WAR CRIMESREPORT TO THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION OF INQUIRYGrave Breaches and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law23 February 2001INTRODUCTIONSince its occupation of the Palestinian Occupied Territories in 1967, and throughout the Oslo process, and to date, Israel has through the actions of Israeli soldiers, its military and political commanders, and Israeli settlers, been responsible for gross violations of the fundamental human rights of Palestinian civilians, and for those acts committed by Israeli soldiers, military and political commanders, and Israeli settlers, amounting to war crimes. In particular, in many cases both during this current Intifada and prior to the Intifada, individual Israeli soldiers, military and political commanders, and Israeli settlers, have committed grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, under Article 147. Article 147 of the Geneva Convention IV 1949 ("Convention"), provides that:
For this report, we have chosen the following examples of grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
However, there are other types of war crimes that have been committed against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Territories. For example, Israel has also been guilty of committing the following grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention: unlawful deportations; wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of a fair and regular trial; and extensive destruction and appropriation of property. Israel, as the Occupying Power, and the other High Contracting Parties (pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention) are obliged under Article 146 of the Convention, to:
Israel has failed to fulfil these obligations by taking these steps, and till now perpetrators of war crimes committed against Palestinian civilians have not been properly prosecuted or have enjoyed complete impunity. In addition, Israel has systematically breached fundamental principles of humanity, and committed serious violations of crucial provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and other international humanitarian law, including the prohibition on excessive and disproportionate use of force, and collective punishments. We have included in this report specific sections on:
In this report we seek to summarise a few examples of such cases documented by LAW, and other organisations such as the Israeli human rights organisation, B'Tselem, through affidavits obtained from victims and their family members, eyewitnesses and medical evidence. Although the Commission has been charged with considering events since 28 October 2000, we have included examples of grave breaches and collective punishments prior to this date, to indicate how the systematic violations have occurred throughout the Occupation including the period of the Oslo Process. We would also ask the Commission to take these earlier examples into account as part of its aim to prevent "the recent and on going human rights violations": for in part it has been the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of these grave breaches which has exacerbated and led to the current Intifada. |
1. WILFUL KILLINGSOver the years Israel has systematically violated provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, thus depriving the Palestinian population under occupation of many of their rights under international humanitarian law. Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention include wilful killings committed against persons protected by the Convention. A special case of wilful killings are extrajudicial executions, as carried out by Israel against Palestinians suspected of violent hostile actions against Israeli soldiers or civilians. Since 9 November 2000, at least 9 Palestinians affiliated to Fatah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad and 6 bystanders have been killed pursuant to the Israeli "liquidation policy" while others have been injured. It should however be noted that Israel's liquidation policy with regard to Palestinian suspects is not new. Undercover units of the Israeli army also carried out extrajudicial executions during the first Intifada (1987-1993) and throughout the period of the Oslo Process. The Israeli government has justified extrajudicial executions of Palestinians with "security". Statements by military and political officials suggest that the Israeli government feels entitled to "use all available means" and "do everything possible in order to foil terrorist attacks." It is within this conceptual framework that extra-judicial executions of Palestinians perceived as a threat is legitimized on the grounds of its "effectiveness". However, whatever policy the Israeli government chooses to implement, it must be within the limits imposed by international humanitarian and human rights law. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel as the Occupying Power has the right to arrest and bring to trial those suspected of violent hostile activities. However, the Fourth Geneva Convention does not allow for wilful killing under specific or exceptional circumstances, as this would contradict one of the main principles embedded in the Convention: The right of protected persons to be treated humanely - under all circumstances and at all times. The duty to respect the lives of protected persons and the inviolability of their fundamental rights, are spelt out in Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Although it states at the end that "the parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of war", it specifies that "protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons" and that "they shall be at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof." The principles proclaimed in Article 27 are "the basis on which the Convention rests, the central point in relation to which all other provisions must be considered." It emphasizes the obligation to give humane treatment as part of the right of protected persons to respect for their lives. The ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention clearly establishes that the reservation made in article 27 concerning security issues does not involve fundamental rights of the individual. Whatever security measures are taken, "they should not affect the fundamental rights of the persons concerned. As has been seen, those rights must be respected even when measures of constraint are justified." In Article 32, the requirement of humane treatment is enforced by the prohibition of certain acts considered to be absolutely incompatible with the notion of humane treatment. Among the acts explicitly prohibited by Article 32 are murder and any measures of brutality that may cause physical suffering: The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents. With regard to protected persons suspected of hostile activities, article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention establishes that where
Although article 5 establishes that a protected person engaged in hostile activities loses some of the rights afforded by the Convention, it does certainly not include a license to kill, as it clearly states that "in each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity". Furthermore, the rights derogable under Article 5 mainly refer to communication rights and do certainly not include the right to be protected from wilful killing. The ICRC commentary on Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention reads as follows: The rights referred to are not very extensive in the case of protected persons under detention; they consist essentially of the right to correspond, the right to receive individual or collective relief, the right to spiritual assistance from minister of their faith and the right to receive visits from representatives of the Protecting Power and the ICRC. The security of the State could not conceivably be put forward as a reason for depriving such persons of the benefit of other provisions - for example, the provision of Article 37 that they are to be humanely treated when they are confined pending proceedings or subject to a sentence involving loss of liberty. Torture and recourse to reprisals are of course prohibited. In consequence, article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention cannot be invoked in order to justify wilful killings in situations where the state security is deemed to be threatened. Case Examples during the Al Aqsa Intifada:
Based on its field documentation gathered on 8 - 9 December 2000, LAW investigated the death of 15 year-old Ahmad Al Qawasmi from Hebron, who was shot in the head on Friday 8 December by an Israeli soldier. In a sworn affidavit, Ashraf Julani, an eyewitness to the shooting, told LAW: "On Friday, December 8, 2000, at 13:45, while I was sitting on the balcony of my home in Harit Al Sheik, downtown Hebron, I heard intensive gunfire. I saw an Israeli soldier standing with his foot pressed against the neck of a young Palestinian; I then saw the soldier shoot the child in the forehead. There were four other soldiers shooting eastward into an alley leading to the Ali Baka mosque. I went down to the street to take the injured child to safety; he was only 15 meters away. I carried him for almost 30 meters. A number of soldiers ran after me and ordered me to put the child down. They searched the injured child and then searched me. They also pointed their guns at us. The search went on for five minutes. Then I was told to take the child and leave. I carried him for another 100 meters to Bab Al Zawyi where an ambulance took the child to hospital. I later learned that the victim's name was Ahmad Al Qawasmi. He was 15 years old. He was in critical condition. Ahmad was shot in H1, which is under Palestinian control. He was not threatening the lives of any Israeli soldiers when he was shot." The eyewitness said that Qawasmi was bleeding heavily. LAW's field researcher was in the area when the soldiers opened fire but was prevented from reaching the site where the incident had occurred due to heavy gunfire. However, the researcher went to Al Ahli Hospital, where the wounded child was admitted. Dr. Mohammad Dwaik explained the child's condition to LAW's researcher as follows: "The child was shot at point-blank range. The bullet penetrated his forehead, damaged part of his skull and lodged in his brain". On 11 December 2000, Qawasmi was pronounced dead. The shooting of Qawasmi was not a necessity under the rubric of military necessity and cannot be justified under the rules of international humanitarian law. From the eyewitness account, the killing was clearly intentional and thus a wilful killing.
