food and medicine to Palestinian residents of the territories. 11/ At the time of writing, WFP is urgently seeking funds for a three-month EMOP, following a weak donor response to its appeal at the end of last year. 12/

Torture, prisons, detentions and juvenile justice

16. While Israel's alleged use of torture and prison conditions, in general, remain of concern to the human rights community, the Special Rapporteur takes note of the re-emergence of Israel's practice of administrative detention and the detention of juveniles. Recent cases of physical abuse under Israeli detention include Palestinians held for reasons of security, including some as young as 16 years old. 13/

17. Israeli Military Order 132 allows for the arrest and detention of Palestinian children aged from 12 to 14 years. At the beginning of the current intifada, some 70 Palestinian minors were reportedly detained in Israeli prisons. Since then, this number has increased to more than 250. These children range in age from 14 to 17 years, of whom at least 105 are from Jerusalem. 14/ This category of violation involves subjecting juveniles to detention with adult prisoners and criminal convicts. Such practices contravene provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty, and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice.

Press freedom

18. Interference with freedom of expression and the press has arisen since the Special Rapporteur's report of March 2000. 15/ It has taken the form of Israeli soldiers and settlers carrying out physical attacks on journalists, destruction of their property, arbitrary arrest and other forms of interference through the use of force and abuse of power. As of February 2001, such assaults, ranging from beatings to shooting with live bullets and shrapnel, resulted in at least 39 journalists being injured, including 7 foreign journalists. Administrative interference with journalistic activities has involved the Israel press authority's arbitrary cancellation of press credentials. 16/

B. Cumulative and exponential consequences of ongoing violations

19. The violations of the civilian Palestinian population's individual and collective rights largely replicate the patterns of Israel's behaviour already discussed in the Special Rapporteur's two previous reports. However, the Commission should be aware that, in certain sectors, these ongoing violations have achieved a "critical mass" and pose interrelated consequences.

Economic rights

20. Israeli officials have openly admitted a strategy of restricting the Palestinian economy with the intent and purpose of effecting social control. 17/ Israel's specific tactics affecting Palestinian economic rights remain as previously reported, 18/ with the added consequences of Israel's withholding of tax revenues due to the Palestinian Authority.

21. In the fourth quarter of 2000, Palestinians in the occupied territories have experienced the most severe Israeli-imposed closure since 1967, with 72 days of lost labour. Estimated wage losses alone amount to US$ 8.6 million for each of 105 closure days from 9 October 2000 to the end of January 2001, or a total of US$ 907.3 million in wages lost to Palestinian labourers for that period. The Palestinian unemployment rate has jumped from 11 per cent, before the onset of the current crisis, to 38 per cent (243,000 workers) over the period October 2000-January 2001. Israeli restrictions on civilian movement within the occupied Palestinian territories have dramatically increased transport time and costs for Palestinians on most regularly travelled routes, hampering commerce. 19/ It is reported that the cumulative effects of Israel's strategy to cripple the Palestinian economy has cost the occupied territories 50.9 per cent of their GNP, with construction, commerce and the agriculture/fishing sectors being the hardest hit. 20/ As a result, the poverty rate for Palestinians has risen from 21.1 per cent, in September 2000, to 31.8 per cent, at the end of 2001.

22. The spending of reserves is an important indicator of the economic impact. Both household savings and public sector reserves have been depleted. The Palestinian Authority risks quadrupling its anticipated deficit by the end of 2000 to US$ 100 million, 21/ making Israel's punitive withholding of some US$ 50 million in Palestinian Authority tax revenues all the more crushing. 22/ According to United Nations sources, the impact of Israel's policies in terms of total estimated income losses for the Palestinian economy are many times greater than the total amount of international donor assistance in the same period. 23/ Available statistics on economic losses do not include the costs of properties destroyed or damaged by Israel, nor the high cost of health services for the treatment of those Palestinians wounded and disabled in confrontations with occupation forces.

Children's rights

23. The effect of human rights violations on children is both disproportionate and cumulative. From 29 September to end February 2001, Israeli settlers and soldiers killed approximately 145 Palestinian children under 18, of whom at least 59 were under 15 years of age. 24/ An overwhelming 72 per cent of child deaths have resulted from gunshot wounds in the upper body (head and chest), which may indicate a "shoot-to-kill" policy. 25/ The Israeli forces have injured more than 2,000 Palestinian children, over 80 over cent of them with live ammunition or rubber-coated metal bullets. It is too early to know the number of permanent disabilities that have been caused by the current violence; one estimate indicates that 1,500 Palestinians have been permanently disabled, many of them children. 26/

24. In addition to the health consequences for those directly injured by the use of force and firearms, a larger group is prevented from realizing their right to education. Educators, health workers and human rights organizations have reported that many of the 865,540 registered schoolchildren in the occupied Palestinian territories are now suffering high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and related symptoms as a result of the ongoing violence. 27/ With Israeli forces having damaged 30 schools and forced 41 to close, 28/ the achievements in Palestinian education resulting from the considerable efforts of the Palestinian Authority and the international community are now at risk of reversal.

Right to health

25. Amid the prevailing threats to Palestinians' right to life, the Palestinian health system risks collapse, but for the efforts of defenders of the right to health, including medical personnel and relief workers. The nature and sheer scale of the current medical emergency is characterized by live ammunition and artillery injuries, multiple-organ damage and grave case-management problems relating to the long-term treatment and rehabilitation required for the 0.5 per cent of the Palestinian population stricken. Israel's closure and siege of Palestinian areas and movement restrictions undermine the entire primary health-care system, including immunization and other preventive programmes, as well as secondary and tertiary health services. Moreover, Israel's outright damage and destruction of health facilities has involved the injuring and killing of health workers, the destruction of ambulances, utility cuts and artillery strikes on hospitals. 29/

Territorial and social fragmentation

26. Israel's territorial fragmentation of the occupied Palestinian territories, which the Special Rapporteur has reported previously, is significantly more severe now, separating Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, segmenting the Gaza Strip into four parts 30/ and breaking up the West Bank into some 60 discontiguous zones by blocking the movement of people and goods among them. Since 6 October, the Israeli occupation authorities have closed the "safe passage" between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It has been estimated that, in the current circumstances, some 900,000 Palestinians, or 30 per cent of the population of the occupied territories, have been negatively affected by Israeli restrictions on civilian freedom of movement. 31/

27. The social and cultural impact of territorial fragmentation does not lend itself easily to a summary in numerical terms, but the scenario in that area is no less severe than that depicted in relation to the economic rights data. The toll of Palestinian deaths and injuries resulting from Israel's excessive use of force has had cumulative and exponential social effects. 32/ By all accounts, this has demoralized the civilian population, on the one hand, but has further galvanized Palestinian determination to resist Israeli occupation, with understandable consequences in the political domain.

C. Developments in the political context

28. In his reporting to the Commission, the Special Rapporteur has referred to some of the uncertainties that have created a limbo in the environment in which these human rights issues are played out. While human rights, as such, provide their own independent criteria, their implementation has to be placed in their political context. What is new vis--vis the Special Rapporteur's previous reports, and has emerged only a matter of days ago, is that the situation has taken a new turn, as various parties have concluded that the Oslo process is to be put aside. 33/ While both parties have expressed a desire to continue the dialogue, the polarization of their positions indicates that the conflict, with its concomitant human rights violations, is bound to continue.

29. It is in this context that the use of force has escalated on both sides. The roles and responsibilities on the Palestinian side, while outside this Special Rapporteur's mandate, remain unclear and difficult to ascertain. This is particularly so in the light of the ambiguities in the Oslo Agreements and their implementation with regard to functions of the Palestinian civil police and security bodies.

30. New developments at the political level, greater polarization between the Israeli and Palestinian societies and increased resort to violent and destructive force in the absence of a peace process characterize the current trend. This presents a backdrop for drafting a new chapter in the analysis of the political context in which, realistically speaking, the human rights standards are to be applied.

Conclusions and recommendations

31. Some interlocutors had expressed the hope that the final collapse of unproductive negotiation efforts under the Oslo process would inspire a new framework for a peace process grounded in human rights and international law. That hope seems to have given way to a sense that the present conflict will continue. 34/ This paradigm shift makes the international efforts at implementing human rights all the more imperative. In this report of the Special Rapporteur's findings, it remains fitting to point out that only one of the Special Rapporteur's specific recommendations for urgent action has been carried out: establishing a speedy and objective mechanism of inquiry. The remaining recommended actions remain untried.

32. Among those remains the need to apply in earnest the international standards for policing and law enforcement. These standards are part and parcel of the human rights framework to be applied in the remedial measures required to respect, protect, promote and fulfill all human rights. The Special Rapporteur notes the apparent lack of such a civil law-enforcement function among Israel's forces in the occupied Palestinian territories. While this observation may not reflect a new trend, the militarized situation since September 2000 makes more urgent the need to train and discipline forces on the ground according to international standards. The goal of maintaining law and order underscores the need for demilitarization, especially in the light of the escalating resort to military tactics on both sides.

33. The Special Rapporteur also would like to re-emphasize the importance and urgency of international protection for the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. In so doing, he endorses the recommendations made by the High Commissioner for Human Rights in her report on her visit to the occupied territories (E/CN.4/2001/114) and Security Council resolution 1322 (2000) of 7 October 2000 to that effect.

34. The Special Rapporteur recognizes that, as of today, the purpose of protection enshrined in humanitarian law, in particular in the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention, has not been served in the occupied Palestinian territories. It has to be noted that, while the principal responsibility lies with the occupying Power, all the other High Contracting Parties also bear responsibility for ensuring respect for these provisions. The Special Rapporteur, therefore, welcomes the General Assembly's initiative relating to effective application of the Fourth Geneva Convention and looks forward to the follow-up pledged by the High Contracting Parties at their conference on 15 July 1999. To this end, the Special Rapporteur wishes to acknowledge that there remains a range of options available to ensure respect through collective action, joint action and bilateral measures under the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as the Charter of the United Nations.

35. The Special Rapporteur remains convinced that the current conflict is rooted in accumulated grievances and resentment at the continuing violations of human rights and humanitarian norms under Israeli occupation. He is particularly concerned that any progress at confidence-building achieved between the two sides may be irretrievably lost. This signals the urgent need to adopt measures towards restoring confidence and rekindling hope in a durable peace. Indeed, the Special Rapporteur stresses, once again, that international law should be respected not only for obvious juridical and ethical reasons, but in the interest of the parties themselves. In fact, international law and, in particular, human rights and humanitarian norms form the indispensable foundation of any just and lasting solution.

Notes

1/ See the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/304/Add.45) and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/1/Add.27), as cited also in the Special Rapporteur's report E/CN.4/S-5/3 of 17 October 2000, para. 6.

2/ Letter of the Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Virginia Bonoan-Dandan to Mr. David Peleg, the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office and Specialized Agencies at Geneva, 1 December 2000.

3/ Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, United States Department of State, "Israel" and "Occupied Territories", Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000 (Washington: GPO, February 2001).

4/ As of 15 March 2001. These figures reflect the number of injured Palestinians treated in health facilities, as reported by the Palestinian Ministry of Health (West Bank) and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (Gaza). Health, Development, Information and Policy Institute (HDIP) Web site: www.hdip.org. These figures are regularly subject to change.

5/ "Israel admits 'shoot-to-kill' policy against Palestinian militants", Agence France Presse, 21 December 2000; "IDF source: seeking out terrorists is effective", The Jerusalem Post, 21 December 2000; Roni Shaked, "Elimination of another PA official: senior Fatah man assassinated", Yedioth Ahronoth, 1 January 2001, p. 8; Human Rights Watch, "End liquidations of Palestinian suspects Israel" (New York, 29 January 2001).

6/ Articles 105 and 146.

7/ Article 147 states: "Grave breaches shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully 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 wilfully 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."

8/ Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights Report (February 2001) (www.mezan.org).

9/ Phil Reeves, "Israeli destruction of homes fuels hatred in Gaza", The Independent, 7 December 2000.

10/ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 11. Israel ratified the Covenant in 1991.

11/ Moshe Reinfeld, "Doctors demand free flow of food and medicine to territories: Physicians for Human Rights asks for High Court's intervention", Ha'aretz, 20 December 2000.

12/ World Food Programme, WFP Emergency Report No. 9, 2 March 2001 (revised on 5 March 2001), Web site: www.wfp.org.

13/ Addameer Prisoners Support and Human Rights Association, "Report on Palestinian Prisoners as of 29 September 2000" (based on visits by Addameer's attorney Sahar Francis to Israeli interrogation centres), 1 November 2000; see also LAW Society press releases of 30 November 2000 and 23 January 2001.

14/ Defence for Children International/Palestine Section, press release 0001/01, 15 January 2001.

15/ E/CN.4/2000/25 of 15 March 2000.

16/ LAW Society, "Attacking journalists: Israeli forces violate Palestinian right to freedom of expression", press release, 19 February 2001. HDIP notes 44 cases, op. cit., citing Al-Mezan report on Israeli attacks on journalists (25 November 2000) and al-Ayyam newspaper, 26 January 2001.

17/ "Israel targets Palestinian economy", Ha'arezt (English edition) 17 November 2000; "Israel blockade strangles those who survive: the Jewish State is suffocating the Palestinian territories through a tight economic blockade in an attempt to erode the will of its people", Reuters, 29 November 2000; Lee Hockstader, "Sanctions suffocating Gaza's fragile economy", Washington Post, 6 December 2000, p. A01.

18/ E/CN.4/2000/25, pp. 10-11, 14-16.

19/ United Nations Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories (UNSCO), "The impact on the Palestinian economy of confrontations, mobility restrictions and border closures, 1 October 2000 to 31 January 2001", (Gaza: UNSCO, 25 February 2001), p. 3.

20/ Ibid., p. 6.

21/ Ibid., p. 14.

22/ "Waking up to life under Sharon", The Economist (1723 March 2001), p. 51. Related PA tax and customs revenues are currently at US$ 45 million per month, or about half the rate during the period January-September 2000. Figures provided by IMF, November 2000-February 2001, in UNSCO, op. cit., p. 12.

23/ United Nations sources estimate losses for the period at $1,150,700,000, of which $907,300,000 derive from losses in domestic output/income and $243,400,000 from losses in labour earnings in Israel. UNSCO, op. cit, p. 9.

24/ As of 9 March 2001. Palestinian Ministry of Health, www.pna.org/moh/Alaqsa stat0903.htm.

25/ Amira Hass, "Don't shoot till you can see they're over the age of 12", Haaretz, 20 November 2000.

26/ HDIP, Health Care Under Siege II, HDIP, op. cit.

27/ For example, see Al-Mezan, "The destruction of civilian properties and the comprehensive closure of the occupied Palestinian territories" (Gaza: Al-Mezan, 9 November 2000); Interview with Dr. Samir Qouta, Gaza Community Mental Health Project, Gaza, 27 November 2000, cited in Save the Children, "Children's rights to education in Palestine" (15 March 2001).

28/ Palestinian Ministry of Education report (3 November 2000) and Al-Mezan report on education (8 December 2000), cited in HDIP, op. cit., www.hdip.org.

29/ HDIP, Health Care Under Siege II, HDIP, op. cit.

30/ Since 23 February 2001, Israeli forces divided the Gaza Strip into four zones: (i) between ash-Shuhada Crossing to the south and Bait Hanun to the north, (ii) between ash-Shuhada Crossing to the north and Kufar Darum to the south, (iii) between Kufar Darum to the north and Rafah to the south, and (iv) the Mawasi area, between Khan Yunis and Rafah.

31/ UNSCO report, op. cit., p. 11.

32/ "Further deterioration of normal societal functions", Closure Update No. 33 (Gaza: Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 22 February 2001), pp. 7-10.

33/ Lee Hockstader, "Jerusalem is 'indivisible', Sharon says: Camp David concessions are called 'null and void'", Washington Post, 8 February 2001.

33/ See Palestinian public opinion poll conducted on 21-24 December by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, released 26 December 2000.

-----

|| UNISPAL Home || Printer-friendly (pdf)||Arabic||Chinese||French||Russian||Spanish||
UNITED
NATIONS
A

General Assembly

Distr.
GENERAL
A/56/428/Add.1
26 October 2001

Original: English
Fifty-sixth session
Agenda item 88
Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli
Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian
People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories

Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the
Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories

Note by the Secretary-General

Addendum

The present report contains a summary of articles and reports received during the period from May to August 2001. Articles or reports of an urgent nature are mailed to the members as soon as they are available.

In preparing this summary, the following newspapers have been taken into account: Ha'aretz (Hebrew-language daily); Jerusalem Post (English-language daily). Reference to reports appearing in other newspapers is made when they contain relevant material not found in these newspapers. The terminology used in the summary for the most part reflects that found in the original version of the reports summarized.

Contents
Para.
Page

I. Conditions that are restrictive with respect to Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem
1100
3
A. Restrictions relating to land and housing
111
3
1. Land
13
3
2. Housing
411
4
B. Restrictions affecting the movement of Palestinians within, between, and their exit from and re-entry into the occupied territories
1233
6
1. Identity cards, travel permits
1214
6
2. Closures
1521
7
3. Checkpoints
2223
9
4. Settlements
2433
10
C. Aspects of the administration of justice
34100
12
1. Interrogation procedures
3435
12
2. Administrative detention and conditions of detention
36
13
3. Imprisonment and conditions of imprisonment
37
13
4. Question of the use of force
3899
13
5. Proposed law absolving persons of liability to compensate
100
30
II. Situation of human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan
101
31
III. Other
102109
31

I. Conditions that are restrictive with respect to Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem

A. Restrictions relating to land and housing

1. Land

1. On 14 August, it was reported that the Israel Defence Forces were poised to strike at Beit Jala, but the cabinet held off a ground forces action into the Palestinian Authority town after the White House termed "provocative" a similar operation in Jenin early the previous day in which Israeli tanks had rolled into the West Bank town and taken up positions in the city square and elsewhere in the town and bulldozers demolished a Palestinian police station. The four-hour operation in Jenin was 2 kilometres inside Palestinian territory. IDF troops did not open fire, remaining inside the tanks, but they were fired on by Palestinian militiamen. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 15 August)

2. On 28 August, Beit Jala, a mostly Christian Palestinian town south of Jerusalem, was almost emptied of its residents the previous night, after IDF had occupied the north-east corner of the town, which faces the settlement of Gilo. Most of the residents went to stay with relatives elsewhere in the West Bank, mostly in Bethlehem, and Israeli security sources reported that Palestinian forces "were flowing to the town", indicating that fighting could yet intensify in the village. There also were reports that the IDF troops accompanied by bulldozers were moving into the Aida refugee camp abutting Beit Jala. Meanwhile, two key Israeli allies, the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, called upon Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian town. In Washington, United States State Department spokesman Richard Boucher called upon Israel to pull its forces out of Beit Jala. "The Israelis need to understand that incursions like this will not solve the security problems. They only make the situation worse", he said at a briefing. Inside Beit Jala, while troops hunkered down in armoured vehicles and atop Palestinian apartments, Palestinian security forces were lurking only a block or two away on Virgin Mary Street. IDF also took over a Lutheran Church compound that includes an orphanage with 45 children, ages 6 to 16. The children were placed under curfew and took cover from gunfire in a basement. Troops set up a machine gun position on the roof of an adjacent five-story church hostel under construction, witnesses said. " ;We demand that the army immediately withdraw from our church premises", said Munib Younan, the Lutheran bishop of Jerusalem. The army, which wanted to capture the church hostel because of its strategic location and panoramic view, pledged to ensure the safety of the children. Beit Jala resident Bishara Kharufeh, 56, was one of the few Beit Jala residents to remain in the town. "The Israeli soldiers took over all the houses and asked us to stay in one room, plus the bathroom and the kitchen", he said. "The soldiers pushed over the furniture and took over the top two floors of the house and put an army post on the roof, surrounded by sandbags." The army acknowledged it had taken over buildings in strategic locales in the town of narrow, winding streets. But Brigadier General Yitzhak stressed that "it is our intention to conclude the operation without harm to Palestinian civilians, or to the holy sites, to which we are very sensitive." (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 29 August)

3. On 30 August, IDF pulled out of Beit Jala at dawn, and Palestinian troops moved in to guarantee the ceasefire worked out between Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. Palestinians returning to some of the apartments and buildings taken by the army in a 24-hour operation complained of missing possessions and of property deliberately destroyed. As the IDF tanks and paratroopers left the town, Palestinian security forces moved in to shore up their control of the mostly abandoned Christian town. The Palestinians controlling Beit Jala celebrated the IDF departure, and residents handed out candy. Bishara Karoofi surveyed the wreckage after two nights in which Israeli soldiers had taken over his two-storey home, camping on the floor or on the beds and using the bathrooms. Coffee was spilled over the sitting room floor. Army canteens were thrown askew, potted plants overturned, and dining chairs pulled up to sandbagged windows creating a lookout for the soldiers onto the street. William Sha'ar and his family returned home to the building next door to the Orthodox Club and found windows broken and damage in his car garage, apparently used by an IDF armoured personnel carrier. He also said that cash and jewellery he had left behind in a closet as he fled the Israeli troops was missing, but it was the deliberate vandalism of his wedding photo on his desk that seemed to disturb him most. And next door, at the Orthodox Club, where Sha'ar runs a restaurant, there was real vandalism. Doors were broken down, the musical instruments of a dance troupe were destroyed, as was a sound system. Many members of the club are supporters of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and a portrait of the founder, George Habash, was missing. (Ha'aretz, 31 August)

2. Housing

4. On 11 June, it was reported, a home in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ras el-Amud illegally built on land slated for a new road was demolished. Police fired tear gas to disperse the crowd, then promptly left the area. The Interior Ministry said that the home owner had continued building his house despite repeated warnings that he was doing so illegally and was violating court orders. According to Faraj Mohammed Harbawi, his two-storey, 270-square metre house was inhabited by 15 members of his family. Orient House, the headquarters of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, called the demolition " provocative and illegal" and said, in a press statement, that "such actions threaten to further inflame an already unstable situation and are counter to the current initiatives for calming the region". But Interior Minister Eli Yishai said that Arab residents of Jerusalem must understand that they cannot brazenly thwart the law and build in places not zoned for home construction. (Jerusalem Post, 12 June)

5. On 9 July, Jerusalem Municipality bulldozers demolished 14 houses built in the Shuafat refugee camp in the northern part of the city. The demolition orders were posted at 25 houses, all in various stages of construction, on Sunday, leaving their owners less than 24 hours to seek legal redress. None of the buildings had received licences for the construction, and all were less than six months old. Activists from the Israel Coalition against House Demolition tried to halt the demolitions by lying down in front of bulldozers, but they were removed by police. The demolitions were watched by representatives from several diplomatic legations, including the United States consulate, whose representative, Lisa Miller, said she was reporting back to Washington on the demolitions, and by the Red Cross. In City Hall, sources said that Mayor Olmert wants any future final status negotiations to include the destruction of the Shuafat refugee camp as an Israeli demand, with the camp's residents moving to another part of East Jerusalem. From Olmert's point of view, Shuafat prevents the contiguity of Jewish neighbourhoods in the northern part of the city to the city centre. The other 11 houses in Shuafat slated for demolition will come down in the coming days, say City Hall sources. Knesset member Mussi Raz of Meretz has called for an urgent session of the Knesset Interior Committee to discuss the issue. Raz asked "Why is it that when it comes to refugees' homes City Hall is ready to demolish in less than 24 hours, while in West Jerusalem, it waits for the many illegal buildings to collapse on their own?" (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 10 July)

6. On 11 July, seven Palestinians were wounded as IDF troops destroyed 18 houses and six stores in the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza. IDF claimed the houses were not inhabited and were being used by Palestinians to throw grenades and shoot at Israeli troops. Residents of Rafah denied the claim that the houses were abandoned, saying that the dwellers were afraid to sleep at home in the past months but returned during the day. After the relative quiet of the past week, they said, most of the families begun sleeping at home once again. IDF tanks drove into the refugee camp around midnight on Monday to a spot from which artillery had been fired at the Tarmit military post on the Israel-Egyptian border in the past few days. According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, 11 tanks and four bulldozers rolled into the neighbourhood. Armed Palestinian police and civilians opened fire on the troops. Eyewitnesses said IDF soldiers returned fire. When the tanks began demolishing the houses, the inhabitants fled with their children. A Reuters reporter received an account of at least one case where a sleeping child was accidentally left behind in the panic. When Faiz Abu Taha returned for his son Hussein, he found him bleeding in the corner of the room, where he had been hit in the head by shrapnel. In another incident, Fatmeh Radwan, 42, was tugging at a sack of white flour she had bought a day earlier with what she said was her last $15. However, the sack was stuck in the rubble, and the flour had already been dirtied by sand. Radwan said she lost a four-room house she shared with her husband and nine children. She said she and her family fled in their pyjamas, under fire. " How can I convince my children not to join clashes while they face a dark future, and our small house has been destroyed?" she said, crying. Palestinian sources claim the Israeli troops invaded territory in Area A, which is under full Palestinian control. The IDF spokesman denied the claim, saying that IDF operated in an area bordering with Egypt, in which the Oslo agreements allow Israeli security operations. A video of the incident taped by on-site television crews, however, seemed to support the Palestinian version. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 11 July)

7. On 15 July, IDF forces raided a house in the village of Umm Safah, north of Ramallah, Palestinian reports said. The village overlooks the main road between the settlements of Neveh Tzuf and Ateret, where numerous terrorist shootings have taken place, Israel Radio reported. (Jerusalem Post, 16 July)

8. On 7 August, it was reported that IDF troops backed by police had prevented human rights activists from handing out aid to a group of south Mt. Hebron families the army had evicted from caves in early July. According to Arik Ascherman, from Rabbis for Human Rights, the Palestinian homeless families have since been served new demolition notices for the tents and shacks they put up after their caves were sealed. The activists, members of Rabbis for Human Rights, the Israel Committee against House Demolitions and the Christian Peacemakers Team, brought blankets, tents, material for making tents, and household supplies. Their aim was to protest the "campaign of collective punishment" against the families, who had been living in the caves area for more than 30 years. An IDF source said it had permitted the demonstration, but that as soon as the demonstrators began handing out supplies, the army had forced the demonstrators to stop. Later, the activists visited residents of Hirbat Awayman, near the Sussiya settlement. The residents said that settlers had been systematically vandalizing the caves where the residents lived and harassing them and their flocks. On six occasions the residents had complained to police, and on all six occasions police had written up reports, but the harassment did not stop. The residents were now wor rying that the settlers would try to sabotage the harvest to force the Palestinians out of the area. Attorney Shlomo Laquer, who two years earlier had won a High Court order against the Civil Administration after it ordered the cave dwellers to evacuate their homes, was planning to go back to the High Court to put a stop to the administrative steps taken against the cave-dwellers. (Ha'aretz, 7 August)

9. On 20 August, it was reported, Jerusalem Municipality bulldozers demolished two Arab homes in the northern neighbourhood of Beit Hanina. Municipality spokesman Hagai Elias stressed that both structures, which were in the midst of construction, were being built illegally. He added that the demolition orders had been issued early the previous Sunday, giving the owners the needed 24 hours to appeal. But Ibrahim Rajulyani, their owner, said that neither he nor any construction worker had seen the demolition notices supposedly posted on the buildings. Knesset member Zehava Galon, chairman of the Meretz Knesset faction, strongly denounced the demolitions and lambasted Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert, who she said was again trying "to ignite" the city. "Who better than Olmert knows that there are no building plans for Arabs in east Jerusalem?" she said. Palestinians said it was extremely difficult to obtain building permits in East Jerusalem, while the municipality claimed it was being even-handed in enforcing building codes. One of the buildings razed had a total area of 1,200 square metres, with four floors and eight apartments, while the second, with 400 square metres, had two apartments. There were no incidents reported during the demolition, which brought to nearly 20 the number of illegal Arab structures razed in the city over the previous five weeks. ( Jerusalem Post, 21 August)

10. On 28 August, it was reported that Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert had cancelled a meeting with Minister without Portfolio Salah Tarif, in charge of minority affairs, after the latter called for transferring responsibility for the planning and supervision of Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem from the municipality to a new governmental authority. The minister made the recommendation during a tour of illegally constructed houses slated for demolition in the northern Palestinian neighbourhood of Anata, bordering Pisgat Ze'ev. "It cannot be that the municipality just holds on to building plans for Arab neighbourhoods and does not release them," Tarif said. "Whatever the Arabs build will be considered illegal. Therefore I recommend placing into government hands the authority for building and demolitions in this [part of the] city, which is the most sensitive city on earth." Nearly 20 illegally built houses owned by Palestinians had been torn down in the city over the previous five weeks. Palestinians said it was extremely difficult to obtain building permits in East Jerusalem, while the municipality claimed it was being even-handed in enforcing building codes in all parts of the city. (Jerusalem Post, 28 August)

11. On 28 August, IDF demolished 15 homes in the Rafah refugee camp, destroying their contents and leaving around 140 people homeless. Palestinians opened fire as the homes were being bulldozed. A total of 14 people were injured during the demolition and ensuing gun battles. Witnesses say that eight Israeli armoured personnel carriers and a bulldozer entered Block O of the camp, a neighbourhood along the border with Egypt, close to midnight on Monday. Calls to prepare to defend Rafah immediately went out over the loudspeakers of mosques. Witnesses told researchers from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights that Israeli forces travelled 100 metres into the area and deployed approximately 300 metres along the border in nearby territory. The 15 houses were destroyed using heavy artillery and other weapons. Palestinian police officers and activists from the "popular opposition committees" opened fire and hurled grenades at Israeli soldiers and opened fire on other IDF positions along the border. Residents say the gun battles raged until 3.30 a.m. Some residents returned later in the day to search for their belongings among the rubble which had been their homes. Local people from Rafah vehemently denied claims by the IDF that the houses had been abandoned. They said that people would stay elsewhere during particularly heavy exchanges of fire between Israeli and Palestinian forces and return the next morning. This was the fourth time that IDF had destroyed houses close to the border with Egypt. To date, it had demolished a total of 65 houses in Rafah. (Ha'aretz , 29 August)

B. Restrictions affecting the movement of Palestinians within, between, and their exit from and re-entry into the occupied territories

1. Identity cards, travel permits

12. On 11 July, it was reported that, beginning on that day, the Israeli defence establishment had decided to allow the entry of hundreds of Palestinian workers into Jewish settlements and industrial areas in the territories. Work permits would only be provided for workers aged 35 and over who were not related to any victims of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and who received specific permission from the General Security Service (GSS). (Ha'aretz, 11 July)

13. On 17 July, Public Security Minister Uzi Landau ordered the Jerusalem police to prevent a memorial service for the late Palestinian leader, Faisal Husseini, in the capital or anywhere else in the State of Israel. The previous night, High Court Justice Miriam Naor had rejected a request submitted by five Arab and three Jewish lawmakers for a temporary injunction to cancel Landau's order. The request had been submitted less than an hour before the ceremony was to take place and Naor ruled that there was not enough time to debate the petition. "Thanks to Minister Uzi Landau for once again placing Jerusalem at the centre of the political debate by banning the memorial gathering for Faisal Husseini", said Albert Arazrian, who had organized the event at Orient House in East Jerusalem. Arazrian noted that it was also Husseini's birthday. Officials at Orient House and Fatah activists in Jerusalem had been planning the memorial ceremony, with the knowledge of the Jerusalem police, for almost a month. The ban order, however, had been relayed to the location' s legal adviser, attorney Jawad Bulus, only the previous day morning. Organizers of the ceremony who had invited some 5,000 people to attend the event, including many Israelis, said that even if they had wanted to, they could not cancel the invitations and preparations, which had already been completed. The speaker of the Palestinian Authority parliament, Abu Ala, who was slated to deliver the main address at the ceremony, arrived in the area of Orient House about an hour before the event was scheduled to begin. A large police force in the area prevented him from entering the grounds and Abu Ala left the area. Hundreds of members of the Israeli security services blocked all the streets and neighbourhoods around Orient House and prevented guests from entering the area. (Ha'aretz, 18 July)

14. On 3 August, it was reported that, as the General Security Service was preventing a Qalqilya resident from going to Austria for urgent medical treatment, a leading human rights group was demanding that he be provided with free medical care in an Israeli hospital. According to members of his family, Firas Rushdi Obeid, 27, had been hurt in an accident in his home and was in danger of losing the use of his fingers. Doctors in Nablus and Amman recommended that he go to Austria. The family requested a travel permit for Obeid and his brother from the District Coordinating Office in Qalqilya but it was refused. When Physicians for Human Rights intervened on behalf of Obeid, they were told by the Defence Ministry that Obeid's request had been turned down for security reasons. The physicians group has now appealed to the ministers of health and defence to permit the man to be treated at an Israeli hospital free of charge. (Ha'aretz, 3 August)

2. Closures

15. On 2 June, it was reported, the security cabinet, meeting in special session, authorized IDF and the security forces to retaliate for the deadly suicide bombing which had occurred a day earlier and left 18 Israeli victims and more than 90 injured. "We will find the way, the method, and the direction, and we will react. No one should delude themselves. Does someone think we have gotten used to what we are going through?" Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said. As a first move, Israel banned all Palestinians from the country and ordered them to immediately return to their homes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. An indefinite closure was imposed on the territories and all of the Palestinian cities in the West Bank were put under military blockade. The army also shut down the international crossings at Allenby and Rafah to Palestinians. The Dehaniya airport in the Gaza Strip was ordered shut, with all take-off and landings of aircraft cancelled. Ben-Eliezer called the blast "one of the most cruel and inhuman terror attacks that we have witnessed in Israel". Besides barring the 20,000 Palestinian labourer s, police were ordered to round up all the thousands of Palestinians illegally in the country. The army was also given the green light to re-enter Palestinian-controlled areas for operational purposes. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 3 June)

16. On 5 June, it was reported, Israel decided to begin lifting some of the sanctions it had imposed on the Palestinian Authority after the Tel Aviv suicide bombing the previous Friday. Defence Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said that the decision to lift the sanctions was "a result of the significant reduction in the number of terror incidents." He said the Palestinian Authority still had to take steps to reduce the violence and incitement, but the drop in violence was a step in the right direction." Beginning immediately, food, agricultural supplies, fuel and natural gas would be allowed back into the Palestinian Authority freely. Palestinian workers would be allowed back to work at the Erez industrial zone. Palestinians in Egypt and Jordan would be allowed back into the Palestinian Authority, through the Rafah and Allenby Bridge border crossings. But other border crossings remained closed to Palestinians leaving for abroad. The ban on Palestinians entering Israel for work remained in force, including the 20,000 Palestinians equipped with valid passes. In related news, it was reported that Israel was preventing complete freedom of movement for top Palestinian officials in the West Bank and Gaza, but while the cabinet considered preventing Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat from using his helicopter, so far, the security forces had not received instructions to prevent Arafat from flying. The crackdown in the West Bank after the Dolphinarium bombing the previous week was the toughest ever, with the territory being divided into eight zones and passage between them contingent on having an IDF pass. The eight zones corresponded to the eight major towns in the West Bank: Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Jericho, Bethlehem and Hebron. Yesterday, tanks deployed to prevent traffic between Nablus and Jenin, while bulldozers moved earth to stop traffic between Ramallah and Qalqilya and Nablus. Traffic has also been halted between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 6 June)

17. On 15 June, it was reported that Israel would continue to ease its closure of the territories, in accordance with the ceasefire agreement brokered by the director of central intelligence George Tenet. The first steps had been taken the day before, with tanks being pulled back from around a number of Palestinian cities and some roads being reopened to Palestinian traffic. But very few roads were opened in the West Bank, which led to Palestinian charges that Israel was evading its obligations. IDF removed tanks from Ein-Bidan (near Nablus), Qalqilya, Salfit (near Ariel), Surda (north of Ramallah), the Tunnel Road (near Bethlehem), Jebel-Jawar in Hebron, Beit Haggai south of Hebron, and Netzarim and the Kisufim-Gush Katif road in Gaza. In some cases, however, the tanks were pulled back only a short distance, meaning that they could be moved up again quickly. Both of the major north-south arteries in Gaza were reopened. In the West Bank, however, the changes were minor: Public transportation was permitted on some roads around Ramallah and Nablus, and one road was opened in Hebron. Israel also reopened the international border crossing at Rafah in Gaza and increased the flow of goods into Gaza through the Karni checkpoint. The naval blockade on Gaza was also eased. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned the previous day that the closure would not be lifted in areas where the ceasefire was being violated, such as around Ramallah and Rafah. The pacification period that, according to the Tenet document, was supposed to precede confidence-building measures such as a settlement freeze would begin only once the violence had stopped completely. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 15 June)

18. On 21 June, it was reported that the security forces were preventing medical staff living in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority from reaching their places of work at hospitals in East Jerusalem. The Civil Authority had issued only 270 entry permits to medical staff during the month, compared to the 500 or so normally issued. A member of the Jerusalem municipality, Meir Margalit, had written to the defence minister's military secretary Amir Neuman earlier in the week, asking him to allow more medics into Jerusalem. "It is almost unnecessary to point out the harm caused to the medical services [provided] in the city's eastern quarter ... the hospitals in East Jerusalem provide medical services not only to the East Jerusalem residents, but also to residents of all the surrounding territories", Margalit wrote to Neuman. There are four hospitals in East Jerusalem: Makassed, Augusta Victoria, the Saint John General Hospital and the Saint John Eye Hospital. Makassed is a medium-sized hospital, serving residents of East Jerusalem and the territories, which specializes in heart surgery. Some of the medical staff who were not permitted to enter Jerusalem managed to find a way around the IDF blockades and actually stay at the hospital overnight, fearing that if they returned to their homes they would not be allowed back into Jerusalem the following day. Margalit also addressed the Defence Ministry' s repeated claims that medical staff would not be hampered by closures and roadblocks and that doctors, nurses, ambulances and patients would not be stopped from entering East Jerusalem." The fact that entry visas were not issued to around 250 doctors, nurses and radiologists holds statements made by the defence minister himself to the media up for contempt", Margalit concluded his letter. In November 2000, the organization Physicians for Human Rights had filed a number of similar complaints with the IDF liaison officer in the territory. (Ha'aretz, 21 June)

19. On 24 June, the organization Physicians for Human Rights announced it would not withdraw a petition it had filed at the High Court of Justice against IDF commanders in the territories who had refused entry to Israel to four Palestinian physicians. In the past, the State Attorney's office had informed the High Court that it would allow Palestinian doctors into Israel with certain limitations. However, because of the intifada closure on the territories, the four doctors had been prevented from entering Israel to work. About a year and a half ago, Physicians for Human Rights had requested the court to order IDF to explain why Palestinian doctors were prevented from carrying out their work in Israel on security grounds. On behalf of the group, attorney Andre Rozenthal wrote that, "[the physicians] are not part of the same group of residents of the territories who request permission to enter [Israel] to make a living; these are medical practitioners whose purpose is to assist fellow human beings in time of need." As a result, permission was granted for two Palestinian doctors to travel from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, through Israel. One of the limitations imposed was that they had to use the "safe-passage" route, connecting the two areas. However, Shai Nitzan, in charge of security affairs at the State Attorney's office, had told Rozenthal the previous week that because of the closure, "passage will be allowed only in exceptional cases". Nitzan also argued that the petition of the four physicians did not constitute an "exceptional case." Responding to the State Attorney, Hadas Ziv, in charge of projects for the human rights organization, said that "the Fourth Geneva Convention demands that an occupying force ensure the operations of medical teams, and does not refer to periods of peace and brotherly love since at those times freedom is self-evident and not restricted." (Ha'aretz , 25 June)

20. On 24 June, a resident of a Palestinian village, Sillat a-Daher, which had been under curfew and closure since 20 June, called upon human rights organizations to act to remove the restrictions, citing dwindling supplies of food and milk. Village elder Rahab Diak said that settlers, backed by IDF were continuing to enter the village to vandalize property and fire in the air, and occasionally at homes. IDF responded saying the curfew was continuing because of an attack which had occurred on 20 June 2001, but that it is allowing people to enter and leave the village for humanitarian reasons and was allowing sufficient supplies in. Palestinian media sources said that IDF had tightened the closure around Nablus and extended its action to block Palestinian traffic in the Mount Gerizim area. (Jerusalem Post, 25 June)

21. On 16 August, a tight siege had been laid on Ramallah due to alerts regarding a possible attack in Jerusalem. Cars heading from Ramallah towards Jerusalem were turned back. Qalqilya saw the siege around it tightened for similar reasons. Palestinian sources said that IDF had also blocked the north-west exit from Bethlehem towards Jerusalem. According to army sources, the fence around the strip as well as the operational deployment of the army around the area was making terrorist efforts difficult, but the risk from the Gaza Strip was considered serious, particularly because terrorist cells from that area tended to use larger, more powerful bombs. A senior security source said the previous night that Israel might consider widening its areas of operations inside Gaza's autonomous Palestinian areas if Palestinian units began using anti-tank rockets. He said that, currently, IDF controlled 300 metres on either side of Gaza roads (the Oslo agreement limited security control to 70 metres) in order to safeguard Israeli settler traffic from shooting and bombings. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 17 August)

3. Checkpoints

22. On 11 June, according to a report by the human rights organization, B' Tselem, IDF continued to detain sick Palestinians on their way to hospitals, some with life-threatening conditions, at roadblocks inside the territories. The report claimed that Israel was continuing to hamper the administration of medical treatment within the territories with its policy of closures. B' Tselem's report contained a list of such incidents recorded by its researchers. In some of the cases documented, patients even died after being held up at the roadblocks, and those are not isolated incidents, according to the organization. IDF had promised that strict guidelines would be in place to prevent ambulances being held up at roadblocks and checkpoints in times of emergency. However, B'Tselem says that ambulances carrying sick or injured Palestinians continued to be held up unnecessarily. According to the report, IDF was preventing patients from receiving vital medical attention by setting up roadblocks made up of mounds of earth or concrete blocks placed across the road, or with roadblocks manned constantly by IDF soldiers. Palestinians were thus forced to take lengthy and convoluted detours to avoid the roadblocks and reach the medical centres. In those instances where the IDF left one road, under the tight supervision of soldiers, open, the ambulances often lost precious time looking for the chosen road, since it changed often without the residents being informed. In one incident recorded by B'Tselem on 7 June, an IDF soldier manning a roadblock ordered a Palestinian on his way to dialysis treatment to turn back, saying there was no entry. In another case, an 11-year-old girl in need of hospitalization was held up at a roadblock near Nablus for 45 minutes, even though the soldiers saw her vomit and it was obvious that she was in pain. The girl died before she reached the hospital, B'Tselem said. The report stated further that doctors frequently encountered problems and delays on their way to work and that the road closures made it even more difficult to get water to remote areas. There were also problems with regular refuse collection, exposing the residents of the territories to serious health risks, they added. B'Tselem's report called Israel's policy of restricting the movement of Palestinians " collective punishment" and charged it with "directly inflicting suffering on the civilian population which is not involv ed in acts of violence". The report said that one could only imagine the sorts of problems people who "only" wanted to get from one place to another must encounter, if ambulances and sick people were encountering so many delays and problems. (Ha'aretz, 12 June)

23. On 23 July, it was reported that officers had expressed serious concerns about the phenomenon of abusive behaviour of soldiers towards Palestinian civilians, mostly at roadblocks. Among the cases of abuse recently reported were the following: Soldiers had held up Palestinians for hours at roadblocks as part of a punishment they called "hours off". This was a traditional form of punishment used against new army recruits for insubordination: They were held up for several hours before being allowed to go on leave. In other cases, Palestinians were ordered to stay inside their cars with the windows rolled up, without air conditioning, during the hottest parts of the day. The car keys were confiscated. This was the "punishment" used by soldiers against Palestinians who approached them more than once, asking when they would be let through the roadblock. Also, it was reported that in some cases, the soldiers asked for "passage fees" from the Palestinians wishing to cross, in the form of cigarettes and drinks. Palestinians complained of beatings they suffered in some of the roadblocks by the soldiers manning them. Palestinians also reported that soldiers punctured the tires, or confiscated the keys, of vehicles whose drivers attempted to bypass the roadblocks in order to travel between villages under siege. This form of behaviour towards the Palestinian population was reportedly rampant among several infantry battalions belonging to Central Command that were in fixed deployment in the West Bank. However, there were reports and evidence that such abuses were also taking place in reserve units and other battalions of conscripts serving in the territories. In some cases, soldiers were tried for abusing Palestinians and for demanding payment to gain permission to pass through IDF roadblocks. Officers expressed grave concern that the incidents which had so far exposed were the mere " tip of the iceberg" in what was actually a much broader phenomenon. Speaking to Ha'aretz , officers serving in the territories said that IDF was finding it very difficult to combat the phenomenon. "Every hour there are dozens of such roadblocks throughout the territories, under the command of a sergeant, or in a good case, a first lieutenant. Despite the strict orders passed down by the more senior officers, and despite the efforts to ensure that activities are carried out as they should be, in practice it's not difficult for a group of soldiers to abuse Palestinians", the officers say. "Only on rare occasions are these cases exposed, when Palestinian residents complain to IDF or to a passing officer who notices that something is amiss. Now that there is fighting on the ground, it is even more difficult to keep an eye on things compared to periods of calm", the officers said. (Ha'aretz , 23 July)

4. Settlements

24. On 20 May, the Israeli Peace Now movement revealed in its latest survey monitoring construction in the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza that at least two satellite neighbourhoods of those settlements that had been dismantled under the previous government had been re-established. In its report the movement listed 15 settlements where new neighbourhoods or satellite neighbourhoods had been established nearby the main community, with some located several kilometres away. Not all the new sites were inhabited, and in some there were 22 structures that had been set up on the land. Neveh Erez in Ma'aleh Mikhmas with five structures and Kohav Hashahar's Mitzpe Kramim which has seven structures were both dismantled under the previous Government in a deal struck with the then Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Among the communities and their new neighbourhoods appearing in the list are Alon Shvut's Givat Hahish North, where one structure had been set up; Bat Ayin's Bat Ayin North, with four structures; Elazar's Elazar West, with two structures; Einav's Einav West, with 22 structures; Itamar's Hilltop 866, with two structures; Karmei Tsur's West neighbourhood, with five structures; Kfar Tapuah's West neighbourhood, with four structures; Maon's Hilltop 833, with three structures set up by those evicted from the Maon Farm; Dotan's northern neighbourhood with six structures; Nahliel's Hill 590, with one structure; Ofra's southern neighbourhood, with six structures; Rechalim's western neighbourhood, with six structures; and Yakir's southern neighbourhood, with four structures. (Jerusalem Post , 20 May)

25. On 22 May, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stressed at a news conference, at which he discussed the Mitchell report's call for a settlement freeze, that his coalition Government's guidelines required providing for the settlements' ongoing needs, "while on the other hand easing our neighbours' fears of the creation of facts that will determine the future of the negotiations". "There is no need to expropriate land for the purpose of settlement construction", he added, saying the settlements already had sufficient land for their needs. However, he added, if bypass roads needed to be paved for security reasons, "we will pave them". In response to a question, Sharon said: "We are not talking about a freeze". But he reiterated that the Government's guidelines forbade the establishment of new settlements. In response to his remarks, the Palestinian Authority issued an official statement that night saying it " regrets this rejection" of the Mitchell report and Sharon's " stubbornness in clinging to his previous views with respect to expansion of the settlements". The Palestinian Authority statement demanded immediate implementation of the entire Mitchell report, "without either side being able to choose the recommendations that suit it". Sharon, it charged, was picking and choosing, "in an effort to justify his continued aggression and his siege of the Palestinian people." (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 23 May)

26. On 17 June, it was reported that Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner had issued an interim injunction two days earlier, requiring the Government, the West Bank Civil Administration and Military Command, and the Union for the Renewal of Jewish Settlement in Hebron to halt construction work at the archaeological site Tel Rumeida, near Hebron. The order had been issued after two Palestinians who owned land near the site petitioned the court, along with Knesset member Mussi Raz (Meretz) and archaeologist Dr. Avi Ofer. They asked the court to prevent the construction of a residential neighbourhood on the important archaeological site. In its response to the petition, the State Prosecutor' ;s Office admitted that the construction had not yet received the approval of the planning and construction committees. (Ha'aretz, 17 June)

27. On 21 June, it was reported that more than half 52 per cent of the construction tenders the Housing Ministry and the Lands Administration had published the previous month were for apartments in the territories, according to data Knesset member Mussi Raz (Meretz) had brought to light the previous day. According to these data, based on Land Administration reports, May was the first month in 2001 in which the government had issued any tenders in the territories. Tenders in the settlements therefore accounted for only 23 per cent of the total tenders issued so far during the year: for 708 out of 3,047 units. Furthermore, the West Bank tenders had not been very successful. Bids had been submitted for only 49 per cent, or 362, of the 708 units. In contrast, bids had been submitted for 76 per cent of the tenders within the Green Line. May's tenders covered 708 apartments in the West Bank and 661 in the rest of the country. The West Bank tenders, however, were in two towns only: Ma' ;aleh Adumim (496 apartments) and Alfei Menashe (212 units). Raz also reported that 222 Government-built apartments had been sold in the territories so far during the year, a decrease of 44 per cent from 396 in the same period the previous year. Sales had risen in some of the big settlements around Jerusalem Ma'aleh Adumim, Givat Ze'ev and Geva Binyamin but had fallen in other large settlements, such as Efrat, Ariel and Alfei Menashe, as well as in many smaller ones. The television programme "Erev Hadash" had run a report the previous Tuesday about a number of families who planned to leave the settlements, including 23 from Rimonim and 7 from Mikhmas. However, the programme said, 12 new families had moved to Bracha, near Nablus. ( Ha'aretz, 21 June)

28. On 23 June, dozens of settlers blocked the passage of Palestinian vehicles near the village of Sinjil on the Ramallah-Nablus road, and three were arrested on suspicion of setting fire to a field belonging to Palestinians. In another incident, dozens of settlers also blocked Palestinian traffic near the village of Za'arta, near Halhul. According to Palestinians, the settlers also threw stones at Palestinian cars. IDF troops said that they were responsible for the well-being of the settlers, while the police were responsible for any action they might take against Palestinians and their property. ( Jerusalem Post, 24 June)

29. On 29 July, it was reported that no fewer than 66 isolated outposts were scattered throughout the West Bank, of which 60 were illegal for a variety of reasons and 24 had been established since the intifada had begun in October 2000, according to IDF and the defence minister's adviser on settlements. Out of those 66, Defence Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer wanted 15 removed for security reasons only. That decision was backed by Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz and his deputy, Moshe Ya'alon. The list of the 15 outposts to be evacuated was being prepared in coordination with the Central Command. Major General Yitzhak Eitan had been instructed by Ben-Eliezer to talk with representatives of the settlement movement with a view to conducting the evacuation. But the instruction stated clearly that if the settlers did not evacuate the outposts, IDF would and the army had strict orders not to allow any more new outposts in the future. All the details of the discussions the army and defence establishment had been conducting on the issue since 31 May had been given to the prime minister. Some of the outposts were on private Palestinian land and the owners were challenging the settlers' presence in court. Others violated previously prepared zoning maps. The legal adviser had determined that 21 of the 66 were absolutely illegal. Another 29 were illegal for planning reasons, while a further 10 were considered semi-legal. The outposts as a phenomenon began in 1997 and were a deliberate attempt to undermine government policy at the time and to prevent any contiguity between parts of the Palestinian Authority. Some of them were nothing more than a mobile home and a generator on a hilltop, others had grown to more than two dozen mobile homes, synagogues, water towers and lighting systems, and had essentially become the mechanism by which settlements expanded beyond the original plans. ( Ha'aretz, 29 July)

