Connection

Interrupted:
Israel’s Control of the Palestinian
ICT Infrastructure and Its Impact
on Digital Rights

December 2018

7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancementof Social Media
Connection Interrupted: Israel’s Control of the Palestinian
ICT Infrastructure and Its Impact on Digital Rights
Written by: Anan AbuShanab
Designed by: Amal Shoufany
Edited by: Alison Ramer
Translated by: Muna Abu Baker
Done with the support and cooperation of:Contact us: info@7amleh.org | www.7amleh.org
Tel: +972 (0)774020670
Published by 7amleh - The Arab Center for the Advancementof Social MediaCreative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - Share-Alike 4.0(CC BY NC SA 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Table of Content

05 Summary
07 Introduction
How Israel Controls the Palestinian

10 ICT Infrastructure

13 Control under the Oslo Accords
Operators Benefiting from
21 Israeli
Imposed Restrictions
Endured by the Palestinian
24 Losses
ICT Sector

27 Abuses of Palestinian Digital Rights
Rights to Communication and to Access27 the Internet

29 Right to Privacy
34 Right to Freedom of Expression
39 Conclusion and Recommendations

Summary
The development of information and communications
technology (ICT) have allowed for an extensive flow of
information in our lives surpassing territorial constraints.
However, in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) Israel
has been controlling the ICT infrastructure since its began
its military occupation in 1967. Although per the Oslo
Accords, an Interim Agreement signed between Israel
and Palestinian representatives in 1995, Israel transferredsome of this control to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in theWest Bank, excluding East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.
Otherwise, Israel has retained control over critical aspectsof the ICT sector making it impossible for Palestinians todevelop an independent network and thereby enjoy agreater safety and flow of information.
Israel’s control of the Palestinian ICT infrastructure
has not only hindered its development but has
also allowed Israel to conduct mass surveillance ofPalestinians and restrict their access to digital rights,
specifically rights to internet security, privacy andfreedom of opinion and expression. ICT has changed
the way we lead our lives from social networking toecommerce, leading to significant societal changes
and transformations. As the interactions between ourdaily lives and components of ICT continue to grow,opportunities but also risks to how we exercise ourhuman rights emerge, and specifically to rights ofprivacy and freedom of expression. The componentsof ICT include all the infrastructure and technologies
that allow for interactions in the digital world, inter alia,
network equipment, telecommunications services,
devices and electronics, and security software.
In this report, 7amleh - The Arab Center for the
Advancement of Social Media provides informationon the interaction between the ICT sector and digitalrights in Palestine, by identifying Israeli restrictions
imposed on the Palestinian ICT infrastructure andtheir implications for the enjoyment of digital rights byPalestinians. The paper focuses on how such control
has allowed Israel to conduct mass surveillanceof Palestinians and monitor content online, thus
violating an array of human rights, both in the online
and offline world.
7amleh believes that Israel’s continued control of thePalestinian ICT sector greatly affects digital rights inparticular, and human rights in general in the oPt, andas such calls on Israel to cease its unjustified controlof the ICT sector and its illegal digital surveillance
practices of the Palestinian population. Social media
and ICT companies involved in dealings with Israel
must also ensure that their operations in the oPt do
not violate Palestinians’ human rights. Further, third
party states, must also ensure that their policies do
not recognize or support unlawful Israeli actions that
violate the rights of Palestinians and ensure that
Israel to meet its international legal obligations as an
occupying power in the oPt.

Introduction
In today’s digital lifestyle, everyone is increasingly
conducting their personal and professional lives online
acquiring knowledge but also sharing personal data andcontent, and social networking, while storing data online.
Today, people rely on information and communications
technology (ICT) infrastructure to connect them to the world.
This increased interconnectedness creates opportunities
to share information but also creates new risks and ethicaldilemmas that affect human rights, particularly in regards
to what is shared and with whom and how personal datais stored and accessed. Human rights online, or digitalrights, are considered an extension of human rights inthe digital context and the United Nations Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) on multiple occasions emphasized that“the same rights that people have offline must be also
protected online”.1
Since its occupation of the Palestinian territories(oPt) in 1967, Israel has controlled the Palestinian ICT
infrastructure, hindering its development and Palestinians’
digital rights including recent mass surveillance andmonitoring of Palestinian content online. Israel’s control of
the Palestinian ICT infrastructure is part and parcel of its
policies and practices as an occupying power controllingthe oPt and as a result Palestinians are unable to develop
1

UN Human Rights Council, “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on theInternet,” A/HRC/32/L.20, (27 June 2016), available at: https://goo.gl/QeUkDX

an independent ICT sector and forced to depend on
Israeli operators to provide services and encounterthe repeated destruction of networks and equipment
by Israel, enduring significant economic losses.
According to the Palestinian Information Technology
Association (PITA), the ICT market in the WestBank and Gaza encompasses 400,000 fixed-line
subscribers, 100 radio and local television stations,as well as 17 companies operating in the field of
telecommunication and Internet.2 In 2017, there
were about 3,018,770 registered internet users(amounting to 60.5 percent of the population) in
the oPt, excluding East Jerusalem,3 with 1,600,000
users being active social media users connected tovarious social media platforms.4 In the same year,
there were 4,400,000 sim cards in the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip, 90 percent of which were operated
by Palestinian telecom operators and the remaining
10 percent were operated by Israeli ones. For about
1,400,000 internet users, mobile phones are theirmeans of accessing the internet.
The advancement of the ICT sector and digitaltechnology have had many positive effects on theexercise of human rights in the digital context,
in particular for the right to freedom of opinion
2
3

