{"id":184292,"date":"1984-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-11T21:41:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=184292"},"modified":"2019-03-11T21:41:54","modified_gmt":"2019-03-11T21:41:54","slug":"auto-insert-184292","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-184292\/","title":{"rendered":"Israeli practices – SpCttee report"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ISRAELI<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

PRACTICES AFFECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE POPULATION<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Note by the Secretary-General<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n\t\t\t\tThe Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the attached report, which was submitted to him, in accordance with paragraph 14 of Assembly <\/span>resolution 38\/79<\/a> D of 15 December 1983, by the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

of the Occupied Territories<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

CONTENTS<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Paragraphs<\/u><\/p>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

I. INTRODUCTION .<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1-8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

II. ORGANIZATION OF WORK <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9-12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

III. MANDATE<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23-27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

IV. INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28-324<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

A. Oral evidence received by the Special Committee<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36-46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1. Fundamental freedoms <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32-35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(a) Right to freedom of education <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(b) Right to freedom of expression <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33-34<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(c) Right to work and to freedom of association <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2. Treatment of civilians<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36-38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3. Annexation and settlement<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39-40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4.Treatment of detainees <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

41-46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

B.Information on the policy followed by the Government of Israel in the occupied Territories<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n

47-59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1. Information on general policy <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

47-52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2.Information on policy regarding the civilian population<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

53-59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

C.Information on the situation in the occupied territories<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

60-243<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1.Information on treatment of civilians in general<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

60-130<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(a) Incident<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

84-85<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(b) Collective punishment, including demolition of houses <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

86-116<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(c) Reprisals<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

117-127<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(d)Expulsion and deportation <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

128-130<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2.Activities of Israeli settlers affecting the civilian population of the occupied territories<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n

131-176<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(a) The Karp report<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

149-154<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(b) Jewish underground groups <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

155-176<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3.Information on measures affecting certain rights<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

177-243<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(a) Right to freedom of movement<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

177-204<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(b) Right to freedom of education <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

205-223<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

(c) Right to freedom of expression<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

224-243<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

D.Information on measures of annexation and settlement<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

244-283<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1. Establishment of settlements<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

244-271<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2. Expropriation of property<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

272-283<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

E. Information on treatment of detainees<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

284-307<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F.Information on judicial remedies sought by the civilian population<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n

308-324<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

V. CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

325-339<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

VI. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

340<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

\n

ANNEXES<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

I.\t<\/span>ARTICLES OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR, OF 12 AUGUST 1949, REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 338 <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

II.\t<\/span>STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC <\/strong>TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON 3 JÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵE 1984 <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

III.\t<\/span>THE REPORT OF THE KARP COMMISSION <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

IV.\t<\/span>STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE MINISTER FOR OCCUPIED TERRITORIES AFFAIRS OF JORDAN TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON 28 MAY 1984 – LIST OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS CLOSED DOWN BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1983 AND FEBRUARY 1984 <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

V.\t<\/span>MAP SHOWING ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ESTABLISHED, PLANNED OR Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDER CONSTRUCTION IN THE TERRITORIES OCCUPIED SINCE <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

VI.\t<\/span>STUDY ON THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, WEST BANK, AND THE GAZA STRIP: DR. WALID MUSTAPHA AND MR. ABDUL JAWAD SALEH – LIST OF SETTLEMENTS ESTABLISHED FROM 1967 TO 1983 AND PROJECTED SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

14 September 1984<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Sir,<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories has the honour to transmit to you herewith its sixteenth report, prepared in accordance with General Assembly resolutions concerning the Special Committee and, in particular, resolution 2443 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, by which the Special Committee was established, and resolution 38\/79 D of 15 December 1983, the latest resolution by which the General Assembly renewed its mandate.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

This report covers the period from 19 August 1983, the date of the adoption of the preceding report, to 31 August 1984. The report is based on information received by the Special Committee through oral testimonies of persons having first-hand experience of the human rights situation in the occupied territories. For this purpose the Special Committee organized hearings once again in the immediate area; hearings were held in Amman and Damascus and hearings scheduled to take place in Egypt, which had to be postponed, are to take place at a mutually convenient time. The Special Committee continued to monitor statements by members of the Government of Israel reflecting the policy of that Government in the occupied territories and reports on measures taken to implement that policy. The Special Committee noted the letters addressed to you and to the President of the Security Council during the period of this report relating to the mandate of the Special Committee, circulated as documents of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Special Committee received information from organizations on various aspects of the situation in the occupied territories.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>The Government of Israel has not changed its position with regard to the Special Committee in spite of the efforts made in that direction. On the other hand, the Special Committee benefited from the co-operation of the Governments of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic in the carrying out of its mandate.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In preparing its report the Special Committee has attempted to put before you the complete picture of the reality in the occupied territories as it affects the human rights of the civilian population. The information contained in this report reflects the continuation of the policy of annexation and settlement which the Government of Israel has followed with increasing vigour in the territories occupied in June 1967. Settlements that were established in earlier years have been enlarged and consolidated, new settlements have been established and plans for further settlements have been announced extending into the next century. The number of Israeli settlers continues to increase and the consequences of the implantation of these settlers have manifested themselves in the violence that has characterized the period covered by this report. The discovery of a number of highly organized groups of Israeli settlers aimed at the consolidation of the Israeli presence in the occupied territories through the sowing of terror among the civilian population characterizes the period covered by this report. The day-to-day life of the civilians is thus rendered more and more difficult; in addition, the military occupation authorities continue to apply a variety of measures which affect virtually all aspects of life, such as freedom of expression, freedom of movement and academic freedom. The Special Committee continues to be deeply concerned about the further deterioration in the level of respect for the human rights of the civilian population.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The situation in the Golan Heights has also deteriorated further as the occupation authorities adopt measures aimed at the perpetuation of Israeli sovereignty over those territories. The Special Committee is deeply concerned at the harmful effects that such policies and measures will have on the human rights situation of the civilian population of the area and, consequently, on peace and security in the region.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The plight of the civilian population is further manifested in the way in which the thousands of detainees, imprisoned for political or security offences, are held. Their number continues to increase, and the Special Committee continues to receive reports of hardship in greater numbers.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In the circumstances, the Special Committee is concerned that the international community has thus far been unable to adopt effective measures to improve the human rights situation of the civilian population. The Special Committee cannot but reiterate its hope that this report may serve as the base upon which the international community can assess the plight of the civilian population and the urgent need to improve their condition. Without meaningful and effective action in this respect the international community is allowing itself to get nearer to a situation in the region which it will find eventually very difficult to resolve.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Special Committee in carrying out its mandate noted several reports concerning the human rights situation in southern Lebanon and, in particular, the conditions in Ansar prison camp. Because of the constraints of its mandate, the Special Committee has not addressed itself to this problem in this report, but it cannot, for humane considerations alone, let this occasion pass without drawing through you, the attention of the General Assembly to the seriousness of the human rights situation in that area.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>Please accept, Sir, on behalf of my colleagues and on my own behalf, the assurances of our highest consideration.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\n

(Signed<\/u>)N. WIJEWARDANE<\/p>\n

Chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories<\/p>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

His Excellency<\/p>\n

Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar<\/p>\n

Secretary-General of the United Nations, <\/p>\n

New York<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>INTRODUCTION<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

4.\t<\/span>By a note verbal dated 23 April 1980, the Government of Sri Lanka designated Mr. Nadarajah Balasubramanian, Ambassador and Charge d'Affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, to represent Sri Lanka at the meetings of the Special Committee from 19 to 30 May 1980. Mr. Balasubramanian was named representative of Sri Lanka on the Special Committee by a note verbal dated 14 July 1980. At the meetings held from 21 to 25 July 1980, Sri Lanka was represented by Mr. K. K. Breckenridge, who had been designated by a note verbal dated 18 July 1980.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

II. \t<\/span>ORGANIZATION OF WORK<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

9.\t<\/span>The Special Committee continued its work under the rules of procedure contained in its first report to the Secretary-General. 3<\/u>\/ Mr. I. B. Fonseka (Sri Lanka) continued as Chairman at its first series of meetings. At its second series of meetings from 25 May to 5 June 1984, the Special Committee unanimously elected as its Chairman Mr. N. Wijewardane, who had succeeded Mr. Fonseka as representative of Sri Lanka on the Special Committee.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

10.\t<\/span>The Special Committee held three series of meetings: its first series of meetings took place from 9 to 13 January 1984 at Geneva. At those meetings the Committee reviewed its mandate consequent upon the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 38\/79 D of 15 December 1983. By that resolution, the General Assembly<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"14. Requests<\/u> the Special Committee, pending the early termination of Israeli occupation, to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, to consult, as appropriate, with the International Committee of the Red Cross in order to ensure the safeguarding of the welfare and human rights of the population of the occupied territories and to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arises thereafter;".\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

It decided to continue its system of monitoring information on the occupied territories and, in reference to paragraph 15 of resolution 38\/79 D to pay special attention to information on treatment of civilians in detention. The Special Committee examined information on the situation in the occupied territories for the period commencing with the date of the adoption of its report to the General Assembly (A\/38\/409) on 19 August 1982. It examined a number of communications referred to it concerning individual cases of alleged human rights violations in the occupied territories. It decided upon the organization of its work for the year. The Special Committee agreed to address itself to the Government of Israel and to the Governments of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, with a view to seeking their co-operation in the implementation of its mandate. The Special Committee also agreed to address itself to the Palestine Liberation Organization and to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Finally, the Special Committee decided that at its next series of meetings it would undertake hearings in the area for the purpose of recording relevant information or evidence.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

11.\t<\/span>On 27 January 1984, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Secretary- General seeking his intervention in an effort to secure the co-operation of the Government of Israel. The letter read as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"…\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Special Committee met at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 9-13 January 1984 to examine its mandate and to decide on its implementation. The Special Committee decided to approach the Governments concerned with a request for their co-operation and to receive from them any information available to enable the Special Committee to ascertain the human rights situation prevailing in the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967 and still under military occupation. The Special Committee has addressed itself directly to the Governments of Jordan and of <\/i>the Syrian Arab Republic which have in the past extended their co-operation to the Special Committee. The Special Committee is also addressing a letter to the Government of Egypt to follow up on the question of the status of certain Palestinian refugees from the Gaza Strip who were stranded on Egyptian territory following the tracing of the international boundary between Egypt and Israel, and who are the subject of an investigation by the Special Committee in response to a request to that effect from the Government of Egypt.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Government of Israel has unfortunately taken a negative position with regard to the Special Committee and has withheld its co-operation with the Special Committee since its establishment in 1968. The representative of Israel on the Special Political Committee at the thirty-eighth session reiterated this position. The Special Committee, as it has indicated in its reports to date, has noted that its efforts to secure the co-operation of the Government of Israel have remained without success. In spite of this negative position, which the Special Committee took fully into account in its January meetings, it was felt that the Special Committee should go on exercising its utmost efforts aimed at securing the co-operation of the Government of Israel whose conduct of the occupation is called into question.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Special Committee has requested me to seek your intervention once again in an effort to convince the Israeli authorities to co-operate with the Special Committee. The Special Committee will hold its next series of meetings at Geneva from 21 May to 5 June 1984. During that period, should the situation warrant, the Special Committee will conduct hearings possibly also in Amman and Damascus. During these meetings, the Special Committee will examine any follow-up that may have been given to its request for co-operation from the Governments concerned, including the request formulated in this letter."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

12. \t<\/span>On 27 January 1984, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Permanent Representative of Egypt which read as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>"…<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Special Committee held a series of meetings from 9-13 January 1984 to consider its mandate and to examine information on the situation in the occupied territories. The Special Committee decided to continue to monitor the situation of human rights in the occupied territories and, to do so, by informing itself on a regular basis through the best sources available. The Special Committee has relied in the past on accounts by persons having first-hand knowledge and experience in the occupied territories on matters concerning human rights and reports appearing in the press and elsewhere in the occupied territories.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"At these meetings the Special Committee recalled the request formulated by your Government on 6 June 1983 in regard to the situation of a number of Palestinian refugees in Egypt; the Special Committee had investigated the matter and had accordingly reported to the General Assembly thereon (A\/38\/409).\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Special Committee will meet from 21 May to 5 June 1984 to review the situation of human rights of the civilian population of the occupied territories and, for this purpose, it will conduct hearings in the Middle East region. The Special Committee would appreciate receiving from your Excellency's Government any information relevant to its mandate that many assist it in its task, including up-to-date information on the situation of those Palestinians in Egypt who were the subject of its investigation in 1983."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

13. \t<\/span>On the same day, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Permanent Representative of Jordan which read as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"…\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Special Committee held a series of meetings from 9-13 January 1984 to consider its mandate and to examine information on the situation in the occupied territories. The Special Committee decided to continue to monitor the situation of human rights in the occupied territories and, to do so, by informing itself on a regular basis through the best sources available. The Special Committee has relied in the past on accounts by persons having first-hand knowledge and experience in the occupied territories on matters concerning human rights and reports appearing in the press and elsewhere in the occupied territories. In the course of its previous mandates the Special Committee has benefited from the co-operation of your Excellency's Government which made it possible to undertake hearings in Amman.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Special Committee has noted a number of reports that would indicate that information might be available in the territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Special Committee is planning to meet again from 21 May to 5 June 1984 to review the situation in the occupied territories and it would be prepared to undertake a visit to Amman for the purpose of recording information or evidence relevant to developments in the occupied territories.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"It would be most appreciated if your Excellency's Government were to indicate whether the Special Committee might benefit once again from its co-operation in connection with hearings that might be organized in Amman.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"In the meanwhile, the Special Committee would appreciate receiving any information available to your Excellency's Government that may assist it in the execution of its mandate."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

14. \t<\/span>On the same day, the Special Committee addressed a letter to the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic which reads as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>"…<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Special Committee held a series of meetings from 9-13 January 1984 to consider its mandate and to examine information on the situation in the occupied territories. The Special Committee decided to continue to monitor, the situation of human rights in the occupied territories and, to do so, by informing itself on a regular basis through the best sources available. The Special Committee has relied in the past on accounts by persons having first-hand knowledge and experience in the occupied territories on matters concerning human rights and reports appearing in the press and elsewhere in the occupied territories. In the course of its previous mandates the Special Committee has benefited from the co-operation of your Excellency's Government which made it possible to undertake hearings in Damascus.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Special Committee has noted a number of reports that would indicate that information might be available in the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic. The Special Committee is planning to meet again from 21 May to 5 June 1984 to review the situation in the occupied territories and it would be prepared to undertake a visit to Damascus for the purpose of recording information or evidence relevant to developments in the occupied territories.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"It would be most appreciated if your Excellency's Government were to indicate whether the Special Committee might benefit once again from its co-operation <\/strong>in connection with hearings that might be organized in Damascus.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"In the meanwhile, the Special Committee would appreciate receiving any information available to your Excellency's Government that may assist it in the execution of its mandate."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

15.\t<\/span>Similar letters were addressed to the Palestine Liberation Organization and the International Committee of the Red Cross.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

16. \t<\/span>On 10 February 1984, the Under-Secretary-General for Political and General Assembly Affairs addressed the following letter to the Chairman of the Special Committee:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"On behalf of the Secretary-General, I wish to thank you for your letter of 27 January 1984 concerning the renewal of the mandate of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories and the description of its plans of work for 1984.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"As requested in your letter, we have once again approached the Israeli authorities to seek their co-operation with the Special Committee. I regret to inform you that we have been advised by a representative of the Israeli Government that its 'well-known position' remains unchanged."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

17. \t<\/span>The Governments of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic subsequently responded to <\/strong>the Special Committee, reconfirming their readiness to continue co-operating <\/strong>with the Special Committee.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

18. \t<\/span>On 9 February 1984, the Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations at Geneva addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Special Committee confirming the co-operation of his Organization with the Special Committee and informing the Special Committee of the readiness of the Palestine Liberation Organization to facilitate hearings by the Special Committee.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

19. \t<\/span>The Special Committee held a series of meetings at Geneva, Amman and Damascus from 25 May to 5 June 1984. At these meetings the Special Committee examined information on developments occurring in the occupied territories between December 1983 and April 1984. It had before it a number of communications addressed to it by Governments, organizations and individuals in connection with its mandate. The Special Committee took note of several letters addressed to it by the Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization at Geneva and of a number of letters addressed to the Secretary-General by the Permanent Representatives of Israel, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic on matters related to its report. In Amman and Damascus the Special Committee heard testimonies of persons living in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights concerning the situation in those territories. The Special Committee decided to hold meetings at Cairo on dates to be determined after consultation with the Government of Egypt.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

20.\t<\/span>In Amman the Special Committee was received by the Minister of Occupied Territories Affairs, Mr. Shawkat Mahmoud. In Amman the Special Committee was also received by Mr. Taher Al-Masry, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Special Committee was presented with reports of the situation in the occupied territories, prepared by the respective ministries and it discussed various aspects of its mandate in the course of its meetings with the respective ministers.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

21.\t<\/span>In Damascus the Special Committee conducted consultations with Mr. Fathi Masry, Director-General of the International Organizations Department, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, who presented the Special Committee with an updated report on the situation of human rights in the occupied Syrian territory.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

22. \t<\/span>The Special Committee convened again from 10 to 14 September 1984. At those meetings it examined information on the situation in the occupied territories between May and August 1984. It had before it communications addressed to it by inhabitants of the occupied territories containing allegations of violations of human rights resulting from measures taken by the occupation authorities. The Special Committee had before it the records of testimony taken in the course of its previous series of meetings. The Special Committee considered and completed its report, contained in the present document, on 14 September 1984. It reflects the situation of human rights in the occupied territories during the period since the date of the adoption of its last report (A\/38\/409).<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

III. \t<\/span>MANDATE<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

23. \t<\/span>The General Assembly, in its resolution 2443 (XXIII) entitled "Respect for and implementation of human rights in occupied territories", decided to establish a Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, composed of three Member States.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

24. \t<\/span>The mandate of the Special Committee, as set out in the above resolution and subsequent resolutions, was "to investigate Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the population of the occupied territories".<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

25.\t<\/span>In interpreting its mandate, the Special Committee determined that:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>(c)\t<\/span>The "human rights" of the population of the occupied territories consisted of two elements, namely, those rights which the Security Council referred to as "essential and inalienable human rights" in its resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967 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), the Special Committee was also required to investigate allegations concerning the exploitation and the looting of the resources of the occupied territories; the pillaging of the archaeological and cultural heritage of the occupied territories; and interference in the freedom of worship in the Holy Places of the occupied territories;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(d)\t<\/span>The "policies" and "practices" affecting human rights that came within the scope of investigation by the Special Committee referred, in the case of the policies", to any course of action consciously adopted and pursued by the Government of Israel as part of its declared or undeclared intent; while "practices" referred to those actions which, irrespective of whether or not they were in implementation of a policy, reflected a pattern of behavior on the part of the Israeli authorities towards the Arab population in the occupied areas.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

26.\t<\/span>Since its inception the Special Committee has relied on the following international instruments in interpreting and carrying out its mandate:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a)\t<\/span>The Charter of the United Nations;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b)\t<\/span>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(c)\t<\/span>The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949; 4<\/u>\/<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(d)\t<\/span>The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 12 August 1949; 5<\/u>\/<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(e)\t<\/span>The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event <\/strong>of Armed Conflict, of 14 May 1954; 6<\/u>\/<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(f)\t<\/span>The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land; 7<\/u>\/<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(g)\t<\/span>The International Covenant on Civil and political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 8<\/u>\/<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

27. \t<\/span>The Special Committee has also relied on those resolutions relevant to the situation of civilians in the occupied territories adopted by United Nations organs, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights, as well as the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

IV. INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

28.\t<\/span>In the course of carrying out its mandate, the Special Committee has taken note of information reaching it through a variety of sources, such as individuals, organizations and Governments. At its meetings, the Committee had before it several communications addressed to it, directly or referred to it by the<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Secretary-General, from sources inside the occupied territories, as well as from several parts of the world. Where necessary, the Committee has followed up information contained in these communications.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

29. \t<\/span>The Special Committee has taken particular care to rely on information that has not been contradicted by the Government of Israel or that is commonly considered as reliable by that Government.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

30.\t<\/span>The Special Committee has relied on the following sources:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>(a)\t<\/span>The testimony of persons with first-hand knowledge of the situation of the population in the occupied territories;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b)\t<\/span>Reports in the Israeli press of pronouncements by responsible persons in <\/strong>the Government of Israel;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

 \t<\/span>(c)\t<\/span>Reports appearing in other news media, including the Arab language press published in the occupied territories in Israel and the international press;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(d)\t<\/span>Reports submitted to it by Governments, non-governmental bodies and individuals on the situation in the occupied territories.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Special Committee received written statements from the Governments of Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic. An extract from the statement of the Government of Jordan is reproduced in annex IV and its contents are reflected elsewhere in the report; the statement from the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic is contained in annex II.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

31. \t<\/span>The Special Committee undertook a series of hearings in Amman and Damascus during its meetings from 25 May to 5 June 1984. At these meetings, the Special Committee heard the testimony of persons themselves living in the occupied territories and having a first-hand knowledge of the human rights situation existing in those territories. <\/strong>These testimonies are contained in documents A\/AC.145\/RT.387 to 392 and are reflected in section A below; sections B to F reflect the other information received by the Special Committee. They are divided as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

A.\t<\/span>Oral evidence received by the Special Committee;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tB.\t<\/span>Information on the policy followed by the Government of Israel in the occupied territories;\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tC.\t<\/span>Information on the situation in the occupied territories;\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

D.\t<\/span>Information on measures of annexation and settlement;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

E.\t<\/span>Information on treatment of detainees;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tF.\t<\/span>Information on judicial remedies sought by the civilian population.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n

A.\t<\/span>Oral evidence received by the Special Committee<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>Fundamental freedoms<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a)\t<\/span>Right to freedom of education<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

32. \t<\/span>Several witnesses appearing before the Special Committee described the negative effects of the Israeli occupation on the educational standards of both teachers and students. The main changes introduced by the occupation authorities affected curricula and included censorship of books and maps, appointment and tenure of teachers and the management of schools. A teacher, Miss Etaf Youssef, stated in the course of her testimony:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"From the very beginning of the occupation there was a considerable change in the program in the West Bank. Officially the Jordanian curriculum is being followed, but there was a considerable change in the curriculum, particularly in history. At the beginning we had a subject called 'The Palestinian Cause'. That subject has now been completely eliminated. In history, geography, wherever there is mention of Palestine, that is deleted and Israel is put in its place. This also applies to Arab literature and even Arab language. Any literature, any poem which speaks of Arab nationalism, Arab sentiment, is systematically removed from the curriculum." (A\/AC.145\/RT.388)\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Another witness attempted to trace the efforts being made to Judaize curricula and teaching in Arab schools. Mr. Hani Yehia, a teacher, stated:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"… This judaization takes the form of withdrawal of certain textbooks and the authorization of those textbooks which serve the purpose of Zionist ideology. One hundred and forty school books were withdrawn or struck off the list of various school grades. Among those books, just to give you an example, there is a book called, 'My little fatherland' which was supposed to be taught to Arab students and which was withdrawn. There is also another book on Palestinian society used as a textbook in secondary and higher education schools for philology students. Certain geography books were also withdrawn, and in fact all maps indicating the political and geographic frontiers of Palestine were withdrawn from circulation. We know the political scope of all this. … They are trying to alter the very content of geography textbooks to incorporate the invasion of Lebanon. For instance, the Al Qasmiya river to the north; from El Arish to Eilat in the south; the Jordan valley to the east and the Mediterranean to the west. Another attempt at judaization took the form of changing Arabic names into Israeli names. The town of El Majdal, for instance, is now called Ashkelon. This is an Arab town which now bears an Israeli name. There is also the case of the town of Safad which became Saffatt; the Khaza valley in Gaza became Hesbor; the mountains of Jerusalem and Hebron are called the Samarian mountains; Jerusalem is called Orshalim. There is a village called Deir Sneid on the border of Gaza which has been renamed Yaf Mordechai. The Zionist enemy attempts to delete any passage in any book which might confirm a Palestinian's ties to his fatherland. They try to eliminate any poems which speak of the Palestinian's love for his fatherland, poems which begin with the expression: 'As if we were … ' which are not to the liking of the Zionist authorities because of their patriotic connotations. Any author who persists in expressing patriotic sentiments is not to their liking. In fact, the Israeli authorities try to convey that the Arabs, the Palestinians living in the occupied territories are, and have always been, barbarians …". (A\/AC.145\/RT.392)\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

He also described the treatment of Palestinian students by Israeli authorities including their transfer from one town to another, the intermittent closing down of their schools or their arrest just before they are due to take final examinations.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Another witness from Bir Zeit testified before the Special Committee regarding a similar situation at the Palestinian universities.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b)\t<\/span>Right to freedom of expression<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

33. \t<\/span>A number of witnesses informed the Special Committee about the problem of freedom of expression encountered by editors of books, pamphlets and newspapers. These problems resulted from severe Israeli censorship which uses Israeli military orders and the Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 to impose severe restrictions on the editors, leading to the closing down of many newspapers. Importation or export of books without prior authorization of the Israeli military censorship is prohibited. Witnesses gave a detailed description about the way in which the civilian population in the occupied territories seek cultural information since it is deprived of books, including translations of books by non-Arab authors. According to one witness, Mr. Riyad Abou Awad, the occupied territories continued to be deprived of cultural expression:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"It has been said that as soon as you come to an occupied territory you are literally besieged by people seeking cultural information because books could not be introduced, and it was impossible to follow the recent cultural developments in the Arab world, and this even included books in other languages translated into Arabic. All this did not get into occupied Palestinian territory, starting in 1948 and even more so since 1967. So there is real cultural deprivation …". (A\/AC.145\/RT.391)\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

34. \t<\/span>Artists and authors are subjected to many types of restrictions, including the confiscation of their writings and paintings. Mr. Awad stated:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"… I should like to say that a great many Arab authors have been subjected to three types of intimidation by the Israeli military authorities: first, direct arrest – and I could give you many names, such as Badr Al Jabr and Ali Al Khalili, and other names could be added to this list. Palestinian journalists were also concerned. Then, secondly, there is house arrest so that the author is unable to leave his house, from morning till evening. The only trip he could take would be to go to the police station to prove to them that he was still in town. The third instance of intimidation is that authors are unable to publish their books or poems or have them distributed if they manage to have them printed." (A\/AC.145\/RT.391)\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Israeli authorities enforce strict controls over exhibitions. Mr. Awad further stated:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"… For instance, in 1979, in August, the Israeli authorities confiscated more than once the pictures exhibited in the Ramallah gallery. In many instances, the distribution of pictures published and sold was prevented, such as Lima Al Nabulsy, a picture painted by the well-known painter, Mansur. Suleiman Mansur himself. Mohammed Abdussalaam, Mohammed Rukou'i and other Palestinian painters, who tried to reaffirm their existence as Palestinians and Arabs, painted pictures known far beyond the confines of the Arab world." (A\/AC.145\/RT.391)\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(c)\t<\/span>Right to work and to freedom of association<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

35. \t<\/span>Some witnesses drew the attention of the Special Committee to the fact that trade unions do not exist for all professions and trades. Military orders severely restrict and control the formation of trade unions. People are generally afraid of joining trade unions due to the constant harassment of unionists and especially their leaders. A witness from Nablus gave examples of trade union leaders in Nablus who were subjected to travel bans, assignment to forced residence or repeated arrest. Mr. Usama Khaled, 34, a printer from Nablus, testified before the Special Committee regarding the hazardous conditions under which the Palestinian people work, including earning lower wages than Israeli workers, discriminatory policies with regard to lack of health insurance, social security and unemployment compensation. According to Mr. Khaled:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Our salaries were far below the salaries of Israelis. Israeli workers sometimes got EI 100 whereas we would earn around EI 45. There were several salary deductions: 15 per cent for medical care and another deduction for a savings plan that we were required to participate in. Even daily wages paid us were lower than the wages of Israelis. We asked them, 'Why do you deduct 15 per cent of our salary when we get no social benefit?' The Israeli workers were insured, they had free medical care, but why was 15 per cent of our salary deducted?".(A\/AC.145\/RT.390)\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2.\t<\/span>Treatment of civilians<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

36. \t<\/span>A number of witnesses gave a detailed account of the harassment of civilians by the Israeli occupation authorities, as well as by Israeli settlers. Members of the families of those accused of security offences are subjected to collective punishment such as imprisonment, demolition of their houses, expulsion or denial of their right to work or to participate in any productive activities. One witness, Miss Etaf Youssef, described such measures:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The families of detainees are constantly harassed. When one of the young people is arrested, the authorities take certain steps against their family. First of all, some members of the family are brought in for interrogation, and while a detainee is under arrest, other members of the family are tortured before him or vice versa – the detainee is tortured in front of his father and mother and other members of the family. Of course, the house is very frequently destroyed and that is a collective measure of punishment against the family. Other harassment's follow, such as not permitting the family to travel, denying them scholarships so that they can continue studying, or preventing them from moving around within the occupied territories or outside, preventing them from going on a trip for any reason whatsoever. In my own case, although I was freed, my father cannot travel to Jordan, and the excuse is that he is 'the father of a criminal daughter' and therefore should not be allowed to go outside the country." (A\/AC.145\/RT.388)\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

37. \t<\/span>Two Palestinian doctors, originally from Hebron and Qalqilya, testified before the Special Committee regarding the negative effects of Israeli policy concerning health conditions in the occupied territories. Both quoted recent statistics referring <\/strong>to the closing down of a number of hospitals, increased medical fees and insufficient medical staff, beds and medical supplies. They also described the lack of preventive medical attention and as a result the deterioration thereof in child medical <\/strong>care, malnutrition, continuing psychological disorders and a high rate of infant mortality.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

38. \t<\/span>The shortage of water in many towns and villages in the occupied territories, <\/strong>resulting from the establishment of Israeli settlements, was referred to as the basic reason for the deterioration in the health and the quality of life among the Palestinian civilian population. Witnesses described the interference in agriculture, and referred to measures directly affecting the cultivation of certain crops. According to Mr. Noman Mohamed:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Settlers also receive support from the Israeli Government with the aim of competing with Palestinian agricultural production. Israel has been pursuing a deliberate direct or indirect policy of sabotaging Palestinian agriculture. Our crops are destroyed, our trees uprooted, Arab farms are burned, and this has been done directly by the Israeli military or indirectly by bands of settlers in the West Bank and Gaza territory … the occupation authorities and the Department of Agriculture in West Jordan were sending experts to inspect agricultural settlements in the Jordan Valley to try to find those farmers who were growing aubergines and tomatoes without prior authorization. Those Arab farmers had heavy fines imposed on them, some 15,000 Israeli shekels. That was done in the case of farmers who grew crops which Israeli authorities did not wish them to grow."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The same witness further stated:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"In 1983 the Israeli Minister of Agriculture handed down a set of instructions the aim of which was to hamper agriculture. Agricultural produce grown for export to Arab countries was cut down. A further limitation was imposed on crops which require great quantities of water, as well as on produce which was in direct competition with Israeli produce … For instance, there has been a reduction of fertilizers which might encourage the production of crops which Israel can export to Europe in return for foreign currency which Israel needs. Military Order No. 1200 was on the reduction of citrus crops; farmers were obliged to reduce their production by 50 per cent. The basic aim was to destroy tens of thousands of plants which were grown for sale. Also permits to grow such crops were withdrawn, and that was done arbitrarily by the Israeli authorities. By the same token, agricultural activities are closely watched and monitored, and authorization is required to transport agricultural produce within the occupied territory. For instance, if you want to transport vegetables or citrus fruit from one village to another, you need a permit. A permit is needed to cross the Israeli border into Jordan, which is closely guarded, and customs duties have been sharply increased for each vehicle. In 1970 the duty was 3,000 shekels, in 1980 it was 5,000 shekels for each vehicle crossing the bridge and carrying agricultural produce. Excessive customs duties have been imposed on farmers selling vegetables and fruit in West Bank markets. The tax on each basket sold in the West Bank has been increased from 5 shekels to 25 shekels during the period mentioned earlier." (A\/AC.145\/RT.392)\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n

3. \t<\/span>Annexation and settlement<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