On 31 December 2000, at around 10 a.m., Dr. Thabet Thabet, a 50-year-old dentist, married and with three children, was killed by gunfire outside his home in the West Bank city of Tulkarem. He was taken to Tulkarem hospital but died from his wounds at about 10.30 the same morning. Dr. Thabet was Fatah's secretary general in Tulkarem, director general of the Palestinian Health Ministry in Nablus and a lecturer in Public Health at Al Quds Open University. His wife, Dr. Siham Thabet, reported to LAW : "My husband was killed when he was reversing his car outside our home in Tulkarem. He was on his way to work at the PNA Health Ministry in Nablus. Our home is in Area A but he was shot from Area C , from a distance of about 250 meters. Over 20 bullets hit him; later it was found that three different kinds of ammunition had been used. It is obvious that the aim of the "operation" was to kill him. I myself heard machine gun fire when I was on my way to work at the dental clinic. I would however never have imagined that what I heard was my husband being gunned down." Palestinian eyewitnesses confirmed that a unit of Israeli soldiers, hiding in a truck, opened fired on Dr. Thabet while he was reversing his car. They also stated that a car with an Israeli license plate was seen in the area and took off when Dr. Thabet was hit, and that a military helicopter was hovering above the site at the time. After the incident, the Israeli army did not acknowledge responsibility and said that Dr. Thabet had been killed in an exchange of fire or in the midst of cross fire. However, during a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on 2 January 2001, a senior Israeli security official was reported as stating the following with regard to the killing of Dr. Thabet: "We attack terrorists who set out to shoot at [civilians]; we identify the heads of squads and district commanders, and attack them. This activity frightens and quiets a village; and as a result, there are regions in which [operatives] are afraid of undertaking activities." While the Israeli General Security Services (GSS) claim that Dr. Thabet was a "terrorist" responsible for planning attacks against Israeli civilians , leaders of the Israeli Peace Now movement expressed shock at the assassination. "He's somebody we knew quite well", said Meretz Knesset Member Naomi Chazan. Dr. Siham Thabet confirmed that her husband had frequently taken part in activities designed to advance reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians: "My husband was a man in search of peace with Israel. He was a member of the joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation at the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference in October 1991. For a number of years he was involved with Israeli peace groups and institutions fostering Palestinian-Israeli dialogue and coexistence such as Peace Now and Givat Hagiva. As a matter of fact, Israeli peace activists called or sent condolences when they learnt about his assassination. Some even came to Tulkarem with flowers to pay him last honors but were stopped at the checkpoint because of the ban on Israelis entering area A." Whatever the truth behind the Israeli allegations against Dr. Thabet, they cannot justify his assassination, which constitutes an extra judicial execution in blatant violation of international law. If the Israeli authorities believed that Dr. Thabet was responsible for attacks on Israeli civilians they should have acted within the framework of domestic and international law. In this regard, Dr. Siham Thabet stressed that her husband could have easily been arrested during one of his regular visits to a mosque located in area C, under full Israeli control:
On 9 January 2001, Dr. Siham Thabet filed a petition with the Israeli High Court of Justice asking the court to order Ehud Barak to refrain from "executing people without trial". The petitioner argued that extra judicial executions are in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention and therefore illegal. Dr. Thabet's wife also asked the High Court to issue an interim injunction banning Barak from ordering any such killings until the end of proceedings. The Israeli High Court has refused to issue such an interim injunction but has ordered Barak, as Defense Minister, to respond to Dr. Thabet's petition. While waiting for the outcome of the petition Dr. Siham Thabet explained to LAW:
Case Examples pre Intifada:
On 20 March 2000, at around 10.30 p.m., 48-year-old Hilmieh Abdil Aziz Shrouf, was killed when Israeli soldiers opened fire at the car she was driving with her husband, just a few meters away from an Israeli makeshift checkpoint. The checkpoint had been built up on the road between the West Bank villages of Kharras and Sourif on a site known as the Azaz valley. Her husband reported to LAW:
After driving about 100 meters away from the checkpoint or less, at normal speed, we saw an Israeli military jeep standing on a hill. At that moment, intensive gunfire was opened at our car. Both my wife and I were hit but I did not stop the car and continued to drive for about 3 kilometers or more until I reached Kharas. No one chased us after the shooting. In Kharas, my friend Mohammad Ali Murshid took my wife and me to al Ahli hospital in Hebron." Hospital sources stated that the couple reached Al Ahli hospital at 11.55 p.m. Hilmieh Shrouf was pronounced dead on arrival while her husband was in critical condition. The Hebron Prosecutor, Ahmad Atoubasi, stated that Hilmieh had been hit by 6 bullets in the head and the back. Mahmoud Atous sustained injuries in his back. Hilmieh Abdil Aziz Shrouf and Mahmoud Atous, the parents of twelve children aged 17 and below, were both from Al Jiba'a village located northwest of Hebron. The incident happened on their way back from Nuba village where they had been visiting relatives.
On 13 December 1999, Iyad al Batat, a Hamas activist, and Nader al Massalmeh were killed during a raid of the village by the Israeli undercover unit Duvdevan. The accounts given by the Israeli army and Palestinian eyewitnesses at the time of the incident contradict each other. Moreover, different versions appeared in the Israeli press about the incident. On 14 December 1999, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported: It seems that the IDF "Duvdevan" unit that operates in the area came across the cell of wanted activists when the activists fired at the soldier through the window of a house. The unit, backed up by other IDF troops, responded with anti-tank missiles. Two were killed during the shoot-out. One day later, the same newspaper gave a different version of the events:
In contradiction to the different Israeli versions, information gathered by LAW indicates that al Batat and Nadir al Massalmeh were killed as a result of a "planned operation" rather than in an accidental shoot-out. The Spanish newspaper El Pais reported that the Israeli soldiers who carried out the operation were dressed with sportswear, were not carrying any distinctive signs or emblems and had blackened their faces. Suhailah Abdiqadir Awad, the wife of Ismail Awad al Masalmeh, reported to LAW that at about 7.30 p.m. someone went to their house and asked whether they would sell him a car. A conversation about the car ensued. However, almost immediately afterwards, while al Batat was still standing on the doorway of her house, she heard gunshots; Iyad al Batat fled but massive gunfire on the house started. Nadir al Masalmeh, a relative visiting the family and father of five children, went to the roof to see what was happening and was killed there. The account given by Suhailah Abdiqadir Awad contradicts the Israeli version that the soldiers replied to gunfire opened by al Batat and al Masalmeh. The Israeli army acknowledged that Nadir al Masalmeh, who was not involved in any kind of political activism and even had a permit to work in Israel, was unarmed when he was killed. Iyad al Batat, who was a Hamas activist, was talking about buying a car when the shooting started - he cannot have been the one to open fire as stated by the Israeli army. Statements made by Deputy Defense Minister Sneh in relation with the case further confirm that Iyad al Batat was deliberately killed. On 15 December 1999, Ha'aretz reported : Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said Battat had been marked for death after killing an officer in an undercover unit in Israel' border police in a roadside ambush in January. Later Sneh retracted the statement, but said that Israel would retaliate harshly against anyone involved in attacking Israelis. 'Anyone who is involved with terrorist activity is a target for our security forces,' he told the Associated Press, noting that he told lawmakers two moths ago that the killers of the border policeman 'would not be alive within a year.' |
2. WILFULLY CAUSING GREAT SUFFERING / SERIOUS INJURY TO BODY OR HEALTHArticle 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that one of the grave breaches to which article 146 applies, includes: "wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health…". The following are but a few examples of such cases that have occurred both during and prior to the current Intifada . Case Examples during the Intifada:a) Shootings by gunfire
In the afternoon of 30 September 2000, twelve-year-old Ala Badran, from the Old City in Jerusalem, was shot in his left eye close to his uncle's house in Qalandia refugee camp, while he was on his way back from a nearby supermarket. At about 1.30 p.m. clashes between Palestinian demonstrators and Israeli soldiers started, and many of the relatives invited to the uncle's house went out to see what was happening. During the clashes, the Israeli soldiers were standing behind a blockade and barbed wire, about 100 metres away from the house on the other side of the road. The demonstrators were also on the other side of the road, and were further down south from the house, about 500 metres away. The child reported to LAW:
After a while Ala asked his mother for money to buy a candy at a nearby supermarket - only 15 meters away from the place where the family was standing. On his way back from the supermarket, Ala was hit by a rubber-coated metal bullet in his left eye. He reported to LAW:
Ala's uncle, Faraj Hamed Badran, is one of the relatives who was standing in the street, watching the Palestinian youngsters throw stones and the Israeli soldiers fire bullets, when Ala was injured. He reported to LAW that the soldier who shot his nephew had been aiming his gun at the family for about 10 minutes, after trying to arrest one of his sons:
Ala was subsequently taken to St. John Eye Hospital in Jerusalem. His eye could however not be saved and had to be removed and replaced by an artificial eye. Although the right eye is normal, there is a remote danger that the injury in the left eye may cause severe inflammation of the healthy right eye at any time. Since the incident, Ala suffers moreover from psychological problems. He is scared to go outside the house, wakes up screaming in the middle of the night and has generally problems related to sleep.