Palestinian Investment Promotion Agency, “ICT,” available at: https://goo.gl/LTq8Z8
Unclear how many Palestinian users in East Jerusalem, given that the ICT sector in
East Jerusalem is fully integrated into Israel’s ICT infrastructure.
4 Ipoke. “Social Palestine: Social Media in Palestine in 201”, (23 January 2017), available
at: https://goo.gl/FYoDFj

and expression, which include the right to acquireand disseminate information, and the right tocommunicate. Today, various technology products
allow for easier access to information and theability to filter or even block content.5 This has
increased unlawful conduct by governments orservice providers along the ICT service chain that can
infringe on people’s digital rights and make people
more vulnerable. Potential abuses resulting from thegovernment’s illegitimate use of ICT infrastructure
include,

inter

alia,

disrupting

orcompletely

shutting down systems, the misuse of information
for surveillance, censoring speech, deleting or
blocking data, or the forced distribution of politicallymotivated messages via operators’ networks.6
During various Israeli military operations on the Gaza
Strip in 2014, which resulted in appalling humanlosses and damages to Palestinian infrastructure,
the Israeli army bombed 14 stations of the PalTelgroup, resulting in an estimated loss of US$32.6
million in revenue and damaged networks.7 Israel
has also targeted many Palestinians through theirsocial media profiles. Monitoring of Palestinian
profiles, which is used largely to connect with fellow
5

Hope, Dunstan. “Protecting human Rights in the Digital Age: Understanding Evolving
Freedom of Expression and Privacy Risks in the Information and Communications
Technology Industry,” BSR, (February 2011), available at: https://www.bsr.org/reports
BSR_Protecting_Human_Rights_in_the_Digital_Age.pdf
6 Ibid.
7 Alphamena Corporate Services, “PalTel Telecoms/ Palestine,” (6 June 2018), available
at: https://goo.gl/sQWHjF

Palestinians across fragmented geographical areas,
has resulted in hundreds of Palestinian profiles
being deleted and hundreds of Palestinians beingarrested and charged with the far reaching charge of‘incitement’.8

1. How Israel Controls thePalestinian ICT Infrastructure
Following its occupation in 1967, the Israeli military
took control of the ICT sector in the oPt, which
was first administered by the Israeli Ministry of
Telecommunication and later by Bezeq, the stateowned telecom company. In 1995, Israel transferred
partial control of ICT infrastructure in the West Bank,
excluding East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip to thePalestinian Authority (PA) as per the Oslo Accords.
The agreement divided the geographical integrity of
the West Bank into three different areas; Areas A, B,
and C, each is under different jurisdictions. Under
the Accords, Area A, consisting of 18 percent wasunder the control of the Palestinian Authority, Area
B consisting of 22 percent fell under Palestinian civil
control but joint Palestinian-Israeli security control,and Area C consisting of 60 percent of the West Bankwas under full Israeli control.
In East Jerusalem, the ICT infrastructure is under full8

See 7amleh’s report “#Palestine 2017: Palestinian Digital Activism Report” available
at:http://7amleh.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Palestine-2017-English-final.pdf

Israeli control, and no Palestinian telecommunications
operator is allowed to operate or provide services
there. Although Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem
following its occupation and applied its civil law toEast Jerusalem, under international law East Jerusalem
remains an occupied territory.
The legal framework governing the ICT sector in
the oPt includes international humanitarian law,international human rights law, international treatieson the telecommunication sector, as well as the Oslo
Accords. In addition, Palestinian telecommunication
laws and regulations are applicable to the work ofPalestinian companies operating in the West Bank andGaza. Although Israel applies its civil law concerning
the ICT sector in East Jerusalem, international law ofbelligerent occupation prohibits Israel from extending
its civil law to an occupied territory.

Figure :1 A map showing the geographical division of the West Bank
into three different areas under the Oslo Accords © UN OCHA2011

1.1 Control under the Oslo Accords
The Oslo Accords refer to the formal agreements that
resulted from direct talks between Israel and thePalestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). They wereformalized starting in 1993, first the Declaration of
Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements
and then elaborated in the Interim Agreement on
the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1995. The Accords
set into motion an interim period of five years toreach a final status agreement, which were supposed
to end in 1999. Although Israel recognized that “thePalestinian side has the right to build and operate
separate and independent communication systems
and infrastructures including telecommunication
networks, a television network and a radio network,”
under the Accords, it continues to control thetelecommunication infrastructure and the deployment
of services in most parts of the oPt.9 The agreement
established a joint committee of technical experts, theJoint Technical Committee to represent both sides andaddress any issues arising in the ICT sector, including“the growing future of the Palestinian side.” However,
the Committee has proven inadequate and shown
ineffective performance since it has been used byIsrael to “veto” the development of the Palestinian
9 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements ("OsloAgreement"), 13 September 1993, Annex III, Article 36(B)(1), available at: http://www.
refworld.org/docid/3de5e96e4.html

ICT sector.10 Instead of gradually transferring thecontrol of the ICT sector as per the Oslo Accords,
Israel has tightened its control of the Palestinian
ICT infrastructure, restricted Palestinians’ access tovarious telecommunications services and continues
to destroy or obstruct its development.
Under the law of occupation, part of international
humanitarian law, agreements concluded between
the authorities of the occupied territories and theoccupying power cannot deprive the local populationof the protections afforded under the law, nor change
the status of the occupied territory.11 Article 36 ofAnnex III of the Oslo Accords sets out the provisions
regulating the telecommunications sphere in the oPt.
Under the provisions of the agreement, Israel restricts
Palestinian access to the electromagnetic sphere,
restricts infrastructure in various areas in the oPt, andtightly controls the import of ICT equipment, while
facilitating the work of Israeli telecom companies
within the West Bank.12 This not only results in losses
for the Palestinian economy, but also violates thedigital rights of the Palestinian population.