39. \t<\/span>The Special Committee in the course of the hearings, conducted in Amman and Damascus, heard the complaints of several witnesses whose lands were confiscated before their expulsion or forced deportation from the occupied territories. They were expelled or deported with the purpose of establishing new Jewish settlements or the purported construction of roads to link settlements together. In this context, Mr. Shadi Salaam stated:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"I should like now to speak of all the land seized by the Zionist authorities in the West Bank in 1983. 1 choose the year 1983 because the Zionist authorities, as we know, do not make public all their activities in establishing settlements, to avoid alerting anti-Zionist opinion within the United Nations and throughout the world. In the first three months of 1983, the Zionist authorities seized 213,000 dunams of land in the area around Nablus, Hebron and Jerusalem. Quite recently the Zionist authorities have been concentrating on Nablus and Hebron because these are two areas of the West Bank where the largest number of Palestinians are living. In Jerusalem and around Jerusalem 23,367 dunams of land have been seized; in Nablus, 3,430; in Hebron the Israeli authorities seized 117,858 dunams. I indicated to you the area seized in the first three months of 1983, but in April of that year it was decided to consider 39 zones <\/strong>as prohibited to Arabs, in accordance with the decision taken on 7 April 1983. The Zionist authorities informed the population that henceforth the areas of Jiba, Um Alseqhar and Al Nabi Saleh in the Ramallah region were closed to Arabs. The area was seized on 11 April. In the village of El Khadr, in the Bethlehem area, 1,000 dunams of land were annexed to the Danim settlement. The authorities seized 400 dunams in Beit Lid, and that was announced on the radio on 24 April 1983." (A\/AC.145\/RT.390)\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

40. \t<\/span>Mr. Salaam also described to the Special Committee how his own land had been seized by the Israeli authorities and the variety of laws and other measures which the occupation authorities used in the process of expropriation, including restrictions on land-owners, forcing them to give up their land. Reference was made to Military Order 1051 according to which land-owners, whose lands had not yet been confiscated, were denied the right to work on them or to export any agricultural produce without special prior authorization. The witness gave an example of a variety of Israeli practices leading to land expropriation, such as the destruction of houses and camps and the resettlement of the population elsewhere, including the declaration of "absentee landlords" or that the land "belonged to the State".<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

4.\t<\/span>Treatment of detainees<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

41.\t<\/span>The Special Committee heard extensive evidence on treatment of detainees. In this evidence several allegations of serious violations of the right to freedom from inhumane treatment were made. Witnesses who had been imprisoned for different periods – mostly for security offences – informed the Special Committee about the harsh treatment and severe conditions prevailing in both Israeli interrogation centers and prisons (prisons and detention centers cited were Sarafand, Moscobiya (Jerusalem), Ashkelon, Beer Sheeba, Neve-Tirtza (Ramle), Hebron, etc.). These conditions gave rise to hunger strikes over different periods in 1970, 1976, 1980, 1983 and 1984. According to witnesses who had experienced them, these strikes had the same purpose: prisoners sought the improvement of conditions in prison and respect for their minimum fundamental rights. These witnesses stated that the' Israeli authorities applied harsh measures to pressure the prisoners to end the <\/strong>strike without satisfying their demands and, unsuccessfully, to prevent the spread of the strikers' influence to other prisons.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

42. \t<\/span>According to several witnesses, the measures of repression included the use of tear gas which in the long run had harmful effects on their health. Attempts at forced feeding of hunger-strikers had been applied with such brutality that it had led to the death of several prisoners.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

43. \t<\/span>The Special Committee also heard the testimony of a witness who was in the prison for women at Neve-Tirtza (Ramle) during the incidents that occurred in June 1983 subsequent to the refusal by prisoners to cook for their wardresses. The witness stated that prisoners were subjected to collective punishment and solitary confinement, denial of visits from relatives or parents, etc.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

44.\t<\/span>In addition to systematic beatings, physical and psychological ill-treatment, during interrogation, witnesses, testimonies contained multiple other forms of ill-treatment, such as over-crowding, prolonged solitary confinement, malnutrition, lack of sanitary facilities which led to outbreaks of disease and illnesses within the prison.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

45.\t<\/span>It was also stated that the constant withholding of educational, cultural or information materials as punishment constituted a major factor in the unrest and agitation that characterized daily life in detention.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

46. \t<\/span>A witness from Nablus, who had spent 16 years in prison, also provided the names of persons who had died during detention or interrogation.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n\t\t\t\tB.\t<\/span>Information on the policy followed by the Government of Israel in the occupied territories<\/u>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>Information on general policy<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

47. \t<\/span>Speaking in a radio interview, Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir said: "I have never spoken about annexation and I don't think about the annexation of Judea and Samaria to the State of Israel". (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 11 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

48. \t<\/span>The Israeli Finance Minister, Yigal Cohen-Orgad, reportedly said that Israel should develop Jerusalem in a way that would not encourage Arabs to come to it in search of employment; this, he reportedly said, would preserve the Jewish structure of the city. Mr. Cohen-Orgad also reportedly said that Israel should keep the territories, allow the army to operate freely in them and give the Jewish settlements self-rule. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 21 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

49.\t<\/span>Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said on 5 December 1983 that Israel's assent at Camp David to discuss autonomy for the people in the West Bank "does not mean we have yielded on the right to settle that region and develop it. We are building communities in Judea and Samaria and will continue to build up all of Eretz<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Yisrael". (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 6 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

50. \t<\/span>The Minister of Justice, Moshe Nissim, reportedly declared at the Knesset Constitution Law and Justice Committee that as long as the Israeli Government was committed to the Camp David process there would be no annexation by extending the Israeli law to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. (Ma'ariv<\/u>, 27 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

51. \t<\/span>Deputy Prime Minister David Levy on 1 February 1984 told the Knesset that Jewish resettlement in Hebron was an integral part of the Government's settlement policy. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 2 February; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 16 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

52. \t<\/span>The legal adviser to the West Bank civilian administration, Lt. Colonel Yoel Singer, revealed before the Knesset State Control Committee that the Justice Ministry and the Defense Ministry have formed a committee chaired by senior Justice Ministry official Plia Albeck, to study the operation of various legal systems in the territories and their sometimes contradictory application. Singer said that much confusion was being created by the absence of one clear and prevailing legal authority. Whereas Government departments handled the legal problems affecting Jews according to one system, the civilian administration handled legal problems affecting Arabs according to another system. Government policy was to settle Jews in the territories but not to apply Israeli law there. So from the legal standpoint friction inevitably resulted, Singer said. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 23 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

2.\t<\/span>Information on policy regarding the civilian population<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

53.\t<\/span>The security forces in the West Bank reportedly introduced a new punishment policy: instead of punishing a whole family for the deed-of one of its members, it was decided to punish only the culprit. It was thus that six rooms were sealed on 2 August 1983 – three in the Jalazun refugee camp and three in the Aida refugee camp. Their occupiers are youths held in detention who are to go on trial shortly for throwing stones and incendiary devices at Israeli cars. (Ma'ariv<\/u>, 3 August 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

54.\t<\/span>Speaking at a press conference held in Beit-El on 26 October 1983 to mark the publication of the sixteenth annual report of the Israeli administration of the West Bank, the head of the region's civil administration Brigadier Shelomo Ilya said that relations between his office and Arab local government in the area had improved significantly over the past year and were now "normal and correct". Replying to questions, Brigadier Ilya dismissed the role of the village leagues and the attempts of various league leaders to form a political movement as a "joke", and pointed out that the law in force in the area still prevented political activity. The major administrative change introduced over the past year was the creation of a separate social services unit, which includes health, education and welfare. Forty-three per cent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank was reportedly, covered by health insurance. Projects to expand hospitals in Beit Jala and Ramallah have been approved and were under way. One hundred classrooms were added over the past year, and another 100 were under construction. The civil administration's development budget grew in real terms by 250 per cent since 1981 and now stands at IS 1 billion. The total budget for 1983-84 is IS 5.7 billion, of which Israel will contribute some 42 per cent. The economic situation in the area improved steadily, with the gross national product (GNP) growing at 5 per cent a year. Private consumption also increased by 4 per cent in the period covered by the report. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 27 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

55.\t<\/span>Chief of Staff Major General Moshe Levy told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the demolition or sealing of houses in the West Bank was not carried out unless personal approval was given by himself or by Defense Minister Arens after consideration of a legal opinion on the case in question. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 14 December; Ma'ariv<\/u>, 15 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

56.\t<\/span>Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir reportedly said during a tour of Jewish settlements in the West Bank that stone-throwing on the roads of the region was a marginal problem which would be solved by the State's security forces, and that it would not affect Government policy with regard to punishment of the offenders. A few days later Defense Minister Moshe Arens said at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel would have to live with the problem of Arab stone-throwing in the West Bank because it did not want to take measures contrary to its norms. Referring to demolition of houses in the area, Mr. Arens said that every Israeli expert handling affairs in the West Bank had agreed that demolishing houses was the most powerful deterrent measure available and should therefore not be dispensed with. "Should it emerge that demolition of houses fails to deter effectively, we shall stop using that measure", Mr. Arens said. Speaking on the increase in the number of incidents in the area, the Defense Minister said that during the first eight months of 1983 there had been more riots in the territories than in the corresponding months of 1982. The situation had eased in September and October 1983, but in November 1983 there had been a new upsurge with 40 per cent more incidents than in November 1982. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 16 and 20 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

57. \t<\/span>On 28 February 1983 Military Order No. 1002 was issued amending the Law on Nurseries No. 20 of 1958. Order No. 1002 called "Regulation concerning the cultivation and sale of seedlings in Judea and Samaria" was notified to nursery owners on 18 May 1983. The Regulation can be divided as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t1.\t<\/span>Cultivation and sale of seedlings of deciduous trees with stones and seeds.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2.\t<\/span>Cultivation and sale of citrus seedlings.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

3.\t<\/span>Cultivation and sale of olive seedlings.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

4.\t<\/span>Cultivation and sale of grape seedlings.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

This Regulation aims at forcing nursery owners to reduce their production by 50 per cent. The nurseries most affected by this law are those producing olive seedlings (1 million trees per year), as well as those producing grape seedlings and seedlings for forests: Cypress and Stone Pine. Nursery owners were notified that this Regulation will come into force on 31 March 1984. It is obvious that the Regulation came into force before being officially published. The Man Unit and the Catholic associations, as well as the American Association for Social Development, C.D.F., stopped buying seedlings. These organizations used to buy up to 90 per cent of the seedlings and distribute them free of charge among farmers as an incentive. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 19 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

58. \t<\/span>The Government, on 5 February 1984, announced a new policy to deter Arab attacks on Jews and Jewish vigilante action in retaliation. In a ten-point statement, the Government said that the army, the security agencies and the police would devote more manpower and resources to handling Arab and Jewish law-breakers. Under the new policy military courts would be asked by the prosecution to impose severe prison sentences on Arabs throwing stones or petrol bombs. The policy statement also said, in what is believed to be a reference to demolitions, collective punishments and deportations, that legal counsel will be sought before the authorities take any measures liable to have legal implications, in line with procedures laid down by the Minister of Defense. The aim presumably is also to ensure that the Arabs affected will not have grounds to seek redress in the High Court of Justice. The army would he responsible for enforcing law and order. The police and the security agencies' role was to assist the army, acting under the relevant military legislation as gazetted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commanders. The police would be responsible for investigating offences according to their standard professional procedure. The paragraph relating to Jewish settlers' vigilantism said: "Anybody not a member of the bodies empowered to enforce the law and maintain public order has no authority to assume the role of policeman or soldier. Any action he takes to punish or retaliate for a violation of law and order is an offence, liable to incur the statutory punishment. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed as ruling out legal action taken in self-defense". With regard to shooting in self-defense, the statement said the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Justice would approve guidelines concerning civilians bearing IDF-issue weapons, control over such weapons and circumstances permitting the civilians to open fire. The ministers of defense, interior and justice will be responsible for implementing this policy. According to the cabinet secretary it would be up to the courts to determine what was legitimate self-defense. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 6 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

59.\t<\/span>It was reported on 1 June 1984 that the West Bank military government had issued Military Order No. 1108 that empowers military courts to pass sentences of up to 20 years' imprisonment for stone-throwing attacks on passing vehicles; the mere throwing of a stone that might hit passing traffic is an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. Heretofore, military courts handed down sentences up to 18 months' imprisonment and heavy fines for stone-throwing. A senior military source reportedly said that the new Order reflected the political situation. Military sources explained that the new Order only laid down maximum penalties. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 1 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tC.\t<\/span>Information on the situation in the occupied territories<\/u>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>Information on treatment of civilians in general<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

60. \t<\/span>The founder and Chairman of the West Bank village leagues, Mr. Mustafa Dudin, on 4 September 1983 resigned as Chairman of the Federation of Palestinian Leagues, the umbrella organization of the leagues in the area <\/strong>which was intended to serve as their political organ. Mr. Dudin cited lack of support from the Israeli authorities and his colleagues, as well as health problems, as the major reasons for his decision. In a related development, it was reported that the civil, administration had recently cut its financial support for several village leagues enterprises, due to alleged "financial entanglements", and to an attack by the league's magazine "Al-Mar'ah" against the civil administration (the latter reportedly delayed the distribution of the magazine). It was later reported that Mr. Dudin's resignation was accepted by a substantial majority at a meeting of league leaders on 7 September 1983. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 5, 11 September; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 5 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

61. \t<\/span>Dr. Ahmad Muhtadi, Director of the Hospice Hospital in Jerusalem, met with three Knesset members to discuss with them the Israeli measure to close down the surgery department of the Hospice. The three members visited the hospital and expressed their opinion that the Israeli health department should rescind its decision. On the other hand, a sit-in was held in the Hospice building when the Israeli officials mentioned the possibility of closing down the hospital completely for lack of technical and human resources. Residents also pointed out that going to a hospital will become almost impossible for most inhabitants of the old town as the Israeli hospitals charge IS 14,000 per night against IS 3.50 per night at the Hospice. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 22 February; Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 23 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

62. \t<\/span>A town restriction order on Ms. Amal Wahdan, from Abu Dis, a member of the Women's Work Committee, was lifted. The decision was made after Ms. Wahdan's lawyer, Mrs. Lea Tsemel, appealed the order of the military appeals committee. The order, effective for six months since 26 December 1983, had prevented Ms. Wahdan, who is eight months pregnant from seeing her doctor. Ms. Wahdan, described as an active unionist and feminist and who has been active in joint activities with an Israeli group "Women Against Occupation", had already made five applications, through her lawyer, for travel for medical check-ups and to Gaza, where her husband, Mohammed, is serving an 18-month prison sentence. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 22 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

63. \t<\/span>The military authorities arraigned a 12-year-old girl before the military court on charge of possessing a golden medallion with the map of Palestine on it. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 8 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

64. \t<\/span>Druze students from the Golan Heights studying in the Syrian Arab Republic were not allowed by the Israeli military to visit their families. The students had reportedly applied through the Red Cross. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 27 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

65.\t<\/span>Israeli military forces allegedly surrounded the village of Idna, north of Hebron, at midnight on 12 May 1984 and gathered residents of the village on the square. Military and investigation officers questioned dozens of residents about anti-occupation actions and the participation of residents in demonstrations and acts of provocation. The curfew was reportedly lifted at 10.00 a.m. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 17 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

66.\t<\/span>Israeli authorities summoned 10 prominent Druze figures from the Golan Heights to the police headquarters in Kiryat Shemona and allegedly threatened to expel them to Syria if they continued their political struggle against the occupation. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

67. \t<\/span>Attorney-General Yitzhak Zamir on 4 June 1984 appointed a team, headed by the State Attorney Mr. Yona Blattman, to investigate the deaths of two Arabs who participated in the hijacking of an Egged bus on 12-13 April 1984. The team, which includes representatives of the Police, the Military Police, the State Attorney's office and the Judge Advocate-General's office, was set up in compliance with the findings of the commission of inquiry headed by Mr. Meir Zorea. In a related development, it was reported on 11 June 1984 that the families of three of the hijackers killed during the assault on the bus had petitioned the High Court of Justice demanding to see the full findings of the Zorea Commission of inquiry. In an affidavit attached to the petition, the father of Mr. Muhammad Baraka, who was killed during the assault, alleged that one of his son's eyes had been gouged out, the other was out of its socket, and several of his teeth had been knocked out. He is demanding to know "how his son's body was mutilated and by whom". The families of two of those who were killed by Israeli troops petitioned the Israeli High Court on 10 June 1984 in order to have access to the full text of the Zorea Commission's report. The families charged that only certain parts of the Commission's findings were made public. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 5 June; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 11 June; Al Fajr<\/u>, 15 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

68. \t<\/span>Two Palestinian residents of Halhul, Hebron district, and two Israeli reserve soldiers testified before the Central Court in Jerusalem on 29 May regarding the severe beatings of three Palestinian residents in Halhul in April 1982. Israeli border guards allegedly beat Palestinian residents and forced them to crawl on all fours, to sing "Hatikva", the Israeli national anthem, and to praise loudly Israel. Mr. Haim Hanatov, aged 23, from Acre, Mr. Roni Shabati, aged 21, from Jerusalem and Mr. Dani Dahan, aged 23, from Petah Tikvah, were charged with beating Arabs and badly misusing their military positions. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 8 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

69. \t<\/span>The Israel Defense Forces spokesman reported on 13 June that an IDF officer – a captain – and a master-sergeant, both serving in the Gaza Strip, would be put on trial for causing grievous bodily harm to a local resident, Mr. Muhammad Abu Amra, aged 40. The latter, a resident of the shanty town in Rimal, Gaza, had built an addition to his house illegally and without permission. He was allegedly summoned to the civil administration office at the beginning of May and following an argument was severely beaten by the two suspects. As a result he lost an eye. (Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 13 June; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 14 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

70. Thirteen families living in Jerusalem's Shiah quarter were reportedly ordered out of their homes by 2 July 1984 to make room for the expansion of a Jewish cemetery on the western slope of the Mount of Olives. The 140 residents of the houses under the threat of demolition said that Israeli police gave them 21 days to leave voluntarily, otherwise "eviction would be carried out in accordance with the court order". An Israeli development company "Tomar" claimed that it bought the land in 1928 and offered to sell it back to the 13 families that now live there for JD 10,000 (Al Fajr<\/u>, 22 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

71. \t<\/span>A routine identity check at a Bethlehem road-block, reportedly ended in Israeli troops shooting and wounding five Palestinian youths from the Bethlehem area on 3 July. At least 17 other youths were arrested. Several injured youths were hospitalized but the army did not allow families to visit them. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 5 July; Al Fajr<\/u>, 6 July; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 6 July; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 8 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

72.\t<\/span>It was reported that Jerusalem police arrested Mr. Ibrahim Hamadeh, an Islamic Waqf official in Jerusalem, for having allowed a funeral with the coffin wrapped in a Palestinian flag on the premises of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The flag was reportedly confiscated and a charge sheet was being prepared against this official (Al Fajr<\/u>, 13 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

73. \t<\/span>The Special Committee noted several reports of harassment of Palestinian civilians by Israeli tax officials. The following paragraphs give a selection of information appearing during the period covered by the present report.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

74. \t<\/span>Hebron store-owners were reportedly subjected to regular harassment by Israeli tax officials. Doctors were also summoned to the military headquarters and ordered to pay heavy taxes. Many store-owners in the city were forced to close their shops because they were not able to pay the taxes or stay in business. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 11 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

75. \t<\/span>According to several reports, Israeli tax officials harassed merchants, lawyers and pharmacists in several areas throughout the first half of February 1984. During consecutive raids, tax officials reportedly ordered them to pay very high amounts ranging between IS 10 million ($US 55,500) and IS 15 million ($US 83,300) in back value-added taxes. During raids on lawyers' offices it was also reported that several documents and files had been confiscated. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1, 8 and 15 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

76. \t<\/span>Value-added tax of IS 5.5 million was imposed on Tulkarm teacher, Mr. Ibrahim Abu Shama'ah, for selling booklets he had written for a bookstore. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 15 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

77. \t<\/span>A Sufat village resident, Adnan Musa A'ayad, was ordered to pay IS 1.5 million in property tax for a land reportedly confiscated by the military government last year. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 7 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

78. \t<\/span>On 22 March 1984, many traders in the Musrara commercial district (East Jerusalem) had reportedly closed their small shops to protest against the repeated raids by tax officials during the preceding two years. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 28 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

79. \t<\/span>A Dura pharmacy received a bill from the tax department to pay IS 10 million in taxes. The owner had reportedly opened his shop only four months earlier. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 13 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

80. \t<\/span>A partial business strike was reported in East Jerusalem on 23 May 1984 in protest over alleged excessive collection of value-added tax. (Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 24 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

81. \t<\/span>Several reports indicated that the Israeli tax authorities are still harassing Palestinian shop-owners in the occupied territories. In Jenin, it was reported that the Israeli tax officials raided a cosmetic shop, seized the accounting records for tax inspection and fined the owner IS 1.8 million, claiming that he did not pay the occupation-imposed value-added tax. In Qalqilya, a shopkeeper was ordered to pay IS 1 million in taxes. In Jerusalem, tax collectors raided a store in Musrara, searched the place and allegedly took all the money the shopkeeper had on him and all the money found in the shop. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 4 and 25 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

82. \t<\/span>According to several reports Palestinian traders, farmers and shopkeepers in a number of towns were strongly protesting the Israeli tax officials, policy against them. In Musrara, for instance, Jerusalem merchants and shopkeepers convened a meeting to complain that Israeli value-added tax officials levied IS 300 million in taxes on them. In Gaza, a trader who was asked to pay $US 500,000 in taxes had been reportedly arrested together with his son and their release on bail was rejected. Some Ramallah and El-Bireh merchants submitted a petition to the Chamber of Commerce urging them to intervene with the authorities concerning heavy taxes and arbitrary assessments. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1 June; Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 7 June; Al Fajr<\/u>, 8 and 22 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

83.\t<\/span>Israeli customs officials launched a campaign against a number of shops in Jerusalem and inside the old city of Nablus. They demanded payment of high sums of money ranging from IS 100,000 to IS I million each. In Jerusalem, Arab merchants reportedly sent a memorandum to the Director-General of the Israeli Ministry of Finance, the Director of Customs and the Income Tax and National Insurance Department (Al Fajr<\/u>, 13 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a)\t<\/span>Incidents<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

85.\t<\/span>The following abbreviations of the names of newspapers are used in the table:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

AF\t<\/span>Al Fajr<\/u> (weekly)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

AT\t<\/span>Al Tali'ah<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

H \t<\/span>Ha'aretz<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

M\t<\/span>Ma'ariv<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

JP\t<\/span>Jerusalem Post<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

YA\t<\/span>Yediot Aharonot<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

[A 39 591 Tables pages 30-31.pdf<\/a>] <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

During the period November to mid-December 1983 the number of incidents recorded rose sharply. These reports reflected the occurrence of several incidents daily and throughout the West Bank, including Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. These incidents produced several casualties, including death, and led to the imposition of collective punishment. Owing to the number of these incidents only some of the most serious are reflected below:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

31 October 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>The Balata refugee camp was placed under curfew after a petrol bomb was thrown at a passing military vehicle.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1 November 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>The Kalandiya refugee camp was placed under curfew following a stone-throwing incident in which an Israeli bus passenger was slightly injured. Violent clashes between students and soldiers were reported in the Bethlehem University. A curfew was imposed on the campus area.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2 November 1981<\/u>: \t<\/span>The Bethlehem University was ordered closed for 60 days. Nabil Amir al-Salalda, aged 19, of Si'ir, was shot in the hand after a group of demonstrating youths stoned a passing military vehicle. Three Israelis were slightly injured in a stone-throwing incident in Aroub. A curfew was imposed. Two people were slightly injured when a tourist bus was stoned near Bethlehem. Two secondary schools run by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA were ordered closed for a month, in the Kalandiya refugee camp, following stone-throwing attacks. "Preventive" curfews were imposed on the Dheisheh and Askar camps and on the old market area in Nablus.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

3 November 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>An Israeli driver was slightly injured in the Nablus market place. Curfews were imposed on the center of Hebron, the Rachel's Tomb area in Bethlehem and in the Dheisheh refugee camp.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

7 November 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>A boy in the Dheisheh refugee camp was injured by shots allegedly fired by an Israeli settler. An Israeli civilian and a solider were slightly injured from stone-throwing. The camp was placed under curfew. The market area of Nablus was also placed under curfew.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

8 November 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>The curfew in the Dheisheh refugee camp was maintained. Two more roads leading into the camp were sealed to traffic and all men between the age of 16 and 60 were rounded up, identified and "lectured for several hours" during the night. A girl was wounded in the ear in Nablus where border police used tear-gas to disperse stone-throwers. An Israeli civilian was slightly injured from stone-throwing near Halhul. The army closed a section of the road. A sporadic closure was imposed on the Jalazun refugee camp.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

9 November 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>Yattir settlers raided a school in Hebron after pupils threw stones at a minibus, wounding an Israeli girl. The settlers fired shots in the air and took the headmaster to the Hebron military government. The school was ordered closed for one month. A boys' school in Ramallah was ordered closed for one week following disturbances. The curfew on Dheisheh continued for the fifth day and short curfews were imposed on Jalazun and the Nablus market.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

10 November 1983<\/u>:\t<\/span>Petrol bombs were thrown at Israeli vehicles in the Al Amary and Balata camps and near Rachel's Tomb. The curfew on Dheisheh was lifted. It continued in Jalazun. Residents of the two camps complained that all the men were called out of their houses in the early morning hours and kept outside until mid-morning. Their ID cards were taken and they were warned about further unrest.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

12 November 1983<\/u>: Ibrahim Bishara, aged 19, and Amir Mohammed Salameh, aged 22, from Tulkarm refugee camp were shot dead by border police in Tulkarm following violent demonstrations in the town. The Tulkarm refugee camp and parts of the town were placed under curfew. An area near Qalqilya was placed under curfew after shots were fired at an Israeli car. Two Israelis, a man and a woman, were slightly injured from stone-throwing near Burin, in the Nablus area. The curfew in Jalazun continued for the third day.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

13 November 1983<\/u>: Three Dheisheh residents were shot by border police after a violent demonstration. One of them, Khaled Mohammed Shaker, aged 20, was reported in serious condition with a chest wound. A border policeman was injured in the head from stone-throwing. The driver of an Israeli bus was slightly injured as a result of stone-throwing in Halhul; in response, the army shut five stores on the main road. The curfew in Tulkarm continued. Concrete barriers were erected at the entrances to several refugee camps and to the Nablus market. Preventive curfews were imposed in the Nablus market area and on the Dheisheh camp.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

14 November 1983<\/u>: Mahmoud Tahiyuni, aged 20, from the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza was shot dead, at close range. The police imposed a blackout on the investigation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

15 November 1983<\/u>: T\/A Shelomo Ilya, the head of the Judea and Samaria civil administration, was stoned by demonstrators when he arrived to dedicate a new municipal building in Dura. In Nablus, an Israeli taxi driver fired shots into the air after being surrounded by a stone-throwing crowd. Widespread arrests were reported from several camps and villages, and three Al-Najah University students were also detained. A petrol bomb was thrown at a military vehicle near Rachel's Tomb.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

17 November 1983<\/u>: The curfew continued in the Balata refugee camp and the nearby Kadri Toukan school was closed for a week following disturbances. The curfew on Dheisheh was lifted. Two youths from Khan-Yunis, in the Gaza Strip, were slightly wounded when a demonstration was dispersed.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

21 November 1983<\/u>: Four petrol bombs were thrown at the military government headquarters in Tulkarm. The area was placed under curfew.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

28 November 1983<\/u>: An Israeli settler, Yosef Stern, from Har Bracha near Nablus, was attacked from behind and struck on the head and arm in the Nablus wholesale market. He was reported in a "moderate" condition. The area, and the new Askar refugee camp, were placed under curfew. In response to the attack Israeli settlers occupied Joseph's Tomb in Nablus and announced their intention to turn the place into a permanent settlement. An Al-Najah University guard was attacked and beaten by non-Arab, bearded men, and an Arab bus was set on fire.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1 December 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>Students from the Birkat Avraham Yeshiva in Jerusalem's Old City went on a rampage in the Moslem quarter, smashing shop windows and injuring two Arab neighbors. Police arrested three Arab men and two Yeshiva students.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2 December 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>Jibril Nuleman Demyati Habib, aged 23, his brother Khamis, aged 21, and Jamal Abd al-Hamid Tartouri from Gaza reportedly received medium injuries when Israeli soldiers shot at them at a check-post near the border of the Gaza Strip. The soldiers had ordered the driver of a bus transporting workers from Gaza to stop, but he did not hear them through the closed windows, and it was then the soldiers opened fire. Khamis Habib's condition was described as serious.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

4 December 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>Yeshiva students from three religious schools situated in the Moslem quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem, for the second time in three days were involved in a violent dispute with Arab residents, the Jewish students reportedly used gas against their neighbors, who then retaliated with a barrage of stones. An unspecified number of Arabs received first aid following the use of tear-gas against them.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

6 December 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>Five persons, including three children, were killed and 43 were wounded, none of them seriously, when a bomb planted in a bus exploded in the Israeli sector of Jerusalem. Police arrested 56 Arabs, of whom all but 4 were released within a few hours.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

8 December 1983<\/u>: \t<\/span>An 11-year-old girl, Aisha Adnan el-Bahash, was shot dead and her 9-year old sister, Fid'a, was wounded in the mouth when unidentified people opened fire in the metal workers' section of Nablus. The shooting incident followed a demonstration and stone-throwing, due to a large-scale security forces raid on the nearby office of the local trade union federation, following an earlier grenade attack on a border police patrol. Stone-throwing incidents were also reported near Nablus, near the Dheisheh refugee camp and in El-Bireh.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

10 December 1983<\/u>: Five booby-trapped grenades were placed at non-Jewish sites in Jerusalem. The devices were placed on Mount Zion, near the Dormition Church, on the steps of the Franciscan Monastery and on steps leading to the Greek Orthodox Seminary. A fifth grenade was found near a mosque in the Arab area of Beit-Safafa. The grenades were dismantled by police. A sixth grenade exploded in East Jerusalem without causing damage or injuries. A group calling itself Terror Against Terror claimed responsibility for planting the grenades. It was also reported that six Arab-owned cars were set alight in the Abu-Tor quarter and a shop was set on fire in Christian Quarter Road in the Old City. (Summary compiled from reports appearing in the Al Fajr<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ma'ariv<\/u>)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

[A 39 591 Tables pages 35-44.pdf<\/a>] <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b)\t<\/span>Collective punishment, including demolition of houses<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

86.\t<\/span>The Israeli authorities demolished 10 grocery stores in Rafah without giving prior notice to their owners or allowing them the opportunity to vacate the premises. The municipality claimed the Israeli authorities took this action as part of its plan to rezone the central market, and refused to consider paying the shop-owners any compensation. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 9 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

87. \t<\/span>The Israeli authorities demolished 35 houses belonging to Palestinian refugee families in the beachfront refugee camp at Gaza. According to camp residents 150 people were left homeless. The demolition was undertaken on the grounds that the owners had not obtained a valid building permit. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 16 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

88. \t<\/span>The Israeli military government reportedly banned all residents of Hebron and its region from travelling to Jordan. Most of the travelers are workers employed in the Gulf or other Arab States. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 23 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

89.\t<\/span>The deputy military governor of Hebron, on 14 October 1983, notified the acting Mayor of Halhul, Hijazi Mediek, of the Israeli authorities' intention to demolish two licensed houses and one stone-cuttinq plant in the town. The officer said the buildings would be razed "for public purposes". (Al Fajr<\/u>, 21 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

90.\t<\/span>It was reported on 6 January 1984 that Jerusalem municipal workers, under the protection of police and border police forces, had demolished the previous day two illegal structures in East Jerusalem (in Silwan and Wadi-Qadum). A municipal spokesman said the owners had appealed to the courts but their suits had been rejected. On 19 January 1984, another demolition of an illegally-built house was reported in Jerusalem, in the Ras-el-Amud neighborhood. In this case, too, the owners had appealed to the District Court but had failed to stop the demolition. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 6 January; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, <\/u>19 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