On 27 October 2000, Muhammad el Lidawi was in the Tal el Sultan quarter of Rafah, which is in Area A, and meant to be under Palestinian National Authority control. Two Israeli military jeeps with about five Israeli soldiers in each of them were in this area. A group of Palestinian youths, including Muhammad el Lidawi started demonstrating in protest at the discriminatory Israeli policies against Palestinians, and the number of deaths and injuries sustained by Palestinians since the beginning of the Al Aqsa Intifada. Most of them were throwing stones towards the soldiers in their jeeps. At this stage the soldiers were about 150 metres away from Muhammad and his friends. Muhammad was incensed as an Israeli flag had been erected on wire within Area A, and he said he believed they had no right to put their flag up in Palestinian territories. He ran towards the flag and pulled it off; and he and some of his friends tried to burn the flag, and replace it with a Palestinian flag. At this stage he was only about a few metres away from the two groups of soldiers. An Israeli soldier saw them removing the Israeli flag and opened fire at them with what appeared to be live ammunition and rubber coated bullets, so they all ran for shelter including Muhammad. The soldier shouted at them in Hebrew: "Today you will see God! You'll all be killed today!" None of the boys concerned, including Muhammad, were throwing stones at the soldiers when the soldier opened fire at them. Muhammad continues in his testimony to LAW :
b) Bombing: Wilfully causing great suffering/serious injury to body or health; and/or extensive destruction not justified by military necessity, and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
Amal Mahmoud Abu Snainih, 24, a housewife, and daughter of Abdul Aziz Abu Snainih gave the following evidence to LAW:
Case examples Pre Intifada:
According to eyewitnesses, on 12 March 1999 Israeli soldiers in two armoured jeeps had entered the village of Deir Abu Mish'al, and some boys had thrown stones at the jeeps. The eyewitnesses confirm that this stone throwing lasted for about two minutes, before the boys concerned ran away. On this day, after sunset prayers, Assaf el Barghouthi, then aged 8 years old, and his brother Odeh were on their way home. Assaf and his brother came near to the place where stones had been thrown, but by the time they reached the area the boys had dispersed so they were not aware of any clashes that had taken place. Assaf confirmed in his affidavit dated 14 March 1999, as follows:
An eyewitness in an affidavit to LAW on 14 March 1999, confirmed that he saw the boys who had thrown stones at the soldiers, saw them run off, and also saw Assaf and his brother as they walked by Deir Abu Mish'al Boys' School on their way home. The witness confirmed that Assaf and his brother had not been there when the stone throwing was taking place and that Assaf and his brother did not throw any stones or pose any threat to the soldiers. The witness also confirmed that he saw the Israeli soldiers deliberately take aim and fire at the boys with weapons. The witness saw Assaf being hit by a sound bomb in the head and bullet to the leg, and being taken away by a lorry. Evidence was also given that the Israeli soldiers did not give any aid to Assaf after they injured him, even though they were less than about 20 metres away from him. Assaf's father confirmed that after 6 pm, he was at a friend's place when his son Odeh arrived and told him that one of his other sons, Assaf, had been hit in the head and leg by an Israeli soldier and that Khalil Abdil Rahman had taken him to Basem el Rimawi's clinic with his lorry. According to Assaf's father: "I took my brother's car and met Khalil, and we took Assaf to Ramallah hospital. Assaf underwent surgery as there was a skull fracture, from 9 until about 11 o'clock at night. The next day, the doctors confirmed that his status was then stable and that the injury to the left eye was caused by a sound bomb, and there had been a rubber coated metal bullet shot into his left leg." LAW's researcher Amer Aruri visited Assaf in hospital, saw the injuries he sustained. Medical records and reports confirm the cause and nature of the injuries sustained.
On 1 May 1999, Jawad Al-Mohtaseb, aged 13, his sister Saida, aged 6, and their cousin Shadi, 15 years old, were playing football in front of their house, near the Haram Al-Ibrahimi mosque. According to affidavits provided to LAW, including from the children's father, Mohammad Najib Abd Razaq Al Mohtaseb, aged 37, and their cousin Shadi, an Israeli soldier with the Israeli border guards (responsible for protecting settlers in the city of Hebron), approached them and asked Shadi for the ball. Shadi refused and went inside the house. The soldier, who is known to them as 'Salama', accompanied by nine other soldiers, approached the house and insisted that Jawad bring the ball to play with the soldiers. Jawad refused, and at a distance of less than two metres, the soldier pointed his rifle towards Jawad and shot him in the leg. According to evidence obtained by LAW, the bullet appeared to be a 'dum dum' bullet, and hit Jawad in the left thigh. The bullet penetrated the leg, and bounced off the wall, fragmented and hit his 6-year old sister, Saida, in the head. The two were taken to the Hebron city hospital and later moved to Hadassa Ein Karem hospital in West Jerusalem due to their critical condition. According to hospital reports, Jawad underwent three operations lasting about 14 hours in order to reconnect the blood vessels to the nervous system. Blood vessels were also removed from his right leg and transplanted in his left. Doctors confirmed that Jawad needed intensive care for at least three months. |
3. TORTURE OR INHUMANE TREATMENTOn September 6, 1999, the Israeli High Court outlawed specific methods used by the General Security Service (GSS) in the interrogation of detainees from the Occupied Territories. Despite the fact that systematic use of torture appears to have ceased following the High Court decision, cases of torture or inhuman treatment continue to be reported, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and other international humanitarian law and human rights law. According to the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI) , a Jerusalem-based Israeli NGO, the methods reported include sleep deprivation for long periods of time, handcuffing detainees to chairs for prolonged periods, providing insufficient food, employing collaborators for interrogation, continuous interrogation for more than 20 hours, recurrent beating of, and violence against the detainee throughout interrogation. Moreover, access to medical care and legal counsel is often made difficult. While there has been a decrease in the number of cases of torture or inhumane treatment reported, the use of incommunicado detention has increased. In many instances detainees have been denied access to legal counsel and their families for prolonged periods of time, sometimes for more than three weeks. According to Israeli Military Order 378, a Palestinian detainee can be held for up to 90 days without access to a lawyer. Access to the family can be denied even longer. In 1998, 1999 and 2000 the UN Commission on Human Rights stated that "prolonged incommunicado detention can in itself constitute a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." Case Examples during the Intifada:The current uprising in the Occupied Territories (Intifada), which broke out on 29 September 2000, has increased the risk of human rights violations during arrest, detention and interrogation. During prison visits, LAW's lawyers gathered the following information regarding cases of torture or inhuman treatment during the Al Aqsa Intifada.