10 The World Bank. ‘The Telecommunication Sector in the Palestinian Territories: A
Missed Opportunity for Economic Development’, (1 February 2016), available at;https://goo.gl/8Ecpe6
11 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949,
Article 47.
12 Oslo Agreement, Annex III, Article 36(A)(1).

a. Limiting Access to Frequencies& Technologies
The first Palestinian mobile operator in the West Bankand Gaza, Jawwal, was licensed to operate in 1998, withthe exclusive 2.4 megahertz (MHz) and shared 2.4 MHz
in the 900 MHz band to serve 120,000 subscribers, whichgrew to 2.9 million subscribers by the end of 2017.13 In
2000, the Palestinian Ministry of Telecommunications
and Information Technologies (MTIT) requested Israel
to release frequencies to allow the second Palestinian
mobile operator to enter the Palestinian market,
Wataniya. However, Israel continued to delay therelease of frequencies to Wataniya. In 2007, the MTIT
licensed Wataniya without available frequencies for
its use and issued it 2G and 3G mobile licenses. Israel
also partially released frequencies, 3.6 MHz in the 900
MHz band and 2.8 MHz in the 1800 MHz band, whichwere not even for Wataniya’s exclusive use but could
also be used by Israeli operators. As a result, Wataniya
started operating in the West Bank in November 2009
and following a second release, was able to operate in
the Gaza Strip in 2017.
Israel also continues to deny Palestinians’ requests forthe deployment of new ICT technologies. More than adecade after the Palestinians made the initial request
for the release of Third Generation (3G) frequencies,
the service became available for Palestinian customers
13 Alphamena Corporate Services (n 7).

in the West Bank in early 2018. In addition, Israel
denied the deployment of WiMax (Worldwide
Interoperability for Microwave Access) systems which
provide access to wireless broadband networks andallow for the high-speed transmission of data acrossnetworks and applications, a technology intended bymobile operators and internet providers to “enablepeople to communicate anywhere, at any time, fromany device.”14 LTE and 4G systems now replaced WiMax
systems worldwide, basically providing the same
technology but allowing for a better and faster flowof information. To this day, Palestinians do not haveaccess to 4G, which is available in Israel, and thePalestinian MTIT has been waiting for its request to be
fulfilled by Israel for the past six years.15
Indeed, Israel’s refusal and delay to releasetechnologies required for the growth and operation ofPalestinian telecommunication operators have limited
Palestinian economic growth and made it impossible
to compete with Israeli operators who have manyclients in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

14

Ericsson, “ICT and Human Rights: An ecosystem approach,” (2013) available at:https://goo.gl/fYjLXN
15 7amleh interview with the Palestinian MTIT, Ramallah, 10 October 2018.

b. Limiting Access to Global
Technologies
Israelalso controls

thedevelopment

of

the

infrastructure for ICT in both the West Bank and theGaza Strip In the West Bank, Israel requires Palestinian
operators to apply for permits to build infrastructure in
the majority of the West Bank, which has been deemed‘Area C’ by the Oslo Accords. According to the MTIT, since2000 Israel only approved the necessary infrastructure
for 3G systems.16
As a result, Palestinian networks are fragmented
which encourages customers to use Israeli operatorsthat enable them to be connected while travelingbetween cities or when living in isolated areas. Israel
also prevents Palestinians from building switches, acore equipment of telecommunications networks, inareas under the full control of the PA.17 As a result,
Jawwal located its switches in England and Jordan,
and Wataniya in East Jerusalem. This has resulted
in greater operations costs for both operators and alonger routing of calls.
In Gaza, the ICT infrastructure is completely dependent
on Israel, and the only fiber optic connection between
Gaza and the rest of the world is in Israel. Israel’s
control of the Gaza ICT infrastructure and technologies
are best described as “technologies of enclosure and
16 Ibid.
17 Cisco, “What is Switch vs. a Router,” available at: https://goo.gl/4nSAnp (accessed on
October 30, 2018).

occupation,” through which Israel’s’ control can disrupt
the use of technologies in Gazan’s daily lives, as wellas during various military offences.18 During Israel’s
military offences, the Israeli military sent text messages
and recorded messages to Gazan’s cell phones andlandlines, sometimes to warn them of military attacks.
During the 2008/2009 Israeli military offence on Gaza,
the Israeli army kept telephone and radio broadcast
communications open and regularly interrupted radio
broadcast to warn Palestinians to evacuate areas andsent over 10,000 automated phone calls and text
messages to Palestinians, and despite sending thesewarning messages, Israeli military often did not give
families enough time to evacuate buildings before
carrying out the attacks or take enough precautions tominimize the risk of harm to civilians.19 In addition to
the appalling loss of lives during the various operations,
Israel also targets ICT infrastructure directly, resulting
in communications shutdowns and financial losses
endured by Palestinian operators.

18

Tawil-Souri, Helga. “Digital Occupation: Gaza’s High-Tech Enclosure,” Journal ofPalestine Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Winter 2012), pp. 27-43, available at: https://goo.gl/
d9kyiC
19 “The Israeli Arsenal Deployed Against Gaza During Operation Cast Lead,” Journal ofPalestine Studies Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (Spring 2009), pp. 175–191, available at: https://goo.gl/8CKf8v

c. Restricting the Import ofNecessary Equipment
The economic value of the Palestinian ICT equipment
and hardware is worth about US$100 million,
according to the Palestinian Information Technology
Association of Companies (PITA).20 However,
the importing of telecoms equipment remains
severely restricted for Palestinian mobile, fixed
telecommunications and internet providers among
others with no clear, fixed rules. Under the Oslo
Accords, Palestinians’ import of telecom equipment
is specified in paragraph D(2) of Article 36 of Annex III
and the economic protocols annexed to them:[...] The Palestinian side shall be permitted to[...] The Palestinian side shall be permitted toimport and use any and all kinds of telephones,
import and use any and all kinds of telephones,
fax fax
machines,
answeringmachines,
answeringmachines,
machines,modems
modems andanddata
terminals,
without
havingto comply
withwiththedataterminals,
without
havingto comply
above-mentioned
standards(accordingly,
lists Althe above-mentioned
standards(accordingly,
Al Annex
and A2Vof
Annex Von
(Protocol
on Relations)
Economicandlists
A2 of(Protocol
Economic
Relations)
willbeupdated).
Israelrecognizes
andwill be updated). Israel recognizes and understands
thatofforthe purposeof network,building
thatunderstands
for the purpose
building
a separate
a separate network, the Palestinian side has
the Palestinian side has the right to adopt its own
the right to adopt its own standards and to
standards and to import equipment which meets
import equipment which meets these standards
these standards (accordingly, lists Al and A2 of(accordingly, lists Al and A2 of Annex V (Protocol
Annex(Protocol on
Economicwill
Relations)will beon VEconomic
Relations)
be updated).
updated).
The
equipment
will
be
used
only
The equipment will be used only whenwhen
thetheindependent
independent Palestinian
Palestinian network
network is operational.
[emphasis
added[emphasis
added]
20 Palestinian Information Technology Associate of Companies, “Palestinian ICT Sector,”
available at: https://goo.gl/gEKw1u