91.\t<\/span>The High Court of Justice, on 17 January 1984, granted an interim injunction forbidding the Gaza Military Court from hearing charges of illegal building filed against 24 residents of the Jabaliya refugee camp. The 24 residents charged in their application that the military court was not qualified to hear the cases – as it was not a matter of security. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 18 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

92. \t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities demolished the three-room house of Abdel Kader Yunes Abu Sakur from Turkumeya, province of Hebron. The reason given for the demolition was the absence of a building permit. (Al Ittihad<\/u>, 19 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

93. \t<\/span>The home of Mr. Fawzi Kiswani, in the Jerusalem suburb of Rasal-Amus, was demolished by the Israeli military authorities because he did not have a building permit. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

94. \t<\/span>On 12 March 1984, workers demolished part of an Arab-owned house in Silwan (a Jerusalem suburb) on orders of the Israeli-run Jerusalem municipality which charged it had been built without a license. The owner, Mr. Shehadeh Abu Rumeileh, claims that he began construction only after receiving the municipality's approval. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 21 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

95.\t<\/span>Thirty home owners in the Iz al-Din Valley, near Jenin, were ordered by the military government to demolish their homes within 15 days. They allegedly do not have a building permit. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 28 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

96. \t<\/span>On 9 April 1984, Israeli troops reportedly sealed off the entrances to the Arroub refugee camp on the main Bethlehem-Hebron Road. The closure followed a fire-bomb attack on an Israeli patrol the previous day when one Israeli soldier was reportedly wounded. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 13 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

97. \t<\/span>A house owned by Mr. Hassan Ahmad Assakreh from Ta'amreh was demolished by the military government. Mr. Assakreh's house allegedly did not comply with building regulations. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 4 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

98.\t<\/span>It was reported that Israeli security forces destroyed three homes in the Izzedin suburbof Jenin. The homes reportedly belonged to relatives of Qassem, Ali and Majed Sweitat. According to Israeli authorities, the land on which the houses were built was "State land" and the homes were built without a permit. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

99.\t<\/span>Israeli military authorities reportedly demolished the house of Mr. Abdal-Mahdi Mohammed Abu Rmaishan in al-Hawawer area in Halhul claiming that it was unlicensed. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 8 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

100. \t<\/span>The Israeli forces allegedly built a watchtower with floodlights in Kalandia refugee camp, north of Jerusalem. The tower is located between two schools in the camp to prevent the students of these schools from throwing stones at Israeli vehicles. The residents distributed leaflets denouncing the erection of the tower. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 15 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

101. \t<\/span>Israeli military authorities reportedly demolished a cattle farm belonging to agricultural engineer Mohammed Hassan Rifa'i in Anata, north of Jerusalem, claiming that it was unlicensed and located near an Israeli settlement. The farm was established in 1970 on the land owned by the engineer who affirmed that his farm was registered with the health and agriculture ministries. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 29 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

102. \t<\/span>Israeli military a6thorities reportedly summoned the muktars of Sur Baher village, near Jerusalem, to military headquarters in Beit-El to inform them that the authorities would go ahead with the demolition of 17 houses east of Sur Baher to make way for a proposed highway. The officer-in-charge of planning reportedly rejected an alternative solution whereby the proposed highway would pass through the owners' lands rather than their houses. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 29 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

103. \t<\/span>Israeli authorities reportedly demolished the house of Mr. Ayoub Ali Manasra in the village of Bani Na'im. The owner of the house has been under arrest for three months on charges of membership in a Palestinian organization. Mr. Manasra's family members were reported to be 28 persons living in the same house which consisted of three stories. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 20 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

104. \t<\/span>Israeli bulldozers reportedly demolished two houses in Za'tara village, Bethlehem district, on 18 July without prior warning. The authorities claimed that they were not licensed. The two-storey houses were owned by two farmers who supported two families of 19 members. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 27 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

105. \t<\/span>Numerous reports were noted by the Special Committee concerning measures taken by the occupation authorities affecting the Palestinian refugees in the Dheisheh refugee camp, located on the Bethlehem-Hebron road. The following paragraphs -reproduce a selection of these reports.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

106. \t<\/span>According to residents of the Dheisheh and Jalazun refugee camps, military personnel had taken out the men from the camps and kept them outside the camps during the whole night. Security sources said that identification parades were held in the camps to identify stone-throwers, but they only lasted a short while. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 11 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

107. \t<\/span>Supreme Court Justice Menahem Alon, on 15 November 1983, issued an interim injunction ordering the Defense Ministry and the IDF to refrain from evacuating residents in the Dheisheh refugee camp from their homes, or from closing their businesses in the camp or on the Bethlehem-Hebron highway. Camp residents, who applied to the High Court through attorney Amnon Zichroni, said in their application that security forces had recently sealed entrances to the camp and that surveyors took measurements in houses and businesses located on the highway. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 16 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

108. \t<\/span>Residents of the Dheisheh refugee camp, on 21 November 1983, at a Jerusalem press conference sponsored by the committee for solidarity with Bir Zeit University, complained that soldiers and border police who imposed a five-day curfew on the camp the previous week, acted with brutality and on occasion beat them. Mr. Hassan Abd el-Jawad, the chairman of the Social Youth Center, said that the camp has become "a model for oppression", and it is "now like a ghetto". Ten camp entrances have been sealed with reinforced concrete. It was reported by camp residents that 400 canisters of tear-gas were fired into the camp during the first three weeks of November, and that 200 people were arrested and transferred to the Faria detention camp, but only 37 of them were put on trial for curfew violation. According to one allegation, Israeli civilians wearing Arab head-dresses appeared in the camp, took residents out of their homes, beat them and arrested them. Military sources confirmed that border police in civilian clothes had been sent into the camp to identify stone-throwers and to make arrests. A 15-year old boy, Abed Shaker, alleged that he was beaten up by soldiers and taken to Bethlehem for two days of "interrogation and torture". (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 22 November; Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

109. \t<\/span>The civil administration imposed sanctions on residents of the Dheisheh refugee camp, in the framework of the "punishment policy" against residents suspected of having participated in stone-throwing and disturbances. It was reported that applications to renew vehicle and driving licenses are being delayed, and applications from new drivers are being rejected. Visitors from Jordan and other Arab States are not allowed to return, and fear they may lose jobs in Arab countries as a result. Camp residents who want to visit Jordan are denied permits to do so. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 7 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

110. \t<\/span>Israeli authorities retracted threats made by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens to demolish houses in Dheisheh refugee camp, which overlooks the main Bethlehem-Hebron road. The deputy Attorney-General of the Israeli Government, R. Yarak, notified lawyers Amnon Zichroni and Jonathan Kuttab, representing the Dheisheh residents, about the Government's decision on 18 January. Mr. Yarak said, "the problem of stoning Israeli vehicles will be solved by opening a side road away from the camp". He added that the Israeli Government would provide the High Court with an official undertaking, on 24 January, when an appeal by Dheisheh residents is scheduled to be heard. Lawyers asked for an order nisi to prevent the Israeli Government from demolishing the line of houses. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

111. \t<\/span>The Military Governor of Bethlehem lifted a ban, on 10 February 1984, on Dheisheh camp residents by which the military government had withheld the issuance of official documents (such as identity cards, travel permits, birth and death certificates, etc.). The ban had been imposed in December as an alleged reprisal against protests by camp residents. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 15 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

112. \t<\/span>More than 23 people ranging between 12 and 23 years of age had reportedly been arrested and placed in Fara'a prison. They are all residents of the Dheisheh camp. According to some reports, those who were recently released from Fara'a said they have been tortured in gaol and beaten. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 28 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

113. \t<\/span>Armed Israeli soldiers were reported to have broken into the Bureau of the Working Palestinian Women's Committee in Al Dheisheh refugee camp because of alleged nationalist slogans written on the adjacent walls. Twenty-six children and their mothers were in the Bureau when soldiers allegedly ordered some families to wipe out slogans from the wall of their house, threatening them that their house would be demolished if they did not obey. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 5 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

114. \t<\/span>Dheisheh refugee camp residents demanded, on 30 May 1984, that the authorities re-open the main entrance to the camp in order to allow cars in. Camp residents, reportedly expressed their demand during a visit by representatives of the Israeli prosecution and lawyer Felicia Langer, representative of a number of camp residents. The visit to the camp was in compliance with an order issued by the Israeli High Court last January. (Al<\/u> Tali'ah<\/u>, 7 June; Al Fajr<\/u>, 8 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

115. \t<\/span>The Israeli military authorities re-opened an auxiliary road to the Dheisheh refugee camp near Bethlehem on 28 June 1984, but seven roads, including the camp's two major roads, remained barricaded. The re-opening of the road, on the eve of the Muslim Id al-Fitr was apparently among the recommendations of a special committee set up by the Israeli High Court after 20 resident merchants petitioned for court intervention. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 6 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

116. \t<\/span>According to a new publication by the Israeli Information Center, entitled "Forever Refugees? Present Situation and Proposals for Solution", the rehabilitation plan for the refugee camps, elaborated by a committee headed by former Minister Mordekhai Ben-Porat, would be implemented in stages, over a 5-year period, and would cost $2 billion. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 6 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(c)\t<\/span>Reprisals<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

117. \t<\/span>Security forces, on 4 October 1983, sealed the home of Tarek Muhammad Bairat in the village of Kafr Malik, east of Ramallah. Bairat was found guilty of heading an eight-member cell responsible for killing the head of the Ramallah district village leagues and of other acts. Bairat's deputy, Munzer Suleiman Bairat, was also arrested and security forces sealed the room in which he lived. Two other rooms were sealed in the Aida refugee <\/strong>camp near Bethlehem, in which two members of a cell which operated in the Bethlehem area lived. The suspects' families had applied to the High Court of Justice, in July 1983, against the sealing but their applications had been rejected. (Yediot<\/u> Aharonot<\/u>, 5 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

118. \t<\/span>El-Bireh municipality officials backed by Israeli police and border police on 10 October 1983 destroyed 13 fruit and vegetable carts they had seized at the local market. The Israeli-appointed mayor of the town, Yusef Jabra'il, said that "the municipality confiscated the carts to maintain order and to curb violations of the law". (Al Fajr<\/u>, 14 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

119. \t<\/span>According to military sources, following repeated petrol-bomb attacks on Israeli traffic which were mounted from orchards, the IDF on 1 December 1983 uprooted five dunams (5,000 m2) of fruit trees belonging to Arab farmers along the Kfar Sava-Qalqilya road. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 2 December; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 1 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

120. \t<\/span>Security forces, on 12 December 1983, destroyed and sealed houses belonging to persons suspected of the murder in Hebron of Aharon Gross. In Hebron, the houses of Caid Mahmoud Sarsu and Ibrahim Salam were destroyed and in Ramallah – the house of Taysir Sha'ban. The houses of three other youths were sealed. It was later reported that one of the houses was sealed by mistake, and the security forces reportedly opened it. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 13 December, 14 December; Ma'ariv<\/u>, 13 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

121. \t<\/span>Residents of Hebron complained of the maltreatment practices inflicted on them by settlers during the curfew imposed on imposed on four areas in the city. This curfew was the pretext of an alleged throwing of a bomb on Osama Ben Al Munkez school which accommodates Jewish families. Residents of these areas denied hearing any explosion. They were forced to gather on Alkasba square by settlers and army forces and had to remain there from 7 p.m. until 3 a.m. During the curfew, settlers broke into their houses and forced them out. Some of the settlers were drunk. Moreover, traders suffered losses of over 40,000 Jordanian dinars in the area and the contents of several restaurants were damaged. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 5 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

122. \t<\/span>The Jabaleya refugee camp, Gaza Strip, was under curfew following the throwing of a bomb at a military position in the camp injuring several soldiers who were taken away by ambulance. A large-scale search of the camp was undertaken by hundreds of soldiers. Several youths from the camp were arrested and others were asked to report to the military command the following morning. The authorities forced all the men of the camp, up to 50 years old, to gather in the camp's main square where they stayed until early morning. (Al Ittihad<\/u>, 6 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

23. \t<\/span>Three rooms in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Abu Tor, once inhabited by the men suspected of killing Yeshiva student Aharon Gross on 7 July 1983, were sealed off on 5 February 1984 by order of the West Bank military authorities. <\/strong>Houses of other suspects in the group were blown up or sealed two months earlier. The father of two of the suspects complained that the sealing of his home would force eight residents, who had committed no crime, to live in one room. The mayor of Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek, said he was dissatisfied with the fact that the sealing was carried out before a judgement was pronounced. In a similar development it was reported that the security forces, on 6 February 1984, sealed off two rooms in houses in Qalqilya, belonging to two local residents suspected of membership of an illegal organization. The two reportedly admitted, under interrogation, having carried out sabotage acts in Israel and the West Bank. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 6 February and 7 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

124. \t<\/span>On 5 February 1984, Israeli military authorities ordered the sealing of three rooms in residences in Thowri, a Jerusalem suburb. The house-owners' sons are charged, with five others from Hebron, with the killing of Mr. Ahron Gross, a Kiryat Arba settler, in Hebron last July. The youths are currently held in the Moscobiyya detention center in Jerusalem awaiting trial. The sealing was carried out after separate Israeli High Court interim orders prohibiting any changes in the houses' conditions were removed following army claims that the sealings were for "military purposes". Felicia Langer, who represents two of the accused, said that the orders nisi<\/u> of the Israeli High Court made the authorities seal one room in each house, rather than the entire house. She pointed out that the homes of the families of five other suspects in the same case were either demolished or completely sealed. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 8 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

125. \t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities closed five shops on Halhul's High Street. This measure was taken after a car of Maali 'Amus settlement was pelted with stones on the street. According to other reports, some 20 shops have been closed in Bethlehem for similar reasons. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 15 March; Al Ittihad<\/u>, 16 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

126. \t<\/span>It was reported on 18 April that the houses of the four Gaza Strip residents killed in the attack on the Egged bus on 13 April (see section IV.B, "Incidents") were dynamited. The houses were situated in the villages of Abasan and Bani Suheila, in the southern Gaza Strip, near Khan Yunis. It was also reported that no one may enter the two villages or leave them without special permission. (Ma'ariv<\/u>, 15 April, Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 18 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

127. \t<\/span>It was reported that a grenade was thrown at an Israeli foot patrol in Nablus on 1 20 July 1984 and that Israeli soldiers reacted by shooting indiscriminately at passersby, wounding five Nablusis, including a 13-year-old boy. One Israeli soldier was reported wounded by the grenade. According to Al Sha'ab<\/u>, a Jerusalem daily, more than 100 passersby were rounded up and taken to the local police station. An iron gate was reportedly installed by the Israeli military authorities across one of the entrances to the Qasabeh neighborhood in the city, thus partitioning the old section from the rest of the city. Local merchants said that the measure was in punishment for the grenade attack. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 27 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(d)\t<\/span>Expulsion and deportation<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

128. \t<\/span>The Special Committee received information, including oral testimony, on measures of expulsion applied by the Israeli military authorities against the civilian population of the occupied territories. According to several testimonies relevant to this issue the occupation authorities continue to base their expulsion orders on the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, 1945. In the course of his testimony, Mr. Mahmoud Bheis stated:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Another point I should like to mention is political deportation. The accused person is required to leave the country before the end of the trial. I benefited from the prisoner exchange and I asked the Red Cross to allow me to stay in the occupied territories, but this was refused. At present, other comrades who are in prison – in fact, a month ago, Ali Al Shami was asked to leave the occupied territories. He was living in Jerusalem."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

129. \t<\/span>In the period covered by this report, the Special Committee noted the case of Mr. Abdel Aziz A. Shahin who, after serving a 15-year sentence, was allegedly threatened with expulsion from the-occupied territories. The Special Committee informed itself of this case to the best of its ability, including maintaining contact with Mr. Shahin's lawyer, Mrs. Lea Tsemel.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

130. \t<\/span>Abdel Aziz A. Shahin was deported from Rafah to the village of Duhaniya near the Egyptian border. Shahin, reported to be in poor health, had been banished [in May 1983] from his home in Rafah, on the grounds that he was a PLO activist. Under the banishment order Shahin is prohibited from leaving home (in the town of banishment) in the evening hours: he is prohibited from meeting with anyone, as well as from "spreading information and opinions". In September 1983 the Gaza military government extended the banishment order for a further six months. His family had applied two months earlier to a military appeals committee but their request to rescind the banishment order was rejected. On 8 March 1984, it was reported that the military government in Gaza intended to expel Shahin from the region on the grounds that he constituted a security risk and that he incited the Gaza Strip Arabs against the State of Israel. On 26 March 1984, attorney Lea Tsemel obtained an interim injunction from the High Court of Justice forbidding the banishment of Shahin (which was reportedly due to take place on 6 April 1984). The Israeli authorities contended that Shahin was being banished because he had never had the right to live in the administered territories since he was not registered in the 1967 census. On 21 May 1984, Shahin obtained an order nisi<\/u> from the High Court of Justice requiring the military commander of the Gaza Strip to show cause within 10 days why he should not refrain from expelling Shahin from the country, and why he should not give him an Israeli identity card. On 27 July 1984 it was reported that the High Court had postponed the hearing of Mr. Shahin's case to an unspecified date. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 7 August 1983, 11 September 1983, 27 March 1984; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 11 September 1983, 25 and 27 March 1984, 22 May 1984; Al Fajr<\/u>, 16 September 1983, 13 April 1984, 25 May 1984, 27 July 1984; Ma'ariv<\/u>, 8 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t2.\t<\/span>Activities of Israeli settlers affecting the civilian population of the occupied territories<\/u>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

131. \t<\/span>At least 10 youths from the Al-Arub refugee camp near Hebron were reportedly rounded up and severely beaten on the night of 12 September 1983 by settlers from Kiryat-Arba serving as reservists in the area. The incident reportedly followed the stoning of a bus from Kiryat-Arba as it passed the camp earlier the same evening. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 15 September; Al Fajr<\/u>, 23 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

132. \t<\/span>A group of settlers, on 19 October 1983, reportedly destroyed a car owned by a resident of the Dheisheh refugee camp. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 28 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

133. \t<\/span>On 31 October 1983, Israeli settlers in the old city of Jerusalem stoned the house of Haj Mousa Rhalis in Bab al-Silsaleh, as part of a campaign to force him to leave his house. According to Khalis, he had been regularly harassed by extremists and had never received police protection even though he had always informed them of attacks. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 4 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

134. \t<\/span>Following an incident in which a minibus carrying children from the settlement of Yatir to school in Kiryat-Arba was stoned near a school in Hebron, settlers, travelling on the bus as guards, broke into the school, firing shots into the air. After failing to catch the youths they suspected of the attack, they detained the headmaster and took him first to Kiryat-Arba and then to the local military government. The army ordered the Tarik Bin Ziad School closed for a month. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 10 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

135. \t<\/span>Kiryat-Arba settlers blocked the Jerusalem-Hebron highway near Halhul after a stone was thrown at an Israeli bus, on 20 November'1983. Later in the night settlers damaged several Arab vehicles. Yeshiva students who had been staging a sit-in in Joseph's Tomb, near Nablus, reportedly entered the Haj Ma'zuz el-Masri School nearby after pupils had thrown stones at them and attacked the schoolmaster. Sources in Nablus said the Yeshiva students beat the headmaster and warned him against the recurrence of stone-throwing. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 21 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

136. \t<\/span>Jerusalem District Attorney Asaer Palgi reportedly decided not to bring charges against several Kiryat-Arba residents suspected of tearing down electricity pylons belonging to the Hebron municipality in January 1983, for "lack of public interest" in bringing them to trial. The settlers claimed at the time that the pylons were erected illegally in an area under Kiryat-Arba jurisdiction, but they admitted privately that this was part of a larger struggle over their demands for the expansion of a Jewish settlement inside Hebron. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 28 November; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 2 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

137. \t<\/span>Following an axe attack on an Israeli settler in the <\/strong>Nablus vegetable market, settlers have been occupying Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, and have announced their intention to turn it into a permanent settlement. They intended to remain overnight in a building next to the tomb, in violation of standing orders from the local military commander that Yeshiva students may only study and pray there during the day. Also following the axe attack, an Arab guard at the Al-Najah University was reportedly attacked by two settlers and an Arab-owned bus was set alight and destroyed in Nablus. The market area in Nablus was placed under curfew.  On 1 December 1983, it was reported that the representatives of the settlers said they intended to occupy the site until their security problems in the West Bank were solved. Meanwhile a spokesman for the Peace Now movement said that if the settlers were not out by the next day his movement would stage a mass counter-demonstration at the Tomb. On 2 December 1983, it was reported that the settlers decided to move out of the site during the night, but vowed they would return during the day to continue their protest. Peace Now accordingly called off its counter-demonstration. The settlers' decision came after Defense Minister Moshe Arens said that the settlers' action was illegal and that they "will be treated accordingly". One of the settler's representatives, nevertheless, declared that he was convinced that a permanent Jewish presence would be established in Nablus and that this would be sanctioned by the Government. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 30 November; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 1 and 2 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

138. \t<\/span>According to the Israeli television several youths from Halhul were injured on 24 November 1983 when settlers fired at them. Kiryat-Arba settlers reportedly chased and captured Palestinian youths who they claimed stoned a bus they were riding in near Halhul, on 24 November 1983. According to the report the settlers, who beat the youths, acted in compliance with new orders by the Israeli Central Region Commander. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 2 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

139. \t<\/span>It was reported that, despite earlier promises to vacate the "command post" established at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, settlers still maintain a daytime presence there. The settlers also erected several tents and maintained an all-night vigil at the site to back up their demands for a tougher line against Arab demonstrators and stone-throwers who, they claim, are threatening to keep non-ideologically motivated Israelis from moving across the Green Line. On 9 December 198 3 it was reported that the settlers had dismantled their "command post" at Joseph's Tomb after reportedly receiving clarifications from the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister that "significant measures" would be taken to improve security on the roads. Security sources reported that no new guidelines were given to the settlers or to the IDF regarding opening fire or conduct during stone-throwing. Similarly, the legal authorities in the West Bank were not given new guidelines as to the penalties to be imposed on stone-throwers. But it was nevertheless reported that new methods – both military and legal – were being examined to solve the problem. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 9 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

140. \t<\/span>Activities by Israeli settlers against Arab residents in the occupied territories reportedly increased. On 31 December 1983, several settlers in Al Dhahriya used <\/i>a military car during the night to remove the doors of a shop in the village. Allegedly, they helped "collaborators" to uproot 40 new olive trees on village lands which are threatened with confiscation. According to some reports, groups of soldiers patrol the old district of Hebron almost every night, knocking on doors and flinging abuses at Arab residents. In Jerusalem, it was reported that the attack on the Anglican church near the Al Masrara quarter caused great damage to the inside of the church. (Al<\/u> Ittihad<\/u>, 12 January 1984) Several Kiryat-Arba 'settlers invaded a house owned by Jibril Tawfiq Jwaihan, adjacent to the Ibrahim Mosque in Hebron and vandalized it. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 18 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

141. \t<\/span>Israeli Deputy Attorney-General Dorith Beinish sent a letter to Jerusalem lawyer Elias Khouri last week informing him that his client, Mr. Mahmoud Abu Sneineh, is guaranteed protection if he returns home to the old city of Jerusalem. Mr. Abu Sneineh and his 13-member family were forced to abandon their house in Aqbat Al Khaldiyeh after repeated harassment and threats from extremist settlers in the neighboring Birkat Avraham religious school. The 13-member Abu Sneineh family is at present living in a tent in Hebron provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross. They left home last March after repeated assaults by Birkat Avraham students, who culminated their attacks with an assault on Mr. Abu Sneineh's neighbor, Ms. Fatma Abu Mayaleh, which left the elderly woman unconscious for several days. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 8 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

142. \t<\/span>Five land-owners from the village of Haris and four from Qarwat Beni Hassan were reported to have requested a ruling from the Nablus Court in January 1984 after settlers from Netafim settlement (Nablus district) had destroyed crops and ploughed up the area. The court ruling instructed the Israeli land company HIMANUTA (a subsidiary of the Jewish National Fund) to stop working on the land and authorized a magistrate to execute the ruling. According to the same report, land-owners and surveyors were subsequently chased away by the settlers and prevented from approaching the land. Qalqilya police had allegedly refused to help them unless the brought an official translation of the court ruling into Hebrew and a map of land in question. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 15 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

143. \t<\/span>On 28 May 1984, Kiryat-Arba settlers carried out searches in Hebron for the person who had thrown a Molotov cocktail at a truck. The searches were reportedly carried out in the area <\/strong>stretching from the Patriarchs' Cave to the Kasbah. Hebron residents, on 28 May 1984, complained that about 10 cars had been damaged by unidentified persons. (Ma'ariv<\/u>, 29 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

144. \t<\/span>A group of settlers allegedly stopped cars carrying watermelons on the Jericho Bridge, before crossing into Jordan, and confiscated their licenses and identity cards. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, <\/u>14 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

145.\t<\/span>Israeli settlers allegedly began opening a road on privately-owned Palestinian land in the village of Husan, Bethlehem district, on 13 July 1984, in violation of the order nisi<\/u> which obliges the Israeli authorities and land-owners not to make any changes in the land until a final verdict is issued by the Military Objections Committee. The land in question – an estimated 4,000 dunums of land from the Arqoub villages of Husan, Wadi Fukin and Nahalin – had been confiscated by the Israeli military authorities in June 1981 and declared State property. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 20 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

146. On 10 July 1984, Israeli settlers set up their tents and water containers on land secretly declared closed in Abu Dis village, six kilometers south of Jerusalem. More than 100 land-owners of the closed-off areas started their fight against the settlers and land closure orders. According to Abu Dis land-owners, the village mukhtar<\/u>, Mr. Khaled Ibrahim Badr, received a notification from the Israeli authorities about the closure of the land six months ago but did not notify the land-owners. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 30 July 1984) \t<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

147. \t<\/span>During the period covered by the present report, the Special Committee received information concerning <\/i>the murder of Aisha al Bahash, an 11-year-old Palestinian girl <\/i>from Nablus on 8 December 1983. An Israeli settler was detained in connection with the murder.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

148. \t<\/span>On 16 December 1983, it was reported that Ephraim Siegel, aged 27, from the Israeli settlement of Eilon-Moreh, suspected of driving the murderer to and from the scene of the crime in Nablus, was remanded in custody. On 5 January 1984, it was reported that Siegel had reconstructed the events that led to the girl's death. On 27 January 1984, a charge sheet was filed with the Tel-Aviv District Court against two other settlers, Pinhas Mahrabi and Yosef Harnoi, and against Ephraim Siegel. Harnoi, aged 38, was charged with the murder while Siegel, described a s a United States citizen and recent <\/strong>immigrant, was charged with aiding Harnoi and assisting him in concealing evidence; Mahrabi, aged 30, was charged with being an accessory after the fact.' On 8 February 1984, Menahem Eilon, the security chief of Eilon-Moreh, was arrested as an accessory after the fact in the murder. On 21 February 1984, a charge sheet was filed with the Tel-Aviv District Court against him accusing him of breach of trust by a holder of a public office (security chief and responsible for the arms depot of the settlement), and of obstructing a policeman and interfering with the course of justice, in connection with the events surrounding the killing of Aisha al Bahash. The trial of Harnoi and Sieqel opened on 21 February 1984. The two pleaded not guilty. Justice Aryeh Segalsohn ordered the detention of Siegel until the termination of the legal proceedings against him. On 2 April 1984, Eilon was found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and to 33 months' suspended term, <\/i>after confessing to the charges against him. On 12 June 1984, Mahrabi was released on IS 150,000 bail. At the time of the adoption of the present report, the Special Committee had not received any further information on the trial. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1 February 1984; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 9, 17, 21, 22 and 23 February, 3 April 1984; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 8 and 9 February, 3 April, 13 June 1984; Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 3 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a)\t<\/span>The Karp report<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

149. \t<\/span>In its last report the Special Committee took note of information concerning the existence of a Commission of the Ministry of Justice to investigate anti-Arab vigilantism by Jewish settlers in the West Bank. The report of the Commission had been completed and submitted to the government on 23 May 1982. The Commission was, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Yehudit Karp, the Deputy Attorney-General who resigned her chairmanship in May 1983 in <\/i>protest at Government inaction. Details of the report were kept from the public until early 1994. The following paragraphs give a representative selection of the information relevant <\/i>to the Karp report (for the text of the report, see annex III).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

150. \t<\/span>Deputy Attorney-General Yehudit Karp reportedly complained, in a letter to Justice Minister Mosher Nissim, that the faults in law enforcement procedures in the territories to which she had pointed <\/i>out in her May 1982 report, had still not been corrected. She emphasized that failure to take measures to improve the handling of law enforcement in the territories could lead to a further deterioration. She said that according to new complaints she had received recently inquiries were not carried out, and those which were conducted were not completed. It was also alleged that suspects (in cases of Jewish vigilantism in the territories) were not put on trial. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 5 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

151. \t<\/span>At a Cabinet meeting held on 5 February 1984, on the eve of the submission of the report prepared by Deputy Attorney-General Yehudit Karp to the Knesset Law Committee and to the Government ministers, the Government unanimously adopted a resolution providing that whoever breaks the law in the territories shall be liable to penalties laid down by the law, and that the enforcement of law and public order in the territories is the duty of the IDF command, with the assistance of the police and other security bodies. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 6 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

152. \t<\/span>On 7 February 1984, the Karp report was released. The 33-page report was drawn up by a committee headed by Deputy Attorney-General Yehudit Karp and also consisting of the Jerusalem District Attorney, the legal advisers to the West Bank military government and the head of the Israel Police prosecutions division. The Committee had been appointed in April 1981 by Attorney-General Yitzhak Zamir in response to a letter from several former colleagues at the Hebrew and Tel-Aviv Universities' law faculties expressing concern that complaints from Arabs about offences by Jews were not being adequately pursued. The Committee examined 70 complaints from Arabs regarding alleged offences by Jewish settlers, over a period of one year, beginning in May 1981. Fifty-three of the investigations into these complaints ended with no action being taken. Files were closed because of the inability to trace suspects, lack of evidence, or the absence of public interest. In addition to the examination of the performance of the Israeli Police, the Committee also examined several investigations by the military police. It found that a lack of co-ordination between the two agencies severely hampered the efficacy of their operation. The Committee noted that, while it was not authorized to examine the IDF policy regarding the use of firearms, the increase in the number of local Arab residents wounded in the head and upper body raised the need for a re-examination of this policy. It also found that in several instances where the Border Police was involved in alleged offences against local residents, its own internal investigations were incomplete. No information on these investigations was provided. Following are some of the 15 cases which the committee had examined in depth, in which the police had allegedly been lax:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>(a)\t<\/span>In two cases of homicide in the village of Sinj'il, near Shilo, and in the village of Bani-Na'im, near Kiryat-Arba, both in March 1982, Jewish suspects who were summoned for questioning refused to appear and informed the police that they would only deal with the military government. The police did nothing to bring the suspects in for questioning and in the Bani-Na'im case, where an arrest warrant was issued, the police did not carry it out. Three days after the Bani-Na'im killing, a delegation from Kiryat-Arba came to the Judea district police and said they would not co-operate with them or with the Jerusalem District-Attorney's office, since these two bodies were "hostile agencies"; they refused to talk until they received instructions from the "ministerial level". The delegation included one of the prime <\/strong>suspects in the killing, but the police allegedly did not even use the opportunity to question him.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b) \t<\/span>In the case of the destruction of the ceiling of a store below the Hadassa building in Hebron, in April 1981, and the forcible removal of the man who occupied it, the local military governor told the police not to investigate, because the Arab shop-owner would be compensated. The investigation was pursued only following a promise from the state attorney's office to the High Court of Justice. The police investigator subsequently confirmed to the committee that there was a "conspiracy of silence" in the case.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(c)\t<\/span>Another case involved the uprooting of some 300 olive trees in May and June 1981 in the village of Qaddum, near the settlement of Kedumim. Despite the existence of clear leads to the possible offenders, such as the presence of a tractor on the land and descriptions of the alleged offenders, the file was eventually transferred after several months to the central district prosecutor, with the recommendation that it be closed.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(d)\t<\/span>Two cases were linked to the dispute between Jews and Arabs over prayer in the Patriarchs' cave in Hebron. In one instance of assault on a local Waqf guard, which took place in front of the local police commander and several military officers, no arrest was made. The alleged offender "could not be traced" subsequently.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(e)\t<\/span>Following a press report in February 1982 about a grenade being thrown at the house of the Dan'a family, adjacent to Kiryat-Arba, the committee asked the police if an investigation had been begun. No progress has yet been reported in this investigation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(f)\t<\/span>In April 1981, a complaint was lodged with the Ramallah police regarding damage to a bus in the town. The police suspected that reserve soldiers from Kiryat-Arba were involved and asked the military police to investigate. The military did not do so and the police closed the file, with a note stating that the IDF investigators generally refrained from helping.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(g)\t<\/span>Several other cases involved trespass and assault over land disputes, which were not pursued because the police said they had to wait for surveyors to determine final ownership of the land. In one case, occurring in September and November 1981 Advocate Khoury complained on behalf of villagers from Qaryut that his clients were being forcibly evicted from their lands by Shilo settlers who were taking possession of these lands and trespassing them illegally, resorting to firearms or threats to use such arms. By the time the report was completed, eight months after the events, the police investigation had not yet been finished. In April 1982, Advocate Khoury complained that Shilo settlers were again evicting residents of Qaryut, and that the deputy legal adviser at the Judea and Samaria command had told him that "nothing could be done" about the matter.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(h)\t<\/span>In January 1982, the wife of Mahmoud Awad applied to the High Court of Justice with a complaint of having been beaten by a police agent. The High Court of Justice instructed that her complaint be examined, and that the results of the investigation be made known to her attorney. In February 1982, Mrs. Karp asked for a report on the results of the investigation, but by the time her report was completed the police had not finished the investigation. The police representative in the committee reported that those suspected of beating the woman were border police agents, and that a Border Police examining officer had been appointed. The police representative had no details about the fate of the investigation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(i)\t<\/span>The Committee found that most of the offences it came across were concentrated in and around Kiryat-Arba and Shilo. It also found that a common denominator of the alleged offences by Jewish residents was their desire "to demonstrate their rights in the area". The Committee's findings, according to the report, seriously undermine the State's ability to promise the High Court of Justice that complaints from Arabs from the territories will be thoroughly investigated when they petition the court for redress. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 8 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