30. On 3 August, it was reported that settlers from Tel Rumeida in Hebron had broken into a nearby Palestinian house, which they claimed was abandoned, saying they planned to have their children sleep there. Over the previous few days, there had been heavy fire on Tel Rumeida, and the settlers said the abandoned house would provide their children with more protection than the caravans in which they lived. They abandoned the house the previous night on orders from the police, but vowed to return. (Ha'aretz, 3 August)

31. On 8 August, it was reported that the Jewish settlement community in the occupied territories was continuing to grow, though at a much slower pace than previously, on average, since the settlement movement had begun in earnest in the late 1970s. From an average growth rate of 8 to 12 per cent during the previous decade, the settlement growth rate since the previous fall, when the intifada had broken out, had dropped to some 2 to 5 per cent, a Ha'aretz investigation had revealed. According to Interior Ministry figures, the overall settlement population had grown by some 5,000 people in the previous year, representing a six-month growth rate of 2.43 per cent. The figures showed that the Jewish population of the West Bank and Gaza was 203,067 in December and 208,015 in June, an increase of 2.43 per cent. Settlements in the Gaza Strip not only maintained the number of residents, but grew marginally. Neveh Dekalim had 2,314 residents in December and 2,320 in June, while the isolated Kfar Darom had grown from 250 to 266. Other figures showed that Ma'aleh Adumim had increased from 26,104 to 26,478 and Efrat from 6,556 to 6,606. The population of Ariel had grown from 16,511 to 16,702. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 8 August)

32. On 9 August, it was reported that, according to statistics released by the Interior Ministry, in the first half of the year, settlement public housing sales had dropped 50 per cent compared to the same period in 2000. Between January and June of the current year 238 apartments had been sold, compared to 466 in the same period the previous year. However, the drop in private home sales had been much less precipitous, from 396 private homes sold in the settlements in the first five months of the previous year to 371 during the current year. Other figures showed that some 30 per cent of the apartment construction tenders issued by the Housing Ministry for the first seven months of 2001 2,423 were for construction in the West Bank: 535 apartments in Ma'ale Adumim, 212 in Alfei Menashe and the rest in Elkana, for a total of 789. But those figures were also much lower than in previous years. During the 18 months of the Barak Administration, 3,575 apartment tenders had been issued, and in 1998, during one year of the Netanyahu Administration, 4,210 tenders had been published. (Ha'aretz , 9 August)

33. On 28 August, it was reported that the Council of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza was in the midst of absorbing 296 new families in settlements throughout the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as part of a campaign to strengthen settlements by attracting newcomers. Council Chairman Benny Kashriel told reporters at a press conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Jerusalem that despite the intifada and attacks carried out against settlers, the Council had provided a true Zionist response, which could be seen in the increased population. The Council said the settler population had grown by 17,000 in the past year and now stood at 227,000, the result of natural growth and the absorption of new families. Sixteen families had moved to Har Bracha, 10 to Negohot, 21 to Ofra, 100 to Adam, 59 to Beit El, 15 to Otniel, 12 to Sansaneh, 28 to Alon Shvut and 14 to Kidar. In the Gaza Strip, seven families had moved to Morag, six to Kfar Darom and eight to Netzarim. (Jerusalem Post , 28 August)

C. Aspects of the administration of justice

1. Interrogation procedures

34. On 24 May, it was reported that for the second time in less than three weeks, the High Court of Justice had allowed the General Security Services to continue questioning the administrator of the West Bank's Rafidia hospital without his lawyer being present. Samer Awartani, 34, had taken part in a health seminar in the University of Oxford as a guest of the British Council, representing the Palestinian Health Ministry. He had been arrested as he made his way home on 7 May, at the Allenby Bridge border crossing between Jordan and the West Bank. No one in the public was aware of what Awartani was suspected of, or if his detention was in fact legal. The British daily The Guardian had reported the previous day that the Department for International Cooperation, which had organized the Oxford seminar, was deeply concerned for Awartani, and that the British International Development Secretary Clare Short had launched an investigation into what had happened to him following his departure from the seminar in the United Kingdom. The High Court heard a second petition filed by Physicians for Human Rights and the Public Committee against Torture, demanding that Awartani be allowed to meet with his lawyer that Wednesday. Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, along with Justices Tova Strasberg-Cohen and Edmound Levy, ordered attorney Andre Rozenthal, representing the human rights groups, out of the courtroom and held a closed discussion with the GSS representatives. (Ha'aretz, 25 May)

35. On 9 August, the Attorney-General's Office ordered an investigation into allegations that GSS interrogators had used illegal methods to extract information from Palestinian human-rights activist Abed al-Ahmed. Ahmed had reportedly been arrested on 24 May on his way from Jerusalem to his home in Bethlehem for failing to have a permit to be in Israel. A week later, he was transferred to the GSS facility in the Russian Compound and his detention was extended by 20 days. On 10 June, Ahmed complained to his lawyers that GSS had applied the "Shabah", a method by which he was forced to sit on a small chair with his hands tied behind his back for a prolonged period in order to extract information. This method, among others, had been banned by the High Court of Justice in a landmark decision against torture handed down in September 1999. Israeli authorities had held Ahmed in the past. In May 1988, he had been arrested and detained without trial for two and a half years. Amnesty International had adopted him as a prisoner of conscience. On 26 June, the heads of four organizations B'Tselem, Moked-Defence of the Individual, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, and Physicians for Human Rights had written to Rubinstein to complain about the alleged torture. In a statement released the previous day, the organizations announced that Talia Sasson, the head of the Special Assignments Department of the Justice Ministry, had ordered an investigation following the complaints. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 9 August)

2. Administrative detention and conditions of detention

36. On 28 July, it was reported that, in an almost unprecedented climb-down, Israel the previous week had freed an administrative detainee who had been held for 51 days, 21 without being allowed to see a lawyer, and more than 2 months before he was due for release. Samer Fawzi Awartani, director of the Rafidiya Hospital, had been arrested on 7 May at the Allenby Bridge as he returned from an international health conference in the United Kingdom, where he had spoken on the difficult health conditions in the territories. Awartani had been freed the previous Tuesday by order of the military commander of Judea and Samaria, Colonel Ariel Peleg, who only two weeks earlier had issued a three-month detention order on him. The Guardian newspaper in London had reported Awartani's arrest in May and had said that the British ambassador to Israel, Francis Cornish, had asked Israel for clarifications about the reasons for his arrest. Cornish had been told that security service officers had found traces of plastique on Awartani when he crossed the Allenby Bridge. Physicians for Human Rights and Moked had campaigned for his release. (Ha'aretz, 28 June)

3. Imprisonment and conditions of imprisonment

37. On 22 August, it was reported that the administrations at Israeli prisons were preventing Palestinian lawyers from meeting with their charges. Under new guidelines that had gone into effect some two months earlier, Palestinian lawyers were prohibited from visiting Israeli jails to meet their clients, even if they had the relevant powers of attorney. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel and the Public Committee against Torture had begun proceedings ahead of petitioning the High Court of Justice on the matter. The Prisons Service, however, claimed: "These are not new guidelines, but rather an arrangement agreed to by the State Prosecutor's Office in 1988." Earlier in the month, attorney Khaled Quzmar from the Palestinian branch of the Defence for Children International organization had been prevented from visiting two of his clients, two Palestinian girls, Sanaa Amar and Souad Ghazala, at the Neveh Terse prison in Ramle even though he had presented the relevant documents. The previous month, attorney Hana Khatib from the Public Committee against Torture in Israel had been stopped from visiting security prisoners held in the detention centre at the Russian Compound in Jerusalem. The organization had written to the ministers of public security and justice as well as the attorney general to complain about the policy, pointing out that the majority of Palestinian prisoners and detainees were represented by Palestinian lawyers they knew personally or who had been hired by their families and were deeply trusted. "Preventing a prisoner from meeting with his brief is a gross infringement on the basic right to choose a lawyer", the letter from the organization read. (Ha'aretz, 22 August)

4. Question of the use of force

38. On 3 May, it was reported that a Palestinian boy had been killed and 15 others wounded during an intense exchange of gunfire with soldiers on the outskirts of Rafah early yesterday morning. The fatality was identified as Mahmoud Akel, 17. The soldiers were engaged in an operation during which they demolished a number of structures and levelled the ground in areas from which Palestinians had perpetrated attacks, according to Israeli sources. IDF denied Palestinian claims that the operation had taken place in an area under sole Palestinian control. A statement issued by the IDF spokesman said the operation was in response to the escalating violence and continued shooting attacks at soldiers operating along the Egyptian border and had occurred after a day in which Palestinians had planted three bombs and thrown over 20 grenades at soldiers in the area. "It should be noted that the engineering activities carried out took place in a 'pink' zone that was stipulated in the Oslo agreement as an area of army facilities in which Israel has full security and civilian control", the statement said. Palestinian witnesses said Palestinians fired anti-tank rockets and shot at the soldiers as army bulldozers levelled agricultural plots and destroyed some hothouses. In related news, it was reported that Tawfiq Tirawi, head of the Palestinian General Intelligence Service in the West Bank, had told Voice of Palestine radio the previous day that the General Intelligence Service knew the identity of the Israelis who had taken part in the beating of a Palestinian worker from Akraba who had been attacked by a Netanya mob after a bombing there two months ago. The Israeli police had so far refrained from making any arrests in the case, said Tirawi, so it was up to the Palestinian security services to hunt down the lynchers and bring them to justice. Salah Dirye had been critically injured in his head by the beating, sending him to hospital for nearly two months. Although those who had taken part had been interviewed by newspapers, police said that so far they had not been able to produce enough evidence to prosecute those who had joined the lynch mob. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 3 May)

39. On 6 May, it was reported that the shelling the previous afternoon of the Palestinian Authority's General Intelligence headquarters in Jericho had been aimed at the intelligence service's West Bank director, Tawfiq Tirawi, senior Israeli sources said. Tirawi's offices had been targeted because he had been organizing terror activity throughout the West Bank, the sources explained. Palestinians reported that IDF missiles had hurt at least eight men, two of them seriously, and caused extensive damage to the Jericho intelligence headquarters. Eight of the 10 mobile trailers in the compound had been battered in the attack, along with four cars. Accusing Israel of using surface-to-surface missiles, Tirawi had drawn a connection between the attack and Ariel Sharon's recent statements about retaining Israeli control in the Jordan valley. In related news, it was reported that IDF soldiers had killed an Islamic Jihad fighter the previous morning at Kfar Artas near Bethlehem, Palestinian eyewitnesses and physicians reported. They s aid that IDF snipers had shot Ahmed Halil Ismail, 34, firing more than 20 bullets from long range in the morning attack. Ismail was near his brother' ;s restaurant, about 150 metres from his Kfar Artas home, when sniper fire from an opposite hilltop gunned him down; his three-year-old niece was also wounded by the gunfire, the sources said. Kfar Artas residents claimed that a special Israeli commando unit stationed on the nearby hilltop was responsible for the shooting. The site of the attack near Ismail's home was under Palestinian security control. The IDF spokesman denied knowledge of any unusual incident in the area. Also the previous night, a top Hamas operative and three Fatah men were seriously hurt by an explosion in Qabatiya, near Jenin. The Hamas member, Nassar Jerar, had been badly hurt and lost an arm and a leg; the others suffered burns and other injuries. Qabatiya residents charged that IDF artillery fire had caused the explosion; but some Palestinian sources said that an explosive being carried by the men themselves might have unexpectedly gone off. Israeli security forces had been hunting Jerar for some time; a few months earlier, an IDF force had failed to arrest the Hamas suspect in Jenin. Palestinian and Israeli sources reported that IDF had responded that Friday to the Palestinian mortar attack with tank shells aimed at the Palestinian Authority security compound in Beit Hanoun. IDF officers indicated that four tank shells had been fired at the site from which the Kfar Aza mortar attack had emanated. Residents at the Al Arub refugee camp accused IDF soldiers of taking wanton potshots at some seven rooftop water boilers the previous Wednesday and Thursday. IDF claimed that its soldiers had taken aim at sites from which Palestinians had fired first. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 6 May)

40. On 6 May, IDF seized control of areas of Beit Jala for several hours after shots were fired from a number of houses in the Palestinian village at an Israeli military roadblock along the Tunnel Road. During the IDF operation, one Palestinian was killed and around 20 were injured, 3 of them seriously. During the eight-hour operation, the security forces commandeered two ridge-top houses overlooking the road and the eastern slopes of Beit Jala and El Khader. The operation posed a threat to civilians in the area and military sources on the scene said only a "miracle" had prevented more people from being injured. The IDF activity resulted in the death of Mohammed Abiat, 45, the cousin of Hussein Abiat, who had been assassinated by Israeli security forces in November 2000. Another 20 Palestinians, including a boy who lost his arm, a girl who was blinded in one eye and a 60-year-old woman, were also injured in the operation. With the IDF takeover of the ridge, Palestinians from Beit Jala began firing on Israeli military positions along the slopes of the Gilo neighbourhood of Jerusalem. IDF returned fire. Immediately after the military takeover, the IDF commander in the West Bank, Brigadier General Benny Ganz, said that in the face of a security threat, IDF commanders were not concerned whether the area in question was under Palestinian control or not. "It is very simple: if they shoot, we shoot back", Ganz said. "I am not looking to harm civilians or occupy Area A. I want things to remain calm." The commander said Tanzim, with the help of the Palestinian security forces, had been responsible for the shots fired at the Israeli roadblock. The IDF forces remained on the Talita Kumi ridge for a few hours before withdrawing to Areas B and C. Palestinian sources said that Mohammed Abiat had been a Fatah activist who had joined other armed Palestinians in an effort to block the IDF force as it approached the area under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Two of Abiat's sons were in detention at Megiddo Prison and he was the breadwinner for 10 people, the sources said. Residents of the neighbourhood attacked by IDF told Ha'aretz that they had seen the Israeli troops backtrack a number of times in the face of the Palestinian resistance. Sometime after 8 a.m., the residents said, tanks had begun to shell the western neighbourhood of the village, with some 16 shells hitting a number of residences and causing extensive damage. Due to the intense assault on the village, Palestinian rescue and firefighting services had been unable to immediately reach the injured or the houses that had burst into flames. Thick smoke filled the air and residents of the village and nearby Bethlehem shut themselves up in their homes, both during and after the operation, not knowing whether hostilities would break out again. Defence Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, informed of the operation as it was taking place, relayed the message to the ministers at the cabinet meeting, which was under way at the time. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 7 May)

41. On 7 May, a four-month-old Palestinian baby girl became the youngest person to die in the ongoing hostilities between the Palestinians and Israel, after IDF tanks opened fire on the Khan Yunis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. One of the tank shells slammed into the small backyard of the home of Iman Hijo, just off the open market in the refugee camp, killing her instantly. The infant's 39-year-old mother, Samia, her grandmother and three more children from the family were all seriously injured by shrapnel from one of the estimated 30 shells fired by IDF for nearly an hour the previous morning. Eighteen-month-old Mahmoud Hijo was in intensive care with shrapnel wounds, doctors said. Overall, 24 Palestinians, including 10 children, were hurt at the Gaza camp, Palestinian doctors reported. The IDF attack the previous day on the Khan Yunis refugee camp was precipitated by Palestinian militants firing four mortars at two Jewish settlements in Gaza, without causing injuries, according to the Israelis. Palestinian authorities claimed that no mortars had been fired. " ;It is a terribly tragic event", an army spokeswoman said, explaining that the houses in the area were believed to be empty. "We respond to Palestinian fire. We are committed to protecting the lives of our civilians." Most of the shells targeted a market area that was only a few metres from the Hijo family's home. Also hit was a three-storey apartment house, the top floors of which were totally destroyed. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reported that shrapnel from the shelling also hit the El Halidiye elementary school, seriously wounding a 12-year-old and traumatizing the rest of the children. Iman Hijo was the youngest person killed by live fire so far in the eight-month-old conflict. Previously, the youngest casualty in the fighting had been 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass, a Jewish infant killed by a Palestinian sniper in Hebron. In related news, it was reported that an officer of the Palestinian General Intelligence Organization had been killed by IDF fire in the village of Samua near Hebron and that 55-year-old Hussein Abu-Tamas had been killed during exchanges in Tulkarm. Palestinian sources said that Murad Fayez al-Haroush, 25, had been killed in exchanges of fire as Palestinians tried to prevent an IDF force from entering the southern outskirts of the village. An IDF spokesman on 7 May rejected claims in the foreign press that IDF had penetrated Area A, as it had done in Beit Jala the previous Sunday. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 8 May)

42. On 8 May, it was reported, several Palestinians were injured in the West Bank and Gaza by Israeli fire. To protest the killing of 4-month-old Iman Hijo the previous day, students threw stones at an IDF outpost near the settlement of Kfar Darom. Nine of them were injured when soldiers fired rubber-coated bullets to disperse them. Dozens of students from Bir Zeit University protested Hijo's death by clashing with IDF forces at a roadblock north of Ramallah. Palestinians said the army had fired throughout the night on Monday night at the refugee camps of Aza and Aida, near Bethlehem, causing extensive property damage. Also Monday night, the sources said, IDF forces had entered the village of Husan after residents threw rocks at Israeli cars. At the same time, they said, settlers had gathered near the village and attacked several residents, injuring one. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 9 May)

43. On 9 May, it was reported, Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz told a group of officers in Gaza that the IDF response to mortar fire by tank shelling the previous week had been excessive, resulting in the death of a Khan Yunis baby. Speaking with the tank regiment that had fired shells at Palestinian Authority targets in response to a mortar attack on Israeli settlements, Mofaz addressed the rules of engagement under which the tank regiment operated. It became apparent the IDF standing order was for any mortar attack on Israeli positions to be answered with tank shelling of pre-selected Palestinian positions pre-selected as being identified as the origin of the Palestinian fire. Mofaz was told that 25 hollow payload shells had been fired, shrapnel from one of which had killed the baby. He did not criticize the regiment directly but made it clear that, in the context of what had happened, the response was " exaggerated". (Ha'aretz, 10 May)

44. On 11 May, IDF intensified its actions, launching air, sea, and ground attacks against Palestinian targets, including the liquidation of what was described by Israeli sources as a Tanzim cell which had been planning mortar attacks on West Bank settlements, killing at least one Tanzim activist and critically wounding two Palestinian intelligence officers as they sat in a parked car in Jenin. Military sources identified the man killed in Jenin as Mo'tassem al-Sabbah, a Fatah activist and member of a Tanzim unit. According to reports, the first Israeli air force rocket fired at the car he was sitting in missed, and his two companions managed to jump out. Sabbah, however, was slow due to a previous leg injury, and was stuck inside when another rocket struck, killing him. Palestinian reports said that a policeman bystander, identified as Alam Jaloudi, was hit in the head with shrapnel and died later in the hospital. At least 15 bystanders were said to have been treated for injuries, news agencies reported. IDF declined to comment on the operation, but military sources said the three were Tanzim activists who were behind a number of attacks on the settlements of Kadim and Ganim, and had planned to launch mortar attacks soon. The military operations came after IDF declared the Fatah Force 17 and Tanzim organizations to be "hostiles", and thus targets to be dealt with as enemies. IDF had also adopted a policy of moving into Palestinian-controlled areas in order to "silence" positions firing on IDF forces or Israeli settlements. In related news, it was reported that Hussam Tafesh, 16, had been killed by a bullet to his chest as he demonstrated with other Palestinians near the Karni crossing (Gaza Strip) the previous Friday. According to Israeli sources, soldiers had attempted to disperse demonstrators with rubber bullets and tear gas, and when that failed, had shot at demonstrators' legs. Tafesh died in a local hospital of his wounds, and was buried on 12 May in Gaza, with thousands attending his funeral. That night, shots were fired at an IDF post near Gadid and at an army post on the Israeli-Egyptian border. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 13 May)

45. On 14 May, five Palestinian policemen manning a post at Beituniya near Ramallah were killed overnight by Israeli soldiers. According to Israeli sources, soldiers near Beituniya shot at Palestinian policemen manning a roadblock after they spotted what they called suspicious movements by armed Palestinians. Palestinians denied that the policemen had shot at soldiers and claimed some were sleeping at the time of the attack. The five dead men all came from the Gaza Strip and were identified as Ahmed Zaqut, 27, from the Nusseirat refugee camp; Salah Abu Amra, 32, of Rafah; Mohammed Khaldi, 18, of El Burej camp; Ahmed Abu Mustafa, 20, from Khan Yunis; and Mohammed Abu Dahood, also from the El Burej camp. In related news, it was reported that Israeli soldiers had killed another Palestinian at the Gush Katif junction after he threw a grenade and shot at them. Palestinians claimed that the driver of one of the cars at the junction had thrown an unidentified object at the soldiers, who responded with gunfire, killing the taxi driver and wounding six passengers in the taxi. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 15 May)

46. On 15 May, four Palestinians were killed and 110 others were wounded in clashes that erupted throughout the West Bank and Gaza as Palestinians marked Al-Nakba, the "catastrophe" of Israel's creation, with large-scale demonstrations. Abdel Shawad Shkadeh and Durham Shikhir were killed by Israeli soldiers at the Ayosh junction, north of Ramallah. In Gaza, two bodyguards of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin were killed as they fired mortars at Kibbutz Kfar Aza, according to Israeli sources. They were identified as Wael Nassar, 33, and Abdel Hakim Maname, 35. Earlier in the day, thousands of Palestinians participated in large-scale demonstrations, carrying Palestinian flags and black mourning flags. They clashed with soldiers, throwing stones and firebombs and shooting. In related news, Chief of General Staff Lieutenant-General Shaul Mofaz was quoted as saying the previous day that the outcome of the IDF operation at Beitunya where five Palestinian policemen had been killed was "not as intended". Mofaz said that an inquiry of the incident would be conducted, and if mistakes were found, IDF would not be "ashamed to admit them". He was speaking on 15 May, to members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, where Meretz leader Yossi Sarid said IDF had made a huge mistake that would result in the escalation of violence. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 16 May)

47. On 20 May, it was reported, the air force staged bombing runs by F-16 fighter jets and attack helicopters in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in retaliation for the suicide bombing in Netanya on Friday, 18 May 2001. It was the first time jets had been used in the territories since the Six Day War in 1967. The attacks drew heavy criticism from the Arab world. Palestinians claimed that 12 had been killed and scores wounded in the attacks on Palestinian security installations in Ramallah, Tulkarm, Nablus, Jenin, and the Gaza Strip over the weekend. Eleven members of the Palestinian Police had been killed in the shelling in Nablus, and another Palestinian was killed in the Ramallah air raid. The Israeli air force struck on Friday afternoon, with F-16s sweeping into Nablus, the West Bank's largest city, and flattening the prison and security headquarters. According to reports, at least seven prison guards had been killed, and another 30 wounded. The obvious target was likely Hamas bomber mastermind Mahmoud Abu Hannoud, since IDF intelligence had said that he was being held in the jail. Associated Press reported from Nablus that he had been only slightly wounded and had been brought to safety. Also Friday afternoon, Israeli air force helicopters fired rockets at a building belonging to Arafat's elite Force 17 in Ramallah, where one man was killed. On Frid ay night, combat helicopters attacked a Force 17 base in Ansar, east of the Jabaliya refugee camp, as well as the naval commando and Force 17 base at Sudaniya, a few hundred metres from Arafat's office. Saturday afternoon, the air force struck again in Tulkarm and Jenin. In Jenin, the targeted buildings belonged to Force 17 and the General Intelligence, headed by Tawfiq Tirawi. But in Tulkarm, Palestinian reports said rockets aimed at the building housing Palestinian forces also struck a school. Palestinian reports said that 25 people had been wounded, including some pupils. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 20 May)

48. On 22 May, it was reported, West Bank Preventive Security Chief Jibril Rajoub claimed at a news conference at Bitounia that the recent IDF tank shelling of his home was a deliberate attempt to assassinate him. He described the shelling of his home as part of a sequence of acts undertaken by Israel in recent weeks to "undermine the Palestinian Authority". The bombing, he said, was not a personal matter, since IDF was currently attacking the Palestinian people as a whole. Asked whether he would take steps to avenge the shelling of his house, Rajoub said that the matter was for the political leadership of the Palestinian Authority to decide. He said that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's leadership was the linchpin guaranteeing the stability of the Middle East, and that "anybody who wants to harm him [Arafat] risks putting the region as a whole on a downward slide". (Ha'aretz , 23 May)

49. On 23 May, it was reported, despite a unilateral, limited ceasefire announced by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon the day before, there were gun battles in Gaza and Jerusalem, as well as an ambush on a West Bank road that killed an Israeli. Some 45 Palestinians, including some 25 children under eight years old, were reported wounded in Gaza during a three-and-a-half-hour firefight at the Rafah refugee camp. Each side blamed the other for starting the firefight. The army said its troops had come under heavy fire and that Palestinians had also fired several anti-tank grenades. Palestinian witnesses said that IDF soldiers had fired at the refugee camp without provocation. Of the 45 injured, three were in critical condition, including a 14-year-old boy struck by a bullet in the neck, doctors said. At one point, an Israeli tank shell had hit the ground near a group of camp residents, and 10 people were hurt by shrapnel, Palestinians said. Israel insisted that none of its fire had struck the refugee camp; indeed it denied that any tank shells had been fired at all. Palestinian claims that IDF had made several incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas in Gaza the previous day were rebuffed by government spokesmen, including Sharon's adviser, Avi Pazner. He said there had been no military incursions, but that civilian workers, under IDF protection, had in fact done work on the electronic security fence separating Gaza from Israel. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 24 May)

50. On 24 May, it was reported, two Palestinian youths were killed by IDF troops at Rafah in the Gaza Strip. Shadi Siyam, 18, of the Shabura refugee neighbourhood, was killed near the Gaza-Egyptian border. 'Ala Al Buji, 15, of the Tel Al Sultan neighbourhood, was killed near the fence between his neighbourhood and the Rafah Yam settlement. Palestinian sources said that an armed group of Palestinians had arrived at about 3 p.m. and began shooting at the soldiers, who returned fire. Siyam, a deaf boy who often hung out near the border fence, was shot in the chest. Neighbours said he had been unaware of the gun battle going on. About two and a half hours later, Buji and another teenager from Tel Al Sultan were walking in the sand dunes between the neighbourhood and Rafah Yam, when shots were fired from a tank stationed near the settlement, killing Buji. Residents said the tank often shot at young people in the dunes. IDF tanks stationed near Netzarim had bombarded the Sheikh Ajlin neighbourhood south-west of Gaza City the previous morning. IDF claimed that Sheikh Ajlin was the source of mortars fired at Netzarim. After the assault, IDF tanks and bulldozers entered the neighbourhood, which was under Palestinian security control, destroyed a vineyard and fences, and closed the coastal road between Gaza City and Deir Al Ballah. Following the murder Wednesday of Asher Iluz, of Modi'in, in a Palestinian ambush near Ariel, IDF tightened restrictions against villages in the area. Palestinian sources said settlers had burned down olive groves in one of the villages. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 25 May)

51. On 28 May, it was reported, IDF entered the Gaza Strip near the Karni position, according to Palestinian sources. Two tanks, an armoured vehicle and two bulldozers levelled land and olive farms which Muhammed Daloul said belonged to him. An IDF spokesman said that repairs along the fence separating Israeli and Palestinian areas required that some of the olive trees should be destroyed in order to create better fields of fire for the soldiers manning the positions. In spite of the unilateral Israeli ceasefire, the Palestinians said that Israel was still shooting, and counted 45 incidents in which Palestinians had been fired upon by Israeli troops or settlers. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 29 May)

52. On 28 May, it was reported, according to a report published the following day by B'Tselem Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, beatings and abuse of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers and border police had risen sharply in the past eight months. Based on interviews of dozens of Palestinians by B'Tselem field workers, the report, entitled "Routine Actions", included detailed accounts of 12 incidents of beatings carried out by Israeli security forces, 5 by Border Police and 7 by IDF soldiers. A total of 23 Palestinians had been beaten, including 11 minors. However, the authors of the report noted that many other such incidents went unreported. Palestinians did not report every incident for various reasons, but mainly because they had no confidence their complaints would be taken seriously by Israeli authorities. IDF and Border Police rejected allegations that complaints were not thoroughly investigated. The Justice Ministry said that the five incidents of violence the report attributed to the Border Police were being investigated. With regard to the seven other reported incidents, IDF said that three cases had been passed to the military police investigation unit and the Central Command was still considering how to proceed with the other four cases. The youngest victim, according to B'Tselem, was a three-year-old from Hawara village. The child's father said soldiers had beaten him while he was holding his son, breaking the baby's arm. The oldest victim, 58, was a taxi driver who said a group of border police had punched and kicked him and one of his passengers for over half an hour near the al-Hader checkpoint, outside Jerusalem. One of the incidents detailed in the report involved M. R., 14, from Jelazoune refugee camp, 5 kilometres from Ramallah. According to the report, on his way home from Ramallah on the afternoon of 17 April, he was called over by several soldiers standing next to a tank. One of them asked him why he was walking and he responded that he enjoyed walking. Then, according to the teenager, "one of the soldiers slapped me and another one hit me with his rifle butt in my back. The third soldier began to kick me in the legs." The youth tried to flee, but tripped on a rock and fell. He said the three soldiers "began hitting me all over my body. One of them used a black rubber pipe". ( Ha'aretz, 29 May)

53. On 10 June, three Palestinian women were killed by an IDF tank shell in the Gaza Strip and another four were wounded, two seriously. IDF said it was investigating the incident. Officers said it was still not clear how the shell, which was aimed at Palestinian gunmen, had struck the women's tent instead. The three women were Hikhmet Atallah Malalha, 17; Salmiya Amar Malalha, 65; and Nasra Salef Hafez Malalha, 55. The women were killed shortly after midnight Saturday night, when IDF was engaged in a shootout with Palestinian gunmen. According to the army's preliminary investigation, the Palestinians had fired at IDF outposts in the settlement of Netzarim and the Netzarim junction, as well as at a nearby Israeli tank. In response, the tank had fired at two figures, apparently armed, who seemed to be fleeing from the site. However, the three shells missed their target and one hit the tent which housed the Malalhas, a Palestinian Bedouin family. The tent, in a neighbourhood of Gaza City, was more than a kilometre from Netzarim. IDF said that the soldiers had "fired towards the source of the shooting". Palestinian sources said the shells contained dozens of small iron darts that increased its range, which was confirmed by IDF officers. Israel often used such shells in Lebanon. A Palestinian doctor also charged that IDF had prevented ambulances from reaching the wounded. Opposition leader Knesset member Yossi Sarid (Meretz) demanded explanations of the incident fro m Defence Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer. "A thousand times we have warned against the blind use of tank shells, which usually result in innocent civilian casualties, and we know that government and defence officials share this opinion", he said. "Yet despite this, again a shell has been fired, and again women have been killed." He added that IDF investigations of such incidents were frequently inadequate and that he wanted to see a thorough investigation in the case. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 11 June)

54. On 11 June, an Islamic Jihad activist was severely injured when his car blew up in Tulkarm. Palestinian sources said the explosion occurred when Imad Abu-Diab, 25, opened the door of his car in order to get in. A Palestinian passer-by was also slightly injured in the blast. Both the Palestinian Authority and Islamic Jihad accused Israel of having planted the bomb in an attempt to assassinate Abu-Diab. The IDF spokesman "refused to comment" on whether or not Israel had been involved. Just a week earlier, another Palestinian, Ashraf Bardawil, had been killed when his car blew up, also near Tulkarm. According to the General Security Service, Bardawil was also a Jihad activist, though the Palestinian Authority said he was a Fatah member. The IDF denied all involvement, saying Bardawil had apparently died as a result of a "work accident". However, it seemed that IDF was trying to formulate a new policy of deliberate vagueness, in which it refused to confirm or deny responsibility for any such incident. Though IDF had largely halted targeted killings since Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had declared a ceasefire, the kitchen cabinet had given the army permission to carry out such operations if they were necessary to prevent an imminent terror attack. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 12 June)

55. On 13 June, it was reported that a serious flaw had been discovered in the army's operations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during an investigation into the deaths of three Palestinian women when an Israeli tank fired on their tent in Gaza the previous Saturday night, military sources said. The sources flatly declared: "This was a serious, professional mistake which should not have happened." It was highly likely that disciplinary steps would be taken against the commanding officers involved in the incident, though it might only be junior officers who were punished. Defence Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer and Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz received an initial report on the incident from the head of the Southern Command, Major General Doron Almog during a high-level meeting yesterday afternoon. The three Palestinian women were killed and three others, all from the same family, were wounded shortly after midnight Saturday, when IDF was engaged in a shoot-out with Palestinian gunmen. The army refused to comment on the incident or to take responsibility for it in its immediate aftermath, preferring instead to say that the matter was being looked into. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, however, expressed his sorrow at the death of the three innocent women on Monday. In related news, it was reported that the IDF spokesman had confirmed Monday's report in Ha'aretz that the army was using Flechette rounds in the Gaza Strip. IDF insisted that the use of the Flechette rounds was legal, but a Palestinian officer argued that international conventions forbade their use. IDF had previously used the rounds in the security zone in Lebanon against Hezbollah cells. The round was considered to be most effective in an open area, where its dispersal of hundreds of tiny metal arrows increased the strike radius. However, the use of the Flechette, which scattered the arrows around the target rather than hitting it precisely, was much more problematic in Gaza, a densely populated area. ( Ha'aretz, 13 June)

56. On the night of 13 June, it was reported, a Palestinian man from Hebron was killed and three others were slightly wounded in a drive-by shooting near Mishor Adumim when their truck was fired upon by unknown assailants. Palestinian officials blamed settlers for carrying out the shooting. The Council of Jewish Settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip issued a statement shortly after the attack, saying: "Murder is murder, and if the act was perpetrated by a Jew, we condemn it and demand that justice be served." ( Jerusalem Post, 14 June)

57. On 17 June, it was reported that six peace activists would submit complaints to the internal investigation department of the Israel Police, charging the police with brutality during a non-violent joint Israeli-Palestinian demonstration in Kafr al-Khader the previous Friday. The police had allegedly broken the arm of one of the complainants. The demonstration had been organized to protest an unauthorized settlement outpost established on the village' s lands. The brutal treatment of the demonstrators was highlighted by the fact that police had been sent to protect settlers who had illegally set up caravans on the land, against whom no action was being taken, according to a Gush Shalom spokesman. The organization reported that the activists intended to charge the police with beating and unnecessary use of tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse a non-violent and legitimate demonstration. ( Ha'aretz, 17 June)

58. On 17 June, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy was killed by IDF gunfire near Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. The boy, Murad Ali Abu-Sweish, from the Khan Yunis refugee camp, was hit during the dispersal of a demonstration near the Tufah position between Neveh Dekalim and the camp. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 18 June)

59. On 20 June, it was reported, in Kiryat Sefer checkpoint in the Modi'in area in the West Bank, a Palestinian was shot dead by an IDF patrol when he reportedly refused to halt as they tried to stop him from crossing the Green Line. IDF said it was investigating the incident. In other incidents in the West Bank and Gaza, it was reported that settlers had rampaged through neighbouring Palestinian villages, vandalizing property and beating passers-by following the killing of a Jewish settler by Palestinians the day before. According to Voice of Palestine radio reports, the settler murder resulted in stepped-up settler vigilante attacks on villages in the Ramallah, Nablus and Tulkarm areas, as well as an assault on Silat a-Dahar, where the settler had been killed. Within hours of the murder, houses in the village of Bazariye and Burka were vandalized and pedestrians in the village were beaten by settlers. IDF stated that it knew nothing of the vigilante action, saying it was a police matter. Palestinian sources said the settler vigilantes were protected by army troops. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 21 June)

60. On 24 June, in what appeared to be a resumption of the policy of eliminating major Palestinian activists, a Fatah activist wanted by Israeli forces was killed when a public phone he was using in the West Bank city of Nablus exploded. IDF refused to comment on the incident, and the Prime Minister's Office would neither confirm nor deny the report, saying only that Israel reserved the right of self-defence. Fatah leaders said that the assassination had ended the ceasefire. Osama Jawabreh, 29, died that morning in the explosion in the centre of Nablus, where he lived. Two Palestinian children who were near the phone booth, a brother and sister aged 2 and 4, were wounded by shrapnel and were hospitalized in Nablus. The circumstances of the incident were almost identical to the explosion the previous April that had killed Iyad Hardan, chief of the military faction of the Islamic Jihad in the West Bank. Hardan also had been killed when a bomb went off in a public phone booth. The incident was considered an assassination, although Israel had not admitted to it. Several other explosives specialists working in Palestinian organizations had also been killed during the past year. According to Palestinian Authority figures, some 30 key figures had been killed since the start of the intifada in September 2000. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 25 June)

61. On 1 July, it was reported that at least 13 Palestinians had been injured in incidents in the West Bank and Gaza during the previous weekend. One of the Palestinians was in serious condition. According to Israeli sources, five Palestinians, most of them apparently part of the unit firing the mortars, had been injured when one of the devices exploded while it was being fired. Israel denied Palestinian claims that they had been struck by Israeli tank fire. Several large demonstrations were held in the occupied territories that Friday afternoon. In the Ayosh junction, north of Ramallah, Israeli soldiers fired rubber-coated steel bullets at demonstrators. Eight demonstrators were wounded, one seriously. In related news, it was reported that an Egyptian police officer, Sayed al-Ghareeb Ahmed, had died two days earlier near the Rafah border crossing. Egyptian authorities said he had been killed by stray Israeli gunfire aimed at Palestinian demonstrators, while IDF said soldiers had found the body near the Nitzana crossing and returned it to Egyptian officials. It was reported that Israeli and Egyptian officials were investigating the incident jointly. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 1 July)

62. On 2 July, it was reported that two Palestinians, one a Hamas activist and the other a policeman, had been killed early the day before during an exchange of gunfire with an IDF Golani unit near Jenin. Israeli Army officials believed the two had been on their way to plant bombs on nearby roads used by soldiers and Israeli civilians. Bassam Abu Sharif, an adviser to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, claimed that the soldiers had ambushed a Palestinian police patrol supervising the area to ensure that Palestinians did not fire on Israeli targets. He accused Israel of purposefully escalating the situation in order to avoid moving ahead with the Mitchell plan. A third Palestinian, a 15-year-old resident of Gaza, had also died the previous day, succumbing to injuries sustained in clashes with IDF forces a few days earlier. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 2 July)

63. On 3 July, Palestinians vowed to avenge the deaths of three Palestinian activists killed in an Israeli air force helicopter missile attack on their car as they drove near Jenin shortly before midnight on 1 July. The three were Mohammed Besharat, Sameh Abu Hameish and Walid Beshart. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that Israel had the right to act in self-defence. Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat declared that the incident was a serious violation of the ceasefire and called upon the international community to condemn the incident and deploy international forces to safeguard the Palestinians. Palestinian Authority Cabinet Secretary Abdel Ahmed Rahman called for the immediate convening of a meeting of the United Nations Security Council. Jenin governor Zuher Manasra told Israel Radio that the attack " will have a negative impact on the Palestinian people: all of those killed have friends, family and connections to political organizations who will want to act and avenge their deaths". (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 3 July)

64. On 4 July, a leading Fatah activist was moderately wounded in Hebron in a shooting which Palestinians claimed was an assassination attempt by Israeli undercover agents. Palestinian witnesses said that Hazem Falah Natche, 27, had been shot in the abdomen when two men dressed in civilian clothes opened fire at him with M-16 assault rifles in one of the alleys near Police Square in central Hebron. IDF said it had no knowledge of the shooting. The attack came after the security cabinet had approved an "active defence" policy towards Palestinian activists in order to foil attacks. Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said Israel would continue in its efforts to foil attacks since the Palestinians were not doing anything to stop terror. He said that military actions were being undertaken to give citizens a sense of security. A senior Palestinian official said that an Israeli cabinet decision to " assassinate" Palestinian activists proved it was not committed to a United States-brokered ceasefire designed to end nine months of violence. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 5 July)

65. On 5 July, a Palestinian was killed during exchanges of gunfire between the army and Palestinians that erupted near the settlement of Psagot the previous night. Palestinians said 39-year-old Nasser Abed had been shot in the chest as he played soccer near the settlement. Israeli sources claimed that the violence had broken out after Palestinians shot at soldiers in the settlement and at an IDF jeep nearby. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 6 July)

66. On 8 July, in the Gaza Strip, Israeli troops shot dead 11-year-old Khalil Mughrabi, while in Hebron, it was reported that six Palestinian residents were injured in the clashes, including a 5-year-old boy who suffered light wounds. Israeli troops reportedly arrested a dozen Palestinians and clamped a curfew on Hebron city centre. Palestinians said that in another incident that had occurred two days earlier, IDF undercover soldiers had shot a Fatah activist, seriously wounding him. The man, identified as Sharif Omer, 22, was taken to Alia Hospital in Hebron for treatment. It was the second time that a senior Tanzim activist was shot in mysterious circumstances in Hebron during the previous week. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 8 July)

67. On 8 July, IDF undercover and regular troops arrested a wanted Hamas activist in Palestinian-controlled Hebron, prompting claims by Palestinians that he had been "abducted". Military sources denied there was a new policy to abduct rather than liquidate activists, saying the arrest was part of the general effort to foil attacks. Witnesses said the undercover troops had been travelling in a van with yellow Israeli licence plates that had entered the Palestinian part of the city near the Zechuchit junction and suddenly blocked a car being driven by Hamas member Ayoub Sharawi, 38. The undercover troops, along with soldiers in uniform, had pulled out their weapons, surrounded the vehicle and taken him away, leaving his wife, Sadiyeh, and their children. Three men wearing civilian clothes had jumped out of the van, yelling "Get out! Get out!" she told local reporters. She said her husband had grabbed hold of the steering wheel as the men tried to pull him out of the car, and she held onto him while their three children sat in the back seat, screaming. They smashed the front window of his car and pulled him away, she said. IDF had no comment on the incident. But military sources insisted that the arrest, which they confirmed had taken place in Palestinian-controlled Area A, had been aimed at foiling Hamas attacks. They also said that the operation had been carried out by soldiers in uniform. In related news, Palestinians in Rafah buried Khalil Ibrahim al-Mugrabi, 11, who had been shot in the head the previous Saturday near an area containing Palestinian militants and Israeli troops. Since the beginning of the intifada almost 10 months earlier, 510 Palestinians and 121 Israelis had been killed. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 9 July)

68. On 11 July, IDF apologized for the shooting death of a Palestinian woman by IDF soldiers in the southern West Bank. It said that an initial investigation had found that the shooting had been a tragic mistake. The Military Police had begun investigating the incident the previous day. Soldiers involved said they had opened fire on a van carrying eight Palestinian women passengers after it had broken through an IDF roadblock and refused to heed orders to stop. IDF said the initial inquiry had found that the troops had acted according to standing orders. However, the driver, a Bedouin who was apparently taking the women from Dehariya to the Negev to work, said he had never seen either a roadblock or any soldiers. The dead woman, identified as Rasmia Jabarin, 38, was mortally wounded in the head and died before she could receive medical treatment. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 12 July)

69. On 12 July, IDF tanks rumbled into Palestinian territory near Nablus and shelled two police positions, killing one Palestinian policeman, in retaliation for the ambush of a car which had resulted in the wounding of three members of a family from the settlement of Bracha, in the West Bank. In another incident, about two dozen settlers marched on the Hebron market and Zechuchit junction and clashed with Palestinians. Police separated the two sides, but not before over 100 cars were reportedly damaged and Palestinian shops set afire. Palestinians said that nine people had been shot in the clashes, but IDF said it only knew of one shooting incident. The shelling of the police station resulted in the death of Mohammed Abu Fayyad, 22, a member of Palestinian Intelligence. Seven others were reportedly wounded in the tank shelling, including a 12-year-old boy (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 13 July)

70. On 13 July, IDF launched an assault on posts in Hebron operated by Force 17, the Palestinian Presidential Guard. IDF infantry, with supporting fire from tanks and armoured personnel carriers, destroyed five posts belonging to units of Force 17 in the Hebron area. The posts, located a few hundred metres within Palestinian-controlled territory, were destroyed using anti-tank missiles and tank shells. A Force 17 armoury was destroyed in the IDF raid and three Force 17 members were hurt. The Israeli forces pulled out of the area when the operation was completed. According to Palestinian sources, about 20 Palestinians were injured, 2 seriously, in what they described as the heaviest IDF shelling of Hebron since the outbreak of the intifada the previous autumn. The shelling knocked out several generators, leaving many neighbourhoods without electricity. The Palestinian residents of the old section of Hebron, numbering about 20,000, were placed under curfew. They reported that some of the 400 Jewish settlers in the area had taken advantage of the curfew to vandalize Palestinian cars and houses. In a separate incident, Hamas operative Fawwaz Badran, 27, was killed in central Tulkarm when his car exploded as he stepped in. Palestinian Authority leaders charged that Israel had assassinated Badran, but the IDF spokesman refused to comment on the incident. In another sepa rate incident, near the Nissanit settlement in Gaza, IDF soldiers raced to catch Palestinians reported to be laying mines. One of the three Palestinians in the group hurled a hand grenade at the IDF force as it approached. The IDF troops returned fire, including tank fire, killing one of the Palestinians, A'ataf Tabash. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 15 July)

71. On 15 July, an Israeli military unit snatched an Islamic Jihad activist from Palestinian Authority territory near Bethlehem. The military spokesman declined to comment on the reported operation. Mahmud Juma Hamdan, 44, was seized from the village of A-Rahma, south of Bethlehem, in Area A, under full Palestinian Authority control. The Israeli force, presumably composed of members of the General Security Service and IDF soldiers, arrested Hamdan. Hamdan is not the only Palestinian activist to be apprehended over the past few months. Recent GSS investigations had revealed a number of veteran Fatah members suspected of involvement in hostile activities against Israel; some of those activists had been arrested. The above-mentioned seize-operation was the second of its kind within a week. The first had involved the abduction of a senior member of the Hamas military wing from Palestinian Authority territory in Hebron. In related news, Palestinian sources said that 20 Palestinians had been slightly to moderately injured by IDF gunfire in the area of Hebron. Meanwhile, the Voice of Palestine radio station reported that three of the injured had been shot by Jewish settlers from the Avraham Avinu neighbourhood of the city. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 16 July)

72. On 16 July, IDF tanks fired on the Jenin offices of the Palestinian General Intelligence Service. Earlier in the day, Israeli tanks had entered into the Palestinian sector of Hebron to exchange heavy fire with Palestinian gunmen. It was the deepest incursion since the Israeli withdrawal negotiated by then premier Benjamin Netanyahu. The raid was in retaliation for Palestinian fire on Israeli army posts and a Jewish settlement in Hebron the previous Sunday night. Nine Palestinians were wounded and four Force 17 police posts in Hebron were destroyed. Later in the day, an Israeli tank and four military vehicles entered Palestinian territory on the outskirts of Tulkarm and fired three shells at a deserted Palestinian checkpoint, eyewitnesses reported. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 17 July)

73. On 19 July, three Palestinians, including an infant, were shot and killed on a West Bank road near Hebron. A Jewish extremist group calling itself "the Committee for Road Safety" took responsibility. The three dead, including a two-and-a-half-month-old baby girl, and four wounded were all from the same family. Dead on arrival at Hebron Hospital were Mohammed Salameh Etnizi, 22, Mohammed Hilmy Etnizi, 20, and an infant, 3-year-old Amira Wael Etnizi. The other four were being treated. Among the wounded was a four-month-old girl, Ruwan, her mother Samar, 22, and Najib, 16, who had been married just the previous week to Mohammed Salameh. The Prime Minister's Office that night issued a condemnation of the shooting attack. The shooting took place outside the village of Idna, west of Hebron, on the Tarqumiya road. The victims were all residents of Idna. A witness, Akram Etnizi, a relative of the victims, said the shooters' car had been parked on the side of the road when the Palestinian car passed, and then they shot at the car. According to eyewitnesses, at least one man had approached the car and fired into it. Police sources said the settler car then headed west, speeding past an army checkpoint, apparently in the direction of Kiryat Gat. Police laid a dragnet in the area, but it had not found the car. The group claimed responsibility for puncturing the tires of 40 Palestinian cars and beating up at least four Palestinians, as well as blowing up a Palestinian shop in Hebron with a cooking gas cylinder earlier in the year. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 20 July)

74. On 23 July, it was reported that a 48-year-old Palestinian had been killed shortly after midnight the day before by IDF fire near Netzarim in Gaza. Palestinian sources said that Yihye Subhi Day had been killed either in or near his home in the village of Murarka. IDF sources said that at about 10 p.m. the previous Saturday night, Palestinians had begun firing at an IDF outpost near Netzarim. An IDF tank crew had observed two suspicious figures and had fired machine guns and grenades at them. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 23 July)

75. On 23 July, following the previous Sunday's dramatic capture of a would-be suicide bomber in downtown Haifa, security forces also tracked down the suspect's two accomplices. One was arrested outside Kibbutz Mizra in the Jezreel valley and a third member of the group, Mustafa Yusef Muhammad Yassin, 28, was shot and killed west of Jenin by a Border Police force. The three were allegedly from an Islamic Jihad group based in Jenin. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 24 July)

76. On 26 July, it was reported that a group of Western diplomats travelling from Jerusalem to Ramallah claimed they had seen Israeli troops near Jerusalem firing live ammunition at a group of children throwing stones, even though the children were too far away to pose a risk to the soldiers. The diplomats said that shots were fired even though a long line of civilian cars were travelling past the children at the time. They also thought that one of the children had been injured, because shortly after the shooting the group of children had gathered around one youngster. The diplomatic convoy was slowed near Qalandia refugee camp by an IDF roadblock set up a couple of hundred metres from the entrance to the camp. One of the diplomats told Ha'aretz that the children hid behind garbage containers and threw stones at an IDF lookout, at the edge of the nearby Atarot airfield. He said the soldiers were well protected in their high post, but in any case one of the soldiers had shot at the children. The diplomats believed that live fire had been used. The diplomat said that he had seen a second soldier in the obser vation tower clapping and raising his hands as if in victory after his colleague had fired at the children. In related news, it was reported that earlier in the day, Israel had admitted assassinating a senior Hamas activist in Nablus and that an undercover unit entered Qalqilya and kidnapped two Palestinians who were high on Israel's most-wanted list, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and a member of the Tanzim militia. Palestinian witnesses said that four rockets had struck a red car driven by Salah Darwazi, 37, near the Al-Ayn refugee camp close to Nablus. IDF took responsibility for the attack. Israel had assassinated a number of Islamic Jihad and Hamas activists in recent weeks. The majority of the operations had been carried out against members in their offices in the northern parts of the West Bank, around Nablus and Jenin. (Ha'aretz, 26 July)

77. On 28 July, among a number of violent clashes, Israeli helicopters attacked an alleged munitions workshop near Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip and a Palestinian officer was seriously wounded in an exchange of gunfire near Hebron. IDF said that its attack had destroyed a metal workshop where mortars were produced and that the strike had been conducted in retaliation for the firing of three mortar shells the previous Friday night at the nearby Jewish settlement of Gadid. "Air force helicopters attacked a structure used to manufacture weapons", an army statement said. In a separate incident in the West Bank, Major Omar Abd al-Aziz, the commander of Palestinian security forces in the village of Beni Naim, was wounded in the head by an Israeli sniper, according to Palestinian sources. After initial treatment at Alia Hospital in Hebron, he was transferred to Hadassah Hospital in Ein Kerem. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 29 July)