Israel has also imposed onerous conditions on
Palestinian importers. In the case of the ICT sector,
Palestinian importers must submit their requests
to import ICT materials to the Coordination ofGovernment Activities in the Territories (COGAT), a
division in the Israeli Ministry which implements
Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza. COGAT
then transfers the requests to the Israeli Ministryof Telecommunications for approval. Each request
must provide justification of need, the full detailsof the quantities of equipment in compliance with
set Israeli standards, and the compliance of theequipment with the “dual-use” policy applicable
only to Palestinian importers.21 The “dual-use” policy,
introduced in 2007, means that the products can beused for military purposes, in addition to civilian
ones. Israel imposes even more restrictions onequipment accessible to Gaza, which apply not onlyfor ICT necessary equipment, but also to material
used by ICT companies such as cement or wood.22

21 Arafeh, Nur et el. “ICT: The Shackled Engine of Palestine’s Development,” al-Shabaka,(9 November 2015), available at: https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/ict-the-shackledengine-of-palestines-development/
22 7amleh interview with the Palestinian MTIT, Ramallah, 10 October 2018.

1.2. Israeli Operators Benefitingfrom Imposed Restrictions in theWest Bank
In addition to the restrictions imposed on thePalestinian ICT sector, Israeli telecommunications
service providers operate in Israeli settlements in theWest Bank contrary to international law. There are
currently five Israeli telecommunication companies
operating in Israeli settlements, including Cellcom,
Partner, Pelephone, Hot Mobile and Golan Telecom.23
Israeli operators in Israeli settlements rely on Israel’s
control and restrictions imposed on the Palestinian
ICT sector to reap profits, while increasing costs anddecreasing revenues for their Palestinian competitors
in the West Bank. It is estimated that 20 to 40 percentof the Palestinian telecommunication market isseized by Israeli operators.24 Israeli operators also
provide services to Israeli settlements and maintainequipment and infrastructure on privately owned
Palestinian land in Area C of the West Bank.
Unlike the Palestinian operators, Israeli operators
do not face the same restrictions on access tofrequencies and building infrastructure and canmaintain equipment and property in settlements
or Area C of the West Bank.25 For example, Israeli
23 WhoProfits, “Signal Strength: Occupied the Telecommunications Sector and theIsraeli Occupation”, (July 2018), available at: https://goo.gl/psSztf
24 Arafeh, Nur et el. (n 21).
25 Who Profits, “The Cellular Companies and the Occupation”, (August 2009), available

operators have been offering 3G services long before
their Palestinian competitors were allowed to and atlower prices. Israeli operators also offer 4G services.
Further, Israeli companies operate without obtaining
licenses from the PA, which means that they are
not paying taxes for their commercial activity in
the Palestinian market to the PA.26 The World Bank
estimated that unauthorized Israeli companies cost
the PA an estimated US$60 million in tax revenues.27
International humanitarian law prohibits Israel fromestablishing and maintaining settlements in the oPt
and benefiting from its occupation of Palestinianland.28 The transfer of Israeli settlers into the oPt
constitutes a war crime under international law.29
Furthermore, all private transactions and businessdealings in or related to settlements constituteviolations of international law, as they would
indirectly contribute to the maintenance of illegal
Israeli settlements, and to perpetuating a situation
deemed illegal under international law.30 However, in
2017, 10 percent of the 4.4 million sim cards used byPalestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were
at: http://www.whoprofits.org/content/cellular-companies-and-occupation
26 Oslo Agreement, Annex III, Article 36.
27 The World Bank, “West Bank and Gaza Telecommunications Sector Note: Introducing
Competition in the Palestinian Telecommunications Sector”, (January 2008), available
at: https://goo.gl/d2CLqC
28 International Committee of the Red Cross, “Occupation and international
humanitarian law: questions and answers,” (4 August 2004), available at: https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm
29 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949,
Article 47.
30 Azarova, Valentina. “The UN Database on Business in Israeli Settlements: Pitfalls andOpportunities,” al-Shabaka, (29 May 2018), available at: https://goo.gl/Jya3P7

operated by Israeli operators.31 Israeli operators
target Palestinian clients and actively sell services
to them in the West Bank, without providing themwith the same value-added services they provide totheir Israeli customers (Israeli settlers and soldiers).32
Additionally, in areas of limited connectivity for
Palestinian operators, Palestinian operators must rely
on Israeli companies for roaming on their networks,
resulting in paying a large fee to Israeli operators.33
International telecommunications providers may
also be violating their human rights responsibilities
for their dealings and services in Israeli settlements.
For two decades, since 1997 when Israel authorizedFrance’sleading

telecommunications

company

Orange to make a partnership with Partner to use
Orange’s brand for advertising and other purposes,
Orange was operating in Israeli settlements andproviding services through its nearly two hundred
telecommunications towers to Israeli settlers andthe Israeli army.34 However, increased pressure on
Orange over its operations in Israeli settlements,
as they contribute to human rights abuses against
Palestinians, led Orange to cease operating insettlements in 2016.
31 Social Studio, ‘Report of Social and Digital Media in Palestine for 2017’, (26 February2018), available at: http://socialstudio.ps/smrp2017/#firstPage
32 FIDH, ‘Dangerous liaisons in Israeli settlements: Orange and its shareholder the
French State’, (6 May 2015), available at: https://goo.gl/vkc51w
33 The World Bank, “West Bank and Gaza: Area C and the Future of the Palestinian
Economy”, (October 2013), available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
INTMENA/Resources/AreaCReport.pdf
34 FIDH, (n 32).

