Tag: B’Tselem - Page 7 - International Solidarity Movement

The declaration of land as state land and the registration of state land in the land registry has, since 1967, been the principal method used by Israel to take control of land to build settlements and create land reserves for their future expansion.123 Until then, the state relied on the claim of “military need” to seize private land, which often required that it prove to the High Court of Justice that the taking indeed was a military necessity.

In implementing this procedure, Israel relies on its manipulative use of the Ottoman Land Law of 1858, which was incorporated in British Mandate legislation, and later in Jordanian law. This law was part of the local law at the time Israel occupied the West Bank, and as such has remained in effect. The law states that a person may acquire ownership of farmland and register it in the land registration office (Tabu) after working it for ten consecutive years. If the person ceases to work the land for three consecutive years, the land is considered state land, and possession is transferred to the government. The power to declare land state land and to administer it is given by the Israel military legislation to the Custodian for Government and Abandoned Property in Judea and Samaria.

A parcel of land that is examined prior to registering it as state land is classified as “survey land.”126 Until the check is completed, the Custodian declares the parcel state land and enables
Palestinians who claim rights in the parcel to file an appeal before a military committee within forty-five days of the declaration. At the end of this period, or following the committee’s decision rejecting an appeal that was filed, the land is registered as state land.

From 1979-1992, the Custodian registered 908,000 dunams as state land. The procedure for declaring and registering land as state land was suspended from 1992 to 1996, when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister. It was re-instituted in 1997.

A substantial portion of the land registered as state land and used to establish settlements and land reserves for their expansion was, even according to a strict reading of the Ottoman Land Law, privately owned by Palestinians. Israel’s illegal seizure of private land was possible, in part, because of the nature of the bureaucratic process in which the taking of control was carried out. Often (primarily in the 1980s), notice of declaration of a particular parcel as state land did not reach the Palestinians, and when it did, the time for filing an appeal had already passed.

Also, for a variety of reasons, Palestinians were unable to successfully compete against the military authorities at the appeals hearing. Even worse, there have been many cases in which Israel related to survey lands (the land that had not been proven to be state land) as if they were registered state land, and allocated them to the settlements.

It should be noted that, even if Israel had followed the strict letter of the Ottoman Land Law fairly and justly, and had not declared privately owned land as state land, the state has acted improperly because it administered the state land in a discriminatory and illegal manner. State land is public property, belonging to the lawful residents of the West Bank. The role of the occupying state, as the temporary substitute for the sovereign, is to administer the public land for the benefit of that public, or to meet its military needs in the occupied territory. Rather than act in this way, since it began to take control of state land, Israel has completely denied the Palestinians their right to use these lands, and has allocated them only for the establishment and expansion of settlements.

B’Tselem: Security forces demolish house of family of perpetrator of attack in Jerusalem

B’Tselem

On 7 April, security forces demolished the apartment, in Zur Baher, East Jerusalem, of the family of Husam Dwiyat, who carried out a bulldozer attack in the center of Jerusalem in July of last year. The demolition took place after the High Court of Justice denied, on 18 March, the family’s petition opposing the action.

As in previous cases of this kind, the justices (Levy, Grunis, and Na’or) accepted the state’s argument that demolition of the family home will deter others from carrying out similar acts. The justices approved the demolition, even though the state never contended that Dwiyat’s family assisted him or knew of his plans.

From 1967 to 2005, Israel maintained a policy to demolish or seal houses in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a means to punish the families of Palestinians who had harmed Israelis. The policy was based on the claim that, out of concern for their families, Palestinians would be deterred from carrying out attacks. In implementing this policy, from October 2001 to the end of January 2005, Israel demolished 664 houses, leaving 4,182 persons homeless.

This practice is forbidden under international humanitarian law. The declared objective is to harm innocent persons – relatives of suspects – whom nobody contends were involved in any offense. As such, it constitutes collective punishment, which violates the principle that a person is not to be punished for the acts of another.