153. \t<\/span>Justice Minister Moshe Nissim submitted the Karp report to the Knesset Law Committee together with a covering memorandum detailing a list of unsolved attacks against Jews in Israel and in the territories over a five-year period. These reportedly resulted <\/strong>in the deaths of 23 Israelis and the wounding of 227. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 8 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

154. \t<\/span>Following the publication of the report a Kiryat-Arba settler, Dov Cohen, said that during the period under consideration in the report the Jewish settlers in the West Bank were under IDF orders not to co-operate with civilian police after incidents in which Arabs were fired on. According to Mr. Cohen, the settlers were told by the Central Region Commander at that time, Aluf Uri Or, that they must co-operate only with the investigations branch of the Military Police. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 8 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

(b)\t<\/span>Jewish underground groups<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(i)\t<\/span>The "Kach" group<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

155. \t<\/span>In the early morning hours of 4 March 1984, an Arab-owned bus carrying some 60 Arab workers was shot at as it was travelling on the Ramallah-Jericho road, near the village of Mazraat esh-Sharkiya. Six of the passengers were wounded, two of them seriously. Responsibility for the attack was claimed, in an anonymous telephone call, by "the Shelomo Ben-Yosef Brigade of TNT". (Ben-Yosef was the first Jew to be hanged in Palestine under the British mandate, in June 1938, after being convicted for an attempted attack on an Arab bus.) On 6 March 1984, it was reported that the police and security agencies had arrested seven suspects believed to be responsible for the attack, and for other terrorist acts committed over the past months for which responsibility was claimed by the TNT organization. The suspects were reportedly United States citizens living in the settlements of Ofra, Shilo and Kiryat-Arba. Some of the suspects had reportedly served in the IDF, and claimed to be linked to the "El-Nakam" ("Revengeful God") group, whose objective is to wreak vengeance on Arabs for Jewish victims of terrorism. The suspects had in their possession firearms, including a Kalachnikov assault rifle with which they are believed to have carried out the attack. On 7 March 1984, it was reported that three of the <\/strong>seven suspects were released, three others remanded in custody for 15 days, and a fourth suspect was remanded for 10 days. "Kach" leader, Rabbi Meir Kahane, told the press, on 6 March 1984, that the four remanded suspects were his followers and that he would give them "legal and public support". A fifth suspect in connection with the attack on the Arab bus was reportedly arrested by police on 12 March 1984. At the same time, more details were made public about the arrest of the five suspects, a list was published in Ha'aretz<\/u> of the following 15 anti-Arab acts to which the TNT underground organization was linked:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>9 Dec. 1983  –\t<\/span>Unidentified persons set fire to six <\/p><\/div>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>Arab-owned cars in the Abu-Tor\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>neighborhood in Jerusalem;\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>9 Dec. 1983  –\t<\/span>Police bomb disposal experts defuse two <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>booby-trapped grenades at the entrance to <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>the Franciscan monastery on Mount Zion, <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Jerusalem;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>9 Dec. 1983  –\t<\/span>A booby-trapped grenade is defused at the <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>entrance to the Greek Orthodox seminary <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>on Mount Zion;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>9 Dec. 1983  –\t<\/span>A booby-trapped grenade is defused at the <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>entrance to the Dormition monastery in <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Jerusalem;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span> 9 Dec. 1983 –\t<\/span>A booby-trapped grenade is defused at the <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>entrance of the mosque in Beit-Safafa, <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>near Jerusalem;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>12 Dec. 1983 –\t<\/span>Three booby-trapped grenades in the <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>village of Husan, south of Bethlehem: one <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>goes off, damaging the house of Fatima <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Shusha; the other two are defused;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>20 Dec. 1983 –\t<\/span>A booby-trapped grenade at the entrance <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>of the mosque in the village of Eizariya. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>The device goes off when the muezzin, <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Omar Hussein, opens the mosque door. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Hussein is slightly injured in the chest. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Half an hour later a grenade goes off in <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>the Greek Orthodox Church in Eizariya. A <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>nun is slightly injured. An unidentified <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>caller tells the IDF radio that TNT is <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>responsible for both acts;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>21 Dec. 1983 –\t<\/span>A failed attempt at setting fire to three <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Arab-owned cars near the Rockefeller <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Museum in East-Jerusalem;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>23 Dec. 1983 –\t<\/span>Two petrol bombs are thrown at two Arab <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>houses in the Shu'fat area in Jerusalem;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span> 5 Jan. 1984 –\t<\/span>Unidentified persons set fire to a <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>construction belonging to- a messianic <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>sect, near the Anglican church in <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Jerusalem. The worship place and library <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>are damaged;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>15 Jan. 1984 –\t<\/span>A hand-grenade goes off at the entrance <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>of a nun's apartment in the Russian <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Convent in Ein-Karem, in West Jerusalem;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>27 Jan. 1984 –\t<\/span>Two Waqf guards on the Temple Mount see <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>two persons fleeing, on the Temple Mount <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>wall, near the Golden Gate. The two leave <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>behind them 13 kg. of explosives and 21 <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>IDF-manufactured grenades, similar to the <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>ones found in the previous acts;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span>26 Feb. 1984 –\t<\/span>Shots at a monk near the St. John the <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>Baptist monastery (near Jerusalem);<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span> 4 Mar. 1984 –\t<\/span>A hand-grenade goes off near the <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>"Hospice" hospital in East Jerusalem;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\t<\/span> 4 Mar. 1984 –\t<\/span>Six Arab workers are injured from <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/span>automatic fire at a bus near Ramallah.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

On 27 March 1984, it was reported that charge sheets had been filed against four members of "Kach" and the Jewish Defense League, Meir Leibowitz, Hazan Levy, Yehuda Richter and Mike A\/39\/591 <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

English <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Page 68<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Gozowsky. The four are charged with attacking an Arab bus near Mazraat esh-Sharkiya, on 4 March, injuring six Arab workers, setting fire to the editorial offices of "Al-Fajr" in East Jerusalem; setting fire to Arab cars in Hebron and Jerusalem and throwing petrol bombs at Arabs in the Shu'fat neighborhood in Jerusalem. According to the charge sheets, the acts of arson took place in July 1983, on 1 August 1983, and on 20-21 December 1983. On 22 December 1983, the gang members threw a petrol bomb at the house of Selim Hassin Awadallah in Shu'fat. A fifth man connected with the gang, Craig Leitner from Kiryat-Arba, would reportedly act as State's witness. At the request of the four defendants' attorney, Meir Shaechter, <\/strong>the hearing on the State's request to remand the defendants <\/strong>in custody until the termination of the legal proceedings was postponed to the following week, to give him time to study the charge sheets. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14 March 1984; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 5, 6, 7, 13, 27 March 1984; Ma'ariv<\/u>, <\/u>6, 11 March 1984; Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 27 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(ii) \t<\/span>The Temple Mount group<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

156. \t<\/span>The arrest was reported, on 5 and 6 March 1984, of three men suspected of having carried out the sabotage attempt on the Temple Mount. According to the report the three men – two of whom were arrested in Jerusalem and the third one in Jaffa – were "religious eccentrics" with criminal records who lived in the abandoned Arab village of Lifta, in the western approaches of Jerusalem. On 8 March 1984, the police reportedly uncovered a "huge" weapons cache in Lifta. According to the police the material was still in its original IDF wrappers and cases. It was also reported that the three suspects were also being questioned about the Baptist Church arson in Jerusalem in November 1982 and about several grenade attempts in the Jerusalem area over the past three months. The three suspects were reportedly co-operating with their investigators, and had shown police how they intended to blow up the Temple Mount mosques. A Jerusalem judge later reportedly remanded the three men to police custody – two for 15 days and the third one for 6 days. A fourth man was reportedly still being sought in Israel. On 9 March 1984, it was reported that the three suspects held by police in connection with <\/strong>the Temple Mount sabotage attempt had confessed to a grenade attack on the mosque at Nebi Samwil, near Jerusalem, one month earlier. On 21 March 1984, the names of the two principal suspects in the Temple Mount case were released for publication. A Jerusalem magistrate, Shimon Simha, extended their remand into custody for another 15 days. Justice Simha also issued a warrant of arrest against the man believed to be the head of the group, Shimon Barda, who was reportedly still at large. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, <\/u>8, 9, 12, 13 March 1984; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

157. \t<\/span>On 4 April 1984, Uzi Mahsia Alon, aged 46, and Yehuda Limai, aged 31, from the village of Lifta, at the entrance to West Jerusalem, were on 4 April charged at the Jerusalem District Court with conspiring and attempting to use explosives to cause damage to a holy place – the Dome of the rock and Al-Aksa mosque in the Old City -and with illegal possession and bearing of arms. Two other suspects, Shimon Barda and Eliahu Saror, were reportedly still at large. On 5 April 1984, the Jerusalem District Court ordered that the two suspects be examined by a psychiatrist. Pending the examination and a court's decision on the prosecution request to detain the two until the end of their trial, the two suspects would remain in detention. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 5, 6 April; Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 5 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(iii) The "Ein-Kerem" group<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

158. \t<\/span>On 9 April 1984, it was reported that the Jerusalem police were holding four youths from the Ein Kerem neighborhood in West Jerusalem on suspicion of carrying out sabotage acts, by planting booby-trapped hand-grenades at Christian and Moslem institutions in the Jerusalem area. The suspects were reportedly remanded into custody at closed sessions of the Ashkelon Magistrates Court on 27 and 29 March 1984 and were since held incommunicado in the Ashkelon jail. Police sources, on 9 April 1984, described the suspects as members of a "mystical -religious" group, which called itself "Terror Against Terror", or TNT. According to police sources the four had reconstructed several of the attacks attributed to them. The four are suspected, among other things, of planting grenades at three Christian sites on Mount Zionj planting four grenades in the village of Husan in Judea – one of which was uncovered and neutralized only on 9 April 1984; a grenade attack on the church in Eizariya in which a nun was wounded; a grenade attempt in Beit-Safafa; and the attempted murder with a grenade of a nun at the Gorney White Russian Orthodox convent in Ein Kerem. All these acts occurred over several months and, with the exception of the sabotage acts in Husan and Eizariya, were committed in Israel. It was emphasized that there was "absolutely no connection" between the Ein Kerem group and the "Temple Mount" group from Lifta, whose members had been arrested earlier. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 9 April; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 10 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

159. \t<\/span>On 22 April 1984, it was reported that the Jerusalem District Attorney had, on 20 April 1984, presented charges against Uri Ben-Ayun, David Deri and his cousin Amram Deri for conspiring to attack Christian and Moslem sites in the Jerusalem area and for illegal possession of weapons. A Jerusalem District Court judge, Dr. Yaacov Bazak, on 23 April, reportedly remanded the three suspects for another 14 days. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 22 April; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 24 April 1984) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(iv) \t<\/span>The so-called "Underground"<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

160. \t<\/span>On 29 April 1984, it was reported that at least 15 persons, reportedly leading activists in the settlement movements from the West Bank settlements of Beit-El, Kedumim, Hebron and Kiryat-Arba and from the Golan, were arrested by police in the early morning hours of Friday, 27 April 1984, after bombs were found in six Arab-owned buses in the Jerusalem area. At least one officer from the army and one <\/strong>reserve officer were reportedly among the suspects. Police said that the arrests followed two years of "intensive activity". The bombs, which were neutralized <\/strong>by bomb disposal experts, weighed about four kilograms each. They were planted under the buses and were timed to go off on Friday afternoon, presumably to coincide with people returning home from celebrating the Moslem holiday of Isra Wal Me'eraj. Police reportedly recovered arms held by the suspects in the various settlements, and in nearby orchards they unearthed caches of mines from which the detonators had been removed. According to Ha'aretz<\/u> an agent who himself took part in the sabotage attempt informed the General Security services about it. Owing to the black-out imposed by the censorship no details were available regarding the suspects' identity. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 29 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

161. \t<\/span>It was reported on 30 April 1984 that nearly all those arrested by the security forces were well known and highly regarded in the Gush Emunim movement. Some were reportedly leaders of the religious wing of former chief of staff Rafael Eitan's "Tzomet" movement. The Council of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, at a meeting in the settlement of Ofra, did not condemn the attempted sabotage of the buses and demanded that the police and security forces lift the veil of secrecy imposed on the investigation and reveal the evidence they hold against the suspected members of the underground. It was reported that the investigation team comprised 90 police officers under the command of Tat-Nitzav Armand Levy, head of the serious crimes division at national police headquarters, as well as an unspecified number of other security forces personnel. Police reportedly continued to carry out arrests and question prominent settlers, including one of the founders of Gush Emunim, resident of Ofra. Rabbi Moshe Levinger and the Kiryat-Arba Council secretary Aharon Domb were reportedly questioned, but not arrested. Most of the suspects were reportedly remanded by magistrates' courts into custody for 15 days. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, <\/u>30 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

162. \t<\/span>The security forces, on 3 May 1984, reportedly sealed off Kiryat-Arba and carried out searches for weapons and sabotage materials. During the operation, which lasted several hours, non-residents were not allowed into the settlement and residents had to produce their ID cards to be allowed in. According to one report the security forces discovered arms and explosives, including IDF-issue arms handed over to the settlers as part of the regional defense program, which were subsequently reported as missing. IDF grenades and explosives were also reportedly discovered. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 4 May 1984; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 6 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

163. \t<\/span>Seven more suspects were reportedly arrested from 5 to 8 May 1984 bringing the number of suspects in custody to 26. The suspects are reportedly settlers from Ofra and Shilo, and they include a major in the regular army who, at the time of the attack on the West Bank mayors, held a key post in the military government in Ramallah. Investigative sources reportedly said that the intent of at least one of the network's cells was to "frighten the Palestinians into a mass exodus". Another cell planned an attack in East Jerusalem in April 1982, hoping to force the Government to stop the peace process with Egypt by postponing the final withdrawal from Sinai. The sources also confirmed there was a plot to attack Bir Zeit University. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Ma'ariv<\/u>, 8 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

164. \t<\/span>Two more persons, from Keshet in the Golan and from Jerusalem, were reportedly arrested on 8 and 9 May 1984 in connection with the activities of the Jewish underground. It was also reported that the reconstruction of the sabotage attempt against the deposed mayor of Nablus, Bassam Shaka'a, was held on 9 May 1984 under heavy military guard. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 10 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

165. \t<\/span>Rabbi Moshe Levinger and another rabbi associated with Gush Emunim were reportedly questioned on 10 May 1984 about the underground activities and their prior knowledge of plans to carry out the sabotage acts against the Arab population. It was also reported that several members of the alleged Jewish underground had plotted to blow up the Al-Aksa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, on the Temple Mount, and had experimented with explosives for that purpose. It was reported, in that context, that some of the suspects led the investigators to hundreds of kilograms of explosives which they had hidden in underground caches near the Golan settlement of Nuv, for the blowing up of the Temple Mount mosques. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 11 May 1984; Ma'ariv<\/u>, 13 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

166. \t<\/span>On 23 May 1984, the State Attorney's office filed charge sheets with the Jerusalem magistrate's court against 25 suspects in the Jewish underground case. Six of the accused were charged with premeditated murder and 12 with attempted murder. All were accused of membership in, or activities on behalf of, a terrorist organization. In addition, 18 have been accused of planning to blow up the Dome of the Rock, and others are accused of stealing arms and explosives from the army and of being members of a conspiracy. The charge sheets describe in detail six acts, or abortive acts, carried out over the past four years against Arab personalities and targets in the territories. The charges includes the attempted assassination of West Bank mayors in May 1980. According to the charge sheets, in addition to Bassam Shaka'a of Nablus, Karim Khalaf of Ramallah and Ibrahim Tawil of El-Bireh, the list of targets was also to include Ibrahim Dakkak, an East Jerusalem engineer who at the time was the head of the National Guidance Committee, and Dr. Ahmed Hamza Natshe from Bethlehem. The third act was the attack, in July 1983, on the Islamic College in Hebron, in which three people were killed and 33 injured. All of those involved in the attack, including a person who provided a runaway car, are charged with premeditated murder and attempted murder. The fourth episode in the charge sheets is the recent attempt to blow up five Arab-owned buses in East Jerusalem. The fifth case concerns the planting of booby-trapped grenades outside two mosques in Hebron in which two people were injured, and the sixth case deals with the planting of booby-trapped grenades in the courtyard of the Hussein school in Hebron, injuring two pupils. All the accused are reported to have signed confessions. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 24,May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

167. \t<\/span>On 24 May 1984, police arrested Rabbi Eliezer Waldman, head of the Kiryat-Arba Yeshiva, on suspicion of having known of the alleged terrorist group's activities. Rabbi Moshe Levinger was released on bail. It was also reported that charges were filed on 24 May 1984 against two army officers serving with the West Bank military government, alleging that they knew of the plans to attack the mayors and did nothing to prevent them. The charge sheet alleges that one of the officers knew that the bomb had been placed outside the garage of the former mayor of El-Bireh, Ibrahim Tawil, and said nothing when the Israeli Druse sapper Suleiman Hirbawi started his search. Hirbawi was blinded when he touched a trip-wire. One of the officers is a major and a resident of the West Bank settlement of Shilo. Both officers face charges of causing grievous bodily harm, dereliction of duty and failure to prevent a crime. One also faces charges of attempting murder or, alternately, placing an explosive charge. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 25 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

168. \t<\/span>In a statement to the police, made by one of the defendants in the alleged Jewish underground case, it was stated that one of the main objectives of the group was to "purify the Temple Mount from Moslem possession in order to bring about the redemption of Israel and the establishment of the promised kingdom of Israel". The defendant reportedly affirmed in his statement that no actual plan was ever agreed upon for blowing up the Dome of the Rock; there was no target date but preparations included the stealing of explosives from an army base in the Golan and obtaining aerial photos of the area. In another development, it was reported that the two IDF officers allegedly involved in the attack, in June 1980, on the three West Bank mayors were on 3 June remanded in custody until the end of their trial. Both defendants also faced charges of causing grievous bodily harm, dereliction of duty and of failure to prevent a crime. It was further reported that the two IDF officers, and a third one involved in the Jewish underground case, whose name was not disclosed, would be dismissed from their IDF posts shortly. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 4 June; Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 5 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

169. \t<\/span>A Jerusalem District Court judge, on 7 June 1984, sentenced Mr. Noam Yinon – the first person to be convicted in the Jewish underground case – to 18 months' imprisonment, and another 18 months' suspended sentence for three years. Mr. Yinon, of the Golan settlement of Keshet, was originally charged together with the other 24 defendants in the case, with membership in a terrorist organization, attempted murder and the illegal possession of weapons. But following a plea bargaining he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of illicit possession and transport of explosives – and his trial was held separately. Mr. Yinon transported 50 Syrian mines on the Golan Heights, from Keshet to another settlement, Nuv. The explosives recovered from the mines he transported were later used to make the bombs that were planted under the five Arab-owned buses in East Jerusalem in April 1984. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 8 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

170. \t<\/span>The former mayors of Ramallah and El-Bireh, Mr. Karim Khalaf and Mr. Ibrahim Tawil, on 12 June 1984, reportedly <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

appointed an East Jerusalem advocate, Mr. Darwich Nasser, to be an observer on their behalf at the trial of the members of the alleged Jewish underground. Mr. Nasser reportedly asked the State Attorney for permission to examine the files in the case, but was refused on the grounds that Israeli law does not recognize the status of an "observer" and limits access to the files to the prosecution and the defense. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 13 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

171. \t<\/span>Mr. Gilad Peli, aged 31, of the settlement of Keshet on the Golan, was convicted on 14 June 1984 of membership of a terrorist organization, causing <\/i>grievous bodily harm, attacking the Dome of the Rock, damaging army property and illegally possessing and transporting weapons. Mr. Peli had pleaded guilty following a plea bargaining under <\/i>which a charge of activity on behalf of a terrorist organization was modified to membership, and a charge of attempted murder was modified to conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm and to plant an explosive charge. On 21 June 194, Mr. Peli was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, plus another three years to be served concurrently with the first five years in jail. Another member of the underground, Mr. Yosef Zuria of Ramat Hasharon, on 14 June 194, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to attack the Temple Mount, illegal possession of weapons parts and aggravated fraud. He was convicted on his own admission following plea bargaining with the prosecution. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 15 and 22 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

172.\t<\/span>The trial of 22 men accused of membership of a Jewish terrorist organization in the West Bank and the Golan Heights reportedly opened on 17 June 1984 before the Jerusalem District Court. Of the original 27 people arrested in connection with the case three had already been convicted by their own admission and two others, who were serving army officers accused of complicity in the attack on the West Bank mayors and other prominent personalities, faced separate proceedings. Six of the defendants reportedly faced charges of murder of the pupils of the Islamic College in Hebron, and activity in the terrorist organization; four were facing charges of causing grievous bodily harm and activity in a terrorist organization, and the remaining 12 were facing charges of attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm, illegal bearing of weapons and membership of a terrorist organization. The trial would be held before the Judges Yaacov Bazak (presiding judge), Shamuel Finkelman and Dr. Zvi Cohen, the prosecution would be represented by the advocates Dorit Beinish, Uzi Hasson and Isca Leibovitz. The defense would be represented by 12 advocates. A defense source said that all the defendants would plead not guilty, but would admit the deeds attributed to them. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 17 and 18 June; Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 17 June; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 18 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

173.\t<\/span>On 18 June 1984, Jerusalem District Court Judge Yisrael Weiner lifted the ban on publication of the names of the defendants in the case. Following the lifting of the ban a central figure in Gush Emunim, Mr. Meir Indor reportedly declared that leading military figures and politicians had encouraged settlers "before and after" the attack on the West Bank mayors, "to take actions that a democratic state cannot do". In another development, a defense source confirmed that the State and the defense had agreed that the trial would not resume until September, after the summer court recess. Among the defendants are Mr. Menahem Livni, the head of the Committee of the Renewal of Jewish Settlement in Hebron, considered as the ringleader of the group; Mr. Natan Natanson – Gush Emunim's Secretary-General; Mr. Benzion Heineman, the man who planned the first Gush Emunim action with Rabbi Moshe Levinger, and Mr. Yehuda Etzion, a founder of Ofra and former member of the Gush Emunim secretariat. It was reported that the seven defendants facing charges of murder in connection with the attack on the Islamic College in Hebron had already been remanded in custody until the end of their trials. Mr. Aharon Gila, one of the army officers on trial separately for their involvement in the underground's activities, was also remanded in custody until the end of his trial. An appeal by him for release on bail was turned down by the Supreme Court on 18 June 1984. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 19  June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

174.\t<\/span>On 27 June 1984, Jerusalem District Court Judge Yisrael Weiner ordered the remand in custody until the end of their trial of 21 of the defendants in the Jewish underground case. One defendant, Mr. Moshe Zar, was permitted to be released on bail of IS 2.25 million "for health reasons", after several conditions were met. (Ma'ariv<\/u>, 28 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

175. \t<\/span>The three judges of the Jerusalem District Court hearing the Jewish underground case on 27 June 1984 decided to hold two separate trials: one against the six persons charged with murder of the Islamic College students; the second trial, whose date was already set for 26 September 1984, was against 20 defendants<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

(including the six in the first trial), in connection with the Temple Mount bombing plot, the attack against the West Bank mayors and the booby-trapping of the Arab buses. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 28 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

176. \t<\/span>The Jerusalem District Court, on 19 June 1984, sentenced Yehuda Cohen, one of the members of the alleged terrorist underground, to one-and-a-half years in prison and two years suspended. Cohen was convicted of taking part in the plot to blow up the Dome of the Rock and the Temple Mount. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 20 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

3.\t<\/span>Information on measures affecting certain rights<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a)\t<\/span>Right to freedom of movement<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

177. \t<\/span>The Israeli military authorities reportedly extended the house-arrest orders imposed on Dr. Amin Khatib, Chairman of the League of Charitable Societies in the West Bank, and Faisal Husseini, Director of the Arab Studies Center in Jerusalem. This was the fourth time that the two men's house-arrest orders were extended. (Al Fair, <\/u>2 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

178. \t<\/span>The Israeli military authorities barred Ibrahim Tawil, the elected mayor of El-Bireh, from attending the second annual conference for native residents of the town living in the United States of America, held in Washinton, D.C., between 19 and 21 August 1983. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 16 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

179. \t<\/span>The Israeli authorities issued a further six-month house-arrest order on the ousted mayor of Anabta, Wahid Hamdallah. This was the sixth time that the house-arrest order on Hamdallah had been extended. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 23 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

180. \t<\/span>The Kadi (religious judge) of the Tulkarm district, Sheikh Hamad Suleiman Khadir was placed under town arrest for unspecified illegal political activities. The six-month town-arrest order, dated 2 August 1983 and signed by the Central Region Commander 'Aluf Uri Or, compels the Kadi to stay at his home in Nablus from sunset to sunrise, to remain in Nablus and to report to the central police station in Nablus once a week. The Chairman of the Supreme Islamic Council, Sheikh Sa'ad a-Din Al-Alami, said that this was the first time a Waqf judqe had been placed under restriction of movement since 1980, when the Islamic judge of Hebron, Raja Tamimi, along with the mayors of Hebron and Halhul, were deported. Sheikh al-Alami demanded the immediate cancellation of the order. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 12 October 1983; Al Fajr<\/u>, 14 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

181. \t<\/span>On 3 November 1983, the military government barred two deposed West Bank mayors, Bassam Shaka'a from Nablus and Karim Khalaf from Ramallah, and the Chairman of the Gaza Red Crescent Society, Dr. Haider Abdel Shafi, from leaving their towns and going to Jerusalem to meet British Foreign Office Minister of State Richard Luce. A spokesman for the West Bank civil administration said that Shaka'a had been placed under-one-day house arrest "for his own security". In a related development it was reported that Shaka'a was also informed on 3 November 1983 that the military authorities would not allow him to leave the West Bank to travel to the United States to receive the freedom of the city of Livonia in Michigan. Shaka'a had also asked to go to the United States to receive medical treatment, but the military authorities maintained that the only purpose of his journey was political. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 4 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

182. \t<\/span>On 6 November 1983, Bashir Barghouti, editor of Al Tali'ah<\/u>, was handed an order banning him from entering the Gaza Strip. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 11 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

183. \t<\/span>Two Palestinian unionists, Faisa Hindi, Secretary of the Public Institutions Workers Union in Tulkarem, and Imad Sabadi, a member, were reportedly placed under town arrest. Similar restrictions were reportedly also imposed on two students: Abed Al-Wahab Allawneh, from Jab'a, near Jenin, a Bethlehem University student, and Munir Jaradat from Zaboya, an Al-Najah University student. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 18 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

184. \t<\/span>Following reports on the closing of the Jordan bridges military sources reported that visitors from Jordan may enter the West Bank without any restrictions. As to residents of the West Bank wishing to leave their departure was "restricted and controlled" and residents of certain areas were barred from leaving. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 9 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

185. \t<\/span>The dismissed mayor of Qalqi1ya, Amin Nasser, was to be put on trial for violating a restriction order which was imposed on him two years earlier and under which he was banned from leaving his town, Qalqi1ya. On 18 December 1983, Nasser traveled to Nablus, and was detained and taken to the local police station. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 19 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

186. \t<\/span>Military authorities reportedly imposed a six-month restriction order on the leader of the Bir Zeit student council, Samir Suberhat of Jenin, who had just been elected to replace a student who had been placed under a similar town-arrest order. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 28 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

187. \t<\/span>The Ramallah journalist Raymonda Tawil was reportedly banned by the military authorities from travelling to West Germany to participate in a television debate. Mrs. Tawil described the measure as typical of "practices adopted by the Israeli authorities to silence Palestinian voices that advocate peace and justice in the region". (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 8 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

188. \t<\/span>The Al Fajr<\/u> journalist Moussa Jaradat, from the village of Silir, had a six-month town-restriction order issued against him. The town-restriction order <\/strong>against Dr. Azamy Shueidy from El-Bireh, a former member of the National Guidance Committee, was reportedly extended. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 11 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

189. \t<\/span>Ibrahim Nahfawi, from Shafa 'Amr village, was arrested on charges of not appearing at the local police station two months earlier. Nahfawi was under town arrest and was to appear at the police station three times a day. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

190. \t<\/span>Mr. Nazmi Mraqten, a member of the Hebron University Student Council, was placed under town restriction for six months in Tarqumiya near Hebron. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

191. \t<\/span>A town-restriction order on Mr. Badran Jaber from Hebron was renewed for a further six months. It was the eighth renewal. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

192. \t<\/span>Journalist Talal Abu Afifeh of the Arabic language newspaper Al Fajr<\/u> was placed under town restriction in Jerusalem for one year, banning him from entering the West Bank for the duration of the military order. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

193. \t<\/span>The town-restriction order imposed on Anabta's elected mayor, Mr. Wahid Hamdallah, was renewed for a further six months. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 29 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

194. \t<\/span>The West Bank civil administration, on 1 March 1984, allowed the deposed mayor of Ramallah, Karim Khalaf, to return home after a period of unofficial house arrest in Jericho. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 2 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

195. \t<\/span>According to several reports, town-restriction orders were renewed repeatedly in different parts of the occupied territories. Some orders were imposed for the seventh time, such as the case of Mr. Raja Aghbarieh, the secretary of the Abna al Balad Movement (Sons of the Country), for the fifth time on Mr. Paysal Husseini, director of the Arab Studies Center in Jerusalem, and for the third time on Lawyer Jamil Othman Nasser, deputy director of the lawyers' union. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 7, 14 and 21 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

196. \t<\/span>Reports concerning travel restrictions reflected contradictory decisions taken by the Israeli Government against residents of the West Bank. Thus, on 7 March 1984, Mrs. Felicia Langer, lawyer for Mr. Bassam Shaka'a, received a conditional travel permit for her client from the Israeli legal advisor to the military government stating that Mr. Shaka'a should not travel via the Tel Aviv airport, etc. On the other hand, the Israeli Government barred Mrs. Raymonda Tawil, a Palestinian Journalist, from travelling to Vienna via Amman. Tawil who was permitted to travel via Lydda airport, declared that Israeli authorities were willing to permit her to travel via Lydda because they knew that Jordan bans Palestinians from using the Israeli airport. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 14 and 28 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