2. Losses Endured by the
Palestinian ICT Sector
According to the Palestinian Investment Promotion
Agency, the ICT sector is the fastest growing sector
in the oPt. The sector generates approximately
US$6 million profit annually and is recognized
for its contribution to the Palestinian national
economy. In both 2014 and 2015, the ICT sector
accounted for 5.9 percent of the Palestinian grossdomestic product (GDP).35 Despite its growth, Israel’s
prolonged occupation and imposed restrictions on
the Palestinian ICT sector have severely limited its
development. According to the World Bank, the direct
impact of Israeli restrictions on the Palestinian ICT
sector resulted in a loss between 1.2 percent to 3
percent of Palestinian GDP between 2013 and 2015.36
While many telecommunications systems in the world
are moving to 5G services and many have alreadyshut down their 2G networks, it took nearly 10 years
for Palestinians to get access to 3G and this accessis still limited to the West Bank.37 Palestinians in the
Gaza Strip are only allowed to use 2G services, and it
35 State of Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics, “The Palestinian Central Bureauof Statistics (PCBS) and the Ministry of Telecommunications and Information
Technology issue a joint press release on the International Day for Information
Society 17th of May,” (17 May 2016), available at: https://goo.gl/nwWqwG
36 The World Bank. ‘The Telecommunication Sector in the Palestinian Territories: A
Missed Opportunity for Economic Development’, (1 February 2016), available at:https://goo.gl/i8bjKT
37 Lecht, Heimar. “2G and 3G networks are shutting down globally?!,” 1OT, (27 March2018), available at: https://1ot.mobi/blog/2g-and-3g-networks-are-shutting-downgloballyremains unclear when or whether 3G or 4G services
will be available for their use. The World Bank
estimated that during 2013-2015, the total revenue
loss for Palestinian operators directly attributable tothe absence of 3G alone was between US$339 andUS$742 million.38
Israel’s delays in providing ICT technologies toPalestinians not only result in monetary losses, but also
affect the development of the ICT sector in Palestine.
As a result of slow connections and lack of access,technology companies in Palestine are struggling tokeep-up with the rapidly changing environment. In
2017, the ICT Development Index published by theUnited Nations International Telecommunications
Union, an index that ranks countries based on their
ICT development, ranked Palestine very low at 123 outof 167 while Israel ranked 23rd.39
Through these policies and practices, Israel iseffectively creating a “digital gap” for Palestinians,
where Palestinians are not allowed access to newly
developed ICT technologies or equipment and areforced to remain technologically dependent on
Israel.40 Many Palestinian operators are also forced to
pay a higher cost to find technological solutions toensure best services to their Palestinian customers,
which means extra costs for end users, who alreadysuffer from other economic pressures created by the
38 The World Bank, (n 36).
39 ICT Development Index 2017. ‘IDI 2017 Rank’, available at: www.itu.int/net4/ITU-D/
idi/2017/index.html
40 7amleh interview with the Palestinian MTIT, Ramallah, 10 October 2018.

Israeli occupation.
The

International

Telecommunications

Union’sConstitution, to which Israel is a signatory,41 recognizes
the right of the public to access international
telecommunication services “without any priority
or preference”, except in specific conditions, i.e.
endangering the security of the state or to public order
or decency.42 Given Israel’s control of the Palestinians
ICT sector, such limitations appear to be beyond
justifiable security reasons and rather designed tocreate an economic and digital gap for Palestinians,
and to ensure that the Palestinian ICT market remains
a captive market by Israel. As the occupying power,
Israel must ensure the “well-being and development”
of the protected population in the occupied territory.43
Furthermore, given the prolonged nature of Israel’s
occupation, it must take lawful measures to ensure
the well-being and protection of the population in theoccupied territory including the development of the ICT
infrastructure.44

41 International Telecommunication Union, “List of Agreements for Israel,” available at:https://goo.gl/iXTcxx
42 International Telecommunication Union, “Collection of the basic texts of theInternational Union adopted by the Plenipotentiary Conference,” (2003), available at:https://goo.gl/oCDNCH
43 Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in
the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Court of Justice (ICJ), (9 July 2004),
available at: https://goo.gl/ChAhGC
44 International Committee of the Red Cross Report. “Occupation and Other Forms of
Administration of Foreign Territory.” ICRC, March 2012.

3. Abuses of Palestinian
Digital Rights
In addition to limiting connections and access to ICT
technologies, governments can control the flow of
information from users through network equipment,
cell phone companies and software providers
enabling them to to access personal information,
surveille users and block, delete or remove content.45
Israel’s control of the ICT infrastructure and flowof information has allowed it to limit and violate
Palestinians’ digital rights, specifically the rights
to access the internet, privacy and freedom of
expression.

3.1 Rights to Communication and to
Access the Internet
The lack of access to networks, or network coverage,
resulting from Israel’s restriction on building of
ICT infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza often
forces Palestinians to use networks provided byIsraeli telecommunication companies, particularly
in Area C in the West Bank. According to the World
Bank, Wataniya and Jawwal will need to erect a totalof 330 towers in Area C, to ensure optimal coveragethroughout the West Bank.46 The Israeli restrictions
on Palestinian building in Area C has resulted in hefty
45 Hope, Dunstan (n 5).
46 The World Bank (n 33).

losses and resulted in higher consumer prices. In
addition, limiting the frequencies available for use by
Palestinian companies results in higher maintenanceand running costs to ensure connectivity.47 Similarly
as a result of Israel’s restrictions to building ordeveloping infrastructure, PalTel was only able toprovide landline and ADSL services to 8,000 out
of 16,300 households in Area C in 2014, forcing the
majority of houses to rely on Israeli companies.48
Israeli restrictions on the ICT sector have also
limited the capacity for connectivity and integration
between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the
Gaza Strip, the borders are controlled by Israel
and Egypt, with strict Israeli restrictions on the
movement of people and the import and export ofgoods, including humanitarian items. Israel’s 11-year
long unlawful closure of Gaza has also resulted ina severe humanitarian crisis. As a result of Israel’s
unlawful restrictions to enter equipment and release
requested frequencies for its use, Wataniya mobile
was unable to operate in Gaza, representing 40 to
50 percent of the Palestinian market, until eight
years after it launched its services in the West Bank.49
Wataniya reported US$50 million revenues in thefirst half of 2018, a 21 percent growth in revenues
for the same period in 2017, primarily as a result of
47 7amleh Interview with Wataniya Mobile, Ramallah, 18 October 2018.
48 The World Bank (n 33).
49 Wataniya Mobile, “Annual Report 2017,” available at: https://goo.gl/mMYtmb

its operations in the Gaza Strip and launching 3G
services in the West Bank.50
Access to the internet is being widely recognized asa human right, and disconnecting people from theinternet violates the right to freedom of expression
and the right to access and use information.51 In 2016,
the UNHRC adopted a resolution on “The promotion,
protection and enjoyment of human rights on theinternet,” providing that “measures aiming to orthat intentionally prevent or disrupt access toor dissemination of information online” violate
international human rights law.52 The resolution
recognized the “global and open nature” of theinternet as a “driving force in accelerating progress
towards development in its various forms” and calledon all states “to promote and facilitate international
cooperation aimed at the development of media
and information and communication facilities andtechnologies in all countries.”53