In February 2005, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon accepted the recommendations of a team headed by Maj. Gen. Udi Shani, and decided that houses would no longer be demolished as punishment. The change in policy had a few causes, among them the determination that it is was impossible to state without reservation that house demolitions were effective in preventing terrorist attacks. In addition, evidence was presented to the Shani team indicating that house demolitions as punishment created immense hatred, which increased motivation to carry out terrorist attacks. In addition, it was determined by the committee that house demolitions adversely affected Israel’s public image around the world, and its legality under international law was unclear.

The judge advocate general, Brig. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, explained at a meeting of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of the Knesset that the decision to cease house demolitions as punishment did not relate only to periods of calm, and that it would remain in effect also if terrorist attacks resumed. The JAG emphasized that the decision was sweeping, and that the subject would be reconsidered only in the event of a drastic change in circumstances.

Despite this, on 19 January 2009, without giving a convincing explanation, Israel renewed its policy and sealed two of four floors in the house of the family of the perpetrator of the attack at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem, ‘Alaa Abu Dahim, in which his parents and one of his brothers lived. In that case as well, the High Court approved the state’s action.

Israeli police shoot motorist during house demolition

Rory McCarthy | The Guardian

7 April 2009

Israeli police today shot dead a Palestinian driver they said had tried to attack them during the demolition of a Palestinian home in Jerusalem.

The driver was shot at a roadblock set up by border police in Sur Bahir, a district on the city’s Arab eastern side. A police spokesman described him as a “terrorist”. Three officers were injured.

The incident came after police had begun the partial demolition of a house belonging to Husam Dweiyat, a Palestinian who drove a bulldozer down a busy Jerusalem road last July, ramming a bus and crushing cars, and killing three Israelis, before he was shot dead.

At the time police described it as a terrorist attack, although the man’s lawyer later said the bulldozer driver had been mentally ill. Dweiyat did not appear to have belonged to any armed Palestinian groups.

There have since been two similar bulldozer attacks in Jerusalem.

Last month, Israel’s supreme court rejected an appeal against the proposed demolition of the house and said it could go ahead. Israeli authorities had long argued that demolishing the homes of attackers discouraged further attacks, although the policy changed in 2005 when a military commission argued that it caused more harm than benefit. This demolition was the first since.

Armed police watched as the top floors of the stone house were knocked to the ground. Parts of the house were left standing but sealed with concrete.

Israel’s leading human rights group, B’Tselem, said the demolitions were forbidden by international humanitarian law and constituted “collective punishment”. It said between October 2001 and January 2005 – at the height of the second intifada or Palestinian uprising – Israel demolished 664 houses under the deterrent policy, leaving 4,182 Palestinians homeless.

Calls for independent investigation into military’s conduct during Operation Cast Lead

B’Tselem

30 March 2009

Israeli human rights organizations say, in response to the Israeli Army’s speedy closing of internal investigation files about war crimes in Operation Cast Lead: The speedy closing of the investigation immediately raises suspicions that the very opening of this investigation was merely the army’s attempt to wipe its hands of all blame for illegal activity during Operation Cast Lead.

The internal investigation ignored a significant amount of material that was collected and that coincides with soldiers’ testimonies recently publicized in Israel media. In addition, the Military Advocate General disregarded allegations that several of the commands given during the military operations were illegal. It is clear that in this case, the Military Police Criminal Investigations Department (MPCID) has decided to focus on the individual soldier, a measure which is neither effective nor reliable.

“The closing of the Army’s own investigation only strengthens the need for the Attorney General to allow for an independent non-partisan investigative body to be established in order to look into all Israeli Army activity during Operation Cast Lead,” say Israeli human rights organizations.

IPS: Israelis Using ‘Excessive’ Force Against Protesters

Mel Frykberg | Inter-Press Service

The critical wounding of a U.S. activist has highlighted the excessive use of force by Israeli forces.

The activist, Tristan Anderson, 38, was shot in the head by Israeli soldiers during a protest against Israel’s separation barrier in the Palestinian West Bank last week. He remains in intensive care in Tel Hashomer Hospital in Tel Aviv.

Anderson was one of approximately 400 international, Palestinian and Israeli protestors taking part in a demonstration in the village of Ni’ilin, near the central West Bank city Ramallah, when he was hit by a teargas canister.