197. \t<\/span>The Military Objections Committee, meeting on 27 March 1984, refused to cancel town-arrest orders which military authorities had imposed on four West Bankers. Mr. Wahid Hamdallah, the elected mayor of Anabta, Mr. Samir Sbeihat, Chairperson of the Bir Zeit University Student Council, Mr. Jamal Shati, a student at Al-Najah University, and Mr. Abdullah Mahmoud Barakat, a Bethlehem University student, had complained against the renewal of the town-arrest orders. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 4 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

198. \t<\/span>Israeli authorities imposed a town-restriction order for the fourth time on Mr. Khalil Mohammed Sus from Dura. Under the order Mr. Sus, former Chairman of the Student Council in the Polytechnic Institute in Hebron, cannot leave <\/i>Dura for six months, effective from 24 April 1984. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 18 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

199. \t<\/span>Israeli military authorities renewed for the third consecutive time, a town restriction on journalist Mr. Hamdi Farraj. Mr. Farraj, an editor in the now banned Al Shir'a<\/u> magazine, was planning to appeal the town restriction to the Military Objections Committee. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 8 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

200. \t<\/span>On 22 June 1984, Israeli military authorities reportedly imposed a six-month town-restriction order on journalist Radwan Abu Ayash, Managing Editor <\/i>of Al Awdeh<\/u> magazine. Although Mr. Abu Ayash had not been formally charged, the order reportedly made vague accusations against him of activity for PLO and "involvement <\/i>in clandestine anti-State activity". (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 25 and 26 June; Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 28 June; Al Fajr<\/u>, 29 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

201. \t<\/span>The occupation authorities of Bethlehem renewed the house-arrest order against student Mohammed Al Munassera, Secretary of the Bethlehem Student Board. The order was reportedly issued 30 months before. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 28 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

202. \t<\/span>Travel bans were reportedly renewed on seven residents of the West Bank. Four Hebronites, two Nablusis and a Jerusalem unionist: Mr. Musa Jaradat, aged 30, a correspondent for Al Fair; <\/u>Mr. Fathi Abdel Aziz Jaradat, a student at Hebron University; Mr. Nazmi Fatafta, a member of the Hebron University Student Council; Mr. Mahmoud Ziadeh, a construction unionist; Lawyer Ghassan Walid Shaka'a from Nablus; journalist Mohammed Amirehl Al Quds<\/u> newspaper Nablus correspondent and Jerusalem unionist Abed Abu Diab. The town restriction for all of them was for a six-month period. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 6 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

203. \t<\/span>The town restriction was reportedly renewed for six months on Mr. Sami Kilani, the Al-Najah University lecturer. For the fourth consecutive time Mr. Kilani was to stay in the village of Va'bad, near Jenin and to report to the police station once a week. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 13 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

204. Military authorities' reportedly renewed for the third time the town- restriction order on Mr. Kifah Zughaibi from Jenin. Mr. Zughaibi completed a six-year prison sentence and was allegedly re-arrested four times without charges. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 13 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b)\t<\/span>Right to freedom of education<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

205. \t<\/span>Israeli military authorities notified eight school principals and teachers from the Jenin district that they were being sent on forced retirement. Palestinian teacher activists, members of the General Committee of Government School Teachers, described the authorities' decision as an "attempt to empty the education system of experts and skilled people necessary for this important field". (Al Fajr<\/u>, 2 September 1983) A list of educational institutions closed <\/i>between February 1983 and February 1984 is reproduced in annex IV.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

206. \t<\/span>The military government in the Gaza Strip reportedly decided to transfer some 400 pupils from a secondary school in the Jabaliya refugee camp to schools in Khan-Yunis. The decision was reportedly taken as a measure of punishment against pupils of the "Faluja" school, following their participation in violent demonstrations held in the area at the end of the previous school year. In Gaza, where the decision caused anger, local notables applied to the authorities to cancel the measure which, they said, imposed a heavy financial burden on the families in view of the high transport fares to Khan-Yunis. Military sources were later reported as saying that the pupils were transferred to Beit-Hamun, which is located a few kilometers away from their previous school. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 6 and 12 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

207. \t<\/span>Representatives of the Bir Zeit, Al-Najah, Bethlehem and Abu-Dis universities were summoned by telephone to meet with the head of the civil administration in the West Bank, Shelomo Ilya. Participants reported that Ilya demanded that they maintain silence at West Bank academic institutions. Ilya reportedly stated that there would be no work permits for foreign teachers unless they signed a work permit application in which they undertake not to support any hostile organizations. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 16 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

208. \t<\/span>A British academic, Ms. Anne Scott, who was on her way to Bir Zeit University to attend a conference on rural development was refused entry into Israel and deported on 2 October 1983. She was reportedly refused permission to call her lawyer, Lea Tsemel, and was also prevented from <\/strong>calling the British Consul and threatened with physical force if she did not get on the next plane. Ms. Scott, a former employee of Bir Zeit University, was arrested while in Ramallah military headquarters with Bir Zeit students who had gone to pick up their ID cards, and was beaten up by two women soldiers. That incident occurred in July 1982. An Israeli Interior Ministry spokesman told reporters that Ms. Scott was a "frequent participant in anti-Israel protest rallies". (Al Fajr<\/u>, 7 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

209. \t<\/span>Israeli military authorities, on 1 October 1983, ordered 100 lecturers at the Gaza Islamic University to obtain permits from the military government before teaching at the University. The new order, which the authorities said was based on Egyptian Order No. 380, was described by university officials as equivalent to West Bank Military Order No. 854 which was enacted in 1980 and under which the Israeli authorities control teachers and students in local universities. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 14 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

210.\t<\/span> On 2 November 1983, the military government closed the Catholic University of Bethlehem for 60 days following a violent campus demonstration the day before. At the end of October 1983, on the occasion of an exhibition of Palestinian folklore, the army raided the campus and seized material which it alleged to be inciting. Eight members of the Students Council were arrested in connection with the exhibition, and their continued detention was said by University officials to have been the direct cause of the disturbances. On 27 November 1983, it was reported that, following a meeting with the Bethlehem University Vice Chancellor, Brother Thomas Scanlan, and Rector Dr. Anton Sansur, Brigadier Ben-Eliezer agreed to reopen the University. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 3 and 27 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

211. \t<\/span>It was reported some 20 foreign lecturers at the Bir Zeit University were informed on 10 November 1983 that they had one week to sign a compromise work permit form, which made it clear that support for PLO was an offence. The lecturers were reportedly told that if they did not sign the work permits they would have to leave the West Bank. On 21 November 1983, it was reported that agreement over the matter had been reached, and that, as a result, the foreign lecturers had signed applications for work permits at the civil administration headquarters on 20 November 1983. The Bir Zeit University later issued a press release saying that "all elements of the University approved the new application, which contained no political undertakings". The compromise formula reportedly consists of separating the undertaking, which the applicants must sign, from the security regulations, which mention the prohibition of support for PLO activities. Bir Zeit is reportedly the last of the four West Bank universities where the lecturers signed the applications. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 13 November and 21 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

212. \t<\/span>Students who are arrested for political offences would not be allowed to return to their schools after their release, according to instructions issued by the Israeli military government to West Bank educational institutions. The military also ordered school principals not to allow students who are absent from their schools for more than 20 days to sit for the matriculation certificate examinations. It was later reported that 18 secondary school students from Nablus were barred from returning to their schools or registering at any other institutions after being detained for 11 to 13 days following the demonstrations. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 November and 2 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

213. \t<\/span>Hebron University received permission to open a college of agriculture, which was to be opened in the 1984-1985 academic year. This was announced by the Director of the University's Board of Trustees, Mohammed Rashid Ja'abari. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 9 December)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

214. \t<\/span>It was reported from Nablus that, because of road-blocks put up by the IDF around the Al-Najah University campus, students were prevented from entering and no classes were held on 13 November 1983. IDF sources said that they had information that students were planning to hold a large demonstration on campus. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 14 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

215. \t<\/span>Some 100 students of the Al-Najah University in Nablus demonstrated on 20 December 1983 against the military government's decision to Post road-blocks near the University and to require all entering to show identity cards. According to a University source, the students believed that the army's demand that they show their identity cards was a step towards the implementation of a plan to put the school under military government control. A military source denied this, saying that, the "selective road-blocks" were intended to prevent "outside agitators" from entering the campus. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 21 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

216. \t<\/span>The board of Hebron Islamic University agreed to replace the six foreign teachers who signed the amended work permit. This decision was taken following a meeting with the students who had staged a strike to protest against these teachers. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 5 January 1984; Al Ittihad<\/u>, 12 January 1984) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

217. \t<\/span>The Hebron University's Council of Students, followed by the University's Board of Trustees' decided to hold a three-day strike in protest over the undertaking to refrain from supporting PLO which foreign lecturers are required to sign. Students in Hebron issued a statement calling for the expulsion of lecturers who had signed the undertaking. In a related development it was reported that security forces placed road-blocks near the Bethlehem University, and removed them later in the day. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 10 January, 11 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

218. \t<\/span>The GCGSTWB (General Committee of Government School Teachers in the West Bank) condemned the firing of more than 40 teachers from various parts of the West Bank, last week, as being without any academic justification. GCGSTWB also demanded, in a letter sent to the Israeli education office in charge of the West Bank, that the dismissed teachers be restored to their posts. Many teachers received a brief notice stating that "the education officer did not approve your hiring". Other teachers' were dismissed after completing the training period. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 11 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

219. \t<\/span>The military governor of Ramallah, Maurice Bar-Kochba, on 2 February 1984, summoned the Acting President of the Bir Zeit University, Dr. Gabi Baramki, and informed him of an order issued by the West Bank military government closing for three months the University's old campus, following a recent demonstration there ,where students raised the Palestinian flag and blocked a nearby road with rocks and burning tires. The closure of the old campus inside the village of Bir Zeit reportedly affected some 1,400 students and closed all of the University's administrative offices and services. The University spokesman described the closure decision as "completely unjustified". It was later reported that Bir Zeit students, on 9 February 1984, held a rally to protest the closure. The University's Acting President, Dr. Baramki, accused the IDF of deliberately disrupting studies at the University. "If the army would refrain from coming to the University, no problems would arise", he told reporters. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 3 and 10 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

220. \t<\/span>The Israeli authorities took over the building of Bani Naim's primary school (located near Kiryat-Arba) and turned it into the headquarters for the Israeli forces. The residents believe that the authorities' aim was to consolidate the military presence in the heart of the town. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 8 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

221. \t<\/span>Following stone-throwing incidents on 27 March 1984, the Al-Hashimiya secondary school in Ramallah was ordered indefinitely closed by the region commander. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 28 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

222. \t<\/span>The West Bank civil administration, on 2 April 1984, ordered the new campus of the Bir Zeit University closed for one month, following a clash between students and security forces on Land Day and the following day. According to a statement by the Government Press Office, the unrest – with students throwing stones at security personnel, blocking roads and burning tires – continued despite warnings to the University's deputy director, Dr. Gabi Baramki, that the university authorities were responsible for restoring order. The closure of the new campus came less than two months after the old campus, accommodating 1,300 students, was ordered closed for 90 days for similar reasons. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Ma'ariv<\/u>, 3 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

223. \t<\/span>The Nablus Civil Administration, on 30 July 1984, ordered the closure of Al-Najah University for four months following the seizure of a large quantity of alleged pro-PLO propaganda at a student campus exhibition earlier in the week. The military authorities reportedly confiscated two truckloads of pamphlets, placards, leaflets and magazines, on the grounds that they were "nationalistic and provocative". The military authorities also reportedly discovered books on guerrilla-warfare, instructions on making bombs, an axe, chains, a knuckle duster and knives. Following the raid the campus was surrounded by troops manning road-blocks; a student and two campus guards were reportedly held for questioning, but earlier reports that 10 persons had been arrested were denied. The closure of the University would delay the opening of the academic year scheduled for October. Nearly 1,000 high-school pupils who were to begin academic studies this year would have to wait a year because they would not be able to attend a compulsory pre-academic course planned for the remaining summer months. Another 700 students who were scheduled to graduate would be delayed because they would lose a semester of studies – according to the University spokesman Saleb Frakat. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 31 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(c)\t<\/span>Right to freedom of expression<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

224. \t<\/span>The military government of Rafah closed down the local Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA sports club for alleged involvement in illegal political activities, such as issuing a calendar, organizing exhibitions for pictures without a permit and holding festivals at the centers. According to the report, Israeli authorities have closed down most refugee camp youth clubs in the West Bank and Gaza in the past two years. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 26 August 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

225. \t<\/span>A number of items on show at a Palestinian heritage exhibition in Bethlehem University were confiscated on 21 October 1983 by the security authorities. The IDF spokesman said the material was confiscated after it was learned that the exhibition contained material likely to incite the public. A University press release said posters, printed matter, music cassettes, a Palestinian flag and several tear-gas canisters were confiscated. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 23 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

226. \t<\/span>The Director of the Palestine Press Service and the Editor-in-Chief of Al Awda <\/u>magazine, Ibrahim Qaralin, was reportedly interrogated for four hours on 21 October 1983, and was asked for the names and addresses of his magazine staff. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 28 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

227. \t<\/span>It was reported on 13 November 1983 that Mr. Gabi Baramki, the Acting President of the Bir Zeit University, had been summoned the previous week by the Ramallah military government in connection with remarks he had made at a University rally earlier. It was alleged that, in his speech, Baramki had urged A\/39\/591 <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

English <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Page 84<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

the students not to fight each other but rather "to turn their arms against the Zionist enemy". Mr. Baramki later said that he was held for 12 hours by the Ramallah police. According to one report, Mr. Baramki was charged with inciting students against the occupation, and was released on bail. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 13 November; Al Fajr<\/u>, 18 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

228. \t<\/span>Al Fajr's<\/u> Editor-in-Chief, Hanna Siniora, was barred, on 22 November 1983, from entering the West Bank and Gaza Strip by <\/i>the Israeli military. The order restricting his movement cited unspecified "security reasons". It is the second consecutive year-long order he had received. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

229. \t<\/span>The High Court of Justice, on 28 December 1983, upheld a decision by <\/i>the Interior Ministry to close the East Jerusalem newspaper Al Shir'a<\/u> on the grounds that it served as an organ of George Habash's Popular Front. The paper's owner, Walid Asaly, who appealed the closure, denied that Al Shir'a<\/u> was a PFLP organ, contending that it was "an independent, liberal newspaper featuring a wide range of opinions". The court ruled that the closure was based not on the paper's content, but on evidence linking it to a terrorist organization, which could no t be revealed on the grounds that revealing the sources of information would endanger State security. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 29 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

230. \t<\/span>On 11 January 1984, Israeli occupation troops broke into the house of Ramallah teacher Fadel Rimawi, a member of the teachers' committee, searched it and confiscated 15 books. The home of Ismalil Othman, principal of the Hashemiya school in Ramallah, was raided the same day and 25 books were confiscated. The confiscated books were said to have been purchased by the teachers from the public bookstores. (Al Ittihad<\/u>, 12 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

231. \t<\/span>A new amendment to an Israeli military order would outlaw private parties and cultural festivals organized by local institutions according to a West Bank expert. Last month Military Order 1079 amended Order 101 concerning the "prohibition of incitement and adverse propaganda". Order No. 101 was issued in August 1967. According to the new amendment, restrictions were added to the military order dealing with "sounds": cassettes, photography, film and recording. Order No. 101 deals with publication and printing. Order No. 1079 adds to it definitions of all kinds of "communication expressions" such as the sound of bells, records, cassette tapes or any sound which can be interpreted as political. The new amendment redefines publication to include the spoken word, handwriting, printing, the showing of films or any kind of publication. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 18 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

232. \t<\/span>An Imam in Arroub camp, near Hebron, was fined IS 25,000 for possessing a map of Palestine. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

233. \t<\/span>On 11 January 1984, Israeli military court in Nablus acquitted Palestinian poet and short story writer, Sami Kilani, of charges of incitement and publishing unlicensed material. Kilani, a physics teacher at Al-Najah University, was accused of distributing a poetry collection entitled Wad (A promise to) Iz al-Din al-Qassem "which would incite the population in a way which would threaten safety and public order". After reading a report by literary experts, the military court decided that the collection did not contain inciting material. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

234. \t<\/span>Khalid Mohammed Shakir from Dheisheh refugee camp was sentenced by <\/i>the military court in Hebron to pay IS 1,500 or serve five days in gaol on charges of possessing banned books. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

235. \t<\/span>The Israeli censorship department gave permission for an Arab stage play, "Al Mushahid", to continue performance, following a three-year legal battle between the play's directors and the censor, but only after Israeli censors were reported to have made cuts of a political nature in the script. The censor claimed the play, "Al Mushahid" (Eye Witness) was inciting Palestinians to demonstrate against Israeli policies. The play talks about land expropriation and treatment of Arabs by the Israeli authorities. It was performed in Arab villages in 1980. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 15 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

236. \t<\/span>Al-Mithag's Gaza correspondent, Suleiman Jadallah, was arrested and Wednesday's issue of the newspaper confiscated by the Israeli military. No reason was given for this action. Al-Mithaq has had official permission to distribute its publication in Gaza since 1 October 1982. Jadallah was later released. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 21 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

237. \t<\/span>The Israeli authorities detained a trade unionist, Yusef Al Tamasy (from Hebron), on the charge of being in possession of a Al Tali'ah<\/u> newspaper. The Israeli authorities raided the unionist's house and ordered him to report to the military command the following day,' where he was sent to the prison of Al Fara'a. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 22 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

238. \t<\/span>The High Court of Justice, on 3 April 1984, upheld the Interior Ministry's decision to prohibit the publication of a new Arabic bi-weekly, called Al-Masira<\/u>, in Jerusalem. The court ruled that there was "very good reason" for the refusal of the Ministry's Jerusalem district representative to permit the publication. It rejected a request that the representative be compelled to reveal the evidence on which his decision was based. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 4 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

239. \t<\/span>Security forces, on 12 May 1984, reportedly arrested four employees of the East Jerusalem daily, Al Fajr<\/u>, all of them residents of Idna, north of Hebron, for alleged distribution of "seditious material". The four were released after 20 hours. According to a report the four, two drivers and two pressmen, were travelling from Jerusalem, via Hebron, to Gaza to distribute the newspaper, and were arrested near Hebron. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 13, 14 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

240. \t<\/span>Popular Palestinian artist, Mr. Fathi Ghabin, aged 37, from Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza, was sentenced on 9 May 1984 to six months' imprisonment and fined IS 30,000 on a charge of "incitement through his paintings". The military prosecutor said that Ghabin used his paintings to incite the public, by painting, inter alia<\/u>, the four colors of the Palestinian flag. Mr. Ghabin was taken from the Gaza military court building directly to prison. Reportedly, the court rejected the lawyer's-appeal to allow his client one week in order to make arrangements for the fine and for financial support for his family of five children. The court allegedly gave him one month to pay the fine or one month additional imprisonment. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 18 May 1984; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz, Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 27 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

241. \t<\/span>It was reported that Mr. Ibrahim Abu Sitteh, a Gaza lawyer, had been charged with publishing an advertisement backing PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat in Al Fajr<\/u>. He was also charged with holding a meeting to discuss ways and means of supporting Mr. Arafat against Fatah dissidents. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

242. \t<\/span>The West Bank civil administration, on 25 May 1984, confiscated flags, posters and magazines from an exhibition of Palestinian culture at the Islamic University of Hebron. On 26 May 1984, the civil administration summoned the University authorities to explain why material it contended was inflammatory and hostile to Israel was permitted on the campus. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 27 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

243. \t<\/span>According to a study of the relationship between the Palestinian press and the IDF censor, which appeared in the 1984 yearbook of the National Federation of Israeli Journalists, 15 to 30 per cent of the material submitted to the <\/strong>IDF censor by East Jerusalem newspapers was banned from publication. According to the study, a random sample of the excised material revealed that it contained no military or other State secrets, but rather dealt with policies and Palestinian nationalism, Palestinian heritage, sentiments hostile to Israel, or the legitimacy of the Israeli reality. Also excised were items regarding resistance to the Israeli authorities in the territories and Israeli actions that threaten Palestinian nationalist aspirations, such as the establishment of new Jewish settlements in the territories. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 26 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

D.\t<\/span>Information on measures of annexation and settlement<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1. \t<\/span>Establishment of settlements<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

244. \t<\/span>The joint Government-Jewish Agency settlement committee approved, on 4 September 1983, the establishment of "Ganim B", a settlement in the Jenin area, and the beginning of work on a previously approved settlement in the southern Hebron hills, to be known as Otniel. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 5 September 1983) An updated list of settlements is reproduced in annex V. A list of settlements showing location, year of establishment, and areas of population is reproduced in annex VI.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

245. \t<\/span>Some 120 families were to move into Emanuel in a fortnight's time to form the nucleus of what was expected to become the biggest Jewish town in the West Bank. The population was expected to total 350 families by the end of October 1983. More than 900 flats had been sold. Some 150 of these flats were sold to Jews in the United States, the United Kingdom and Belgium, and 25 of those families were already in absorption centers in Israel. (Jerusalem Post, <\/u>20 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

246. \t<\/span>Speaking at a ceremony marking the fifth anniversary of Tapuah, an "industrial community settlement" in the West Bank, former Defense Minister Ariel Sharon declared that even if Israel did not currently claim those parts of Eretz Yisrael which comprised Jordan, "we should always recall that, though they are not in our hands, they are ours". Recalling that strategic and security reasons were used to justify the establishment of Tapuah, which is located on a hill overlooking the intersection of the "trans-Samaria" and the main Jerusalem-Nablus roads, Sharon declared: "We should no longer stress the contribution to security but rather the fact that Tapuah and these areas are an integral part of Eretz Yisrael, just like Jerusalem, Hebron, Shechem (Nablus) and the mountains of Gilead (in Jordan)". The Jewish Agency's head of settlement department, Mattityahu Drobles, said that the Jewish population in the West Bank numbered more than 30,000 and that 7,000 housing units would be completed within a year. "There would be more than 100,000 Jews in the area by 1985", he said. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 26 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

247. \t<\/span>According to a study of settlement in the West Bank prepared by Mr. Meron Benvenesti, the already existing infrastructure of land and other resources prepared by the Likud Government over the preceding seven years was more than sufficient for it to continue to encourage a large number of Israelis to settle across the 1967 "Green Line". According to the study, some 40 per cent of land (2,150,000 dunams) in the West Bank was available for Israeli use and had already been acquired through expropriation for military purposes, declarations of State land, private and quasi-government purchases and zoning laws which curbed Arab construction. Of this, over 50 per cent had been taken by the army as training areas and firing ranges (most in the Jordan Valley), 140, 000 dunams had already been allocated for Jewish settlement, 150,000 for grazing and afforestation, 340,000 dunams had been set aside as nature reserves, 120,000 dunams had been allocated for Israeli agriculture, 15,000 dunams for industry and 40,000 dunams for roads. Approximately one third of the Gaza Strip had also been set aside for settlement. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 4 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

248. \t<\/span>The joint Government-World Zionist Organization settlement committee, on 5 October 1984, decided to convert six paramilitary settlements in the West Bank to civilian settlements. They are Brosh (in the northern Jordan Valley), Elisha (east of Jericho), Yitzhar (south-west of Nablus), Ginat (north-west of Jenin), Meitzad (north-west of Hebron) and Tzurit (south-west of the Etzion bloc). The Committee also approved the establishment of Tsofim, an urban settlement planned for 1,200 families, to be built by private investors north east of Qalqi1ya. With the creation of these settlements the number of Jewish settlements in the West Bank would reach 118. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 6 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

249. \t<\/span>The newly-appointed municipality in Hebron, headed by Israeli officer Zamir Shemesh, reportedly stopped issuing construction licenses in two neighborhoods close to the Israeli settlement of Kiryat-Arba: Ain Bani Sleim and Bir Mahjar. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 7 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

250. \t<\/span>The World Zionist Organization's Settlement Department had invested, over the preceding three years, $12 million in land reclamation works along the bank of the River Jordan, beyond the security fence. So far 12,000 dunams had already been reclaimed in the area (out of 21,000 dunams designed for reclamation), and 38 kms of roads were built. The co-Chairman of the Settlement Department, Mattityahu Drobles, said during a visit to the area that, by the end of 1987, 30 settlements would exist there, with a population of 10,000. There were 4,000 settlers living in 21 settlements at the time of the report. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 10 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

251.\t<\/span>The joint Government-World Zionist Organization Settlement Committee, headed by Science and Development Minister Yuval Ne'eman, on 14 November 1983, approved the conversion of two Nahal settlements to civilian status: Beit Ha'araba, near Nevo, and Nahal Zurim in the Jordan Valley. The Committee also approved the establishment of Tel-Haim, south of Eilon-Moreh, and Ofarim B in the Binyamin district. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ma'ariv<\/u>, 15 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

252. \t<\/span>A Co-ordinating Committee for the Resettlement of Jews in the Muslim quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem was appointed and was to hold its first meeting on 29 November 1983. Its Chairman, Mr. E. Shilo, reportedly confirmed that the Committee was to consider the resettlement of Jews in the Muslim quarter – in addition to the 120 Jews already living there. He emphasized that there was no intention of modifying the demographic balance in the over-crowded quarter, but added that there were 26 houses there which were Jewish property – most of which was administered by the Custodian of Absentee Property. "In eight houses there were still <\/strong>Arab residents; in another eight there were Jewish residents and the remaining 12 were almost in ruins", Mr. Shilo said. He stated that the "10 to 20" Muslim families who had so far been evacuated from their houses in the quarter were fully compensated. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 29 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

253. \t<\/span>According to military sources, the IDF had decided to establish six new Nahal outposts in the West Bank during January 1984. Nahal outposts are usually handed over, at a later stage, to civilian settlers. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 29 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

254. \t<\/span>Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Minister David Levy, on 9 January 1984, told a delegation of settlers that the "impetus of construction in the settlements will continue and all new settlements whose creation was decided will be built". Levy told the settlers that 6,000 housing units were at present under construction in the territories, and that when these were inhabited the Jewish population of the territories would double. The Minister added that in the past year alone there was a 45 per cent growth in the Jewish population of the territories – from 20,000 to 29,000. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 10 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

255. \t<\/span>On 2 January 1984, the Knesset confirmed, by a majority of 54 to 46, the first reading of a proposal of a law to amend the law governing transfer of property so as to facilitate deals made by Israeli citizens to acquire land in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 11 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

256. \t<\/span>A non-profit organization called "Atara Leyoshna", whose aim is to settle Jews inside the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem's Old City, reportedly started construction in buildings it controls in the quarter. On 18 January 1984, it was reported that the organization planned to spend IS 300 million in building flats in six buildings it controls in the Muslim quarter. According to one report, some 150 Jews at present lived in the Muslim quarter. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 13 and 18 January; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 13 and 18 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

257. \t<\/span>The Ministerial Committee on Settlement approved the creation of two new Nahal outposts in the Gaza Strip, which would later be turned into civilian settlements. Their names are Katif "H" and "I". The chairman of the Committee, Minister Yuval Ne'eman, said that despite the economic situation there was no intention of stopping the impetus of Jewish settlements in all parts of the land of Israel. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 1 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

258. \t<\/span>A document of the Zionist Federation's Settlement Department contained details about the future development of the "Benyamin" Jewish regional council – which stretches north of Jerusalem. According to the plan, by the year 2010, 27 new settlements were to be built in that area, sources of employment and infrastructure were to be created and a sum of IS 85 billion was to be invested. In 26 years' time the Jewish population of the area would stand at 190,000 in 47 settlements, and the Arab population would be 240,000. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 6 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

259. \t<\/span>The site of a settlement, part of a plan drawn up by the Knesset's Settlement Commission in January 1984, providing for the erection of five new settlements in the Gaza Strip, was traced in an area between the towns of Khan Yunis and Rafah, where houses and land belonging to hundreds of families living in that area are located. The settlement was to include 3,000 housing units. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 23 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

260. \t<\/span>A new settlement, named "Eruvin" was set up on 5 March 1984 south of one Etzion bloc, at the initiative of the Etzion bloc regional council and with the approval of the State bodies concerned. Eruvin, which consisted of three tents and a barbed wire perimeter, was located between the village of Bet-Ummar and Halhul, some 5 kms south of the Etzion bloc. It was planned that some 150 families would settle in Eruvin. Eight dunams of land belonging to local Arabs were confiscated in order to build a road to the new settlement. Arab residents expressed the fear that more lands would be seized for the future expansion of the settlement. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 6 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

261. \t<\/span>On 2 April 1984, the Ministerial Settlement Committee and World Zionist Organization officials decided to establish two new settlements in the West Bank: Livna – in southern Mount Hebron, north of the Yattir forest, with 30 housing units in the first stage – and Eli, north-west of Shilo, on a hill called Jebel a-Rawa, also with 30 housing units in the first stage. The Committee also decided to turn the Ma'aleh-Levona outpost into a civilian settlement, and to locate a site for the permanent settlement of "Adam" – a nucleus composed of residents of Jerusalem suburbs. It was suggested that the permanent settlement would be set up near the village of Jaba, north of Anatot. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 2 April; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 3 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

262. \t<\/span>The World Zionist Organization, on 5 April 1984, completed moving some 30 buildings to a hill south-east of Nablus for the projected settlement of Tel-Haim, situated near the site which had originally served Eilon-Moreh, some 5 kms south-east of Nablus. Tel-Haim was to be the thirteenth settlement within a 10 kms radius of Nablus. According to a source in the World Zionist Organization, with the construction of Tel-Haim the city of Nablus will be surrounded by Jewish settlements, except for the area north-east of city, where the nearest settlement, Irit, is more than 10 kms away. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 6 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

263. \t<\/span>The Ministerial Settlement Committee, on 10 April 1984, approved the creation of four new settlements in the West Bank: Irit – 15 kms north-east of Nablus which was to be a ccmmunal settlement with 250 families; Adam – near the village of Jaba, north-east of Jerusalem, which was to be peopled by a nucleus composed of residents of Jerusalem suburbs; Omarim B, in southern Mount Hebron – a secular–communal settlement, and Hirbert-Zanoah – also a secular-communal settlement near the ancient site of Yattir, in southern Mount Hebron. Two settlements were approved in the Gaza Strip: Nissanit and Bnei-Atzmon. The approval followed a decision by Finance Minister Cohen-Orgad to release a large part of the settlement budget at the beginning of the financial year, on 1 April 1984. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 11 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

264. \t<\/span>On 9 May 1984, the inauguration was reported of two new settlements in the West Bank: Tel-Haim, near the village of Rujeib – the original site of Eilon-Moreh, and Ma'aleh-Levona, on the Ramallah-Nablus road. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 9 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

265. \t<\/span>The Finance Ministry reportedly decided to approve an additional budget for the creation of five new settlements and the expansion of 15 to 20 existing ones in the West Bank. The Chairman of the Zionist Federation's Settlement Department, Mattityahu Drobles, on 14 May 1984, announced that his Department had already started preparatory work for the construction of the new settlements. On 14 May 1984, the Ministerial Committee on Settlements decided to approve the conversion into civilian settlements of two outposts in the West Bank: Miqdalim – west of Maaleh Efraim and Hakhlili – south of Hebron. Mr. Drobles reportedly said that it would be impossible to establish these settlements unless the Finance Ministry provided an additional budget for them. The Ministerial Committee also approved the establishment of Adam, which was to be built by the Housing Ministry 8 kms north of Jerusalem, in the Jaba area. On 14 May 1984, the Committee approved a request by private entrepreneurs to build two settlements in the northern West Bank, near the "Green Line": Neria, near Elkana, north-east of Petah-Tikva, and Ya'arit, across from Tzur-Natan. But it was reported that the Justice Minister, Moshe Nissim, on 15 May 1984, appealed to the Cabinet in plenary session against that decision, as the ownership of the land on which the two settlements were planned was still disputed. According to a Justice Ministry source, the appeal automatically suspended implementation of the Committee's decision until the entire Cabinet considered the matter. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Ma'ariv<\/u>, 15 May 1984; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 16 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