78. On 28 July, it was reported that the B'Tselem human rights organization had issued a report charging that 12 soldiers from the Shimshon Battalion had abused and humiliated the drivers and passengers of two Palestinian taxis the previous week on the Samoa-Hebron highway. According to B'Tselem, which published the testimony of four of the alleged victims, the soldiers had stopped the taxis, ordered the drivers and passengers out of the car, beat them, vandalized their taxis, stolen money and forced the Palestinians to beat each other up or be killed. The incident had occurred on 23 July at noon, according to B'Tselem. One of the taxi drivers, Khaled Mershed Rawashdeh, 36, said that he was driving past an army jeep when one of the four soldiers standing beside it whistled at him to stop. The soldiers in the jeep, and four others in a second jeep, ordered the passengers out of the taxi and started to beat up the Palestinian men. According to Rawashdeh, the soldiers ordered him to drive his taxi at full speed over a stone wall in order to damage it. Afterwards, they slashed his tires and seat covers and smashed his windows. In the meantime, the troops stopped a second taxi and four more soldiers joined them. They ordered the men out of the vehicle and started to beat them. Afterwards, they lined up the nine Palestinians and ordered them to beat each other up. "They threatened to shoot anyone who didn't do it, and whoever wanted to be a martyr just had to disobey that order", said Rawashdeh. "So we began to beat each other with our fists in the head and the face. Anyone who tried to beat his partner lightly was beaten by the soldiers until he beat his partner harder. This lasted for 10 minutes. They told one of the men, Abdel Muttaleb Mahareeq, to beat us one by one. He refused, but the soldiers threatened to kill him on the spot. The other men asked him to beat them. With tears falling from his eyes, the young man started to beat us with his fist on our faces and heads. He tried to beat us gently, but one of the soldiers put his gun to his head and told him to beat us more seriously." The abuse of the Palestinians continued for two hours, according to the B'Tselem report. The IDF spokesman confirmed that "the soldiers acted in an aggressive manner" towards the people in the taxis, and admitted to the soldiers' slashing the cab's tires and forcing the passengers to fight with one another. The office added that the army has no knowledge of stolen money from the cabs, nor of the Palestinian driver's claim that he had been forced to damage his car by driving over a wall. After an initial investigation, the army had ordered a military police investigation of the incident, the office said. The results of the investigation were to be submitted to the Judge Advocate-General. (Ha'aretz, 28 July; Jerusalem Post , 31 July)

79. On 29 July, police stormed the Temple Mount after stones rained down on Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall, exactly 10 months after the fatal clashes that ignited the Al-Aqsa Intifada. This time no one died, but dozens were injured, including 19 policemen. Police arrested about 30 Palestinians suspected of rioting. As in recent years, the Temple Mount Faithful, a fringe group seeking to re-establish a Jewish presence on the mount, had gathered on Tisha B'Av to symbolically lay the cornerstone for the Third Temple. Against the background of the 10-month intifada, this annual ritual by a couple of dozen ageing enthusiasts attracted world attention this year. (Ha'aretz , Jerusalem Post, 30 July)

80. On 30 July, Israeli attack helicopters fired several missiles at the headquarters of the Palestinian civilian police in Gaza, injuring seven policemen and destroying what security forces described as a workshop for the production of mortar shells. The Palestinian civilian or "blue" police in Gaza were under the command of General Razi Jabali. Palestinians said four helicopters had flown over the area and fired five missiles, of which only three had exploded. Earlier in the day, an explosion had killed six Palestinians, members of Fatah, near Jenin. Israeli sources said the six had been involved in preparing a car bomb in a shed when it exploded. However, Palestinian sources rejected this and blamed Israel for killing the six. Palestinian officials accused Israel of assassinating the men, whom they said were on Israel's most-wanted list. Israeli security sources said three of the Palestinians were members of the military intelligence organization of Musa Arafat and were wanted by Israel for their role in a bomb placed in a Tel Aviv bus the previous year. They were also believed to be involved in two bomb attacks in recent months, the sources said. "An explosion of unclear origin occurred. Six people were killed and two injured", Jenin's acting governor, Haidar Irshid, told reporters. "We are now investigating the cause of the explosion." Earlier, Palestinian security officials said the men had been killed by shells fired from the settlement of Elon Moreh, about 25 kilometres from Jenin. A Reuters television cameraman in Jenin several hours after the blast said there had been no signs of tank shells at the site. Deputy Defence Minister Dalia Rabin-Pelossof told Army Radio that " attackers who are trying to make explosive devices ... have recently been making many mistakes and they pay with their lives for it". ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 31 July)

81. On 2 August, it was reported that a 35-year-old Palestinian man had been killed the previous day in Hebron by IDF fire. Mohammed Sharabati was shot after a mock funeral in the town in honour of the eight Palestinians killed on Tuesday in Nablus turned into a violent demonstration. Similar mock funerals were held throughout towns and cities in the territories and in some cases, youths approached IDF outposts and threw stones. Shooting incidents were reported in the Tulkarm area, north of Ramallah, after hundreds of demonstrators threw stones at an IDF outpost to protest against the closure of the road between Ramallah and villages north of the city. Eight Palestinians were wounded, said the Palestinian news service. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 2 August)

82. On 3 August, the IDF killed a Palestinian allegedly belonging to a cell that had placed numerous bombs along the road leading up to Mount Ebal settlement, near Nablus. Another six members of the cell were wounded. (Ha'aretz , Jerusalem Post, 3 August)

83. On 4 August, it was reported, Israel tried to assassinate a prominent Palestinian activist in Ramallah. Muhanad Dirya (Abu Halaweh), a member of Force 17 and a senior aide to the head of the Tanzim forces in the West Bank, Marwan Barghouti, was slightly injured in the attempted liquidation. Palestinian sources reported that, around 3 p.m. the previous day, two missiles had been fired from the Psagot settlement at a car in which Abu Halaweh, 22, had been travelling. The first missile, the sources said, had missed the car, allowing Abu Halaweh time to escape before the vehicle was destroyed by the second. Barghouti visited Abu Halaweh in his Ramallah hospital bed and accused Israel of making an attempt on his life. Israeli security sources confirmed the action, claiming, however, that the target had been Abu Halaweh, and not Barghouti. In related news, it was reported that a 4-year-old Palestinian boy, Majid Jilad, had been seriously injured the previous Friday night by shots fired from an IDF armoured personnel carrier. The boy had been travelling in a car with his grandfather towards the town of Tulkarm, Palestinian sources reported. The IDF spokesman's office said that soldiers at a surprise roadblock had opened fire at the lower section of the car, which had been travelling at a high speed and was endangering the lives of the troops. The spokesman's office added that the car had failed to heed orders to stop. According to Palestinian sources, however, the boy's grandfather had slowed down, yet the soldiers had opened fire at the car anyway. The boy received initial medical care in the Anabta refugee camp and was then transferred to Tel Hashomer hospital. Also the same day, in Dura, south of Hebron, IDF fired three tank shells at structures belonging to the Palestinian Authority national security forces, in response to continuous shooting at soldiers in the area. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 5 August)

84. On 6 August, it was reported that the Israeli defence establishment had published a list of seven Palestinian terrorists the Palestinian Authority had refused to arrest, despite Israel's requests. The publication of the list followed the previous day's assassination of Omar Mansour Hassan al-Madiri, a Hamas activist from Tulkarm. The list had been issued as a Defence Ministry press release. Israel had often used the Palestinians' refusal to arrest wanted activists as justification for killing them. Al-Madiri, 26, had been killed when an IDF helicopter fired three missiles at his car at about 4.30 p.m. the previous day. Three Palestinian bystanders were slightly injured in the attack. Hamas, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority all denounced the killing, demanding international intervention to protect the Palestinians and accusing the United States of giving Israel a green light "to commit its crimes". Al-Madiri was Israel's third attempted assassination in the previous week, following the killing of Jamal Mansour and Jamal Salim of Hamas the previous Tuesday and a failed strike at Muhanad Dirya of Force 17 that Saturday. Security sources said that with Al-Madiri's death, Israel had now killed most of Hamas's key military activists in Tulkarm and Nablus. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 6 August)

85. On 6 August, it was reported that, according to testimony from various sources, Palestinians in Baka al-Garbiyeh area told a Ha'aretz reporter that over the past two months border policemen had been abusing Palestinian workers caught on the seam between Israel and the West Bank, taking them in their jeeps to a grove near Kibbutz Metsar, north of Baka al-Garbiyeh and beating them. The pattern seemed to be that the border policemen would detain a few people and check their ID papers. Most of the detainees were then released, but two or three were put on the jeep and taken through the fields to Metsar. Over the past two months, at least five Palestinians whose names were known to Ha'aretz had been beaten in that way. Sometimes, the sources said, the policemen were satisfied with merely annoying them or giving them a punch or two and demanding that they curse Yasser Arafat. Border Police spokeswoman Liat Perl said that the inquiry on the matter raised by Ha'aretz had been referred to the Police Investigations Unit of the Justice Ministry. If the charges were found to be true, the necessary measures would be taken. ( Ha'aretz, 6 August)

86. On 7 August, it was reported that IDF that week had loosened the rules of engagement for soldiers serving in the occupied territories. The new rules allowed a sharper reaction to shooting at IDF forces or Israeli civilians and to a large extent returned the situation to what it had been before the Tenet understandings. IDF said that the decision to loosen the rules had been taken as a result of the sharp increase in the number of violent incidents in the territories, especially in the previous week. Soon after the start of the intifada, new rules of engagement had been handed down which were given the code name Blue Lilac by the Judge Advocate General's Office. The new rules gave field commanders leeway to decide on when to open fire on Palestinians they regarded as a source of danger to Israeli troops or civilians. The rules had been updated a number of times in various sectors, with gradual expansion of the means of engagement available to the troops. However, during the current week the Blue Lilac rules had been reinstated. According to those rules, in some areas in the territories, determined by the commanding generals, it was now permissible to fire on any Palestinians carrying a weapon under circumstances that raised the suspicion that they might be combatants against IDF or belong to a Palestinian force operating against IDF. In response to fire coming from an unidentified source, IDF troops had permission to respond immediately, to deter further Palestinian fire. (Ha'aretz , 7 August)

87. On 7 August, it was reported that serious anomalies had become apparent in versions of how Mahdi Abd al-Fatah Mizayed, 25, a resident of the village of Anabta, had been killed the previous Sunday night. According to the IDF version, Mizayed had been shot in the head by soldiers who opened fire against Palestinians laying a bomb on a road junction near the Ramin village, east of Tulkarm in the West Bank. IDF said that another Palestinian had been injured by the gunfire but managed to escape. However, the director of the Tulkarm hospital, Dr. Ahmad Abu Bakar, who examined the body, refuted the claim. He said Mizayed had died because his skull was fractured, not from the gunshot wounds found on the body. A Reuters news agency report quoted eyewitnesses the previous day who said that they had seen four soldiers chasing Mizayed. They said the soldiers had caught Mizayed and beat and kicked him and used their rifle butts to hit his head until he stopped moving. An IDF spokesman rejected that version and said that Mizayed had been struck by a bullet to the head and a military doctor had determined his death at the scene. The spokesman said IDF sappers had confirmed that Mizayed had been planting a bomb in the area. (Ha'aretz, 7 August)

88. On 10 August, it was reported, Israeli fighter bombers and tanks pounded Palestinian security forces buildings in retaliation for the previous day' s suicide bombing in a restaurant in the centre of Jerusalem that claimed the lives of 15 people and left scores of others injured. No casualties were reported as a result of the Israeli action, primarily due to the fact that the Palestinians had evacuated the buildings immediately after news of the terrorist attack had broken. Also in response to the terror attack, Israeli security forces carried out early-morning raids on Palestinian offices in East Jerusalem, including on the symbol of the Palestinian presence in the city, Orient House. No injuries were reported in the operation, which also spread to the nearby village of Abu Dis. The strikes against the Palestinian security targets began while the cabinet was still deliberating Israel's response to the suicide bombing. According to Palestinian sources, two F-16 fighter-bombers flew over targets in Ramallah for several minutes. The main target of the fighter-bombers was the headquarters of the Palestinian civilian police, which was severely damaged in the attack. Two bombs, each weighing about a ton, were dropped on the target in Ramallah. IDF tanks entered Palestinian-held areas near the Karni junction that Thursday night and destroyed a number of Palestinian security positions. The tanks withdrew after completing their operation. In another incident, two Palestinians, Muhammed Saka, 20, and Maher Afaneh, 27, were killed near the Karni junction in the Gaza Strip when IDF troops opened fire on demonstrators in the area. The two men were injured by the gunfire and later died in hospital. According to Palestinian sources, six other Palestinians were injured during the clashes. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 12 August)

89. On 12 August, it was reported, a nine-year-old Palestinian girl was killed during separate shooting incidents in Hebron. According to Israeli sources, Palestinians had shot at an IDF position near the city's Jewish community. Soldiers returned fire and killed a nine-year-old girl, who was staying at her home. In another incident in the Gaza Strip, soldiers razed a two-storey Palestinian building located near the Gush Katif junction. IDF claimed that Palestinians using the building had shot at an Israeli vehicle earlier in the morning near the Kissufim crossing. The army called the action necessary to safeguard Israeli civilians and soldiers travelling on the roads leading to the Jewish communities in the area. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post , 13 August)

90. On 15 August, undercover units reportedly hiding in a van shot dead a key Fatah Tanzim leader in Hebron, riddling his body with automatic gunfire. The man was identified as Imad Abu Sneineh, 25. Palestinian witnesses said that Abu Sneineh had been shot in the border area between Israeli- and Palestinian-controlled sectors of the city as he was getting out of his car near his home at around 7.40 a.m. They said Israeli security forces were waiting for Abu Sneineh in a parked blue-and-white van. When he appeared there was no attempt to apprehend him and he was simply shot dead by a burst of gunfire. He was reportedly hit in the head, chest, stomach and legs and died on the spot. Security sources said that the operation had been carried out jointly by elite IDF and Israel Police units. They also said there had been no attempt to arrest him. Abu Sneineh was married and the father of three children. Palestinians shut their shops and offices in Hebron in protest following his murder. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 16 August)

91. On 17 August, a Palestinian man was killed and 10 others were injured during an IDF operation inside the Palestinian-controlled area near Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian sources said that three of the injured were badly hurt. In incidents the following day, two Palestinian infants, one three months old and the other six months old, were seriously injured by IDF gunfire. The three-month-old was shot in the head when the car in which he was travelling came under fire near the al-Tufah junction south of Khan Yunis. The second infant was injured near Nablus when IDF soldiers shot at a vehicle trying to bypass a roadblock. Palestinian sources said the child had been critically injured. In another incident, Palestinian sources reported that a Hamas activist, Muhammed Abd al-Rahman Shadid, 25, a resident of the villager of Ilar, north of Tulkarm, had been abducted the previous Friday by Israeli forces from Area A (under full Palestinian Authority control). Israeli military sources refused to comment on the Palestinian claims. In still another incident, Ahmed Bisharat, a senior Fatah activist from the village of Tamun near Jenin, was shot in the shoulder and the leg by what Palestinian sources described as "masked gunmen". Palestinians maintain that this was yet another Israeli attempt to assassinate a Palestinian activist. About six weeks earlier, the Israel air force had attacked and killed another resident of the village, Muhammed Bisharat, an activist involved in Hamas and Islamic Jihad operations. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 19 August)

92. On 22 August, Israel failed in an attempt to assassinate the Hamas organization's alleged leading bomb-maker, Adnan al-Ghoul. The Israeli air force strike against al-Ghoul killed his son, Bilal, 20, and seriously injured another wanted Palestinian, Sa'id al-Arbid. Palestinian sources reported that Israeli helicopters had fired four missiles at two cars travelling in a valley north of the El Bureij refugee camp in the centre of the Gaza Strip. The two cars had hit, but Adnan al-Ghoul had escaped unharmed, the sources said. The two-car convoy had also been carrying a second senior Hamas activist, Mohammed Def, who had also walked away unscathed. In a separate incident, it was reported that an Egoz commando unit lying in ambush on the road to Mt. Eibal overlooking Nablus had killed five Palestinians just after midnight. The Israeli army claimed all five had been planning a bombing on the road, which was mostly used by IDF troops on their way to the base on the top of the mountain. Palestinians said four of the five had been unarmed and had been killed while trying to recover the body of one of three activists who tried to mine the road. In another incident in the same area, a 14-year-old bystander was killed during a firefight that broke out between armed Palestinians and IDF troops near Mt. Grizim. Meanwhile, Israeli troops fired two surface-to-surface missiles at a Palestinian police station near the Khan Yunis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, moderately wounding seven policemen, Palestinian police and medical officials said. A police spokesman said that the station belonged to Palestinian civil police. The army said the strike was in response to a mortar attack on Gush Katif settlements, citing two such attacks in the previous day. But Palestinian National Security Forces chief Abdel-Razek al-Majaydeh denied that mortars had been fired recently and branded the Israeli claim " completely false". In another development, in Rafah, a Palestinian policeman was killed when he entered a house that had been taken over by IDF troops a few hours earlier. The policeman had entered the house to investigate reports of the take over and was shot by the soldiers inside. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 23 August)

93. On 23 August, it was reported that four Shimshon Brigade soldiers had been indicted the previous day in the military court of the Southern Command, charged with abusing Palestinian residents of the south Hebron area. The four were accused of beating and humiliating their victims and stoning and vandalizing their cars. The 23 August incident, originally reported by B' Tselem, the human rights organization, involved residents of the village of Samoa, south of Hebron. They reported that the soldiers had arrested them because the drivers of two taxis had driven onto a road forbidden to Palestinians. According to the indictments, the soldiers had made the passengers get out of the taxis near the village of Hirbat Karame, slapped them, used a helmet to hit one of the Palestinians in the face, and beat the passengers with their fists. Then they made the Palestinians stand in front of a wall and hit each other. The soldiers also smashed the windows of the cabs and slashed the tires. The alleged crimes include criminal assault, extortion, deliberate vandalism, causing injury, obstruction of justice, and conduct unbefitting soldiers. The case was the worst brought to court since the start of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, and was also the first in which IDF had pressed criminal charges against soldiers. Meanwhile, Israel radio reported that a Tel-Sheva Palestinian resident had complained to the police that two Shimshon soldiers had arrested him while he was travelling in his car south of Hebron. According to the complaint, he was beaten, handcuffed, threatened with a weapon and humiliated for several hours. He said the sol diers made him stand in the sun for several hours at the Shema checkpoint without water. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 23 August)

94. On 23 August, it was reported, Israel failed in an attempt to assassinate a senior Palestinian activist in the territories. The senior Fatah member in Nablus, Jihad Miseemy, escaped with only light injuries to his legs when IDF helicopters shot at his car. His bodyguard and relative, Sabar Miseemy, who was also in the car, was slightly wounded in his eyes by shrapnel. Miseemy, 43, had been on Israel's most-wanted list for the past four years. He had served as a colonel in the Palestinian civilian police force in Nablus. In another incident, it was reported that a 13-year-old Palestinian boy had been killed by Israeli soldiers in Khan Yunis during a particularly turbulent day in the Gaza Strip. Israeli sources claimed that Mohammed Zurub had been killed by live fire when he and a group of Palestinian youths had thrown stones at an IDF outpost. However, Palestinian sources said Zurub had been killed when he went to check on a Palestinian house the army had taken over and then left a few hours earlier. In another incident, it was reported that seven people, including six police officers, had been wounded when IDF tanks entered Area A (territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority) near the Dir El Balah refugee camp in Gaza, in retaliation for a mortar attack on a nearby settlement. The tanks fired six shells at a Palestinian Authority security outpost, badly damaging it, before withdrawing. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 24 August)

95. On 26 August, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) charged that Hisham Abu Jamas, one of the Palestinian gunmen killed while carrying out a deadly raid on an Israeli army outpost in the Gaza Strip, had in fact been captured, interrogated and then murdered by the IDF. DFLP said its spotters outside the outpost, as well as the third gunman who survived the raid and fled, reported that Jamas had been wounded during the fighting. "The Israeli soldiers arrested Jamas after he was hit in the leg. They tried to get information out of him, but I am certain he said nothing. They then shot him several times in the head", said DFLP deputy Abu Leila. ( Jerusalem Post, 27 August)

96. On 27 August, it was reported that IDF had shot and killed Mohammed Sharaf from Jabalya, a 15-year-old Palestinian boy. Israeli army sources claimed he had tried to cross the perimeter fence around the Gaza Strip and was probably on his way to carry out an attack inside Israel. However, some Palestinian sources in Gaza said the boy and his friends had been trying to cross the border to look for work in Israel, while others said that he was caught near a group of Palestinians getting ready to fire mortars into Israel. In another development, it was reported that a 65-year-old Palestinian man had been critically injured when IDF forces opened fire from an outpost near the settlement of Dugit. Khalan Mohammed Zayed, a fisherman, had gone a few meters into the sea to cast his net. He was shot at around 6.30 a.m. and taken immediately to the Gaza hospital where he was admitted to the intensive care unit. Also the same day, it was reported that Israel had attacked Palestinian positions in Gaza and the West Bank with both fighter jets and ground forces, killing one Palestinian and wounding 21. Shortly after midnight, IDF ground troops, including tanks, armoured personnel carriers and bulldozers, entered the Gazan town of Rafah, on the Egyptian border, from several directions. The force penetrated more than a kilometre into Palestinian Authority territory and remained there for about two hours, during which time it destroyed two roadblocks north of the town and a command post of the Palestinian Authority's National Security Service. Another IDF force destroyed a National Security Service post in Gaza City. The operations were accompanied by exchanges of fire in which one Palestinian security officer was killed and another 10 were wounded. The dead man is Ala Abu Bakhra, 23, a member of the National Security Service. ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 27 August)

97. On 27 August, two missiles fired from helicopters hovering high above the West Bank killed Mustafa Zabri, the 63-year-old leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), at his office in the Ramallah suburb of El Bireh. Better known as Abu Ali Mustafa, he was the highest-ranking Palestinian leader killed by Israel since the beginning of the intifada nearly 11 months earlier, and one of the highest-ranking Palestinian leaders ever killed in years of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The assassination galvanized the oft-divided Palestinian political spectrum into unity, with wall-to-wall condemnations from the Hamas to the Palestinian Authority spokesmen, and threats by PFLP to avenge the slaying of the man who had replaced PFLP founder George Habash. The missiles had struck precisely in the late hours of the morning, slamming through the windows of Zabri's third-storey apartment and striking him while he was on the phone. The killing took place barely 200 metres from Yasser Arafat's West Bank headquarters in Ramallah. There was much damage to the room, but except for some broken glass, none to the rest of the building, which was mostly populated by Palestinian-American families. Nor were there any other casualties. In an outpouring of anger, Palestinians marched in the streets of West Bank towns in the hours after the killing. In Arrabe, Zabri's home village in the northern West Bank, about 5,000 people marched, led by gunmen firing in the air. Three American-Palestinian families lived in the building, including the al-Quaddumis, who lived directly beneath Zabri's office and had moved to the West Bank three years earlier from Manassas, Virginia. Leana Al Quaddumi, 15, said she had been doing the laundry when the missiles hit. "I heard the whole house shaking under my feet. I was terrified to death. Glass started flying around me. I started screaming, and then I left the house, running outside", she said. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 28 August)

98. On 29 August, it was reported, a 26-year-old Palestinian resident from Hizmeh village, Khader Jeddua Kanaan, was murdered, apparently by Jewish terrorists. Two members of Kanaan's family riding in the same car were slightly injured in the shooting. A Jewish organization that identified itself as " Elazar" took responsibility for the lethal attack. In related news, it was reported that three Palestinians had been killed and several others wounded, including a doctor and an 8-year-old boy, in separate incidents in the West Bank and Gaza. Two Palestinians, 17-year-old Samar Zuarob and 24-year-old Muhamed al-Hamrani, were killed in Rafah in the early hours of the morning. An IDF unit had taken over a road between Rafah and Khan Yunis in Area A territory and, according to eyewitnesses, set up six new outposts manned by tanks. Rafah residents said tanks had fired at Palestinians on the road heading toward Khan Yunis, forcing the travellers to retreat. Zuarob was killed during the night by IDF fire on Block O, a neighbourhood near the Egyptian border. Al-Hamrani was killed when he joined some armed Palestinians who tried to prevent the tanks from advancing into the area. In another incident, Imad Hazaza, 19, from the village of Paron south of Tulkarm, was killed late the previous Tuesday night. His family said that when the incident occurred they had been in a tent in their fields near a corral where they kept sheep and cattle. In a third incident that day, 20 Palestinians were wounded by IDF fire, including a 56-year-old doctor, an 8-year-old boy, an 18-year-old woman and a 30-year-old man, as well as several children, in a bus caught by crossfire between Israeli troops and Palestinian gunmen. (Ha'aretz, 30 August)

99. On 30 August, two Palestinians were killed, including a 47-year-old doctor, and 23 were wounded, including a four-year-old boy, in separate incidents in the West Bank and Gaza. In Hebron, Dr. Mussa Safi Kidmat was killed during intense firefights between Palestinian gunmen and IDF troops. According to some reports, he was killed while treating one of the wounded. According to other reports, he was a passerby, killed while walking home. Shooting in the city began shortly after 1 p.m., apparently at the same time as the funeral of a 32-year-old man from Force 17, who had been killed the previous Wednesday night in his car far from any known conflicts between IDF and Palestinian fighters. According to Palestinian and army sources, the fighting had been intense but sporadic throughout the day, coming to an end only around 5 p.m. Official Palestinian sources said IDF tanks at one point had entered a Palestinian-controlled area, but other reports said the tanks had only moved in to enter the area and were confronted by armed Palestinians who fired to prevent them from entering. At least 15 Palestinians were wounded in that confrontation, including 8-year-old Nidal al Amsi, who was seriously wounded by a bullet to his chest. In the Nur a-Sham refugee camp near Tulkarm, Palestin ian sources claimed, IDF troops disguised as Arabs entered the edges of the camp and fired at Islamic Jihad activist Banwar Alian and another man travelling in Alian's car. Both men were wounded. When word of the presence of the undercover troops in the camp spread, a crowd began chasing after the soldiers' car. A helicopter overhead fired into the crowd to prevent it from stopping the soldiers' car. Five people were wounded in that incident. In Gaza, 4-year-old Omar Saduri of Kuntar was seriously wounded by a bullet to his stomach from IDF fire during an exchange with armed Palestinians. (Ha'aretz, 31 August)

5. Proposed law absolving persons of liability to compensate

100. On 24 July, it was reported that the defence establishment had decided not to pay any compensation to the family of the 12-year-old Palestinian boy Muhammed al-Durra, who had been killed in Gaza at the beginning of the intifada and became a symbol of the current uprising, nor to the families of other victims of Israeli actions during the hostilities. The decision was based on Israel's view that the victims were casualties of war and article 5 of the Damages Law explicitly stated that the "State is not responsible for damages as a result of actions taken by IDF during war operations." Attorney Ruth Bar, head of Insurance Claims at the Defence Ministry, said that if Israeli courts nonetheless ruled that Israel had to pay damages to Palestinians injured in the hostilities, the Defence Ministry "will of course abide by the ruling". The State's position was in accordance with international law, she said, noting that international law recognized the State as not culpable for damages caused during war. But she did note that in some cases the Ministry might decide nonetheless to provide humanitarian assistance, "without prejudice" regarding other cases. "So far we haven't been down that channel", she said. The defence establishment decision meant that it was unlikely that Palestinian victims of vigilante attacks would be compensated, either. Asked whether there wasn't any concern that Israel's reputation might be damaged by the decision not to pay the al-Durra family and the families of other children killed during the disturbances, Bar said that "during war, innocents are hurt on both sides. Just as a Palestinian baby was killed, so too was Shalhevet Pass in Hebron, and the Palestinians did not compensate her family." To date, some 450 suits seeking compensation for personal and property damage had been brought by Palestinians, at a rate of some 50 every month. Most came from Gaza, where a human rights group had been established early on in the intifada, urging people to submit claims for damages. The claims so far added up to hundreds of millions of shekels. Asked why the State had compensated victims of Israeli army actions in the first intifada, Bar said that the first intifada "was a civil uprising, and did not involve uniformed members of militias, wearing signs of sovereignty". In a related development, a Haifa District Court judge ruled that a case for NIS 4.5 million in compensation, brought by a man whose property in the village of Beit Jala had been damaged, was likely to be rejected by the court. The plaintiff, Jacob Casey, complained that on 27 October, IDF " negligence" in responding to fire on Gilo from Beit Jala had resulted in the destruction of a three-storey house, the five apartments within it and all they contained. He had asked for NIS 4.5 million in compensation, and asked the court not to charge him court fees. Ruling that he had to pay the fees " if the plaintiff wants to take the risk of pursuing his suit", the judge said: "I doubt the plaintiff will be able to prove that the State owes him the principle of caution under the circumstances described in the plaintiff's suit." (Ha'aretz, 24 July)

II. Situation of human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan

101. On 24 June, it was reported that the Housing Ministry had begun to market land for a new settlement in the northern Golan Heights called Metzuk Orvim. The tender was for 100 homes and 200 vacation bungalows. Knesset member Mossy Raz said that it would be the first settlement in the Golan Heights in 10 years. The tender for the land had been published in weekend newspapers. However, a Housing Ministry spokesperson said the land was for a new neighbourhood, an expansion of an existing settlement, and not a new settlement. "The establishment of a new settlement requires a cabinet decision", he noted. Raz insisted that the tender was for the establishment of a new settlement, which he termed totally superfluous, and liable to only make it more difficult when the time came to reach an agreement with Syria. (Jerusalem Post, 25 June)

III. Other

102. On 1 May, it was reported that since the signing of the Oslo agreements, the phrase "natural growth of the settlements" had given all Israeli Governments room to manoeuvre regarding the annual number of building starts across the Green Line, in accordance with a given policy and time period. Unlike the term "natural increase", which was an accepted statistical term involving the number of births minus the number of deaths the natural increase in the Jewish population of Judea, Samaria and Gaza was 3.4 per cent the term "natural growth" was far more flexible. According to at least one interpretation, it might also include the market demands for housing in a given area. The late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had used the formulation to build thousands of housing units in the Greater Jerusalem area: Ma'aleh Adumim, Beitar Ilit, Givat Ze'ev and Gush Etzion. Rabin wanted to include the Greater Jerusalem area in the permanent borders of the State of Israel and had worked at increasing the population there. Benjamin Netanyahu had also used the flexibility of the term to increase building starts by 100 per cent in 1998, to 4,210, the highest in recent years, with the exception of Sharon's stint in the Housing Ministry (1991-1992), when some 14,000 housing units had been built in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Under the sweeping term "natural growth", many new neighbourhoods had been built in existing neighbourhoods, along with dozens of outposts. Barak, too, had found the "natural growth" concept convenient, especially when he still needed the right-wing National Religious Party in his coalition. In 2000, Barak had started the construction of some 2,500 housing units in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as in the previous year, credited to Netanyahu. There were no figures yet for Sharon, but two tenders already published promised the construction of 712 housing units in Ma'aleh Ephraim and Ma'aleh Adumim. During Barak's term as prime minister, tenders for the construction of 3,575 housing units had been published, with 2,600 in the Greater Jerusalem area. There had been an annual growth in construction of about 8 per cent in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, recently dropping to 7 per cent, double the natural increase in population. According to the Peace Now movement, construction in the settlements could be frozen for at least four years, because there were enough units available to meet the demands of natural increase along with the growth needs stemming from market demands. Those demands had dropped sharply since the beginning of the current intifada, a fact not denied by the Council for Jewish Settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. (Ha'aretz, 1 May)

103. On 31 May, it was reported that in its most recent report on human rights in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Amnesty International was scathing in its description of abuses against Israelis, Palestinians and foreigners alike. On Israel, most of the report concentrated on the behaviour of Israeli security forces against Palestinians since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada on 29 September 2000. It accused the security forces of killing at least 300 Palestinians and wounding more than 10,000, most of them demonstrators who were throwing stones and using slingshots. At least 100 of the Palestinians killed were listed as being under 18 years of age. Amnesty accused IDF, the Israeli police, the Border Police and various special units of excessive use of lethal force, namely high-velocity bullets, rubber-coated metal bullets and live ammunition. The report also included cases where Palestinians had been assassinated without the benefit of trial. The Israeli air force and navy, according to the report, had made extensive use of heavy weapons, including rockets, helicopters and ships, to indiscriminately fire on areas from which armed Palestinians had opened fire. During the same period more than 2,000 people, most of them Palestinians, had been arrested for politically motivated violence. Many of those arrested were under-age and were charged with stone-throwing. The arrests, according to Amnesty, normally took place during the night, with the use of large units. Some of those arrested complained of being beaten during the arrests. Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, who carry Israeli identity cards and have resident status, who were arrested during the intifada had complained of being charged under military ordinance 3 78, formerly only applied to Palestinians in the territories. The report stated that in many instances, Palestinian prisoners were isolated from the outside world for periods ranging from 20 to 90 days. Many of those imprisoned complained of beatings by Israeli security personnel who, in most cases, had complete immunity. Hundreds of Palestinians were tried in military tribunals, according to the report, without the benefit of a fair trial according to internationally recognized standards. (Ha'aretz, 31 May)

104. On 2 July, Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi (National Union) elicited sharp responses after he referred to Palestinians working and living illegally in Israel as "lice" and a "cancer". Speaking on Army Radio, Ze'evi said about 180,000 Palestinians were in Israel illegally. " They arrived here and are trying to become citizens because they want social security and welfare payments", Ze'evi said. "We should get rid of the ones who are not Israeli citizens the same way you get rid of lice. We have to stop this cancer from spreading within us." ( Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 3 July)

105. On 2 July, it was reported that representatives of 905 Palestinian children in East Jerusalem had petitioned the High Court of Justice to be accepted into city public schools for the coming school year in September. It was the second appeal filed since mid-May regarding the issue. The most recent petition had involved 26 children who sought to force the city to register them for public schools. The petitioners were 905 of a group of an estimated 1,600 East Jerusalem children who had been placed on waiting lists for public school enrolment, for kindergarten through the twelfth grade. The petition also accused the municipality and the Education Ministry of failing to carry out all the instructions of a court ruling a year earlier that required them to produce a plan for resolving the overcrowding problem in the city's Arab schools. As a result of the ruling, most children who applied for kindergarten or the first grade had been accepted into public schools. But there were thousands more in higher grades who wished to transfer as well. One representative of the petitioners said that the city spent only 7 per cent of its education budget on the Arab sector, although Arabs were 33 per cent of the population. He noted that in Sur Baher there were roughly 11,000 pupils, yet not a single public school for girls. "The shortage of public schools amounts to unjustified discrimination", he said. An estimated 20,000 children in East Jerusalem attended private schools, paying tuition of at least $1,000 a year per child, many of them due to a shortage in public schools, Bardin said. He said that as many as 15,000 would prefer to register for public schools, but could not due to lack of space. Due to the difficulty in affording such education, an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 Arab children aged 5 through 18 did not attend school at all, Joseph Alalu, a city councillor from Meretz, said. Municipal spokesman Hagai Elias said "there was no reason to present an additional petition", since a decision had been reached several months earlier to set up a committee to look into accepting more pupils from East Jerusalem into the school system. Elias said the city was processing 1,600 applications from pupils seeking to transfer from private schools. " Widening the official city school system in the eastern part of the city can only be done gradually", Elias added. (Jerusalem Post, 2 July)

106. On 27 July, it was reported that Reporters without Borders said that 31 journalists had been injured in the West Bank and Gaza since the outbreak of the intifada the previous fall, and the International Press Institute the previous day said there had been 102 press freedom violations since the start of the conflict. Reporters without Borders said that nearly all the casualties had been caused by fire from Israeli security forces. Its report detailed 40 separate occasions in which 21 Palestinian, 7 French and 2 American reporters had been attacked or wounded, some of them more than once. Robert Manard, director of the French-based organization, said it was difficult to determine that the reporters had been shot deliberately, but in most of the cases they had been clearly identifiable as journalists. He refuted claims by the IDF spokesman's office that the reporters had been wounded while among Palestinian demonstrators, saying that in many cases the reporters had been standing apart from the demonstrators when they were shot. Government Press Office director Danny Seaman said he apologized on behalf of the Government to the reporters who had been wounded, irrespective of the circumstances. He said that to improve the situation soldiers had been shown a videotape explaining the importance of the press, and a special form had been prepared for journalists to complain about inappropriate behaviour by soldiers. The International Press Institute report said that of the 102 violations of press freedom it had recorded, 87 per cent "were perpetrated by Israelis: 76 per cent by the authorities, including IDF, and 10 per cent by Israeli settlers. One additional per cent had been carried out jointly by these two and the remaining 13 per cent were blamed on Palestinians." The Institute report recorded two deaths of Palestinian newsmen from among the 102 incidents. The report "recommends that the Israeli judiciary conduct investigations into the press freedom violations committed by the Israeli authorities and that the results of the investigations be made public". It also called upon the Palestinians to end what the Institute calls "arbitrary detention and intimidation of journalists" and to "refrain from closing or censoring media outlets". (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 27 July)

107. On 3 August it was reported that 30 human rights activists from Israel, Europe and America had moved in with Palestinian families in Beit Jala to act as " ;human shields" against heavy IDF firing into the village across the wadi from Gilo. IDF said it was trying to find out exactly where the activists were staying for fear that wounding or killing any of them would create an international incident. The group, calling itself "the International Solidarity Movement", says its mission was to prevent harm to innocent Palestinians in the village when IDF retaliated with artillery and missiles for rifle fire from Palestinian snipers. Several Palestinians and a German doctor had been killed and dozens had been wounded by IDF fire at Beit Jala in response to sniper fire at Gilo. At least two of the 30 were Israeli women and the group said more activists were due to arrive soon. Neta Golan, who had been living in the village for a few weeks, told Ha'aretz that the activists were staying with Palestinian families in homes that had already been shelled. "I'm living with a family in which a five-year-old boy lost a hand from Israeli fire a few weeks ago. On Wednesday night, shells hit the building." Another activist left a house with the family moments before a missile struck it. Golan said the activists "are not deluded into believing" that they can prevent shooting, "but we hope to draw international attention. It's clear it would be more upsetting to IDF to hit one of us than some 'innocent Palestinians' ". Golan said she had spotted Palestinians firing from Beit Jala towards Gilo. IDF said it had spotted three women from the group in a house snipers had used as a base in the past. Golan conceded that the women were in the house, but not while there was any firing from it. "We aren't here to provide cover for Palestinian snipers", she said, "but for the civilians who are hit by Israeli fire". She said most Palestinian shooting was ineffectual and called the IDF responses "exaggerated". She said nobody from IDF had contacted her to find out where she or the group was staying. IDF sources said the army was aware of the existence of the group in Beit Jala and was trying to avoid hitting any of them. They said that attempts to reach an arrangement with Palestinian officers to prevent fire from Beit Jala had failed during the current week following the helicopter attack on the Hamas offices in Nablus. (Ha'aretz, 3 August)

108. On 12 August, it was reported that the PLO headquarters in East Jerusalem, Orient House, had been the site of violent confrontations throughout the weekend after Israeli police had taken over and closed the building early that Friday morning. Dozens of Palestinian demonstrators and left-wing activists, mainly from Europe, had been beaten back by police officers as they tried to reach the building. Twelve protesters had been arrested. National Police Commissioner Shlomo Aharonishki said the working assumption of the police was that "Orient House will not reopen". Jerusalem Police Chief Mickey Levy claimed that Knesset member Mohammed Barakeh (Hadash) and Arab League spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi had come to the site to incite the demonstrators. Levy himself had been filmed punching a female Palestinian demonstrator in the belly and telling her to leave him alone after she grabbed on to his shirt during confrontations between demonstrators and police. The confrontations between police and demonstrators had begun early Friday morning, just hours after police took over the building. Palestinian activists and other demonstrators who tried to storm police barricades were forced back by police with what witnesses described as unnecessary brutality on the part of the officers. (Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, 12 August)

109. On 29 August, Palestinians claimed that Israeli troops in Beit Jala had taken control of a house containing a family of 20 people and were using them as a human shield against shooting from the Ayida refugee camp. The closure enforced in areas of the town occupied by IDF also remained in full force. According to local people, about a dozen IDF soldiers were positioned in the house belonging to Mahmud al Masiyah and his family. The family, consisting of about 20 members, was being held captive in its own house, the refugee camp residents charged. They said that the family members had been forced down into the lowest floor of the structure and that the family was being held hostage and used by IDF as a human shield for protection against Palestinian gunfire. ( Ha'aretz, 30 April)

|| UNISPAL Home || Printer-friendly (pdf)||Arabic||Chinese||French||Russian||Spanish||
UNITED
NATIONS
E

Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/2002/NGO/130
13 February 2002

ENGLISH AND SPANISH ONLY
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-eighth session
Item 8 of the provisional agenda

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE
OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES, INCLUDING PALESTINE

Written statement* submitted by the Federation of Associations for the Defence
and Promotion of Human Rights, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status

The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31.

[15 January 2002]

PALESTINE BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

In March 2001, the Federation of Associations for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights presented in this forum the paper The Palestinian Question and the United Nations in which an appeal was made from the civil society so that the international community would put into action the mechanisms to guarantee the compliance of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly's resolutions on Palestine and for the United Nations to be the framework in which the endorsed agreements between Palestinians and Israelis are to be implemented.

Fifty-three years have gone by since the establishment of the State of Israel and fifty-two since it was admitted in the United Nations. When it was admitted in 1949, the representative of Israel stated that the new state was peace loving and would respect all United Nations resolutions, in particular those concerning respect for human rights. We have seen for over half a century not only how Israel has shown no respect nor implemented those resolutions but how Israel has systematically violated these as well , besides endangering peace and security throughout the Middle East and the whole Mediterranean.

Since its creation, the State of Israel:

- Has mass destruction and nuclear weapons, refusing to sign the No Proliferation Treaty.

- Has used weapons forbidden by the international community against the Palestinian civil population under Israeli military occupation.

- Has attacked sovereign Mediterranean states such as Lebanon and Tunisia.

- Has systematically violated the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civil population under military occupation:

-- It has destroyed towns and villages and expelled civilians from the occupied territories, turning them into refugees with no right to return.

-- It has built illegal settlements and moved civilians from the occupying power to occupied territories.

-- It has committed war crimes such as deportations and extrajudicial assassinations of Palestinians.

-- It has locked the civil population under occupation up in what can be referred to as concentration camps that has led to the destruction of the infrastructures and the economy of the Palestinian society.

-- It has raided Palestinian populations and plundered their natural resources.

-- It has imposed collective punishments against the civil population such as massive house demolitions and destruction of farmland.

As a result of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the convening of the Madrid Conference it was expected that the United Nations would have an effective role and would put into action the mechanisms for the compliance by Israel of United Nations resolutions as well as taking forceful and strict measures with the occupying force as we have seen it do so in other areas of the world. Unfortunately, this has not taken place and as a result, the situation in the Middle East has progressively deteriorated leading to the dead end we are witnessing today.

Following the dramatic attacks against the United States on September 11 2001 and the measures taken by the international community regarding terrorism, the international political leaders, headed by President George Bush and the European Union, through Tony Blair and Jos Mara Aznar, admitted the repressive means used by the occupation in order to achieve its political and ideological aims when they publicly stated the need to put into action the mechanisms for the establishment of the independent State of Palestine. In keeping with this statement, the Federation considers that the time has come for the international community to definitely take charge of their responsibility, in particular the United Nations, and restore the Palestinians' legitimate inalienable rights helping them to achieve their aspirations of freedom and independence. Governments, politicians and citizens of the world are aware that the only obstacle for peace and security in the Middle East is Israel, represented by its present Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon.

The road to peace is being long and painful and the Palestinian civil population has been suffering the occupying power's barbarism for 53 years, being this last year one of the most dramatic. In order to assure the integrity of the Palestinian People, the United Nations has the moral and political obligation to deploy an international protection force to protect the civil population from the Israeli occupying forces aggressions.

For all the aforementioned, the Federation of Associations for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights reaffirms its conviction that for the achievement of a global and lasting peace in the Middle East it is essential that:

- The United Nations puts into action the mechanisms to guarantee the compliance of the UN Security Council and General Assembly's resolutions on Palestine, in particular Security Council's resolutions 242 and 338.

- The compliance of such resolutions entails the end of the Israeli military occupation over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, as well as a just solution for the Palestinian refugees as stated in the General Assembly's resolution 194.

- The end of the military occupation implies the recognition of the Palestinian People's legitimate inalienable rights with the establishment of the independent State of Palestine.

-----

______________

*This written statement is issued, unedited, in the language(s) received from the submitting non-governmental organization(s)

UNISPAL-select || UNISPAL Home || Printer-friendly (pdf)||Arabic||Chinese||French||Russian||Spanish||

UNITED
NATIONS
E

Economic and Social Council
Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/2002/32
6 March 2002

Original: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-eighth session
Item 8 of the provisional agenda

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE

OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES, INCLUDING PALESTINE

Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. John Dugard,
on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967
CONTENTS
Paragraphs
Page
Executive summary
3
I.
INTRODUCTION
1 - 6
4
II.
THE MANDATE OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
7 - 10
5
III.
OCCUPATION AND TERRORISM
11 - 15
7
IV.
VIOLENCE AND LOSS OF LIFE
16 - 22
9
V.
SETTLEMENTS
23 - 27
12
VI.
BUFFER ZONES
28
13
VII.
DEMOLITION OF HOUSES AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
29 - 32
13
VIII.
RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
33 - 34
14
IX.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DISTRESS
35 - 38
14
X.
REFUGEES
39
15
XI.
CHILDREN
40 - 47
16
XII.
CHILDREN AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
48 - 53
18
XIII.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
54 - 58
19

Executive summary

The Special Rapporteur's interpretation of his mandate, as being to investigate violations of international humanitarian law and human rights in the context of military occupation, has been challenged by the Government of Israel in document E/CN.4/2002/129. The Special Rapporteur requests the Commission to give a ruling on this matter.

There are different perceptions of the cause of the violence in the Palestinian Territory. Palestinians see the military occupation of their territory as the principal cause of the present crisis. Israelis, on the other hand, see terrorism as the cause of the crisis. Terrorism is a scourge that threatens Israelis and Palestinians alike and every effort should be made to bring terrorism to an end, whether it is perpetrated by instruments of the State, by organized non-State groups or by individuals. At the same time, it is important to stress that the main explanation for the acts of terrorism committed by Palestinians against Israelis is the military occupation. It is this occupation that is responsible for most of the violations of humanitarian law and human rights in the region.

Since the start of the second intifada, in September 2000, nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and about 17,300 injured. More than 260 Israelis have been killed and about 2,400 injured. Most of those killed and injured have been civilians, many of them children. Violence is escalating rapidly in the region as both parties to the conflict employ more dangerous weaponry and show more determination in causing harm to life and property. In this situation, initiatives for a ceasefire or a cessation of violence as a precondition for the resumption of talks between Israelis and Palestinians seem doomed to fail. Only an effective international presence in the region with the power to monitor and reduce the use of violence can achieve this goal. The Special Rapporteur therefore believes that there is a need for an international peacekeeping mission, structured and composed to meet the circumstances of the region.

Settlements are an ever-visible and aggravating sign of occupation and of Israel's illegal conduct as an Occupying Power. Although Israel has undertaken not to establish new settlements, the existing settlements are expanding both in terms of land and settlers.

The demolition of houses in the Palestinian Territory continues unabated. In the Gaza Strip alone, over 400 houses have been completely destroyed and 200 seriously damaged, leaving over 5,000 persons homeless. Moreover, the creation of buffer zones for bypass roads and settlements has resulted in the " sweeping" of large areas of agricultural land by bulldozers.

Israel's restrictions on freedom of movement, resulting from checkpoints, have caused great personal, social and economic hardships to civilians in no way involved in the conflict. They constitute collective punishment of the kind prohibited by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Children have suffered greatly in the present crisis. Every effort should be made by the Israeli military authorities to ensure that the safety and welfare of schools and schoolchildren are respected. It is further recommended that an investigation be conducted into allegations of inhuman treatment of children under the military justice system and that immediate steps be taken to remedy this situation.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The current Special Rapporteur, John Dugard (South Africa), was appointed in July 2001. In August 2001 and in February 2002 the Special Rapporteur undertook missions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel. Meetings were held with Palestinian and Israeli non-governmental organizations, Palestinian and Israeli interlocutors, international agencies in the region and members of the Palestinian Authority, including the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat. Unfortunately, the Special Rapporteur was not able to meet with Israeli authorities as the Government of Israel made it clear at the outset when he was appointed that it would not cooperate because of objections it has to the terms of his mandate. (This matter is discussed below.) On these missions, the Special Rapporteur met with interlocutors in the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and the West Bank. In August 2001 the Special Rapporteur visited Rafah, Beit Jala and Shu'afat to see the destruction caused to houses and property, and Jericho to examine the manner in which the city had been closed by means of trenches cutting off access roads. In February 2002, he again visited Rafah to see the house demolitions carried out by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in January 2002.

2. In February 2002 the Special Rapporteur made a special study of the impact of the present crisis on children. Meetings were accordingly held with education officials of the Ministry of Education of the Palestinian Authority, school principals and teachers, university authorities and non-governmental organizations concerned with the treatment of child prisoners. The Special Rapporteur visited the University of Bir Zeit and the Al-Khader school in the district of Bethlehem and interviewed juveniles who testified about ill-treatment they had been subjected to when they had been arrested and detained by the Israeli authorities.

3. While the Special Rapporteur was in Gaza on 10 and 11 February 2002, Gaza City was subjected to heavy bombing, which caused extensive damage to offices of the United Nations Special Coordinator (UNSCO) in Gaza. The Special Rapporteur was thus able to experience at first hand the military assaults to which the Palestinian people are regularly subjected.

4. In February 2001, the Special Rapporteur visited the area as the chairperson of the Human Rights Inquiry Commission established pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution S-5/1 of 19 October 2000. The report of this Commission is contained in document E/CN.4/2001/121.

5. The present report is based on the visits made to the area in August 2001 and February 2002, consultation and discussion with persons in and outside the area, the study of materials on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and wide media coverage.

6. In October 2001 the Special Rapporteur submitted a report, based on his visit to the region in August 2001, to the Third Committee of the General Assembly. The report, contained in document A/56/440, was duly considered by the Third Committee in November 2001. On 7 December 2001 the Government of Israel submitted a response to this report: see document E/CN.4/2002/129. The criticisms contained in this response and the Special Rapporteur's reply to these criticisms are dealt with in the present report.

II. THE MANDATE OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR

7. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur is to be found in two resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights. In resolution 1993/2, section A, the Commission decided to appoint a special rapporteur with the following mandate:

(a) To investigate Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

(b) To receive communications, to hear witnesses, and to use such modalities of procedure as he may deem necessary for his mandate;

(c) To report, with his conclusions and recommendations, to the Commission on Human Rights at its future sessions, until the end of the Israeli occupation of those territories.

In resolution 2001/7, the Commission welcomed the recommendations contained in the reports of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2001/114) and the Human Rights Inquiry Commission (E/CN.4/2001/121), urged the Government of Israel to implement them and requested the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, acting as a monitoring mechanism, to follow up on the implementation of those recommendations and to submit reports thereon to the General Assembly at its fifty-sixth session and the Commission at its fifty-eighth session.