Since Israel’s devastating three-week war on Gaza, human rights organisations and activists have accused the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) of using indiscriminate violence and testing new weapons on unarmed protestors.

The teargas canister which hit Anderson is a new variety being used by the IDF, and is particularly lethal if fired directly at protestors.

The gas canister can travel over 400 metres. It does not make a noise when fired, or emit a smoke tail, and has a propeller for mid-air acceleration. A combination of velocity and silence increases the danger it poses.

Witnesses gave testimonies to the media and to human rights organisations that they saw Israeli soldiers aiming at Anderson before they shot the canister from a distance of about 60 metres. It hit him directly on the forehead. The impact of the canister caused severe damage to the right eye, and Anderson has had to undergo critical brain surgery.

Israeli soldiers continued to fire teargas canisters towards the wounded man and the people surrounding him as he lay critically injured on the ground and Palestinian medics tried to give him first aid.

Later, a Palestinian ambulance trying to rush Anderson to hospital was blocked at least five minutes by Israeli soldiers. Only after other foreigners engaged the soldiers in heated debate did they allow the ambulance to pass.

Anderson was then delayed another 15 minutes while an Israel ambulance was called, because Palestinian ambulances are not allowed to cross into Israeli territory without special permit.

Jonathan Pollack, an Israeli activist who witnessed the event said that the soldiers had fired unnecessarily. “There was no way that their lives were even remotely in danger or that they might have been injured,” Pollack told IPS.

“Even if the IDF (Israeli defence forces) argument was true that they had been the targets of stones before they shot him, no stone could travel uphill for 60 metres and threaten them, and Anderson had definitely not been involved in any violent activity.”

Pollack said the demonstration had finished and most of the demonstrators had left when the teargas was fired. “At the time of the shooting there were no confrontations, and Anderson was standing amongst about 10 remaining protestors just milling about.”

Sarit Michaeli, spokeswoman for the Israeli rights group B’Tselem says that the IDF has at times used crowd control measures indiscriminately. “The teargas canister is not meant to be used as a weapon or fired directly at protestors but in an arc or at an angle,” she told IPS.

“We have many credible witnesses, and I myself have seen soldiers fire at people who are nowhere near and have nothing to do with any stone- throwing. And even when the soldiers have the right to shoot on grounds of self-defence, they are obliged to use the minimum of force and in a strictly proportionate way.”

B’Tselem is concerned about the even more severe crowd control methods being employed by the IDF.

An Israeli journalist was recently shot in the chest with a rubber-coated steel bullet (marble-sized metal ball covered in 0.5mm of rubber) when the soldiers knew full well the target was a journalist. Towards the end of last year the IDF began once again to use Ruger rifles, which use .22 calibre ammunition, against unarmed protestors.

“We have written a letter to the judge advocate general (JAG) protesting and questioning the use of Ruger rifles,” said Michaeli.

According to B’Tselem, back in 2001 then JAG Major-General Menachem Finkelstein had ordered that use of the Ruger rifle be stopped. The decision followed the killing of several children in the Gaza Strip by Ruger rifle fire, and an order by the Central Command to cease using the rifle. The order came after it was found that soldiers often used the rifle against demonstrators without justification.

Furthermore, Israeli soldiers are using live ammunition against protestors, contrary to IDF laws of engagement.

Although Anderson’s case made international headlines because of his status as a foreigner, four Palestinians were killed by the IDF in the village of Ni’ilin last year.

Ahmed Mousa, 10, was shot dead with live ammunition in July last year. The following day Yousef Amira, 17, was left brain-dead, and died a week later after he too had been shot in the head with rubber-coated steel bullets.

Arafat Rateb Khawaje, 22, was shot in the back with live ammunition in December. The same day Mohammed Khawaje, 20, was also shot in the head with live ammunition. He died three days later.

The villagers of Ni’ilin and their supporters have been protesting weekly against the confiscation of their land by Israeli authorities for expansion of nearby Israeli settlements, and against the separation barrier.

The separation barrier, which slices through the village, divides Palestinian farmers from their land. It was deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004.