3.2 Right to Privacy
Israeli surveillance practices of Palestinians are nothing
new.54 Since the 1950s, Unit 8200, the largest unit of theIsraeli army that engages in intelligence activity, has
50 Wataniya Mobile, “Wataniya Mobile Revenue increased by 21% to reach USD 50
Million in H1 2018,” (29 July 2018), available at: https://goo.gl/2pQG4K
51 UN Human Rights Council, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue,” A/
HRC/17/27, (16 May 2011), available at: https://goo.gl/wzb5eY
52 UN Human Rights Council (n 1).
53 Ibid.
54 Zureik, Elia, “Strategies of Surveillance: The Israeli Gaze,” Institute for Palestine
Studies Issue. 66, (2016) available
at:http://www.palestine-studies.org/jq/
fulltext/202338

been tasked with collecting signal intelligence data andintercepting communication signals.55 In September
2014, 43 reserve Israeli soldiers who served in Unit 8200,
signed a letter refusing to serve in operations involving
the oPt citing the “widespread surveillance of innocent
civilians” that the Israeli army used for “politicalpersecution” and to recruit informants.56 The letter
also added that the “Palestinian population under
military rule is completely exposed to espionage
and surveillance by Israeli intelligence. While
there are severe limitations on the surveillance ofIsraeli citizens, the Palestinians are not afforded
this protection.”57 Furthermore, Israel’s ability tosend automated phone calls and text messages
through Palestinian networks, for example toPalestinians in Gaza during its military offenses, isan example of how Israel can collect and intercept
Palestinian communications violating their right toprivacy and operating without any transparency or
accountability.58
Similarly, Israel has also conducted ongoing digitalsurveillance of Palestinians and has removed and55 “Unit 8200: How NSA of Israel Has One Of The Most Powerful Cyber Armies In The
World,” Fossbytes, (23 November 2016), available at: https://fossbytes.com/unit8200-israel-cyber-army/
56 Cohen, Gili, “Reservists From Elite IDF Intel Unit Refuse to Serve Over Palestinian'Persecution',” Haaretz, (12 September 2018), available at: https://www.haaretz.
com/43-ex-unit-8200-soldiers-to-refuse-reserve-duty-1.5264418
57 Full text of the letter available at: https://goo.gl/Dxd789
58 “The Israeli Arsenal Deployed Against Gaza During Operation Cast Lead,” Journal ofPalestine Studies Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (Spring 2009), pp. 175–191, available at: https://goo.gl/8CKf8v

censored Palestinian content online. In 2015 theIsraeli state attorney’s office started operating
the “Cyber Unit,” a unit responsible for “dealing
with cyberspace enforcement challenges” via the
censorship of social media posts.59 The unit hasdeveloped a “predictive policing system” to monitor
Palestinians’ social media posts.60 This system canresult in content removal and arrests of innocent
people, such as young Palestinians, journalists,
activists, human rights defenders and children. For
example, in October 2017, Israeli forces arrested
a Palestinian worker for posting “good morning”
in Arabic on his Facebook account, which theautomatic translations of Facebook mistakenly
translated to “attack them” in Hebrew and “hurtthem” in English. In another incident, on January 1,
2018, an Israeli military court charged Manal Tamimi
with “incitement” for live streaming a video of her
daughter, Ahed Tamimi, pushing and slapping two
Israeli soldiers who had entered the yard of theirhome, on Facebook. After reaching a plea deal with
the Israeli military prosecution, Manal severed eightmonths in Israeli prison, and paid a 5,000 New Israeli
Shekels fine (US$ 1339).
7amleh documented how in addition to establishing
the Cyber Unit, Israel relies on its cooperation with59 Adalah, “Israel's 'Cyber Unit' operating illegally to censor social media content,” (14September 2017), available at: https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/9228
60 Nashif, N. et el. ‘The Israeli algorithm criminalizing Palestinians for online dissent’,Open Democracy, (4 October 2017) available at: https://goo.gl/WsSq1Nhigh-tech giants such as Facebook,61 Twitter, andYouTube to censor, block, and delete Palestinian
content online. In 2017, The head of the Israeli Cyber
Unit said that 85 percent of Israeli government
requests to “remove content deemed harmful or
dangerous” from social media services such as
Facebook, Google, and Twitter were accepted.62 In
2016, Israel requested the removal of 2250 posts orsocial media pages on various platforms. According
to Facebook Transparency reports, Israeli requests
to restrict content have been increasing since 2014.
Facebook granted 343 requests in 2014, 468 requests
in 2015, 710 requests in 2016 and 837 requests in 2017from Israel.63 Facebook has stated that it responds
to government requests for data “in accordance withapplicable [domestic] law” and Facebook terms ofservice.64 It’s unclear which domestic laws Facebook
relies on to remove content online, but as mentioned
above Israeli military law is applicable in the WestBank and Gaza, and Israeli civil law in East Jerusalem.
This has resulted in increasingly aggressive practices,
and in May 2018, Facebook closed the official pageof Palestinian Safa News Agency and 14 personal
61 For more information on how Facebook’s policies for Palestinian content
moderation see: 7amleh, “Facebook and Palestinians: Biased or Neutral: Content
Moderation Policies?”, (October 2018), available at: http://7amleh.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/10/booklet-final2-1.pdf
62 Ilan, S. “Israeli Official Reports Increased Cooperation on Removing Content fromSocial Media,” Calcalist, (29 December 2017) available at: https://www.calcalistech.
com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3728439,00.html
63 Facebook, ‘Transparency Report: Israel’, available at: https://goo.gl/d2HTyX
64 Facebook, “Terms of Service,” available at: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php,