266. \t<\/span>The Chairman of the Zionist Federation's Settlement Department, Mattityahu Drobles, on 28 May 1984, presented a "Metropolitan plan for Jerusalem" to the Greater Jerusalem Council – an ad hoc group that has no statutory role. The plan provides for the creation of a metropolitan area around Jerusalem, stretching from Sha'ar-Hagai in the west to Kfar Adumim in the east and from Beit-El (near Ramallah) in the north to Gush-Etzion in the south. The purpose of the plan was to increase sharply the Jewish population in that area in the coming decades while curbing Arab growth, which Mr. Drobles described as a "cancer around Jerusalem, threatening to strangle the capital, due to a growing influx of West-Bank villagers to empty areas which are State lands from Bir Zeit and Ramallah in the north to Bethlehem in the south". According to Drobles, some 100,000 to 150,000 Arabs had come in recent years to the area around Jerusalem, and 43 per cent of them had built houses without permits. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 28, 29 May 1984).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

267. \t<\/span>The inauguration was reported, on 30 May 1984, of the civilian settlement of Ma'aleh-Omarim, situated in the Hebron hills. It was previously called Teneh and was a Nahal outpost. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 30 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

268. \t<\/span>The inauguration ceremony was reported, on 5 June 1984, of the new settlement of Tel-Haim, south of Eilon-Moreh. The new settlement is located at precisely the same site of the first Eilon-Moreh, which was built by Gush-Emunim. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 5 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

269. \t<\/span>The Ministerial Committee on Settlement decided, on 10 June 1984, to approve three new settlements in the West Bank:  Eli-Shama – on the lands of the village of Haris which were purchased by the Land Redemption Fund of the West Bank settlements. The other two settlements are Neria and Ya'arit, to be built by private entrepreneurs. The Ministerial Committee decided to approve the creation of the two latter settlements but to delay their construction pending a decision by the Ministry of Justice's Civilian Department, headed by Mrs. Plia Albek, on the ownership of the land. The Committee also approved the creation of two new settlements on the Golan: Ein Kanaf and Daliot. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 11 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

270. \t<\/span>A corner-stone was reportedly laid in a ceremony, starting work on the second stage of the settlement town of Alfe Mansheh, in the Nablus mountains. Five hundred separate housing units were completed in the first stage and 400 more were to be built immediately. The majority of the town inhabitants were reported to be regular army soldiers and members of Defense employees' families. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 22 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

271. \t<\/span>A wave of new settlements and ceremonial inaugurations was reported in the weeks preceding the 23 July 1984 general election in Israel. According to one report, some of these new settlements did not receive the settling authorities' approval, and most of them were described as "speedy operations", designed to establish facts on the ground. The following are some of these new settlements and their date of "settling on the ground" or inauguration:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

8 July 1984<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tSome 20 settlers set up tents on the site of Neot-Adumim<\/u>, <\/u>between the Arab village of Gizariya and Maaleh-Adumim. The site had been approved by the settling bodies, but no budget had been found for the settlement. A group of settlers reportedly settled on the site of Abr-Yaacov<\/u>, near the Arab village of Aqab, north of Neveh-Yaacov. A source in the Jewish Agency's Settlement Department reported that these two settlements were set up on the settlers' own initiative.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

15 July 1984<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tA ceremony was held at Adam<\/u>, 5 kms north-east of Neveh-Yaacov. Adam was to be peopled by former Jerusalem slum neighborhood families. The same day, the joint Government and World Zionist Federation Settlement Committee approved the establishment of four more settlements in the West Bank and one on the eastern shore of Lake Tiberias (Sea of Galilee). The settlements approved by the Committee are: Avney-Hefetz<\/u> (an urban settlement for 1,000 families, 5 kms east of Tulkarm); Nava (a communal settlement in Samaria); Selaim<\/u> (a second suburb of the communal settlement of Ateret); Anar<\/u> (a communal settlement in Samaria) and a fishermen's village in the Golan Heights, on the north-eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

16 July 1984<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

A ceremony was held at Givat -Ehud<\/u>, near Modi'in. <\/p><\/div>\n

\n\t\t\t\tAt the site of Asfar<\/u>, 8 kms north-east of Hebron, Nahal soldiers handed over their outpost to a group of Yeshiva students. A ceremony was held at Meitzad<\/u>, in the Hebron hills.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

18 July 1984<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tYitzhar<\/u>, a military outpost south of Mt. Berakha (south-east of Nablus) was turned into a civilian settlement.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

19 July 1984<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tHagai<\/u>, a military outpost in Mount Ziv, south of Hebron, was turned into a civilian settlement.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

22 July 1984<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tThree new settlements in the Gaza Strip were dedicated: Nissanit<\/u>, Netzarim<\/u> and Rafiah-Yam<\/u>.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

On the same day, the joint Government and Zionist Federation Committee approved the creation of three new settlements:  Tirza<\/u>, a communal settlement near Tubas, north-east of Nablus (an aide to one of the ministers noted that Nablus was already surrounded by Jewish settlements but that there was a gap in the Tubas area); Ilanit<\/u>, in Western Samaria, and a fishermen's village in the northern part of the Gaza Strip. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 13, 19 and 23 July 1984; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 10, 13, 17, 18, 22 and 23 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2. \t<\/span>Expropriation of property<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

272. \t<\/span>The following paragraphs contain references to "dunams" to describe surface area. A dunam is equivalent to 1,000 square meters.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

273. \t<\/span>Two hundred and fifty dunams of land were confiscated on 7 October 1983 in the Beit Sahur area. The land, described as a "mountainous agricultural area" is situated near a military camp and was confiscated for "military purposes". The military order under which the land was confiscated reportedly gave owners an unspecified period of time to oppose the confiscation order and to claim compensation. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 14 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

274. \t<\/span>Israeli military authorities reportedly seized more than 200 dunams of land belonging to villagers from Jamma, south of Nablus, by declaring it "government property". It was also reported that 10,000 dunams were taken from Lubban al Sharqiyeh, allegedly in order to be afforested and handed to the Shilo settlement. Four thousand dunams were reportedly declared public property near the village of Jin, in the Tulkarm area. The expropriated lands are the areas of Jabal Saris, Kurm-Abid and Khalat Hilal. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 11 November 1983) <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

275. \t<\/span>It was reported that between 4,000 and 6,000 dunams were declared government property on 17 November 1983 in the village of Beit Ula, in the Hebron district. The 60 owners of the land were notified verbally through the mukhtars<\/u> that they could protest the decision within 30 days. The confiscated land is in the fertile valleys and is planted with vegetables and wheat. The Israeli army had occasionally used other parts of Beit Ula for training and maneuvers. It was also reported that over 1,500 dunams were seized on 16 November 1983 from Ramallah, Beitunia and Rafat. According to Israeli sources the land was taken for military purposes. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

276. \t<\/span>The military authorities confiscated 3,000 dunams from the village of 'Ajul (Ramallah). This confiscation brings the total of land confiscated to one third of the village land in less than four years. The land confiscated from 'Ajul is located south of the village. Not far from this land is the ATERET settlement which was erected four years ago on 'Ajul and Om Safa property. The land in question is cultivated up to 80 per cent with olive and fig trees as well as barley and wheat. (Al Ittihad<\/u>, 19 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

277. \t<\/span>The West Bank civil administration declared 4,500 dunams near the village of Jaba, between Ramallah and Jericho, as State land. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 12 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

278. \t<\/span>Landowners from the village of Aboueen, near Ramallah, appealed to the Military Objections Committee against the expropriation of 1,300 dunams of their land. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 15 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

279. \t<\/span>In late January 1984, settlers from Karmei'la settlement erected fences around Arab Ka'abneh houses and lands covering an area of some 1,800 to 2,000 dunums, and claimed that the land is State property. Over 10,000 dunums belonging to Ka'abneh Bedouin have been confiscated since 1967 for military purposes.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

280. \t<\/span>Kufr Labad village council (Tulkarm) was reportedly informed by the military government that 1,200 dunams of farm land in their village of Shoufa had been expropriated. (Al Fajr<\/u>, <\/u>27 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

281. \t<\/span>The Halhul municipal council was informed by the military government of the expropriation of 2,000 dunams of land in Dhahr Khilal, Ras Ashraf and Qannieh, near Beit Ula and Nuba. (Al Fajr<\/u>, <\/u>4May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

282. \t<\/span>The Israeli archaeological department was making preparations to fence and confiscate large land areas at Tal Balata, east of Nablus. Reportedly, the authorities had earlier opened a road through Arab-owned land belonging to villagers from Kufr Qallil in order to connect the <\/strong>Eilon-Moreh settlement with the Bracha settlement, on top of Mount Jerzim. The targeted area contained the two largest schools in Nablus: Haj Ma'azouz al-Masri School and Qadri Toukan School With 1,500 students each. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

283. \t<\/span>The Gaza military governor reportedly handed residents of Beit Lahiya an order Closing 2,450 dunams of planted citrus land. This order banned 2,000 peasant farmers from entering their land north of the village to work on it. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 1 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

E.\t<\/span>Information on treatment of detainees<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

284. \t<\/span>Palestinian prisoners in the Hebron prison complained that their Israeli guards were treating them "almost like animals"; they stated that they were denied basic medical care and supplies, forced to sleep on the bare floor, prevented from listening to the radio and from receiving visitors. Parents and relatives of the prisoners had not been allowed to visit them for two months. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 2 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

285. \t<\/span>Police and soldiers reportedly used tear-gas to suppress a riot in the Gaza police lock-up. One prisoner, who was suspected of collaborating with the police, was thrown out of a second floor window and was badly injured, but was later reported out of danger. <\/strong>(Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 4 September; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 5 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

286. \t<\/span>Palestinian detainees in the Ashkelon prison issued a statement on 9 September 1983 condemning the discriminatory policies of the prison authorities against them. The statement said the prisoners were used as subjects of medical experiments, while being denied basic medical treatment. In particular, the prisoners called for intervention to save the lives of Kheder Hassan Qattami who suffered from skin cancer, and Fayez Badawi who had leukemia. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 16 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

287. \t<\/span>According to advocate Felicia Langer, the prisoner, Nabil Khalil Shawkeh, aged 25, from Nablus, was suffering from kidney problems and required immediate treatment to save his life. Shawkeh was arrested in November 1982 for membership of an illegal organization and training in the use of arms, and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison. His family petitioned, in May 1983, for his release but their letters were ignored. Since then, he had been sent several times to Ramle prison hospital for dialysis. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 23 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

288. \t<\/span>According to a group called "Women Against Occupation", conditions of Palestinian women prisoners in the Neve-Tirtza gaol were worsening and getting "unbearable". Palestinian political prisoners in Neve-Tirtza have refused to cook for the prison guards and to work in the kitchen. In retaliation, the prison authorities allegedly made life more difficult for the women and took away from them some of their prison rights. According to the report published in Ha'aretz on 6 November 1983, the "Operations and Protection" Unit of the Prisons Service, on 31 October 1983, used tear-gas against 30 prisoners who rioted in their cells. The prisoners were protesting against the transfer of the library, which mostly holds Arabic books, from the dining hall to another wing. According to lawyer Lea Tsemel, who visited the Neve Tirtza prison after the incident, prisoners were beaten. Some prisoners also told Mrs. Tsemel that they were denied medical treatment. <\/strong>A spokesman for the Prisons Service denied these allegations. In a related development, advocate Felicia Langer said her client, Ittaf Salameh, informed her that a month earlier she had fallen ill and had asked to see a doctor, but was allegedly ignored. Salameh reportedly suffered occasional severe headaches, and feared she might have cerebral problems requiring medical attention. Salameh's 8 and 10-year-old children were allegedly refused entry to Neve-Tirtza when they came to visit their mother. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 7 October, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 6 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

289. \t<\/span>Palestinians held in detention in a center near Ramle prison complained of ill-treatment and beating by Israeli soldiers. A letter from a detainee to an Israeli official said one prisoner attempted suicide after a beating. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 14 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

290. \t<\/span>It was reported on 20 November 1983 that security prisoners in Hebron had been on strike for several weeks in protest against the partitioning of an exercise yard. The men were reportedly refusing to leave their cells for exercise, to receive telegrams from relatives and to receive or to send letters. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 20 November 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

291. \t<\/span>Security prisoners in the Jenin prison went on a hunger-strike to protest their condition in detention. It was also reported that the strike declared by political prisoners in the Hebron prison had entered its fifth month. One of the prisoners, Dr. Ibrahim Abu Hillal, was reportedly suffering severe back and ear pains but had not yet received treatment. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 5 December; Al Fajr<\/u>, 9 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

292. \t<\/span>Lawyer Felicia Langer called on the West Bank military legal adviser to stop the torture of her client, Abdullah Mahmoud Bashir, at Nablus prison. After visiting Bashir, who is serving a 10-month sentence, she learned that he had been in an isolation cell for 16 days where he could not see light or wash. He was also beaten and subjected to ill-treatment to force him to admit to having committed acts which he had not in fact committed. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 4 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

293. \t<\/span>The Prisons Service Commissioner, Mordechai Wertheimer, speaking before a commission of inquiry on <\/i>prison conditions in Israel, said on 7 February that tear-gas had been in use in Israeli prisons for many years in cases of rioting, when there was no other way to overpower one or several prisoners. A member of the commission, Prof. David Livay, said that he had asked inmates in the Ramle prison about allegations made in the press that tear-gas was also being used against single prisoners in solitary confinement – and that the inmates confirmed these allegations. Mr. Wertheimer said he had not heard about these allegations and that no complaints had been made on that matter. (Ma'ariv<\/u>, 8 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

294. \t<\/span>Information leaked from the Fara'a interrogation center and published in Al Ittihad<\/u> reported worsening conditions. According to the report, a special team had been created to interrogate detainees. The prisoners had also been denied access to the exercise yard. Prisoners at Fara'a increased by 70 early in February, 30 of whom were tawjihi students arrested for two days thus causing them to miss, and therefore fail, the examination (matriculation examination). Three students from Bir Zeit University were still under detention in Al Fara'a despite the fact that eight others had been released the week before. Furthermore, the strike staged by political prisoners detained in Hebron prison in protest against their conditions of detention continued. These prisoners complained to Mrs. Felicia Langer of crowded cells and of being deprived from seeing the sun because of the wall surrounding Al Fara'a courtyard. Mrs. Felicia Langer said that her client, Rajeh Khafash, had been under detention for 75 days in an individual cell in Nablus prison. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 16 February; Al Fajr<\/u>, 22 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

295. \t<\/span>Hamzeh Zaqut, aged 23, a fourth-year student at Bir Zeit University, claimed that security police withheld medical care from him after he was shot in both legs when a demonstration took place in Bir Zeit University on 27 July 1983 to protest the grenade attack on Hebron University, which left three dead, and in-which, he said, he had not participated. Zaqut was hospitalized on 22 February 1984 at Makassed Hospital in Jerusalem after his condition had worsened and doctors feared that his nervous system might be damaged. A Ramallah judge agreed, after two trials, to release him on bail but he remained chained to a bed in Rafidiya Hospital in Nablus. Hamzeh's doctors stated there was little chance that he would be able to walk normally again. There was also fear that because of the delay in treatment, the nervous system in one leg could not be rehabilitated. West Bank deputy police commander David Cohen responded that he would examine the case and if he found that the claims were well founded, he would take the necessary steps. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 29 February 1984; Ha'aretz<\/u>, 1 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

296. \t<\/span>The Palestinian prisoners (400) detained in Ashkelon military prison were pursuing their hunger-strike which had started on 5 March 1984. They protested against prison conditions: ill-treatment, lack of hot water for over seven months, keeping the cells closed for 22 hours per day, over-crowding, as well as deprivation of books, newspapers and access to the radio. (Al Ittihad<\/u>, 9 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

297. \t<\/span>According to a report in Zu-Haderekh <\/u>(the weekly magazine of the Israeli communist party, Rakah), the 250 political prisoners held in the Hebron prison had been on strike for eight months for refusing to take walks in the yard, to receive visitors and to write letters. In a report smuggled outside the prison, the detainees alleged that the prison authorities exerted heavy pressures on them to break the strike, but that they were determined to continue until their demands were met. These included increasing the walking area in the yard, improvement of quality of meals, an end to attacks by warders against detainees, additional mattresses, removal of barbed-wire fences in the visiting rooms, easing the overcrowding conditions in the cells and improving the sanitary conditions. (Zu Haderekh<\/u>, 14 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

298. \t<\/span>Conditions of women detainees in Neve Tirtza prison were very harsh according to a report published by the Al Ittihad <\/u>daily. Neemat Al Helw, one of the Palestinian detainees, who was serving a prison sentence on security charges and who was released on 29 November 1983, gave some details about her experience in Neve Tirtza. At the beginning of a strike that occurred in June 1983, it appears that prisoners were confined to their cells for 23 hours a day and prohibited contact with the outside. They were also deprived of books and newspapers. At a later stage, strikers were allegedly subjected to harsh treatment: beating, spraying of gas in cells with locked windows and doors, deprivation of hot water, etc. (Al Ittihad, 16 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

299. \t<\/span>On 25 March 1984, the League for Human and Civil Rights in Israel alleged that the detention center at Fara'a was a "factory for extracting confessions", and that inmates, most of them minors, were subjected to torture, brutality and inhuman conditions to break them. League Secretary Yosef Algazi was reported as stating that Fara'a was divided into two parts: one was a prison administered by the military police, with regard to which there were no serious complaints. But the other part was an interrogation center under the control of the General Security services (GSS). Neither the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) nor lawyers representing detainees were allowed into the interrogation center. Senior military sources dismissed the allegations as "nothing new". They stressed that detainees had full access to the courts and lawyers to submit complaints about ill-treatment. Only two of the 25 detainees named by the League in its allegations had availed themselves of the opportunity to complain to the military courts or to their lawyers, "and this is strange and puzzling", the sources said. Any allegation of maltreatment was thoroughly investigated, and offenders were prosecuted and punished if found guilty, they added. They went on to say that every detainee was allowed to meet a Red Cross representative privately outside the interrogation center on the fourteenth day of detention if the interrogation had not been completed. As far as these sources were aware, no complaints about torture or maltreatment had been conveyed to the military authorities through ICRC. (The GSS, which is responsible for the interrogation center, is responsible to the Prime Minister, but operates in the occupied territories under the Central Region Commander and the terms of international law, since the area is under military occupation.) (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 26 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

300. \t<\/span>The family of political prisoner, Mr. Samih Hamshary, from Tulkarm and ICRC were reportedly working to secure his release on the grounds that he is mentally ill and needed treatment. Mr. Hamshary, who was in Nablus prison, had been sentenced in 1978 to seven years in prison on security charges. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 20 April 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

301. \t<\/span>ICRC and lawyer Felicia Langer reportedly appealed to the Israeli military authorities for the release of Mr. Kheder Hassan Qattami, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 1968. Mr. Qattami, aged 37, had leukemia. Mrs. Langer, who had visited the Palestinian political prisoner on 25 April 1984, said that his condition was deteriorating and that he should be released immediately in order to receive proper medical treatment. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 4 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

302. \t<\/span>According to a spokesman for the Southern Region Police, overcrowding in lock-ups and in police stations in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip "has reached the limits of explosion". This overcrowding allegedly lead to fights among the detainees. In one such incident which occurred in the Rafah lock-up on 18 May 1984 a detainee, Ayed Ismail Marah, aged 28, was attacked by two other inmates and was seriously injured. In all the police stations in the Gaza Strip there was room for 58 detainees but there were 123 detainees held there as at mid-May 1984. The situation was worse in the West Bank police stations where 68 detainees were held in lock-ups designed to accommodate 22 detainees. (Ma'ariv<\/u>, Yediot<\/u> Aharonot<\/u>, 20 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

303. \t<\/span>A new central prison for the West Bank with a capacity for 1,000 security prisoners, was opened near Nablus on 7 June 1984. it was reported that about 500 security prisoners from the Beersheba prison were to be moved to the new prison within a short time. The small prison near Tulkarm, with 80 inmates, would also be closed and prisoners held in police lock-ups would be transferred to the new prison. The new prison reportedly has sophisticated electronic equipment that <\/strong>would make it possible to reduce the number of warders. The prison also has a hospital and X-ray facilities, modern kitchens and vast promenade areas. (Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 4 June; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 8 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

304. \t<\/span>On 19 June 1984, three West Bank residents held in the Fara'a prison applied to the High Court of Justice requesting that the torture and ill-treatment to which they were allegedly subject in that prison should stop. The petition, submitted by lawyer Felicia Langer, alleged that one of the prisoners, Mr. Kayam Anwar Awayes, from Nablus, had tried to commit suicide by swallowing a key because of the beatings and torture. The petition further alleged that investigators in Fara'a continued to resort to inhuman methods to obtain confessions. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 21 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

305. \t<\/span>Palestinian political prisoners in Hebron prison were expected to meet family visitors on 22 June 1984 for the first time in 11 months after halting their protest strike for improvement in conditions. The strike reportedly ended on 18 June 1984 after the prison management agreed to most of the prisoners' demands. An ad hoc committee of prisoners' relatives and friends intervened in the negotiations and concluded the agreement. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 22 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

306. \t<\/span>The prison authorities in Gaza allegedly used tear-gas to disperse a protest gathering by prisoners. A prison authority source denied reports that the Red Cross representative was denied access to the prisoners who declared a hunger-strike. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 29 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

307. \t<\/span>Families of the detainees held in the new Nablus prison staged a sit-in strike at the Red Cross offices in Nablus. They were protesting against the ill-treatment and the bad conditions of the new prison. (Al Ittihad<\/u>, 10 July; Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 12 July; Al Fajr<\/u>, 13 July 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

\n\t\t\t\tF.\t<\/span>Information on judicial remedies sought by the civilian population<\/u>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

308. \t<\/span>On 12 September 1983, some 170 Arab lawyers in the West Bank began a two-day strike in protest against changes in the legal system in the area introduced by the civil administration. The lawyers, who were supported by local judges, were protesting against a military order introduced two months earlier which removed the adjudication of issues relating to unregistered land from local Arab courts to a military Objections Committee consisting of three military-appointed officials, two of whom were lawyers. The Chairman of the Objections Committee is the President of the West Bank military <\/i>court. The civil administration stated that Order No. 1060 was introduced to counter a rash of forgeries affecting land transaction between Palestinians and Israelis. The Arab lawyers also complained about increases in court fees and changes in regulations. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, 12 September; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, 13 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

309. \t<\/span>A former commander of the military district in the southern West Bank, Lt. Col. Shalom Lugassi, was acquitted on 13 September 1983 after a disciplinary hearing before Deputy Chief of Staff Brigadier David Ivri, of all charges of brutality against Arab residents of the West Bank and irregular conduct. Colonel Yaacov Hartavi, the brigade commander in the Hebron area at the time of the <\/strong>incidents in 1982, was acquitted of two similar charges, but was told to bring witnesses with regard to two other charges. The charges against the two officers came to light during the trial, earlier in 1983, at the central military court in Jaffa, of eight soldiers, some of whom were found guilty of mistreating Arab detainees. The court in Jaffa had determined, on the basis of the evidence submitted to it, that the orders given by Colonel Hartavi were blatantly illegal. It was later reported that Colonel Hartavi was acquitted, on 18 September 1983, of all the charges relating to the incidents in Hebron. No reason for the acquittal was published. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, Jerusalem Post, 14, 19 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

310. \t<\/span>The President of Israel reportedly commuted the sentence of "Kach" activist Arieh Bar-Yosef, aged 26, who had been found guilty of wounding an Arab child during a shooting incident in Hebron at the beginning of the year. Bar-Yosef was originally sentenced to four months in prison by the district court in Jerusalem, but after an appeal to the Supreme Court in May 1983 by the State Prosecutor, the sentence was increased to one year. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 18, 19 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

311. \t<\/span>The Jerusalem District Court, on 20 September 1983, acquitted Rabbi Yisrael Ariel and 28 of his followers from Kiryat-Arba of charges of attempting to break into the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on 10 March 1983 and of stirring up hostility between Muslims and Jews. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, Ma'ariv<\/u>, 21 September 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

312. \t<\/span>The Jerusalem District Court, on 6 October 1983, sentenced a Kiryat-Arba settler, Eliezer Itzkowich, to one-year imprisonment and one-year suspended term, after finding him guilty of firing a gun and wounding an El-Bireh youth, Taher Juma'ah, in July 1982. The Supreme Court, on 15 December 1983, reduced the prison term to six months. The Supreme Court said it was convinced that Itzkovitz was an upright citizen who had lost control of himself when local boys threw stones at him, and he had expressed his sincere regret over the incident. (Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 6 October 1983; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 10 October; Al Fajr<\/u>, 14 October 1983; Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 16 December 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

313. \t<\/span>On 9 October 1983, the High Court of Justice gave its reason for confirming the decision of the Israeli army commander in the West Bank to seal the homes of two youths from the Aida refugee camp, near Bethlehem, for throwing petrol bombs at Israeli buses and military vehicles travelling on the Jerusalem-Hebron highway. –<\/i>Lea Tsemel, attorney for the applicant who sought a reversal of the commander's decision, argued that the commander had used his discretion in a vengeful manner and had abused his authority in ordering the sealing of the houses. The court rejected the petition in September 1983. It ruled that given the circumstances of the case, it saw no reason to interfere with the discretion and judgement of the military commander, whose obligation it was to protect law and order in the area and to protect those who use public thoroughfares, Jews and Arabs alike. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 10 October 1983)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

314. \t<\/span>The Israeli High Court issued an order nisi<\/u> on 17 January 1984 preventing the military court in the Gaza Strip from convening any session to discuss the demolition of 24 houses in Jabaliya refugee camp, which had been ordered over two years earlier. The order nisi<\/u> stipulated that a three-judge court would decide whether the Gaza military court had authority to discuss the issue. Twenty-four families had been ordered by the military governor in Gaza to demolish additional rooms and new houses in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA-run Jabaliya camp, on 14 August 1981, which the military claimed had been built illegally. The families had been given four days to carry out the demolitions. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 25 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

315. \t<\/span>After two months of efforts through his two lawyers Felicia Langer and Jawad Boulos, Seif Bahlul (from Jin Safut) was recognized by the Nablus court as the owner of land that the Israeli company "Kukhaf Shamsun" was trying to seize. On thebasis of the court ruling the land-owner requested that all the settlers who had already brought in their bulldozers be expelled from his land. (Al Tali'ah<\/u>, 26 January 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

316. \t<\/span>The Jerusalem District Attorney, on 31 January 1984, filed charges against six Kiryat-Arba settlers for rioting in the Hebron market in July 1983 following the murder of Yeshiva student Aharon Gross. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 1 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

317. \t<\/span>A three-member military Objections Committee, chaired by a High Court judge, recommended on 19 February 1984 that Khaled Qudra, the Deputy Chairperson of the Gaza lawyers union, be permitted to leave Khan Yunis twice a week for professional reasons. Qudra had been given a six-month town restriction order by the military governor of Gaza on 27 December 1983, which restricted him to Khan Yunis at the southern end of the Gaza Strip. Khaled Qudra said that he had not committed any offence against security and that the decision to put him under town restriction endangers his professional life, causing him financial hardship and gravely limiting his freedom of movement. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 22 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

318. \t<\/span>Two leaders of the Kiryat-Arba settlement, Moshe Rosenthal, formerly the settlement's security officer, and Ze'ev Friedman, formerly deputy chairman of the local council, were found guilty on 28 February 1984 of interfering with the course of justice by destroying an explosive device that they had found hidden in the council building in the spring of 1982. Rosenthal was given a six-month suspended sentence and Friedman – a nine-month suspended sentence. The prosecution contended that the two men had destroyed the explosive device after deciding that it may have been put together by Jews and may have been connected with the attack on the West Bank Mayors in 1980. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 29 February 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

319. \t<\/span>On 8 March 1984, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a Jewish resident, Yisrael Fuchs, aged 21, from 39 to 30 months. Fuchs had been convicted of shooting at a car near Hebron in 1983. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 9 March 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

320. \t<\/span>The High Court of Justice, on 1 April 1984, issued an interim injunction banning the civil administration from demolishing three houses belonging to residents of the Jabaliya refugee camp, in the Gaza Strip. Justice Dov Levin issued the injunction pending a final decision on the matter, which was to be given by a three-justice panel. The Israeli authorities reversed their decision to demolish the houses. (Ha'aretz<\/u>, Ma'ariv<\/u>, 2 April; Al Fajr<\/u>, 8 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

321. \t<\/span>The Israeli High Court issued an order nisi on 30 April 1984 requiring the Israeli authorities to explain why they do not cancel the town restriction order against Mr. Faysal Abdul Al-Qader Hussein, head of the Arab Studies Center in Jerusalem. The Court's verdict gave the commander of the region and the Minister of the Interior 30 days to explain the ban. (Al Fajr<\/u>, 4 May 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

322. \t<\/span>Mr. Hazan Levy, a member of the "Kach" movement was sentenced to four years' imprisonment – 21 months of which to be effective, for his participation in a series of anti-Arab acts. Following a plea-bargaining with the prosecution, Mr. Levy pleaded guilty to all the charges and, in exchange, the charge of attempted murder was dropped. (Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 17 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

323. \t<\/span>On 17 June 1984, three paratroop officers were acquitted by the Central Region Military Court of the charge of causing the death of a resident of Tayassir, in the West Bank, on 12 December 1983. The villager was killed by a bullet in a training area near his house. The court convicted the officers of negligence. Two lieutenants were each sentenced to three months' suspended term and a second-lieutenant, to one-and-a-half month's suspended term. (Yediot Aharonot<\/u>, 18 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

324. \t<\/span>Six Kiryat-Arba and Hebron settlers were put on trial, charged with arson and disorderly behavior in the Hebron market, following the murder of Yeshiva student Aharon Gross on 7 July 1983. (Jerusalem Post<\/u>, Ha'aretz<\/u>, 22 June 1984)<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

V.\t<\/span>CONCLUSIONS<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

325. \t<\/span>The present report has been prepared in accordance with the mandate of the Special Committee as renewed by the General Assembly by its resolution 38\/79 D of 15 December 1983.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

326. \t<\/span>Section II contains a description of the organization by the Special Committee of its work during the period since the adoption of its last report. As may be ascertained from section II, the Government of Israel continued to withhold its co-operation from the Special Committee. Section III spells out the mandate of the Special Committee as defined in previous years; in this context, the Special Committee noted that, during the period covered by this report, that part of its mandate reflected in General Assembly resolution 3005 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972 had particular relevance. By that resolution the General Assembly extended the mandate of the Special Committee to include the investigation of 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 the interference in the freedom of worship in the Holy Places of the occupied territories. Section IV contains a summary of the information and evidence before the Special Committee. The Special Committee, having been precluded from visiting the occupied territories, conducted a series of hearings in Amman and in Damascus in May and June of this year where it could hear the evidence of persons from the occupied territories who have first-hand knowledge and personal experience of the human rights situation in those territories. In addition, the Special Committee followed the situation in the occupied territories on a day-to-day basis through reports appearing in the Israeli press. The Special Committee examined several communications and reports from individuals and organizations addressed to it in the course of the period covered by the present report.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

327. \t<\/span>Section IV is subdivided into six parts. Section IV.A contains a summary of the oral evidence received by the Special Committee. Section IV.B sets out information reflecting the policy followed by the Government of Israel in the occupied territories. This information is subdivided into information illustrating the general policy of the Government in the territories and information reflecting the policy of the Government in regard to the treatment of civilians. This last subdivision was considered necessary in view of the volume of the information received which the Special Committee considered to be an unequivocal enunciation of such policy.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