Case examples Pre Intifada:
During the operation and before his arrest, Nidal Daghlas was wounded and left without medical treatment. A Red Crescent ambulance called to the area was detained. According to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, two clearly identified medical personnel were taken from the ambulance and handcuffed and held for over seven hours.
|
4. UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OR CONFINEMENT:
|
5. USE OF FORCE IN DEMONSTRATIONSSummary of FactsExcessive and disproportionate use of force has been used both within and outside of demonstrations by Palestinians . As at 29 January 2001, approximately 38 Palestinians have been killed and many injured outside of demonstrations.Even within demonstrations, Israeli forces have used wholly excessive and disproportionate force. Most demonstrations have started peacefully and often become violent after provocation of Israeli soldiers or settlers, then end with lethal use of force by Israeli soldiers. The majority of non peaceful demonstrators have used stones. Less often 'molotov cocktails' have been used, and more infrequently, firearms. Most non peaceful demonstrators were throwing stones when they were killed or injured by Israeli forces. In comparison, Israeli soldiers come fully equipped with protective clothing, including bullet-proof vests, flack jackets and helmets; and armoured vehicles/jeeps and/or tanks. They are usually stationed in outposts or raised military fortresses between 50-100 metres from flashpoints, or on the roofs of nearby buildings. No Israeli soldier has been killed during demonstrations. According to the affidavits provided to LAW by witnesses, the majority of Palestinian Security forces have been hit or killed during clashes away from clash points, whilst in the case where they did intervene in clashes it was said to be in reaction to seeing their colleagues being hit or killed without apparent justification. Heavy weaponry normally used in full-scale military warfare has been used during clashes, including rubber-coated metal bullets; rubber pellets; and live ammunition; automatic weapons, anti-armour (LAW) missiles shot from military helicopters (eg Apache) and tanks. As at 29 January 2001 , the types of artillery used in clashes has been as follows:
According to the report of the Village Voice dated 22 February 2001, fragmenting bullets fired by M16s, which cause similar injuries to the banned dum dum bullets, are increasingly being used. In this Village Voice report, it is stated:
Palestinian officials say the rate of disabling injuries during this Al Aqsa Intifada, which began in the shadow of East Jerusalem's Al Aqsa Mosque on September 29, is higher than during the first Intifada, which lasted from 1987 to 1993. 'The Israeli response to this Intifada has been more ferocious, swifter, and more intensive,' says Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, head of the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees. Lethal fire has come from M16, M3 and M24 snipers' rifles, and from higher-caliber munitions, including concrete-busting machine-gun bullets, grenade launchers, 120-millimetre tank shells, and Hellfire rockets fired from American-made Apache attack helicopters. The heavier fire, say Israeli analysts, has come in response to Palestinian sniping. But even the more benign ammunition designed for riot control, like so-called rubber bullets - steel balls coated with a thin layer of rubber can be fatal if fired at short range." In the report, Village Voice also documents the arguments made for banning of the M16 ammunition, as the fragmentation causes, "causes unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury". Weapons and methods employed during demonstrations violate international humanitarian law and human rights law, and national and international firearm regulations. Tear gas has been used to bare minimum. Water cannons, which can be extremely effective in crowd dispersal, have not been used at all. Full force is used in most cases without prior notice being given. Evidence obtained by LAW both during and prior to the current Intifada suggests there has been a consistent pattern of shootings by Israeli soldiers to the upper body of demonstrators. For instance, out of 6,060 of the 11,363 people injured (as at 16 February 2001), LAW has been able to document:
Also disturbing is the high number of deaths of children (32% as at 14 February 2001); children injured have been about 41% of the total numbers injured. A high proportion of those children received upper injuries, including eye injuries . Violations of international humanitarian lawUsing excessive and disproportionate force against Palestinian civilian demonstrators violates fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, in particular where no genuine right of self defence can be raised by the individual Israeli soldiers , as well as the fundamental human rights of the demonstrators concerned . The policy and measures taken have also been in violation of national and international firearm regulations.Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or healthIn addition, in many cases, even where Israeli soldiers fired indiscriminately into crowds, it is arguable that not only were they using excessive and disproportionate force in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, but that there is evidence they and their commanders were committing a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, by wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. Even where there is no evidence of specific individuals being targeted (as opposed to the examples of cases such as Muhammad el Lidawi or Ala Badran), there is the following evidence of a policy or systematic approach in demonstrations to wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health:
General Eiland did not, nor could he, seek to justify the high number of those only armed with stones, or unarmed, who had been injured or killed, by injuries sustained to the upper body. Furthermore, as indicated by the recent Village Voice and B'Tselem reports:
The report from the Israeli media, that military commanders during this Intifada have been telling soldiers that they are allowed to shoot at Palestinians who pose a potential 'threat', as long as they appear to be over 12. The Village Voice refers to an interview given to Amira Hass from the Ha'aretz newspaper:
The sniper told Ha'aretz that soldiers are allowed to shoot at Palestinians who pose a potential threat, as long as they appear to be over the age of 12. 'Twelve and up is allowed,' said the sniper. A senior IDF officer told another Ha'aretz reporter: 'Nobody can convince me we didn't needlessly kill dozens of children.'"