8. In his report of October 2001 (A/56/440), the Special Rapporteur stated that his mandate required him to investigate human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory within the context of military occupation. In support of this interpretation of the mandate, he reasoned as follows:

"Resolution 1993/2, section A makes it clear that the Special Rapporteur is required to investigate violations of international humanitarian law committed by the occupying authority - Israel - until the end of the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There is a close connection between international humanitarian law and human rights - a connection reaffirmed by the General Assembly in its resolution 2675 (XXV). It is therefore impossible to examine violations of international humanitarian law or general international law without reference to human rights norms, particularly in a situation of prolonged occupation of the kind that continues to prevail in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The mandate therefore includes the investigation of human rights violations committed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but only in the context of military occupation. It is the prolonged military occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories which makes the mandate of the Special Rapporteur unusual and which distinguishes it from other special rapporteurships established by the Commission on Human Rights"(para. 5).

9. The Government of Israel has raised a number of objections to this reasoning, which it claims has resulted in an unprecedented expansive interpretation of the mandate. These objections and the responses thereto appear below:

(a) Objection : it is inaccurate to describe the situation in the Palestinian Territory as one of military occupation on the ground that since the implementation of the Oslo Accords (A/51/889-S/1997/357, annex) and related agreements the control of the lives of over 98 per cent of the Palestinians has passed to the Palestinian Authority, which now has full control over the so-called A areas which include most Palestinian cities and towns.

Response : While it is true that many powers have been transferred by Israel to the Palestinian Authority - including the important area of the administration of justice, in which most violations of human rights occur - the reality is that Israel not only has the power to intervene in the occupied territories, including those designated as A areas, on grounds of security, but that it has in fact done so in recent months. The denial that Israel is in military occupation of the territories is impossible to reconcile with recent military incursions into Ramallah, Bethlehem, Gaza, Beit Jala, Beit Rima and Tulkarem, the presence of Israeli tanks outside President Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah and over 150 military checkpoints in the occupied territories that have seriously disrupted the lives of Palestinians living in the A areas. Moreover, it takes no account of article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that protected persons in an occupied territory shall not be deprived "in any case or in any manner whatsoever" of the benefits of the Convention by any change to the government of the territory resulting from an agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power.

(b) Objection : International humanitarian law and human rights law are "subject to separate international regimes". The close connection between the two "does not imply that the area of humanitarian law cannot be investigated without extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to cover human rights law".

Response : The purpose of the principal international instrument concerned with the protection of civilians under military occupation, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, is to ensure respect for the human rights of protected persons. This is made clear by article 27 of the Convention, which provides that the Occupying Power is to respect the fundamental rights of protected persons. According to the Commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross on this provision: "The right to respect for the person must be understood in its widest sense: it covers all the rights of the individual, that is, the rights and qualities which are inseparable from the human being by the very fact of his existence and his mental and physical powers; it includes, in particular, the right to physical, moral and intellectual integrity - an essential attribute of the human person" (p. 201). The "rights of the individual" have been proclaimed, described and interpreted in international human rights instruments, particularly the international covenants on civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights of 1966, and in the jurisprudence of their monitoring bodies. These human rights instruments therefore complement the Fourth Geneva Convention by defining and giving content to the rights protected in article 27. This is borne out by repeated resolutions of the General Assembly (for example, resolution 2675 (XXV)) and by the Vienna Declaration adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, which declared that:

"Effective international measures to guarantee and monitor the implementation of human rights standards should be taken in respect of people under foreign occupation, and effective legal protection against the violation of their human rights should be provided, in accordance with human rights norms and international law, particularly the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 14 August 1949, and other applicable norms of humanitarian law."

(c) Objection : In the case of a prolonged occupation, such as that of the Palestinian territories, the law of occupation envisages that "the Occupying Power will not become more bound, but less bound by the legal regime". In support of this contention, the Government of Israel cites the commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross on article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the effect that if the occupation continues for a prolonged period after the general cessation of hostilities, "a time would doubtless come when the application of the Convention was no longer justified, especially if most of the governmental and administrative duties carried out at one time by the Occupying Power had been handed over to the authorities of the occupied territory"(p. 62).

Response : Unfortunately the time has not come in the Occupied Palestinian Territory when the application of the Convention is no longer or less justified. The transfer of governmental and administrative powers to the Palestinian Authority in A areas has not diminished the need for the protection of the people of the territories from the Occupying Power for the reasons set out in the present report. This was made clear in the Declaration adopted on 5 December 2001 by the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which reaffirms the applicability of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and reiterates "the need for the full respect for the provision of the said Convention in that Territory" (para. 3).

10. The Government of Israel has raised a number of serious objections to the Special Rapporteur's interpretation of his mandate which call for attention. The Special Rapporteur requests that the Commission consider this matter at its session in 2002 and issue a directive on the subject so that the scope of the present mandate is not in dispute.

III. OCCUPATION AND TERRORISM

11. There are different perceptions of the cause of the violence in the region. Palestinians see the military occupation of their territory as the principal cause of the present crisis. Every Palestinian is today personally and directly affected by the occupation: freedom of movement is seriously impeded by Israeli military roadblocks (checkpoints) that have transformed short journeys into major excursions; the standard of living has been drastically lowered by the closure/blockade of cities and towns and the livelihood of many is threatened; education has been seriously disrupted and health care undermined; homes have been demolished and agricultural land "swept" by bulldozers; militants (and innocent bystanders) are killed by rockets from the skies; tanks parade through cities under the administrative control of the Palestinian Authority; fighter jets and helicopters patrol the skies and terrorize the people with their shelling; and Israeli settlers drive along special roads, accompanied by military convoys, to settlements that seem to grow and grow. It is small wonder, therefore, that Palestinians see the military occupation as the denial of their dignity, as an obstacle in the way of Palestinian statehood and as the source of violence in the region.

12. The Israeli perception is very different. Israelis see terrorism as the cause of the crisis. Suicide bombers who enter Israeli shopping districts, suburbs and settlements, snipers who shoot at passing traffic, and gangs who stab pedestrians in the parks have instilled a sense of fear into all Israelis. There is no guarantee of safety on the streets or roads, in shopping malls, restaurants or nightclubs. Palestinian violence is not seen as a response to Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian Territory but as terror directed at the very existence of the State of Israel.

13. Since 11 September, international support for the belief that terrorism is the main problem to be confronted in the region has inevitably grown. That terrorism is a threat to the present world order cannot, and should not, be denied. That terrorism is a scourge that threatens Israelis and Palestinians alike cannot and should not be denied. Every effort should be made to end violence intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or the general public, whether it is perpetrated by instruments of the State, by organized non-State groups or by individuals.1/ At the same time, it is important not to ignore the main explanation for the acts of terrorism committed by Palestinians against Israelis - the military occupation. It is the occupation of the Palestinian Territory that gives rise to savage acts of violence, highlighted by suicide bombings. The occupation also has other, less obvious, consequences for the occupier. As Mr. Avraham Burg, the Israeli parliamentary speaker, stated in the Knesset on 28 January 2002:

"An occupying people, even if it was led into being an occupier against its will, ends up being harmed by the occupation and its stains, which change and disfigure it. We should not forget that the jailer and his prisoner remain locked up for most of the day behind the same walls and without hope. To put it in other, more stark terms, respected members, the occupation corrupts." ;

This reminder of the consequences of occupation for the occupier was echoed in a statement by 60 Israeli army reservists, half of them officers and all of them combat veterans, when they announced that they would refuse to continue serving in the Palestinian Territory:

"We will no longer fight beyond the Green Line for the purpose of occupying, deporting, destroying, blockading, killing, starving and humiliating an entire people" (International Herald Tribune , 29 January 2002).

Support for this position is growing daily (International Herald Tribune , 20 February 2002).

14. It is against this background that it is necessary to reiterate that it is the military occupation of the Palestinian Territory that is responsible for most of the violations of humanitarian law and human rights described in this report. Similarly it is necessary to recall the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention as the governing law. On 5 December 2001, the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention reaffirmed the applicability of this Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, reiterated the need for full respect for the provision of the Convention and recalled the obligations under the Convention of the parties to the conflict and of the State of Israel as the Occupying Power.

15. The Israeli argument that it is no longer the Occupying Power in respect of the A areas of the Palestinian Territory, accounting for 98 per cent of the population, is not supported by the facts on the ground. The harsh realities of occupation - shelling, tanks and roadblocks - are evident in the A areas, as well as in other areas of the Palestinian Territory. The Palestinian Authority may have powers of administration and local government but ultimately Israel has effective control over the lives of Palestinians throughout the Territory. According to article 42 of the Hague Regulation of 1907, occupation extends only to the territory where the authority of the hostile army " has been established and can be exercised". It cannot seriously be suggested that this threshold has not in recent months been reached in the Palestinian Territory.

IV. VIOLENCE AND LOSS OF LIFE

16. Since the start of the second intifada, in September 2000, nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and about 17,300 injured. More than 260 Israelis have been killed and about 2,400 injured. Most of those killed and injured have been civilians, many of them children.

17. The first few months of the second intifada were characterized by violent clashes between Palestinian protesters, whose weapons were stones and molotov cocktails, and the IDF. Most deaths and injuries were the result of gunfire from the IDF. In its report, the Human Rights Inquiry Commission found that the Israel Defense Forces had responded in a disproportionate manner to protesters and were guilty of excessive use of force (E/CN.4/2001/121, paras. 44-52). Since then, the situation has changed radically as the Palestinians have moved from protest to armed force and the Israelis have responded by using heavier weaponry. Today, most Palestinian deaths have resulted from missile attacks directed at selected individuals suspected of terrorism (but which, inevitably, have also killed innocent bystanders), shelling and shootings carried out by soldiers and settlers, often after an exchange of gunfire. Israeli deaths have largely been caused by terrorist bombs in Israel itself and by gunfire directed at settlers on bypass roads or in the proximity of settlements.

18. It is difficult to categorize the present conflict. At times it assumes the character of a law enforcement action by the IDF. But at others it probably qualifies as an armed conflict as a result of the protracted armed violence between the IDF and Palestinian militia (in the language of the Prosecutor v. Tadi? , International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, reported in (1996) 35 International Legal Materials , at p. 54). In the case of such a conflict both parties are obliged to respect the rules of international humanitarian law. Hence the call by High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on 5 December 2001 to both parties to the conflict to:

"ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects and to distinguish at all times between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. They also call upon the parties to abstain from any measures of brutality and violence against the civilian population whether applied by civilian or military agents and to abstain from exposing the civilian population to military operations".

19. Both Israelis and Palestinians have violated important norms of humanitarian law and international law as the confrontation has changed its character. Israel's freely acknowledged practice of selected assassination or targeted killings of Palestinian activists, which has resulted in the killing of some 60 persons, cannot be reconciled with provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as articles 27 and 32, which seek to protect the lives of protected persons not taking a direct part in hostilities. They also violate human rights norms that affirm the right to life and the prohibition on execution of civilians without trial and a fair judicial process. There is no basis for killing protected persons on the basis of suspicion that they have engaged or will engage in terroristic activities. In addition, many civilians not suspected of any unlawful activity have been killed in these targeted killings, in the bombing of towns and villages or in gunfire exchanges, in circumstances indicating an indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force.

20. The force employed by Palestinians is also contrary to the norms of international law. The shooting of settlers cannot be justified. Despite the fact that the settlements violate article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the fact that the settlers' presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is illegal, settlers remain civilians and cannot be treated as combatants, unless, of course, they are engaged as soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces or in vigilante-type military operations. (The growing militarization of settlements and settlers is to be deplored as it encourages the belief that force may be used against settlers.) Indiscriminate attacks against civilians, including bomb attacks carried out by suicide bombers, intended to create a state of terror among the civilian population, violate norms of humanitarian law and general international law. The extent to which these actions are subject to the control of the Palestinian Authority is uncertain. There is, however, no doubt that it could do more to prevent the shoo ting of settlers and the culture of violence that produces suicide bombers.

21. An unfortunate feature of the present situation is the failure of both parties to the conflict to investigate atrocities and to prosecute and punish those responsible. Israel regularly, and with justification, castigates the Palestinian Authority for its failure to arrest those responsible for the murder of Israelis or to detain those suspected of being responsible for acts of terrorism in Israel. This complaint, which features prominently in the Western media, is used as a justification for refusing to resume negotiations with the Palestinians. Yet Israel is itself at fault in this respect as it too, with its sophisticated police apparatus, has failed to apprehend settler vigilantes responsible for killing Palestinian civilians or to prosecute members of the armed forces guilty of the indiscriminate use of force. In the wake of the killing of a Palestinian family at Idna in July 2001, an Israeli columnist, Gideon Levy, wrote in Ha'aretz on the subject of the Israeli restraint in taking action against those responsible for atrocities against Palestinians:

"In a time of increasing Palestinian terror, no day passes without pogroms by settlers, and the police, the Israel Defense Forces and the other security forces stand there, sometimes closing their eyes and sometimes winking The restraint over actions by the extreme right includes all governmental authorities: the police, the IDF, the Shin Bet, the courts and the authorities that grant pardons. It is a dangerous restraint, whose putrid fruits led to the most recent murder at Idna: the persons who carried it out believed that their chances of getting caught were infinitesimal The restraint undermines Israeli arguments regarding the PA's inability to fight terror: it is a little hard to complain about the 'revolving door', the lack of arrests and failure to prevent terror at a time that Israel, a sovereign State rich in security apparatuses, does the same thing when it comes to its own, home grown terror." (22 July 2001)

22. Violence is escalating rapidly in the region. Israel, with its arsenal of sophisticated weaponry, is taking tougher measures against Palestinians and Palestinian targets. F 16 fighter aircraft and Apache helicopters patrol the skies; heavier bombs pound Palestinian targets; bulldozers plough through more buildings; tanks parade through A area towns; and the military presence at roadblocks intensifies. The Palestinian response is equally tough: while suicide bombers have created terror in the Israeli heartland, militarized groups armed with rifles, mortars and Kassam-2 rockets confront the IDF with new determination, daring and success. In this situation, calls for a ceasefire or a cessation of violence as a precondition for the resumption of talks between Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to fail. Only an effective international presence in the region with the power to monitor and reduce the use of violence can achieve this goal. The Special Rapporteur is aware of Israel's objections to such a proposal: memories of the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Egyptian border facing Israel in 1967; the fear that a United Nations force will be able to curb Israeli conventional violence, but not Palestinian suicide bombers and snipers; and, above all, the argument that this will "internationalize" the conflict. United Nations peacekeeping operations have not met with success on all occasions. This no one can deny. On the other hand, they have served to reduce tensions in many conflicts and, ultimately, to restore peace. The present conflict is already international in the sense that it is one between a State and a nascent State, with many of the characteristics of statehood. The danger is that it will draw in other States in the region. If this is to be avoided and the level of violence brought under control, it seems that there is no alternative to an international peacekeeping mission, structured and composed to meet the special circumstances of the region.

V. SETTLEMENTS

23. The international community is united in its categorization of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as contrary to article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an Occupying Power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. In numerous resolutions the Security Council and the General Assembly have condemned the settlements as illegal and in their Declaration of 5 December 2002, the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention reaffirmed this position.

24. Today, there are some 190 settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, inhabited by approximately 390,000 settlers, of whom some 180,000 live in the East Jerusalem area. Settlements are linked to each other and Israel by a vast system of bypass roads (from which Palestinian vehicles are excluded), which have a 50- to 75-metre buffer zone on each side of the road in which no building is permitted. These settlements and roads, which separate Palestinian communities and deprive Palestinians of agricultural land have fragmented both land and people. In effect, they foreclose the possibility of a Palestinian State as they destroy the territorial integrity of the Palestinian Territory.

25. The relationship between settlers and Palestinians is an unhappy one and each side views the other with hostility, anger and suspicion. Protected by the Israeli military, and exempt from the jurisdiction of the courts of the Palestinian Authority, settlers have committed numerous acts of violence against Palestinians and destroyed Palestinian agricultural land and property. Since the beginning of the second intifada, incidents of settler violence have dramatically increased. Palestinian hostility towards settlers has grown alarmingly since the start of this intifada and most of the Israelis killed in the present conflict have been settlers or soldiers charged with the task of protecting settlements and roads leading to settlements.

26. That peace is impossible without a complete freeze on all settlement activity was emphasized by the "Mitchell report" of 20 May 2001 (report of the Sharm El Sheikh Fact-finding Committee). The response of the Government of Israel to that recommendation was far from satisfactory. It declared that "it is already part of the policy of the Government of Israel not to establish new settlements. At the same time, the current and everyday needs of the development of such communities must be taken into account". In other words, the "natural growth" of the settlements will continue.

27. The evidence of the continued expansion of settlement activity is all too clear. During his visits, the Special Rapporteur saw evidence of this in the form of construction activity in the settlements of Har Homa and Pisgat Ze'ev and in the extension of the buffer zones adjacent to bypass/settler roads in the Gaza Strip. He also received evidence of the growth in the number of housing units, the expansion of the territorial limits of settlements by means of caravan outposts established adjacent to settlements, and of an increase in the settler population in the West Bank and Gaza from 203,067 in December 2000 to 205,015 in June 2001. Generous tax breaks and cheap housing in the settlements ensure that their growth will continue.

VI. BUFFER ZONES

28. A new form of Israeli territorial expansion in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is the security buffer zone along the green line in the northern West Bank near to Jenin. This zone, ranging in width from a few metres to several kilometres, is closed to non-residents. It is likely that the IDF will make greater use of such zones in future. This was promised by Prime Minister Sharon in an address to the Israeli nation on 21 February 2002.

VII. DEMOLITION OF HOUSES AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY

29. The demolition of houses in the Palestinian Territory, either for security purposes (as in Rafah) or for administrative reasons (as in Shu'afat) continues unabated. In the Gaza Strip alone, over 400 houses have been completely destroyed, while a further 200 have been seriously damaged, leaving over 5,000 persons homeless. On 10 January 2002, 60 houses were completely demolished in the refugee camp of Rafah, rendering 614 persons homeless. The Special Rapporteur visited the site of the demolished houses in Rafah in both August 2001 and February 2002. He also visited demolished houses in Shu'afat and saw the damage caused to homes by Israeli shelling in Beit Jala.

30. The demolition of houses generally takes place in the middle of the night, without warning being given to residents. The following account of a house demolition given by a resident of Rafah captures the horror of such an event:

"On Thursday [10 January], I was woken at about 2 a.m. by the sound of tanks and bulldozers that had come from the direction of the Israeli army post. I got out of bed and saw that my sons had also woken up. The bulldozers were approaching the house and we decided to leave immediately. We woke up the others and got out. We managed to proceed a few metres when three bulldozers reached the house. Immediately, one of them started to demolish the house. I stood in the rain for a few moments, unable to believe that I wouldn't ever see my house again. The children were screaming and one of them asked me to run away because he was afraid I would get hurt. We fled to the adjacent street. I stood there with my wife, children, grandchildren and others in my family and watched for 10 minutes as the bulldozer destroyed our house." (B'Tselem, "Israel's policy of house demolitions and destruction of agricultural land in the Gaza Strip", February 2002).

It must be recalled that most persons affected by such demolitions are refugees from the 1948 war. For them it represents the elimination of yet another home. No compensation is paid by Israel.

31. The practice of house demolitions has serious legal consequences. First, it may, according to the Committee against Torture, in certain instances amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in breach of article 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which Israel ratified in 1991 (Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture of November 2001 on the third periodic report of Israel). Secondly, it may, in terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, constitute a grave breach of the Convention, involving penal consequences where it constitutes "an extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly". While there are doubtless instances in which houses have been demolished for genuine security reasons, the extent of the damage and the evidence of witnesses suggests that the destruction of houses in many instances is not "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations" (as required by article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) and instead constitutes collective punishment (prohibited by article 33 of the Convention). Violation of these norms carries with it not only a criminal sanction but also a duty to compensate the victim.

32. The creation of buffer zones for bypass roads and settlements has resulted in the "sweeping" of large areas of agricultural land by bulldozers. A total of 285,808 fruit and olive trees have been uprooted, and wells and agricultural constructions have been destroyed. Lasting harm has been done to the environment by these acts of destruction, designed to secure the comfort and security of illegal settlements.

VIII. RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

33. Since 29 September 2000, Israel has imposed severe restrictions on freedom of movement in the occupied territories. International borders with Egypt and Jordan have been frequently closed; the Gaza Strip has been sealed off from the rest of the Palestinian Territory; Gaza Airport has been closed and damaged; travel within Gaza is frequently obstructed by the closure of the road between north and south; and over a hundred checkpoints have been placed on roads in the West Bank. In the West Bank, the Israel Defense Forces have placed checkpoints at the entrances to villages and entry and exit are often possible only via dirt roads, entailing enormous hardships. Trips that once took 15 minutes now take several hours. In some of the villages, mostly in areas near settlements and bypass roads, the dirt roads have also been blocked with large concrete blocks and piles of dirt, and residents are imprisoned in their villages. In August 2001, the Special Rapporteur visited the city of Jericho, which has been encircled by a deep trench to deny vehicles access to the city except through an IDF checkpoint.

34. Road checkpoints have become a regular feature of Palestinian life. Palestinians are obliged to wait for lengthy periods while Israeli soldiers check vehicles and inspect identity documents. In order to avoid these delays Palestinians often abandon their cars or leave their taxi and cross the checkpoint on foot to catch a taxi on the other side of the checkpoint. This practice suggests that the purpose of this exercise is not to prevent security risks from crossing checkpoints that lead to Israel, as any such person may walk around the checkpoint carrying heavy baggage. Rather, it is to humiliate Palestinians and to put pressure on them to cease resistance to Israeli occupation. In this sense, it is a collective punishment of the kind prohibited by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

IX. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DISTRESS

35. The cumulative effect of the restrictions on the freedom of movement of people and goods is understandably perceived by the Palestinians affected as a siege. It has resulted in severe socio-economic hardships in the Palestinian Territory. The internal closures have effectively sealed Palestinian population centres and restricted movement from one locality to another. The restriction on the entry of Palestinians into Israel has meant denial of access to their places of work in Israel to an estimated 115,000 Palestinians. The economic results have been devastating: the families of these workers are now suffering from a complete lack of income, threatening them with destitution. Thirty-six per cent of the Palestinian workforce is now unemployed, compared with 20 per cent before the start of the intifada. Fifty per cent of Palestinians live below the poverty line of US$2 per day, more than double the poverty rate before the intifada. There has been a decrease in the per capita income of 47 per cent; and 45,000 households are classified as special hardship cases requiring emergency assistance registered with the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Social Affairs. UNSCO estimates that the total income losses to the Palestinian economy during the period 1 October 2000 to 31 December 2001 range between US$ 3.1 and 4.0 billion, which translates into total income losses ranging between US$ 6.8 and 8.8 million per day.

36. Access to food and water has been severely obstructed by the closure. Food trucks face difficulties in entering Gaza in particular, while food prices have increased as a result of higher transport costs resulting from the closure. Water resources have been reduced owing to obstacles placed in the way of water trucks, the destruction of wells, rooftop water tanks and rain collection pools by shelling, the damaging of water sources by settlers and soldiers and the high consumption of water by settlers.

37. Health care and education have also suffered. Ambulances and private vehicles transporting the sick to hospitals in emergency situations are held up at checkpoints, sometimes with fatal consequences. Access to regular health care at hospitals and clinics has also been made difficult by checkpoints and the use of medical services has declined substantially. Special attention is paid below to the effect of the crisis on children and education.

38. The closure violates a number of provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, notably article 11 (which recognizes "the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions") and article 12 (which recognizes "the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health"). It is also impossible to reconcile the closure with articles 23, 55 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which require the free passage of consignments of medical and hospital stores and the free passage of foodstuffs, clothing and medicines intended for certain vulnerable categories of persons and impose a duty to ensure food and medical supplies to the population and to ensure and maintain medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in occupied territories.

X. REFUGEES

39. It is not within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to pronounce on the implementation of the right of return of Palestinian refugees recognized in General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 1948 or on the institutional arrangements for the protection of refugees. No report on the violation of humanitarian law and human rights in the Palestinian Territory would, however, be complete without special mention of the impact of the present crisis on refugees. Comprising over 50 per cent of the Palestinian population, refugees are particularly vulnerable to Israel's military assaults and economic blockade, on account of the location of many refugee camps near to settlements, settlement roads and the Egyptian border, and the disadvantaged position of most refugees in the labour market. More than half of the Palestinians killed since September 2000 have been refugees. The number of houses demolished or severely damaged in refugee camps is at least twice the number outside refugee camps. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees in the Middle East (UNRWA) 320 of the 401 houses demolished in the Gaza Strip were homes to refugees. Unemployment is higher among refugees than non-refugees as is the number of households below the poverty line. Palestinian refugees are particularly vulnerable to higher rates of poverty as a result of negative changes in the economy. This is due to a relative lack of accumulated savings and thus no safety net to protect them from a high dependency on wage labour, the lack of access to land-based forms of subsistence, i.e., agriculture or property, and the large number of dependants per family prevalent in camp populations, which limits the ability of refugee families to absorb drastic and lengthy decreases in income.

XI. CHILDREN

40. Children have suffered severely from the present crisis in terms of personal safety, family life, physical and mental health, education and justice. Although Israeli Military Order No. 132 defines a child as someone under the age of 16, the present report accepts the international standard of 18 (article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989), which is also the position under Israeli law. By this standard, over half the population of Palestine are children.

41. Over 200 of the Palestinians killed since the start of the second intifada in September 2000 have been children, while over 7,000 children have been injured. Of those injured, 500 will experience long-term disabilities. In the early months of the present intifada many children were killed or wounded by the IDF for participating in demonstrations involving the throwing of stones and molotov cocktails. Live ammunition, rubber-coated steel bullets and tear gas were used to disperse demonstrators in a display of excessive and disproportionate use of force (see report of the Human Rights Inquiry Commission of 16 March 2001, E/CN.4/2001/121, paras. 44-52, 116). In the past year, most of the children killed or injured by the IDF were not engaged in confrontational demonstrations, but were victims of shelling by tanks and helicopter gunships, while they were engaged in normal peaceful pursuits. Particularly disturbing are the deaths of five young boys in Khan Yunis on 22 November 2001, caused by a suspicious explosive device, and of three youths crossing a field near Beit Lahia on 30 December 2001, caused by heavy artillery fire. Calls for a full investigation into these deaths have, as yet, not met with a positive response.

42. Inevitably the economic hardships inflicted on the Palestinian community by the "closure" of the Palestinian Territory has had a serious impact on the lives of children. The majority of children in the West Bank and Gaza now live below the poverty line and families are compelled to reduce food consumption. Domestic violence is on the increase and children are becoming increasingly aggressive themselves. Access to hospitals and clinics is obstructed by military checkpoints. And the constant shelling, gunfire and presence of a hostile occupying army has had serious psychological consequences on all, but particularly on children.

43. Education is a top priority in Palestine. There are about 865,500 children enrolled in primary and secondary schools, administered mainly by the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA. Since 1994, many new schools have opened and student numbers have increased substantially. The Palestinian Authority devotes 13 per cent of its budget to education, while more than half of the UNRWA budget goes to education. Education, at all levels, however, has suffered seriously since 29 September 2000, particularly in the 275 schools, with some 118,600 students, within a 500-metre radius of an Israeli military presence.

44. Some schools have been commandeered by the IDF for use as military outposts; others have been bombed; over a hundred have come under fire, both in the daytime when the schools are in session and at night. On 20 February 2001 the National School for the Blind in the West Bank town of Al-Bireh came under fire for three hours, causing extensive damage and traumatizing the disabled children. On some occasions, the IDF has fired tear gas into schools and ordered children to evacuate. Sometimes schools have been closed by the IDF for alleged security reasons or by the school authorities for the safety of the children. The Al-Khader secondary school in the Bethlehem district, which the Special Rapporteur visited, was closed for 45 days by military order, affecting some 2,500 students. This school has been seriously damaged by the IDF, which has on occasion entered the school premises during teaching hours, assaulted students and used tear gas to disperse students. Schools are also hampered by checkpoints, which prevent both students and teachers from reaching school on time, and by military curfews (particularly in Hebron).

45. The effect of the above actions on education has been severe. Schools have lost considerable teaching time as a result of interruption and closures; absenteeism is rife as schools no longer provide a secure environment; and academic performance has deteriorated. Children are afraid and unable to concentrate. It is impossible to assess the long-term psychological harm caused to children by these assaults on their schools, the killing and wounding of their friends and the growing poverty they experience at home. Many have simply lost their childhood.

46. University education has also been adversely affected by the crisis. The University of Bir Zeit, for instance, has lost several weeks of classes as a result of the closure of access roads to the university, while the military checkpoints leading to the university interfere with the normal life of the institution and provide a daily opportunity for harassment of staff and students by the military. The arrest of students has also had a serious impact on university life and cast a shadow on the free exchange of ideas.

47. The right to education is reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 13) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (arts. 28-29). Moreover, article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that the "Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children." It is impossible to reconcile Israel's actions against schools and children with these provisions.

XII. CHILDREN AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

48. Israel is proud of its judicial system and administration of justice. As a nation, Israel is committed to the rule of law and to due process of law in criminal proceedings. There are, however, serious doubts as to whether this commitment extends to the Palestinian Territory, and particularly to the treatment of Palestinian children in the justice system. Consultations with the principal Palestinian, Israeli and international non-governmental organizations working in this field, the study of their carefully prepared reports, backed in some instances by affidavits from their victims, and interviews with several children who were detained, interrogated and imprisoned, reveals an alarming pattern of inhuman treatment of children under the military justice system in the Palestinian Territory. The Special Rapporteur would have preferred to discuss this matter with the Israeli authorities before reporting on it. Unfortunately, the Government of Israel has elected not to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. In these circumstances, the Special Rapporteur has no alternative but to raise the issue as a prima facie case of inhuman treatment to which the Government of Israel should respond.

49. According to the evidence, about 1,000 children under the age of 18 have been arrested and detained since September 2000 in connection with crimes relating to the Palestinian uprising. Most - over 90 per cent have been arrested on suspicion of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers, which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months' imprisonment for a child between 12 and 14, and 12 months' imprisonment for a child between 14 and 16. Children are tried in Israeli military courts. There are no military courts or judges designated especially for children, no officers trained specifically for the interrogation of children, no probation officers and no social workers to accompany them. At present about 150 children are in detention or prison.

50. The evidence indicates the following pattern of arrest, interrogation, detention, sentencing and imprisonment. Arrests occur late at night with the maximum disturbance to the family, and children are often assaulted in the process of arrest and on the way to detention centres. Interrogation in order to secure a confession continues for several days and is accompanied by beating, shaking, threats, sleep deprivation, isolation, blindfolding and handcuffing. Detainees are forced to sit or crouch in painful positions ("shabeh"), doused with cold water in winter, and shot at with toy pistols with plastic pellets from close range. Their heads are placed in the toilet and the toilet flushed. Detainees are not permitted to see their lawyers at this stage. Interrogation accompanied by treatment of this kind may continue for several days until a confession is obtained. The Israeli Supreme Court, in its 1999 decision outlawing physical methods of interrogation, accepted that inhuman methods of interrogation qualifying as torture might be employed in a case of "necessity" - where it is imperative to obtain information urgently about the "ticking bomb". This alleged exception to the prohibition on torture is clearly inapplicable where the aim of the interrogation is not to extract information about a ticking bomb but about stone-throwing by children.

51. Following interrogation, children are often detained for several months awaiting trial. When tried they are sentenced to several months in prison: usually between 7 and 12 months in the case of children over 14. In addition, they are usually fined about US$ 250. They are imprisoned in Israel itself, which makes visits by family and Palestinian lawyers extremely difficult as special permission must be obtained to enter Israel. (Visits arranged by the International Committee of the Red Cross were suspended for several months but have recently been resumed.) These child "political prisoners" are imprisoned with common criminals and complain of assaults perpetrated by both prison guards and common-law prisoners.

52. Complaints about inhuman treatment to medical doctors (both in detention centres and in prison) and to the trial judges in the military courts are generally not investigated or taken seriously.

53. The inhuman treatment of juvenile offenders described above falls short of international standards contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (art. 37), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (arts. 1, 16), the Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners of 1957 and the Fourth Geneva Convention (arts. 27, 31, 32, 76). These are serious allegations which require a serious response from the Israeli authorities. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Israeli authorities conduct a thorough investigation into these allegations (detailed more fully in reports of non-governmental organizations) carried out by an independent body outside the military, police and prison services. At the same time, immediate steps should be taken to transfer those imprisoned in Israel to prison facilities in the occupied territory (as required by article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) that comply with international standards relating to the imprisonment of children. It is also recommended that the military authorities appoint an Israeli judge or other independent Israeli criminal justice expert outside the military to visit detention centres to monitor interrogations and the treatment of juveniles in detention centres before they are brought to trial.

XIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

54. The parties to the conflict are themselves either incapable of or unwilling to bring the violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel to an end. In these circumstances, the need for an international presence, either in the form of monitors or peacekeepers, is surely imperative to reduce violence, restore respect for human rights and create conditions in which negotiations can be resumed. (See further, paragraph 22 above.)

55. International humanitarian law and human rights norms have been seriously violated in the present conflict by both parties. Both Israelis and Palestinians should make every endeavour to respect the rule of law, human rights and humanitarian law. Targeted killings of selected Palestinians by guided missiles, terrorist bombings in Israel, the demolition of homes in the Palestinian Territory and the indiscriminate killing of civilians by both sides must cease.

56. Israel's restrictions on freedom of movement, resulting from checkpoints, have caused great personal, social and economic hardships to civilians in no way involved in the conflict. They constitute collective punishment of the kind prohibited by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Moreover, sufficient doubts have been cast on both the purpose and the effectiveness of checkpoints as a means of promoting security to warrant a serious reconsideration of their retention by the Government of Israel.

57. Settlements are an ever-visible and aggravating sign of occupation and of Israel's illegal conduct as an Occupying Power. It is not enough merely to impose a freeze on settlements. Steps must now start to dismantle settlements.

58. Children have suffered greatly in the present crisis. Every effort should be made by the Israeli military authorities to ensure that the safety and welfare of schools and schoolchildren are respected. It is further recommended that an investigation be conducted into allegations of inhuman treatment of children under the military justice system and that immediate steps be taken to remedy this situation. (See the recommendations contained in paragraph 53 on this subject.)

1/ In document E/CN.4/2002/129 the Government of Israel criticizes the Special Rapporteur for referring to "emerging norms of international law" prohibiting terrorism. Exception is apparently taken to the word "emerging". In response the Special Rapporteur wishes to point out that while the international community has succeeded in criminalizing by treaty species of terrorism such as hijacking, aerial sabotage, hostage-taking, offences against diplomats, seizure of aircraft and terrorist bombing, it has not yet agreed on a comprehensive definition of terrorism. Indeed this issue is currently before the Sixth (legal) Committee of the General Assembly, where the debate over the response to State terror continues to create definitional difficulties.

UNISPAL-select || UNISPAL Home || Printer-friendly (pdf)||Arabic||Chinese||French||Russian||Spanish||

UNITED
NATIONS
A
General Assembly

Distr.
GENERAL
A/57/207
16 September 2002
Original: English
Fifty-seventh session
Item 78 of the provisional agenda*
Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli
Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian
People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories

Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices
Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and
Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories
Note by the Secretary-General **

1. The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the General Assembly the thirty-fourth report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 56/59 of 10 December 2001.

2. This report should be considered together with the Special Committee's periodic reports (A/57/421 and Add.1).

_____________

* A/57/150.

** This report is being submitted on 16 September 2002 so as to include as much updated information as possible.

Summary

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories is composed of three Member States: Sri Lanka (Chairman), Senegal and Malaysia.

The present annual report to the General Assembly reflects the summary of information gathered during the mission of the Special Committee to Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic. In Egypt and Jordan, the Special Committee met with a total of 27 witnesses and NGO representatives, including representatives of Israeli NGOs.

Section IV of the report, summarizing the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories, focuses on issues of particular concern in the light of the testimonies and material received: the right to life; arrest and detention; use of military force against the civilian population; freedom of movement; freedom of the media; humanitarian assistance; medical assistance; the economic impact, including destruction of infrastructure and property; and human rights defenders.

According to information received, the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has deteriorated enormously since Israel's military incursions. Witnesses appearing before the Committee have provided detailed testimony and information referring to dramatic circumstances under which Palestinian citizens have been living during the period under review. Their reports present a grim picture and show a disturbing deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation, coupled with severe violations of the human rights of the Palestinian civilian population.

During its visit to Damascus, the Special Committee received information from the Syrian authorities and met with a number of individuals who are originally from the occupied Syrian Arab Golan. The full report from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic on "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan" is available for consultation. According to the information received, the consequences of the long-term occupation of the Golan have been extensive, affecting all aspects of the life of families, villages and communities.

Contents

Paragraphs

Page

I. Introduction

13

4

II. Mandate

412

4

A. General background

49

4

B. General Assembly resolution 56/59 of 10 December 2001

10

5

C. Reports of the Special Committee

1112

6

III. Organization of work

1326

6

A. Meetings

1320

6

B. Exchanges with other United Nations bodies

2123

8

C. Other matters

2426

8

IV. Human rights situation in the occupied territories

2769

8

1. The right to life

2931

9

2. Economic impact, including destruction of infrastructure and property

3235

9

3. Arrest and detention

3639

10

4. Conditions of detention

40

11

5. Use of military force against the civilian population use of human shields

4146

11

6. Freedom of the press and the media

4751

12

7. Human rights defenders

5254

13

8. Restriction of freedom of movement and curfews

5556

13

9. Right to health and access to medical assistance

5759

14

10. The particular situation of the disabled in Palestine

6065

14

11. Impact on the economic situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

6669

15

V. Situation of human rights in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan

7082

15

1. Background

7174

15

2. Consequences of the occupation

7582

16

VI. Conclusions and recommendations

8392

17

A. Conclusions

8390

17

B. Recommendations

9192

18

Annex

Non-governmental organizations that testified before the Special Committee during its field mission in 2002

20

I. Introduction

1. The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories was established by the General Assembly by its resolution 2443 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968.

2. The Special Committee is composed of three Member States: Malaysia (represented by the Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations, Hasmy Agam), Senegal (represented by the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Absa Claude Diallo) and Sri Lanka (represented by the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, C. Mahendran, serving as Chairperson).

3. The Special Committee reports to the Secretary-General. The reports of the Special Committee are considered in the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) of the General Assembly.

II. Mandate

A. General background

4. The General Assembly, in its resolution 2443 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, entitled "Respect for and implementation of human rights in occupied territories", decided to establish a Special Committee, composed of three Member States, to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.

5. The General Assembly, in its resolution 44/48 A of 8 December 1989, decided to change the name of the Special Committee to Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.

6. The mandate of the Special Committee, as set out in resolution 2443 (XXIII) and subsequent resolutions, was to investigate Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the population of the occupied territories.

7. The Special Committee has proceeded on the basis that:

(a) For the purposes of the present report, the territories considered occupied territories are those remaining under Israeli occupation, namely, the occupied Syrian Arab Golan, 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;

(c) The "human rights" of the population of the occupied territories consist of two elements, namely, those rights which the Security Council referred to as "essential and inalienable human rights" in its resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967 and, secondly, those rights which found their basis in the protection afforded by international law in particular circumstances such as military occupation and, in the case of prisoners of war, capture. In accordance with General Assembly resolution 3005 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972, the Special Committee was 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 come within the scope of investigation by the Special Committee refer, 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" refers to those actions which, irrespective of whether or not they were in implementation of a policy, reflect a pattern of behaviour on the part of the Israeli authorities towards the civilian population in the occupied areas;

(e) The geographical names and the terminology employed in the present report reflect the usage in the original source and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Special Committee or the Secretariat of the United Nations.

8. The Special Committee has, in determining human rights standards and obligations, relied principally on the following:

(a) The Charter of the United Nations;

(b) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of 10 December 1948;1

(c) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of 16 December 1966; 2

(d) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of 16 December 1966;2

(e) The (Fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;3

(f) The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 12 August 1949;4

(g) The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, of 14 May 1954;5

(h) The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.6

9. 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.

B. General Assembly resolution 56/59 of 10 December 2001

10. The General Assembly, in its resolution 56/59 of 10 December 2001:

"5. Requests the Special Committee, pending complete termination of the Israeli occupation, to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, especially Israeli lack of compliance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and to consult, as appropriate, with the International Committee of the Red Cross according to its regulations in order to ensure that the welfare and human rights of the peoples of the occupied territories are safeguarded and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arises thereafter;

"6. Also requests the Special Committee to submit regularly to the Secretary-General periodic reports on the current situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem;

"7. Further requests the Special Committee to continue to investigate the treatment of prisoners in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967".

C. Reports of the Special Committee

11. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 56/59, in 2002 the Special Committee submitted a periodic report, relating to the period from July to August 2002 (A/57/421).

12. The present report for the year 2002 is also submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 56/59.

III. Organization of work

A. Meetings

13. The Special Committee met in Geneva on 20 and 21 June 2002 to consider its programme and organization of work for 2002. The Special Committee met with and was addressed by a representative of the International Labour Organization knowledgeable as to conditions in the occupied territories. The Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations Office at Geneva and the Permanent Observer of the Palestinian Authority to the United Nations Office at Geneva also met with and addressed the Special Committee.

14. The Special Committee has not, since its establishment in 1968, had access to the occupied territories. As in previous years, in a letter addressed to the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva, copied to the Secretary-General, the Special Committee requested that it be given access to the occupied territories. There was no response to the letter.

15. As in previous years, in order that the Special Committee might meet with and hear statements from persons with personal knowledge of the occupied territories, the Special Committee convened in Cairo from 24 to 28 June, in Amman from 29 June to 2 July, and in Damascus from 4 to 6 July. The Special Committee wishes to express its deep appreciation for the cooperation it received from the Governments of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic.

16. In Cairo (24-28 June), the Special Committee met with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt and the Deputy Secretary-General of the League of Arab States. The Committee also received statements under oath of persons with personal knowledge of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

17. In Amman (29 June-2 July), the Special Committee met with the Director of the Department of International Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Jordan and also received the testimony of persons from Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

18. In Damascus (4-6 July), the Special Committee met with the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and received a report from the Director for International Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who also addressed the Special Committee. The Special Committee visited Quneitra Province, bordering the occupied Syrian Arab Golan, and met with the Governor of Quneitra and also heard statements under oath in Quneitra of persons with personal knowledge of the occupied Syrian Arab Golan.

19. A total of 27 witnesses, and NGO representatives, including a number of Israeli Arab and Jewish witnesses, out of an aggregate of 34 scheduled witnesses whose attendance had previously been confirmed, were heard by the Special Committee. (The annex to the present report contains a list of NGOs that testified before the Special Committee.) While the Special Committee was in the region, from 24 June to 6 July, there were a number of incidents of great violence in the occupied territories. It is the understanding of the Special Committee that difficulties created by the high tensions within the occupied territories and severe restrictions on movement within and out of the occupied territories prevented the attendance of other witnesses, as had been previously arranged.

20. The materials and testimony considered by the Special Committee included the following:

Testimony and documentary materials provided by persons knowledgeable as to the occupied territories

Testimony provided under oath and recorded by United Nations verbatim reporters. These materials are available for consultation

Various documentary materials

Written materials received from the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic

Articles appearing in The Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz and The Jerusalem Times in 2000 and 2001

Report dated 24 April 2002 of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights submitted to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-eighth session pursuant to its decision 2002/103 (E/CN.4/2002/184)

Report dated 6 March 2002 of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 (E/CN.4/2002/32)

B. Exchanges with other United Nations bodies

21. The Special Committee considers it necessary to note, as it also did in its report last year and the year before, that when a United Nations body, such as the Special Committee, undertakes a mission to the field, it is mutually beneficial and necessary that there should be exchanges of views with United Nations bodies with knowledge of relevant matters, the work of the Special Committee being part of the totality of a United Nations endeavour.

22. The Special Committee wishes to record with appreciation the helpful cooperation extended, as in the past, to the Special Committee by the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator for the Syrian Arab Republic.

23. The Special Committee also wishes to record its appreciation of the readiness expressed by the Department of Public Information of the United Nations Secretariat to be of assistance to the Special Committee whenever requested.

C. Other matters

24. The Special Committee recognizes that because of lack of access to the occupied territories its report to the General Assembly is limited by its inability to observe directly the conditions of the lives of the Palestinians and other Arabs of the occupied territories and to receive the views of representatives of the occupying authority.

25. Nonetheless, notwithstanding such limitations, the Special Committee has sought to convey to the General Assembly in its report what the Special Committee understands to be the conditions affecting human rights in the occupied territories.

26. The information provided to the Special Committee from documentary material and oral testimony was considerable. Where oral testimony was provided, a record of the oral testimony was maintained by United Nations verbatim reporters and is available for consultation.

IV. Human rights situation in the occupied territories

27. This section is based on the information made available to the members of the Special Committee and on other material published by non-governmental organizations as well as United Nations organizations. It focuses on issues of particular concern in the light of this material: the right to life; arrest and detention; use of military force against the civilian population; freedom of movement; freedom of the press and the media; humanitarian assistance; medical assistance; the economic impact, including destruction of infrastructure and property; and human rights defenders. The report covers the period immediately before and following the military operation undertaken by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the end of March 2002.

28. The human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has deteriorated enormously since Israel's most recent military incursions. Witnesses appearing before the Committee have provided detailed testimonies and information referring to dramatic circumstances under which Palestinian citizens have been living during the period under review. Witnesses mentioned that in some instances, information was difficult to obtain as the IDF restricted and denied access to any monitoring presence in areas where they were operating. Nonetheless, their reports present a grim picture and show a disturbing deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation coupled with severe violations of the human rights of the Palestinian civilian population.

1. The right to life

29. According to Palestinian sources, IDF incursions into Palestinian towns and villages resulted in over 1,300 Palestinians deaths and over 20,000 injured in the period from the end of September 2001 to June 2002.

30. Since 29 March 2002, IDF has reoccupied the town of Ramallah and other cities, including Qalqilya, Tulkarem, Bethlehem, Jenin and Nablus. Tanks and snipers have been used in clashes between IDF and Palestinian armed groups. Palestinian civilians have been unlawfully killed and there have been reports of extrajudicial executions. Reports indicate that Israeli forces have used overwhelming and indiscriminate military force against Palestinian communities, such as intense bombardment as well as mass demolition of houses, most notably in Nablus and the Jenin refugee camp. A number of Palestinian civilians have also died after Israeli forces prevented emergency medical teams from reaching them.

31. On 12 April 2002, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions distributed a press release in which she stressed the "urgent need to investigate the allegations [of extrajudicial and summary executions by Israeli forces in connection with recent operations in the Jenin refugee camp] promptly".7 She drew the attention of the Israeli Government to the fact that the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and the media were being denied access to the area and emphasized that "if the Government of Israel continues to deny access, it will only lend further credibility to the allegations made by independent sources".

2. Economic impact, including destruction of infrastructure and property

32. According to witnesses appearing before the Committee, a considerable number of official, public, private or non-governmental organizations have been damaged, in some cases severely. Witnesses mentioned that, after 29 March 2002, Israeli military raided many installations such as medical facilities, schools, religious buildings as well as official buildings of the Palestinian Authority. Most of the buildings and their contents, including office equipment, computers and documents, have been destroyed and/or stolen.

33. Israeli forces have also reportedly entered hundreds of private homes searching for wanted persons and arms, damaging or destroying the houses and household property. In areas such as Tulkarem, Jenin, Nablus and in the adjoining refugee camps, Israeli forces have used heavy weaponry and damaged large numbers of homes.

34. Witnesses estimate that the destruction of Palestinian homes alone has left several thousand people homeless. Local sources in Jenin estimate that approximately one third of the homes in the Jenin refugee camp have been destroyed since 3 April by Israeli bulldozers in a process referred to as "shaving". There are reports as well of homes being bulldozed on top of the people inside them in the Jenin refugee camp and in the Yasmina quarter in Nablus. Tank shells, missiles and indiscriminate heavy machine-gun fire from Apache helicopters have also heavily damaged refugee shelters and homes. One witness said that an investigation undertaken after the events of April 2002 suggests that the property destruction and house demolition in the Jenin refugee camp, inhabited by 13,000 refugees, have left 4,000 individuals homeless.

35. During the first three months of 2002, for example, Israeli military forces demolished more than 200 refugee shelters and damaged more than 2,000 others in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The total damage to refugee shelters during the first three months of 2002, not including the large number of shelters destroyed in April, is equal to more than half of the entire damage resulting from Israeli military assaults since the beginning of the Palestinian uprising.

3. Arrest and detention

36. Many witnesses reported that the number of Palestinians arrested since 29 September 2001 remain indeterminate. It was reported that Israeli authorities do not publish information on the number of prisoners and detainees, and families and lawyers face great difficulties in locating a detainee after his/her arrest.

37. One witness informed the Special Committee that during the two major incursions of the Israel Defense Forces into the occupied Palestinian territories, in February and late March respectively, the number of Palestinians arrested amounted to 10,000. Some have been released, but about 4,000 persons remain in detention, including 38 women prisoners, of whom 28 are being held in Neve Tirza, one under administrative detention. A total of 280 children have also been detained, 70 of them in Tel Mond Prison and the others in the Ofer and Megiddo military detention centres. There are also 959 administrative detainees in the Megiddo and Ofer military detention centres.

38. Many witnesses drew attention to current arrest and detention rules applied by IDF in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Pursuant to an order issued by the OC Central Commander on 5 April 2002, "Order 1500", anyone detained on or after 29 March 2002 can be held for 18 days before being brought before a judge. After eight days, detainees are allowed to plead their case. Another provision denies detainees access to a lawyer during the 18 days of detention. A number of NGOs in Israel filed an urgent petition to the High Court of Justice on the same day. The organizations demanded that detainees be allowed to meet with lawyers and that the court prohibit the use of physical force against the detainees during interrogation. In the court hearing held on 7 April 2002, the State claimed that the order was justified in view of the combat nature of the situation and the large number of detainees. It also stated that it was unaware of any cases of torture during interrogation and that it could not investigate general allegations such as those presented in the petition. The Court decided to reject the petition and accept the arguments of the State. Israeli law acknowledges the right of a detainee to see a lawyer as a basic right. It is enshrined in the "Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty" as well as in military legislation. Denial of this right is permitted only in extreme cases, when it is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the investigation or for security reasons. The view of the human rights defenders is that there has been a contravention of the law which is particularly alarming in the light of the State admission that, during the current wave of detentions, Palestinians were detained according to broad criteria of age and gender, and many simply because they were present in the area where detentions were being carried out and not because they were under suspicion. Under these circumstances, it is impossible, according to the NGOs working on this matter, to accept claims that denying detainees the basic right to meet with lawyers complies with the exceptions outlined in the law. It is also clear that the ban on such meetings is not made on an individual basis, and that the State has turned the narrow exceptions that the law reserves for extreme cases into a norm.

39. In order for the Israel Defense Forces to absorb the large number of detainees, witnesses informed the Special Committee that detention centres have been reopened, such as the Ketziot and Ofer military detention centres. According to the same source, central prisons in Israel have also been expanded by opening new sections, such as the Nisan section in the Ramleh prison and new sections in the Nafha and Beersheva prisons.