328. \t<\/span>On the basis of the information and evidence before it, the Special Committee notes that the general policy of the Government of Israel continues to follow the same lines as in previous years. This policy is based on the concept that the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 constitute part of the State of Israel and that, therefore, measures taken by the Government of Israel, such as the establishment of settlements and the transfer of Israeli citizens to the occupied territories did not constitute a process of annexation. Illustrative of this policy are statements by members of the Government of Israel made during the period covered by this report and reflected in section IV.B above. The Special Committee notes that statements of this kind, however formulated, reflecting an unequivocal intention of the Government of Israel to annex the territories occupied by it in 1967 are in violation of the obligations of Israel under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It may be recalled that this Convention stipulates that military occupation is to be considered as a temporary, de facto<\/u>, situation giving no right whatsoever to the occupying Power over the territorial integrity of the occupied territories. This general policy is further reflected in the statements made by members of the Government of Israel and Israeli military authorities concerning the treatment of civilians in these territories. These are reflected in section IV.B.2 above. An illustration of this policy is that provided by the announcement on 5 February 1984, as reported in the Jerusalem Post<\/u> of 6 February 1984, made with the avowed aim "to deter Arab attacks on Jews and Jewish vigilante action in retaliation". Under this "new policy", military courts were to be asked to impose severe prison sentences on Arabs throwing stones or petrol bombs and new guidelines were given in regard to measures of reprisals such as demolition, collective punishment and deportation with the presumed aim – stated in such information – of depriving the Palestinian civilians against whom such measures are taken from seeking redress in the High Court of Justice of Israel. On the other hand, this policy statement in referring to "Jewish settler vigilantism" states "anybody not a member of the bodies empowered to enforce the law and maintain public order has no authority to assume the role of policeman or soldier. Any action he takes to furnish or retaliate for a violation of law or order is an offence liable to incur the statutory punishment. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed as ruling out legal action taken in self-defense". Guidelines were to be set out concerning the carrying of weapons – which are required to be carried by all Israeli settlers. As may be seen from the information contained in other sections of this report, this policy has, in fact, led to an increase in the harshness of the sentences handed down against Palestinian civilians, <\/i>a considerable increase in the occurrence of incidents involving violence and the discovery of large-scale organized Israeli settler groups whose purpose is to intimidate Palestinian civilians <\/i>and to expand and consolidate Israeli settlement and annexation of the occupied territories. A further illustration of the attitude of Israeli authorities in regard to the civilian population of the occupied territories is provided by statements such as that made by Mr. M. Drobles, Chairman of the Settlement Department of the Zionist Federation, reflected in reports appearing in the Jerusalem Post<\/u> and Ha'aretz<\/u> on 28 and 29 May 1984 describing the Palestinian population north of Jerusalem as "a cancer around Jerusalem, threatening to strangle the capital …"<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

329. \t<\/span>Section IV.C attempts to reproduce the day-to-day reality faced by the civilian population in the occupied territories. It contains information on treatment of civilians, on activities by Israeli settlers and on the measures taken by the Israeli authorities limiting certain rights of the civilian population of the occupied territories.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

330. \t<\/span>Section IV.C.1 contains information to the effect that the attempts made in preceding years at imposing the so-called "village leagues" have been abandoned for all intents and purposes. This has left the municipal authorities of the principal towns of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the hands of Israelis nominated by the military authorities. The dissolution of the properly elected municipal councils has continued to further complicate life for the civilian population and to facilitate the consolidation of the Israeli presence in the occupied territories. This section also contains a sample of reports of incidents such as demonstrations, bombings, etc., occurring during the period covered by the report. The frequency of the occurrence of these incidents varied considerably. In a few periods the incidents reported were relatively low whilst most of the time so many incidents were reported that it was physically impossible to keep track of them. The Special Committee notes that these incidents continue to provoke serious injury and death to several civilians in the occupied territories. Section IV.C.1 contains information on the measures taken by way of collective punishment, including the demolition of houses. In this context, the Special Committee draws special attention to the plight of the population of the Dheisheh refugee camp. Paragraphs 105 to 116 of the report illustrate the incessant measures of duress applied to these civilians who are in fact refugees from other parts of their Palestinian homeland. The same section gives information on measures of reprisals taken against civilians in the occupied territories, such as the sealing of houses, closing down of shops, restricting the movement of sectors of the civilian population, destruction of crops, water resources etc. The information on treatment of civilians is completed by information on the continued practice of deporting or expelling of civilians. The Special Committee noted in particular the case of Mr. Abdel Aziz Shahin which it considers illustrative and a self-explanatory example of this policy. The Special Committee has followed the case of Mr. Shahin closely during the period covered by this report. Mr. Shahin, who had served a 15-year prison sentence, was the subject of an expulsion order upon his release from imprisonment. Mr. Shahin is resisting his expulsion and at the same time of the completion of this report was awaiting judgement on his application for the annulment of the expulsion order against him.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

331. \t<\/span>Section IV.C.2 contains information on activities of Israeli settlers affecting the civilian population of the occupied territories. This information reflects the treatment of the civilian population at the hands of Israeli settlers in defiance of efforts, such as they are, by the military authorities at controlling them. The Special Committee noted reports of protests in some sectors of Israeli society against the lawless behavior of Israeli settlers. This attitude is reflected most significantly in the information concerning the vicissitudes of the report of the Commission of Enquiry established in the Ministry of Justice in Israel under the chairmanship of Mrs. Y. Karp, Deputy Attorney-General. This Commission had concluded and presented its report in May 1982 and its Chairman had resigned in May 1983 because, as it was then reported, the findings and recommendations of the Commission had been ignored by the authorities. The Commission had found that Israeli settlers acted in many respects outside the law and were virtually beyond control by any authority, military or civilian. In February 1984 the report was made public, confirming much of what the Special Committee had stated in earlier reports. As reflected in section IV.C.2, later in 1984, a series of so-called "Jewish underground" groups were discovered by the military authorities and several persons were charged with offences ranging from the attempted assassination of Palestinian leaders to the planning of bombing of public transportation carrying Palestinian workers to and from the occupied territories. The reports reproduced in section IV.C.2 above describe the variety of acts attributed to these groups. It may be ascertained from this information that the activities of Israeli settlers cover the entire territory occupied by Israel in 1967 and affect all sectors of the Palestinian civilian population. The Special Committee notes that a few of the Israeli settlers concerned have been brought to trial but that no serious measures have yet been taken to put an end to this phenomenon. The Special Committee reiterates its conviction that the Government of Israel remains fully responsible for the acts of its civilians and, in particular, Israeli settlers, under the Fourth Geneva Convention.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

332. \t<\/span>Section IV.C.3 contains information on measures affecting the enjoyment of certain basic freedoms, such as the right to freedom of movement, the right to freedom of education and the right to freedom of expression. The Special Committee deemed it necessary to include this information to illustrate the extent to which the occupation touches the everyday life of the civilians in the occupied territories. For example, the Special Committee noted that during the period covered by the report Palestinian civilian leaders, such as trade unionists, lawyers, teachers, journalists, etc., were the subject of arbitrary orders restricting their freedom of movement. The same consideration applies to measures affecting freedom of education. The occupation authorities have continued to apply measures affecting the running of the academic institutions in the West Bank, particularly in regard to attempts at the de facto<\/u> application of Military Order 854 by which the military authorities subjected the tenure of academic staff to the issuance of annual permits by the military authorities. It may be recalled that this order had been resisted by the academic community; the information received by the Special Committee confirms that this resistance continues and that the problem posed by the promulgation of Military Order 854 persists. The pattern set in previous years by the mass transfer of teachers and students from one region of the occupied territories to another and the closing of schools for prolonged periods, which was noted in previous reports, continued in the period covered by the present report.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

333. \t<\/span>The Special Committee notes that the measures taken by the occupation authorities in regard to educational institutions, especially in requiring signed undertakings of a political character, have served to introduce a political element into the academic context thereby creating a situation of ongoing confrontation between the military authorities and teachers and students.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

334. \t<\/span>Section IV.C.3 contains information on measures affecting freedom of expression by the civilian population. This information reflects an ongoing pattern of censorship of publications including newspapers and books, and other forms of expression such as art and the holding of cultural festivals having a nationalist Palestinian character. By way of example, the Special Committee noted the case of Mr. Fathi Ghabin from the Gaza Strip, an artist sentenced to six-months' imprisonment and a heavy fine on 9 May 1984 for "incitement", inter alia<\/u>, because in his painting he used the four colors, of the Palestinian flag. In the view of the Special Committee, the adoption of such measures goes beyond the scope of the Fourth Geneva Convention since they are not warranted by the need for the security of the occupying Power or the maintenance of order by the military authority. The sole aim of such restrictions is to stifle any attempt at Palestinian patriotic expression.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

335. \t<\/span>Section IV.D contains information on measures of annexation and settlement and gives a sample of the information relating to the continuing establishment of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and the measures taken to expropriate property. The Special Committee notes that the pattern reflected in its previous years continued with renewed vigor during the period covered by the Present report. In addition, the Special Committee notes that official plans into the future continue to be announced such as that contained in a document appearing in February 1984 from the Settlement Department of the Zionist Federation, according to which, inter alia<\/u>, 27 settlements are planned for one area, north of Jerusalem by the year 2010 at an estimated cost of IS 85 billion (approximately $650 million). Similarly, reports were recorded of continuing expropriation of Property following the pattern as in previous years covering the entire area occupied by Israel since 1967. The Special Committee notes that such measures are specifically prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

336. \t<\/span>Section IV.E contains information on treatment of detainees, consisting of information of general prison conditions and of the treatment of individuals during interrogation and imprisonment. The Special Committee has detected an increase with regard to previous years in the number of allegations of ill-treatment. Prison conditions led to protests by detainees in the form of hunger-strikes and other measures reflected in section IV.E. During the period covered by this report, the Special Committee received information on the conditions in the so-called "Fara'a detention center" which was opened as a temporary detention center with the avowed purpose of holding young detainees, awaiting summary trials for "minor" offences such as stone-throwing and demonstrating, separate from other detainees charged with more "serious" security offences. The information contained in section IV.E illustrates the harsh conditions prevailing in Fara'a camp, the temporary nature of which appears highly doubtful. The Special Committee notes in this context that the conditions of detention and the treatment of detainees is the subject of clear provisions in the Geneva Convention, which the information before it shows, are not being observed.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

337. \t<\/span>Section IV.F contains information on judicial remedies and in this context, the Special Committee noted reports of cases where some Israeli citizens and members of security services were charged with offences, such as abuse of authority. In a number of other cases the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justice of Israel received applications from civilians in the occupied territories seeking redress against measures which they felt deprived them of the protection given to them by the Fourth Geneva Convention. As in previous years, the Special Committee notes that these remedies are of a temporary nature and do not afford a definite remedy. Indeed, as admitted by <\/i>the Courts in several occasions, their authority is circumscribed by the discretion vested in the military occupation authorities.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

338. \t<\/span>For these reasons, the Special Committee draws the conclusion that the situation in the occupied territories suffers from continuing deterioration in the level of respect for the human rights of the civilian population. The relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention reproduced in annex I to the present report continue to be disregarded. The cycle of repression and reaction to this repression has continued unabated and affects all sectors of life of the civilian population, from the civil and political, to the economic, social and cultural sectors. On the other hand, the hundreds of thousands who are outside the occupied territories are still denied the right to return while their property is being taken over for the establishment of Israeli settlements. Indeed, within Israel itself, movements have arisen and gained ground against this situation. The Special Committee has noted in particular information reflecting the increase of such protests by organizations such as that known as "Peace Now".<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

339. \t<\/span>The Special Committee reiterates the need for the international community to assure its responsibility and to adopt measures to prevent this deterioration and to do so by taking the first steps in protecting the very basic rights of the civilians in the occupied territories.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

VI. \t<\/span>ADOPTION OF THE REPORT<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

340. \t<\/span>The present report was approved and signed by <\/i>the Special Committee on 14 September 1984 in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

(Signed<\/u>)\t<\/span>N. WIJEWARDANE (Sri Lanka) (Chairman)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(Signed<\/u>)\t<\/span>A. SENE (Senegal)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(Signed<\/u>)\t<\/span>D. JOVANIC (Yugoslavia)<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Notes<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1<\/u>\/\t<\/span>Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session<\/u>, agenda item 101, documents A\/8089; A\/8389 and Corr.1 and 2; A\/8389\/Add.1 and Add.l\/Corr.1 and 2; A\/8828; A\/9148 and Add.1; A\/9817; A\/10272; A\/31\/218; A\/32\/284; A\/33\/356; A\/34\/631; A\/35\/425, A\/36\/579, A\/37\/485 and A\/38\/409.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2<\/u>\/\t<\/span>Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 101, document A\/8237; ibid<\/u>., <\/i>Twenty-sixth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 40, document A\/8630; ibid<\/u>., Twenty-seventh Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 42, document A\/8950; ibid<\/u>., Twenty-eighth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 45, document A\/9374; ibid<\/u>.<\/i>, Twenty-ninth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 40, document A\/9872; ibid<\/u>., Thirtieth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 52, document A\/10461; ibid<\/u>., Thirty-first Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 55, document A\/31\/399; ibid<\/u>., Thirty-second Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 57, document A\/32\/407; ibid<\/u>.,<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Thirty-third Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 55, document A\/33\/439;<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ibid<\/u>., Thirty-fourth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 51, document A\/34\/691 and Add.1; ibid<\/u>., Thirty-fifth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 57, document A\/35\/674; ibid<\/u>., Thirty-sixth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 64, document A\/36\/632\/Add.1; ibid<\/u>., Thirty-seventh Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 61, document A\/37\/698; and ibid<\/u>.,<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Thirty-eighth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 69, document A\/38\/718.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

3<\/u>\/\t<\/span>Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session, Annexes<\/u>, agenda item 101, document A\/8089, annex III.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

4<\/u>\/\t<\/span>United Nations, Treaty Series<\/u>, vol. 75, No. 973, p. 287.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

5<\/u>\/\t<\/span><\/i>Ibid<\/u>., No. 972, p. 135.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

6<\/u>\/\t<\/span>Ibid<\/u>., vol. 249, No. 3511, p. 215.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

7<\/u>\/\t<\/span>Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907<\/u> (New York, Oxford University Press, 1915).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

8<\/u>\/\t<\/span>General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI).<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ANNEX I<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Articles of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection <\/u>of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, referred to in paragraph 338<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>In regard to the annexation of the occupied territory, article 47, which states:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

2.\t<\/span>In regard to the transfer of Israeli settlers to the occupied territories, article 49. Article 49 reads as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n

3.\t<\/span>In regard to the behavior of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories, particularly as regards acts of violence against the person and property of the civilian population, article 29. Article 29 reads as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

4.\t<\/span>In regard to measures of collective punishment such as arbitrary resort to curfews, demolition of houses and other forms of reprisal, articles 33 and 53, which read as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Article 33<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"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.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Pillage is prohibited.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tArticle 53<\/u>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

5.\t<\/span>In regard to the treatment of prisoners in detention, articles 64 and 76. Articles 64 and 76 read as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Article 64<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

Article 76<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"They shall receive the medical attention required by their state of health.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"They shall also have the right to receive any spiritual assistance which they may require.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Women shall be confined in separate quarters and shall be under the direct supervision of women.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Proper regard shall be paid to the special treatment due to minors.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Protected persons who are detained shall have the right to be visited by delegates of the Protecting Power and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in accordance with the provisions of Article 143.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Such persons shall have the right to receive at least one relief parcel monthly."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

6.\t<\/span>In addition to these articles, the Special Committee draws attention to article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which envisages the enactment of legislation to impose penal sanctions on persons committing grave breaches of the Convention. Acts declared to be grave breaches are defined in article 147. Article 146 states:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defense, which shall not be less favorable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Article 147 states:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

ANNEX II<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Statement submitted by the ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Special Committee on 3 June 1984<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Department of International Organizations and Conferences<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Report on Israeli practices in the occupied territory of the Syrian Arab Golan<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Since June 1967, the Israeli occupation authorities have been engaging in various practices aimed at subjecting the Syrian Arab population of the territory of the Syrian Arab Golan to various forms of persecution, social, economic, political and cultural discrimination and intimidation. These practices were <\/strong>intensified after 14 December 1981 when the Israeli Knesset decided to annex the Golan and place it under Israeli legal and administrative jurisdiction in flagrant violation of the universally recognized principles of international law and also <\/strong>of the Charter and relevant resolutions of the United Nations, The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

This report contains examples of the racist practices being pursued by the Israeli occupation authorities in violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with their policy of judaization and the expropriation of land for the establishment of settlements.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

I. \t<\/span>Campaigns of intimidation, pressure and the suppression of freedoms<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>The use of pressure and intimidation to force the population to carry Israeli identity cards.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2.\t<\/span>The prohibition of gatherings and celebrations of national and Arab festivals and weddings.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

3.\t<\/span>The promulgation of orders providing for arbitrary administrative arrest.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

4.\t<\/span>Raids on homes during the day and also at night, without prior notification; terrorization of the population, particularly women, children and the elderly, through the inhuman manner in which searches are conducted; confiscation of knives, daggers and various other valuables and antiques, the imposition of penalties for their possession, and the imprisonment of their owners for periods of six months or more.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

5.\t<\/span>The abolition of arrangements formerly made under the supervision of representatives of the United Nations, prior to the decision to annex the Golan to the Zionist entity, for visits by members of families separated as a result of the occupation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

6.\t<\/span>The application of pressure with a view to inducing the population to emigrate.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

7. \t<\/span>Prevention of the return of travelers on so-called security grounds.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

8.\t<\/span>The imposition of bogus local village councils which in no way express the free choice or aspirations of the population.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

9.\t<\/span>The expulsion of national and Arab personalities with a view to changing the social structure of the territory<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

10. \t<\/span>The creation of family conflicts and disputes with a view to weakening the united stand taken by <\/i>the population of the occupied villages.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

11. \t<\/span>Suppression of the fervent national and pan-Arab sentiments of the Arab population of the occupied Golan through large-scale detention operations in which the ministers of religion, prominent personalities, teachers, students and workers have been repeatedly arrested and imprisoned for various periods with a view to destroying their will to resist and creating a feeling of hopelessness in order to make them submit to the wishes of the Israeli occupation authorities.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

12. \t<\/span>The refusal to permit the population to move freely within the occupied territory unless they hold a permit issued by <\/i>the Israeli security forces.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

II. \t<\/span>Health matters<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities have taken no measures to supply pure drinking water for the population of the occupied villages. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic used to supply pure drinking water for the population of Majdal Shams who had access only to contaminated, non-potable water.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2. \t<\/span>Health care is non-existent, as can be seen from the following:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a)\t<\/span>There are no private clinics in the occupied villages.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

 \t<\/span>(b)\t<\/span>A general practitioner visits the larger villages three times a week. During these four-hour visits, he is able to examine only a small number of Patients to whom he merely issues Prescriptions.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(c)\t<\/span>Medicines are not supplied free of charge to the Arab population who have to buy them at exorbitant prices.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(d)\t<\/span>Patients requiring hospitalization are admitted to the hospital at Safad where they are charged about 3,500 shekels per night, not including the cost of medicines and doctors' fees.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(e) \t<\/span>Persons covered by the Israeli medical insurance scheme are entitled to reductions on the cost of treatment but Arabs do not benefit from these reductions since they refuse to subscribe to the scheme.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(f)\t<\/span>Medical facilities, roads, water supply, sanitation and clinics are non-existent in the occupied villages.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(g)\t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities do not provide the population of the occupied territory with preventive health care, particularly the various vaccinations required by children.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(h)\t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities do not supply ambulances to transport sick persons from the occupied territory to hospital.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(i)\t<\/span>No measures are taken to control the spread of pests and contagious diseases in the occupied territory.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

III. \t<\/span>Cultural and social matters<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>The occupation authorities are imposing Israeli educational curricula on students in the occupied villages in an attempt to suppress Arab history, glorify Israeli history and promote sectarian and factional bigotry.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2.\t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities have abolished the Arab educational curricula, particularly those providing for the study of books on Arab literature, history and geography.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

3.\t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities have decided to make the Hebrew language a compulsory subject for students in the occupied villages.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

4.\t<\/span>A number of competent Arab teachers have been dismissed and the occupation authorities have assigned their jobs to persons who are not qualified to teach.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

5.\t<\/span>Arab students are not permitted to complete their studies at Syrian universities.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

6.\t<\/span>The occupation authorities have made it very difficult for Arab students to complete their studies at Israeli universities in view of the exorbitant fees charged.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tIV. \t<\/span>Agricultural, commercial and other matters affecting livelihood<\/u>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities have made all aspects of the livelihood of the population of occupied Arab territory conditional on the acquisition of an Israeli identity card since Arab citizens living under occupation are unable to work, travel, buy, sell or move from place to place unless they hold an Israeli<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

identity card.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2. \t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities have expropriated extensive areas of Arab land in the occupied Golan, without compensating the owners, for military purposes and on the pretext of the need to construct camps.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

3.\t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities have increased the tax burden on the Arab population in a manner inconsistent with their income.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

5. \t<\/span>The Arab Population living under occupation are forced to sell their agricultural produce at the lowest prices and their Produce is frequently ruined due to the many difficulties impeding its sale.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

6. \t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities have established pre-set prices for some agricultural produce and permit the Arab population to sell their produce only to certain Israeli companies.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

7.\t<\/span>The Israeli occupation authorities have imposed high taxes on the agricultural produce of the population of the occupied territory. These taxes are levied in an extremely arbitrary manner by the Israeli income tax officials.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

9. \t<\/span>The occupation authorities have confiscated a large part of the vineyards and other agricultural lands in the occupied villages on alleged security grounds with a view to turning them into wasteland.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

10. \t<\/span>The occupation authorities have prohibited the drilling of agricultural wells by the population of the occupied villages.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

11.\t<\/span>The occupation authorities have prevented the population of the occupied villages from using the pastureland around their villages, irrespective of whether it is private, communal or government property, and grazing has been restricted to Specified areas.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The policy of judaization, annexation and the construction of settlements<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Since 1967, the Israeli occupation authorities have been taking measures aimed at changing the legal status, geographic A\/39\/591 <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

English <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Page 119<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

nature and demographic composition of the territory under occupation. These measures include:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>The destruction and complete obliteration of all abandoned Arab villages. In fact, it is now impossible to determine the location of those villages even on a map.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2.\t<\/span>The use of stone from the abandoned villages for the construction of Zionist settlements. <\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

3.\t<\/span>The establishment of settlements throughout the territory. The number of established and projected settlements in the Golan now exceeds a total figure of 40.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

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

<\/p>\n

\n

5.\t<\/span>The conduct of an intensive campaign to disguise all Arab cultural features and historical evidence of the Arab character of the territory through the organization of archaeological digs in the Golan in search of relics that the Zionists claim to be Hebrew in support of their claim that their ancestors lived in the territory.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

6.\t<\/span>The leveling and reclamation of land belonging to abandoned villages to which water is piped with a view to turning such land into Israeli tourist resorts.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

7.\t<\/span>The display of the slogan "The Golan is an inseparable part of the State of Israel" in Hebrew and English everywhere in the Golan Heights.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

8.\t<\/span>Promulgation of the legislative act of 14 December 1981 which provided for the application of Israeli law and legal and administrative jurisdiction in the occupied Golan.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

 (Signed<\/u>)\t<\/span>Director<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Department of International<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Organizations and Conferences<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ANNEX III<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The report of the Karp Commission<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tState of Israel<\/u>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\tMinistry of Justice\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t25 May 1982<\/u>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

From the Deputy Attorney-General<\/u> <\/p><\/div>\n

\n

to the Attorney-General<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Subject: \t<\/span>Investigation of accusations against Israelis in Judea and Samaria<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Report of the Commission of Inquiry<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

A Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission of Inquiry" was appointed on 29 April 1981. Its terms of reference, as set forth in the letter of appointment, were as follows;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a) Whereas there is a problem in the conduct of investigations into accusations made against settlers in Judea and Samaria in respect of the commission of offences that cannot be regarded as ordinary criminal acts since they concern relations with the Arab population.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b) Whereas it appears that, in certain matters, there is a lack of clarity concerning the body empowered to conduct such investigations, the procedures to be adopted therein and the conclusions to be derived therefrom.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(c) It has been decided to form a commission to co-ordinate between the bodies concerned with this matter. The said commission shall consist of a representative of the Attorney-General, who shall be its chairman, a representative of the police, a representative of the Judge-Advocate-General, and the Public Prosecutor of the District of Jerusalem.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(d) The co-ordinating commission shall draw up proposals concerning procedures and guidelines for the conduct of investigations and concerning the legal proceedings to be instituted in connection with the above-mentioned offences.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(e) The commission shall, whenever necessary, monitor and co-ordinate the conduct of investigations and the course of legal proceedings if sufficient evidence is found of the above-mentioned offences.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(f) The results of the investigations into the said offences shall be submitted to the District Public Prosecutor for a final decision, not only in cases involving felonies, but also in cases involving misdemeanors.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Commission of inquiry consists of the following members: the Public Prosecutor of the District of Jerusalem, the Legal Adviser to the Commander of Judea and Samaria, the Director of the Department of Investigations and Prosecutions at the Israeli Police Headquarters, and the undersigned. The conclusions reached in the report submitted by the Commission of Inquiry after one year of deliberation take into, consideration reports submitted to it within the context of its terms of reference and represent the results of an unsuccessful attempt to supplement information provided by the media.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Commission was established in response to a letter from professors of law at the Hebrew University and the University of Tel Aviv in which they expressed their concern regarding the preservation of the rule of law in the State of Israel and raised the question of the "private police activities" of the settlers in Judea and Samaria. They referred to a series of incidents in which they claimed that the settlers, individually or in groups, had broken the law by committing offences against the population of Judea and Samaria, that many of those incidents had in no way been investigated by the police and that, where such investigation had taken place, the files had been closed at an early stage. The writers of the letter feared that this failure to take action might have resulted from pressure brought to bear-by the settlers or even from a higher level. Their letter stated that:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"When it is suspected that an offence has been committed, the governmental authorities must investigate the matter and take steps to find the culprits and bring them to trial regardless of their identity, their nationality or the motive behind their acts. In view of the interrelationship between the events in question it is doubtful whether a proper inquiry was made into the offences committed against the Arabs by the settlers in the occupied territories. It is also suspected that there may have been discrimination between different offences and culprits, and this suspicion warrants full investigation."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Following a meeting of representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Israeli Police and Israel Defense Force, it was realized that a thorough investigation was required into the accusations made against Israelis in Judea and Samaria.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

On 29 April 1981, i.e. the day on which the Commission was established, the Supreme Court heard petition No. 175-81 in the Beit Hadassa case, which is discussed below. In view of the severe manner in which the Court castigated the police for its inadequate investigation of complaints submitted in Hebron, the Government informed the Court that it would resolutely endeavor to prevent infringements of the law and public order and would conduct a full investigation into the complaints and accusations made in that respect. When delivering its opinion and judgement, the Supreme Court stressed that it was rejecting the petition on the basis of its conviction that the Attorney-General, his representatives and the military authorities would be taking effective steps to maintain law and order in Hebron by (a) conducting a full and diligent investigation into each complaint, and (b) remaining alert to incidents in sensitive areas in order to prevent, as far as possible, the occurrence of any illegal acts.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Supreme Court was provided with a copy of an order issued by the area commander on 13 April 1981 to the effect that "any person, whether Jewish or Arab, who breaks the law must be treated in a manner consistent with the law". The Supreme Court was also informed that similar instructions had been issued by personal order of the Minister of Defense. On 6 May 1981, the Department of Petitions addressed a strong appeal to all the authorities concerned to make a special endeavor to fulfil their obligations with regard to the effective maintenance of law and order.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Following the appointment of the Commission, the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to issue an order, through his Ministry Secretary, calling upon the Co-ordinator of Operations in the Occupied Territories and the Area Commander of Judea and Samaria to co-operate with the Commission (letter of 3 April 1981 from the Attorney-General to the Council of Ministers). Such an order was, in fact, issued to the authorities concerned (letter of 3 May 1981 from Brigadier–General Buran).<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The objective of the Commission was to ensure, as far as possible, that accusations concerning the commission of offences by Israeli civilians or military personnel against the Arab population of Judea and Samaria were investigated in a rapid, thorough and competent manner. On the basic assumption that its ability to work as a co-ordinating body would depend primarily on the availability of full information concerning occurrences in the area falling within its jurisdiction, the Commission defined its functions as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a) The formulation of procedures to systematically monitor and process complaints in collaboration with police chiefs and the legal adviser to the Commander of Judea and Samaria, and the establishment of channels of liaison for the passage of information to the Commission;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b) The examination of a sample of the methods adopted for the processing and investigation of all complaints previously submitted in Judea and Samaria over a given period;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

 \t<\/span>(c) The regular receipt of reports on complaints submitted during the period of the Commission's assignment, a study of the action taken by the police, and scrutiny of the methods adopted and the time taken to deal with such complaints;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(d) Examination of the nature and results of the investigations that took Place on the basis of the comments made by the public prosecutors who received the files in accordance with the established procedures;<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(e) Close monitoring of press and other media reports referring to accusations concerning the commission of offences, and initiation of an investigation even if complaints have not been submitted.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

It must be emphasized that, in the light of the letter of appointment, the Commission regards itself as a monitoring and co-ordinating body rather than a Working group. It does not regard itself as empowered to intervene in current investigations unless it sees fit to order the completion of a particular investigation. However, the Commission is operating on the assumption that its monitoring activities will have an effect on the authorities responsible for the conduct of investigations.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

It must be made clear from the very outset that the Commission's objective was to ensure adequate investigation, even in cases in which complaints had not been submitted, on the basis of information obtained from sources other than the investigating authorities, such as the press, information received by officials in the military administration, and petitions submitted to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this objective was not achieved due to various restrictions with which the Commission was faced and which disrupted its activity in this respect. However, the Commission was able to pinpoint incidents that had not been investigated prior to its intervention. The Commission also ascertained that the reports submitted <\/strong>to it by the investigating authorities were not sufficiently complete. Since the Commission was unable to judge whether the shortcomings noted in those reports were an exception to the rule or the result of fundamental negligence, it was forced to base its inquiries on the assumption that such documents might be incomplete and not fully reliable for purposes of evaluation. Consequently, the conclusions reached by the Commission must be viewed in the light of this reservation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In view of the present division of authority, the Commission examined the activities of two bodies: the civil police, which is responsible for the effective maintenance of law and order in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip, and the investigative branch of the military police, which is empowered to look into complaints against military personnel.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In its conclusions, the Commission deals with these two bodies separately, although the analysis indicating the existence of problems in the mutual relations between these two investigating bodies applies equally to both.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a) The Legal Adviser to the Commander of Judea and Samaria, who is a member of the Commission, undertook to systematically monitor and classify the records of investigations carried out by the military police and to submit periodic reports thereon to the Commission.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Commission received a report on incidents involving deaths, the destruction of property, assaults and theft that had occurred up to the month of October 1981. A report was also received on about 15 incidents occurring in the months of March and April 1982, all of which involved death or injury as a result of the use of firearms. There is therefore a four-month gap in the reports and it is improbable that no incident requiring investigation occurred during that period. In fact, between the month of October 1981 and the date on which this report was written, i.e. a period of more than six months, no incident involving the use of firearms was reported and no file was opened. This fact, in itself, is astonishing. On 11 May 1982, the Commission requested a report on the investigation of a series of bodily injuries and deaths resulting from shooting to which reference had been made in the magazine Haolam Hazeh<\/u> on 5 May 1982. The report dealt with the above-mentioned 15 incidents, 11 of which had been filed pending investigation. Some of the incidents to which reference had been made in the magazine article were not mentioned in the report. Consequently, the question as to whether those incidents actually occurred, and whether an investigation had in fact been initiated in that respect, remains to be clarified.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

During the preparation of this report, the Chairman received a copy of some startling complaints submitted by military reservists to the Judge-Advocate-General on 16 May 1982. At this stage, it is not our intention to deal with specific questions, although an investigation has been initiated by order of the judge-Advocate-General. We hope that the investigation into these complaints will be completed, but the fact that the Commission was not informed of the occurrence of any of the incidents mentioned in the report makes it doubtful whether we will be able to form an opinion concerning what actually happened.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

It should be noted that, the greater the number of incidents involving injury–as a result of shooting, the more difficult it is for the Commission to-examine all of the reports submitted to it and, at the same time, evaluate the various complaints under investigation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b) It is possible to make a distinction between incidents such as ordinary criminal offences which, in the absence of a complaint, can usually be set aside, and incidents such as wounding as a result of shooting which require investigation in accordance with army regulations. Notwithstanding the assumption of the incompleteness of the information received, it can be said that complaints against military personnel are normally investigated since it is in the interests of the Israel Defense Force to ensure that its members abide by <\/i>the law. However, at the time of writing this report, and in view of the above-mentioned complaints submitted on 16 May 1982 which have not yet been examined, the Commission does not feel able to make any positive statement on this subject. In fact, it can be assumed that the persons injured in the incidents in question did not submit any complaint, which explains why no report concerning such complaints was received by the Commission. At this stage, therefore, it would appear that the distinction between incidents in which complaints were submitted and incidents in which complaints should have been submitted is purely theoretical.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