Case Examples during the Intifada:In its 22 February report, the Village Voice cites many examples of those injured severely during demonstrations, and includes an example of one injured during peaceful demonstrations. Here are two of their case examples given:
Mahmoud Al Medhoun, 15, was hit three times in the leg, back, and abdomen, by soldiers firing from the hatch of a tank. One bullet lodged in his spine, smashing three vertebrae and pinching a nerve. His right leg is paralysed. Doctors have removed part of his colon and repaired his liver but he is unable to eat. 'God willing, I will walk again' declares Mahmoud. But when his father cites the doctors' opinion that the paralysis is probably permanent, the boy rolls himself into a ball, burying his face in the crook of his arm and cry[s]". The following is an excerpt from B'Tselem's report "Illusions of Restraint" dated December 2000, from the early stages of the Intifada (first two months), where they sent B'Tselem observers to observe methods of dispersal of demonstrations at the northern entrance to El-Bireh:
The demonstrations at AYOSH Junction took place every day in the afternoon. In six demonstrations, an average of 50 Palestinians threw stones at soldiers and burned tires. In some instances, Palestinians also threw Molotov cocktails. At one demonstration, some 400 people took part, and three demonstrations numbered approximately 1,000 participants each. The soldiers at the AYOSH Junction stood at a the Israeli checkpoint, 20-30 metres from the Area A border, where the demonstrators situated themselves. In addition to the soldiers at the checkpoint, Israeli snipers were stationed on the roof of a building some 100 metres from the demonstrators. The observations of the demonstrations at AYOSH Junction indicate several characteristics of the IDF policy to disperse demonstrations:
Two Palestinians were killed at the AYOSH Junction during the period that B'Tselem observed the demonstrations: Ghassan Yusuf Ahmed Salem 'Awiseh, 27, was killed on 27 October; Th'ar Ibrahim Shalesh a-Zayed, 17, a resident of Jilazum Refugee Camp, was killed on 31 October. Both were shot when they did not constitute a life-threatening danger to the soldiers and were killed before the Palestinian side had opened fire. The findings from a number of observation posts that B'Tselem maintained at other sites in the Occupied Territories indicate that this manner of dispersing demonstrations is army policy throughout the Occupied Territories and not only at the AYOSH Junction. The high number of those killed and wounded in the recent events results directly from this policy…. Changes in the Open-Fire RegulationsReports by the media and by the IDF Spokesperson, testimonies of soldiers, and analysis of the manner in which demonstrations in the Occupied Territories are dispersed, indicate that, over the past seven weeks, a number of changes were made in the Open-Fire Regulations.A letter from the IDF Spokesperson stated that, from 7-14 October, the Open-Fire Regulations were changed and authorization was given to take offensive or preventative action by live gunfire in life-threatening situations…. This letter is vague and does not explain what change took place in the Regulations. … In B'Tselem's meeting with Col. Reisner, he stated that the definition of life-threatening 'is purely subjective'." Case examples pre Intifada:Excessive and disproportionate use of force has been used by Israeli forces against Palestinian demonstrators in the past, including during completely peaceful demonstrations. The following two examples are taken from a peaceful demonstration at which no weapons or force was used by the Palestinian demonstrators.
On 15 May 2000, Omar Abu Sheikh, 28, a Najah University student of Tulkarem, was attending a peaceful demonstration as part of a protest asking for the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli prisons. No weapons or force were used by any of the demonstrators during this protest. Omar Abu Sheikh in his affidavit to LAW on 18 May 2000, reported:
On the same day, Shaker Zidan, 28, a Najah University student of Tulkarem, who was also attending the same peaceful demonstration, confirmed that no weapons or force was used by Palestinians during the demonstration. Shaker gave the following evidence to LAW on 18 May 2000:
|
6. COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENTSIntroductionSince its occupation of the Occupied Territories in 1967 and throughout Oslo, Israel has employed a variety of methods of collective punishment against Palestinian civilians living within the Occupied Territories. These include, for instance, methods of restrictions on freedom of movement, refusals to grant work or pass permits, and house demolitions.Since the 'Al Aqsa' Intifada in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, triggered by Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the al Harim al-Sharif on 28 September 2000, the use of collective punishments has intensified, with regular bombings of civilian areas and Palestinian infrastructure and Israel has instituted a policy of restrictions on freedom of movement, using methods of total closure, internal closure and curfew: all amounting to a form of siege of Palestinian towns within the Occupied Territories. Total closure amounts to prohibition of entry into Israel for any purpose: and the so-called 'safe passages' between the West Bank and Gaza Strip are closed; with international border crossings (Rafiah border crossing, Palestinian airport in Rafiah and the Allenby bridge) being closed at different times. Internal closure is enforced through the use of road blocks, preventing entry and exit from areas, towns and villages internally within the West Bank and Gaza. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been placed under such a siege: and do not receive shipments of basic supplies (including medical supplies), and cannot leave their communities, whether to travel to neighbouring areas for medical care and treatment or to travel for work or school. Curfew has been the most extreme restriction placed on Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, whereby, the entire population of a town is imprisoned in their own homes. For example, in the H2 area of Hebron, the approximately 40.000 Palestinians were placed under almost continuous 24-hour curfew for three months. The curfew was purportedly imposed for the convenience of the approximately 400 Israeli settlers living in the same area, to whom the curfew did not apply. Freedom of MovementIsrael contends that its restrictions on freedom of movement are purely on security grounds. However, the sweeping methods of closure, curfew and siege have affected millions of people as opposed to those individuals who purportedly pose any security threat. Furthermore, Israel in many cases has imposed restrictions "in response" to Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians or soldiers, where there is no connection between the type of restrictions imposed and their effectiveness in preventing similar future attacks. Similarly, the decision to ease restrictions on movement are usually seen as a gesture on the basis of specific political developments, in many cases where there is no connection with the security threat which supposedly justified the restrictions in the first place.There has been blatant discrimination between the two populations living in the Occupied Territories: Palestinians and Jews, solely on the basis of their different race and nationality. First, notwithstanding the security risk posed by Jewish individuals within the Occupied Territories, the policy of restrictions on movement have been imposed exclusively on the Palestinian population. Furthermore, in many cases, the explicit aim of the restrictions is to ensure freedom of movement of the Jewish settler population at the expense of the growing desperation of the local population. Prohibition on Collective PunishmentsThe sweeping and prolonged restrictions on freedom of movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, house demolitions, bombings, refusals to grant permits are all forms of collective punishment, which have had a devastating impact on the daily life of some 3 million people.The collective punishment and the effects of these methods amount to a violation of international humanitarian law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 ("Convention"). Article 33 of the Convention states that "no protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." Set out below are further examples of specific violations of the Convention and other international law, resulting from this method of collective punishment used against Palestinians. Medical SuppliesIsrael as the Occupying Power is under an obligation to ensure that reasonable level of material and medical conditions are maintained under which the population of the Occupied Territories live.Humanitarian aid and services have been detrimentally affected with the restrictions on freedom of movement (in some cases leading to deaths), in particular medical supplies, medical equipment, food to hospitals, clinics and pharmacies, emergency services and those requiring regular access to health care including the chronically ill and expectant mothers. In particular, the total/internal closures policy has been consistently used by Israel to block the transfer of necessary medical and food supplies to Palestinians with the borders of neighbouring countries, such as Jordan and Egypt. Transport of such supplies internally within the territories has been slowed, and in some cases halted completely. Medical Care - AmbulancesThe Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies in the Palestinian Territories have consistently been stopped or hindered from carrying out their work. As at 30 January 2001, there had been about 82 separate instances of attacks on ambulances and medical personnel by Israeli soldiers and settlers. Israeli soldiers have killed 3 medical personnel, and about 69 medical personnel have been injured (some of them in the head). 