4. Conditions of detention

40. Based on the testimony of former detainees, most of the witnesses appearing before the Special Committee provided information about the difficult conditions in the detention centres. Confessions are said to be obtained from detainees under harsh interrogations during solitary confinement. These confessions are then used as the primary evidence during the trial of these detainees. Detainees reported about the difficult conditions of their detention, such as overcrowded cells and tents, denial of food for many hours and the fact that some of them were forced to sleep outdoors. Hygiene and sanitation conditions in the reopened Ketziot military detention centre in the Negev desert in southern Israel reportedly fail to meet minimum international standards for conditions of detention.

5. Use of military force against the civilian population use of human shields

41. Many witnesses reported that Israeli military forces had taken Palestinian civilians hostage and used them as human shields.

42. On 12 April 2002, according to Director-General Paul Grossrieder of the International Committee of the Red Cross, at least eight Red Crescent personnel were used as human shields by the Israeli military. Mr. Grossrieder described as absolutely unacceptable the fact that "useless humiliations take place and are taking place" against Red Cross and Red Crescent staff and delegates in the field.

43. Many witnesses reported about the IDF practice of coercing civilians to assist military personnel and operations when raiding Palestinian villages, towns and refugee camps to arrest "wanted" Palestinians. The targets of these raids were persons alleged by the Israeli authorities to have planned or participated in attacks against Israeli military targets or against Israeli civilians. The raids began shortly after the assassination of then Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi on 18 October 2001.

44. While the location and scale of the raids have varied, the dynamics have been the same. Witnesses described to the members of the Special Committee how "wanted" Palestinians were taken at gunpoint to knock on doors, open strange packages and search houses in which IDF suspected armed Palestinians were present. Families found their houses taken over and used as military positions by IDF during an operation while they themselves were ordered to remain inside.

45. One witness appearing before the Special Committee reported that he had interviewed two people who had been used as human shields in the Jenin refugee camp, one of whom was 15 years old. The child had been placed in a window in front of Israeli soldiers for an hour and a half with the rifle of an IDF soldier on his shoulder.

46. On 18 April 2002, Adalah (the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel) sent a pre-petition to the Attorney General's office demanding that it compel IDF to stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields in military operations. Although the army had previously denied using Palestinians as human shields, an article published by Ha'aretz on 18 April revealed that this practice had been and was currently in use.

6. Freedom of the press and the media

47. Since the beginning of the current intifada, journalists have faced various difficulties and restrictions in the course of their duties. A witness appearing before the Special Committee indicated that many journalists, especially those residing in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, have regularly faced acts of humiliation and numerous threats and assaults from the Israel Defense Forces and settlers.

48. Reporters sans Frontires has documented a number of cases in which it identified cases of journalists shot and killed by IDF and others physically injured in the legs and hands. The witness recalled other cases where settlers assaulted journalists in sight of the Israeli security forces and the soldiers have failed to intervene to protect them. The following cases have been brought to the attention of the Special Committee:

49. A photographer working for Gamma News Service was shot in the leg while he was covering clashes near Ramallah. IDF troops opened fire on him at close range from a distance of 100 metres. The bullet entered his knee, causing nerve damage in his leg, and he took two months to recover. A Palestinian working with Reuters was attacked by two Jewish settlers while he was covering clashes in the West Bank. When he tried to defend himself, the IDF soldier attacked him with a rifle butt and threatened to shoot him. A cameraman working for a foreign news agency was attacked by settlers in Hebron while he was filming events there. A settler stabbed him in the leg with a bottle and struck him in the head with a stone. The journalist's lip was injured and he lost three teeth. A group of settlers tried to attack his equipment as well. The IDF escorted him out of the area. Israeli soldiers attacked an ABC News reporter while he was covering a Palestinian demonstration in the West Bank. The soldiers also confiscated his press card and camera. They took him to a military area and detained him there for two hours before releasing him. A female correspondent working for Abu Dhabi TV was shot by IDF while she and two other colleagues were in Rafah interviewing people whose homes had been destroyed by IDF troops. Two shots were fired in the journalists' direction from an IDF military position. When the crew tried to flee, another bullet was fired. At the time the IDF opened fire there were no clashes taking place and the journalists were clearly identifiable from their cameras and equipment. One bullet hit the journalist, injuring her.

50. The witness referred to a deliberate policy of preventing journalists from documenting the events occurring in the West Bank in March-April 2002. In some cases IDF confiscated journalists' equipment and press credentials and refused to renew the press cards of many journalists, thus preventing them from gaining access to areas to cover events as well as to attend official government events and press conferences.

51. A number of Palestinian TV and radio stations such as those located in Hebron, Qalqilya, Jenin and Ramallah have been completely destroyed without prior notice, making it impossible for equipment to be removed beforehand.

7. Human rights defenders

52. Witnesses indicated that, since 29 March 2002, Israeli authorities have hindered local and foreign human rights defenders from pursuing their daily activities of monitoring and documenting human rights violations in the West Bank. Many representatives of NGOs have been unable to reach Palestinian locations because they have been declared "closed military areas".

53. In addition, IDF reportedly raided some offices of human rights organizations as well as the main office of the official national human rights institution, the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights, in Ramallah.

54. Hina Jilani, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders, received several complaints of violations of the rights of human rights defenders in Israel and the occupied territories. She had already raised several cases in her last report to the Commission on Human Rights, 8 mainly on the arrest by Israeli forces of human rights defenders following their attempt to attend international seminars or meetings on human rights, which generally took place abroad. The Special Representative received allegations of the Israeli authorities' efforts to prevent a certain number of Palestinian human rights activists based in the Gaza Strip from participating in international conferences and forums. Most had been banned from leaving Gaza. In all of the above-mentioned cases, the Special Representative has taken appropriate action within the framework of her mandate.

8. Restriction of freedom of movement and curfews

55. The increasing restrictions on population movements culminated in March-April 2002 with the imposition of curfews directly affecting some 600,000 people, or nearly 30 per cent of the population of the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. The curfew regime has been enforced by the deployment of armoured vehicles in city and town centres and at key positions throughout the affected areas.

56. Many households in the besieged areas, after experiencing the Israeli reoccupation of several of the main West Bank cities and refugee camps from 12 to 14 March 2002, began to stock food and other provisions when the likelihood of further reoccupations emerged in the days prior to 29 March. However, continuing restrictions on movement and panic-buying reduced available stocks of goods in many urban shops, and commercial stocks of food are reportedly exhausted throughout the West Bank, suggesting that the lifting of curfews alone cannot improve civilians' access to vital supplies in any significant way.

9. Right to health and access to medical assistance

57. Several witnesses expressed concern about the flagrant lack of respect for the providers of medical services, referring to attacks against medical staff and installations. Delays lasting several hours at checkpoints, denial of safe passage and quick access to victims, and harassment of ambulance staff have seriously hampered the delivery of urgently needed medical and humanitarian assistance.

58. The adverse impact of closures and prolonged curfews on Palestinian villages and towns have severely restricted the access of civilians, especially women, to life-saving services such as emergency obstetric care.

59. Witnesses referred to the fact that the current crisis has adversely affected not only Palestinians' general physical health and health-care facilities, but also their psychosocial well-being. Trauma and stress have already become a serious health problem, especially for women and young people.

10. The particular situation of the disabled in Palestine

60. One witness provided the Special Committee with information regarding the particular situation of the disabled in the occupied Palestinian territories. His testimony is reflected below.

61. There are 100,000 disabled persons throughout Palestine. Their disabilities are either congenital or the result of accidents. During the first intifada (1987-94), about 15,000 people became disabled as a result of the actions of the Israeli army and the settlers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. During the current intifada, roughly 5,300 additional individuals have become permanently disabled through various acts of aggression committed against them.

62. The origin of these disabilities lies in incidents at the checkpoints as well as the shelling and the shooting of youth and adults. One of the examples cited by the witness was that of a 13-year-old boy, Wajdi Awajerboa, from the Gaza Strip who was shot in the head and as a result lost the sight of both eyes.

63. Disabled persons have also been subjected to various acts of aggression. In the Jenin refugee camp, for example, three blind youth were left handcuffed in the street for two and a half days. Other individuals with disabilities were also exposed to shooting.

64. Schools and facilities for the disabled in Palestine have also been targeted by the Israeli army. The national school for blind girls in Ramallah was shelled several times in February 2001. As a result some of the children still experience serious fearful reactions at night and cannot sleep. In another instance, the bus of a Palestinian school for the deaf, belonging to the Palestinian Red Crescent in Ramallah, was also subjected to light shelling.

65. The rehabilitation sector has also been seriously affected. Among the most affected are epileptic individuals and the deaf. As a result of the sanctions and blockades, many cannot obtain medicines and are now in critical situation. Service providers from community-based rehabilitation programmes that go to the villages and perform activities for individuals with disabilities cannot carry out their work on a regular basis. Also, the rate of student absences from the special schools is very high. In other places, such as the Jenin camp, the offices and facilities of the local rehabilitation committee have been totally destroyed.

11. Impact on the economic situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

66. This section addresses the economic and social implications of the Israeli military incursions into the main population centres in the West Bank that began in the early hours of 29 March 2002.

67. The growth of poverty is especially severe for the thousands of households dependent, in whole or in part, on wage income earned in Israel.9 During the fourth quarter of 2001, it was estimated that as many as 68,000 Palestinians were employed in Israel and Israeli settlements and industrial zones. Of these, some 45,000 were from the West Bank. These workers earned about US$ 1.1 million per day.10 Under conditions of siege in the population centres, and with heavy concentrations of Israeli forces along the Green Line, Palestinian households are presumably losing nearly all of this income.

68. Estimates suggest that, excluding Jerusalem, the West Bank accounted for about 55 per cent of total Palestinian gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001 (about $2.2 billion, or some $7 million a day). Assuming that 75 per cent of this is produced in the reoccupied areas, where production has virtually ceased, the direct effect of the imposed curfews is the loss to Palestinian businesses of an estimated $5.2 million in daily output/income.11 The inability of businesses and farmers/agricultural producers outside the immediately affected areas to engage commercially with businesses inside these areas is imposing additional losses. The immediate effect of the siege is a major supply-side shock which ultimately translates into reduced household income for the owners and employees of affected businesses. This further dampens total demand for the products and services of the private sector, reinforcing the downward spiral in output.

69. Preliminary reports suggest that commercial buildings, office equipment and other business and private bank assets, including databases on computer drives, have been damaged, destroyed or looted by Israeli forces.12 Businesses will face the added costs of repairing or rebuilding damaged or destroyed assets and, given the depressed economic environment, it is anticipated that many will be unable to restore capacity without assistance.

V. Situation of human rights in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan

70. During its visit to Damascus, the Special Committee received from the Director of the International Organizations Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic the text of the report entitled " Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan". The full text of the report is available for consultation.

1. Background

71. As has been observed in previous reports of the Special Committee, the Golan has been occupied since 1967. On 14 December 1981, Israel decided to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Golan; this was in effect an annexation of the territory.

72. On 17 December 1981, in its resolution 497 (1981), the Security Council considered the annexation null and void.

73. In its resolution 53/57 of 3 December 1998, the General Assembly decided that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purported to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan were null and void, constituted a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and had no legal effect. The annexation also has not been accepted or recognized by the Arab population of the Golan.

74. Thus the annexation has never been recognized by the United Nations.

2. Consequences of the occupation

75. As the occupation of the Golan has extended over a long period of time, the consequences of the occupation, in terms of its effects on the occupied Golan and its population, have been extensive, affecting all aspects of life and families, villages and communities.

76. Syrian government officials with whom the Committee met emphasized that the occupation itself was one of the most serious forms of human rights violations and that for the violations to end the occupation itself had to be terminated. They stated that the situation of human rights had not improved in the course of the reporting period.

77. The Special Committee was informed that, not only did the occupation involve daily suffering of the population living under occupation, but their identity and culture were also at stake.

78. The Special Committee was furthermore informed that there had been no change in Israeli policy regarding the occupied Golan, that the number of settlers had increased and that existing settlements had been expanded during the period under review. Relations between the settlers and the Arab population of the occupied Golan were tense in particular where there were settlements located close to Syrian villages.

79. There were numerous instances in which the attention of the Special Committee was drawn to the widespread nature of the consequences of the occupation: the intention of the Israeli authorities to increase significantly the number of settlers, persistent Judaization of life in the occupied Golan and falsification of history at the expense of the Arab population.

80. There were also widespread economic consequences of the occupation. The economic constraints exercised by the Israelis over the occupied Golan were also shown, the Committee was informed, in the lack of equal employment opportunities, heavy taxes, fixed low prices imposed on apples, on the main agricultural produce, arbitrary arrest and detention, and inadequate health care. Deterioration of the environment caused by the Israeli authorities has resulted from the uprooting of trees, burning of forests, and the release of chemical residue from Israeli factories and waste from settlements.

81. The economic situation of Syrians in the occupied Golan is compounded by the lack of job opportunities. Many qualified Arabs from the occupied Golan are employed in menial jobs and are sometimes dismissed arbitrarily by their Israeli employers. Many workers are never paid or are not paid in full. Settlers compete with Syrians in economic terms in the area of agriculture, the principal activity of the Arab population of the occupied Golan. The competition is rendered more uneven by the restricted access of the Syrian inhabitants to water compared with the settlers.

82. One of the principal negative impacts of the occupation of the occupied Syrian Golan has been the separation of families who live on either side of the valley constituting the demarcation line. Syrian students returning to their families in the occupied Syrian Golan reportedly face, upon arrival, severe hours of questioning, and the presents they bring with them are confiscated. Others are held in arbitrary detention for many days, facing torture and humiliation.

VI. Conclusions and recommendations

A. Conclusions

83. Confrontations between the occupying authority and the Palestinians, the escalating violence, the death and injury caused to both Palestinians and Israelis, the greatly disproportionate force used by the occupying authority, resulting in far greater losses to the Palestinians, have had the most devastating consequences in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

84. The considerable and extensive controls themselves and the very severe manner in which such controls have been enforced by the Israeli authorities are, in the view of the Special Committee, totally inconsistent with human rights standards and obligations. Such controls and methods of enforcement are also, in the view of the Special Committee, in breach of a number of provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

85. Throughout the years of occupation, Israeli authorities have put in place a comprehensive and elaborate system of laws and regulations and administrative measures that affect all aspects of the lives of the Palestinian and Syrian peoples in the occupied territories. The laws and regulations are so framed that they vest in officials a considerable degree of authority and latitude over the lives of the people of the occupied territories. Moreover, during periods of violence, such exercise of control makes the lives of the Palestinian and Syrian peoples in the occupied territories even more unbearable.

86. Bitterness at their treatment by the Israeli authorities and the sense of dispossession, hopelessness and despair of the people of the occupied territories caused to a large extent, it seems to the Special Committee, by lack of progress in the peace process and a lack of tangible benefits for the people of the occupied territories, make the situation in those territories one of the greatest urgency.

87. Most regrettably, the only conclusion that now seems possible, from statements made and materials provided to the Special Committee, is that the human rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories are being harshly ignored.

88. There was among the witnesses appearing before the Special Committee a sense of hopelessness, frustration and anger directed not only against the Occupying Power, but also the international community, including the Special Committee itself, in connection with its inability to provide relief to the hardship experienced by the people of the occupied territories.

89. A number of persons appearing before the Special Committee spoke of the continuing violations of their human rights, for which no relief appeared to be provided. While peace process discussions were very desirable, it was imperative that human rights in the occupied territories be given immediate attention, and there was a feeling that this was not being done and that was the cause of great frustration.

90. Finally, while the Special Committee reiterates its regrets for the lack of cooperation from the Israeli authorities which resulted, inter alia, to its inability to visit the occupied territories, it was very pleased to receive before it a number of Israeli nationals, working in the field of human rights, who appeared before the Special Committee to speak about their own work with Palestinians.

B. Recommendations

91. The Special Committee believes that the observations made in its previous report to the General Assembly continue to be valid. The Special Committee also recommends the following:

(a) The Israeli military operation must be brought to an end;

(b) Full application of the Fourth Geneva Convention is vital to guarantee respect for the fundamental human rights of civilian populations in time of war and occupation. Article 1 of the Convention places a duty on all the High Contracting Parties "to respect and to ensure respect" for its provisions "in all circumstances";

(c) All parties to the conflict must respect the full compliance with international human rights standards as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two International Covenants;

(d) There needs to be accountability on all sides for what has happened, as well as steps taken to ensure that, in future, proper rules and safeguards are in place to prevent violations of the human rights of both peoples, Palestinians and Israelis. In this context, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive investigation into alleged breaches of international human rights and humanitarian law, an investigation that would be independent of the parties but conducted with their full cooperation.

92. The Special Committee also believes that it is important for its members to have access to the occupied territories in order to witness for itself the actual situation obtaining there with respect to the issue of human rights as well as to ascertain the views of the Government of Israel pertaining to the subject.

Notes

1 General Assembly resolution 217 A (III).

2 See General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.

3 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973.

4 Ibid., No. 972.

5 Ibid., vol. 249, No. 3511.

6 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 , New York, Oxford University Press, 1915.

7 E/CN.4/2002/184, para. 12.

8 E/CN.4/2002/106, paras. 217-224.

9 The World Bank has noted the strong correlation between employment in Israel and Palestinian poverty rates. See World Bank, Poverty in the West Bank and Gaza (Washington, January 2001), chap. 2.

10 Employment and wage income data are estimates provided by the United Nations Office of the Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories (UNSCO), based on the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) labour force survey for the fourth quarter of 2001.

11 UNSCO estimates based on national income account data for 2000 provided by PCBS, January 2001. The GDP estimate for 2001 was determined using the World Bank estimate of a 12 per cent real decline in Palestinian GDP compared with 2000. The daily GDP estimate is based on a 312-day Palestinian work year (excluding weekends and holidays). Estimates are quoted in 2000 prices.

12 See World Bank, Fifteen Months, March 2002, chap. 3.

Annex

Non-governmental organizations that testified before the Special Committee during its field mission in 2002

Adalah: The Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Jerusalem

Addameer Prisoners' Support Association, Jerusalem

Al Haq "Law in the Service of Man"

Al-Dameer Association for Human Rights, Gaza

Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights, Gaza

Citizens' Rights Centre, Gaza

Defence Children International, Jerusalem

Gaza Centre for Rights and Law

Gaza Community Mental Health Programme

General Union of Disabled Palestinians, Ramallah

Hamoked: Centre for the Defence of the Individual, Jerusalem

Israeli Committee against House Demolition

Jerusalem Centre for Human Rights

Jerusalem Centre for Social and Economic Rights, Jerusalem

LAW Society, Jerusalem

Mandela Institute, Ramallah

Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee (PARC), Jerusalem

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Gaza

Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG), Jerusalem

Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights, Gaza

May 2002 Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

ISRAEL, THE OCCUPIED WEST BANK

AND GAZA STRIP, AND THE PALESTINIAN

AUTHORITY TERRITORIES

JENIN: IDF MILITARY OPERATIONS

I. About this research.....................................................................................................................................3

II. Summary..................................................................................................................................................3

III. Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................5

To the government of Israel: ........................................................................................................................5

To the Palestinian Authority and armed Palestinian groups:...........................................................................6

To the government of the United States:.......................................................................................................6

To the Member States of the European Union:..............................................................................................7

To the United Nations Security Council and Secretariat.................................................................................8

To the International Community ..................................................................................................................8

IV. Background: The Battle Inside Jenin Refugee Camp ...................................................................................8

V. Applicable Legal Standards ......................................................................................................................10

Prohibition on the Indiscriminate and Disproportional Use of Force .............................................................10

Military Necessity....................................................................................................................................11

Limits on the Destruction of Civilian Property ............................................................................................12

VI. Civilian Casualties and Unlawful Killings in Jenin ....................................................................................12

Shooting of Hani Abu Rumaila, April 3......................................................................................................13

Shooting of nurse Farwa Jammal, April 3 ...................................................................................................14

The Shooting of Civilian Imad Musharaka, April 3 .....................................................................................15

Shooting of Muhammad Hawashin, April 3 ................................................................................................15

Shooting of Ahmad Hamduni, April 3 ........................................................................................................15

The Murder of Palestinian Militant Munthir al-Haj, April 3 .........................................................................16

Shooting of Atiya Abu Rumaila, April 5.....................................................................................................17

Shooting of Abd al-Nasr Gharaib, April 5...................................................................................................18

Bombing Death of Afaf Disuqi, April 5.....................................................................................................19

Shooting of Abd al-Karim Saadi and Wadah Shalabi, April 6 .....................................................................20

Shooting of Munir Wishahi and Mariam Wishahi, April 6 ...........................................................................21

Bombing of Yusra Abu Khurj, April 6........................................................................................................21

Shooting of Nizar Mutahin, April 6............................................................................................................22

The Bulldozing Death of Jamal Fayid, April 6 ............................................................................................22

The Shooting of Jamal al-Sabbagh, April 6.................................................................................................23

The Shooting of Ali Muqasqas, April 7 ......................................................................................................24

Shooting of Muhammad Abu Sabaa, April 9..............................................................................................25

Killing of Nayif Abd al-Jabr and Amid Fayid, April 10.............................................................................26

Killing of Kamal Zghair, April 10..............................................................................................................27

Killing of Faris Zaiban, April 11................................................................................................................28

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

2

VII. Human Shielding and the Use of Civilians for Military Purposes ..............................................................29

Use of Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields ............................................................................................29

Use of Palestinian Civilians for Military Purposes.......................................................................................33

VIII. Medical and Humanitarian Access, and Attacks against Medical Personnel..............................................36

Lack of Access to Medical Treatment.........................................................................................................37

Attacks on Ambulances and Medical Personnel..........................................................................................38

Denial of Humanitarian Access..................................................................................................................41

IX. Disproportionate and Indiscriminate Use of Force Without Military Necessity by the IDF...........................42

Destruction of the Civilian Infrastructure....................................................................................................42

Inability of Civilians to Flee ......................................................................................................................44

Indiscriminate Helicopter Fire ...................................................................................................................46

Insufficient Warnings Issued by IDF..........................................................................................................48

X. Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................49

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

3

I. ABOUT THIS RESEARCH

A Human Rights Watch team of three experienced researchers spent seven days in Jenin from April 19,

2002 to April 28, 2002 to research this report. The team interviewed over one hundred residents of Jenin refugee

camp, gathering detailed accounts from victims and witnesses and carefully corroborating and cross-checking

their accounts with those of others. Human Rights Watch investigators also collected information from other

first-hand observers of the events in the Jenin refugee camp, including international aid workers, medical workers,

and local officials. The research also included information from public sources, including Israeli governmental

sources, about the incursion. However, the IDF has not agreed to Human Rights Watchs repeated requests for

information about its military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Although Human Rights Watchs

research has been extensive, we do not pretend that it is comprehensive. Further inquiry is still in order,

particularly as the excavation process proceeds, and if Israel ultimately decides to make its soldiers involved in

the operation available for interview.

II. SUMMARY

On April 3, 2002, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched a major military operation in the Jenin refugee

camp, home to some fourteen thousand Palestinians, the overwhelming majority of them civilians. The Israelis

expressed aim was to capture or kill Palestinian militants responsible for suicide bombings and other attacks that

have killed more than seventy Israeli and other civilians since March 2002. The IDF military incursion into the

Jenin refugee camp was carried out on an unprecedented scale compared to other military operations mounted by

the IDF since the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in September 2000.

The presence of armed Palestinian militants inside Jenin refugee camp, and the preparations made by those

armed Palestinian militants in anticipation of the IDF incursion, does not detract from the IDFs obligation under

international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid harm to civilians. Israel also has a legal

duty to ensure that its attacks on legitimate military targets did not cause disproportionate harm to civilians.

Unfortunately, these obligations were not met. Human Rights Watchs research demonstrates that, during their

incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian

law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes.

Due to the dense urban setting of the refugee camp, fighters and civilians were never at great distances.

Civilian residents of the camp described days of sustained missile fire from helicopters hitting their houses. Some

residents were forced to flee from house to house seeking shelter, while others were trapped by the fighting,

unable to escape to safety, and were threatened by a curfew that the IDF enforced with lethal force, using sniper

fire. Human Rights Watch documented instances in which soldiers converted civilian houses into military

positions, and confined the inhabitants to a single room. In other instances, civilians who attempted to flee were

expressly told by IDF soldiers that they should return to their homes.

Despite these close quarters, the IDF had a legal duty to distinguish civilians from military targets. At times,

however, IDF military attacks were indiscriminate, failing to make this distinction. Firing was particularly

indiscriminate on the morning of April 6, when missiles were launched from helicopters, catching many sleeping

civilians unaware. One woman was killed by helicopter fire during that attack; a four-year-old child in another

part of the town was injured when a missile hit the house where she was sleeping. Both were buildings housing

only civilians, with no fighters in the immediate vicinity.

The IDF used armored bulldozers to demolish residents homes. The apparent purpose was to clear paths

through Jenins narrow and winding alleys to enable their tanks and other heavy weaponry to penetrate the camp

interior, particularly since some of these had evidently been booby-trapped. However, particularly in the

Hawashin district, the destruction extended well beyond any conceivable purpose of gaining access to fighters,

and was vastly disproportionate to the military objectives pursued. The damage to Jenin camp by missile and tank

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

4

fire and bulldozer destruction has shocked many observers. At least 140 buildingsmost of them multi-family

dwellingswere completely destroyed in the camp, and severe damage caused to more than 200 others has

rendered them uninhabitable or unsafe. An estimated 4,000 people, more than a quarter of the population of the

camp, were rendered homeless because of this destruction. Serious damage was also done to the water, sewage

and electrical infrastructure of the camp. More than one hundred of the 140 completely destroyed buildings were

in Hawashin district. In contrast to other parts of the camp where bulldozers were used to widen streets, the IDF

razed the entire Hawashin district, where on April 9 thirteen IDF soldiers were killed in an ambush by Palestinian

militants. Establishing whether this extensive destruction so exceeded military necessity as to constitute wanton

destructionor a war crimeshould be one of the highest priorities for the United Nations fact-finding mission.

The harm from this destruction was aggravated by the inadequate warning given to civilian residents.

Although warnings were issued on multiple occasions by the IDF, many civilians only learned of the risk as

bulldozers began to crush their houses. Jamal Fayid, a thirty-seven-year-old paralyzed man, was killed when the

IDF bulldozed his home on top of him, refusing to allow his relatives the time to remove him from the home.

Sixty-five-year-old Muhammad Abu Sabaa had to plead with an IDF bulldozer operator to stop demolishing his

home while his family remained inside; when he returned to his half-demolished home, he was shot dead by an

Israeli soldier.

Human Rights Watch has confirmed that at least fifty-two Palestinians were killed as a result of IDF

operations in Jenin. This figure may rise as rescue and investigative work proceeds, and as family members

detained by Israel are located or released. Due to the low number of people reported missing, Human Rights

Watch does not expect this figure to increase substantially. At least twenty-two of those confirmed dead were

civilians, including children, physically disabled, and elderly people. At least twenty-seven of those confirmed

dead were suspected to have been armed Palestinians belonging to movements such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and

the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Some were members of the Palestinian Authoritys (PA) National Security Forces

or other branches of the PA police and security forces. Human Rights watch was unable to determine conclusively

the status of the remaining three killed, among the cases documented.

Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial

executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp. However, many of the civilian deaths documented by Human

Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF. Many others could have been avoided if the

IDF had taken proper precautions to protect civilian life during its military operation, as required by international

humanitarian law. Among the civilian deaths were those of Kamal Zgheir, a fifty-seven-year-old wheelchairbound

man who was shot and run over by a tank on a major road outside the camp on April 10, even though he

had a white flag attached to his wheelchair; fifty-eight year old Mariam Wishahi, killed by a missile in her home

on April 6 just hours after her unarmed son was shot in the street; Jamal Fayid, a thirty-seven-year old paralyzed

man who was crushed in the rubble of his home on April 7 despite his familys pleas to be allowed to remove

him; and fourteen-year-old Faris Zaiban, who was killed by fire from an IDF armored car as he went to buy

groceries when the IDF-imposed curfew was temporarily lifted on April 11.

Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war

crime, such as the shooting of Jamal al-Sabbagh on April 6. Al-Sabbagh was shot to death while directly under

the control of the IDF: he was obeying orders to strip off his clothes. In at least one case, IDF soldiers unlawfully

killed a wounded Palestinian, Munthir al-Haj, who was no longer carrying a weapon, his arms were reportedly

broken, and he was taking no active part in the fighting.

Throughout the incursion, IDF soldiers used Palestinian civilians to protect them from danger, deploying

them as "human shields" and forcing them to perform dangerous work. Human Rights Watch received many

separate and credible testimonies that Palestinians were placed in vulnerable positions to protect IDF soldiers

from gunfire or attack. IDF soldiers forced these Palestinians to stand for extended periods in front of exposed

IDF positions, or made them accompany the soldiers as they moved from house to house. Kamal Tawalbi, the

father of fourteen children, described how soldiers kept him and his fourteen-year-old son for three hours in the

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E) 5 line of fire, using his and his sons shoulders to rest their rifles
as they fired. IDF soldiers forced a sixty-fiveyear-old woman was forced to stand on a rooftop in front of an IDF
position in the middle of a helicopter battle.

As in prior IDF operations, soldiers forced Palestinians, sometimes at gunpoint, to accompany IDF troops

during their searches of homes, to enter homes, to open doors, and to perform other potentially dangerous tasks.

In Jenin, such coerced use of civilians was a widespread practice; in virtually every case in which IDF soldiers

entered civilian homes, residents told Human Rights Watch that IDF soldiers were accompanied by Palestinian

civilians who were participating under duress. The forced use of civilians during military operations is a serious

violation of the laws of war, as it exposes civilians to direct risk of death or serious injury.

Human Rights Watch has so far found no evidence that Palestinian gunmen forced Palestinian civilians to

serve as human shields during the attack. But Palestinian gunmen did endanger Palestinian civilians in the camp

by using it as a base for planning and launching attacks, using indiscriminate tactics such as planting improvised

explosive devices within the camp, and intermingling with the civilian population during armed conflict, and, in

some cases, to avoid apprehension by Israeli forces.

During "Operation Defensive Shield," the IDF blocked the passage of emergency medical vehicles and

personnel to Jenin refugee camp for eleven days, from April 4 to April 15. During this period, injured combatants

and civilians in the camp as well as the sick had no access to emergency medical treatment. The functioning of

ambulances and hospitals in Jenin city was severely circumscribed, and ambulances were repeatedly fired upon by

IDF soldiers. Farwa Jammal, a uniformed nurse, was killed by IDF fire while treating an injured civilian. In at

least two cases, injured civilians died without access to medical treatment. Direct attacks on medical personnel

and the denial of access to medical care for the wounded constitute serious violations of the laws of war.

During the period that the IDF directly controlled Jenin camp, the Israeli authorities were obliged under

international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to protect camp civilians from the dangers arising

from hostilities, and to ensure to the maximum extent possible under the circumstances that the civilian

population had access to food and medical supplies. In practice, however, the IDF prevented humanitarian

organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, from gaining access to the camp and its

civilian inhabitantsdespite the great humanitarian need. This blockage continued from April 11 to 15, after the

majority of armed Palestinians had surrendered. Human Rights Watch investigated and found no evidence to

sustain reports that the IDF had removed bodies from the refugee camp for burial in mass graves.

Every case listed in the report below warrants additional thorough, transparent, and impartial investigation,

with the results of such an investigation made public. Where wrongdoing is found, those responsible should be

held accountable. There is a strong prima facie evidence that, in the cases noted below, IDF personnel committed

grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes. Such cases warrant specific criminal investigations

with a view to ascertaining and prosecuting those responsible. Israel has the primary obligation to carry out such

investigations, but the international community also has a responsibility to ensure that these investigations take

place.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

To the government of Israel:

Carry out a full and impartial investigation into the violations of international humanitarian law

documented in this report, make the results public, and bring to account anyone found responsible for

wrongdoing. If war crimes are found to have been committed, institute immediate criminal proceedings.

Declare unequivocally that Israeli security forces will respect and abide by their obligations under

international humanitarian law, and uphold in all circumstances the principle of civilian immunity by

taking all feasible precautions to protect civilians, discriminating between military targets and civilians,

and ensuring access for medical and humanitarian assistance.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

6

Take immediate action to end any excessive, indiscriminate, and disproportional use of force by Israeli

security forces that endangers civilians.

Take immediate action to end the practice of using Palestinian civilians as human shields in IDF military

operations, and hold accountable in disciplinary or criminal proceedings persons found responsible for

ordering, condoning, or carrying out this practice.

Cease immediately the coerced use of civilians to facilitate IDF military operations. Order all IDF

personnel to halt these practices, disseminate this order throughout the IDF chain of command, and hold

accountable those persons responsible for ordering, condoning, or carrying out these practices.

Cease immediately the practice of using lethal force to enforce curfews.

Ensure that the Palestinian population has access to an adequate level of health care, food, medical

assistance, and other humanitarian goods and services essential to civilian life.

Ensure that medical personnel and ambulances are able to carry out their duties and that patients are able

to reach health-care facilities, by allowing both groups to move freely. Any restrictions on movement

must not be excessive in impact or duration, be subject to regular review, and be imposed only when and

to the extent that is absolutely necessary.

Cooperate fully with the fact-finding mission established by the U.N. Security Council to investigate the

events in Jenin.

Facilitate the immediate deployment of international observers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with a

mandate to monitor, verify, and report publicly on the compliance by all parties with international

humanitarian law standards.

To the Palestinian Authority and armed Palestinian groups:

Declare unequivocally that Palestinian security forces and members of armed groups will respect and

abide by the principles of international humanitarian law, such as upholding in all circumstances the

principle of civilian immunity, including by not targeting civilians through the deployment of suicide

bombers or other means, whether in settlements or in Israel proper; by discriminating between military

targets and civilians; and by ensuring access for medical and humanitarian assistance.

Investigate all actions and policies that violate these principles and laws, make the results public, hold

accountable persons found to have violated these principles and laws, and provide punishments or

disciplinary measures that accord with the severity of these offenses.

Cooperate fully with the fact-finding mission established by the U.N. Security Council to investigate the

events in Jenin.

To the government of the United States:

Request that the government of Israel take immediate steps to implement the above recommendations in

both public and private communications.

Support efforts to address human rights and international humanitarian law violations by all parties in the

West Bank and Gaza Strip, including the establishment of an international presence there whose

responsibilities include monitoring, verifying, and reporting publicly and regularly on the compliance by

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E) 7

all parties with international human rights and humanitarian law, and provide experts for such an

international presence.

Treat serious and systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by any party

as requiring immediate remedy, and ensure that enforcement of human rights and humanitarian law

protections are not made subordinate to the outcomes of direct negotiations between the parties to the

conflict.

Seek written assurances from Israel that weapons of U.S. origin, including but not limited to Apache and

Cobra helicopter gunships, D-9 armored bulldozers, and TOW anti-tank missiles, are not used to commit

violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Conduct and make public the results of a comprehensive review of Israeli use of U.S.-origin weapons in

the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and update this review not less than every six months.

Restrict Israels use in the West Bank and Gaza Strip of any U.S.-origin weapons found to be used in the

commission of systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.

Inform the government of Israel that continued U.S. military assistance requires that the government take

clear and measurable steps to halt its security forces serious and systematic violations of international

human rights and humanitarian law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These steps should include

conducting transparent and impartial investigations into allegations of serious and systematic violations,

making the results public, and holding accountable persons found responsible.

Monitor and report publicly on the use of U.S.-origin donor resources to ensure that such resources do not

support PA agencies or Palestinian groups responsible for serious and systematic violations of

international human rights and humanitarian law.

To the Member States of the European Union:

Treat serious and systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by any party

as requiring immediate remedy, and ensure that enforcement of human rights and humanitarian law

protections are not made subordinate to the outcomes of direct negotiations between the parties to the

conflict.

Develop and make public benchmarks for compliance by the government of Israel with international

human rights and international law commitments as embedded in Article 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean

Association Agreement between the E.U. and its member states and Israel.

Develop and make public benchmarks for compliance by the Palestinian Authority with international

human rights and international law commitments as embedded in Article 2 of the Interim Association

Agreement on trade and cooperation between the E.U. and its member states and the Palestinian

Authority.

Support efforts to address human rights and international humanitarian law violations by all parties in the

West Bank and Gaza Strip, including the establishment of an international presence there whose

responsibilities include monitoring, verifying, and reporting publicly and regularly on the compliance by

all parties with international human rights and international law, and provide experts for such an

international presence.

Seek written assurances from Israel that weapons originating with E.U. member states are not used to

commit violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E) 8

Conduct and make public the results of a comprehensive review of Israeli use of weapons originating with

E.U. member states, and update this review not less than every six months.

Implement the European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports and restrict transfer to Israel of weapons

found to be used in the commission of serious and systematic violations of international human rights and

humanitarian law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

To the United Nations Security Council and Secretariat

Ensure that the terms of reference of the fact-finding team appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General to

investigate the situation in the Jenin refugee camp and endorsed in UNSC resolution 1405 include

international human rights and international humanitarian law, and that the fact-finding team in compiling

its report take into account all reliable and verifiable accounts of violations of international human rights

and humanitarian law.

Make the report of the fact-finding team public in a timely manner.

Establish on an urgent basis a permanent international presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to

monitor and report publicly and regularly on the compliance by all parties with international human rights

and humanitarian law.

To the International Community

Take immediate action, individually and jointly, to ensure respect for the provisions of the Fourth Geneva

Conventions relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and Palestinian compliance

with the law prohibiting attacks on civilians.

Take steps, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the December 5, 2001 Declaration of the conference of

High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to arrange urgently for "the deployment of

independent and imparial observers to monitor" Israeli and Palestinian compliance with the Fourth

Geneva Convention and other provisions of international humanitarian law.

IV. BACKGROUND: THE BATTLE INSIDE JENIN REFUGEE CAMP

Israeli authorities have repeatedly stressed the military significance of the IDF operation inside Jenin

refugee camp, stating that it was imperative to stop attacks against Israeli civilians, both by halting the individuals

involved and by destroying the infrastructure they used. Israeli officials cla im that many of the suicide bombers

that had carried out attacks against Israeli civilians came from the camp.1 A number of ranking Palestinian

militants from the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade groups also lived in the refugee camp.

Armed Palestinians had prepared for the attack by setting up positions at the perimeter of and within the

camp, and by laying booby-traps in many areas. Located on hills southwest of Jenins city center, the camps

dense housing and narrow, twisting alleys made for a very difficult environment in which to conduct close-range

urban combat. When Human Rights Watch investigators visited the camp, residents spoke openly about the

preparations made by the militants, who have been estimated in media reports as having numbered between eighty

and one hundred. Children could be seen walking around with unexploded Palestinian pipe bombs they had dug

1 The dates, locations, and casualties in this period are as follows, according to an April 12 BBC listing: March 2: Jerusalem,

nine killed and fifty-seven injured; March 5: Afula, one killed and several injured; March 9: Jerusalem, eleven killed and fifty

injured; March 20, near Umm al-Fahm: seven killed; March 21: Jerusalem, two killed and twenty injured; March 26:

Jerusalem, three injured; March 27: Netanya, twenty-eight killed; March 29: Jerusalem, two killed; March 30: Tel Aviv,

thirty injured; March 31: Haifa, fourteen killed; March 31: Efrat, four injured; April 1: one injured.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E) 9

out of the rubble. A de-mining worker told Human Rights Watch that he had defused forty Palestinian-made

bombs in a single day.

But the presence of armed Palestinian militants inside the camp, and the preparations made by those armed

Palestinian militants in anticipation of the IDF incursion does not detract from an essential fact: Jenin refugee

camp was also home to more than 14,000 Palestinian civilians. The IDF had an obligation under international

humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to prevent a disproportionate impact of its military incursion on

those civilians.

Most witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch described the first two days of the incursion as

consisting of tank, helicopter, and gunfire. IDF tanks and troops took up positions around the camps perimeter

during the night of April 2 to April 3. While accounts differ according to location, witnesses in the area of the

camp immediately above the hospital reported seeing small numbers of IDF soldiers enter the camp on the

morning and late afternoon of April 3. Armed Palestinians took up positions at the camp entrance, and also

reportedly at other edges of the camp. As the days passed, the armed Palestinians were increasingly forced back

into the camp center, fighting in small groups that became increasingly isolated.

To enable tanks and heavy armor to penetrate to the camp, the IDF sent in armored bulldozers to widen the

narrow alleys by shearing off the fronts of buildings, in places several meters deep. In the initial days, Palestinian

fighters held off the IDF to the west of the camp, while to the east bulldozers penetrated the hilltop district of al-

Damaj, overlooking the center of the camp. The IDF infantry managed to enter the northern entrance to the camp,

throwing smoke grenades to provide cover as they went from house to house. Although helicopters were present,

at that stage they primarily provided air-to-ground support. IDF soldiers "mouseholed" from house to house,

knocking large holes in the walls between houses to provide routes of safe passage from to the outer perimeters of

the camp to the center. In numerous cases, they used Palestinian civilians and detainees as human shields as they

moved from house to house, and, as Human Rights Watch has documented in previous incursions elsewhere in

the West Bank and Gaza Strip, forced civilians to perform the most dangerous tasks of entering and checking

buildings during house-to-house searches.

The third day of the incursion, in the early morning hours of April 6, U.S.-supplied helicopters started firing

missiles into the camp, often striking civilian homes where no Palestinian fighters were present. The missile fire,

which began in the early morning hours, caught many sleeping civilians by surprise. The chaos and destruction

caused by the bombardment allowed the IDF to move closer to the center of the camp. On April 9, thirteen Israeli

soldiers died in a major ambush in Hawashin district.

After the April 9 ambush, the IDF relied heavily on missile strikes from helicopters. It also extensively used

armored bulldozers, which allowed the IDF to penetrate districts where previously they had not been able to

consolidate control. The change in military strategy arguably helped to defeat the armed Palestinians in the camp,

but as described below, the new tactics had an unacceptable impact on the civilian population and infrastructure of

the camp.

The IDF continued to use armored bulldozers throughout the operation. On April 10, armored bulldozers

were sent to widen an alley in Abu Nasr district, to the west of Hawashin. At this time, the bulldozers were still

primarily being used to widen streets. On April 12, civilians in the Matahin area of the camp, located above the

main UNRWA school, were likewise warned to leave their homes in advance of their being destroyed by

bulldozers. Many heeded the call. Armored bulldozers soon arrived to clear a broad path for the IDFs armored

vehicles, leveling many of the homes in their path.

Towards the end of the IDF operation, the fighting and destruction was mostly focused on the central

Hawashin district of the camp. The majority of the fighting appears to have subsided by April 10, but isolated

pockets of Palestinian militants continued to hold out for some days. The bulldozers appear to have continued

razing homes even after most of the fighting had ended. At the end, the bulldozers had done much more than

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E) 10

creating paths for the IDF tanks and armored cars in Hawashin district: the entire area, down to the last house, had

been leveled.

V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

In any armed conflict, the right of parties to the conflict to choose the methods or means of warfare is not

unlimited, but rather is strictly regulated by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as codified in the Geneva

Conventions and its Additional Protocols. Of particular relevance are the concepts of proportionality, military

necessity, and limits on the destruction of civilian property.

Prohibition on the Indiscriminate and Disproportional Use of Force

The most fundamental principle of the laws of war requires that combatants be distinguished from

noncombatants, and that military objectives be distinguished from protected property and protected places.

Parties to a conflict must direct their operations only against military objectives (including combatants).2 Military

objectives are defined as "those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective

contribution to military action."3

Under Protocol I, Article 51(4), indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Israel is not a party to Protocol I, but

the provisions prohibiting indiscriminate warfare are considered to be norms of customary international law,

binding on all parties in a conflict, regardless of whether it is an international or internal armed conflict.4

Indiscriminate attacks are "those which are not directed against a military objective," "those which employ a

method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective," or "those which employ a

method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by the Protocol," "and

consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects

without distinction."5

Among the types of attacks specifically prohibited as indiscriminate is "an attack which may be expected to

cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof,

which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."6 Also prohibited

are "attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisal."7

The term "means" of combat refers generally to the weapons used; "method" refers to the way in which

such weapons are used. Casualties that are a consequence of accidents, as in situations in which civilians live

adjacent to military installations, may be considered incidental to an attack on a military objectiveso called

"collateral damage"but care must still have been taken to try and identify the presence of civilians. Article 57

of Protocol I sets out the precautions required, among them to "do everything feasible to verify that the objectives

to be attacked are neither civilians or civilian objects," to "take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and

methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any case minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to

civilians and damage to civilian objects," and to refrain from deciding to launch any attackor to cancel or

suspend any attack already in progress"which may be expected to cause" such deaths, injuries or damage

2 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions (hereinafter Protocol I), Art. 48.

3 Protocol I, Art. 52(2).

4 See Dieter Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p.

120 ("The general prohibition against indiscriminate warfare applies independently of Arts. 48 and 51 [of Protocol I]. The

relevant provisions of the Additional Protocols merely codify pre-existing customary law, because the principle of distinction

belongs to the oldest fundamental maxims of established customary rules of humanitarian law. It is also virtually impossible

to distinguish between international and noninternational armed conflicts in this respect.").

5 Protocol I, Art. 51(4).

6 Protocol I, Art. 51(5).

7 Protocol I, Art. 51(6).

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

11

"which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."8 In its

authoritative Commentary on the protocols, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) states what is

meant by "feasible" in Article 57: "What is required is to take the necessary identification measures in good

time to spare the population as far as possible."9

The principle of proportionality places a duty on combatants to choose means of attack that avoid or

minimize damage to civilians. In particular, the attacker should refrain from launching an attack if the expected

civilian casualties would outweigh the importance of the military objective.10 Protocol I, Article 57 ("Precautions

in attack") requires those who plan and/or execute an attack to cancel or desist from the attack in such

circumstances.

The ICRC Commentary on Article 57 of Protocol I sets out a series of factors that must be taken into

account in applying the principle of proportionality to the incidental effects that attacks may have on civilian

persons and objects:

The danger incurred by the civilian population and civilian objects depends on various factors: their

location (possibly within or in the vicinity of a military objective), the terrain (landslides, floods etc.), accuracy of

the weapons used (greater or lesser dispersion, depending on the trajectory, the range, the ammunition used etc.),

technical skills of the combatants (random dropping of bombs when unable to hit the intended target).11

As expressed in the ICRC Commentary, "the golden rule to be followed" when making determinations

about the proportionality of an attack is "the duty to spare civilians and civilian objects in the conduct of military

operations."12

Military Necessity

Military necessity is one of the most difficult concepts to define under IHL, as a too broad definition of

military necessity could easily undermine much of IHL norms and revert to an unacceptable "anything is fair in

war" standard. The rule of military necessity does not allow for military measures to be taken that violate the

laws of war or that do not have a military purpose (that is, that are not intended to defeat the enemy, or that would

excessively harm civilians or damage civilian objects in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage

anticipated). Military necessity "means the necessity for measures which are essential to attain the goals of war,

and which are lawful in accordance with the laws and customs of war."13 An American commentator has

attempted to offer a definition of military necessity:

Military necessity is an urgent need, admitting of no delay, for the taking by a commander, of measures

which are indispensable for forcing as quickly as possible the complete surrender of the enemy by means of

regulated violence, and which are not prohibited by the laws and customs of war.

The Commentary to Protocol I subsequently refers to this definition by saying that it is "based on four

foundations: urgency, measures which are limited to the indispensable, the control (in space and time) of the force

used, and the means which should not infringe on an unconditional prohibition."14

While military necessity does grant military planners a certain degree of freedom of judgment about the

appropriate tactic s for carrying out a military operation, "it can never justify a degree of violence which exceeds

8 Protocol I, Art. 57.

9 ICRC, Commentary to the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection

of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, pp. 681-82

10 Protocol I, Art 51(5)(b).

11 ICRC, Commentary on Protocol I, p. 684.

12 Ibid., p. 684.

13 Ibid ., p. 393.

14 Ibid., paragraph 1396.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

12

the level which is strictly necessary to ensure the success of a particular operation in a particular case."15 Hence,

the degree of autonomy granted to military planners by the concept of military necessity is subservient to the rule

of proportionality and other "laws and customs of war."

Limits on the Destruction of Civilian Property

Because the West Bank and Gaza have been militarily occupied by Israel since 1967, the Palestinians living

in these territories are "protected persons" entitled to particular protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the destruction of real or personal property in occupied

territories "except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."16 Even when

such destruction is "absolutely necessary," "the occupying authorities must try to keep a sense of proportion in

comparing the military advantage to be gained with the damage done."17

Destruction of civilian property can be a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and thus a war

crime, if it amounts to "extensive destruction and appropriation not justified by military necessity and carried

out unlawfully and wantonly."18 To amount to a grave breach, the destruction and appropriation "must be

extensive: an isolated case is not enough."

VI. CIVILIAN CASUALTIES AND UNLAWFUL KILLINGS IN JENIN

During its investigation, Human Rights Watch found serious violations of international humanitarian law.

The organization documented fifty-two Palestinian deaths in the camp and its environs caused by the fighting. At

least twenty-two of those confirmed dead were civilians, including children, physically disabled, and elderly

people. At least twenty-seven of those confirmed dead were suspected to have been armed Palestinians belonging

to movements such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Some were members of the

Palestinian Authoritys (PA) National Security Forces or other branches of the PA police and security forces.

Human Rights watch was unable to determine conclusively the status of the remaining three killed, among the

cases documented.

Because of the large number of homes in the refugee camp that were demolished by the IDF, it is possible

that the total number of casualties will climb somewhat, though not dramatically, as recovery efforts proceed.

Corpses continued to be recovered on a daily basis in the camp as Human Rights Watch was carrying out its

research in the camp, but residents in the camp had already identified those persons as killed before their bodies

were recovered. Because the IDF has not made available the full list of names of those arrested during the

operation, some families are unsure whether relatives have been arrested by the IDF or have been killed in the

camp.

It does not appear that there are larger numbers of "missing" persons from the camp. The residents of the

camp gave consistent lists of the known or suspected dead in the camp, and those lists did not grow significantly

while Human Rights Watch conducted research in the camp.

Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amount to unlawful and deliberate killings.

However, the organization did not find evidence of systematic summary executions.

During its investigation, however, Human Rights Watch documented unlawful and deliberate killings, and

the killing or wounding of protected individuals as a result of excessive or disproportionate use of force. Such

cases are in violation of the international humanitarian law prohibitions against "willful killing" of

15 Ibid., p. 396.

16 Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949 (hereinafter Geneva Convention

IV), Art. 53.

17 ICRC, Commentary to Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, Art. 53.

18 Geneva Convention IV, Art. 147.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

13

noncombatants. The organization also found instances of IDF soldiers deliberately impeding the work of medical

personnel and preventing medical assistance to the wounded with no apparent or obvious justification of military

necessity. Such cases appear to be in violation of the prohibition against "willfully causing great suffering or

serious injury to body or health."19

At least four persons were killed by the IDF because they were outside during curfews or walked in areas

declared "closed" by the Israeli army. Such use of lethal force to enforce curfews or "closed" areas is a

widespread practice by the IDF. The use of lethal force against civilians who do not abide by curfews or are found

in "closed" areas is unjustified, and a violation of the international humanitarian law provisions prohibiting the

targeting of civilians. International humanitarian law requires that the IDF use less lethal means to enforce its

curfews and "closed" areas.