accounts belonging to managers and editors working
in the news agency without any prior notificationor follow up with the agency about the reasons forclosing the page and accounts.65
The right to privacy is protected under Article 17of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), which stipulates that: “No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference withhis privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation,” andprovides that such protection must be guaranteed
under the law. Israel signed and ratified the ICCPR,
and although it maintains that its human rights
obligation do not extend to the oPt, the UN Human
Rights Committee, the body charged with interpretingand enforcing the ICCPR, has affirmed repeatedlythat “the provisions of the Covenant apply to thebenefit of the occupied territories.”66
In December 2013, the UN General Assembly first
adopted a resolution on “The right to privacy in thedigital age,” expressing concern for the implicationsof unlawful or arbitrary surveillance and interceptionof communications on the exercise and enjoymentof human rights, and affirming that the rightto privacy must also be protected online.67 The
65 Mada-Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms, “Semi-Annual reporton Media Freedoms Violations in Palestine 2018,” (2018), available at: https://goo.
gl/7iyo6h
66 Human Rights Committee, “Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Reportof Israel,” CCPR/C/ISR/Co/4, November 21, 2014, para.5.
67 UN General Assembly, “Resolution 68/167 (On the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age),resolution called on states to respect and protect the rightto privacy in the context of digital communication and to
take measures to prevent and end violations of the rights byreviewing practices and legislations regarding surveillanceof communications and creating effective oversightmechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability forstate surveillance of communications and interception. In
November 2018, the United Nations General Assembly also
noted that the “surveillance of digital communications must
be consistent with international human rights obligations”,
and in accordance with a “publicly accessible, clear, precise,comprehensive and non-discriminatory” legal framework,without any arbitrary or unlawful interference with the rightto privacy. The resolution also calls on states and businessenterprises to respect and protect the right to privacyin the digital age in accordance with their international
responsibilities.68

3.3 Right to Freedom of Expression
Palestinians have been using social media for humanrights advocacy, to protest political decisions and largely
connect across fragmented geographical areas.69 However,Israel’s control of the Palestinian ICT infrastructure andcommunication has allowed it to subject Palestinians
A/RES/68/167, (21 January 2014), available at: http://undocs.org/A/RES/68/167
68 UN General Assembly, “Resolution (On the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age), A/C.3/73/L.49/
Rev.1, (18 November 2018), available at: http://undocs.org/A/C.3/73/L.49/Rev.1
69 See 7amleh’s report “#Palestine 2017: Palestinian Digital Activism Report” available at:
http://7amleh.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Palestine-2017-English-final.pdf

to mass surveillance, and more recently, to increase its
monitoring and censorship of Palestinian content online, as
discussed above.
According to the Palestinian Prisoners Studies Center,between October 2015 and October 2018, Israel arrested
more than 500 Palestinians, including children, on charges ofincitement over social media sites, and specifically Facebook.70
Israel often cites “security” to repress Palestinians’ rightto freedom of expression in the digital sphere and Israeli
forces arrest Palestinians for posting content online andcharge them with “incitement” in both military and civil
courts. In July and August 2018, Israel arrested 10 Palestinianjournalists and charged some of them with “incitement” forsimply sharing news updates or articles on their Facebook
pages.71
In the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israel enforces military
laws and orders on the Palestinian population. In relation
to social media arrests and content moderation, Israeli
military often relies on military laws and orders concerning
incitement to limit and remove Palestinian content online
and to arrest Palestinians. Palestinians from the West Bankand Gaza arrested for social media posts are charged and
70 Maan, “500 Arrests because of Facebook,” (in Arabic), (7 October 2018), available at: https://goo.
gl/fsNpJo
71 Mada-Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms, “Mada: 46 violations against
media freedoms in Palestine during August, 35 of them were committed by the occupation
forces,” (in Arabic), (4 September 2018), available at: https://goo.gl/dmjN2Y and “Mada: 68
violations against media freedoms in Palestine during August, 60 of them were committed by
the occupation forces,” (in Arabic), (7 August 2018), available at: https://goo.gl/7uvNuZ

tried in Israeli military courts. Israeli military courts charge
Palestinians with“incitement” under sections 251(b) and 199(c)of the Military Order 1651, an offence that can lead to up to
10 years of imprisonment. In relation to East Jerusalem, Israel
applies its civil law. In July 2017, the Israeli Knesset passed the“Law on Authorities for the Prevention of Committing Crimes
Through Use of an Internet Site,” which authorizes district
courts, upon the request of the Israeli State Prosecutors
Office, to fully or partially block access to internet websites.
To charge Palestinians from East Jerusalem for social media
posts, Israeli civil courts rely on on Article 144 of the 1977 Penal
Code on “incitement to violence and terrorism” to prosecuteindividuals with a sentence of up to five years in prison.
Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel
has expressed deep concern that Israeli law is being appliedin a discriminatory manner against Palestinians, where thevast majority of arrests for alleged incitement on social media
have been of Palestinian citizens in 2015 and 2016.72
The right to freedom of expression is safeguarded under Article
19 of ICCPR, which encompasses the “freedom to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless offrontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form ofart, or through any other media of his [or her] choice.” While
the right of freedom of expression is not absolute, meaningthat states can limit the right to freedom of expression, thepermissible limitations on the right to freedom of expression
must be protected by law.
72 Adalah. “Adalah fears Facebook's online incitement deal with Israel will selectively target
Palestinian citizens”, (9 November 2016), available at: https://www.adalah.org/en/content/
view/8948