58 ambulances have been attacked (including 34 by live ammunition and 29 by rubber coated steel bullets); 5 have been completely destroyed by shellfire.There are routine delays of ambulances and convoys; the closure of borders and checkpoints has also affected humanitarian aid: making relief work difficult or impossible. Work/EconomyPalestinians have been restricted from reaching their work places inside Israel and outside their own towns, affecting the income of thousands of individuals: with knock-on impacts on the Palestinian economy as a whole. About 120,000 Palestinians that work in Israel have been denied entry, resulting in a loss of income to these households of about $3.4 million each day .The knock-on loss to the economy is a further $6 million each day (PECDAR) . A further about 25% of Palestinians are unemployed as a result of the closures/siege, taking the total to 39% of the working population. About 50,000 workers have lost their jobs inside the Palestinian territories because of the closures. The estimated losses to the Palestinian industry through the closure have amounted to about US $1.9 million per day. Losses have also been sustained by the Palestinian agricultural sector, whose production exports are valued at about US $953 million annually. Aggregate economic losses to the Palestinian economy are estimated at between US $256 million and US $346 million. Daily losses are estimated at between $8 to over $14 million. The estimated daily cost of closure to the production in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is almost $5 million a day. Furthermore, Israel has refused to transfer funds levied on behalf of the Palestinian National Authority. Education/Rights of the ChildThe restrictions on freedom of movement have also severely impaired the proper functioning of schools and the educational system, and violated Israel's specific obligations towards children.On several occasions since September 2000, about 20,000 students have been unable to study because of school closures, or because of imposition of closure, curfews and sieges on Palestinian towns (with teachers and students being unable to journey to school or university). In some cases teachers have risked their lives by walking around the concrete blocks and military barriers placed at the entrances of Palestinian schools and towns. As at 30 October 2000, 6 schools had to move teachers to open schools and now run these schools in two shifts. 4 schools in Hebron were taken over for use as military posts. In Hebron, as a result of the 84 day 24-hour curfew, about 13,000 students were deprived of their right to education; 28 schools were closed; 460 teachers could not get to school. Schools were subjected to frequent attacks by Israeli soldiers and settlers. When the curfew was lifted, students on their way to school were often met with a hail of bullets, in particular on 4 November 2000. In addition, about 173 schools in the West Bank and 23 in the Gaza Strip have been hit by several kinds of assault, including bombing by the Israeli army and shooting by settlers. As at 18 November 2000, 23 schools had been bombed in the Palestinian territories; an additional 5 had been besieged by Israeli tanks, with Israeli gunships flying over them. The following are some of the many examples of violations of the prohibitions on collective punishments both during and prior to the current Intifada: CASE EXAMPLES: Violation of prohibition on Collective PunishmentsFour Case Examples of Deaths from closures during the Intifada:
There are three access routes from the town of el Sawyieh, in the Nablus district, to Nablus. Two of those access routes were closed off by Israeli forces from 6 October 2000, with checkpoints installed at Zatara and Huwara. On 12 October 2000, the third access route was closed off with a checkpoint installed at Yitma; so the whole town of el Sawyieh was placed under siege by the Israeli forces. The Israeli forces were preventing and prohibiting all movement by residents between el Sawyieh and other cities and towns. The only villages still accessible from el Sawyieh were Qabalan and Yitma itself. However, once the access road between Yitma and Nablus was closed, no routes were open between el Sawyieh and Nablus. Ala Hamdan lived in the village of el Sawyieh. She had had health problems from birth: in particular with difficulties with obstruction of her colon and duodenum. She had had three operations at Hadassah Hospital, in Jerusalem. She had also had to have her left foot amputated, apparently in connection with complications arising from her stomach problems. On 13 October 2000, Ala Hamdan began to experience severe stomach pains. At about 9 p.m. that night the pains worsened considerably, so the family decided to seek immediate medical attention for her at the Rafidiyeh hospital in Nablus, which was the closest hospital to el Sawyieh. At first, her father, Hamdan Ahmed, tried to call a taxi because he did not have a car of his own but no driver was prepared to take them because of their fear of the Israeli soldiers and settlers at the blockades/closure points. Her father sought help from a neighbour, attorney Jamal Yusuf Khader, who owns a car and together they tried to break through the siege to get Ala to a hospital in Nablus. Ordinarily the journey from el Sawyieh to the hospital in Nablus would take only about 25 minutes. Mr. Ahmed's evidence continues as follows:
Ala's situation had deteriorated significantly by this stage, and she was vomiting. I was very unhappy at seeing my daughter suffering, so upon our return I called for medical assistance, dialling the emergency number 101, and spoke to the Israeli Magen David Adom ambulance service. However, they said that they could not help and that I had to find a Palestinian ambulance, because of the closures. I tried to contact a Palestinian ambulance/emergency service, but was unable to get hold of one. As the ambulances were unable to get through to my daughter, I decided to try to break through the siege again in my neighbour's car. When we left the house the Israeli army vehicle had gone. However, on the way to the hospital, near Yitma, we were stopped by several Israeli army vehicles and there was a large crowd of Israeli settlers of the Rahel settlement. I told the Israeli soldiers and the settlers who stopped us, that my daughter was sick and needed to be hospitalised so we needed access to the hospital in Nablus. They saw how sick the child was, and that she was in pain. However, they showed no concern as to my daughter's welfare and did not allow us through. The soldiers told me that it was forbidden to enter Nablus or to travel at all. At that stage, as there was no open access route to the hospital in Nablus, I felt that I had no choice but to return home again and to call for a doctor from the nearby village of Qabalan. His name was Dr. Riad al Hilo. He arrived at 10 p.m. at the house and after assessing Ala Hamdan's condition, confirmed that she needed immediate hospitalisation, for he could not provide her with the medical assistance she needed." In his report dated 14 October 2000, Dr. al Hilo confirms that he checked Ala Hamdan's condition on 13 October 2000, and stated she was suffering from a lung infection and severe stomach pains. Ala's father had also explained to the doctor that her stools had not been normal for a number of days. The doctor concluded her stomach pains must arise from the obstruction of her colon and duodenum, as it had in the past. He asked Ala's father to take her to hospital immediately because she was in a critical condition. Mr. Ahmed continues in his affidavit: "Immediately after the doctor's visit, I tried again on a number of occasions until the early hours of 14 October 2000 to break through the siege, and explained to the soldiers and settlers near Rahel settlement of the Doctor's advice, but in spite of seeing the child's condition the soldiers and settlers turned us back and told us to return home. My daughter Ala, spent the whole night and early morning suffering from severe pain." Mr. Ahmed took Ala to Dr. Riad al Hilo's clinic in Qabalan by 8.30 a.m., but he examined her and confirmed that she had died before reaching the clinic at about 8.05 a.m. The doctor confirmed in his written report that because the father could not take the child to hospital, she died at home. He confirmed that the death was caused by her stomach complaints and lung infection. On 15 October 2000, Mr. Hamdan Ahmad went to the Ministry of Health in Nablus and reported what happened, where Dr. Riad el Hilo also filled out a report. The report was sent to the Ministry on 17 October 2000. Mr. Hamdan Ahmad also informed the district authorities. No action has been taken by the Israeli authorities to investigate this incident or to bring those responsible to account for preventing Ala Hamdan from receiving crucial medical treatment that led to her death. Her death caused her father and her family considerable pain and sorrow.
Na'im Atallah, lived in Zawiyeh Village, in the Salfit District. The village was closed off by an Israeli imposed blockade about two to three days after the Intifada began on 29 September 2000. The Israeli forces placed checkpoints at the only two access roads to the village: at the northern entrance linking Zawiyeh to Mashah village, and at the eastern entrance, between the villages of Rafat and Dir Balut. Mr. Atallah suffered a total kidney failure since February 2000, and required dialysis treatment three times a week, at the main hospital in Nablus. However, from the time that the checkpoints were established he was unable to reach Nablus because he was turned away by Israeli soldiers at the checkpoint each time he tried. He also tried to summon aid from an ambulance from the Red Crescent station in Badi, a nearby village, but the ambulance never succeeded in getting to Zawiyeh because the road leading to the village was blocked by Israeli soldiers who would not allow them access through. On 16 October 2000, he tried again to gain access to the hospital by going through a checkpoint. He was accompanied by his neighbour, Musbah al-'Afu Musbah, who gave this testimony to B'Tselem on 24 December 2000 :
The Israeli soldiers did not let us pass, and told us that it was prohibited for us to cross and that we had to go back. We left there and went to the northern checkpoint between Zawiyeh and Mashah, and realised that it was absolutely impossible to cross. The road had a number of piles of dirt on the Badi side, even before reaching the Israeli army checkpoint, and it was impossible to get to the checkpoint. We returned home in the car. He seemed to be losing consciousness, and his face began to swell. After we took him out of the car and to his house, we called Dr. 'Abd A-rahim Rabi, of Zawiyeh, to check him. When he arrived, he had nothing to do but pronounce his death."