In addition, the dimensions of the destruction and the temporal sequence of the demolition of homes and

property found by Human Rights Watch researchers suggest that these were carried out unlawfully and wantonly

and did not meet the strict requirements of military necessity and proportionality.

There is strong prima facie evidence that in some of the cases documented grave breaches of the Geneva

Conventions, or war crimes, were committed. Such cases warrant specific criminal justice investigations with a

view to identifying and prosecuting those responsible.

Human Rights Watch researchers also identified other serious violations of the laws and customs of war,

such as the practice of shielding, in which Palestinian civilians were used to screen Israeli soldiers from return

fire. Shielding, while not a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law, is nonetheless absolutely prohibited

and warrants investigation.

Every case listed below requires thorough, transparent, and impartial investigation. The results of the

investigation should be made public, and where wrongdoing is found, those responsible should be held

accountable. Israel has the primary obligation to carry out such an investigation, but the international community

also has a responsibility to ensure that the investigation takes place.

Shooting of Hani Abu Rumaila, April 3

Hani Abu Rumaila, aged nineteen, spent the night of April 2 at the house of his grandmother. When the

IDF first reached the Jenin camp and gun battles erupted at about 4:00 a.m. on April 3, he ran home to his parents

house and informed his father that tanks had arrived at the outskirts of the camp. Then he decided to return to the

gate of the house and watch what the IDF soldiers were doing. His stepmother, Hala Abu Rumaila, explained

how Hani was killed at about 5:30 that morning:

The Israelis had just arrived and Hani wanted to open the main gate to the house. He wanted to see what

was going on outside. Then, [as he opened the gate], they [IDF] shot him in the leg. He started screaming.

When he tried to stand up and run back home, they shot him in the abdomen and chest.

A nurse living nearby tried to come to Hanis rescue when she heard the screaming, but was herself killed

by the IDF soldiers (see below). The family then called an ambulance, which removed Hanis body to the

hospital. Because of the intense fighting, Hanis family could not make their way to the hospital for funeral

arrangements, and Hani was buried in a temporary communal grave at the back of the hospital.20 Hani was

unarmed at the time of the killing, and was not a member of any Palestinian militant group, according to his

family. Normally, when a Palestinian militant is killed, family take some pride in the fact that the dead relative

was in an armed group opposing the occupation, and make no effort to deny the militant history of the deceased.

19 Ibid.

20 Human Rights Watch interview with Hala Muhammad Abu Rumaila, aged thirty-one, Jenin, April 21, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

14

The Abu Rumaila family showed Human Rights Watch the nearby home that had been occupied by IDF

soldiers during the Jenin offensive and from which they believed IDF soldiers had fired on Hani Abu Rumaila.

That home is located about one hundred meters down the street from the Abu Rumaila home, diagonally across

the street, and had a clear line of sight to the gate of the Abu Rumaila home where Hani was shot.

Shooting of nurse Farwa Jammal, April 3

Farwa Jammal, a twenty-seven-year-old nurse from Tulkarem, was visiting her sister at the Jenin refugee

camp at the time of the Israeli incursions. On the evening of April 2, concerned about a possible IDF attack on

Jenin, Farwa and her sister, Rufaida Jammal, went to the main hospital to stock up on first aid supplies "to be

ready to submit help to anyone who would need it," according to Rufaida.21

Farwa and Rufaida Jammal were awakened early in the morning of April 3 by loud explosions and the

screams of Hani Abu Rumaila, who had been severely wounded in their neighborhood (see above). Farwa put on

her white nurses uniform, marked with the red crescent symbol (the Muslim equivalent of the red cross), and

exited the house together with her sister Rufaida, intending to help the wounded man.

According to Rufaida, they met a small group of unarmed young Palestinian men outside their home who

were also trying to assist the wounded Hani, and stopped to discuss with them the best way to proceed. IDF

soldiers opened fire on the group, wounding Rufaida and killing her sister Farwa:

Before I finished talking with the men, the Israelis started shooting. I got hit with a bullet in my upper

thigh. I fell down and broke my knee. My sister [Farwa] tried to come and help me. Then, she was shot in

her abdomen. I told her I was wounded, and she replied that she was also wounded. I repeated the shahada

[the Muslim declaration of faith, customarily recited by Muslims who believe they are about to die]. Then

[Farwa] was shot in the heart. The Israeli soldiers were very near to us22 and could hear and see us. We

were clearly visible to them. They kept shooting at us, and I got another bullet in my other leg.23

Because of the intense Israeli shooting, no help could reach the wounded Rufaida and the dying Farwa.

Rufaidas forty-year-old husband was at the gate of their home, but was unable to reach his wounded wife. Taysir

Damaj, Rufaidas husband, explained how he was shot at by the Israeli soldiers as he tried to rescue his wife, and

how she finally had to crawl to safety under a hail of bullets:

I was standing by the window and heard my wife calling for an ambulance. I went out, trying to get some

help to them. They [the IDF] were shooting at me, so I lay down in the street. I crawled back to a car

parked outside my house. They shot a bomb at me that hit the car. The explosion hit the car and I ran back

home. They shot again at me, and then I entered my compound and closed the gate.

My wife crawled back to the main gate. I watched from the window. Then I went outshooting was

continuing the whole time. I pulled her inside our home. I tried to stop the bleeding as best as I could, she

was bleeding heavily. Then, one half hour after we called, an ambulance finally arrived and took her to the

hospital.24

Rufaida Jammal was adamant that there was no Palestinian fire in the immediate vicinity where she and her

sister were wounded, and that they were "far away from the battle" between IDF soldiers and Palestinian

militants.25 The wounding of a member of the medical personnel away from the combat area requires a war crimes

investigation.

21 Human Rights Watch interview with Rufaida Jammal, aged thirty-five, Jenin, April 22, 2002.

22 A site visit by Human Rights Watch established that the IDF soldiers were located about one hundred meters from the two

sisters at the time of the shooting.

23 Human Rights Watch interview with Rufaida Jammal, aged thirty-five, Jenin, April 22, 2002.

24 Human Rights Watch interview with Taysir Mahmud Damaj, aged forty, Jenin, April 21, 2002.

25 Human Rights Watch interview with Rufaida Jammal, aged thirty-five, Jenin, April 22, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

15

The Shooting of Civilian Imad Musharaka, April 3

At about 9:00 a.m. on April 3, forty-two-year-old Fadil Musharaka was standing in the street near his home

with his two brothers and his mother, watching the early stages of the IDF incursion into the refugee camp. They

watched as Ziad Amr Zubeidi, a leading member of the militant Palestinian group Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades,

emerged from a house and was shot dead almost immediately by IDF soldiers stationed at a nearby house.

According to Fadil Musharaka, who witnessed the shooting, Amr Zubeidi was not holding a weapon at the time of

the shooting.26 No attempt was made to arrest him.

Fadil Musharaka attempted to call an ambulance to remove Zubeidis body, but was unable to get through

to the hospital on his mobile phone. Meanwhile, nineteen-year-old Imad Musharaka, an unarmed civilian,

attempted to reach Zubeidis body and pull it out of the street. Fadil watched as the IDF soldiers shot his brother

Imad: "Imad tried to pull Ziads body out of the street, but [the IDF soldiers] shot him in the leg. When he tried to

stand up again, he was shot in the head. After one half hour, the ambulance came, and took both bodies to the

hospital. Imad was a civilian, he was watching there with me."27 The shooting in broad daylight of an unarmed

civilian, Imad Musharaka, requires a war crimes investigation. Establishing the true circumstances of the death of

Palestinian militant Ziad Zubeidi warrants a separate investigation.

Shooting of Muhammad Hawashin, April 3

Alia Zubeidi, the mother of Al-Aqsa militant Ziad Amr Zubeidi, heard on Jerusalem Radio that her son had

been killed and his body taken to the hospital. Although her home was far away from the hospital and heavy

fighting was taking place in the camp at the time, she decided to go to the hospital to see her sons body. On her

way through the refugee camp, she met many people who expressed their condolences for the loss of her son.

Fourteen-year-old Muhammad Hawashin considered Ziad Amr Zubeidi a hero, and insisted on coming along to

the hospital with Alia, over Alias objections: "All the people in the area advised me not to continue to the

hospital, because it was too dangerous. I insisted on going but asked no one to follow me. Two boys insisted on

following me. I kept telling Muhammad to go back, but he insisted that he wanted to see Ziad himself."28

Just before Alia Zubeidi and Muhammad Hawashin reached the hospital, they found an earthen mound

erected by Palestinian militants in an attempt to delay the entry of IDF forces into the camp. They climbed over

the mound, and then IDF shooting erupted in their direction, fatally wounding Muhammad Hawashin:

I passed across [the earthen mound], then I heard shooting. The bullets were flying between me and the two

boys. Two meters later, [Muhammad] raised his hand and cried for help. I could do nothing for the boy.

I ran to the ambulance, and told them to forget about my dead son and help the boy. They were afraid

because the soldiers shot at anyone who tried to pass the earthen barrier. Then the ambulance crew went to

get the boy, but he was already dead. He was shot twice in the face.29

At the time of the shooting, Muhammad Hawashin and the women and children who were with him had

essentially exited the Jenin refugee camp, and were walking in an open area behind the hospital. The use of live

fire, directed at a group of women and children located outside the active combat zone, cannot be justified on

grounds of military necessity, constitutes a serious violation of the rules of war, and requires in-depth

investigation.

Shooting of Ahmad Hamduni, April 3

Eighty-five-year-old Ahmad Hamduni was left virtually alone at his home when the fighting broke out in

Jenin refugee camp, because his family had moved to an area south of Jenin two days before. When the fighting

reached his area around 3:00 p.m. on April 3, he moved to the home of another elderly neighbor, seventy-two-

26 Ibid.

27 Human Rights Watch interview with Fadil Musharaka, aged forty-two, Jenin, April 21, 2002.

28 Human Rights Watch interview with Alia Zubeidi, aged fifty-eight, Jenin, April 22, 2002.

29 Ibid.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

16

year-old Raja Tawafshi. The two elderly men first had some twenty-five relatives staying with them, but at about

5:00 p.m. those relatives left the house, leaving the two elderly men alone.

After the men finished their evening prayers, Israeli soldiers suddenly attacked the home. Raja Tawafshi

recalled how his neighbor was killed by the soldiers soon after they entered:

After I had finished praying, they [the soldiers] shot one door of my gate off and it flew into the room. I

stood up and they shot at me. I raised my hands. They shot a sound bomb [concussion grenade] inside and

the soldiers came inside with their guns. I stood up with my hands up, and [Ahmad Hamduni] was behind

me.

Because he is an old man, [Ahmad Hamduni] hunches over. The soldiers were worried [about the hunch in

his back] and shot him immediately. I told them, he is an old man, and I tried to touch him. Then the

soldiers told me to go out of the room.30

The soldiers proceeded to search the entire three-story home, pushing Tawafshi in front of them at

gunpoint: "The soldier put the gun to my back and they searched the house, pushing me in front of them."31

While the soldiers were inspecting the top story with Tawafshi, an IDF missile hit the floor, narrowly missing the

group. The soldiers then returned downstairs, placed Tawafshis hands in plastic cuffs, and tied him to a chair

next to the body of his neighbor, which they had covered with a carpet. Tawafshi explained how he was kept in

the chair all night:

They tied my hands and feet and put me in the seat. They tied me to the seat with plastic tape, wrapping it

around my chest and legs. They brought a blanket and put it over me. I was thirsty and asked for some

water in Hebrew. They said no. Later, I needed to go to the toilet. They asked me to shut up. I was

suffering, but nobody helped me. I was in the chair from 7:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. Then they came, cut me

loose and took the blanket.32

The soldiers then took Tawafshi out of the home at gunpoint and demanded that he check the homes of four

neighbors before they finally allowed him to go home (see below for a further discussion of the coerced use of

civilians during the Jenin operation).

The Murder of Palestinian Militant Munthir al-Haj, April 3

Munthir al-Haj, a twenty-two-year-old armed Palestinian militant, was injured on Wednesday April 3, the

first day of the incursion. Other fighters carried him from elsewhere to the steps of the mosque on the top floor of

al-Razi hospital, a charity hospital located some two kilometers from Jenin Camp. Al-Haj, who had multiple

wounds, lay unarmed on the mosque steps and called out for help.

Hisham Samara, a hospital cook, was working in the upstairs kitchen at 11:30 a.m. when he heard someone

in pain shouting for help.33 Samara called two nurses to come with him, and went to the mosque to locate the

sounds source. Confronted by broken glass and bullets, they kept on their shoes and crossed to the mosques

windows. There they saw al-Haj, lying at the foot of the mosque steps. An IDF tank was in the street, some six

meters away.

Samara and the nurses attempted to reach the wounded man, some three to four meters from the mosques

external door.

30 Human Rights Watch interview with Raja Mustafa Ahmad Tawafshi, aged seventy-two, April 22, 2002.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid

33 Human Rights Watch interview, Hisham Issa Ismail Samara, April 22, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

17

We took one of the nurses scarves and made a white flag. I wound the white flag on a stick. I opened the

door, and put my arm with the stick and the scarf outside of the mosque door. While I had my arm out, there

was the sound of a big explosionso loud I could not hear anything.34

Samara did not know what caused the sound, but drew his hand in and waited. Some fifteen minutes later,

Samara and the nurses tried again. This time, however, they were forced back by fire from the tank.

As I stuck my hand out the tank began to fire in bursts of bullets, it was very heavy. Of course we tried to

speak with the wounded man during all of this and try to get him to crawl towards us. Sometimes he would

say, "I can not hear you;" other times he would say, "I cant, I cant." Both his hands were broken, he

couldnt move them. There was a lot of blood on the stairs.35

For the next one and a half to two hours, hospital staff made at least three attempts to reach al-Haj, who

gradually pulled himself to the mosque steps. Two doctors, dressed in white and carrying white flags, attempted

to exit the mosque doors. They were forced back by another loud explosion. Others tried to pass the wounded

man a rope so he could pull himself to safety, but were thwarted when he could not move his hands sufficiently to

grasp the rope. Neighboring families called the hospital staff to beg them to take action; some tried to reach the

man themselves, but gave up after facing tank fire. Hospital staff called the International Committee of the Red

Cross and human rights organizations to press them to intervene. Samaras account was corroborated in a

separate interview by Dr. Mahmud Abu Aleih, the hospital internist. "It was terrible for us, not being able to help

him," Abu Aleih told Human Rights Watch. "This is supposed to be our job."36

Their efforts were to no avail. By this time al-Haj was lying on his side on the mosque steps with his head

resting on his hands. According to Samara, al-Haj was fired at from the immediate direction of the tank. He told

Human Rights Watch:

The tank fired at him and the bullets entered his back. It was a spray of fire, but it was not heavy tank fire.

It sounded like the fire from an M-16, a hand weapon. We are sure it was from the tank because he was

directly in front of it.37

Samara reported that, while exchanges of fire had taken place earlier in the morning, there were no

exchanges of fire in the area of the hospital at the time al-Haj was shot and killed. His statement was corroborated

by Samar Qasrawi, a hospital nurse interviewed separately by Human Rights Watch.38 Seven members of the

hospital staff eventually managed to reach al-Hajs body and store it in a makeshift mortuary. It was kept under

ice and fans for three days, until the curfew was lifted and al-Hajs family was able to take the body away.

After he was shot and no longer armed, al-Haj became hors de combat, meaning that he was no longer

taking an active part in the fighting. Wounded combatants who are no longer taking part in fighting should not be

denied medical care, nor are they legitimate military targets. The killing of al-Haj after he was wounded and no

longer armed amounts to a case of willful killing, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and, as such, a war

crime.

Shooting of Atiya Abu Rumaila, April 5

Atiya Abu Rumaila, aged forty-four, is the father of Hani Abu Rumaila, who was killed on the first day of

the Israeli incursion. On the evening of Thursday, April 4 at about 10:00 p.m., the family was sleeping when

Israeli gunfire suddenly hit their home. Atiya, his wife, and three children shifted from their exposed bedrooms to

the kitchen, where they spent the night. On Friday at about noon, Israeli soldiers entered the home of their

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Human Rights Watch interview, Dr. Mahmud Mahmud Abu Aleih, internist at al-Razi hospital, April 21, 2002.

37 Human Rights Watch interview, Hisham Issa Ismail Samara, April 22, 2002.

38 Human Rights Watch interview, Samar Qasrawi, April 29, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

18

neighbors and attempted to blast a passage from the neighbors house into the Abu Rumaila home, causing

significant damage to the house but failing to blast a hole in between the two homes. At about 5:00 p.m. on

Friday, Atiyas wife Hala went to check on the damage in the rooms, and found two unexploded Israeli shells in

one room.

Concerned about the damage reported to his home by his wife, Atiya decided to go check for himself,

despite the protests of his wife. Two minutes later, Hala heard her husband calling for help with some difficulty.

Hala and her children ran up to the room, and found Atiya standing, seriously wounded. Atiya looked at his wife

and children before starting to collapse, and his wife then noticed the gunshot wound to his head. Human Rights

Watch researchers examined the room where Atiya was shot, and found that the nearby home that had been

occupied by IDF soldiers during the Jenin operationthe same home that was the source of the firing that killed

Atiyas son Hani on April 3was clearly visible from where Atiya had been standing when he was shot. The

trajectory of the bullets, indicated by following the path of the bullets through the window into the wall behind

Atiya, pointed directly to the home that had been occupied by the IDF.

Hala called an ambulance, but the IDF soldiers did not allow the ambulance to proceed:

I started screaming, asking anyone to call an ambulance. The ambulance came, but it was prevented from

reaching us. Atiya was still breathing at the time. But there was no aid, no ambulance. I couldnt go

outside because there were Israeli snipers and tanks everywhere. All this time we were just crawling.39

Atiya died from the gunshot wound within the hour:

After all my trials trying to get anyone to help, I went back to the body. I started checking, and made sure

he died. I closed his eyes and straightened his hands. I closed the door because I didnt want my children

to see their father dead. He had promised to buy the children some milk before he died, and they kept

asking where the milk was. I spent the whole night with the children in one room. I couldnt close my

eyes. At midnight, I went to the room and put a blanket over him.40

Hala and her three children were still trapped in their home, unable to flee because of the fighting. After

her husband had been shot on Friday afternoon, Hala broke a window at the rear of her home and considered

jumping out, but was warned by her neighbors that the window was too high from the ground. On Saturday

morning, she tied some sheets together and lowered her seven-year-old son to the ground to go seek help. The

boy went to inform their relatives of the death, and Atiyas elderly mother came wailing to the house, ignoring the

danger, screaming "Hani! Atiya!" The family was forced to remain in the house for five more days before the

IDF announced that all civilians should leave the area because they were about to bomb the camp. The family left

the home. The next day, one week after Atiya was killed, an ambulance was finally able to recover the body.

Shooting of Abd al-Nasr Gharaib, April 5

Abd al-Nasr Gharaib (also known as Abd al-Nasr Abu Hattab), was a thirty-eight year old man who

suffered from mental problems. His family home is located on the outskirts of the Jenin refugee camp. On

Friday, April 5, at about 2:00 p.m., Israeli gunfire hit his home, first injuring his sixty-five-year-old father,

Mahmud Gharaib (Abu Hattab). Mahmud Gharaib explained:

On Friday at 2:00 p.m., we were surprised that the house next to us was occupied by Israeli soldiers. They

went inside and started shooting randomly. I wanted to close the door to make sure that the children would

not go outside. They shot me with a smoke bomb.41

39 Human Rights Watch interview with Hala Muhammad Abu Rumaila, aged thirty-one, Jenin, April 21, 2002.

40 Ibid.

41 Human Rights Watch interview with Mahmud Abd al-Nasr Gharaib Abu Hattab, aged sixty-two, Jenin, April 21, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

19

Mahmud Gharaib was wounded in the foot by the bomb, but the family could not leave the home because of

the heavy shooting outside. Finally, they broke a window in the rear of the home and evacuated the wounded

man through the window. He remained at another home deeper inside the refugee camp for a week without any

medical assistance, causing his wound to become seriously infected.42

Abd al-Nasr Gharaibs family evacuated their home together with their grandfather, but Abd al-Nasr

decided to remain behind to look after the home. On Sunday, April 7, Abd al-Nasrs eight-year-old son returned

to the home to check on his father and found him shot dead:

I saw my father on the floor. We found the whole house destroyed inside. My father was in the front

room. He had three bullets in his chest and one in the head. My uncle is a doctor. He called an ambulance.

He tried to come and take the body, but couldnt reach us. A lot of tanks had surrounded the hospital and

he couldnt leave. We left the body for four or five days.43

A next-door neighbor told Human Rights Watch that Abd al-Nasr Gharaib had been shot by the IDF: "They

[the IDF] were telling him [Abd al-Nasr Gharaib] to come out. Before he could come out, they shot him. We

heard him screaming twice and then it got quiet."44

Bombing Death of Afaf Disuqi, April 5

At about 3:15 p.m. on Friday, April 5, Israeli soldiers ordered Asmahan Abu Murad, aged twenty-four, to

come with them to knock on the home of the neighboring Disuqi family. As she came outside, she saw a group of

Israeli soldiers, including one who was holding a bomb with a lit fuse which he was attaching to the Disuqi home:

"I went outside and saw one soldier with a bomb, the string was already lit. They told me, Quickly, put your

fingers in your ears. All of the soldiers went away from the bomb, then one soldier threw the bomb and the

others started shooting at the door."45

Aisha Disuqi, the thirty-seven-year-old sister of fifty-two-year-old Afaf Disuqi, explained how the latter

went to the door to check on the smoke and to open it for the soldiers, and was killed in the explosion that

followed:

We were inside in a room and saw some smoke. The soldiers were asking us to open the door. My sister

Afaf went to the door to open it, and while she was opening it, the bomb exploded. When the bomb

exploded, we were all screaming, calling for an ambulance. The soldiers were laughing. We saw the right

side of her face was destroyed, and the left side of her shoulder and arm was also wounded. She was killed

that first moment.46

Asmahan Abu Murad, who was outside with the soldiers in front of the door, corroborated in a separate

interview with Human Rights Watch that the soldiers were laughing after the killing of Afaf Disuqi: "After the

explosion, I heard her sisters scream for an ambulance. The soldiers were laughing. Then they told me to go

back inside."47 After the explosion, the soldiers did not enter the Disuqi home. They told Asmahan Abu Murad

that she could go home, and the soldiers then left the scene. During the time of the incident, there was no active

combat or firing in the neighborhood. The remorseless murder of Afaf Disuqi, an unarmed civilian, constitutes a

war crime.

Afaf Disuqis family took her body inside the home, and repeatedly tried to get an ambulance: "We had a

mobile but could only receive incoming calls. Every time someone called, we asked for an ambulance, but it was

42 Ibid.

43 Human Rights Watch interview with Mahmud Abd al-Nasser Abu Hattab, aged eight, Jenin, April 21, 2002.

44 Human Rights Watch interview with Ahman Yusef Ibrahim Ghelane, aged thirty-seven, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

45 Human Rights Watch interview with Asmahan Mahmud Abu Murad, aged twenty-nine, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

46 Human Rights Watch interview with Aisha Ali Disuqi, aged thirty-seven, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

47 Human Rights Watch interview with Asmahan Mahmud Abu Murad, aged twenty-nine, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

20

prohibited [for the ambulances to move]."48 The body remained at the home from Friday until the next Thursday,

when the family was able to move the body to the hospital.

Shooting of Abd al-Karim Saadi and Wadah Shalabi, April 6

The families of Abd al-Karim Saadi, aged twenty-seven, and Wadah Shalabi, aged thirty-eight, are

neighbors who live close to the main entrance to the Jenin refugee camp, where the camp administration was

located. Abd al-Karim Saadi was visiting the Shalabi family at about 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, April 6, when the

family realized that IDF soldiers had entered the neighboring Saadi family home. The Shalabi family went to

their backyard to check what was happening next door, and were met by a group of IDF soldiers who instructed

them to exit their home from the front and come over to the Saadi family home.

The seventeen people staying at the Shalabi home all went over to the Saadi home, and both Abd al-Karim

Saadi and Wadah Shalabi were carrying infants in their hands. When the group arrived at the Saadi home, the

soldiers told the men to give the infants to their wives and ordered all the women and children to go inside the

house. Remaining outside where Abd al-Karim Saadi, Wadah Shalabi, and Wadahs sixty-three-year-old father,

Fati Shalabi.

Fati Shalabi, the only survivor of the incident, explained how his son and his neighbor were soon shot down

by the IDF soldiers, apparently because they mistook a back brace Abd al-Karim Saadi was wearing for an

explosive belt:

They asked us to lift our shirts, to check for explosives. We were facing the soldiers, there was one and one

half meters between me and my son [and Abd al-Karim] and two meters between us and the soldiers. The

soldiers were standing a bit above us.

When they asked us to lift our shirts, they noticed something on Abd al-Karims body. They were talking

to each other, saying, "What is this, what is this?" Abd al-Karims sister later told me that he had some

brace for pain. The soldiers were named Gaby and David. Gaby said, "Kill them, kill them!"I

understand Hebrew because I worked twenty years in Israel.

They started shooting and we fell to the ground. It was about 6:15 p.m. The ground was not flat, it was on

an incline. The blood of the others was leaking down between my legs. I was all the way on the left side,

and the blood was soaking my clothes, so they thought that I was dead. Two soldiers shot at us, but Gaby

was in charge.

After they shot us, they stayed for more than one hour, searching the houses. They walked over uswe

were just in between the houses. I made myself as I was dead.49

Fati Shalabi remained motionless until the soldiers left, and then made sure that the two men were dead

before running home. He hid in his home until 4:00 a.m., when he rejoined his family at the Saadi home. They

covered the bodies of the men with a blanket, and the bodies remained there until April 17, when hospital workers

could finally reach them and bury them at the hospital.

Fathiya Saadi, Abd al-Karims thirty-year-old sister, corroborated the account of Fati Shalabi during a

separate interview with Human Rights Watch. Fathiya recounted how a large group of soldiers had entered their

home, and then ordered the Shalabi family to come over to the Saadi home. She heard the gunshots from inside

the home:

Wadah and Abd al-Karim were holding Wadahs babies, and the soldiers told them to give the babies to

their mothers. All of the women entered into one room. Some soldiers were still inside and some outside. Then

48 Human Rights Watch interview with Aisha Ali Disuqi, aged thirty-seven, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

49 Human Rights Watch interview with Fati Abd Allah Shalabi, aged sixty-three, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

21

we heard the sound of shooting outsidethe Israeli soldiers [inside the house] thought some resistance had

attacked and took up positions inside the house. One of the soldiers started shouting, "David, David," and

something I did not understand.

After the shooting, the soldiers inside were nervous, and refused to allow any of the family members to go

near the area where the two men had been shot. They refused to allow one of the children to use the bathroom

near the shooting area. When the soldiers left, they locked the whole family into one room and ordered them not

to go outside: "They were being gentle with us, because they knew what they had done. They closed the doors

and windows, and told us to go inside one room. They asked us to go inside and lock the door. On the outside,

the soldiers attempted to tie the door close with a piece of rope they found."50

After escaping from the room, Fathiya Saadi found her brother and neighbor dead outside: "I took the head

of Abd al-Karim and there was a big hole in his head. Wadah also had a big hole in his head."51

Shooting of Munir Wishahi and Mariam Wishahi, April 6

The Wishahi family lives in a small house near the entrance of the Jenin camp, close to the main hospital in

Jenin. At about 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, April 6, sixty-year-old Issa Wishahi and his fifty-eight-year-old wife,

Mariam Wishahi, were drinking tea in their kitchen when fighting erupted around their house. A tank began

moving in their direction, and started shooting towards their area. A bomb hit their home, filling the rooms with

smoke. The family opened the windows and doors to let the smoke out. There were no Palestinian gunmen inside

the Wishahi home, according to Issa Wishahi.

Their eighteen-year-old son Munir Wishahi saw the tanks coming towards their home. He became afraid

and decided to run away: "When he saw the tanks coming and all of the shooting, he said, They are going to kill

us, and ran outside the house." Soon after Munir left the house, he was shot by the advancing Israeli forces. His

parents heard him yell out, "Im wounded!" and then saw him being brought to the hospital by local youngsters.

Munir died on the way to the hospital.52

After Munir was shot, the IDF continued to shell the Wishahi home for at least thirty minutes, although its

only inhabitants were the elderly couple. Then Mariam was wounded when a tank shell hit the kitchen, spraying

her with shrapnel and causing a serious head wound. For the next day and a half, the elderly Issa Wishahi

desperately attempted to obtain medical assistance for his severely wounded wifethe couple had been married

for thirty-eight years and had ten children. However, the Israeli soldiers repeatedly prevented ambulances from

reaching the home, despite the fact that the Wishahi home is located only a few hundred meters from Jenins main

hospital, and Mariam died of her wounds around 11:00 p.m. the next day (see below, "Lack of Access to Medical

Care"). The death of Mariam Wishahi appears to have been due to the deliberate denial of medical assistance and

as such warrants investigation as a possible war crime. Information about the death of Munir Wishahi suggests he

was shot while running away unarmed and requires investigation.

Bombing of Yusra Abu Khurj, April 6

Yusra Abu Khurj, a sixty-year-old mentally impaired woman, lived in a one-room apartment on the top

floor of her family home, located near the entrance of the refugee camp, just about twenty meters away from the

home of the Wishahi family. Her nephew Abd al-Karim Khorj explained how his aunt used to have a habit of

standing by the window, singing or sometimes shouting. He believes that his aunt was fired upon in that position

from a helicopter on Friday, April 6 at 6:00 a.m.

I was in the first floor apartment. When the missile hit, we felt it, and we came to the third floor and saw

the missile there [it had come through the ceiling] and we knew that Yusra must be dead. I came upstairs,

to try to be sure, but we couldnt come in because the helicopters were still in the sky, so we went back

50 Human Rights Watch interview with Fathiya Yusuf Saadi, aged thirty, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

51 Ibid.

52 Human Rights Watch interview with Issa Wishahi, aged sixty, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

22

downstairs. The fifth day of the attack, soldiers occupied the first three floors of the building, we asked to

come take her body, to send it to the hospital, but they refused to let us. 53

Only on April 17 could the family remove the decomposed body of Yusra for burial. When Human Rights

Watch viewed the room, damage indicated that the projectile had entered through the window and passed through

the floor to the apartment below. Abd al-Karim Khorj told Human Rights Watch that although there were fighters

in the neighboring district of Hawashin area, there was no activity at the time.54

According to the family, there were no Palestinian fighters in or near their house at the time the helicopter

fired on the home. Human Rights Watch researchers closely inspected the Abu Khorj home, and did not find any

suggestion, from sandbags or spent cartridges for example, that Palestinian militants had used the home. The

killing of an unarmed civilian in a situation where no combat was taking place requires a war crimes

investigation.

Shooting of Nizar Mutahin, April 6

On Friday, April 5, a group of some fifty IDF soldiers entered the home of the Mutahin family, checked the

house and decided to remain in the house for the night. According to forty-two-year-old Hattam Mutahin, "They

put all of us in one room and no-one was allowed to move. We needed permission to even go to the bathroom."55

The next morning, at about 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, April 6, the soldiers announced that civilians had to leave the

houses in the neighborhood because the IDF was planning to demolish some of the houses. Hattam Mutahin

explained how her cousin, twenty-two-year-old Nizar Mutahin, attempted to run away while the soldiers were

checking the mens clothes and was instantly shot down by the soldiers:

The soldiers separated the women and the men. They asked the men to take off their upper clothes and put

their hands on their heads. Nizar didnt wait until they took off their clothes, he tried to run away because

he was afraid. They immediately shot him. He tried to run and was shot in the head.56

It is unclear why Nizar tried to run away. Given the fact that the IDF had previously checked all of the men

in the home and had spent the night in the home, it is extremely unlikely that Nizar was armed at the time of the

shooting. According to his family, he was not involved in any Palestinian militant movement, was not a wanted

person, and had never been imprisoned. The mere attempt by an unarmed civilian who does not pose any

immediate threat to the soldiers involved does not automatically make that person a military target. The killing of

Nizar Mutahin warrants investigation.

The Bulldozing Death of Jamal Fayid, April 6

Jamal Fayid, aged thirty-seven, lived with seventeen other family members in the Jurrat al-Dahab area of

the camp, next to the Hawashin district. Fayid, disabled from birth, could not speak, eat, or move without

assistance. For the first two days the family sheltered themselves from the fighting in a small room beside the

kitchen.57 Other relatives had joined them there for safety.

Shooting around the house and from IDF helicopters intensified on the afternoon of the second day, April 4.

On April 5, the house was hit by a missile and the second and third floors began to burn. Fayids family tried to

run onto the street from the main door, but were forced back when Faziya Muhammad, an elderly aunt, was shot

in the shoulder just before she reached the door. They broke a side window and climbed out, but were unable to

53 Human Rights Watch interview with Abdul-Karim Ahmad Mohmad Khorj, aged thirty-one, Jenin, April 27, 2002.

54 Ibid. Although another relative, Nidal Ahmad Muhammad Abu Khurj, gave a different date for his aunts death, the detail

was consistent in other aspects. The date of April 6 matches accounts of the incident by others in the neighborhood and is

consistent with the pattern of events at the time.

55 Human Rights Watch interview with Hattam Mutahin, aged forty-two, Jenin, April 22, 2002.

56 Ibid.

57 Human Rights Watch interview, Fathiya Muhammad Suliman, April 20, 2002, and Human Rights Watch interview,

Bassima Mahmud Rashid Fayid, April 20, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

23

lift Fayid through the window. They ran down the stairs shouting at the soldiers to hold their fire. The family then

ran towards an IDF position in a house diagonally opposite. An IDF medic briefly treated Muhammads injury,

and the family eventually made their way to Fayids uncles house a short distance away.

Early the next day, April 6, Fayids mother and sister returned home to check Fayids well-being. He was

unharmed. Fayids sister told how she and her mother ran to IDF soldiers in the street to ask permission to retrieve

him:

We tried to beg the soldiers that there was a paralyzed man in there. We even showed them his identity

card. The ones on the street told us to go away. So we ran to [soldiers in] a neighboring house and said the

same. We begged and begged. So eventually they let five women into the house and try to carry him out.58

Fayids mother, aunt, sister, and two neighbors entered the house. Shortly afterwards they heard the sound

of a bulldozer approaching:

It came and began to destroy the house. We could hear people on the street shouting, "Stop! There are

women inside the house! Stop!" The soldiers even knew we were in there because they had said we could

go into the house and get Jamal out.59

Despite the shouting, the bulldozer continued. The women ran out as the house swayed and crumbled

around them, crushing the paralyzed Fayid in the rubble. The soldier in the bulldozer cursed at them, calling them

bitches. The women ran into another house for safety. The IDF medic who had helped them the day before raged

and swore at the bulldozer driver.

The women stayed in the area for three days, and then returned again to the rubble when the incursion had

ended. "At night we slept somewhere else, and during the day we came here to find him. We looked all day

yesterday, but we could not find him."60 Fayids body was recovered from the rubble on April 21, fifteen days

after the house was demolished on top of him. It is difficult to see what military goal could have been furthered or

what legitimate consideration of urgent military necessity could be put forward to justify the crushing to death of

Jamal Fayid without giving his family the opportunity to remove him from his home. This case requires

investigation as a possible war crime.

The Shooting of Jamal al-Sabbagh, April 6

Jamal al-Sabbagh was a thirty-three year-old diabetic. He lived in the al-Damaj area of the camp with

Nadia, his wife, and three children. His house was close to heavy fighting during the first two days of the

incursion. As the helicopter fire intensified on the second day, April 4, the family broke down two internal doors

and escaped to the home of Nadias uncle, two houses away.

The air attack intensified at 2:00 a.m. the following morning, April 5, and the family ran onto the road for

safety. The al-Sabbagh home was hit by a missile: the family watched it burn. Al-Sabbaghs wife told Human

Rights Watch that no armed Palestinians had been present in their house.

The next day, on April 6, an IDF tank came down the street, with soldiers calling via loudspeakers for all

men in the area to come out of their houses and onto the street. Al-Sabbagh complied with the call and walked

into the street at around 6:00 p.m. His wife watched from the doorway as, according to instructions, he raised his

shirt, said his full name, and stripped briefly to his underpants. The soldiers instructed him to report with other

men to the square at the health clinic. Al-Sabbagh told them he was a diabetic and could not stay out in the cold.

The soldiers allowed him to bring his medication and shirt with him in a black plastic bag.61

58 Human Rights Watch interview, Bassima Mahmud Rashid Fayid, April 20, 2002.

59 Ibid.

60 Human Rights Watch interview, Fathiya Muhammad Suliman, April 20, 2002.

61 Human Rights Watch interview, Nadia Ahmad al-Ghazawi, aged thirty, April 21, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

24

Ibrahim Z. (not his real name), a sixteen-year-old neighbor, walked with al-Sabbagh to the health clinic.62

When they reached the square beside the clinic, they were ordered to lie on the ground. Ibrahim had seen al-

Sabbagh talking to the soldiers about his diabetes shortly beforehand. He was still carrying his shirt and

medication in the black bag.

Ibrahim told Human Rights Watch:

We lay down. After that they told us to stand up and told Jamal to put his bag away. They wanted him to

put it on the ground. He did. They told us to take off our trousers. While we were taking our trousers off,

they shot him.63

According to Ibrahim, the soldiers fired two bullets: one at al-Sabbagh and one at him, a few meters away.

The bullets missed Ibrahim, but struck al-Sabbagh.

I did not see who shot me, it was night. Everyone else lay down when they heard the shots. They sounded

very close, about five to ten meters away. When I heard the shots I threw myself on the ground.64

Ibrahim heard al-Sabbagh recite the shahada [the Muslim declaration of faith, customarily recited before

dying]. Al-Sabbagh then fell silent.

Ten minutes later a group of eleven Palestinian men arrived. They were ordered to strip to their underwear

and crouch in front of the soldiers. The soldiers then tied their hands, one by hand, beginning from the right-hand

side. The hands of the last three men were not tied. Instead, they were ordered to carry al-Sabbaghs body inside

the clinic building. They tried to put the body in a large refrigerator, but it would not fit. The last thing Ibrahim

saw before being taken away for questioning was a group of IDF soldiers putting al-Sabbaghs body under the

clinic stairs.65 An investigation is required to determine why someone who was at the time directly under the

control of the IDF and obeying orders to strip off his clothes was shot to death.

The Shooting of Ali Muqasqas, April 7

Ali Muqasqas, a street vendor, lived in the al-Saha area of the Jenin camp. Muqasqas was at home on

Sunday 7 April with his six children, aged between four and twenty-four. His wife, an employee at al-Razi

hospital in Jenin city, was one of some thirty hospital employees trapped in the hospital by the curfew and unable

to return home.66

On the second day of the incursion the fighting drew closer to the Muqasqas familys house, and the aerial

attack intensified. A missile hit the house immediately opposite and wounded eight people insidesome of them

fighters, others civilians seeking shelter after their own houses had been damaged. The family tried to assist those

inside. They called an ambulance, but were told it could not come. Alis son Hassan recalled that the Palestinian

Red Crescent Society (PRCS) told him that "we have tried to come. But the soldiers have shot at us and have even

arrested our people." 67 Family members dragged some of the injured to a safer location, but were forced to leave

others behind.

62 Human Rights Watch interview, Ibrahim Z., aged sixteen, April 21, 2002. Human Rights Watch has a policy of not

revealing the names of witnesses under the age of eighteen. Names and details are held on file at Human Rights Watch.

Requests to cite details should be addressed to the Human Rights Watch New York office.

63 Human Rights Watch interview, Ibrahim Z., aged sixteen, April 21, 2002

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 Human Rights Watch interview, Dr. Ali Jabali, Vice-President of al-Razi Hospital, April 22, 2002.

67 Human Rights Watch interview, Hassan Abu Nail Salim Muqasqas, aged twenty-four, April 22, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

25

The following day, April 7, Ali Muqasqas was taking shelter with his family in the front room of the house.

The room had no access to running water. When the noonday call to prayer sounded, Ali Muqasqas wanted to

pray and went outside to fetch water from the tanks on the western side of the house to perform his ablutions.

Muqasqas was aware of an IDF position on the eastern side of the house. He did not realize that another soldier

was at a window near the north-eastern side of the house, roughly twenty meters from the water tank.

Muqasqas opened the door and left. His son, Hassan, told Human Rights Watch:

Just afterwards we heard him shouting, "Ive been shot! Ive been shot!" Yes, we heard the sound of the

bullets. It was the sound of a sniper rifle. This was the seventh incursion into Jenin; we know the sound by

now. My father ran to hide under a set of low concrete stairs on his left, about two meters away.68

Muqasqas was shot twice in the abdomen. Hassan and his brothers immediately telephoned their neighbor,

Mahmud Talib, to come and help them save their father. Talib agreed, and Hassan ran to open the courtyard door

for him. But as he opened the door the soldier fired again, missing Hassan but wounding Talib in the side. Talib

told Human Rights Watch: "I went to help him. There was a soldier here in my neighbors house, and when he

saw me he shot me. Whenever he saw anything move, he shot it." Talib showed Human Rights Watch a medical

certificate stating that he had had a bullet and shrapnel removed from his chest.69 Hassan helped drag Talib to a

small storeroom, and then smashed the storeroom window. Hassan, his brothers, sisters, and Talib escaped

through the window. Hassan and the children ran to their uncles house, knowing their father was almost

certainly dead, but not sure: "[W]e knew my father was under the staircase, but he was silent. He didnt make any

sound after the first scream."70

Hassan and the children stayed at their uncles house until the incursion ended. The International

Committee of the Red Cross confirmed their fathers death to them, eight days after he was shot, and removed the

remains for burial. Under no circumstances can the breach of a curfew by an unarmed civilian going to fetch

water be seen as a hostile act. This shooting should be investigated.

Shooting of Muhammad Abu Sabaa, April 9

The home of Muhammad Abu Sabaa, aged sixty-five, was located in the Hawashim neighborhood of the

Jenin refugee camp, which was completely bulldozed by Israeli forces during their offensive in the camp. On

April 9, at about 6:00 a.m., the family noticed that Israeli bulldozers had moved into their area of the camp and

had begun bulldozing homes without warning. The bulldozers began demolishing the Sabaa home while the

family was still located inside.

Muhammad Abu Sabaa, the patriarch of the family, went outside to reason with the operator of the

bulldozer who was destroying his home. He explained to the bulldozer operator that his family was still inside,

and begged the bulldozer operator to suspend the demolition. The bulldozer operator agreed, and began leaving

the area. Muhammads forty-three-year-old son Samia Abu Sabaa told how his father was shot dead by an Israeli

soldier as he returned to his home:

When the bulldozer left the place, a sniper shot my father. He was inside the house, but because half of the

house had been destroyed [by the bulldozer] he was visible [from outside]. He was shot in the chest with

one or two bullets. It was early in the morning, about 7:30 a.m. or so. My father died instantly. We put his

body inside the room.71

Soon after the killing of Muhammad Abu Sabaa, the remaining family members noticed groups of civilians

moving in the streets holding white sheets. The civilians told them that bulldozers were leveling houses in the al-

68 Ibid.

69 Human Rights Watch interview, Mahmud Hussein Qassim Talib, aged fifty-seven, April 28, 2002.

70 Human Rights Watch interview, Hassan Abu Nail Salim Muqasqas, aged twenty-four, April 22, 2002.

71 Human Rights Watch interview with Samia Muhammad Masud Abu al-Sabaa, aged forty-three, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

26

Wahsin area of the camp, and that everone who remained in their homes would risk being killed. So the Sabaa

family members decided to leave also: "We left my father[s body] inside, and we went outside."72 At the

entrance to the camp, the civilians were met by IDF soldiers, who separated the women and children from the

men, let the women and children proceed to the hospital, and tied up and arrested the men. When he was released

from detention, Samia Abu al-Sabaa found his home completely demolished and began searching for his fathers

body in the rubble:

We found the body two days ago [on April 18]. I came back and recognized where our house used to be.

We brought the bulldozer. When I saw the bed and the bones, I told the bulldozer to stop and we started

digging with our hands. The body was in pieces.73

The willful killing of an unarmed civilian in a non-combat situation is a violation of international

humanitarian law and constitutes a war crime.

Killing of Nayif Abd al-Jabr and Amid Fayid, April 10

The Abd al-Jabr and Fayid families live outside the Jenin refugee camp, in the al-Marah area of Jenin city.

On April 10, at about 2:00 p.m., two tanks moved into the area. At the time, nineteen-year-old Nayif Abd al-Jabr

was visiting the home of his friend, twenty-year-old Amid Fayid. Nayifs father attempted to call the Fayid

home to warn his son it was too dangerous to come home, but the boys had already left.74 The families of both

men and their friends vigorously denied that the two men were involved with Palestinian militant organizations.

Normally, when a Palestinian militant is killed, the family and friends take great pride in his "martyrdom" and

make no effort to deny the militant history of the deceased.

Muhammad Shalabi, aged twenty, was also with the two young men, and explained what had happened:

We were at our house with Amid, Nayif, and [another young man]. We were just sitting around when we

heard the noise of tanks and became frightened. When we felt it had become too dangerous, they decided to

go back to their homes. I tried to persuade them from leaving, because it was very dangerous, but they

insisted they had to go home.

We went out of the house, all four of us together. We were walking closely together. [The other young

man] left us and went home, so it was the three of us. Nayif and Amid were standing in front of a store,

and I went down to check if there were any tanks down on the street.

Then the shooting started. I thought it was from the tanks, but then I realized it was from the helicopters.

When I heard the shooting, I went to hide. [After the attack], when we found Amid, he was still

breathing. It took maybe thirty minutes to get to the hospital. The first time, he was just wounded in his

leg, then he tried to escape and hide. He was shot in the head from the back.75

Muhammad Shalabi did not see the wounding of Nayif Abd al-Jabr, who was hiding behind another car,

but Nayif was later found mortally wounded in the same area as Amid. Muhammad Shalabi and a friend carried

the mortally wounded Amid to the hospital, where he soon died from his wounds. When Qassim Abd al-Jabr

heard about the shooting of his son, he rushed to the area with his wife and found his wounded son:

When I reached there, I found some people surrounding Nayif, and giving him first aid. He was bleeding

from his mouth, but still alive. We took him and put him on the floor of a store. We called the ambulance

to come but the driver was prevented from reaching the area. The fire truck also came to try and help but

were also preventedthe IDF soldiers prevented them from reaching the area.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid.

74 Human Rights Watch interview with Qassim Nayif Qassim Abd al-Jabr, aged fifty-seven, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

75 Human Rights Watch interview with Muhammad Abd al-Rahman Shalabi, aged twenty, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

27

We sat with Nayif until 2:00 a.m. The whole area was surrounded by tanks and Apache [helicopters] were

in the sky. The area was also inspected by IDF with dogs. They made everyone get outside and inspected

their clothes, from about 11:30 p.m. to midnight. The Israelis said there were four people there, they had

shot and killed one and wounded another, and were looking for the two remaining and the injured one.76

At 2:00 a.m., the Israeli forces finally allowed a fire truck to enter the area and evacuate Nayif to the

hospital. Nayif died from his wounds at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 11.

During the attack, civilians in the neighboring homes were also injured from the fighting. Fifteen-year-old

Rina Hassan was one of the wounded. She was still bedridden when she told Human Rights Watch: "The

helicopters came over the area and started shooting. I was in my room when the shooting started. A big bomb

from the helicopter fell outside on the veranda and five pieces of the bomb hit metwo pieces are still in my

lungs, and two are in my shoulder."77 She was evacuated to the hospital on a home-made stretcher by four

youngsters from the neighborhood. The killing of two civilians attempting to return to their homes requires

investigation.

Killing of Kamal Zghair, April 10

Kamal Zghair was a fifty-seven-year-old, impoverished wheelchair-bound invalid. He slept in a backroom

of a gas station in Jenin, near the Ibrahim Haddad factory. Almost every day, he went in his wheelchair to a

neighboring industrial warehouse where his friend, fifty-year-old Durar Hussein, washed his clothes for him,

repaired his wheelchair, provided him with food, and also gave him some respite from his lonely existence.

On Wednesday, April 10, Kamal Zghair came to visit his friend Durar Hussein as usual. Durar Hussein

explained how he washed his friends clothes and fed him, and then wheeled him to the main road when he

wanted to return to his room at about 4:00 p.m. Soon thereafter, Kamal Zghair was killed:

That day, he came to me in the morning as he came everyday. I cleaned his clothes and put them out to dry.

At about 4:00 or 4:15 p.m., I pushed his wheelchair to the street. He continued to make his way to the gas

station. I had put a white flag on his wheelchair to make sure that everyone could see him from far away.

I waited about ten minutes, because it takes him some time to reach the end of the factory [grounds]. I

heard tanks coming from the west. So I got worried about him, because he was in the street. Then they

started shooting from the tanks. I knew exactly where he was, and the shooting was there. At first, I

thought they were shooting to tell him to move out of the street.

The tanks came nearer and it was too dangerous to remain outside, so I went inside. The tanks stopped for

about 45 minutes at the edge of the factory [grounds]. The tanks didnt leave the area, they remained, so

I couldnt leave the compound to check on him. The tanks remained there all night.

The next morning, the curfew on Jenin was briefly lifted. Durar Hussein immediately went to check on his

friend:

I went by foot, and in the place I had expected, I found his wheelchair, crushed by the tanks. I saw the

wheelchair but not his body. I ran to the gas station where he sleeps, yelling, "Kamal! Kamal!" I entered

his room but could not find anyone.

76 Human Rights Watch interview with Qassim Nayif Qassim Abd al-Jabr, aged fifty-seven, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

77 Human Rights Watch interview with Rina Muhammad Jamil Hassan, aged fifteen, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

28

I went back to where the wheelchair was crushed, looking here and there. I had seen something in the grass

[from the factory], and suddenly remembered this. So I went to check and in between the grass I found his

body.

You couldnt recognize the bodyhis face was smashed and his legs were crushed. I only recognized him

because of the socks that I had cleaned the day before.78

Human Rights Watch went to inspect the site of the killing and found the crushed and bullet-ridden

wheelchair by the side of the road, its white flag still attached. The stretch of road on which Kamal Zghair was

killed was completely open with excellent visibility, so it is unlikely that the IDF soldiers who shot him saw

anything other than an elderly, wheelchair-bound man. Although Kamal Zghair was outside during a curfew

period, the use of lethal force cannot be justified to enforce a curfew. This case raises concerns that serious

violations of international humanitarian law have been committed, and thus warrants criminal investigation.

Killing of Faris Zaiban, April 11

The Zaiban family lives in the al-Maslah neighborhood of Jenin city, outside of the Jenin refugee camp.

During the IDF operation at the refugee camp, the entire city was placed under a complete curfew. On the

morning of April 11, civilians in Jenin city were informed that the curfew would be lifted for a few hours,

allowing them to replenish vital food and other supplies.

When the curfew was lifted, forty-two-year-old Inad Zaiban gave his fourteen-year-old son Faris some

money and told him to go to buy some groceries. Faris Zaiban left the house, and went with a group of women

and two other young boys to a nearby grocery store located near the Ibrahimi school. Eight-year-old Yusuf A.

(not his real name) came along with Faris Zaiban, and told Human Rights Watch what had happened on the way

to the store:

Me, Faris, one other boy and some women were together. Faris told me to go back home, but I refused.