Conclusion and Recommendations
There is a worldwide concern about the emerging
challenges of the impact of the ICT sector on digital rights
particularly in areas of data protection and privacy andthe freedoms of expression and assembly. Within theoPt, these challenges are further heightened as a resultof Israel’s over 50 years long occupation, where Israeli
restrictions imposed on the Palestinian ICT sector andinfrastructure are part of the overall punitive nature of theIsraeli occupation, which Israel must put an end to andensure that the rights of Palestinians are upheld.
Israeli restrictions have resulted in the dependency ofPalestinian ICT companies on Israeli operators for coverage
and advancement and have allowed Israel to control how
Palestinian ICT companies connect to Palestinian customers
within the oPt. Israel’s control of ICT infrastructure in theoPt, excluding East Jerusalem, have limited its growth andallowed Israel to restrict access to information and developmeans to monitor and censor Palestinians’ content online.
Israel utilized its control of the ICT infrastructure as another
tool to oppress and control Palestinians.
Israeli restrictions have violated Palestinians’ digital rights
to access the internet, to privacy, and to freedom of opinionand expression. More than 25 years after the signing of theOslo Accords, these Accords no longer provide a frameworkthat is facilitating a final solution to the situation on theground nor protecting human rights. Indeed, such policies
and practices are best described to amount to a “digital
occupation” of the Palestinian digital space.73
7amleh - The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social
Media joins other organizations and institutions that haverepeatedly called for the independence of the Palestinian
ICT sector from Israeli control, including an independent
ICT infrastructure and free access to the frequency
spectrum. 7amleh recognizes that the Palestinian MTIT
and ICT companies relentlessly continue to try to provide
services for Palestinian customers, despite imposed Israeli
restrictions. For example, in December 2016, Jawwal joined
the “Humanitarian Connectivity Charter,” a charter that“consists of shared principles to support improved accessto communication and information for those affected bycrisis in order to reduce the loss of life and positively
contribute to humanitarian response,” launched by the
GSM Association, a trade body that represents the interestsof mobile operators worldwide74. Jawwal has developed
strategies to respond to crises particularly in the Gaza Strip.
7amleh also calls on Israel to uphold its responsibility as
an occupying power towards the protected population of
the oPt, to stop its illegal measures and practices targeting
Palestinians through the ICT sector, and to respect andenable the exercise of Palestinians human rights, includingin the digital context. Israel must ensure that Palestinians
enjoy the opportunities afforded by the ICT sector while
ensuring the protection of their human rights both in the
online and offline worlds.
73 Tawil-Souri, Helga (n 18).
74 GSMA, “Palestinian Mobile Network operator Jawwal sings the GSMA Humanitarian
Connectivity Charter,” (19 December 2016) available at: https://goo.gl/3S6MUU

7amleh calls on:
Israel to:

Allow Palestinians to develop an independent ICT
infrastructure.
Allow Palestinians to use various ICT globally
standardized services that ensures the free exchange of
information.
End the closure of Gaza and allow for humanitarianassistance and ICT infrastructure to be used in Gaza.
Cease discriminatory policies targeting the Palestinian
ICT sector, including by favoring settlers and thesettlement enterprise, through planning and the permits
regime, and dismantle all civilian Israeli settlements inthe West Bank.
Stop the illegal mass surveillance of Palestinians,
including online, and stop the misuse of ICT infrastructure
for surveillance of Palestinians.
Respect Palestinians’ human rights in the online andoffline world.
Ensure the transparency of social media companies
when requesting them to block or restrict content online
and disclose such data to the public.
Uphold their obligations under international
agreements and uphold their responsibilities as an
occupying power as per international humanitarian law.

Social Media Companies (including
Facebook, YouTube) to:
Respect and act in accordance with Palestinians rights
to privacy and freedom of expression.
Publish transparency reports about how they handle
Israel’s requests to delete, block or restrict content andprofiles of Palestinian users, by publishing data on thenumber of requests by Israel to restrict content, thenumber of requests approved, the reasons for approval or
rejection of requests.
Ensure that users are notified when there is an intent
to restrict or delete content and accounts with a clear
explanation of the reasons of taking such measures.
Uphold their terms of service in a non-discriminatory
manner and ensure that their activities do not contributeto the human rights abuses of the Palestinian population.
Uphold their responsibilities as businesses operating
in a situation of occupation as per the United Nations
Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights byensuring that their activities do not contribute to theviolations of the human rights of Palestinians.

The Palestinian Authority and Palestinian
Ministry of Telecommunications andInformation Technologies (MTIT) to:Continue demanding Israel to allow Palestinians todevelop their independent ICT infrastructure, including

revising the Oslo Accords to demand that Israeli
companies cease operating in parts under the control of
PA in the oPt.
Regulate and monitor competition in the Palestinian ICT
sector and strengthen regulatory capacity of the MTIT.
Extend open invitations to various United Nations
human rights bodies, and specially the United Nations
special rapporteur on the promotion of the right tofreedom of opinion and expression and the special
rapporteur on the right to privacy, to document and study
relevant issues relating to the violation of Palestinian
digital rights.

Palestinian Civil Society to:Continue documenting, investigating and publishing
reports on Israeli violations against Palestinian humanrights, with a focus on digital rights, and submit researchand reports to various United Nations human rights
mechanisms, including to the United Nations special
rapporteur on the promotion of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression and the special rapporteur on theright to privacy.

The United Nations International
Telecommunication Union to:
Urge Israel to allow Palestinians the full access to theirfrequency spectrum under international standards and tobuild their independent international gateway.

The United Nations Human Rights
Committees and Bodies to:
Monitor and document Israeli discriminatory policies
and practices targeting Palestinians digital rights, both inthe oPt and in the digital space.
Publish reports on Israeli violations of the human rights
of Palestinians, including digital rights to inform thepublic and call on Israel to cease such violations.

The Telecommunications Sector to:
Review their involvement in providing services in
Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and ensure that
their operations do not contribute to the Palestinian
population human rights abuses.
Identify and implement strategies to prevent any
corporate involvement in such abuses.

Third Party States to:
Ensure that Israel meets its international legal
obligations as an occupying power, including allowing
Palestinians to develop an independent ICT infrastructure.
Ensure that their actions do no recognize or support
Israeli policies that violate their international legal
obligations in the oPt.

The Telecommunications Sector to:Contact 7amleh:
info@7amleh.org | www.7amleh.org
Find us on social media : 7amleh