Child of Insaf Sadeq Suliman al-'Abeisi (31), and Mahmud Asad Daud al-Abeisi (39, teacher) Mahmud Asad Daud al-Abeisi and Insaf Sadeq Suliman al-Abeisi, are married, residents of Beit Dajan, Nablus district, and have four children. The eldest is 8 and the youngest is 3. The newborn child who died was a girl. All of their children were born in hospital, in the Obstetrics Department of Rafidiyeh Hospital, in Nablus. On 7 January 2001, Mahmud Asad Daud al-Abeisi drove his wife, Insaf, who was in her final month of pregnancy, to the Mother and Child Clinic in Nablus. All the tests conducted were normal and showed a healthy fetus. Everything had been fine throughout the pregnancy, and all the test results had been good. In the evening of 7 January 2001, at about 8 pm, Insaf went into labour. At that time, the whole village was apparently preoccupied with the death of Fatma Abu Jish, who died earlier in the day after being shot near the checkpoint. The testimony of the child's father continues, as follows:
I went back home and saw that my wife was in worse pain. I called the hotline of the Red Crescent in Nablus and pressured them to come and treat my wife. They told me that they could not travel along the dirt road because of the situation in the area, and that soldiers at the entrance to Beit Furiq and Beit Dajan did not allow Red Crescent ambulances to enter. After pressuring them, they said that they would come to the checkpoint and try to convince the soldiers there to let the ambulance enter the village. They suggested that, if the soldiers did not consent, we would meet at the checkpoint and they would take my wife to the hospital. We agreed that we would be in touch. I took my wife, stopped a taxi, and requested the driver to take us to the checkpoint. My wife began to bleed and the pain was increasing. The residents warned me not to approach the checkpoint because it was dangerous there. They said there was a reinforced complement of soldiers and that the soldiers would shoot anything that moves. When my wife heard that, her emotional state deteriorated: her screams and cries could be heard from far away. I stood firm and got into the taxi despite the warnings. We started to drive and all along the way people warned me to go back because the soldiers were liable to shoot at us. My wife was crying and shouting in pain and from fear that the soldiers would shoot at us. After we drove about two-thirds of the way to the checkpoint, the ambulance driver called and said that the soldiers at the checkpoint did not let him enter Beit Dajan, and he told me to stay away from the checkpoint. I decided to go back home and look for a midwife or a nurse to care for my wife. All this time, my wife was crying out and the bleeding increased. Around 9.30 pm, we got home. When we arrived, my wife gave birth (a girl) and bled profusely. I saw the newborn was stillborn, and drove immediately (at 10 o'clock) to Beit Furiq to look for a midwife or nurse so that at least my wife could be saved. It was 11 o'clock before I got to Beit Furiq because I drove along dirt roads to bypass the checkpoint. I took a nurse from there, her name is Umm Ramiyeh, and she works in a hospital in Nablus. We arrived at my house at midnight, and the nurse took care of my wife and the bleeding stopped. My four children saw the birth and the death of the newborn. They were crying all the time because they feared that something bad had happened to their mother. The great amount of bleeding frightened them a lot and they are in great emotional distress now. My wife's physical health is ok now, but she is in terrible condition emotionally. I hope that she quickly gets over what she went through, and that the children will overcome what happened, because they saw something very disturbing and suffered through a very difficult night."
Jamal Ibrahim Iluan lived in the town of Sinjel, near Ramallah. There had been a number of methods of collective punishment used against the residents of Sinjel. As at 18 November 2000, Ayoub Ahmad Sweid, 45, a merchant from Sinjel, gave evidence that Sinjel was being subjected daily to gas and noise bombs at night in the residential areas, whilst the residents were sleeping. In his affidavit, he continued as follows: "As a result, people get anxious and terrified, especially the children, women and older people. Israeli soldiers have also broken into the village and destroyed cars; such as those of Sa'ed Tawafneh, Muhammad Salhiyeh and Mani Deeb. The six entrances to the village have been blocked since the middle of November 2000. This has led to a paralysis in daily life, for employees working in institutions as well as in education have been unable to reach work. Furthermore, fuel and food supply lorries have been prevented from entering the village. The nearby settlers from Shilo and Baten have been threatening to cut off our water and electricity supplies; and have been preventing cars, even ambulances, from reaching us. They have also been threatening to burn and throw stones at our cars and to kill local residents. They used to say to us, that as Arabs we had to leave the land. On Friday, 17 November 2000, the Israeli soldiers removed a plaque, which had written on it: 'The settlers are prevented from entering this area as this is Area A'. The plaque was within the village. Before the closure, Israeli settlers had bulldozed and uprooted approximately 100 olive trees, which were being used by Abdil Kareem Ata, Husein el Sahem and Muhammad Kayed. Furthermore, they had destroyed the village's water pipes; demolished the walls of two houses close to the street (homes of Abu Jrad and Muhammad Kayed, the latter who has been a detainee since 15 November 2000)." In addition to these forms of collective punishment against the residents of Sinjel, Israeli soldiers had blocked off the six unpaved and main routes from Sinjel to other cities. The villagers were placed under siege. J amal Ibrahim Illuan suffered from heart disease. He had undergone surgery in Jordan 4 months before his death, in which a battery was placed in his heart. He would go to see doctors in Ramallah regularly for check ups. At 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 November 2000, he had an appointment in Ramallah. He took a taxi to see the doctor in Ramallah. The soldiers stationed in Sinjel prevented the taxi from passing. As all other routes were closed off, he returned home. After about half an hour his condition worsened, so a Red Crescent ambulance was called. An emergency medical technician working for the Red Crescent, Na'eem Masalmeh, lives in Sinjel, and he was asked to take Jamal. The Red Crescent ambulance took Jamal, but once it reached the checkpoint, the Israeli soldiers stopped them and prevented them from crossing it, in spite of the fact that they explained that Jamal needed treatment at the hospital and how serious his condition was. The ambulance driver returned to the village's clinic where they were forced to ask a doctor from the village to examine him. However, the doctor, Dr. Mahdi Rashed, confirms that he was unable to provide any medical treatment because of the shortage of medical supplies, and that the medical supplies Jamal needed were not available at the village clinic. At about 10.30 that morning, Jamal died in the presence of Dr. Mahdi Rashed. Case example of house demolition during the Intifada:
On 2 January 2001, Jihad Khlail Jafmeh, from Ein Yabroud, was at home on her own with her two children, 1 and 8, who were both sleeping. Her husband, Haitham Abd El Azziz Jafmeh, was at work, and her two other children had gone to school. Huda Zahra, 36 from Ein Yabroud, and a neighbour of the family, gave the following testimony to LAW:
Jihad Khlail Jafmeh, provided this testimony to LAW: "At around 8.00 in the morning, I was shocked to see Israeli soldiers together with a military bulldozer, on their way to our village. Once they reached our house, and my children had woken up due to the noise, the Israeli head officer informed me that they wanted to demolish our house. Immediately, I called my husband on his mobile phone. He had not yet left the village. At this time, the Israeli head officer had entered the house and ordered us to evacuate the house for they were going to demolish it. The children started looking for their clothes. At that time, my husband arrived at home and asked the officer for an explanation as we had not done anything wrong. The officer told him that this was in revenge for Benjamin Kahana's assassination two days before. After my husband said to him that we were not responsible for that, he responded that this was a punishment of the community, for the sake of the settlers so that they would know that they had taken revenge and to put an end to any aggression. The Israeli officers did not raise any question or claim we had any relationship or involvement with Benjamin Kahana's death and did not say they thought he was shot from our house. We have nothing to do with Kahana's assassination, and our house is very far from the scene where he was shot. The distance between the two places is very great indeed." Haitham Abd El Azziz Jafmeh, confirmed that he was called by his wife, who was crying and tense for she was alone at home with two of their children, and that Israeli soldiers were at the door of the house threatening to demolish their home. He said that when he returned the Israeli Colonel, who was in charge of the other soldiers, asked him if he was the owner of the house, to which he said yes, and the Colonel told him that he would demolish the house as a response to Benjamin Kahana's death. He was also told that they had only 5 minutes to get the furniture out of the house:
The demolition continued until about 6.30 p.m. Along their way back from the direction they had come they also demolished the building owned by another villager, Fare' Barjas, which he had been using for 30 years for animal husbandry. After they bulldozed that they made their way to the other side of the village, opposite the hill which they had seized after Benjamin Kahana's death. Haitham Jafmeh stated that he built the house 13 years ago, and that it was adjacent to another house he had built previously. When he began to build the house the Israeli soldiers had told him not to continue to do so, so Mr. Jafmeh had consulted a lawyer, Hussein Abu Salleh, who was advising him and dealing with the case about his building permit. However, this was an on going case and no demolition notice had ever been made or given. At the time of the demolition he had not been contacted by either his attorney or the army about the fact it was going to be demolished, and the reason given for the demolition was expressly that of Benjamin Kahana's death, and not the other case regarding the building permit. Case examples of Deaths from closures pre Intifada:Death of Newborn baby as a result of closures, 25 August 1998
In the evening of 25 August 1998, Fadwa 'Abd a-Salem al-Aladem, a 24 year old from the village of Beit Ula near Hebron, went into labour. Her brother-in-law was driving her to the hospital in his station wagon. The car arrived at the Israeli forces checkpoint near Beit Kahel at approximately 7.40 p.m. The B'Tselem report continues as follows:
While on the way to the hospital, Fadwa gave birth in the car in the Dura village. The family reached the hospital at approximately 8.45 p.m. and Fadwa was transferred to the maternity ward. Dr. Ahmad Atraira, who admitted the mother and the newborn, wrote in his medical report that the baby was dying on arrival at the hospital and his efforts to save him proved fruitless." B'Tselem concluded as follows:
Case Example of house demolition Pre Intifada:
Nidal Daghlas, 36, comes from the village of Aseera Ashimalieh, in the district of Nablus, is married and is the father of five children. On 27 August 2000, he was seriously injured and arrested, and had his house demolished, during an operation in connection with the capture of Hamas member, Abu Hanoud, which was carried out by the Israeli undercover unit Duvdevan. In the evening of 27 August 2000, the heavily armed Israeli special units, supported by helicopter air cover, raided the village of Aseera Ashimalieh. They surrounded the village at 9.30 p.m., banning entry to and exit from the village. The units opened random fire at a number of houses during a chase of Mahmoud Abu Hanoud. According to affidavits given by relatives of the victims, members of the special unit were deployed on the roof of the Abu Hanoud's residence, located at the entrance of the village, and randomly opened fire at other houses nearby. Nidal Daghlas, who was alone in his house, tried to step outside to see where the shots were coming from. He was hit three times: twice in the feet and once in the left arm. He tried to pull himself back inside the house and was left without medical attendance. The unit members surrounded his house and banned anyone from coming near, including an ambulance. Shots continued to be fired at the Daghlas house, until about 1 a.m. Daghlas tried to call the ambulance, the hospital and his neighbours for help, but no one was allowed entry. When an ambulance managed to reach the house through an unpaved road via Area A, the paramedics were stopped and denied entry to the house. The paramedics were held until the early morning hours. Village residents finally convinced soldiers to allow Daghlas out of the house. He came out but fell to the ground, being too weak to walk. The soldiers forced one of the residents to approach the victim, take off all of his clothes and pull him towards them, upon which Daghlas was immediately handcuffed. A military doctor was summoned to administer First Aid. Eyewitnesses confirmed that special unit members conducted searches in other houses while the helicopters hovered around the roofs and bullets were heard in the surrounding vicinity. They also gave evidence that other village residents, including women and children were gathered out in the open, forced to take off all their clothes and had their bodies searched. They were held until 4 a.m. at gunpoint. For instance, the Sholi family gave evidence to LAW that Israeli soldiers would not allow them to cover their 3-month old baby with a blanket, despite their continuous pleas. Eyewitnesses confirmed that the occupying forces conducted house-to-house searches, hassling and terrorizing residents. House demolitionAccording to eyewitnesses, Israeli soldiers entered Daghlas's house with dogs, but found that Abu Hanoud was not there. Israeli forces interrogated Daghlas on the spot to obtain information about what he had seen. The witnesses say they also beat him despite his injuries. He repeatedly asserted that he had not seen anything, but they nevertheless continued to interrogate him for 4 hours.The witnesses also confirm that Daghlas was specifically asked to tell the soldiers the whereabouts of Abu Hanoud, but told them that he had not seen Abu Hanoud that night, that he had not been in his house, and that he did not know where he was. An eyewitness confirmed that the Israeli soldier said to Nidal Daghlas, that he did not believe him, and that because he was "lying" to the soldier, that "we will now demolish your house". Whilst Daghlas was still being interrogated outside his house, at about 2 a.m., and in spite of the fact that Hanoud was not found in Daghlas's home, Israeli bulldozers tore down the one-story house of the Daghlas family. They destroyed the home, together with all the furniture, his personal documents, his wife's jewellery and $3,500 in savings. Daghlas's wife and his 5 children were on a family visit to Jordan and did not witness the incident. No one was allowed to remove any items from the house before it was destroyed. The Israelis claimed that Daghlas had provided sanctuary to Abu Hanoud in his home. Much later they made allegations that Daghlas himself was a Hamas leader wanted by the IDF. However, whatever the truth of these allegations, within only about 5 hours of their operation to capture Abu Hanoud, and without proper investigations or due process, they carried out a punitive measure immediately against the entire Daghlas family by demolishing their home. This was in addition to the other collective punishments meted out on other residents. For 12 years, Nidal Daghlas had saved to build a home for his family; and the family had only lived in the new house for one year when it was destroyed. LAW's field researchers went to the village after the curfew was lifted and saw the ensuing results of the home demolition, the bullet holes in the houses and the traces of Daghlas's blood. |
Original web page
Text version for printing.
For more articles and links on related topics see
The Situation in the Occupied Territories