Then we were walking towards a tank [located seventy-five meters away].79 We saw the tank turning

towards us. I was afraid, and Faris said, "Go home," but I refused.

Then the tank started shooting. Faris and another boy ran away. I fell down. Then I saw Faris falling

down. I thought that he had just tripped. But then I saw blood on the ground. I went to Faris, I thought he

was just asleep. Two women came and carried Faris to a car.

The soldiers didnt say anything before they started shooting. There were no men with us, just boys and

women. We didnt throw any rocks at the tank.80

Inad Zaiban was shopping at the market when he heard his son had been shot and taken to the hospital. He

rushed to the hospital, but soon was informed that his son was dead. Human Rights Watch visited the scene of the

shooting, which is in a street with good visibility. The soldiers had a clear line of fire from where their tank was

parked in the middle of the road. The use of lethal force against a group of civilians following the lifting of a

curfew, and where no fighting is taking place, constitutes a deliberate attack on unarmed civilians and is a war

crime.

78 Human Rights Watch interview with Durar Muhammad Salah Hussein, aged fifty, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

79 Human Rights Watch researchers visited the scene of the incident, and measured the distance between the tank and where

Faris Zaiban had been standing when he was shot as between seventy-five and eighty meters.

80 Human Rights Watch interview with Yusuf A., aged eight, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

29

VII. HUMAN SHIELDING AND THE USE OF CIVILIANS FOR MILITARY PURPOSES

IDF soldiers in Jenin engaged in the practice of human shielding, forcing Palestinian civilians to serve as

"shields" to protect them from Palestinian militants. The practice of human shielding is specifically outlawed by

international humanitarian law. The in appropriate use of civilians for other military purposes was also

widespread during the IDF operation in Jenin. In almost every case where IDF soldiers entered civilian homes in

the camp, the residents told Human Rights Watch that the IDF soldiers were accompanied by Palestinian

civilians.

Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to

render certain points or areas immune from military operations." The authoritative Commentary refers to this

provision in the following terms: "During the last World War public opinion was shocked by certain instances

(fortunately rare) of belligerents compelling civilians to serve as a protective screen for the fighting troops. The

prohibition is expressed in an absolute form and applies to the belligerents own territory as well as occupied

territory, to small sites as well as wide areas."81

Use of Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields

Among the most serious "human shielding" cases documented in Jenin by Human Rights Watch were the

cases of four brothers, a father and his fourteen-year-old son, and two other men who were used to shield IDF

soldiers from attack by Palestinian militants while the IDF soldiers occupied a large house located directly across

from the main UNRWA compound in the camp. In separate interviews with Human Rights Watch, the victims

described how they were forced to stand on the balcony of the house to deter Palestinian gunmen from firing in

the direction of the IDF soldiers. The Palestinian civilians also described how the IDF soldiers had forced them to

stand in front of the soldiers when the soldiers fired at Palestinian gunmen, while resting their rifles on the

shoulders of the Palestinian civilians.

Imad Gharaib, aged thirty-four, was one of the four brothers. On Saturday, April 6, at about 6:00 a.m., a

group of thirty to forty IDF soldiers entered the Gharaib family home, and forced the Gharaib brothers to walk in

front of them as they searched the home. One of the IDF soldiers abused Imad, beating him with his rifle and

threatening to shoot him if he did not reveal where he had hidden his gun (Imad said he does not possess a gun):

He asked me if I had any guns. I said, "No, I am only here with my family." He started beating me with

the back of his gun, hitting me many times, insisting that I had a gun. He [then] threatened to shoot me

and put the gun to my face. Then he moved the gun a bit and shot the television.82

After the soldiers had inspected the home, they tied the men up and, half an hour later, walked them over to

a large neighboring house in which the IDF had set up a temporary base; the house was located directly across

from the main UNRWA compound. The men were forced to stand outside, facing the Palestinian gunfire:

They ordered us to walk in front of them. There was some shooting at the [IDF] soldiers [by Palestinian

militants higher up in the camp.] They started pushing us and brought us down to another house. There,

they put us on the veranda where we could be seen [by the Palestinian gunmen]. The soldiers were sitting

inside the salon. We were facing the shooting, the soldiers did this to protect themselves. We could be

clearly seenif the fighters saw us they would not shoot.83

Kamal Tawalbi, a forty-three-year-old father of fourteen children, and his fourteen-year-old son were also

taken to the same house and forced to stand facing the Palestinian gunfire. The IDF soldiers also placed them at

the windows and forced them to stand in front of the soldiers as the soldiers shot at Palestinian gunmen in the

camp:

81 Commentary, p.

82 Human Rights Watch interview with Imad Ahmad Muhammad Gharaib, aged thirty-four, Jenin, April 27, 2002.

83 Ibid.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

30

They took me and my son. They put me in one corner and [my son] in the other corner [of the balcony].

The soldier put his gun on my shoulder. I was facing the soldier, we were face to face, with my back to the

street. Then he started shooting. This situation lasted for three hours. My son was in the same position

he was facing the soldier, the soldier had his gun on his shoulder, and was shooting.84

The soldiers also treated Kamal Tawalbi and the other men with cruelty. During his interview with Human

Rights Watch, Kamal Tawalbiwho had been taken from his home by the IDF soldiers while his home was

burning from a helicopter strikebroke down in tears as he recounted how the IDF soldiers had tried to make him

believe that his family had been killed while he was in custody:

I heard the noise from my family, I was very worried. Then, another missile hit the house. I started

screaming, "My children, my children!" [One of the soldiers] said, "Shut up, because your family is dead,

the house collapsed on them." He was a Bedouin from Beersheva, his name was Yusi. I started crying after

this. When Yusi saw I was crying, he kicked me in the leghe stomped on my foot and hurt it badly.85

Both men recalled how the soldiers had forced the men to lie face down on a floor covered with broken

glass, and had tied their hands painfully tight behind their backs with plastic handcuffs. The men were then

arrested and taken to a military camp for interrogation, and subsequently released at the village of Rumanah.

Faisal Abu Sariya, a forty-two-year-old schoolteacher, also was used as a human shield by the IDF and

forced to carry out dangerous tasks. Soldiers entered Abu Sariyas home on the second day of the Israeli

incursion, at about 4:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 4, accompanied by Abu Sariyas neighbor:

Early, at 4:00 a.m., my daughter woke me and told me there were some people at the door. I opened the

door and one of my neighbors, Arafat, told me the soldiers had sent him to tell me that the soldiers were

behind my home and wanted us all to go into one room of the house.86

Abu Sariya went back inside his home, woke up his family and made all of them go to one room. The

soldiers then entered, and asked Abu Sariyas twelve-year-old son to enter the various rooms of the house and

open all the dressers inside. A soldier set up a position at one window, and then kicked over the television that

was in his way. The next morning, the soldiers ordered Abu Sariya to accompany them:

The next morning they told me to join them. I asked them, "Am I wanted [for arrest]? Are you taking me

to jail?" He said he just wanted me to go next door and they would release me. My wife and children were

crying, begging them to release me.87

For the next two days, Abu Sariya was coerced into accompanying the soldiers, to enter homes even before

the IDF soldiers sent in their bomb-sniffing dogs, and to march in front of the soldiers as they moved in the streets

of Jenin refugee camp:

They pointed a house out to me. They said, "Go knock on the door, tell all the people to go in one room,

and come back." I knocked on the door and there was no answer. They put a small bomb the size of a pack

of cigarettes on the door and opened it. They ordered me to go inside. I checked and found no one inside.

Then they asked me to go out and sent in the dog. Then, when the dog came back, they went inside.

84 Human Rights Watch interview with Kamal Muhammad Hussein Tawalba, aged forty-three, Jenin, April 27, 2002.

85 Ibid.

86 Human Rights Watch interview with Faisal Mustafa Hussein Abu Sariya, aged forty-two, Jenin, April 28, 2002.

87 Ibid.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

31

Then we went to another house. Whenever they wanted to move, [a soldier] would grab me by the collar,

put me in front of him, and move like this. They used me like this between housesin case there was some

shooting, I would die first.

I asked them, "Please release me, you promised me [to go to] just one house, let me go." At least five times

a day I would ask them. They would always say that they would release me once they found a substitute.88

On Saturday, April 6, after two days with the soldiers, Abu Sariya was ordered to go knock on the door of a

home by the soldiers, while the soldiers hid themselves on the opposite side of the street. As he ran across the

street, another group of IDF soldiers located on the roofs overhead opened fire on Abu Sariya and seriously

wounded him in the leg. The two groups of IDF soldiers then began arguing. Rather than taking the seriously

wounded Abu Sariya to the hospital, the soldiers provided him with some first aidbandaging the woundand

then ordered four Palestinian youngsters to carry him away. Unable to reach the hospital, the Palestinian

youngsters were forced to leave Abu Sariya at a private home in the Hawashin/Damaj area of the camp. Abu

Sariya was forced to stay four more days without medical treatment, unable to leave because of snipers in the

area, until IDF soldiers announced on Tuesday, April 9, that everyone in the area had to leave their homes.89

Aziz Taha, aged twenty-six, was arrested from his house in al-Dahab district on Sunday, April 7, at

approximately 2:00 p.m., when IDF soldiers burst through a hole they had bored in the wall from his neighbors

garden. Blindfolded, his hands were tied with plastic ligatures before he was pushed back through the hole in the

wall the way they had come. He was put on the veranda and his blindfold was taken off; he faced up the hillside

into the camp. He took Human Rights Watch to the location and explained what had happened to him.

Aziz Taha was then taken through a maze of interconnected houses, eventually reaching an assembly point

on the western edge of the camp. The soldiers arresting him forced him at gunpoint to walk ahead of them,

particularly when crossing exposed alleys or in other vulnerable positions. On multiple occasions, there were

firefights and Aziz Taha was caught in the crossfire. Aziz Taha retraced his steps together with Human Rights

Watch, pointing out the route burrowed through neighbors houses and places where he was beaten. Retracing the

steps through holes bored in the walls, the houses inhabitants pointed out the extensive damage and vandalism

that had been done by the soldiers.

Aziz showed Human Rights Watch one alley where he was particularly exposed during a battle:

He made me walk alone up the alley, to the left. Then as we came around the corner, the soldier hid.

Shooting came from above, I dont know who was firing. During this time he made me stand in front of a

house, for fifteen minutes the battle was going on and the soldier was hiding.90

In Lutfi Badawis house, again Aziz was made to stand on a terrace, exposed to the north to fire coming

from the lower part of the camp near the UNRWA building. "There was shooting, it was coming towards me but

I dont know from where."

The entire journey, a mere 500 meters as the crow flies, took Aziz and the soldier twelve hours. When he

reached the western edge of the camp with the soldiers, Aziz Taha was forced to take off his clothes and was

severely beaten.

I was in my underwear, nothing else. They put me in a house and let me sit down. They made fun of me,

spit on me, and starting asking me questions, but when I answered they would just mock me. While I was

there, one soldier urinated on me, he cursed at me, but this is nothing, because then he did more. I have

nine scars on my legs, so when I stripped they saw them and said you were fighting two months ago,

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid.

90 Human Rights Watch interview with Aziz Muhammad Hussein Taha, aged twenty-six, Jenin, April 26, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

32

although the scars were much older. They started beating me then with something metal, it was very

painful. They also used the plastic ligatures they were using as handcuffs. They [tied a bunch of them

together into a whip] and used them to beat me on the soles of my feet.91

Aziz Taha was then transported to Salem, where he was detained for four days before being released in

Rumana village.

Sixty-five-year-old Lutfiya Abu Zeid told Human Rights Watch that IDF soldiers twice took her from the

room where she was taking shelter to use her as a human shield. The first time was at approximately 5:00 p.m. on

April 6, when they made her go with them and open doors as they checked a neighboring house. They returned at

about 9:00 p.m. the same day; Lutfiya had just started to pray. "The soldier said come here and I said, who me?

He said yes." The soldiers took her by her shoulders and held her in front of them as they exited the house and

were joined by other soldiers. They took Lutfiya onto the roof and left her in plain sight as a battle began.

About forty soldiers had come into the [courtyard], they were wearing goggles so that they could see at

night, it was scary, like they were going to go swim. They took me to the stairs up to the new house, it isnt

finished yet. I said I was really scared, that I couldnt walk. They put me on the roof, and [entered that

house through the wall].. They started an attack, and I felt like I should go home. Every five minutes

there was a rocket, they didnt care what they were shooting. They were in a house, the neighbors house,

but they left me where the helicopters could see me, but they were safe. I stayed there for about 10 minutes,

and then I got scared and left.

The soldiers did not object when Lutfiya went back downstairs.92

Muhammad Qataish, aged twenty-four, lived near the camp entrance, above the government hospital. At

about 4:30 p.m. on Friday, April 5, Qataish and his family were sheltering from helicopter and other fire in the

living room of his house. IDF soldiers broke down the back door and entered the house. In response to the

soldiers orders, Qataish raised his hands, then lifted his shirt and pulled down his trousers. He was then ordered

to search the house, room by room at gunpoint. Qataish was then ordered to search the neighboring house, his

uncles, the same way. After they had finished, all the young men were taken out of the house and lined up

against a wall.

Qataish and his brother Khaled thought the soldiers were going to arrest them. To their surprise, the soldiers

took them both onto the street, and formed one line of soldiers behind each brother. Qataysh told Human Rights

Watch:

We were lined up along the street, Khaled and myself, each with a line of soldiers behind us. One soldier

was resting his M16 on Khaleds right shoulder. I was on Khaleds right. They marched us from the house,

along Hawakeen Street, into the middle of the camp, the Hawashin area. They did not say a word. Khaled

asked them where we were going. The soldier said, "If you make any noise, well shoot you! It was about

4:30 p.m. There were about twenty to twenty-five soldiers with us."93

After walking approximately twenty minutes, the soldiers stopped them at a house on the edge of the

Hawashin district. After attempting to force Khaled and then Qataish to enter the house, the soldiers were then

fired upon by armed Palestinians. After an exchange of fire the soldiers withdrew, but took the brothers with

them. Back near his fathers house the soldiers kicked Qataish and beat him with their rifle butts before taking the

brothers into detention. The two brothers remained in detention for four days, during which they were fed once.

91 Ibid.

92 Human Rights Watch interview with Lutfiya Muhammad Hussein Abu Zeid, aged sixty-five, Jenin, April 27, 2002.

93 Human Rights Watch interview, Muhammad Mustafa Muhammad Qataish, aged twenty-four, April 27, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

33

In a separate interview with Human Rights Watch Muhammad (not his real name), a Palestinian militant

who participated in the fighting, corroborated Qataishs account. "The Israelis were in a trap, we could have killed

them. But we would have had to kill the boys too. Their brother was with us and begged us not to. We had the

chance to kill the twenty-five soldiers, but we did not."94

In an interview with the New York Times, a group of Israeli soldiers in Jenin admitted that they had used

Palestinian civilians to shield themselves from attack by Palestinian gunmen. "Yes, because of the snipers [we

used Palestinian civilians]," one of the soldiers stated, "If the sniper sees his friend there, he wont shoot." A

soldier also told the New York Times that they had used Palestinian civilians to open the doors of homes out of

fear of booby-traps: "We had a soldier who opened a door and was killed by a booby-trap that went off in his

face. We let them [Palestinian civilians] open the door. If he knows it is booby-trapped, he wont open it."95

Use of Palestinian Civilians for Military Purposes

Human Rights Watch has previously documented the IDF practice of using Palestinian civilians to assist

military personnel and operations, a serious breach of international humanitarian law.96 The use of civilians to

assist military personnel and operations violates a fundamental principle of IHL, civilian immunity. It also

violates Israels obligation to protect and respect civilian persons under Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva

Convention.97 Such practices were widespread during the IDF operation in Jenin.

IDF soldiers forced Ibrahim Abu Raid, aged fifty-one, to accompany them for seven days, from Friday,

April 5, until Thursday, April 11. Abu Raid explained how the soldiers had forced him to do some of the most

dangerous work during the operation:

They took me because I spoke Hebrew. I was with eighteen soldiers. They asked me to walk in front of

them [in the streets]. They asked me to knock on the doors because they were afraid of booby-traps. So

they would hide behind the walls and make me knock on the door.

They made me knock on the doors. If there was no answer, they gave me a heavy crowbar to break the

locks. If I couldnt break the locks, they would explode it. After the explosion, they asked me to go inside

first. After I was inside for five minutes, they would come inside. [That way,] in case an explosion

happened, only I would be inside.

When I entered inside, they would ask me, "Open this cupboard, open this door, check this room." I would

do the inspection for them. They touched nothing, but would order me to do it. Only after I had opened

everything did they start searching.

94 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, April 27, 2002.

95 Serge Schemann and Joel Greenberg, "Israelis Say Arab Dead in Jenin Number in Dozens, Not Hundreds," New York

Times, April 15, 2002.

96 Human Rights Watch, "In A Dark Hour: The Use of Civilians During IDF Arrest Operations," A Human Rights Watch

Short Report, vol. 14, no. 2 (E), April 2002.

97 Palestinian civilian inhabitants of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip are "protected persons" under Geneva

Convention IV. Article 27 of Geneva Convention IV provides:

[p]rotected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor, their family rights,

their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely

treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public

curiosity.

For a more extensive discussion of IHL and the use of civilians during military operations, see Human Rights Watch, "In a

Dark Hour."

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

34

I told them that it was too dangerous to do this work. So they kept promising, "OK, just work for us today

and we will release you," but they kept making me do this work. They made me do it by force, I had no

choice.98

Fifty-five year old Kamal Abu Salim was taken to open shops for soldiers after he fled his house in

Hawashin in the early morning hours of April 8, as the bulldozers were approaching. The soldiers separated the

men of the family out and detained them. "When we left, they took the men and made us take off our clothes, and

then threatened to shoot me. We were four, me, my brother, brother in law and 17-year old son. They made me

take off my clothes, and wanted me to show them the chicken shop down the road, they said to enter and open all

the doors inside." They walked to the neighboring Abu Nasr district, and although the others were allowed to sit

down, Kamal was taken aside to open the shops for the neighbors. He was fired upon by the soldiers. "When I

went to do it he started to shoot me, between my legs. He said I was a terrorist, he just wanted to frighten me, I

guess. At the chicken shop, I had to open three doors of three shops there."99 Afterwards, the men were taken

to the edge of the camp and detained briefly before being released.

Tariq Fayid was arrested on April 5 from his house in Dahab quarter, the southwest hilltop area of camp.

That day, soldiers entered and first came to Fayyeds house with his thirty-seven year-old neighbor Khaled, who

called out that there were soldiers with him and that they should all come out. They were detained for about two

hours and then sent home. The following day, Sunday April 6, Tariq Fayid was again arrested after soldiers,

preceded by a local Palestinian, came to the door. He and his cousin were separated.

They took us to a house where some other men were who had been arrested. We were blindfolded,

everyone was the same, and we were asked to turn to the wall. We had to kneel against the wall, handcuffed

behind our backs, and were beaten with weapons. They asked who spoke Hebrew, and I said I did a little,

because I wanted to find out about my wife and sons. They took me to open three houses. They took off

the blindfold, but my hands were still tied in front of me. They asked me to enter houses where they hadnt

been. They asked me to go in and open all the doors and windows. They just looked at the house, then told

me to go to the next one, they just watched. And they would tell people to get out of the houses and then I

had to go in front of the to check the houses. Every group of soldiers had a map. The houses were

numbered, and when they were finished, they would mark that on their map.100

Tariq was held for three days in a house in the neighborhood with thirty-five other men. On Tuesday April

9, he and the others were taken to the western edge of the camp. There, he was severely beaten:

They pulled me by the beard, threw garbage at me. They threw us on the ground and then drove a tank up

to us, as if it was going to run us over, before turning around at the last minute. It wasnt at all safe. Some

of the others were beaten badly, some were beaten so much they were unconscious. They beat me too, and

they walked on top of me, they made me lay on the floor and walked on our heads.101

Israeli soldiers entered the home of the elderly Raja Tawafshi at about 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 3,

and shot dead his elderly neighbor, Ahmad Hamduni (see above). After the killing, the soldiers ordered Raja

Tawafshi at gunpoint to walk in front of them while they searched the home:

The soldier told me to go out. He put the gun on my back and they searched the house, pushing me in front

of them. Around thirty soldiers came in, they searched all the rooms. Then they took me upstairs and

started inspecting those rooms. I was still in the same situation, in front of them with the gun in my back.

After they finished inspecting the second floor, they asked me to go with them to the third floor.102

98 Human Rights Watch interview with Ibrahim Yaqub Ibrahim Farhat Abu Raib, aged fifty-one, April 27, 2002.

99 Human Rights Watch interview with Kamal Hussein Ali Abu Salim, aged fifty-five, Jenin, April 27, 2002.

100 Human Rights Watch interview with Tariq Fayid, Jenin, April 28, 2002.

101 Ibid.

102 Human Rights Watch interview with Raja Mustafa Ahmad Tawafshi, aged seventy-two, April 22, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

35

After searching the home, the IDF soldiers tied Raja Tawafshi to a chair for the night. The next morning,

they again forced the elderly man to accompany them on searches of nearby homes:

[In the morning,] they freed me and asked me to stand up. They took me to my neighbors house for

inspection. I was in front of them and they told me to knock on the door. I told them no-one was home.

Then, they broke the door with an iron ramrod and got inside. For four houses, I was in front of them of

them to inspect the houses. Then I told them, I cant go anymore because I am tired.103

Said Abu Anas, aged thirty-four, lived in the Hawashin area of the Jenin refugee camp, and was sifting

through the rubble of his demolished home when he spoke to Human Rights Watch. He explained that a group of

Israeli soldiers came to the house of his neighbor, where fifty-three people were staying, on Saturday, April 6, at

about 10:00 a.m. and ordered the men to go outside:

They tied us up and made us go open the doors of the homes. The soldiers took me and ordered me to open

a door. I tried to open the door, but couldnt. I then told them that I didnt want to [continue trying], that I

have a heart condition and the door was too tough. They told me to rest for a minute [and used a bomb to

open the door.]104

Twenty-nine-year-old Asmahan Abu Murad was also ordered by the soldiers to go knock on her neighbors

home. When they had come to Abu Murads home earlier in the day, the soldiers had similarly been accompanied

by a neighbor who had been ordered to knock on their door. Before Abu Murad had a chance to knock on her

neighbors door, the soldiers had blown off the door, killing fifty-two-year-old Afaf Disuqi who had come to

open the door.105

On April 10, Lina Saadiya and her mother were in a house near the government hospital. Fighting had

dwindled, and two young armed Palestinians whom Lina had previously seen fighting came unarmed to sleep in

the house. The next morning a nearby soldier heard Linas mother crying out in her sleep, and ordered the

inhabitants outside. The two men carried Linas paralysed mother outside. A group of IDF soldiers stripped and

bound them, and made them lie on the ground before taking them back into the house. Three dogs accompanied

the IDF soldiers.

Lina and her mother were ordered into the neighboring bedroom.

The soldiers had three dogs. It sounds like they let the dogs at the captured men. I did not see it, but I heart

the boys screaming and shouting, and one saying he was bleeding. They [the soldiers] shouted and cursed

and the boys and asked if there were more resistance fighters.106

Lina did not understand the entire conversation, since the soldiers were speaking in Hebrew, but she heard

several shots fired in the room next door and the sound of the captured men asking the soldiers to stop. Lina

understood the soldiers wanted the captured fighters to lead them on their search through the houses.

One of them was crying, saying his feet were bleeding and asking them to take him to hospital. That was

after the soldiers had asked them. At first the resistance boys refused, but then the boys went to take them.

They did not want to go with the soldiers because they thought the other young men would think they were

IDF soldiers and shoot them. They said, "It is better if you shoot us now." But the soldiers scared them

103 Ibid.

104 Human Rights Watch interview with Said Abu Anas, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

105 Human Rights Watch interview with Asmahan Mahmud Abu Murad, aged twenty-nine, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

106 Ibid.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

36

with the dogs and by shooting into the walls, the boys went. I heard the soldiers outside saying, "OK, now

into the other room, now into this room." This is how I know they went.107

In addition to the cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the practice of using civilians to assist

military personnel and operations in Jenin has been widely reported on by the international media. For example,

in an Associated Press story about the earlier Human Rights Watch report on the IDF use of civilians, the reporter

added:

The Associated Press witnessed such an incident this week in Jenin refugee camp. A young boy who had

been guiding reporters through the camp was detained by soldiers and he later said he had been forced for

three hours to knock on unknown houses. He said that only after he had entered the houses were sniffer

dogs sent in and then soldiers entered.108

VIII. MEDICAL AND HUMANITARIAN ACCESS, AND ATTACKS

AGAINST MEDICAL PERSONNEL

Access to health care and emergency medical services have been key issues throughout the current Israeli-

Palestinian conflict, caused in part by the severe restrictions on freedom of movement instituted by the Israeli

authorities since September 2000.

It is a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law that the wounded, sick, and infirm are

entitled to particular protection and respect during armed conflict. Israels obligations to ensure medical access

were succinctly expressed by Rene Kosirnik, head of the local ICRC delegation, in a press briefing in Jerusalem

on April 22:

As long as Jenin refugee camp was occupied by the Israeli Defense Force, the first responsibility lies with

the IDF to save lives. It is the responsibility of the force concerned to deliver services, to care for friend and

foe. That is the rule.109

Israel, having ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention, is obliged to respect and protect the wounded, as set

out in article 16 of the Convention; emergency medical personnel, as set out in article 20; and to permit

recognized national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies to carry out their operations. During the period that the

IDF directly controlled Jenin camp, Israel was also obliged to ensure that the civilian population had adequate

access to food and medical supplies, as set out in articles 55 and 59. 110

The IDF incursion into Jenin began in the early hours of Wednesday, April 3. For the first day and a half,

ambulance crews of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) had access to the camp. Some seven dead and

twenty wounded were taken by the PRCS to the government hospital at the camps edge during this period. From

the afternoon of April 4, however, the IDF denied the PRCS crews access to both Jenin city and Jenin camp. The

government hospital was sealed off by two IDF checkpoints on either side of its main entrance.

The director of the PRCS Jenin, Ibrahim Dababna, told Human Rights Watch how the PRCS initially began

to experience difficulties getting into the camp:

107 Ibid.

108 Celean Jacobson, "Human Rights Group Says Israel Is Forcing Civilians to Carry Out Dangerous Tasks," Associated

Press, April 18, 2002.

109 Quoted in Chris McGreal and Brian Whittaker, "Israel Accused Over Jenin Assault," The Guardian April 23 2002.

110 Geneva Convention IV, Art. 55 and Art. 59.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

37

Whenever tanks saw the ambulances, they blocked their way. They also shot at them on several occasions.

They knew those in the camp needed help, but the tanks at the entrance to the camp forbade our passage.

After this we went to the ICRC and asked them to urgently intervene. 111

After several hours, the ICRC called back and said that the Israeli authorities had informed them there was

no prohibition on PRCS access to the camp, and that PRCS ambulances were free to go there. This official

position, however, was not reflected by the actions of soldiers on the ground. The PRCS again tried to respond to

the many calls for help it was receiving from residents within the camp but, Dr. Dababna said:

Whenever we sent ambulances the tanks would shoot at us and tell us to go back. We repeated this several

times: calling, being informed permission was granted, and then being shot at. It was like they were

tricking us. But there were so many injured and dead we just began to try anyway.

On April 7, PRCS ambulances resumed operations in Jenin City, though they were sometimes blocked by

tanks and were subject to frequent searches. They continued to be denied access to the refugee camp until April

15, eight days later. Human Rights Watch encountered two cases in which sick or injured civilians were treated

by IDF medics or assisted to the hospital, but found no evidence of any systematic IDF practice to provide

emergency medical care itself. Injured Palestinian combatants, and the vast majority of injured civilians, were

effectively denied medical access for the two-week incursion period. All hospital administrators, ambulance staff,

and international humanitarian personnel interviewed by Human Rights Watch were in agreement that almost no

injured persons from the camp were brought to the hospitals by ambulance from April 5 to April 15.

During the IDF incursion staff members at the government hospital and al-Razi charitable hospital were

trapped in their buildings, unable to return home. Medical equipment and buildings were damaged by gunfire, at

least in some cases coming from the IDF, and the distribution of medications ceased. Hospitals and the PRCS

struggled to operate without water and electricity, and with reduced numbers of staff.112 Unable to reach medical

facilities, camp and city residents telephoned the hospitals continuously for advice on how to give first aid, cope

with chronic medical conditions, and treat the rising number of health problems brought on by the lack of food

and clean water.

Lack of Access to Medical Treatment

Jihad Hassan, forty-two, is an elementary school teacher. He lived with his wife, mother, and eight children

in al-Mohatta street, near the camp entrance.

On April 4, the second day of the incursion, Hassan walked up to the second floor of his house to fetch

formula for his youngest son. As he walked back down the steps, an IDF missile entered through an exterior

window and slammed into a neighbouring room. Hassan, startled, fell down the stairs and broke his leg in four

places. The missile exploded: two others hit the house shortly afterwards, setting the first and third floors alight:

Hassans family told him later "it was like the burning fires of hell."113

Hassans wife and mother telephoned for an ambulance. Hassan told Human Rights Watch:

I tried to stand up, but I couldnt lift my leg. There was a lot of blood. An ambulance arrived [at the camp

entrance], just fifty meters from my home, but the IDF refused to let it reach the house. We talked with the

Red Crescent, the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Societies, and with the hospital. Everyone said the

same thing: they could not come.114

111 Human Rights Watch interview, Ibrahim Dababna, director of PRCS Jenin, April 20, 2002.

112 Hospitals operated with those staff members present at the time the incursion began. As a result of an IDF missile strike

on a PRCS ambulance on March 4 that killed the ambulance director and seriously injured three staff members, the PRCS

was operating with nine out of thirteen staff members. The IDF later apologized for the incident.

113 Human Rights Watch interview, Jihad Muhammad Yassin Hassan, April 19, 2002.

114 Ibid.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

38

Hassan took two painkillers, and his family tried to treat the wounds with water and salt. His wife and

mother telephoned for first aid information. Hassan remained in his house without further treatment from April 4

to April 9. Only a short distance from the camp entrance, he could see the hospital from his window. On April 5,

IDF soldiers entered and searched his house, but refused his requests for medical assistance. They ordered his

elderly mother to accompany them from floor to floor as they searched the house, and then left.

On the seventh day of the incursion, April 9, many residents began to leave the camp. Although he did not

hear any IDF warning, Hassan also decided to leave.

I saw everyone leaving the camp as a group. I felt something dangerous was going on and thought that this

would be a good opportunity to go to the hospital and get treatment. I said to my family, "it is time." We

left about 9:00 a.m. The boys took a mattress and put me on a ladder in order to carry me to the hospital.

People tried to help carry me to hospital, but the IDF stopped us. I saw lots of young people stripped to their

underpants, being arrested by the IDF. They ordered me to stay with the people they arrested. After an hour

I was alone, under the sun, with one other injured person. We stayed there for seven hours.

As evening fell, one soldier called an officer, Captain Adil. The captain authorized an ambulance to

approach under guard some fifty meters from the camp entrance. A doctor was permitted to enter the camp after

raising his shirt, and Hassan was carried to the ambulance on a stretcher. When the ambulance arrived at the IDF

position next to the hospital gate, Hassan was checked again by the soldiers. Tanks barred the hospital entrance.

After half an hour I was allowed to enter. That was after they checked my ID, the nature of my injury, and

the fact it was from missiles. I heard the soldiers tell them [the hospital staff] that it was the last patient they

would receive that day.

Human Rights Watch documented two cases of civilians who died as a result of their wounds, having been

denied access to medical treatment. Fifty-eight-year-old Mariam Wishahi was wounded inside her home by tank

fire in the morning of April 6. Her husband tried to obtain medical assistance for his gravely wounded wife, but

the IDF repeatedly refused to allow an ambulance to reach the scene, located just a few hundred meters from the

main hospital in Jenin:

I tried to get an ambulance. I asked my neighbor to get an ambulance. A Palestinian Red Crescent

ambulance came, but [the soldiers] shot it. When a second ambulance came the next day, the soldiers made

the driver and the nurse take off their clothes next to my house. The driver was telling them he needed to

get someone from the house. I started shouting that we needed an ambulance, and the soldiers started

shouting to my house, telling me rudely in Arabic to get back inside. My wife kept saying she needed to go

to the hospital. On Sunday night, at 11:00 p.m., she died. Every time I called the ambulance, they told me

that the IDF were shooting at them and they could not come inside the camp.115

Qassim Abd al-Jabr recalled similar difficulties in obtaining medical assistance for his son Nayif who was

seriously wounded in an IDF attack outside the refugee camp: "We called an ambulance to come but the driver

was prevented from reaching the area. The fire truck also came to try and help but were also preventedthe IDF

soldiers prevented them from reaching the area."116 Only about twelve hours after his son was wounded was his

father able to take him to a hospital. Nineteen-year-old Nayif Abd al-Jabr died from his wounds the next day.

Attacks on Ambulances and Medical Personnel

When permitted to move, ambulances were subject to lengthy coordination and search procedures.

Ambulance staff spoke to Human Rights Watch of exhaustive search procedures, in which staff stripped to their

115 Human Rights Watch interview with Issa Wishahi, aged sixty, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

116 Human Rights Watch interview with Qassim Nayif Qassim Abd al-Jabr, aged fifty-seven, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

39

underwear and ambulance contents were examined in detail. IDF soldiers also checked patients identities and, in

some cases, took them from the ambulance into Israeli custody.117

Such search and arrest procedures, if conducted appropriately and in a way that does not endanger medical

access, are legitimate. More troublesome are the repeated incidents in which IDF soldiers fired, without warning,

on PRCS ambulances and medical staff. Human Rights Watch has previously documented cases in which IDF

soldiers in the West Bank have fired on ambulances.118 The number and frequency of reported IDF shootings at

Palestinian ambulances rose steeply from March 2002, immediately prior to Operation Defensive Shield.119

On April 3, the first day of the attack, IDF fire killed a uniformed nurse, twenty-seven-year-old Farwa

Jammal, who had come to the assistance of a wounded civilian on the outskirts of the camp. As the nurse and her

sister were trying to reach the wounded man, they came under IDF fire. The nurse was killed with a gunshot

wound to the heart, and her sister was severely wounded (see above, "Attacks on Civilians").

On April 4, an ambulance crew was dispatched to try and rescue injured people in the Atareh area, near al-

Razi hospital. Alaa Salah, himself a PRCS volunteer, lived nearby. At 10:00 a.m. he heard an ambulance siren

outside. He and his wife went to the balcony door to look.

I heard the ambulance siren. I looked out the window, and saw the ambulance stop. Five seconds later two

guys from the ambulance opened the passenger doors and jumped out. I heard the sound of shooting, heavy fire.

The ambulance was in the middle of the road with its motor running and the siren on.120

The area was quiet, under curfew and away from the camp. Salah heard no shooting prior to the sound of

the ambulance siren. Salah saw the two ambulance staff run behind the ambulance as the shooting continued.

There was still shooting. I think they were shooting around the car. They shot at it maybe two minutes, it

sounded like 800mm tank rounds [.50 caliber machine gun fire]. We can distinguish between four and five

different kinds of ammunition in these operations, weve heard the sounds a lot.121

According to PRCS Director Dababna, the PRCS informed the ICRC of the incident, and the ICRC liaised

with the relevant Israeli authorities. The IDF denied having fired on the ambulance.122 Several hours later, PRCS

staff were given permission to move the ambulance. The .50 caliber rounds that Salah believed were used during

the incident suggest that the IDF was responsible for the shooting. IDF use of .50 rounds is routine during military

operations, while armed Palestinians rarely have such heavy weaponry in their arsenal. Palestinian use of .50

caliber machine guns has been reported in Beit Jala, however.

Haytham Muweis, a thirty-four-year-old ambulance driver, said, "Of course there were soldiers who were

just frightened, and fired around the ambulance. But at other times we were shot at directly." Several ambulance

117 PRCS Jenin Director Ibrahim Dababna also told Human Rights Watch of an incident in which the IDF arrested an entire

ambulance crew, consisting of two drivers, one nurse, and one volunteer. The soldiers ordered them to strip, bound their

hands, and transferred them to Salem military base for questioning. All four were released in the village of Zabooba, twelve

hours later. Some twenty PRCS personnel in the West Bank were arrested while performing their duties during Operation

Defensive Shield.

118 Human Rights Watch, Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Abuses in the Hebron District, May 2001, p. 327.

119 Four staff members of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society were killed during this period, and ten were injured. See

Human Rights Watch, "Israel: Cease Attacking Medical Personnel," press release, March 9, 2002. Israeli authorities had

made and retracted several allegations that ambulances operated by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) were used

to smuggle weapons. On March 27, the IDF reported that a PRCS ambulance was apprehended in the Jerusalem area

carrying an explosive belt with eight to ten kilograms of explosives.

120 Human Rights Watch interview, Alaa al-Din Salah, April 20, 2002.

121 Ibid.

122 Human Rights Watch interview, Ibrahim Dababna, director of PRCS Jenin, April 20, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

40

and humanitarian personnel told Human Rights Watch they believed that the spate of incidents in which IDF

soldiers fired on ambulance staff represented a policy of deliberate obstruction of ambulance movement.

Muweis told Human Rights Watch of several incidents in which his ambulance had been fired on while

attempting to reach patients. In one such incident, on April 6 or 7, PRCS crews were informed that the IDF had

given permission for three PRCS and one ICRC vehicle to enter Jenin camp. The ambulances proceeded past the

two IDF positions outside the government hospital, and were subjected to a five-hour search. The PRCS

ambulances then attempted to enter the camp, videoed by the IDF. According to Muweis:

They videotaped us and let us enter ten meters from behind the government hospital into the camp. We saw

many snipers in the surrounding area, and then shots began to be fired around us. When we were shot at, we

reversed and told the soldiers we could not go in. Then we were sure the video was just for media purposes.

I heard that day they said on the news that the IDF had let ambulances enter the camp. That is not true. We

do not know exactly where the shots fell, and we felt they were doing it just to scare us away. But it was

clear to us that if we went further forward, we would be shot.123

One week later, circa April 13, Muweis went to collect an urgent case, a woman in the Sanaiyya area of

Jenin city. He left the ambulance station at 11:30 p.m., navigated through streets subject to shifting checkpoints,

and collected the patient. On his return, two tanks loomed out of the darkness in front of him, some twenty meters

away. The tanks immediate opened fire around the ambulance.

The woman had been sleeping, but she woke up and became extremely distressed. I tried to shout at them

that I had an injured woman with me, but no one seemed to be listening. I was yelling from inside the car,

but if I had stepped outside I would have been shot. It lasted about five minutes. I stayed there until the

tanks left, and then I drove off. They did not ask any questions or try to search me. Shooting has become a

kind of talking for them.

Although the fourteen-day blockage of medical access to Jenin camp was unprecedented in IDF military

operations, the difficulties faced by ambulance crews and medical workers during Operation Defensive Shield

were not limited to Jenin. PRCS ambulances were prohibited from operating for periods of several days in

Ramallah and Bethlehem; more limited, but still serious limitations on ambulance movement were in effect in

other locations. On April 8, the PRCS reported that seven PRCS ambulances had been destroyed or damaged

beyond repair since March 29.124

The operations of the International Committee of the Red Cross were also seriously affected. On April 4,

the ICRC issued a press statement noting its regret at "the frequent and often serious instances in which medical

personnel were prevented from performing their life saving duties," explaining that "ICRC delegates were

regrettably prevented from working because of a sudden degradation of the usual lines of communication between

themselves and the Israeli authorities."125 On April 5, the ICRC reported that it would be limiting its movements

in the West Bank to a strict minimum, stating:

[O]ver the past two days, ICRC staff in Bethlehem have been threatened at gun point, warning shots have

been fired at ICRC vehicles in Nablus and Ramallah, two ICRC vehicles were damaged by IDF tanks in

Tulkarem and the ICRC premises in Tulkarem were broken into. This behaviour is totally unacceptable, for

it jeapordises not only the life-saving work of emergency medical services, but also the ICRCs

humanitarian mission.126

123 Human Rights Watch interview, Haytham Muweis, April 22, 2002.

124 Palestinian Red Crescent Society, "April 8 Update," April 8, 2002. Available at: <http://www.palesetinercs.org>.

125 Middle East: A Solemn Appeal By The International Committee Of The Red Cross & The International Federation Of

Red Cross And Red Crescent Societies, April 2 2002, ICR C02/22 Geneva.

126 International Committee of the Red Cross, Press Release "ICRC Restricts Its Movements in the West Bank," Tel Aviv,

April 5 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

41

Denial of Humanitarian Access

By the end of the IDF operation in Jenin camp, enormous media controversy had arisen over the question of

assistance to the wounded and the disposal of the dead. The IDF, rejecting calls for the participation of

independent monitoring or humanitarian groups, announced its intention to collect and dispose of the bodies of

those killed, some via burial in a remote cemetery in the Jordan valle y, but this was opposed by local human

rights organizations, who brought a court injunction to prevent the burials from going ahead. While Human

Rights Watch found no evidence to confirm allegations that the IDF had conducted mass burials prior to April 15,

the IDFs six-day prohibition of medical access to the injured and sick in Jenin camp is a clear violation of the

Israeli obligations under international humanitarian law.

ICRC and PRCS officials were finally permitted to enter Jenin camp after midday on April 15, the day after

Israeli authorities and local human rights organizations reached an out-of-court agreement on means of access and

the burial of the dead. Accompanied by an IDF liaison jeep, on the first day they transferred seven bodies to the

government hospital, as well as nine wounded and sick.127 According to the ICRC press officer, ICRC explosive

disposal experts and other delegates have since had satisfactory access to the camp area.128

Humanitarian organizations also faced severe problems in gaining access to the camp. Remaining camp

residents lacked food, water, medication and basic suppliesnone of which could be delivered until April 16. The

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA), provides services to the residents of

Jenin camp. UNRWA officials were prohibited from delivering supplies to the camp from April 2 to April 15,

despite the fact that food, medical supplies and other emergency items were stored in close proximity. Two

UNRWA trucks entered the camp for the first time in the late afternoon of April 15, but could travel only fifty

meters due to the rubble and destruction. UNRWA staff began to unload the trucks, but IDF soldiers forbade them

from doing so. As dark fell, UNRWA staff decided to withdraw rather than encourage camp residents to put their

lives at risk by trying to get to the food in the dark and under curfew.129

Human Rights Watch interviewed several humanitarian officials on a confidential basis between April 15

and 18.130 All expressed severe frustration at the difficulties surrounding humanitarian access to the camp

ranging from the lack of battlefield clearance and continual unfulfilled promises of access, to the absolute lack of

coordination between the Israeli Civilian Administration and local commanders on the ground. Several recounted

to Human Rights Watch how, after being assured by IDF Central Command or the Civil Administration that the

relevant orders had been given, troops on the ground refused to let them pass. The Director of UNRWA West

Bank operations, Richard Cook, was himself refused access to the camp on April 15, ostensibly because he had

not notified the IDF of the number of his car license plate in advance.131 In other cases, requests for equipment,

assistance, or permission to access the area received no reply. UNRWA had orally requested permission to

organize specialized rescue equipment from the Israeli authorities on April 20, and followed up the request in

written form two days later. By April 29, UNRWA had still not received any reply.

Cook commented to Human Rights Watch:

127 International Committee of the Red Cross, Press Release "ICRC Called for Foreign Specialised Teams to Assist in Jenin

Rescue," Tel Aviv, April 18, 2002.

128 Human Rights Watch interview, ICRC Press Officer Jessica Barry, April 23, 2002.

129 Human Rights Watch interview, Richard Cook, Director of UNRWA Operations West Bank, April 24, 2002; Human

Rights Watch confidential interview, humanitarian official, April 15, 2002.

130 Human Rights Watch, confidential interviews with humanitarian officials, April 15-18, 2002. Names and interview notes

are held on file at Human Rights Watch.

131 Human Rights Watch interview, Richard Cook, Director UNRWA Operations West Bank, April 24, 2002;

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

42

I have a feeling that the Israeli army works in a very fragmented manner. While its sometimes the case that

the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, its more probably the case that the left hand

simply does not care what the right hand is doing.132

From April 2 to April 15, the IDF had direct control over medical and humanitarian access to Jenin camp.

During this period Israel was obliged under international humanitarian law to provide the sick and wounded with

access to emergency medical care, and to ensure the supply of food and medical supplies to the civilian

population. According to evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch, injured civilians, combatants, and the sick

in Jenin camp had no access to emergency medical care from April 4 to April 15, a period of eleven days. After

the camps surrender, civilians continued to suffer as the IDF failed to facilitate access to food, water, and other

emergency services, despite its obligations to do so and despite the fact that, for nine days, emergency personnel

and supplies were available in close proximity to the camp.

IX. DISPROPORTIONATE AND INDISCRIMINATE USE OF FORCE

WITHOUT MILITARY NECESSITY BY THE IDF

Destruction of the Civilian Infrastructure

The wide-scale destruction of the Jenin camp has shocked many observers. Much of the physical damage

was caused by bulldozers sent in to clear paths through Jenin camps narrow, winding alleys. In some cases

civilians were not adequately warned of the impending destruction, and in one case a handicapped person died as

his house was bulldozed above him and as relatives pleaded with the soldiers to stop (see below). Others were

caught inside as the destruction began. The damage caused by the bulldozers caused permanent damage to many

buildings and rendered others uninhabitable or unsafe. Water and sewage mains were disrupted, as well as much

of the other infrastructure.

Particularly in the initial stages of the incursion, witnesses described how the IDFs armored bulldozers

began destroying their homes while they were still inside, endangering the lives of civilians. Bulldozers initially

entered the al-Damaj area of the camp on the east hill of the camp. Bulldozers were able to enter the area below

Hawashin area on April 6 and 7, and the Hawashin district on April 9 and 10.

Ahmad Jalamna, aged thirty-seven, lived on the southeast outskirts of the Jenin refugee camp, where

bulldozers first entered the camp at the beginning of the incursion. He recalled how IDF bulldozers began

destroying his home while his family was still inside on the second day of the attack, April 4, and then shot at his

elderly mother when she tried to go outside and stop the bulldozers:

Then they brought the bulldozers. In ten minutes, they had destroyed the shop [in front of the house] and

some of the rooms [of my house]. I was in the basement and came inside with the others. I told my mother

to go out. When the soldiers saw her, they started shooting at her and I pulled her back inside. Then, they

threw a sound bomb inside.133

Human Rights Watch documented one case in which a civilian was buried alive when IDF bulldozers

collapsed his home. Jamal Fayid was a thirty-seven-year-old paralyzed man living in the Jurrat al-Dahab area of

the camp, and his family could not evacuate him in time. Despite the pleas of the family, the IDF bulldozer

refused to stop the demolition of the home on April 6. Jamal Fayid was killed in the collapsed building (see

below for more details). It is difficult to see what military goal could have been furthered or what legitimate

consideration of military necessity could be put forward to justify the crushing to death of Jamal Fayid without

giving his family the opportunity to remove him from his home. The remains of a number of Palestinian militants

have been recovered from collapsed buildings, as well as those of civilians who were known to have died but

132 Ibid.

133 Human Rights Watch interview with Ahmad Yusuf Ibrahim Jalamna, aged thirty-seven, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

43

whose remains could not be evacuated prior to the bulldozing. At this writing, recovery efforts continue at the

Jenin refugee camp, and it is possible that more remains of civilians or armed Palestinians killed during the

bulldozing will be recovered. Human Rights Watch is not aware of any cases of missing people who are believed

to be buried under the rubble at the time of this report.

On April 9 in the Hashawin area, Samia Abu Shaab described how his father was shot dead by IDF

soldiers after trying to get bulldozers to stop destroying their home while they were inside: "The bulldozers

started destroying the outside half of our house. Half of the house was very destroyed. My father went out to see

what had happened. He spoke to the driver of the bulldozer and explained that his family was inside. The

bulldozer stopped."134 Shortly afterwards, Samias father, Muhammad Abu Shaab, was shot dead by an Israeli

sniper as he stood inside his half-destroyed home (see below). The family was forced to flee the home and had to

abandon the corpse of their father inside. When they returned after the offensive, their home had been bulldozed

and they had to use a bulldozer to recover their fathers remains.

The most significant damage occurred in Hawashin district after the April 9 ambush and killing of Israeli

soldiers by Palestinian militants. Because most residents had fled the area by the time it was leveled by

bulldozers, Human Rights Watch has been unable to establish precisely when the damage occurred. It is thus

difficult to compile an accurate picture of when and how the razing took place. However, it is clear from the

wholesale damage, the only area of Jenin camp to be completely leveled, that the destruction was deliberately

comprehensive.

Based on detailed maps in which individual buildings can be identified, Human Rights Watch counted a

total of 140 completely destroyed buildings in the campmany multi-family dwellingsof which more than one

hundred were located in the completely razed area of the Hawashin district. While there is no doubt that

Palestinian fighters in the Hawashin district had set up obstacles and risks to IDF soldiers, the wholesale leveling

of the entire district extended well beyond any conceivable purpose of gaining access to fighters, and was vastly

disproportionate to the military objectives pursued.

The destruction in other areas of the camp was indiscriminate in its effect on the civilian population, and

disproportionate to the military objective obtained. Aside from the razed Hawashin district, over 200 houses

sustained major damage, most so serious as to render the homes within uninhabitable. Those assessments were

based only on those houses where damage is externally visible. At the time of Human Rights Watchs research no

assessment had been made of how many houses had been damaged by the internal "mouseholing" IDF forces

used to get from house to house. UNRWA has registered at least 400 families who were rendered homeless by the

IDF military operation in the camp, and estimates that their final count of families rendered homeless could reach

as high as 800, according to UNRWA Director for the West Bank Richard Cook.135 Based on this estimate, as

many as 4,000 residents, representing more than a quarter of the camps residents, could have been rendered

homeless.