At the same time, the Commission wishes to draw attention to the following:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

With regard to the investigation of injuries resulting from shooting, the Commission does not regard itself as competent to question the decision taken by the Judge-Advocate-General on whether the use of firearms is in keeping with army directives and whether such occurrences should give rise to prosecution, since that decision obviously involves considerations pertaining to policies concerning the use of firearms which are outside the scope of the Commission's terms of reference.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

It should be noted, however, that the reports received by the Commission mention a number of cases involving injuries to the head and upper parts of the body, in addition to leg wounds.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Commission believes that there is good cause to conduct a comprehensive and specific review of this matter. We recommend, inter alia<\/u>, that the directives concerning the use of firearms should be reviewed, as well as the extent to which verbal instructions are consistent with written procedures and directives concerning the use of firearms in particular situations, in an attempt to reach appropriate conclusions concerning the discrepancy between the spirit of the directives and the results of their implementation. In view of the fact that the military police have begun investigations in the light of reports received from the information media, we also propose that the directives concerning the obligation to notify all incidents involving the use of firearms against civilians, even if injuries do not occur, should be examined and enforced.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Most military police investigations clearly show the problems inherent in the division of authority since the military police are empowered to interrogate only military personnel and require the assistance of the civil police whenever victims or witnesses among the local population need to be questioned. As a result of this procedure, complainants and witnesses are not questioned until one month or more after the occurrence of the incident concerned. This procedure has a direct and immediate effect on the scope and outcome of the investigation, due to inability to trace witnesses, difficulties in remembering details and identifying persons, etc. On the basis of the information available, the Commission fears that the system of dividing investigation responsibilities considerably reduces the possibility of achieving tangible results in investigations.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Another form of divided responsibility can be seen in cases involving members of the Frontier Guard, which is subject to a separate disciplinary authority. It is noteworthy that the Commission did not receive any report concerning investigations by the Frontier Guard in this connection. The independent investigation of incidents involving the use of firearms can only be incomplete without the co-operation of the military police and without taking proper account of political considerations concerning conclusions and condemnations. This is another question that needs to be completely reviewed.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Most of the reports submitted to the Commission in connection with incidents in which shots were fired we re based entirely on interrogations of military personnel. This was due to the need for civil police involvement in other interrogations and, more particularly, to the fact that the injured persons or prospective witnesses were implicated in stone-throwing or other disturbances and consequently had misgivings about testifying, since witnesses do not enjoy immunity from prosecution. Furthermore, the decision as to whether the use of firearms was in keeping with instructions is normally taken on the basis of the statements of only one of the parties to the incident. <\/strong>These difficulties, which must be taken into consideration, are only one aspect of the wider problem concerning the possibility of conducting a proper investigation into this type of incident. These difficulties become particularly acute during a full investigation of the circumstances in view of the serious repercussions that such an investigation might entail.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

With regard to the nature and conclusions of its inquiries, the Commission concentrated mainly on an examination of the manner in which investigations were carried out by the police. As a matter of routine, the Commission monitored the decisions taken by the Judge-Advocate-General. In one case, in which the conclusions reached by the Judge-Advocate-General appeared to be questionable, the Commission requested the file, which revealed that credence had been given to the version of the incident even though their version seemed improbable and notwithstanding the factual evidence supporting the account given by the complainant. The file was returned to the military authorities for completion of the formalities.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Another incident which came to the notice of the Commission following its examination of a police investigation was Local Criminal Case No. 305-81, which was opened as a result of a complaint concerning damage to buses in Ramallah. The civil police referred this matter to the military police since it was suspected that the act in question had been committed by military reservists. It appears from the civil police file that the matter was not investigated by the military police independently or in co-operation with the civil police. The file on the incident contains a note to the effect that the military police had been of no assistance in most of the previous investigations. This file, which has only recently been obtained by the Commission, will be studied with a view to deriving appropriate conclusions concerning co-operation between the civil and military police.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The Commission does not have any information that could be regarded as proof of the widespread prevalence of the above-mentioned shortcomings. However, it holds the view that the considerable difficulties inherent in investigations conducted by the military police and, in particular, its special branch into incidents occurring in the occupied territories, as well as the need for close co-operation between the civil and military police, require further examination since they constitute the most serious obstacle to the investigation of incidents.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The final part of the report, as released by the Government Press Office<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The above conclusions relate to 15 investigated incidents out of a total of 70 cases on which the Commission received reports. As already noted, the' Commission did not conduct a full examination of all of those cases. Consequently, it is unable to assert categorically that the above conclusions are characteristic of all investigations carried out in the area in question. However, a study of the details of those 15 incidents and the fact that 53 of the 70 cases concerned had been closed without the achievement of any result give rise to speculation, and even anxiety. At all events, it remains to be seen whether the Office of the Attorney-General will make an undertaking, before the Court, to conduct new and effective investigations.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The following points must be taken into consideration when analyzing the above conclusions:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

A.(l)\t<\/span>The complaints submitted to the police relate primarily to assaults, the destruction of property, threats, threats accompanied by the use of firearms, trespassing on the property of others, denial of the right of access to fields and places of business in urban areas, attacks on schoolgirls and entry into private places of worship.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In all of these incidents, we can detect a common denominator in the fact that the circumstances do not involve ordinary criminal acts. With the exception of cases concerning the <\/strong>use of firearms in self-defense, these incidents can be attributed to a desire to <\/strong>uphold "rights" to the land. At all events, they provide an indication of bad feeling and strained relations between the local and Israeli populations of Judea and Samaria, particularly in the districts of Hebron and Shilo.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(2)\t<\/span>On 2 September 1981, in case No. 214-81 before the Central Court at Jerusalem, two Israelis were accused of attacking an Arab in Hebron, trespassing and deliberately destroying property after the victim had refused to permit them to enter premises that they claimed were Jewish.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

When delivering his verdict, Judge Goldberg made the following comments:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"In the case before us, the defendants initially requested permission to enter the abandoned story of a building in order to manifest their presence in a non-violent manner. However, when permission was refused, instead of giving up, they used force against the person standing in their way. The concern for Jewish property manifested by the accused cannot justify the commission of acts of violence, and the defendants can in no way recover rights to Jewish property by attacking an old man and overturning crates of fruit in his shop. The court cannot view these acts with indulgence, even though the defendants are young persons with no previous criminal record."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Those comments have been quoted in this context since they appear to be applicable to the nature of most of the complaints under investigation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(3)\t<\/span>We would not have discharged our duty if, in our description of the nature of these acts, we had not referred to the incidents that occurred during the imposition of the curfew in Hebron in May 1980 following the murder of settlers. Since these incidents occurred in the wake of a distressing occurrence, they cannot be viewed as ordinary incidents, particularly in their overall context. However, they have been mentioned here as an indication of the inability to prevent acts of violence against the Arab population and the failure to investigate complaints in this respect.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Particular mention is made of the fact that the police at Hebron received complaints from the local population concerning theft, pillage, the destruction of property, assaults, stone-throwing and numerous acts of sabotage that occurred during the curfew. A report prepared by Uri Shoham, the Judge-Advocate for Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (Military Police File No. 240-80 of 22 August 1980) lists 13 complaints of this type.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Since these incidents occurred before the Commission began its work, we shall not enter into the details of a serious matter that came to light from an analysis of the incidents. However, reference must be made to the fact that the above-mentioned report gives a detailed account of statements made by military eyewitnesses during the investigation to the effect that they had observed civilians from Qiryat Arba'a destroying Arab property during the curfew. Some of these statements by eyewitnesses are reproduced below:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t"The inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a went on a rampage through Hebron, damaging Arab property in a spirit of revenge … The principal task of the military unit (202) was to keep the inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a away from the town In order to prevent such incidents … I know that it was the Jewish inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a who smashed the windows of cars since I saw this with my own eyes … I saw the inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a breaking windows and throwing stones … The friction between the Israeli army and the Jews from Qiryat Arba'a was greater than that between the army and the Arabs … The inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a were carrying weapons and wearing civilian clothes … I saw the inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a throwing stones and smashing the windows of shops and cars."\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The report reached the conclusion that, in view of the eyewitness accounts concerning the behavior of the inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a, there could be no doubt that damage had been caused to houses and vehicles belonging to the local population of Hebron. Numerous witnesses had testified to the fact that civilians from Qiryat Arba'a, some of whom were carrying weapons and wearing military uniforms, roamed through the streets in spite of the imposition of the curfew and, in a few cases, were observed throwing stones and causing damage to property.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

It was also discovered that soldiers had observed a man and a woman from Qiryat Arba'a engaging in acts of sabotage. However, the soldiers had not intervened, nor had they arrested or even taken the names of the culprits.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Result: As stated in the report submitted by Police Inspector Steinmetz on 25 November 1980, all of the files opened by the police during its investigation of the incidents were closed on the grounds that the identity of the culprits was unknown.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(4) \t<\/span>From the very outset, the nature of the acts, the subject of the complaints and the fact that the suspects were not criminals in the sense normally understood by the police were hardly conducive to the furtherance of an effective investigation, even without taking into consideration the obstacles encountered as a result of the following factors:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

B.(1)\t<\/span>In general, it can be said that the activity of the police in maintaining Public order and security for the population of Judea and Samaria – at least within the context of Arab-Jewish relations – is based on the investigation of complaints submitted. In other words, breaches of the law are investigated only when complaints have been submitted. This applies, in particular, to injuries sustained as a result of the use of firearms, but it also holds true in the case of minor criminal offences. At all events, the Commission received no reports on the findings of the police. This is clear from the account of the above-mentioned events, particularly those in which an investigation was initiated either at the request of the Supreme Court or on the insistence of the Commission. Consequently, it can be said that, contrary to expectations, the police failed to fulfil the Commitment that they had made before the Supreme Court to remain alert to events taking place in sensitive areas, with a view to preventing, as far as possible, the occurrence of illegal acts.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(2)\t<\/span>The head of the Office of Investigations in Judea told the Commission that, in his opinion, the police were not empowered to initiate an investigation into incidents in which complaints had not been submitted.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

C.(l) The documents supplied to the Commission indicate that the local population are reluctant to submit complaints (e.g. the incident at Beit Hadassa, the headmaster of the school at Hebron, the attack on the guard at the cave etc.). Although the only way in which the Commission can closely monitor events in the area is through police reports, it can be inferred with a high degree of certainty that criminal acts are occurring in the area and that such acts, of which the Commission is unaware, are not being investigated. In this connection, reference must be made to the astonishing fact that, in the district of Samaria, the police reported only two complaints during a period of six months.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(2)\t<\/span>The probable reasons for the absence of complaints range from a feeling of fatalism to a natural inclination not to submit complaints, a desire to avoid contact with the authorities, fears resulting from threats of possible revenge, the futility of previous complaints submitted to the police, or the refusal of the police to process complaints.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Although this failure to report offences is not confined to Judea and Samaria, since even in Israel the number of complaints does not reflect the number of offences, the documents submitted to the Commission clearly indicate a reluctance to complain to the authorities, as illustrated by the Arab proverb: "If you have a complaint against the judge, to whom can you submit it?". In fact, apprehensions concerning possible revenge are one reason for the failure to report incidents. In the case of bullet wounds, another reason lies in the fact that the victim may have been involved in stone-throwing or other disturbances.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In addition to the above, however, there is undoubtedly a direct link between the large number of investigations which are left pending or end inconclusively and abandonment of the right to complain. This situation is really a vicious circle in so far as incidents are not investigated due to the absence of complaints, while complaints are not submitted due to the lack of appropriate investigation. Public order and the rule of law are the losers in this situation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(3)\t<\/span>At first the Commission endeavored to persuade the police and the Office of the Commander of Judea and Samaria to systematically monitor the information media with a view to encouraging them to initiate investigations into incidents in which no complaint had been submitted. However, the Commission was unsuccessful in its attempts to persuade the persons concerned to persevere in such monitoring. As already mentioned, the Commission's own monitoring of media reports was sporadic.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

The Commission initially considered the possibility of taking steps to encourage the population to submit complaints, but eventually realized the futility of taking such steps until it had examined the manner in which such complaints would be processed. In the experience of the Commission, no reliable and full investigation can be conducted without a systematic monitoring of the information media, particularly the newspapers published in Arabic.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

D.\t<\/span>The problem of co-operation between the civil and military police needs to be reviewed. This question arises when the civil police require assistance from the military police in investigations in which military personnel are suspected of involvement in the commission of offences and when the military police need help from the civil police in cases in which statements are required from witnesses. The documents submitted to the Commission indicate that such co-operation is frequently lacking. Consequently, this matter must be reviewed at the highest level.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

E.(l) Although the Commission was not able to conduct a comparative study, it formed the general impression that the number of cases of this type in which the files had been closed on the grounds of inability to identify the culprits was greater than the number that would be regarded as acceptable in other types of cases.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(2) \t<\/span>Allowance must obviously be made for the difficulties encountered in identifying suspects in such cases. Incidents involving nocturnal damage and shots fired from a speeding vehicle are naturally difficult to investigate with any chance of success. Further difficulty is encountered in incidents involving bullet wounds since, as already mentioned, the victims might themselves face prosecution as a result of their own actions, and, consequently, refrain from testifying. All of these significant difficulties must be taken into consideration.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(3) \t<\/span>Another difficulty, to which reference has already been made, lies in the fact that investigations conducted by the military police may require statements from the local population, who can be questioned only by the civil police, to whom the matter is referred long after the occurrence of the incident. It is doubtful, therefore, whether such an investigation can be of any use. As a result, witnesses among the local population are not questioned and, in the absence of such witnesses, it is usually assumed that a road-block and the throwing of stones made it necessary to use firearms which were ostensibly discharged into the air. It is obviously difficult to identify the person who fired the shots and this difficulty becomes even more acute in incidents resulting in loss of life. The question arises, therefore, as to whether loss of life warrants the granting of immunity to stone-throwers or disturbers of the peace in order to obtain their testimony. In the case of the death at Beni Na'eem, the police decided not to grant immunity to Persons who had participated in the riots. At that stage, the investigation can be said to have been one-sided and this fact had obvious effects on the outcome.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(4) \t<\/span>Another aspect relating to the inability to identify suspects is the fact that complainants have withdrawn statements in which they claimed to be able to make such identification.  This happened in the case of the incident at the cave of<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Machpelah and also in connection with the uprooting of vines at Kafr Qaddoum. Although the Commission is not in a position to ascertain the reason for this Volte-face, we cannot exclude the possibility that threats might have been made against the complainants, as in the case of the trader from Jericho. The<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Commission is not convinced that a real effort was made by the police to secure the co-operation <\/strong>of complainants in cases in which the latter had changed their minds about being able to identify suspects.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(5)\t<\/span>It should be noted, however, that there is unquestionably a direct relationship between the large number of cases closed due to inability to identify culprits and the number of investigations that have proved abortive due to the tardy manner in which they were conducted or due to the failure to make adequate endeavors to locate the persons involved. In this connection, it should also be noted that the 13 or more cases in which complaints were submitted in respect of damage to property, acts of sabotage, assault, etc. during the curfew at Hebron were all closed due to inability to identify the culprits.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(6)\t<\/span>In view of the restrictions imposed, the Commission could not examine all of the files that had been closed on grounds of inability to identify culprits. However, the few files that it was able to examine gave cause for concern. For example, as already mentioned, the files on the Hadassa case, the assault on the sepulchre of the prophets in the cave of Machpelah and the incidents involving the launderettes and the buses are characterized by the fact that no steps were taken to identify the culprits.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The random sample of files selected by the Commission for examination included <\/strong>Criminal File No. 280\/81 concerning injury suffered after the throwing of stones and the blocking of the road at the bus station in Ramallah. The Public Prosecutor of the District of Jerusalem had noted that the file did not contain statements by local eyewitnesses and, in his opinion, no real effort had been made to find eyewitnesses on or shortly after the date on which the complaint was submitted which, in this case, was the date on which the incident occurred.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

With regard to Criminal File No. 169\/82, concerning the investigation into the complaint made by the driver of a car who claimed that his vehicle had been damaged by a stone thrown from a settlement near Ofira, the Public Prosecutor of the District of Jerusalem informed us in writing on 16 May 1982 that: "Only the driver's statement was taken. The file was closed due to lack of evidence on the basis of which charges could be proffered. This matter does not fall within my sphere of competence. Although the record of the investigation indicates that efforts were made to find the local persons responsible, the file does not contain any information on the results of those efforts."<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The facts speak for themselves. In a remarkably large number of cases, the files had been closed on the grounds that the culprits were unknown.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

F.(1) The Commission gained the impression that the police investigations into the matters with which we are concerned were carried out in an inconsistent manner, as can be seen from the results of those investigations.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

This inconsistency cannot be attributed solely to the natural complexity of the situation or to the fact that the suspects in the above-mentioned cases were not regarded by the police as criminals in the normal sense of the word. In fact, this inconsistency seems to arise primarily from external intervention by members of the military administration who issue orders concerning the initiation of investigations and related matters such as the release of detainees.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(2) \t<\/span>Clear illustrations of this state of affairs were given to the Commission by Inspector Kaleej, head of the investigation branch in Judea, as can be seen from his report of 1 June 1981 on the Beit Hadassa case in which he stated that: "The Military Governor of Hebron ordered the police superintendent to take no action in the matter since he would endeavor to ensure that the damage was made good by <\/i>the military administration … In the first case, there was no proper investigation into the complaint concerning the roof … since the previous Military Governor had issued instructions to the effect that no action was to be taken."<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

During his appearance before the Commission, Kaleej added that the exertion of such pressure by the Military Governor had been effective in ensuring the release of persons held for questioning. He said that such direct pressure could not be resisted by police superintendents since they hesitated to enter into a confrontation with the Governor by disregarding his directives. As a result, persons were released on grounds that were in no way related to the case under investigation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(3)\t<\/span>In addition to raising a constitutional problem, the intervention of officials of the military authorities in police work also increases the difficulties normally encountered during investigations, and is naturally interpreted as support for the persons accused. Mr. Kaleej informed the Commission that, in some parts of the occupied territories, the Israeli population regarded themselves as soldiers in every sense of the word and, as such, subject only to military jurisdiction.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

On this basis, therefore, the Israeli population of Judea and Samaria are refusing to co-operate with the civil police. They regard themselves as instruments of top-level policy and declare that they are not bound to co-operate in such matters.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(4)\t<\/span>On 23 March 1982, the area commander of Judea and Samaria issued order No. 128-23 MB to the heads of investigation branches in his area. This order stated that all cases involving the use of firearms by the Jewish inhabitants of Judea and Samaria, where such resulted in casualties among the local population, would be dealt with by the military, rather than the civil, Israeli police. An amendment, the purpose of which is unclear, was subsequently issued to the effect that any case in which casualties occurred among the local population as a result of the discharge of firearms by the inhabitants of Judea and Samaria would be dealt with by the Military Governor.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

When this order came to the notice of the Attorney-General, he protested at a cabinet meeting on 28 March 1982. Explanations were offered and his military counterpart subsequently informed him that the Area Commander of Judea and Samaria had revoked the order.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

However, during a meeting held on 2 April 1982, at which the Commission was Provided with a copy of the countermanding order, the head of the investigation branch in Judea pointed out that he had not received any notification signifying that the initial order had been withdrawn. Consequently, his staff still regarded themselves as bound by the initial order. This was the situation until 15 April 1982, when the Attorney-General sent a letter to the Chief Superintendent of Police requesting him to notify all police officers in Judea and Samaria that the order had been revoked.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

G.(l) Although the above-mentioned letter was not sent to the inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a, they were presumably informed of its contents. The subject was discussed in a widely-circulated bulletin, issued in the name of the local council of Qiryat Arba'a on 24 March 1982, in which the inhabitants were advised not to co-operate with the police and not to answer any questions, even from military investigators, unless they were certain that the matter would not be referred to the civil police or to the office of the Attorney-General at Jerusalem. Accordingly, it is pointless to ask whether the inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a have been notified of the revocation of the earlier order since they are still brazenly continuing their boycott of the civil police, irrespective of whether statements are required from them as suspects or as witnesses who might help in investigations<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(2)\t<\/span>It is not difficult to understand the real anxiety felt by the inhabitants of Judea and Samaria at the mere thought that they might be called upon to give an explanation of their acts of self-defense. This general feeling of uneasiness is aggravated by the real dangers to which they are exposed when travelling on roads in the area. However, their open defiance of the police and the low esteem in which they hold the head of the investigation branch in Judea and Samaria and the Office of the State Attorney-General are not confined to the question of the use of firearms; their refusal to enter into contact with the police applies to all offences, even those not involving the use of firearms. This signifies an inability and unwillingness to investigate any complaint against the inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a. Mr. Kaleej told the Commission that he personally did not wish to conduct investigations in Qiryat Arba'a at a time when police officers could not take decisive action. As already indicated, the unsatisfactory outcome of such investigations is a direct result of this lack of co-operation.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(3) \t<\/span>A more serious aspect of this question can be seen in the investigation of incidents in the villages of Sanjal and Beni Na'eem in which several persons died. In both cases, on being summoned to appear before the police, the persons accused of these killings declared that they would not present themselves, since they dealt only with the military administration. In spite of the seriousness of the accusations, the police made no attempt to bring in the suspects. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the failure to execute a warrant issued for the arrest of the murder suspect in the Beni Na'eem case require full examination.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In the Beni Na'eem case, according to Mr. Kaleej, a deputation including the head of the council of Qiryat Arba'a and a representative of the council of Gosh Etzion appeared at the police station three days later and, claiming to enjoy the support of the military administration authorities, stated that they would not co-operate since the police and the Attorney-General at Jerusalem were manifesting a hostile attitude towards them. They said that they would not give their version of the incident unless they received instructions from their political leaders. It is noteworthy that, although one member of the deputation was himself a suspect, he was not questioned on that occasion. In the event, the suspects were never brought in and, six days after the incident, notwithstanding the fact that the suspects were well known, the police were still trying to collect evidence for a case of involuntary homicide or suspected murder. This naturally had a direct effect on the investigation itself. It is difficult to believe that this is the manner in which a murder case would be dealt with in Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(4) \t<\/span>The Commission believes that this refusal to co-operate on the grounds of a hostile attitude allegedly adopted by the police and the State Attorney-General should be discussed by the appropriate political bodies as a matter of urgency. It is impossible to turn a blind eye to an anarchical situation in which the police are prevented from distinguishing between acts of legitimate self-defense and acts in which persons have taken the law into their own hands on the pretext of self-defense. The authority of the police to investigate offences of any nature, particularly in cases in which death has occurred, is one of the basic principles of law and order and must be strictly upheld. The right of self-defense must not be regarded as conferring impunity.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In view of the complex and unique nature of this situation, the delicate problem of the security of the inhabitants of Judea and Samaria must be solved within the framework of the law and without permitting certain persons to take the <\/strong>law into their own hands.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Guidelines must be laid down to deal with stone-throwing and the blocking of roads. These guidelines must also be, respected by civilians, including the Israeli population of Judea and Samaria, when such situations are encountered. The procedures under which civilians are permitted to carry weapons supplied by the Israel Defense Force must be reviewed, together with the instructions concerning situations in which such weapons can be used. A clear distinction must be made between the army and the civilian settlers with regard to responsibility for security in the area. It might be advisable to make it compulsory to report all instances in which use is made of weapons supplied by the army, even in cases in which injury does not occur, and to make certain that everyone is clearly aware of the difference between situations of legitimate self-defense and situations involving the illegal assumption of authority and responsibility for security. The reaction of the inhabitants of Qiryat Arba'a and the district of Hebron, and their demand that investigations be conducted by the military authorities, is tantamount to rebellion and constitutes a challenge to the civil police, the Attorney-General and the courts in the State of Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

In general, the conclusions reached by the Commission indicate certain shortcomings on the part of the police in the investigation of incidents between Israelis and the local population of Judea and Samaria and in the processing of complaints by the local population against Israelis.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

A draft version of this report was submitted to the police and a letter, which is reproduced as an annex to the report, was subsequently received from the Director of the Department of Investigations and Prosecutions at police headquarters. Notwithstanding the commendable nature of the measures which, according to the letter, the police intend to take, it cannot be denied that they represent only a first step in the right direction. The above-mentioned shortcomings, which warrant a thorough examination, illustrate only some aspects of a more fundamental problem heralding the beginning of a dangerous process, the consequences of which are difficult to predict. Under the circumstances, emphasis should not be placed solely on the activities of the civil or military police; all aspects of this serious problem should be discussed, as a matter of priority, by the various political bodies with a view to finding an early solution through the formulation and implementation of an official policy designed to prevent further deterioration in the situation which would seriously undermine the basis of the rule of law.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1.\t<\/span>In the light of the findings and conclusions contained in the Commission's report, it is highly doubtful whether the Commission is able to act with a reasonable degree of independence and in such a way as to bring about a real improvement in the situation. Accordingly, there are doubts concerning the continuation of its activities.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

2.\t<\/span>The difficulties and constraints impeding the work of the Commission are as follows:<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(a) Because of their heavy workload, the members of the Commission were not able to devote the time needed to ensure the successful outcome of their fundamental task. The number of meetings held by the Commission was not sufficient to conduct a thorough examination of all of the investigation files and to begin monitoring events in the field. Throughout the period of its work, the Commission felt that the scone of its activities was too narrow.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(b) The Commission was established primarily to undertake a co-ordinating function. However, after a whole year's work, it had completed only the preliminary stage of surveillance and fact-finding which are prerequisites for any discussion of matters concerning co-ordination which, in any case, must be decided by the political authorities since the composition of the Commission is incompatible with that objective.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(c) As already indicated, the Commission felt that the material collected during its work was incomplete and that it had failed to establish a system for the systematic monitoring of incidents in order to compare them with the reports that it received.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

As a result, the Commission failed to achieve its objective of ensuring a preliminary investigation of incidents even when complaints had not been submitted.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(d) The reports received by the Commission were not always precise and complete. At all events, they were received so late that it was impossible to conduct a real study of developments. This late arrival of reports, which was attributed to difficulties in communications, deprived the Commission of the feeling that it was putting its finger on the root of the current problem. For example, when the Commission requested a report on an incident in which an Arab girl died, the report was received 10 days later. One week was the minimum period needed to obtain supplementary information concerning matters dealt with in the<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

reports.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(e) Another obstacle faced by the Commission was the considerable difficulty in ascertaining and following the precise details of an energetic investigation. Furthermore, supervision of a body that enjoys functional authority differs from supervision of a body that does not enjoy such authority. The Commission did not intervene in the investigation process itself, except in cases in which it saw fit to return files for completion or for a review of the conclusions reached therein.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(f) The attempt made by the Commission to ascertain the thoroughness of investigations with the help of the public prosecutors was unsuccessful, with the exception of the assistance provided by the Public Prosecutor of the District of Jerusalem, who was himself a member of the Commission.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

 \t<\/span>(g) The Commission had hoped that its own inquiries and the obligation to submit reports would bring about an improvement in the working habits of the investigating bodies. However, this hope was not fulfilled and doubts were therefore entertained concerning the effectiveness of the Commission's activities. Although the representative of the police on the Commission did her utmost to motivate the investigating offices and to convince them of the importance of rapid and effective action, no sign of improvement was observed.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

(h) There was a general consensus among the members of the Commission that the proper approach to this problem was beyond the scope of its authority and terms of reference since it was difficult to overcome the problem without a basic 'definition of the various opinions concerning its underlying causes and the Commission was not a representative body in this respect.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

3.\t<\/span>The representatives of the police and the Office of the Commander of Judea and Samaria on the Commission expressed the view that the existence of the Commission, in itself, provides an incentive for the civil and military police to conduct their investigations with greater diligence and efficiency. They also believed that there was a need for such a body that could disseminate information in the area and, if necessary, urge the authorities to initiate investigations. Unfortunately, this report does not support the claim that the Commission can help to bring about the fundamental changes needed. Moreover, there is a danger that the existence of the Commission might be used as a screen to conceal a phenomenon to which the Commission objects. It might also help to impede recognition of the need to deal with the problem in all its aspects. The solution should not be sought in technical surveillance of investigations, the evaluation of investigation procedures or the examination of legal aspects; it will be found only in a radical correction of the basic weakness of the rule of law in its broadest sense.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

ANNEX IV<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Statement submitted by the Minister for Occupied Territories Affairs of Jordan to the Special Committee on 28 May 1984 – list of educational institutions closed down between February 1983 and<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

February 1984<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Institutions<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

District<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Closing date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Re-opening date<\/p>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

All schools in the West Bank<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

29 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Al-Najah University<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nablus<\/p>\n

<\/td>\n

\n

3 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n

5 June 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n

1 Sept. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ma'zour Al Massry High School<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28 Feb. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24 aprl. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Qadri Touqan High School<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17 Nov. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24 Nov. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Industrial School in Nablus<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

King Talal School in Nablus<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

All Jenin schools<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Anabta High School for Boys<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Tulkarm<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Anabta Primary School for Girls<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Bir Zeit University<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Bir Zeit <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 Aug. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRAWA Teachers Institute<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ramallah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17 Aug. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Arab medical and paramedical faculties<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9 May 1983<\/p>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ramallah High School for Boys<\/p>\n

<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n

9 Nov. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n

17 Nov. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ramallah High School for Girls<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3 Jan. 1984<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Until further notice<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Al Bireh Nursing School<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Hashemite School at Al Bireh<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16 May 1983\t<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Al Bireh High School for Girls<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

3 Jan. 1984<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Until furthernotice<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Bethlehem University<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Bethlehem<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n

2 Nov. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n

5 Dec. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

All schools at Beit Sahour<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 4 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

All schools atAl Dheisheh Refugee Camp<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 4 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Beit Sahour Primary School<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Intermediate Dheisheh School<\/p>\n

for Boys<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28 Feb. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Teachers Training Institute at<\/p>\n

Kalandia<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jerusalem<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18 Oct. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18 Dec. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Kalandia Refugee Camp School<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Kalandia Preparatory and Intermediate School for Girls<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 2 Nov. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 Jan. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Khawlah Bent Al-Azwar Intermediate School for Girls<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5 Nov. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Until further notice<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Hebron University<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hebron<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Political Institute in Hebron<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n

27 July 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25 May 1983<\/p>\n

2 Aug. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Halhoul Secondary School for Girls<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hebron<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Yata School for Boys<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7 Apr. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

All schools in Yata and Beit Omar<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29 Mar. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25 Apr.1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sa'ir High School for Boys<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sa'ir High School for Girls<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26 May 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Tarek Ben Ziad School<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

"<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9 Nov. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17 Nov. 1983<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

ANNEX V<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Map showing Israeli settlements established, planned or under<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

\n

construction in the territories occupied since 1967<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n

\n

\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

ANNEX VI<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tStudy of the settlements in the occupied territories, West Bank and the Gaza Strip: Dr. Walid Mustapha, and Mr. Abdul Jawad Saleh – List of settlements established from 1967to 1983 and projected settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n

\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ISRAELI PRACTICES AFFECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE POPULATION OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES Note by the Secretary-General The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the attached report, which was submitted to him, in accordance with paragraph 14 of Assembly resolution 38\/79 D […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"country":[],"document-category":[1323],"document-source":[1365,1913],"committee-meeting":[],"document-subject":[6156,2441,2209,1861,2237,1741,1917],"entity":[1729],"document-language":[6542],"class_list":["post-184292","document","type-document","status-publish","hentry","document-category-report","document-source-general-assembly","document-source-special-committee-to-investigate-israeli-practices","document-subject-agenda-item","document-subject-education-and-culture","document-subject-expulsions-and-deportations","document-subject-fourth-geneva-convention","document-subject-golan-heights","document-subject-human-rights-and-international-humanitarian-law","document-subject-situation-in-the-opt-including-jerusalem","entity-united-nations-system","document-language-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document\/184292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/document"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document\/184292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=184292"},{"taxonomy":"document-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-category?post=184292"},{"taxonomy":"document-source","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-source?post=184292"},{"taxonomy":"committee-meeting","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/committee-meeting?post=184292"},{"taxonomy":"document-subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-subject?post=184292"},{"taxonomy":"entity","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entity?post=184292"},{"taxonomy":"document-language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/document-language?post=184292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}