The wholesale leveling of more than one hundred buildings in Hawashin district, most of them multi-family

dwellings, was clearly an act of extensive destruction. Hawashin districtthe location of the ambush in which

Israeli forces suffered their greatest casualtieswas the only area of the campaign to be targeted for such

complete destruction. Those who argue that the IDFs actions there were justified point to the many explosive

devices found in the district, and speculate that many of the houses may have been booby-trapped. The last

Palestinian fighters to surrender were holed up in Hawashin district. Important in this context is also the fact that

Israeli forces at the time were under considerable political and diplomatic pressure to conclude the operation

quickly. While it may be the case that the wholesale leveling of the district fulfilled a military objective,

speculation concerning the extent of improvised explosive devices in the area and reasons of expediency were not

sufficient grounds to meet the "absolutely necessary" standard required by international humanitarian law. The

134 Human Rights Watch interview with Samia Muhammad Masud Abu al-Sabaa, aged forty-three, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

135 Human Rights Watch interview with Richard J. Cook, Director of UNRWA operations for the West Bank, April 24, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

44

extraordinary degree of destruction in this particular area raises serious questions about the military rationale that

could have justified such actions. This is a case that fully justifies the need for a U.N. fact-finding team to give its

utmost priority to the situation in the Hawashin district.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which promotes adherence to the Geneva

Conventions, took the unusual step of speaking out publicly about the extent of destruction of the civilian

infrastructure in Jenin camp and the inadequate safeguards taken by the IDF to protect civilian life and property in

the camp. Rene Kosirnik, the head of the ICRC delegation, stated:

When we are confronted with the extent of destruction in an area of civilian concentration, it is difficult to

accept that international humanitarian law has been fully respected. If you suspect your [military]

operation will cause disproportionate damage to civilians or civilian property, then you have to stop the

operation.136

Human Rights Watch concludes that the Israeli military actions in the Jenin refugee camp included both

indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. Some attacks were indiscriminate because Israeli forces, particularly

the IDF helicopters, did not focus their firepower only towards legitimate military targets, but rather fired into the

camp at random. This indiscriminate use of firepower added significantly to the civilian casualty toll of the

fighting and the destruction of civilian homes in the camp. The Israeli offensive in Jenin refugee camp was also

disproportionate, because the incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects was

excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Inability of Civilians to Flee

Thousands of civilian refugees remained in the camp when the IDF launched its attack. Many became

trapped inside their homes by the crossfire that raged around them. Camp residents were also trapped in their

houses by IDF gunmen, such as the one who shot at twenty-one year old Susanna al-Ghada when she moved

aside a curtain from her window on April 5, and the one who shot seventy-year-old Yusuf Muhammad as he ran

to call in children playing in his neighbors yard on April 6.137

Many of the people interviewed by Human Rights Watch described being unable to flee the camp, initially

because of the fighting, and later because they had been confined to their houses by IDF soldiers. Fifteen-year old

Rhim Salem was kept by IDF soldiers in a house at the edge of Hawashin district until April 15 with twenty-four

other people; soldiers also occupied the house, which borders the area completely reduced to rubble.138 Many

residents ran from house to house inside the camp as the houses they were sheltering in were progressively

targeted by IDF fire.

Many civilians were also trapped by the fighting, unable to leave their homes and flee to safety. Lina

Saadiya, in her late forties, lived with her brothers family and mother in a home near the government hospital.

Linas elderly mother, Farida, was paralyzed and often confused. On April 3, the first day of the incursion, the

family was eating lunch when a helicopter-fired missile hit the kitchen, and the second floor began to burn. At

first the family called for help, but realizing that no one would be able to come to them, they fled to a neighbors

house, two doors away.

The next day, April 4, the fighting raged around the home where Saadiya and her family were staying.

Armed Palestinians in nearby houses exchanged fire with IDF snipers. IDF helicopters sprayed the area with

gunfire and missiles. The owner of the house and Linas brothers family fled. For six days, Lina and her mother

136 Chris McGreal and Brian Whitaker, "Israel Accused over Jenin Assault," Guardian, April 23, 2002.

137 Human Rights Watch interview with Susanna Nuaman Abd al-Hamid al-Ghada, aged twenty-one, Jenin, April 27,

2002; Human Rights Watch interview with Yusuf Yassin Muhammad Kamil, aged seventy, Jenin April 20, 2002.

138 Human Rights Watch interview with Rim Jemal Muhammed Salem, aged fifteen, Jenin, April 28, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

45

stayed in the home, unable to run, surrounded by broken glass, dust, and continuous shooting. They had no food.

They drank from the water tank but it was shot in the fighting and the water eventually drained away.

IDF soldiers discovered Lina and her mother at the house on April 10 and ordered them to leave that

afternoon. "A soldier came back and told us to go to the mosque. He said they were going to lay explosives in the

area because there was still resistance in the area."139 Lina asked the soldiers to help her carry her mother, but

they refused, shouting at her to shut up. Lina told Human Rights Watch:

My mother was screaming from pain and distress. I tried to carry her, but I couldnt, I was too weak. I tried

to go back to my house, but it had been destroyed by the bulldozer. The camp was empty and all the people

had gone away. I dragged my mother through the road, full of glass and rubble and heavy shooting. I saw

someones leg, blown off, on the street. I dragged her for an hour. Her feet were bleeding and she was

screaming. I went into a house but it was half gone and there was a dead body in there.140

Lina and her mother eventually found shelter in another house in the same area. They found a packet of dry

biscuits and two bottles of water, which sustained them for the four nights they stayed there. Lina and her mother

were still in the house when, on April 14, she heard the sound of a bulldozer and the house began to shake. She

ran outside, shouted at the driver, and ran in again to drag her mother out. The second floor of the house caved in

as they left. Lina eventually found another house, badly damaged and with a corpse under the rubble. She and her

mother stayed there another four days before they were discovered and taken to hospital by foreign journalists on

April 18fifteen days after they had first come under fire.

Nidal Abu Khurj explained how he and his family had been forced to move from house to house in the

refugee camp as the houses in which they were taking shelter came under attack from IDF helicopters and tanks.

They were first forced to flee their fathers house when a neighboring house caught on fire from helicopter

shelling, and then spent one night in a brothers house where they came under constant IDF fire. They then fled to

a second brothers house, where they again came under attack from helicopters and were forced to remain in the

bathroom with twenty-four people to avoid the shelling.141

On April 7, Khadwa Ahmad Hassan Samara, aged thirty-five, was sheltering with her three children and

twelve others in the ground floor of her house in the al-Damaj area of the camp. Fighting raged around the area,

with armed Palestinians present some thirty meters away. A missile hit the third floor of the house around noon,

destroying an exterior wall and a water tank. At 11:30 p.m. the family was startled by the sound of a bulldozer

approaching.

Samara told Human Rights Watch:

The first thing they destroyed was the main door. No one could open it. We were trying to sleep in the

bedroom. That is, kids were asleep but the adults were awake, worrying. When the bulldozer came I had a

mobile. I rang my husband and screamed, "Help! Call the Red Cross! The Red Crescent! Do anything!"142

She and the others shouted and placed three lanterns to try and signal that the house was inhabited. They

could not leave the house because the only door had become blocked with rubble from the bulldozing. The

bulldozer left after demolishing the front stairwell, only to return at 5:00 a.m. Samara and her family were

fortunate: the bulldozer stopped after demolishing the bathroom and the childrens bedroom. She and the others

broke a window and ran to a neighbors house. There they had fifteen minutes of rest before the bulldozer

approached again:

139 Ibid.

140 Human Rights Watch interview, Lina Abd Allah Abbas Saadiya, April 21, 2002.

141 Human Rights Watch interview with Nidal Ahmad Muhammad Abu Khurj, aged thirty-one, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

142 Human Rights Watch interview with Khadwa Ahmad Hassan Samara, aged thirty-five, Jenin, April 26, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

46

We smashed a hole in the exterior wall, using anything we could findhammers, old bits of pipe, whatever.

One by one we climbed out of the hole and went to the house of the brother of Muhammad, my neighbor.

We arrived there circa 6:30 a.m.143

On April 9, Samara and her family were sheltering in a third house, along with more than twenty-five other

civilians. Samara did not hear any IDF warning to evacuate. It was a telephone call from a relative in Jordan, who

was watching the al-Jazeera television station, that convinced Samara and the others to leave. Samara called her

husband, trapped at his workplace outside the camp, to check. He confirmed that the IDF had told the inhabitants

to leave the camp. Samara and the others made white flags, and left the house at 4:00 p.m.144 She and her family

were stopped by an IDF tank some fifty meters away, and were told repeatedly to return to their houses. After

waiting for several hours in the street, Samara and her family were allowed to walk to al-Razi hospital, outside the

camp, and arrived safely at 7:00 p.m.

Indiscriminate Helicopter Fire

Although missiles had been used from the beginning of the incursion, their use became particularly intense

in the early morning hours of April 6. Testimony collected by Human Rights Watch indicates that many areas of

the refugee camp were fired upon at that time, catching many sleeping civilians unaware. Many of the rockets

used were U.S.-made wire-guided TOW missiles. The evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch suggests that

many of the TOW missiles indiscriminately hit civilian homes and in at least one case a civilian was killed when

she was struck by a helicopter missile . The number of solely civilian objects hit in the helicopter attacks the early

morning of April 6 suggests that insufficient care was taken by Israeli forces to target only military objects. Due

to the dense urban setting of the refugee camp, fighters and civilians were never at great distances. Nevertheless,

such proximity does not provide a valid excuse by Israeli forces action in firing upon the entire area as if it were

a single military target.

Kamal Tawalba, a forty-three-year-old father of fourteen children, offered one of many compelling

accounts that showed how IDF tanks and helicopters made little distinction between legitimate military targets

and civilian homes. He told Human Rights Watch that he was alone with his family at his home on the morning

of Saturday, April 6, and had harbored no Palestinian militants in his home: "There were no fighters in my house.

I have fourteen children and would never have taken such a risk." The family was asleep on the bottom floor of

their home when a tank shell hit the floor above them, setting the house on fire. He and his family tried to leave,

but were prevented from doing so when IDF soldiers shot at them: "I went to the gate and started calling to the

IDF soldiers to allow us to go out. I tried to ask for helpI held two children in my armsbut they started

shooting at the windows."145 A few minutes later, two TOW-missiles hit the top floor of his home, causing more

destruction: "After two minutes, two more missiles came to the house from an Apache helicopter. I can tell the

difference [with the tank shells] because we could see the wires from the Apache helicopter [guiding the missile].

I took my small babythere was so much dustand I went outside without caring about the soldiers. A soldier

started shooting at me and told me to put the children down. He took me in the street and told me to take off my

clothes."146

Thirty-one-year-old Samira Shalabi was with twelve civilians, including six children, who had gathered

together for safety in Samiras mothers house on Matahin street above the UNRWA school. She says there were

no fighters in the nearby area.

We were sleeping there; there were twelve of us. First, they fired a rocket and some of it fell down into this

room. The windows fell in on us and because we couldnt breathe, we left the room and went into the

143 Ibid.

144 Ibid.

145 Human Rights Watch interview with Kamal Muhammad Hussein Tawalba, aged forty-three, Jenin, April 27, 2002.

146 Ibid.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

47

hallway. But the helicopters didnt stop, they kept firing rockets continuously. People tried to help us get

out, because the rocket blast had sealed the door shut, we had to go out the kitchen window.147

A four-year-old girl, Sara Shalabi, was injured by shrapnel in that attack; while her injuries were light

enough to be initially treated with first-aid, she now needs an operation to remove shrapnel.

Many other buildings fired upon in that attack housed only civilians, for example Yusra Abu Khurj, a

mentally disabled woman who lived in the district below Hawashin near the entrance to the camp. She was killed

by a missile from an Apache helicopter fired directly into her top-floor room in a building at approximately 6:00

a.m.; the building was occupied only by civilians (see below for more details).

Indiscriminate attacks were most intense on April 6, but they did not entirely abate afterwards. Khadija al-

Ruzi, aged fifty-four, described how her family had to flee their home in the Hawashin area camp after fire from

an Apache helicopter set the house alight. She said that beginning on April 6, the area of the camp they were

staying in came under heavy helicopter fire.148 There were no Palestinian militants in her three-story building, but

the next day an Apache helicopter strike set the building on fire, forcing its evacuation:

The fourth day [April 7] we had to leave our house because [the IDF] had hit it with a missile and it was

burning. It was a three-story building. We were in one corner in the bathroom [because it had no windows]

and stayed there with twenty-eight people, men, women, and children. We were all civilians. When the

house was burning, we had to move.149

The family ran to a neighboring house: "We left the first house when it was first light [in the morning]. The

houses are close to each other so we could move quickly, but the shelling continued."150 They had to leave the

second home that same evening at 9:00 p.m. when it, too, came under intense tank fire. They went out with white

cloths, and the women and children were allowed to leave the camp by the IDF soldiers in the area, while the men

were stripped of their clothes and arrested.

Some of the helicopter missile fire was so indiscriminate that it nearly killed IDF soldiers. Seventy-twoyear-

old Raja Tawafshi recalled how an IDF missile fired from a helicopter hit the top floor of his home in the

Saha area of the camp on April 3 as he was accompanying IDF soldiers who were searching his home: "During

their inspection, a bomb hit the house from the IDF [helicopter] and damaged that floor."151

On Wednesday, April 10, Karima Baklizia, in her sixties, was taking shelter in her house in the Hawashin

area with another woman and three children. Although this was a time when fighting had been concentrated in the

Hawashin neighborhood, there were no Palestinian fighters present in the house. An ambush and the deaths of

Israeli soldiers the previous day in the neighborhood had led to particularly intense attacks on that

neighborhoodaccording to confidential sources, the IDF fired at least thirty-five TOW missiles into the camp

immediately following the April 9 ambush.152 Baklizia and the others were hiding in a small bathroom on the

second floor. Three missiles hit the first floor of the house, and the first floor began to burn. Baklizia and her

companions tried to run to the house next door, only to find that it, too, had been hit. They ran to a second house,

and stayed the night. In the early morning of the next day, Baklizia and the others returned.

147 Human Rights Watch interview with Samira Tawfiq Yusuf Shalabi, aged thirty-one, Jenin, April 27, 2002.

148 Human Rights Watch interview with Khadija Abd al-Qadir al-Ruzi, aged fifty-four, Jenin, April 19, 2002.

149 Ibid.

150 Ibid.

151 Human Rights Watch interview with Raja Mustafa Ahmad Tawafshi, aged seventy-two, Jenin, April 22, 2002.

152 Confidential information on file at Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

48

I returned to my house to check the damage. As I went to check there was another missile strike. I was in

the bathroom and all the house came down. It collapsed and I felt it shake, but the bathroom is at the

beginning of the house and it was still standing. Nobody can believe that I am still alive.153

The women eventually climbed down and walked down to the health clinic. Baklizias companion took off

her headscarf to use as a white flag. Both eventually found shelter with an acquaintance near the health clinic.

Insufficient Warnings Issued by IDF

The IDF took some steps to minimize loss of life by issuing warnings to camp residents, but in many areas

of the camp residents did not receive or hear any warnings. On multiple occasions from April 9, the IDF used

loudspeakers to urge civilians to vacate their homes. It is not clear, however, how widely or how often the

loudspeaker messages were conveyed. Many of the camp residents interviewed by Human Rights Watch did not

hear the messages directly, but instead heard about them from neighbors, by seeing their neighbors flee, and, as in

Samaras case, by a relative watching al-Jazeera television news in Jordan.154

Issa Wishahi, who lived near the entrance to the refugee camp and saw his son and wife killed during the

IDF offensive (see below), recalled hearing the IDF loudspeaker messages:

On Monday [April 8] the soldiers were saying that everyone going out of their homes would be safe, just to

carry a white flag, that everyone who remained inside would be bulldozed. They said this in Arabic on the

loudspeakers. After that, everyone [in my neighborhood] came out into the street. The soldiers made that

announcement from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Monday.155

Fathiya Saadi vividly remembered the Arabic -language warning that came blaring from IDF loudspeakers

on Wednesday, April 10, at about 9:30 a.m., ordering civilians to evacuate their homes. She repeated the message

verbatim to Human Rights Watch:

Inhabitants of the refugee camp of Jenin! We want to inform you that the Israeli soldiers have occupied the

camp and it is completely under Israeli control now. We have destroyed your resistance. Now, you must

immediately leave your houses, or we will destroy the whole camp over your heads by plane and by

tanks.156

Fathiya and her family left their home, pushing their wheelchair-bound mother in front of them. "The

[Israeli] snipers were shooting in the air to make us afraid," she recounted.157

Some of the civilian residents were too fearful to come out of their homes when the IDF ordered them to

leave. Said Abu Anas, a thirty-four-year-old resident of the Hawashim neighborhood, recalled how on the

evening of Tuesday, April 9, he heard an announcement on the loudspeakers but was too afraid to go outside:

"The soldiers started talking on the loudspeakers, saying we must come out and they would treat us with

humanity. No one came out because we thought we would be killed. Then they asked for the women and

children to come outthey let the children, women, and old men go out."158 Said, afraid for his life, stayed inside

until Saturday, April 13, when IDF soldiers arrested him and the other remaining men.

Many other residents did not hear the warning directly from the IDF soldiers, but were informed by their

neighbors. Samia Abu al-Sabaa, aged forty-three, recalled: "We saw some people coming with white kafiyas

153 Human Rights Watch interview, Karima Mustafa Said Baklizia, April 20, 2002.

154 Human Rights Watch interview with Khadwa Ahmad Hassan Samara, aged thirty-five, Jenin April 27, 2002.

155 Human Rights Watch interview with Issa Wishahi, aged sixty, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

156 Human Rights Watch interview with Fathiya Yusuf Saadi, aged thirty, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

157 Ibid.

158 Human Rights Watch interview with Said Abu Anas, aged thirty-four, Jenin, April 20, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

49

[head scarves], they said the bulldozers were destroying the Hawashin area. They said we should leave our

houses, because anyone inside will be killed. The people told us this, not the soldiers."159 Hala Abu Rumaila,

who lived on the outskirts of the camp and whose stepson and husband died in the IDF attack, also recalled

hearing about the evacuation order from neighbors who had heard the IDF message. In some cases, this may have

been because soldiers did not want to expose themselves to the risk of entering Palestinian houses. Rim Salem

recalled how soldiers occupying the house where she and twenty-four other civilians were sheltering tried to make

her mother go to the neighboring houses in Hawashin district. "They told her they were going to destroy the

house, and wanted my mother to go to the neighbors house to tell them to leave. My mother was afraid to do it

because of the soldiers, and the IDF was afraid of the fighters."160

Most warnings seem to have preceded imminent destruction by bulldozers. Human Rights Watch did not

receive information that similar warnings were issued in advance of air or artillery attacks.

X. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was written and researched by Peter Bouckaert, Human Rights Watch senior researcher for

emergencies; Miranda Sissons, researcher for the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch;

and Johanna Bjorken, consultant for Human Rights Watch.The report was edited by Hanny Megally, executive

director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch; Joe Stork, Washington director of

the Middle East and North Africa division; Malcolm Smart, program director of Human Rights Watch; and

Executive Director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth. Wilder Tayler, legal and policy director of Human

Rights Watch, provided legal review. James Darrow, associate for the Middle East and North Africa division,

provided mission support and production assistance. Patrick Minges, Human Rights Watch publications director,

and Veronica Matushaj, Human Rights Watch photo editor, provided production assistance.

The researchers wish to thank the many individuals and organizations that gave us invaluable assistance and

advice. These include Adalah, al-Haq, Amnesty International, LAW, Lina Jarrar, Nafis Ajjawi, Raslan Mahajna,

and Dahlia. Many other individuals cannot be named: we are grateful nonetheless.

159 Human Rights Watch interview with Samia Muhammad Masud Abu al-Sabaa, aged forty-three, April 20, 2002.

160 Human Rights Watch interview with Rim Jemal Muhammed Salem, aged fifteen, Jenin, April 28, 2002.

Human Rights Watch May 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (E)

50

Human Rights Watch

Middle East and North Africa division

Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world.

We stand with victims and activists to bring offenders to justice, to prevent discrimination, to uphold political

freedom and to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime.

We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable.

We challenge governments and those holding power to end abusive practices and respect international human

rights law.

We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.

The staff includes Kenneth Roth, executive director; Michele Alexander, development director; Reed Brody,

advocacy director, Carroll Bogert, communications director; John T. Green, operations director; Barbara

Guglielmo, finance director; Lotte Leicht, Brussels office director; Michael McClintock, deputy program director;

Patrick Minges, publications director; Maria Pignataro Nielsen, human resources director; Jemera Rone, counsel;

Malcolm Smart, program director; Wilder Tayler, general counsel; and Joanna Weschler, United Nations

representative. Jonathan Fanton is the chair of the board. Robert L. Bernstein is the founding chair.

Its Middle East and North Africa division was established in 1989 to monitor and promote the observance of

internationally recognized human rights in the Middle East and North Africa. Hanny Megally is the executive

director; Joe Stork is the Washington office director; Hania Mufti is the London office director; Eric Goldstein is

the research director; Virginia N. Sherry is associate director; Elah Sharifpour-Hicks and Miranda Sissons are

researchers. James Darrow and Dalia Haj-Omar are associates. Lisa Anderson and Gary Sick are co-chairs of the

advisory committee and Bruce Rabb is the vice chair.

Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org

Arabic Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org/arabic

Listserv address: To subscribe to the list, send an e-mail message to hrw-news-subscribe@igc.topica.com

with "subscribe hrw-news" in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank).

March 24, 2003 issue

Copyright 2003 The American Conservative

Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in Americas interest.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: "Can you assure American viewers ... that were in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.

Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these "Buchananites toss around neoconservativeand cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohenit sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is Jewish conservative." Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a "key tenet of neoconservatism." He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush "sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible." (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: "Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. Its just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left."

Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: "In London ... one finds Britains finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the neoconservative (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy."

Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine "has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the neoconservative war party."

Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that "members of the Bush team have been doing Israels bidding and, by extension, exhibiting dual loyalties." Kaplan thunders:

The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.

What is going on here? Slates Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: "Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card."

What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.

Indeed, it is the charge of "anti-Semitism" itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.

And this time the boys have cried "wolf" once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplans own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:

And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nations founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.

"If Stanley Hoffman can say this," asks Kaus, "why cant Chris Matthews?" Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.

In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, "The Likudniks are really in charge now." Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)

Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a "special closeness" to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, "For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies." And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharons interest, is it in Americas interest?

This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, "Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight."

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in Americas interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian peoples right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.

They charge us with anti-Semitismi.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a "passionate attachment" to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, whats good for Israel is good for America.

The Neoconservatives

Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatisms long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.

Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).

All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.

Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.

Beating the War Drums

When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer Americas rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic "rogue states" that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.

The War Partys plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.

Before introducing the script-writers of Americas future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.

On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in "a struggle between good and evil," that the Congress must declare war on "militant Islam," and that "overwhelming force" must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osamas terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?

The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on "terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt." Yet, not one of Bennetts six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.

On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodwards Bush at War, "Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan." Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while "attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable."

On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, "will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."

Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.

President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. "Bibi" Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the "Empire of Terror." The "Empire," it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and "the Palestinian enclave."

Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?

The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. "Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over," he wrote.

Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: "The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense."

Goldberg endorsed "the Ledeen Doctrine" of ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." (When the French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should risk World War III over some "shitty little country"meaning IsraelGoldbergs magazine was not amused.)

Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:

First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

Rejecting stability as "an unworthy American mission," Ledeen goes on to define Americas authentic "historic mission":

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.

To the Weekly Standard, Ledeens enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on "any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future."

Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war "is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. [I]t is possible that the demise of some moderate Arab regimes may be just round the corner."

Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristols Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bushs mission "to fight World War IVthe war against militant Islam." By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as "friends" of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypts Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the "timorous counsels" of the "incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell," wrote Podhoretz, and "find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated" Islamic world. As the war against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,

We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafats Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.

Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase "World War IV." Bush was shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohens book that celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war, as exhibited by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.

A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and "militant Islam."

Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddams regime is destroyed, it is of "vital importance" that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.

"We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after" the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the United States must generate "political, economic, diplomatic pressure" on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.

Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.

"Mubarak is no great shakes," says Richard Perle of the President of Egypt. "Surely we can do better than Mubarak." Asked about the possibility that a war on Iraqwhich he predicted would be a "cakewalk"might upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, former UN ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of Washington Monthly, "All the better if you ask me."

On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" of the United States.

Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence services," and end all propaganda against Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.

In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a "Grand Strategy for the Middle East." "Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize." Leaked reports of Murawiecs briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque.

What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.

Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the "Bush-Sharon Doctrine." "Washingtons Likudniks," he writes, "have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office."

The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.

"Securing the Realm"

The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, "Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests." In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.

In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraqan important Israeli strategic objective in its own rightas a means of foiling Syrias regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syrias regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israels enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish "the principle of preemption," has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.

In his own 1997 paper, "A Strategy for Israel," Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy "the areas under Palestinian Authority control," though "the price in blood would be high."

Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States "to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the regionthe regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal."

He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, "Crises can be opportunities." Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.

About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:

The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such "neo-conservatives" is the power and reputation of Israel.

Right down the smokestack.

Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, in late February,

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Husseins regime the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use military action because "diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would "offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor." Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine

In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a "classified blueprint intended to help set the nations direction for the next century." The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all "potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to "establish and protect a new order."

Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter Tim Reich describes it as a "watershed in U.S. foreign policy" that "reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence."

Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, writes of the NSS that he marvels at "its fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely disguised machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of sober, ostensibly conservative Republicans but of an unlikely collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshal von Moltke."

In confronting Americas adversaries, the paper declares, "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively." It warns any nation that seeks to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting war with the United States:

[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States.

America must reconcile herself to an era of "nation-building on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy," Robert Kagan instructs. But this Pax Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a time of what Harry Elmer Barnes called "permanent war for permanent peace."

The Munich Card

As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted for "a decisive surrender" in the war on terror should he fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:

With each passing day, Washington appears to view its principal Middle Eastern allys conduct as inconvenientin much the same way London and Paris came to see Czechoslovakias resistance to Hitlers offers of peace in exchange for Czech lands.

When former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Jouwlan said the United States may have to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians, he, too, faced the charge of appeasement. Wrote Gaffney,

They would, presumably, go beyond Britain and Frances sell-out of an ally at Munich in 1938. The "impose a peace" school is apparently prepared to have us play the role of Hitlers Wehrmacht as well, seizing and turning over to Yasser Arafat the contemporary Sudetenland: the West Bank and Gaza Strip and perhaps part of Jerusalem as well.

Podhoretz agreed Sharon was right in the substance of what he said but called it politically unwise to use the Munich analogy.

President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own Big Tent.

Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, everfor there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the region will relate, Americas failure to be even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israels excesses, and our moral complicity in Israels looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.

Let us conclude. The Israeli people are Americas friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.

But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as "Americas best friend."

Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.

Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bushs requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israels sale of our AWACS system.

Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero.

Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?

Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.

March 24, 2003 issue

Copyright 2003 The American Conservative

This is a paper I wrote for the Air War College in October, 1991.

I believe it still has relevance today.

Joe Abodeely

March 2003

AIR WAR COLLEGE ASSOCIATE STUDIES AIR UNIVERSITY

LAW OF WAR CONSIDERATIONS OF AERIAL BOMBARDMENT OF IRAQ

IN OPERATION DESERT STORM

by

Joseph E. Abodeely

Colonel, USAR

Phoenix, Arizona

A RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY IN

FULFILLMENT OF THE VOLUME I OPTION THREE

October 1991

CERTIFICATE

I have read and understand the Academic Integrity Section of

the Program Guide, I certify that the creative process of

researching, organizing, and writing this research report

represents only my own work.

Joseph E. Abodeely

DISCLAIMER

This research report represents the views of the author and

does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Air

War College of the Department of the Air Force.

Air War College Research Report Abstract

Title:

Law of War Considerations of Aerial Bombardment of

Iraq in Operation Desert Storm

Author:

Joseph E. Abodeely, Colonel, USAR

Analysis and remarks on how Desert Storm occurred and how political and legal considerations were used to justify U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Some of the principles relating to the law of war are discussed in the context of United States' and coalition forces' aerial bombardments of Iraqi forces. The aerial campaign is considered to have probably violated the law of war. Rhetorical questions in the author's conclusions suggest more preferable alternative courses of actions which the United States could have taken.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

COLONEL JOE ABODEELY, U.S. Army Reserves, is currently assigned as Chief, Law Branch of U.S. Army Military Police Operations Agency as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA). His legal duties impact on Department of Army policy, including clarifying USAMPOA responsibilities relating to war crimes.

Previous assignments include Staff Judge Advocate (IMA), 11th ADA Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas; Judge Advocate, Military Police Company Commander, Arizona Army National Guard.

During the Tet Offensive, 1968, Vietnam, then 1st Lieutenant Abodeely served with 2/7 Bn, 1st Air Cavalry Division. As reported in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, April 8, 1968 -- "... Abodeely, 24, of Tucson, Ariz. and his platoon formed the 1st Air Cavalry spearhead of the 20,000 man Operation Pegasus drive that broke the Communist grip around Khe Sanh in a week long drive that covered 12 miles of jungle, hills, and minefields..."

Decorations include combat infantryman's badge, legion of merit, bronze star, air medal, Vietnam service medal with gold star, Vietnamese cross of gallantry with palm (unit citation), and others.

Colonel Abodeely received his R.O.T.C. commission, B.A. degree (English), and Juris Doctor from the University of Arizona.

He served 14 1/2 years as a Maricopa Deputy County Attorney (Prosecutor) where he prosecuted major felony cases, supervised and trained numerous attorneys, provided training to various law enforcement agencies (state and federal) and served as legal advisor on special "sting" and counter-narcotics projects with state and federal agencies.

Colonel Abodeely is presently an attorney (sole practitioner) in private practice which emphasizes criminal defense, administrative law, and military law.

He is a radio talk show host and hosts a talk-show on public access television.

He lives in Phoenix with his wife, Donna and fourteen cats.

INTRODUCTION

In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The United States, in conjunction with a coalition of armed forces from other countries, ultimately engaged in armed conflict with the military forces of Iraq to protect Saudi Arabia and to liberate occupied Kuwait.

The world public was informed of the diplomatic as well as the military aspects of the war and how the United Nations and the Congress and President of the United States sought to legitimize the conduct of the war through legal actions such as adoption of resolutions to justify military action.

One area of legal consideration relating to the war which had almost no media attention was the aerial bombardment of Iraq and the application of the "law of war" to that bombardment.

Because the rest of the world saw America's conduct of the war, and because other nations are concerned about humanitarian principles relating to the conduct of war, and because Americans have a basic respect for law and humanitarian principles -- it is necessary and wise to consider the potential and actual limitations on the use of air power.

THE THREAT

IRAQ WAS A PARTNER

In a witness statement before the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 6, 1990, a person very knowledgeable of matters relating to the Middle East spoke about what he thought the United States should do regarding Iraq. To put the statement in context, one must remember that Iraq and Iran had been at war for several years; and the United States had supported Iraq. (7:115-118)

The senate witness said:

"The cease-fire with Iran has allowed Iraq to resume its bid for leadership and influence within the Arab world. Iraq ended the war with one of the largest and best-equipped military forces in the world...

Even though it enjoys a significant post-war military advantage over Iran, Iraq continues to import arms. Of greater concern, however, is its domestic arms industry, the most advanced in the region...

Although generally mistrustful of the U.S., Iraq would welcome measured U.S. participation in its economic development. Currently, oil exports make it America's second largest Middle Eastern trading partner. The U.S. should continue to develop its contacts with Iraq by building selectively on existing political and economical relationships..." (20:86)

The significance of this testimony is: (1) that it considered Iraq as a "partner" and not a "threat" to the United States;

(2) that a year later the United States was at war with Iraq; and

(3) that the testimony was given by General

H. Norman Schwartzkopf, the field commander of the forces to defeat Iraq. The most critical task in planning the defense of a nation is judging the nature and extent of the threats which may occur, given the structure and objectives of United States national security planning. (15:243) If Iraq were not truly a "threat" to United States interests, then the destruction wreaked upon Iraq's military and civilian populace is even more egregious irrespective of substantial compliance with "the law of war."

IRAQ BECOMES THE ENEMY

Why, then, did we go to war with Iraq? Arm-chair philosophers, military strategists, and cynics may pose the following reasons for Operation Desert Storm: (1) to protect the oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the United States; (2) to protect the oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for America's allies in Europe and Japan; (3) to liberate the Kuwaiti people from Saddam Hussein and return them to the Emir of Kuwait; (4) to rid the world of Saddam Hussein; (5) to bring peace and stability to the Middle East; (6) to justify not cutting defense spending when the "Iron Curtain" (Berlin Wall) came down and U.S. military forces were being cut; (7) to justify using U.S. military forces rather than redeploying them to the United States to be discharged into a sagging economy; (8) to take American citizens' minds off of the sagging economy; (9) to divert American citizens' attention from the Savings and Loan debacle which involved highly prominent businesses, United States Senators, and even the President's son; (10) to help improve the President's ratings in the polls; and (11) to protect Israel. (21)

WORLD PUBLIC OPINION

The "why" of Desert Storm influences other nations' views of the "how" we conducted Desert Storm. If a large segment of the world's nations view United States military action in Desert Storm to have been unnecessary (e.g., Iraq was not a threat to U.S. interests), then they will probably view our military operations (e.g., aerial bombardments) to be in violation of the law of war and other accepted principles of international law relating to armed conflict.

U.S. POLICY FORMULATION

To help understand the "why" Iraq was a "threat" to the United States, it is important to note that at a press breakfast in Washington, D.C. on July 19, 1990, before intelligence information about the Iraqi troop buildup had leaked, Secretary of Defense Cheney was asked about Iraq's "threats" to Kuwait regarding an oil dispute. Cheney replied that the United States would take seriously any threat to U.S. interests or U.S. friends in the region. (27:210)

Prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, U.S. policy had been unclear toward Iraq. President Bush's administration officials had talked tough about Saddam's threats against Israel, the movement of Iraqi SCUD missile launchers closer to Israel, and Iraq's efforts to illegally import components for nuclear weapons. Yet, at the same time, the administration had thwarted congressional efforts to impose economic sanctions on Iraq or cut U.S. food assistance. (27:211)

President Bush was deeply concerned about Saddam's ability to control the oil in the Middle East. Bush, the former Texas oil man, engaged in extended analysis with his close personal advisors regarding the impact on world oil availability and price. Bush was concerned with if the U.S. and other nations could embargo Iraqi oil and if Saddam would withhold Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil or try to flood the world market and the ultimate impact on U.S. oil resources. (27:226)

There may have been many reasons why Iraq became a threat which justified devastating military action against it, or there may have been no substantially valid reason to have justified Desert Storm. History will ultimately disclose why we went to war with Iraq.

LEGALIZING THE WAR

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS

President Bush did an outstanding job of unifying nations to be the coalition of forces to defeat Iraq. He was able to influence the United Nations Security Council to give an air of legitimacy to the ultimate decimation of Iraq.

The Council passed resolutions relating to condemning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanding immediate withdrawal, and ordering a trade and financial embargo of Iraq and occupied Kuwait.

The Council also voted to give the United States and other naval powers the right to enforce the economic embargo and to allow limited humanitarian food aid into Iraq or Kuwait.

Most importantly, as far as internationally legitimatizing U.S. warfare in the Persian Gulf area, the Council authorized the use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait after January 15, 1991. (24:A12) (See Appendix).

CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION

Once the President got the approval of the United Nations Security Council to use military force against Iraq, there was only one other legal obstacle to hurdle before the United States went to war -- Congressional acquiescence.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis had failed -- Bush demanded immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and compliance with all of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions. (26:36-37) Saddam Hussein tried to "link" his withdrawal of forces from Kuwait to a commitment to a Middle East peace conference to settle the festering and long-time Palestinian issue. (5:24) The U.S. should have negotiated with Saddam, but as will be discussed later, the U.S. Israeli lobby in Congress had its own agenda.

There were still questions about the President's policy in the gulf crisis -- why there? Why now? Why the United States? These questions were in Congress's emotional debate that ultimately gave Bush a de facto declaration of war. By 67 votes in the House and only 5 votes in the Senate, Congress granted the President authority to use military force in the Persian Gulf even though there were forceful arguments from Congressmen that the U.N. embargo against Iraq should be allowed more time to work. (17:16-17)

Congress supported the President after being forced to recognize that a defeat for Bush within days of the U.N. deadline for Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait would have catastrophic consequences not only for the U.S. policy in the gulf, but for the international coalition against Iraq, too. (17:17) President Bush now had all the "legal" authority he needed to wage war against Iraq. Americans like to believe they do things lawfully.

THE LAW OF WAR

THE CONVENTIONS

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the Protection of War Victims and the Hague Convention No. IV of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land were intended to be, and are, legally binding on the United States and its citizens, especially members of the armed forces. (6:1) The policy of the Department of Defense is to ensure: (1) that the law of war obligations of the United States are observed and enforced by the U.S. armed forces; (2) that a program designed to prevent violations of the law of war is implemented by U.S. armed forces; and (3) that alleged violations of the law of war whether committed by or against U.S. or enemy personnel are promptly reported, thoroughly investigated, and corrective action is taken if appropriate. (10:1)

The law of war is derived from two principle sources -- Lawmaking Treaties (or Conventions) such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions and custom which is a body of unwritten or customary law firmly established by the custom of nations and well defined by recognized authorities on international law. (12:4)

AERIAL BOMBARDMENTS

For purposes of this analysis, the provisions of the Conventions relating to bombardments will be considered.

"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited." (12:19)

Of course, defended places such as forts, defended cities with military forces present or passing through, munitions factories, military supply camps, warehouses, transportation facilities, or other places devoted to support the military operations may be attacked or bombarded whether defended or not. (12:19)

The Conventions prohibit unnecessary killing and devastation:

"... loss of life and damage to property must not be out of proportion to the military advantage to be gained. Once a fort or defended locality has surrendered, only such further damage is permitted as is demanded by the exigencies of war, such as the removal of fortifications, demolition of military buildings, and destruction of stores." (12:20)

Specifically dealing with delivery of munitions from aerial platforms, the Hague Convention of 1907 said:

"There is no prohibition of general application against bombardment from the air of combatant troops, defended places, or other legitimate military objectives." (12:20)

INDISCRIMINATE ATTACKS PROHIBITED

Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts prohibits indiscriminate attacks on the enemy civilian populace.

"Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objective without distinction." (9:36)

The Protocol further states what may have the most direct application to consider of the United States' aerial bombardment of Iraq:

"Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." (9:36)

Did the United States violate the spirit and intent of the law of war relating to the bombing of Iraq? To answer this question, one must consider the air campaign over Iraq and its effects. This writer believes that the massive bombing campaigns on Iraqi civilian populated areas with "dumb" munitions probably violated the aforementioned considerations relating to the law of war.

AIR CAMPAIGN

GENERAL DUGAN WAS PROPHETIC

In September 1990, then Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael J. Dugan said that a massive bombing campaign against Baghdad that specifically targeted Saddam Hussein would be the only way to force Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. He said "the cutting edge would be in downtown Baghdad," and other targets would include Iraqi power systems, roads, railroads, and perhaps domestic petroleum-production facilities except oil fields. He also said that Saddam Hussein, himself, should be specifically targeted. (4:A14)

General Dugan went so far as to say that he asked his planners to interview academics, journalists, ex military, and Iraqi defectors to determine what was unique about Iraqi culture that they put very high value on. (4:A14)

Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney explained, after relieving General Dugan of his position, that "we never talk about targeting of specific individuals who are officials of other governments." He said that such action might be a violation of the standing presidential executive order prohibiting U.S. involvement in assassinations of foreign leaders. (23:A8)

BOMBING SADDAM AND LEADERSHIP TARGETS

Eventually Operation Desert Storm commanders ordered a massive search for an American-made motor home believed used by Hussein during a 42-day campaign to hunt down and kill him. In the opening hours of the war in mid-January, Tomahawk cruise missiles and F-117 stealth bombers destroyed command bunkers Saddam was using in Baghdad. After the bunkers were destroyed, Air Force planes were divided into teams and patrolled areas likely to be travelled by Saddam's mobile command center. (25:A24)

Saddam survived, but were U.S. forces violating the executive order prohibiting assassination of foreign leaders; or was it just war as usual?

An embarrassment to the U.S. Bombing effort was the destruction on the Amiriya shelter in Baghdad at the cost of several hundred civilian lives. "Leadership targets" were high priority for bombing to get the Iraqi military high command and Baath leadership to overthrow Saddam. (8:20)

The effort to get the "leadership" failed, and the allies were unprepared for the presence of so many innocent family members. One visibly shaken Pentagon source was asked if the victims were in fact dependents of Iraq's ruling elite, and he said, "I don't know. (Burned) women and children all look much the same, don't they?" (8:20)

EFFECTS OF BOMBARDMENTS

What were the overall effects of the U.S. air raids in the Persian Gulf War? Greenpeace, the environmental protection organization conducted interviews with international relief workers, reporters, U.S. officials, and news reports. Greenpeace's report said that over 150,000 people died as a result of the war with Iraq and at least 5 million lost their homes or jobs. (14:A10)

The majority of the bombing casualties were caused by "dumb" bombs and by the 12 million to 16 million bomblets released by an estimated 60,000 to 80,000 cluster bombs dropped by allied planes. (14:A10)

As much as the U.S. media (which was fed its information by the military) portrayed the "smart bombs" striking targets, the truth is that the majority of the munitions hurled on Iraq and Kuwait were "dumb" bombs. Allied jets dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Kuwait, but about 70 percent of them missed their targets. The precision-guided bombs, the icon of Pentagon briefings and the military's preferred image of the war, made up barely 7 percent of the U.S. tonnage dropped on Iraqi targets, said General Merrill McPeak, Air Force Chief of Staff. (11:A2)

A senior Pentagon official said 81,980 tons of "dumb" or unguided bombs had an accuracy of only about 25 percent. (11:A2) It is reasonable to conclude that there was a great deal of collateral damage -- not destruction of military targets -- caused by the extensive aerial bombardments of populated cities like Baghdad.

The extent of actual unnecessary death and destruction inflicted upon Iraqi non-military targets may never be known, but suffice to say that it is impossible to have conducted the awesome aerial bombardment of Baghdad and other populated areas of Iraq and not have inflicted massive civilian casualties.

AIR FORCE POLICY

The Department of the Air Force policy is that Air Force personnel will comply with the law of armed conflict (law of war) in the conduct of military operations. (3:1)

"The mass annihilation of enemy people is neither humane, permissible, nor militarily necessary. The Hague Regulations prohibit the destruction or seizure of enemy property 'unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.' Destruction as an end in itself is a violation of international law, and there must be some reasonable connection between the destruction of property and the overcoming of enemy forces." (1:5-9)

Air Force policy says that collateral damage should not be excessive in light of the military advantage anticipated from the attack, and in all operations every feasible precaution should be taken to keep civilian casualties and damage to a minimum. (2:3-3)

U.S. BOMBING PROBABLY WENT TOO FAR

There have been charges that America and its allies went too far in its bombing of Iraq.

"The Washington Post... said, 'Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create post war leverage over Iraq, not influence the course of the conflict itself.'" (13-A16)

If one couples what the United States failed to achieve in Operation Desert Storm (e.g., to save the oil, to save the Kuwaiti people, to get rid of Saddam, and to bring peace to the Middle East) with the less than clear justification to meet "the threat" and the aerial onslaught inflicted on Iraq -- a war crimes tribunal composed of objective judges (not members of the allied coalition) might be hard - pressed to justify U.S. aerial bombardment under principles of international law.

It is probable that the war with Iraq could have been avoided if the U.S. would have considered a Middle East peace conference to discuss the Palestinian issue, but somebody needed the war. If the war was not necessary, then the bombing of the innocent civilians in the populated areas of Iraq was unnecessary; and the aerial bombardments were violations of the law of war.

CONCLUSIONS

WAR MUST BE A LAST RESORT

Before the United States goes to war, the country must be certain that the enemy is truly a "threat" to justify the awesome lethal force America can dispense to its enemies.

The American people must not allow foreign powers to use special interest groups (like American-Israel Public Affairs Committee -- AIPAC) to pressure Congress to put the American military at war. (19:A14) Israel used the U.S. to neutralize a major Arab threat in Operation Desert Storm.

UNITED STATES PROBABLY VIOLATED LAW OF WAR

Once the decision to go to war is made (and assuming it's a morally, politically, legally, and militarily justifiable decision), the United States must conduct its military operations (including aerial bombardment) in compliance with the law of war. There was much "legal talk" and "legal maneuvering" to get the United States into the war with Iraq, but there was minimal adherence to the law of war by preventing unnecessary killing and devastation.

There is no way that the United States and the allied coalition could have conducted the number of sorties they conducted on the populated areas in Iraq with the over 90 percent "dumb" munitions they used -- and not have inflicted extensive unnecessary killing and devastation. The logic is inescapable. It is highly probable that the mass aerial bombing of highly populated areas in Iraq was "indiscriminate" bombing per se; however, the public will never know because the media was restricted in its reporting of the war casualties and bomb damage assessment.

No one can criticize the outstanding execution of the battlefield operations by the American military forces, but they probably violated the law of war. Would a truly objective war crimes tribunal considering the United States aerial bombardment campaign say it complied, in all instances, with the law of war? Probably not and the U.S. government, military, and people should be concerned if America is going to go to the U.N. to get approval on future military operations.

Nations have wrestled over the decades to try to establish workable rules to govern aerial bombardments, and their efforts have been controversial and not often easy. (18:1-225) Since many of the world's nations are concerned about how aerial bombardment is conducted by belligerents, the United States needs to be concerned not only in "word" but in "deed".

WHAT THE U.S. SHOULD HAVE DONE

Should the United States have avoided armed conflict with Iraq and accepted Iraq's proposal to "link" the Palestinian homeland issue with Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait to prevent the onslaught of Iraq? Should the United States have given the coalition embargo of supplies to Iraq more time to work? Should the United States have tried to effectuate a broad peace plan in the Middle East as it is trying to do now? Should the United States have reevaluated its relationship with Israel (who had demanded a $10 billion loan guarantee and who is continuing to settle Jews in the occupied areas contrary to U.S. and U.N. wishes) a long time ago and taken a firm stance against Israel then? (16:38-39)

The answer to these questions is a resounding YES if Americans truly believe in fair play and justice and the rule of law. Students and practitioners of the art of strategy and warfare must also consider these questions and issues because it is only when "the warrior" has intellectual discipline and integrity that he will be able to live up to what Sun Tzu said:

"... Thus, those who win one hundred triumphs in one hundred conflicts

Do not have supreme skill.

Those who have supreme skill,

Use strategy to bend others without coming to conflict..." (22:45)

The fact that the U.S. conducted the aerial bombardment of Iraq as it did shows that Americans (the people, the political leaders, and the military) still have much to learn about the morality, legality, and the art of war.

APPENDIX: UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS

August 3, 1990 -- Resolution 660 -- The Council voted 14-0 to condemn the August 2 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi troops. Yemen, the only Arab member of the Council did not vote.

August 6, 1990 -- Resolution 661 -- The Council voted 13-0 to order a trade and financial embargo of Iraq and occupied Kuwait. Cuba and Yemen abstained.

August 9, 1990 -- Resolution 662 -- The Council voted 15-0 to declare Iraq's annexation of Kuwait null and void under international law.

August 18, 1990 -- Resolution 664 -- The Council voted 15-0 to demand that Iraq free all detained foreigners.

August 25, 1990 -- Resolution 665 -- The Council voted 13-0 to give the United States and other naval powers the right to enforce the economic embargo against Iraq and Kuwait by halting shipping to those countries. Cuba and Yemen abstained.

September 13, 1990 -- Resolution 666 -- The Council voted 13-2 to allow humanitarian food aid into Iraq or Kuwait only "to relieve human suffering", and said only the Council could decide when those circumstances existed. Cuba and Yemen voted against the measure.

September 15, 1990 -- Resolution 667 -- The Council voted 15-0 to condemn Iraq's aggressive acts against diplomatic missions in Kuwait, including the abduction of foreigners from the buildings.

September 24, 1990 -- Resolution 669 -- The Council voted 15-0 to stress that only its Sanctions Committee had the power to permit food, medicine or other humanitarian aid to be sent into Iraq or occupied Kuwait.

September 25, 1990 -- Resolution 670 -- The Council voted 14-1 to explicitly expand its economic embargo to include all air cargo traffic in or out of Iraq and Kuwait except for cargoes of humanitarian aid specifically authorized by its Sanctions Committee. It also called on U.N. member nations to detain any Iraqi ships that may be used to break the naval embargo. Cuba opposed the measure.

October 29, 1990 -- Resolution 674 -- The Council voted 13-0 to hold Iraq liable for war damages and economic losses, to ask nations to collect evidence of grave human rights abuses by the occupying forces, to demand that the Western embassies in Kuwait City be restocked with food and water, and to demand all hostages be released. Cuba and Yemen abstained.

November 28, 1990 -- Resolution 677 -- The Council voted 15-0 to condemn Iraq's attempt to alter the demographic character of Kuwait and asked Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar to take possession of Kuwait's census and citizenship records for safekeeping.

November 29, 1990 -- Resolution 678 -- The Council voted 12-2 to authorize the use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait

after January 15, 1991. (24:A12)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. AFP 110-31, International Law -- The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, Department of the Air Force, Washington, GPO, 19 November 1976.

2. AFP 110-34, Commander's Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Department of the Air Force, Washington, GPO, 25 July 1980.

3. AFR 110-32, Training and Reporting to Insure Compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict, Department of the Air Force, Washington, GPO, 2 August 1976.

4. "Air War Called Best Option By U.S. Brass", Arizona Republic, September 16, 1990, p. A14.

5. Alter, Jonathan, "Why 'Linkage' Doesn't Connect", Newsweek, January 21, 1991, p. 24.

6. AR 350-216, The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Hague Convention No. IV of 1907, Department of the Army, Washington, GPO, 7 March 1975.

7. Armacost, Michael H., Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Reagan Administration, "U.S. Policy in the Persian Gulf and Kuwaiti Reflagging", reprint of a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 16 June 1987, Air War College Associate Studies Vol. II, LSN 33, 1st Ed., pp. 115-118.

8. Barry, John, and Douglas Waller, "What Really Happened", Newsweek, February 25, 1991, p. 20.

9. DAP 27-1-1, Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Department of the Army, Washington, GPO, September 1979.

10. Department of Defense, DoD Law of War Program, DoD Directive 5100.77, Washington, GPO, July 10, 1979.

11. "88, 500 Tons of Bombs -- 70% Missed", Arizona Republic, March 16, 1991, p. A2.

12. FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, Department of the Army, Washington, GPO, July 1956.

13. "Gulf Air-War Leader Denies Reports Allies Overbombed Iraq", Arizona Republic, June 29, 1991, p. A16.

14. "Gulf War Resulted In 150,000 Deaths, Greenpeace Says", Arizona Republic, May 29, 1991, p. A10.

15. Hartmann, Frederick H. and Robert L. Wendzel, "Defense Planning Problems", reprint from Defending America's Security, 1988, pp. 132-149, Pergamon-Brassey's International Defense Publishers, Inc., Air War College Associate Studies Vol. I, LSN 6, 1st Ed., pp. 241-250.

16. Lane, Charles, et al., "A Marriage On The Rocks", Newsweek, September 30, 1991, pp. 38-39.

17. Morganthau, Tom, et al., "Bracing for War", Newsweek, January 21, 1991, pp. 16-19.

18. Parks, W. Hays, "Air War and the Law of War", Air Force Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1990, pp. 1-225.

19. "Pro-Israel Lobbyists Quietly Backed Resolution Allowing Bush to Commit U.S. Troops to Combat", Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1991, pp. A14-A15.

20. Schwartzkopf, Gen. H. Norman, Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, reprint of a Witness Statement Before the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 6, 1990, Air War College Associate Studies Vol, II, LSN 33, 1st Ed., pp. 80-103.

21. Students' discussion in Air War College seminar number 058A, 1991.

22. Sun Tzu, The Art of Strategy, translated by R.L. Wing, New York, Doubleday, 1988.

23. Thompson, Mark, "Air Force Chief is Fired", Arizona Republic, September 18, 1990, pp. A1, A8.

24. "The U.N. Resolutions Against Iraq," Washington Times, February 22, 1991, p. A12.

25. "U.S. Led Iraq Hunt For Motor Home Carrying Saddam", Arizona Republic, June 23, 1991, p. A24.

26. Watson, Russell, et al., "Why Diplomacy Failed", Newsweek, March 4, 1991, pp. 36-37.

27. Woodward, Bob, The Commanders, Simon and Schuster, 1991.

UP